Mindat Logo
bannerbannerbannerbanner
Welcome!

Geological deposits

Posted by Heath Barnes  
Re: Geological deposits
May 25, 2012 10:18PM
Thanks for the advice Duncan and yes i do understand the limitations on local council funded archaeologists and geologists, my gripe is this, ive more than proved that what is under our feet here in the south west area of Cleveland is not what it is recorded as being by past proffesionals, the very proffesionals papers that were first used to patronise and ridicule my ideas, now i have what i believe is clear evidence that these very papers were written withought the authour carrying out the work to be even be close to being sure about what they stated in these papers! I even believe i know why they came to there conclusions and how easily they would have missed these deposits studying bore hole material.

Duncan as for the being pushed to one side once the powers that be may finally take seriouse interest, ive allready been warned on a few ocasions, but thanks for adding to the advice.

I would like to say this i have honestly asked myself a lot more questions on my ideas since starting this thread becouse of getting the most welcome input from all, thanks to all, and please keep it coming.


The 3 images show an excavation i did this evening about 3 miles east in another deep beck valley, the pics arn't great but hopefully show how the deposits mach the deposits found in all other excavations, i did not find a single stone in the deposits above the gravel bed shown close up in pic 3, and as is the case in all excavations the organic blue gray layer sit just above the gravel bed, then the red - brown and as always the gravel bed sits on top of the tight plastic maroon looking clay. Ps our bed rock here is mercia mudstone ive only found it a few times and only once in an excavation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2012 10:38PM by Heath Barnes.
Attachments:
open | download - DSCF1329-001.JPG (123.7 KB)
open | download - DSCF1319-001.JPG (134.1 KB)
open | download - DSCF1326-001.JPG (120.3 KB)
Re: Geological deposits
May 25, 2012 10:53PM
These 3 images show a large basaltic andesite boulder that easily attracts a small weak magnet, like most of the basaltic andesite both washed from the stainton gravel beds and still in place in the remains of the Cleveland dyke.

The last image shows a close up of the maroon- red plastic clay that sits beneath the gravel bed at all locations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2012 10:57PM by Heath Barnes.
Attachments:
open | download - DSCF1348-001.JPG (123.8 KB)
open | download - DSCF1350-001.JPG (124.4 KB)
open | download - DSCF1341-001.JPG (113.8 KB)
Re: Geological deposits
May 26, 2012 10:59PM
These images show different excavations in seperate beck valleys but show the same sequence of layers.
Attachments:
open | download - DV000099-001.JPG (126.9 KB)
open | download - DV000082-001.JPG (157.3 KB)
open | download - DSCF1329-001.JPG (123.7 KB)
Re: Geological deposits
May 27, 2012 07:34PM
This link shows the different locations ive found the Stainton gravel bedsLocations of excavations of the stainton gravel beds
[maps.google.co.uk]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2012 07:50PM by Heath Barnes.
avatar Re: Geological deposits
May 28, 2012 12:08AM
    
Heath,
You have stated that you believe your excavations have disproven the findings of previously published research. Could you please provide citations of the research to which you are referring? I have no idea in what manner you believe you have disproven them. To me, it appears you have found Pleistocene deposits, which are not unusual in Britain.

Nathalie

Nathalie Brandes
Professor of Geoscience
Re: Geological deposits
May 28, 2012 08:34PM
They are here Nathalie ! As ive stated time and time again the area was last proffesionaly? mapped by Agar ( 1954) as being covered by boulder clay, this is not the case and yes i am saying ive done the hard work ie moved tons of rocks and earth and augered parts of the same area, to prove this man did not work as hard as me trying to find the true nature of the deposits in this area, and i will happily state now that no man or women no matter how many letters they may have after there names know the geology of this area better than me, if there was i would have met them!

PS Nathalie ive never once stated ive found pliestocene deposits, this would indeed be something as this area was the point at least three seperate glaciers converged on and churned it up down to the Triassic bedrock, or at least this is what Agar believed. Nathaie please don't take this little rant personnal but you hit a few old raw nerves there, mainly that i had found pliestocene deposits you see thats what i first believed only to be told catagorically that this could not be the case by geologists becouse all soft deposits would have been destroyed by the advancing ice from at least three directions.

Heath Barnes

Pipe Fitter
who in his spare time tries to dig for the truth rarther than hide behind old papers scared of upsetting someone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2012 08:51PM by Heath Barnes.
avatar Re: Geological deposits
May 28, 2012 11:33PM
    
Heath,

The deposits you show photographically could well be called boulder clay. Moreover, they are Pleistocene in age. I don’t get it.

This is the definition of boulder clay, according to online “The Free Dictionary,” with its sources I also cite:

till, glacial till, boulder clay
1. An unstratified glacial deposit which consists of pockets of clay, gravel, sand, silt, and boulders; has not been subject to the sorting action of water; usually has good load-sustaining properties.

(cited from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Architecture and Construction. Copyright © 2003 by McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.)


Thus, boulder clay can be a synonym of glacial drift (as the above source also says). I believe the term boulder clay is a somewhat loose term.

No competent geologist told you there could not be drift (glacial deposits) in this area. I’m afraid you have misinterpreted a lot of what you have been told.
Re: Geological deposits
May 29, 2012 07:25AM
Dear Heath, Nathalie and Norman,

I think Heath is referring to this 1954 paper from the Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society. (Below is a copy of part of the abstract; the remaining part mentioned post-glacial peat, etc.) Heath, various authors use different terms - glacial deposits, glacial till, tillite, boulder clay, etc.(and remember that this paper was written almost 60 years ago by an engineer). I just do not understand what it is that you are trying to prove or disprove, and your answers to queries have been vague! There are many, many papers available on this topic, and the Cleveland RIGS people should be able to help you get them.

"GLACIAL AND POST-GLACIAL GEOLOGY OF MIDDLESBROUGH AND THE TEES ESTUARY

Rodmell Agar, A.M.I.C.E

Summary

The area described has few surface features, but as a result of collection of borehole data, and observation of excavations, a plan and series of sections have been drawn showing the extent and character of the glacial and post-glacial deposits in the Tees estuary and surrounding area.

The boulder clays, with variable beds of sand, taper out on the slopes of the Cleveland Hills. A major feature of the area is a dissected bed of late-glacial laminated clay, associated with a marginal shore-line...

© Yorkshire Geological Society, 1954"
avatar Re: Geological deposits
May 29, 2012 11:36AM
    
Heath,

I think it is time to adjust your course a bit, or you are going to crash. A lot of people here are trying to help you. You have visited with local people who have tried to help. But it seems that you are not learning from what we have said. Among other things, we have told you that there is nothing at all unusual about what you have found. As far as I can conclude, the geology you are encountering is what has been described for the area by previous workers. You need to accept that, learn what the geological history really is, and move in a more productive direction from there.

You should begin reading all the recent literature on the surficial geology, geomorphology, and glaciology of this area (Pleistocene is another buzz word), and get some modern geological maps, which usually include detailed descriptions of the deposits. You can’t do field geology without having and understanding the maps. Go to a university library. Tell the librarians what information you are looking for. They can help you. There may be pamphlets available at tourist places and government offices that discuss all the basics to help you get started.

And, for sure, you can’t keep depending on others to tell you everything you have found and otherwise need to know. These people who have been so generous with their time have their own projects to work on.
Re: Geological deposits
May 29, 2012 10:21PM
Norman ive only ever asked for info on the unknown minerals ive found, i have never asked what the geological deposits are only why they are! as ive said i allready know what they are along with the geologists and archeologists who have visited the excavations with me, but unlike you and becky we can't explain why there here, maybee i should ring them and tell them the mystery is solved now ?

and yes Becky boulder clay - glacial drift - till are all used by the proffesionals to explain things they don't understand !!! ps as much as i disagree with Agar on the mapping of this area i believe his mapping of the area east of here still stands solid. ( oh yes thats why its bed rock )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2012 10:27PM by Heath Barnes.
Re: Geological deposits
May 29, 2012 10:43PM
Norman the deposits have been viewed on site by three geologists three archaologists and have been said by all to be late devensian to early hollocene.
avatar Re: Geological deposits
May 30, 2012 01:13AM
    
Boulder clay and till are NOT terms used by professionals to explain things we don’t understand. We know how and why these form. In fact, in currently glaciated areas we can watch these things form. (See any physical geology text for a basic explanation. If you want a more technical discussion of the process see Evans et al., 2006, Subglacial till: Formation, sedimentary characteristics and classification).

From all that you have shown, it would appear that you have some glacial deposits in that area. The geologists and archaeologists tell you they are Devensian, which is the late part of the Pleistocene. Having glacial deposits from that time period is not surprising. If you do not agree with this analysis, please present data as to why you believe you have something else. If you have a specific question, please ask it. I and many others here would genuinely like to help you. We cannot, however, help you if all you provide are rather vague rants.

By the way, I worked very hard to get all those letters behind my name. Please don’t disrespect that.

Nathalie Brandes
Professor of Geoscience
Re: Geological deposits
May 30, 2012 09:19PM
Nathalie i never set out to disrespect anyone! but tend to find it the best form of defence when being disrespected, i explained and offered the record that is my blog to show the work ive undertaken over the past 5 years. Yet ime still being disrespected by people like yourself, i repeat me my spade and intelligence have allready found the recorded deposits to be wrong!
And am backed by both Archaeologists and Geologists who have visited the sites, in that they openly admit they do not understand the deposits! These people know more than most about what should be found under foot in this area, but only i know exactly what is to be found under foot as ime the only person ever to take the effort to dig and view it!
in many locations and record it as never before.

Ps funny enough ive only tonight been informed by one of the first geologists who visited the sites with me, that he believes he can help me secure funding for my work, and as for your pressing profesional schedual i work a 9 hour day yet don't winge at having to move tons of material to further my understanding of the deposits ime excavating.

Please like a lot of other proffesionals ive had dealings with get of that high horse and listen to people instead of preaching old papers, there was once a set of proffesionals who believed the world was flat! Then there were the anti Wegener brigade where are there papers now?
Re: Geological deposits
May 30, 2012 09:22PM
This diagram shows the sequence of deposits both to the north and south of the Cleveland Dyke in the north east of england
Attachments:
open | download - alayers pic.png (18 KB)
Re: Geological deposits
May 30, 2012 09:34PM
Also Nathelie i see your a proffesor of geocience then i ask this as ime sure you can help me, i have found tons of magnetic basaltic andesite belonging to the cleveland dyke in the gravel bed and have repeatedly asked not only here, for pics of weak magnets stuck to basaltic andesite, and as yet after nearly 2 years of asking have never found another image anywhere ? But ime sure i can rest now as ime sure a proffesional such as yourself will have reference if not images.
avatar Re: Geological deposits
May 30, 2012 11:02PM
I'm not sure how a photo of a doleritic dyke with a magnet stuck to it will answer anything; the Cleveland Dyke sounds like a typical diabase dyke of the Mull Intrusive Complex which is not that different than any other diabase/dolerite. Almost all basic dykes are magnetic to some degree, no matter where they are found. Also, the figure you provided (alayers pic.png) tells me that the Cleveland Dyke had no significant influence on the deposition of glacially derived material as it is the same on both sides.

So, after following this thread for quite some time now, I have some very simple questions that I believe can be answered in a couple sentences each, without baseless rants or the "I'm right, everyone is wrong" mentality. Those questions are:

1) What do you believe you have found?
2) What evidence do you have that suggests this?
3) In what way does this agree/disagree with previous work?
4) What specifically do you find confusing about what you have found so far?

You have a wealth of information and knowledgable people here on Mindat that will help you; however, using statements such as " i will happily state now that no man or women no matter how many letters they may have after there names know the geology of this area better than me" will only serve to alienate the very people that are taking time out of their busy schedules to assist you in this personal research you are conducting, whether it is true or not.
avatar Re: Geological deposits
May 31, 2012 01:26AM
    
(LONG!)

Heath,

At this point, I will say that I am still trying to help you because your motives are good, you are certainly dedicated to this project, and you should be able to make something of it. At present you are depending on people such as our group to help out because you don’t have a strong background in geology yet. I again urge you to begin to rectify that. Also, if you show resentful attitudes to professional people who visit you on site, they won’t be on your side very long, just as people here are beginning to resent you. I can see why some have rolled their eyes when with you (as you said), and scoffed at you behind your back.

Even if earlier workers were wrong, there are probably good reasons why that is the case, so your contempt of these educated and accomplished people is likely unwarranted. What did people think in 1954? What terminology did they use in their work? For example, an engineer might very well refer to “boulder clay.” He wasn’t hiding behind a meaningless term–it probably meant something to an engineer. You should try to find out that sort of thing, especially before heaping ridicule on them.

As Paul suggested, there is no reason why photos demonstrating the magnetism of basic intrusives should be available, so baiting Nathalie to come up with some is not appropriate. She hasn’t even given you any erroneous information, and yet you already disrespect her.

As for your comments to me, I understand that your deposits are late Devensian to early Holocene. That has nothing to do with the fact that you have only confirmed what is already known about the area. It seems that you were surprised by my interpretations. That was the “why” you asked about.

I wasn’t there to hear what people have told you, but I can say that the deposits you are working with are not unexpected, and the fossils found in them are not unusual. The cross section of the Cleveland Dyke you included with a recent post is exactly right, and matches what your photos show. But now you have more information (interpretations), and I think you can also provide better descriptions and more detail now, and maybe increase the depth.

I detect that this project has become something of yourself–the image you have of who you are and what you are doing, and also that you are going to turn the world of Pleistocene glacial stratigraphy and paleontology upside-down. That means, however, that you are no longer impartial, and you may have lost some of the judgment you originally had to take in and process the teaching we have given you. In response to a somewhat sarcastic comment you made to me, you can indeed ring people and tell them that you have learned about these deposits, and no longer see a mystery. Don’t remind them that they couldn’t help you, and that this group could. In fact, they may have been giving you short attention for a good time, and your attitude could be the reason.

It is true that you alone know what you have dug out. You are the only expert on it. That will always be the case, but it is going to be lost if you don’t get it written up. You will need the advice and help of others to do so. We all do. That’s why science, in modern times anyway, is done by groups of people working together. If, someday, no one will agree to work with you, your efforts will likely have been for naught.

Paul gave you some suggestions about what to do now. Those are good suggestions, revolving around organization. Organize your data and your ideas. The better organized you are, the more favorably you will impress people. You have to show people that you have something–give them a report in writing that they can review and study. Earlier I commented on something, and you misinterpreted my point. That was that you shouldn’t challenge the people at the museum or geological survey. I meant that you can’t come along and say something like “OK, if this was deposited during the Devensian, why is it still there?” In other words, you try to make them explain something they haven’t studied. Instead, it is YOUR responsibility to tell them what you have found, and what you think it means–your data and your interpretations. This is what Paul was getting at (we all have different ways of saying the same thing). People can then comment on your ideas, and maybe ask some questions that you will have to answer at some time (maybe not on the spot, but you will have to do some more thinking and maybe some more digging). You have to put out, and they SHOULD challenge you. That’s the way science works. But you won’t get very far if THEIR attitude is only, “How can I get rid of this pest?” If you normally interact with people using sarcasm and derision, you won’t ever get anywhere, and trying to excuse that by saying they deserve it will simply solidify that outcome. Curt explanations that “That’s just the way I am” won’t help, either. Their time and energy is limited, and they will easily find others to work with. You need to get people on your side rather than making enemies. Good luck!
Re: Geological deposits
May 31, 2012 08:54PM
I read and agree with some of what you say Norman but firstly every proffesional who has actually visited and viewed my work and met me the person, are still very much involved. And most willing to help, as i said to Nathalie i do not set out to upset anyone but will not be patronised, but this at present is begining to be almost a childish disagrement, that i have contributed to, along with others, so ile just keep the thread going as i descover more.
Re: Geological deposits
May 31, 2012 09:07PM
Paul Brandes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure how a photo of a doleritic dyke with
> a magnet stuck to it will answer anything; the
> Cleveland Dyke sounds like a typical diabase dyke
> of the Mull Intrusive Complex which is not that
> different than any other diabase/dolerite. Almost
> all basic dykes are magnetic to some degree, no
> matter where they are found. Also, the figure you
> provided (alayers pic.png) tells me that the
> Cleveland Dyke had no significant influence on the
> deposition of glacially derived material as it is
> the same on both sides.
>
> So, after following this thread for quite some
> time now, I have some very simple questions that I
> believe can be answered in a couple sentences
> each, without baseless rants or the "I'm right,
> everyone is wrong" mentality. Those questions
> are:
>
> 1) What do you believe you have found?
> 2) What evidence do you have that suggests this?
> 3) In what way does this agree/disagree with
> previous work?
> 4) What specifically do you find confusing about
> what you have found so far?
>
> You have a wealth of information and knowledgable
> people here on Mindat that will help you; however,
> using statements such as " i will happily state
> now that no man or women no matter how many
> letters they may have after there names know the
> geology of this area better than me" will only
> serve to alienate the very people that are taking
> time out of their busy schedules to assist you in
> this personal research you are conducting, whether
> it is true or not.


Paul the Dyke is said to be made up of basaltic andesite and yes dykes in generall are known to deflect compass needles, but i am yet to read a paper old or new refering to samples attracting a magnet of any kind never mind a weak fridge magnet if you know of such a paper i would be most greatfull if you could let me know. Heath.
avatar Re: Geological deposits
May 31, 2012 11:26PM
Again, I'm still not sure why a dyke attracting a magnet is so important to your geologic thought process as you have not answered that question yet, but if you desperately need papers to bolster your ideas, then below are two found within five minutes of searching on the internet:

Puffett, W. P., 1974, Geology of the Negaunee Quadrangle, Marquette County, Michigan, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 788, 51 p.

Bridge, D., Drown, T., and McRoberts, G., 1996, Geological, Geochemical, Geophysical, and Diamond Drilling Report on the Corey Property, British Columbia, Vancouver, Canamera Geological Ltd., 51 p.

Both of these papers reference diabase/dolerite/basaltic andesites that attract a magnet. Now that I have provided you with these supposedly elusive papers, it's your turn; please answer the four questions I posed in my last post.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
Mineral and/or Locality  
Search Google  
Copyright © Jolyon Ralph and Ida Chau 1993-2014. Site Map. Locality, mineral & photograph data are the copyright of the individuals who submitted them. Site hosted & developed by Jolyon Ralph. Mindat.org is an online information resource dedicated to providing free mineralogical information to all. Mindat relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Mindat does not offer minerals for sale. If you would like to add information to improve the quality of our database, then click here to register.
Current server date and time: August 20, 2014 10:43:04
Mineral and Locality Search
Mineral:
and/or Locality:
Options
Fade toolbar when not in focusFix toolbar to bottom of page
Hide Social Media Links
Slideshow frame delay seconds