Before 1980s different types of depth rules dominated the Gravity-Magnetic data interpretation which considered essentially the vertical components of the potential field. These interpretations were ambiguous as well as highly approximate; yet for reconnaissance purposes quite useful in predicting basement depths, dips and the regional trends. Moreover, the techniques were easily comprehensible for the laymen. With rapid improvement in the data processing, Euler deconvolution and similar techniques replaced the earlier methods. These techniques can deal with tensors; free from the subjectivity of geological bias (as claimed by the users). However, it is not clear what is the degree of improvement in interpretation in depth estimation of the causative body. How do these methods respond to variable-dip situations? Techno-savvy approach to assess the 'quality' of work gives sometimes 'additional advantages' to these techniques. The question is how to know whether the methods are used properly or grossly misused (because this is a widely prevailing notion about these methods)? Can Euler deconvolution help to settle problems relating 'thin skin' (basement independent) and 'thick skin' (basement dependent) issues in the thrust belts?
The interpretation of Gravity-Magnetic data does yield ambiguous and approximate results which for geologic purposes are useful by predicting basement depths, dips and the regional trends which are necessary to develop a geologic understanding of the area. I started in the field before all the new "stuff" began; but I am glad to use. It is both easy and fast to produce and for some reason it is generally more believable (to the unsophisticated) since it is computer generated. However, I insist on "seeing it in the data" before I believe it.
The answer to your question "Can Euler deconvolution help to settle problems relating 'thin skin' (basement independent) and 'thick skin' (basement dependent) issues in the thrust belts?" is yes BUT it really depends on both the data and the geology and your area, and your answer to the question, “Can you see anomalies in the data that support your interpretation?”.
Thank you Ernest for your response. You have said that Euler deconvolution can settle problems relating discrimination of 'thin skin' from 'thick skin'. Can you refer some good paper in this direction?
I had to use the Euler method to locate the causative bodies of gravity and magnetic anomalies. I realized that when situations are complicated it is not easy to distinguish between structures,
as long there is a coalescence effect between anomalies, or a more dense structure, or more susceptible than another, more superficial or deep, larger or small structure...etc, also not to mention the choice of the appropriate structural index for such situations. In addition, the Euler method is based on the calculation of gradients, this amplifies noise and so, this somewhat limits the method, especially for structures that are very deep. I think you should always compare the results obtained by Euler with another method of locating and confirm geological data.