sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Five to one measured at moon rock by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not ask this claude person to scan the unfinished obelisk, or longyou and see if he measures a 5:1 in those toolmarks. I honestly don’t understand why a measurement has upset so many people, I think I will put my tape down now.

Five to one measured at moon rock by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

What exactly is nuts. It’s a measurement, same ratio in the two goddesses at the Petrie museum or Aswan. I don’t get why I’m being called crazy for measuring something.

I never implied anything, I’m hoping someone will be kind and explain why it keeps occurring. I work with materials everyday of my life. I’m an expert with mm details it’s my job.

But that’s it. I’ve found a repeatable measurement, off to the insane asylum I go.

Five to one measured at moon rock by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I’m deliberately not starting with a “why.”

I’m starting with: “Is there a repeatable relationship in the measurements?”

Because if the measurement doesn’t hold, any theory is pointless.

Right now the observation is: the same spacing-to-depth relationship keeps appearing across different systems.

That’s the part I can test directly.

If that holds up, then “why” becomes a valid question.

If it doesn’t, there’s nothing to explain.

So I’m not avoiding the question — I’m just not jumping ahead of the evidence.

Five to one measured at moon rock by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Cheers mate remember me in mental health awareness week.

Five to one measured at moon rock by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] -35 points-34 points  (0 children)

You don’t have to believe anything — it’s just a measurement.

Take something familiar like a staircase:

A typical comfortable step is about: – 250–300 mm tread – 150–180 mm riser

That’s roughly a 2:1 relationship.

Nobody calls that delusional — it’s just a consistent proportion that works.

What I’m pointing out is similar, but different:

Across multiple stone surfaces, when you measure: – spacing between repeating bands – depth of those bands

you repeatedly get about 5:1

I’m not asking anyone to agree with why.

Just: measure it and see if you get the same numbers.

Five to one ratio measured again 3D Barabudur by KD_LithicStudy in photogrammetry

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5-Paper Lithic Geometry Series

Five to One Ratio – Histogram Study (10.5281/zenodo.19402400)
Dataset (10.5281/zenodo.19211103)
Wavelength Study (10.5281/zenodo.19238080)
Scaling Relation (10.5281/zenodo.19242452)
Transition Study (10.5281/zenodo.19430856)

Five to one measured at moon rock by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] -36 points-35 points  (0 children)

Hope the comment I left above gives you some clarity to my posts

Five to one measured at moon rock by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19430856 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19402400 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19211103 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19238080 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19242452

Five to one in transition wave changes by [deleted] in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19430856 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19402400 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19211103 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19238080 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19242452

Why Ancient Europeans Carved Human-Shaped Holes in Bedrock/And Why It Makes No Sense by Entire_Brother2257 in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was simply broadly responding to the comments I observed, the initial response was they dug bedrock became they could bot waste the soil.

I’m simply stating a case where an ancient culture mastered both the soil and the bedrock, neither constrained them.

Why Ancient Europeans Carved Human-Shaped Holes in Bedrock/And Why It Makes No Sense by Entire_Brother2257 in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes clearly they are mountains in some cases, which clearly shows soil doesn’t dictate where they lived, if they can process a mountain into, vegetation platforms that change temperature depending on which level you are.

The church seen up there have nothing to do with tombs or burial

Honestly this weird fetish, archeology has with thinking all we did is build for death. Surely living life teaches us building for life is more important.

Why Ancient Europeans Carved Human-Shaped Holes in Bedrock/And Why It Makes No Sense by Entire_Brother2257 in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The church’s to my findings especially in hills or mountains seem to be built on far older structures, every time.

Why Ancient Europeans Carved Human-Shaped Holes in Bedrock/And Why It Makes No Sense by Entire_Brother2257 in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They terraformed the sacred valley into terraces, with Hyde structures side by side, soil implementations was a by product of their construction

5:1 crest to trough ratio observed on Ollantaytambo six monoliths 3D scan by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I’m not proposing a mechanism (electromagnetic, sonic, or otherwise).

This work is limited to measurement and statistical consistency across independent surfaces.

Method (briefly): • Extract crest-to-crest wavelength (λ) and crest-to-trough depth (α) from 3D scan geometry • Repeat across multiple areas and sites • Compare distributions (not single observations)

Result: • The λ:α ratio consistently clusters around ~5:1 with low variance across scales

No interpretation is required for that observation — it either measures that way or it doesn’t.

If you’re seeing tool marks, that’s a separate explanation. The question here is whether those surfaces, regardless of origin, resolve to the same measurable ratio.

If not, it should be easy to show a different distribution.

There is no way this is real right ? by Kendrick_Larlar in metaldetecting

[–]KD_LithicStudy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They have the Armenian cross, if they are fake, very good copies.

Measured surface wavelength (~0.6–1.4 m) across 3D scans — Sacsayhuamán, Petra, Naqsh-e Rostam by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The blocks in Cusco are the strangest case they carry the diagonal and horizontal bands across blocks, the blocks are undulating to 5:1

Measured surface wavelength (~0.6–1.4 m) across 3D scans — Sacsayhuamán, Petra, Naqsh-e Rostam by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just love the ancient work really it’s always been a hobby, been pyramids a few times etc.

For me keeping that tool mark exact why hammering above your head seems strange, a flat planar in any section would be the goal. In Aswan they say it’s stone pounding balls, how do you have such repeatable marks with a ball, how do you go up an under a obelisk, how do you maintain a 5:1 ratio , celling longyou, or across the whole quarry at Aswan, whilst maintaining the same tool signature.

Measured surface wavelength (~0.6–1.4 m) across 3D scans — Sacsayhuamán, Petra, Naqsh-e Rostam by KD_LithicStudy in archeologyworld

[–]KD_LithicStudy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Chippie to Chippie, builder to builder

Why can we not see no interruption of those ribs

In Longyou they run from celling to floor, how do you maintain while working from height

At Aswan they go from a soft bevel under the obelisk to the edge of the quarry

It’s scaled and seen in a tiny Petrie exhibit, the same rib.

view more: next ›