<The classic example is that Thom's system 5440 units is hidden in the imperial system by using a unit of 12 inches x 33/34 giving 5440 units in a mile so the case for the MY is somewhat proven. The length of the units decide the outcomes.
i suggested that the canon is scaled to 366.6666r solar days x 360 x 1000 = 132000000 feet 25000 miles. Immediately it must be noted the unit discovered in my first book is 3.6666 feet and i really had no idea that this was in barleycorns it was just an obviously misunderstood use of the imperial system that needed further investigation. It aligns with the canon perfectly. 3.666r x 4 = 14.666r.>
You are probably right about this matter of us all being right, depending on application. Right now though my thoughts on this situation are the ratio relationships between these various systems and applications. Your mention of Ann MacCauly's discovery of an alleged Roman Ft. of 12/(35/34) = 11.65714286 ins. is a new one I haven't seen before till now. But it has very interesting properties. That along with Thom's units expressed in Ft. value as you mention 12/(34/33) = 11.64705882 ins. And my own variant of 12/(36/35) = 11.6666r. ins. I can see each of these ratios in progression stages. Together with 12 x .972 = 11.664 ins. which is the more commonly used calculation of a Roman Ft., mentioned by Michell and Neal. The ratio relationships between these units are what if find most interesting, as the triangular ratio relationship I am most familiar with is the Imp. Ft. to Egyptian being 12 x (64/63) = 11.8125 ins., to the Roman x (80/81) = 11.666rback to the Imp. x (36/35) = 12.
What I find most intriguing at the moment, is that variant of MacCauley's being in ratio to the one I most often use as 11.666 ins. x (1224/1225) = 11.65714286 ins. I have been studying this ratio relationship in various contexts since my last topic post, from my granular acct. System. As I might have already mentioned, a cubic Ft. volume of 1728 cu/ins. x a Wheat cu/in. of 196.875 grs. = 340,200 grs. (Which you might more familiarly notice is twice 170,100). Such that when I multiply the most commonly accepted value of the Roman Ft. of 11.664 ins. x 1701/1700 = 11.67086118, (Ann MacCauley's unit Roman Ft.) Or in ratio to my unit is equal to 11.664 ins. x (4375/4374) = 11.666r. ins. But getting back to the cubic volume weight significance, this cubit Ft. of Wheat grains weighs 340,200 gr. / 5760 gr.(Troy Lb.) = 59.0625 Tr./Lbs. This might not look familiar to some until I divide that value in half to get, 29.53125 Lbs., which also expresses a Lunar Month. in the Egyptian system adopted by the Romans along with their Sothic Calendar system of 4 yrs of 1461 days, consequently renamed the Julian Calendar of 365.25 days.
But even more interesting than that to me now is this same weight value of the cubic Fr. of Wheat grains, expressed by that unit of MacCauley's, is 59.0625 Tr./Lbs x (34/35) = 57.375 Tr./Lbs. Or my curious Egyptian Radian unit once again. Hmm! Things get real topsy turvy in the Volumetric/Weights system, as one type of unit also expresses Linear units via the same numeric values. It is most similar to a checks and balances system, such that if one factor becomes lost or corrupted, (most often the Linear units), it can be corrected by scales of Volumetric/Weight units. So it's no surprise to find A.Thom's Megalithic system expressed as Barleycorn units of .36666r ins. as part of this system also, now that you have presented your findings concerning this. I will be exploring further relationships between these various systems for more coherence factors such as this.
Best regards to you and also Jim,