We learn from the Talmudists and Josephus, that the Jews used the measure of four sacred Palms instead of the Greek Cubit. The Greek Cubit therefore approached nearer to 4 Jewish Palms than to 5 or 3; that is, it was less than 412 Palms, and greater than 312. Hence it follows, that the sacred Cubit of 6 Palms was less than 247 Attic Feet, and greater than 2 Attic Feet. The stature of the human body, according to the Talmudists (f), contains about 3 Cubits from the feet to the head; and if the feet be raised, and the arms be lifted up, it will add one Cubit more, and contain 4 Cubits. Now the ordinary stature of men, when they are bare-foot, is greater than 5 Roman Feet, and less than 6 Roman Feet, and may be best fix'd at 5 Feet and an half. Take the third part of this, and the vulgar Cubit will be more than 20 Unciæ, and less than 24 Unciæ of the Roman Foot; and consequently the sacred Cubit will be more than 24 Unciæ, and less than 2845 Unciæ of the same Foot.
Nevertheless, even Newton considered that the Great Pyramid's design was originally in Egyptian cubits, which nevertheless came from the "Orgyiæ of the Greeks"
From the Pyramids of Ægypt accurately measured by Mr. John Greaves, I collect the length of the antient Cubit of Memphis in this manner. The side of the first Pyramid was 693 English feet. It is very probable, that at first the measure of it was determined by some round number of Ægyptian Cubits. Ibn Abd Alhokm, quoted by Mr. Greaves, tells us, that the measure of each side was an 100 Royal Cubits of the antient times. But it is probable, that the Ægyptians learn'd, from the Orgyiæ of the Greeks, their measure of four Cubits of Memphis, and gave it the name of the Royal Cubit. Thus the side of the Pyramid will be 400 <409> simple Cubits, or four Arouræ; and the Cubit of Memphis will be equal to 17321000 of the English Foot.
All of this turned out to be complete nonsense. Cult of personality is not the right way to investigate, David. Even Newton could be way off. But again, my focus isn't your Stonehenge analysis and I actually think Thom was onto something. My focus is your attempt to link the foot to the Great Pyramid. Your argument in that regard is not compelling...to me anyways. A lot more thorough proof is needed than what you have delivered so far.