Sirfiroth Wrote:

> As with the cubit the length of the Megalithic
> Yard is derived from our interpretation of
> measures from deteriorated ancient sites.

At the risk of appearing overly pedantic, this is not true for the royal cubit length found in the Great Pyramid's King's Chamber.

> Given
> this possibility we just might have missed that
> 7/1000 inch difference between the currently
> accepted value of the Megalithic yard since We do
> not think in 7th and 11th terms as the Ancient
> cultures apparently did. I am not saying this is
> the final answer, but I find the Megalithic Yard
> to be 30/11 feet which is 100/63 of the Royal
> Egyptian Cubit: 20 34/55 / 63 = 18/55 inches,
> 18/55 * 100 = 360/11 inches, 32 8/11 inches or 2
> 8/11 feet. 2.72727272...feet. Therefore the 63
> Megalithic yards is equal to 100 Royal Egyptian
> cubits. For what it's worth that is my take on the
> Megalithic Yard.

I have visited Stonehenge (before and after its being fenced off to the general public) and Avebury many times.
One thing that strikes me is the marked irregularity of the size (width/depth) and positioning of the stones.
They vary so much (from inches to feet) as to make it impossible to determine what the length of the unit of linear measurement used was - assuming that there was a standard one.
Then there is the fact that some of the stones are apparently not where they were originally placed (this is true for many megalith sites, not just Stonehenge and Avebury).
Consequently, it is ludicrous to talk about a 'megalithic yard' in terms of fractions of an inch when the margin of error is in some cases a matter of feet.

MJ