06-29-2009, 07:26 PM
Quote:But this is precisely the point, my friend. He has not established his basic assumption, therefore his reasoning is circular.D B Campbell:34cgjvoi Wrote:Dr Dobson's arguments are sound if we agree with his assumption in the beginning, ...triarius354:34cgjvoi Wrote:Why this one, and not the 0,296mm foot?I believe Dobson has got himself into a bit of circular reasoning here, but I may be wrong.
Quote:I have found a reference to "royal foot" in article by Dieter Legemann: "Recovery of the Ancient System of Foot/Cubit/Stadion – Length Units". He refers to "pous basilikos" as 0,355m, but does not state where, when and by whom was it used.Many thanks for mentioning this article, which can be found here (PDF) if anyone is interested. As you correctly noted, the basis of this "Hellenistic" foot is not stated by Lelgemann, either. Most peculiar! :?