Plausible Deniability

So without evidence to the contrary, i.e., no evidence of ETs or temporal agents being involved, we have plausible deniability on the ancient foot or remen being based on the nanosecond. There is indeed a natural explanation for it. But why so much misdirection in calling it a foot? Was it ancient propaganda? The conspiracy theorist might be harder to convince. Ockham's razor says that a simple explanation is to be preferred over a more elaborate one if they both fit the available evidence.