• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! DETAILS HERE:

      We are opening registration!! If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We require you use your real name, a valid email address, and your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. Additionally, you will have to send us your photo for use as an avatar and submit a brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Alberto Miatello

Members
  • Content count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alberto Miatello

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Thanks a lot Paul, George, and Roger... With reference to the other painful comment, about the "cuff link", ah ah, that's really amusing, I'm still laughing. Maybe some persons are desperately trying to persuade us that John Connally, Henry Wade and Bobby Nolan were all idiots, totally uncapable to distinguish between a BULLET (or a large fragment of it) and a CUFF LINK! Maybe they are desperately trying to persuade us that if you show a cuff link to a world war veteran as John Connally, or to an expert district attorney as Henry Wade they all are saying "oh, it's a bullet!!" Or maybe they could say: "oh, it's a piece of gold!" ..."oh it's a rare XVIII century coin"..."oh it's a piece of a Fabergè Egg! Please, send it to the Guggenheim collection!" And maybe they are trying to persuade us that Parkland nurses were all morons, wasting their time making envelopes containing "cuff links", and delivering to police officers, maybe because they were getting bored, while waiting between a blooded dying person and another, in an Emergency room. And maybe they are trying to persuade us that a mobster as Jack Ruby, one hour later, was on the ground floor of Parkland hospital sent there by Mother Teresa, delivering love, peace, and candy gifts to poor children. kindly Von Pein find someone else believing your fairy tales... Thanks Photo portraying a man wearing a dangerous BULLET on his wrist...
  2. I totally agree with Robert Harris. He proved that Exhibit #399 (the infamous magic bullet) CANNOT be the TRUE bullet that stroke Gov. John Connally. It was Connally himself who totally debunked this hypothesis, when he wrote in his book “In History Shadow” (1994)– black on white – “the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh.” So, Connally saw the TRUE bullet falling from his thigh at around 12:38-12:40 of Nov. 22, 1963, moments before the surgical intervention by Dr. Gregory on 2nd floor of Parkland Hospital. And he recalls that a nurse IMMEDIATELY collected it, and then she put the bullet in a brown envelope and, after discussing briefly with Henry Wade (who suggested her to hand it to a policeman) , she delivered the envelope to patrolman Bobby Nolan, who brought the parcel to Dallas Police Dept. and in his turn delivered the parcel to Capt. Fritz, and then the envelope DISAPPEARED (ah, those disrespectful persons who are rumoring that Capt. Fritz was the nephew of Harry Houdini, and the father of David Copperfield, ah ah!). In recent years some hardcore supporters of the Warren Commission argued that Capt. Fritz initialed the Exhibit #842, containing bullets fragments from Connally’s wrist, after the surgical operation. But this remark is totally irrelevant as the Exhibit #842 is not in dispute! The point is not whether Capt. Fritz initialed exhibit #842 or not! The point is that THERE WAS ANOTHER ENVELOPE, different from the one containing the 4 tiny fragments from Connally’s wrist, and that envelope contained the TRUE BULLET from Connally’s thigh, and yet that envelope DISAPPEARED, nobody found it anymore. Please, note that the nurse collecting the bullet from Connally’s thigh IMMEDIATELY – as in standard procedures of Parkland Hospital – made an envelope, and that envelope COULD NOT be the same containing fragments from Connally’s wrist, because according to Parkland’s standard procedures, the fragments had to be put in DIFFERENT ENVELOPES, each for any body’s area from which they were removed! So, clearly a piece of metal from thigh could not be put in the same envelope containing fragments from wrist! Moreover, the bullet falling from Connally’s thigh was seen at around 12:38-12:40 p.m. at 2nd floor of Parkland, and it was immediately put in an envelope, so it cannot be the one discovered more than 1 hour later (1:45 p.m.) by Darrell Tomlinson falling from the stretcher on the ground floor! Now, my only question is: who was (or could be) the nurse collecting the TRUE bullet falling from Connally’s thigh at 12:38-12:40? It was not Audrey Bell – who just handed the envelope #842 and delivered to a CIVILIAN (an FBI or Secret Service agent wearing no uniform, whereas Nolan was a Patrolman wearing a police uniform). I guessed she could be Miss Rutherford, or Mrs. Schrader, the nurses who assisted Dr. Gregory in the surgical intervention to Connally. I suggested this possibility in my last study (see section 2: Second compelling reason: the “official” exhibit CE-399 (the pristine and alleged “magic bullet” that should have struck Kennedy and Connally) was not the bullet that Connally saw moments before his surgical treatment. Exhibit CE-399 is only a fake.) https://www.academia.edu/32346233/Six_Compelling_and_Irrefutable_Reasons_Proving_that_President_Kennedy_was_Killed_by_a_Well-Organized_Plot Then it occurred to me that another nurse: Diana Hamilton Bowron was there at that time, and she briefly entered the emergency room where President Kennedy was treated. But my direct question to Robert Harris is: did you interview the nurses Rutherford, or Schrader, or Bowron, or maybe someone else (how many nurses could be there on 2nd floor of Parkland at that moment?) trying to identify that “nurse”? Thanks Alberto
  3. @Ray + George RIFLE : distortion of length of rifle by the photo. Ray, you’re correct about the rotation of rifle ON THE SAME PLAN OF PERSPECTIVE. Of course if you make a frontal photo of a watch, there’s no distortion of lengths of second/hour hands when they rotate, you still keep watching/photographing the SAME LENGTH when the second/hour hand is being kept vertical at hour 12, and when it is on hour 3, 6, 7, etc. What I mentioned – and clearly Adrej did not catch – was the MOVEMENT IN DEPTH/AHEAD of the rifle, changing the perspective (and size of objects) in a photo, and clearly officer Day in that photo was keeping the rifle just a little ahead, for no more than 10°. So, it is impossible that the photo could deform the size in depth (compared with a 100% frontal photo) , for more than a 1.5% of length (sin80° = 0.984 , sin90° = 1). Therefore, the website JFK-le complot (that I fully mentioned) is totally CORRECT in the comparison of the 2 rifles (see here http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/english/8/ ) between the photos of TSBD rifle and the official Mannlicher Carcano, proving they were DIFFERENT RIFLES, as the PROPORTIONS in sizes of scopes and total lengths between the 2 rifles are DIFFERENT. 2) BULLET FROM CONNALLY’S STRETCHER. I totally agree with ROBERT HARRIS ( http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html ): CE399 (magic bullet official exhibit) cannot 100% be the bullet that stroke Connally, because CONNALLY HIMSELF wrote (in his book: “In History Shadow” 1994): "..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh.” So, Connally saw the TRUE bullet falling onto the floor from his thigh at around 12:40 p.m., moments after he was rushed to the emergency room and moved to the examining table before the surgery, on the 2nd floor, and that bullet was duly taken by a nurse and put immediately in a brown envelope (after having been shown to Henry Wade) and delivered to patrolman Nolan, who handed the envelope to Capt. Fritz ( at 7:50 p.m.) , who made the true bullet disappear forever. Therefore it cannot be the fake bullet (planted by Jack Ruby, who was at Parkland at 1:30 p.m, and was seen in the stretchers area of the ground floor by journalist Seth Kantor and Wilma Tice) that Tomlinson discovered 1 hour later, at 1:45 p.m. on the ground floor. But see here the full and accurate chronological account of the discovery of the 2 bullets: the TRUE (by Connally himself) and the fake one (by Tomlinson) In my section 2 (second compelling reason…) https://www.academia.edu/32346233/Six_Compelling_and_Irrefutable_Reasons_Proving_that_President_Kennedy_was_Killed_by_a_Well-Organized_Plot
  4. Andrej: Sorry, but in my modest opinion you are in error in several points: 1) You cannot show me your drawings, pretending to compare them to original PHOTOS. It makes sense to compare a photo to another photo, it makes much less sense and it is a lot questionable to compare drawings that you made with photos. 2) Your drawing of windmill "view from top-right", for instance is totally wrong. The top blade of windmill remains front-view, whereas the one next to it is turned for almost 45°! How can it happen? Look this photo for instance The blades of the water mill, as you can see, even in a side/lateral view , do not appear at all as yours! So, you can draw as you want trying to persuade that your drawings are the same as a real perspective but that makes no sense, drawings are drawings and photos are photos . Why don't you compare PHOTOS WITH PHOTOS, as correctly done by the website "JFK-lecomplot"? 3) I realize you are disregarding a fundamental point: the photo of Day carrying the TSBD rifle is a FOREGROUND PHOTO! Moreover, Day is trying to keep the rifle in a VERTICAL POSITION, just a little tilted for no more than 10°, so it is sufficient to FLIP the rifle and at the end you get around 100% of the original lengths. 4) Why are you showing the photo of MC by Robert Groden? Why don't you show me the official photo from the Metropolitan Police Department of Wash. n° 542, as "JFK-lecomplot" website did? Moreover, why are you showing a photo where the bolt is open, thereby confusing perceptions and lengths? Sorry, but after the embarrassing "3-D re-enactment/cartoon" of the magic bullet trajectory, by Dale Myers, where President Kennedy is displayed as hunchbacked as a 120 year old man, (or as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame") and his jacket his kept as lifted as Mount Everest, in order to match the trajectory and the holes of the " magic bullet" to his back to the wounds of Governor Connally, I put no trust in "computer animations", "3-D re-enactments" and similar stuff, ah ah ah! 5) You did not answer my fundamental objection: why should I believe that 4 expert and professional Police officers of DPD at first on Nov. 22 1963, at 1:22 p.m. ALL identified a 7.65 MAUSER, and then in a couple of day suddenly that rifle became a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano? None of your drawings can persuade me (and million of people!) that the original rifle was not a 7.65 MAUSER!
  5. Andrej, I already posted yesterday the original photo, please look at the attached PDF file here enclosed, I’m posting it again. TSBD Weapon.pdf As you can see, Day is handling the rifle just a little bent, for no more than 10° to the right, and for no more than 5°-10° ahead. This little displacement can only change the size of rifle in the photo for no more than 1.5% = 1 (length of rifle when viewed at 90°) – sin 80° ( 0.985) = 0.015 Therefore that photo allows a quite precise evaluation of sizes, and comparison with CE139 rifle So, the great discrepancies between the dimensions of 2 rifles that also the website “JFK-lecomplot” had analyzed http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/english/8/ ) are definitely proving that the 2 rifles were different You mentioned just the Mannlicher-Carcano, but the original model that was found in TSBD by 4 Police officers was a 7.65 MAUSER, which is very similar to the Mannlicher Carcano, and Seymour Weitzman even wrote an affidavit testifying he handled a 7.65 MAUSER, NOT a Mannlicher -Carcano http://i790.photobucket.com/albums/yy190/JFKassassination/SeymourWeitzmanaffidavit.jpg You’re asking now why they replaced the original Mauser with the Mannlicher-Carcano. Simply because in the evening of Nov. 22 FBI’s Director J. Edgar Hoover issued his guidelines and orders to his agents, stating that the case was closed, Oswald was to be the “lonely assassin” of President Kennedy, and any conflicting evidence was to be ignored. Oswald bought (although this point is not so clear too!) a Mannlicher-Carcano through a mail order, and so that MC (CE139) became the “official” weapon of the murder of President Kennedy.
  6. @ Andrej + Pat VERY IMPORTANT! I forgot the "middle rifle" ...now I took also the sizes of your "medium rifle" (the one in the middle between the longest and the shortest) Its scope (on my pc screen) is 4.8 cm. and its total length is 16.4 cm. So, ALL 3 Andrej's rifles have THE SAME ratio/percentage of scope's length, compared with the total length of rifle, namely: Rifle A) (the longest) = 5.2 cm. scope ; 17.9 cm. total rifle's length : 5.2/17.9 = 0.29 = 29% Rifle B (medium size) = 4.8 cm. scope; 16.4 cm. total rifle's length : 4.8/16.4 = 0.29 = 29% Rifle C (shortest rifle) = 4.5 cm. scope ; 15.5 cm. total rifle's length: 4.5/15.5 = 0.29 = 29% Therefore, when you change the size of 3 pictures of rifles possessing different lengths and inclinations, all keeping however THE SAME RATIO/PERCENTAGE (29% in this case) of length between SCOPE and TOTAL LENGTH OF RIFLE, at the end you can easily MATCH all them, because the PERCENTAGE of length of scope compared with the total length of rifle is THE SAME for all of them! On the contrary, TSBD rifle and Exhibit #139 had different ratios/percentages of scopes lengths and rifles lengths, therefore they cannot be matched, AS THEY DEFINITELY ARE DIFFERENT RIFLES. Thanks again Andrej, your 3-D model was really precious in 100% confirming what I wrote, I must admit I was still a bit uncertain before your post, but now you gave me the final confirmation! Best Alberto
  7. Thanks a lot indeed Andrej, because your drawings/3D model are 100% confirming still further what I wrote ! You wrote: "I have prepared a comparison of a 3D model of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle " On my computer screen, the first of your rifles on the bottom appears 17.9 cm. long and its scope is 5.2 cm. long, whereas the most inclinated rifle on top is just 15.5 cm. long and its scope is just 4.5 cm. long. (= nearly 85% of length of scope of the other longer rifle) You wrote also: "The total length of the rifle gets shorter with an increasing inclination angle while the length of the scope changes only a little." So, if what you wrote is correct, the total length of the shortest rifle (15.5 cm.), which is naturally 85% of the longest one (17.9 cm.) should appear even shorter than what it is. Moreover, you wrote (regarding the scopes) : "The total length of the rifle gets shorter with an increasing inclination angle while the length of the scope changes only a little" But this does not seem correct, because the shortest scope (4.5 cm.) of the most inclined of yr. rifles on top changes a lot too, its length becomes the same as that of the longest rifle! (= 5.2 cm.) So, it is not true that the scope's length changed "only a little", actually it increased for a 15%! At the end your 3-D Model changes the sizes of BOTH the scope (4.5 cm.) and the rifle length (15.5 cm.) of the shortest rifle, by making them almost coincident with those of the longest rifle = 5.5 cm. scope and 17.9 cm. rifle. In other words, your 3-D model proves exactly what I and "JFK the complot" website are writing , because you simply increased for a 15% the lengths of BOTH the scope and the rifle's length of the shortest rifle , by making BOTH of them coincident with those of the longest rifle, which was naturally 15% longer for both of them. On the contrary, we have proved that when the sizes of scopes of rifle A and B are different IN PERCENTAGE (i.e. rifle A scope = 30% of total length of rifle, whereas rifle B scope 25% of total length) , you cannot match the rifles' length by matching the length of 2 scopes! That is the point! But let's go back to the famous TSBD rifle as displayed in the photo when Day is handling it through the sling. Please, watch again the rifle Day was handling (see the attached PDF file: TSBD Weapon) through the sling , it is just slightly inclinated to the right for 10 degrees, and for 8-10 degrees ahead. So, mathematically, an image of an object inclinated for 10° only should result in a change of size according to the following formula: L (= length at 90°) x sin 80° = length at 90° x 0.984 Therefore the resulting image would keep 98.4% of its original size, it would just be reduced for a 1.6% (= 100 - 98.4). Hence, a rifle whose legth is 54 cm. (= 21 inches and 17/64 (as CE139) should be reduced for just 0.86 cm. = 1/3 of 1 inch! And yet, the mismatch of Day's TSBD rifle with CE139 is incredibly larger, Day's rifle is just 46 cm. = just 85% of 54 cm. of CE139!! The resulting mismatch of rifles' lengths is a huge 8 cm.!! And also the POSITION of the scope on the barrel is mismatched. What you (Pat + Andrej etc.) are saying is for sure relevant whenever an image is tilted/flipped for a significant amount of degrees, so that to FLAT a lot the resulting image in one of the two photos under comparison. But in Day's photo the rifle is inclinated just for a little, there is NO significant loss in size/length due to inclination and perspective. No doubt, those were DIFFERENT rifles! Best Alberto TSBD Weapon.pdf
  8. @ David + Tom Your objection has fully been considered as the main logical objection, of course, it is serious and makes sense, but there is a logical explanation , to answer your doubt. Please, read better the article I enclosed above, and the METHOD they followed (which I 100% endorse). Clearly two different photos of the same object can never be 100% coincident, neither as size, nor as perspective from which they were taken, we all agree on that And yet, the method followed by “JFK-le complot” website was to take either the rifle, or the scope, and MATCH IT to the size of the other rifle or scope of the other photo, by magnifying or reducing the size of the photo. Once you matched one of 2 items, for instance the scope, if the two objects are really the same, then you should match also the size of the other object (rifle). This happens because the rifle and its scope are very close (= two parallel lines) if the two photos refer to the same object, WHENEVER THE SIZE OF ONE ITEM IS INCREASED/REDUCED, THEN THE OTHER ITEM SHOULD INCREASE/REDUCE FOR THE SAME PROPORTION/PERCENTAGE! But let me make an accurate and mathematical example. Suppose you have a PHOTO A of rifle whose length is 20 inches, carrying a scope of 7 inches mounted on it. You have also a PHOTO B of the same alleged rifle, just a bit inclined (as in the photo of Day carrying the rifle from the sling before the TSBD), where their sizes result as a bit reduced. For instance, suppose that the change of perspective/inclination is reducing for a 12% the length of the rifle, then the scope mounted on it should reduce its size for a 12% too. So, your 20 inches of rifle become 17.6 inches, but the scope should reduce its size 7 inches in the photo B for a 12% too, becoming 6.16 inches. But of course, once you magnify the scope on the photo B for a 12%, you immediately find a totally coincident rifle too, because when you magnify the scope, you automatically magnify the rifle for the same percentage. On the contrary, if the 2 photos A and B refer to 2 different objects, for instance another rifle whose length is 19 inches, and whose scope is 7.5 inches long, then if you try to match the scope with that of the photo A (7 inches) by reducing the size of the photo, then you cannot match anymore the 2 rifles, because the rifle of the photo A was LONGER (20 inches) than that of photo B, so if you reduce the size to match the scopes, you don’t match anymore rifles' lengths. Finally, it is not clear to me why you David are believing that 2 different rifles could have exactly the SAME scope mounted on it! You should coherently admit that, if the rifle of TSBD was different from CE139, then it is very, very likely that the scope too was different, even for some little items , such as width of ocular lenses bells, or width of objective lenses bells, or total length, or point of barrel on which they have been mounted, etc., you always may find some little differences between two different (although similar) objects. If you support the idea that the scopes were the same, it seems to me you are undermining your own (and our!) belief that the rifles were different. Best Alberto
  9. Here are the 2 files and photos for comparison of lengths... CE139 & TSBD Weapon.pdf Comparison 1.pdf
  10. Probably the best way to prove that the rifle found in TSBD at 1:22 p.m. and the "official Exhibit" CE139 (Mannlicher-Carcano) were 2 different rifles is the following ( by the website http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/english/8/ ) By simply comparing the photos of the 2 rifles in the same position, you can clearly realize they cannot be the same rifle. If you equalize the length of scopes, as in “CE139 and TSBD Weapon” below, you discover that the rifle of TSBD is shorter (46 cm.) than CE139 (54 cm.). And if you equalize the length of the rifles, as in “Comparison 1” below, you discover that the scopes have different lengths and also they have been mounted in different places. So, clearly they cannot be the same rifle (although similar they surely can be) Moreover, if you watch the pdf attached file, the width of the metal support (indicated by the white, orange-bordered, arrow) on which the scope of TSBD rifle was mounted, you can clearly see that it is wider than that of CE139 (it is just a narrow bar) And finally, if you hear 1 person saying that he/she saw “a Ford” you may doubt his/her testimony. But you hear 4 persons all saying that they saw a “Ford Orion, whose plate was Ohio 1127”, you can say they are for sure reliable witnesses. In the same way, if you hear just 1 police officer “loosely” saying: “I saw a Mauser”, you can doubt him. But if you listen to 4 police officers officially saying (1 of them even writing!) that they saw a “Mauser 7.65”, difficult to doubt. Or not? "CE 139 &TSBD Weapon" "Comparison 1" tsbd rifle - day.pdf
  11. @ Ian Lloyd @ Michael Clark I forgot... in the article I mentioned above http://ps-2.kev009.com/ohlandl/Cast_Bullet/Lyman_Super_TargetSpot/Lyman_Super_ TargetSpot.html you may find a reticule adjuster screw to the right. As you can see, from a distant, little, a bit blurred photo you can confuse it with the spherical hand bolt. But it is a round little wheel placed (stuck) on the scope, it is not a spherical knob...I know that confusion can arise due to the fact that probably in the US this item is called in many places micrometer screw, whereas in Europe and Great Britain it is called "reticule adjuster screw" @ Joe Bauer Of course you are 100% correct! Moreover, it is not so easy to be mistaken on the brand name and type of a Mauser 7.65, because it is written WHITE ON BLACK!
  12. @ Ian Lloyd @ Michael Clark Here's about the reticules of scopes... http://ps-2.kev009.com/ohlandl/Cast_Bullet/Lyman_Super_TargetSpot/Lyman_Super_ TargetSpot.html
  13. I was thinking that too, but if you magnify the image, you can clearly see that the item is STUCK in the middle of the scope, it is NOT the "knob" of the bolt handle in the background. But anyway, apart from this, just 2 little question to David (who wrote in his study that "the scope look different", I'm still missing his explanation why and where - in his opinion - the scope was different), and Others. 1) Why, if the 2 rifles were different, (a 7.65 Mauser and a 6.5 MC) they should have mounted on them THE SAME SCOPE??? One should logically expect that 2 different rifles have 2 different scopes. 2) Even supposing that Day + Fritz + Weitzman were right, and Roger Craig was wrong, why did they all mention a 7.65 Mauser? There are MANY models of Mauser rifles, why did they mention precisely that one? Roger Craig said he mentioned that model, because he SAW the brand name stamped on the barrel.
  14. THE “POMMEL” SEEMS A RETICULE ADJUSTER SCREW Hi David and All, I spoke yesterday to and expert of optical instruments (scopes, microscopes, telescopes, lenses, etc.) and his comments were very interesting, after that I’ll try to make an overall picture of what it is my idea on this subject (of course, any new technical contribution his welcome). Before that, David, I read your excellent paper (“The Evidence IS the Conspiracy”), and I 100% agree with you ,it is a pity I didn’t know your study before! But you wrote yourself, at p. 16 : “3. The scope looks different”! So, why are you now wrtiting that the scope is not a problem? Anyway, clearly those two scopes are different (as those rifles were different) , and here is why. First of all let's discuss about the “pommel” that is visible 10 cm. below the ocular lens (it is just below the line separating the 2 carton boxes labeled “BOOKS”) My optical expert told me that the “pommel” is not a sphere, it is a reticule adjuster screw , namely a little wheel placed on a thin threaded rigid shaft (3-4 cm. long) whose function is to adjust the lenses and the focusing. It is normally placed in all optical instruments, in different shapes and places. The photo you showed above "flipped 180 degrees" seems to make the action bolt (pommel) coincident with the "reticule adjuster screw". However, in the photo where Day is handling the rifle in TSBD clearly the reticule adjuster screw cannot be confused with the action bolt, because the action bolt cannot be rotated 90 degrees from a rest position in which Day was keeping the rifle. In addition, if you look the photo of Day handling the rifle, you clearly realize that the thin shaft of the reticule adjuster screw is stuck right in the middle of the scope, so it cannot be the action bolt. However, as you can see here https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif the MC CE139 keeps – as many scopes – the reticule adjuster screw IN THE MIDDLE , that black round cap in the middle is the reticule adjuster screw. But another reason making very different those scopes, is that the scope of the rifle handled by Day in the TSBD is clearly mounted on just a couple of shafts (one of them is visible below the ocular bell), connecting it to a narrow metal plate, whereas the Mannlicher- Carcano is directly in contact and leaning on a rectangular (silver color) support (having a diagonal cross ) https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif In this photo the only visible “pommel” is clearly the action bolt. To summarize, here are the main differences between those scopes: 1) reticule adjuster screw The rifle of Nov. 22 in TSBD had an external (little wheel on a shaft) reticule adjuster screw placed nearly 10 cm. below the ocular lens, on the contrary CE139 had the scope keeping the reticule adjuster screw as a cap in the middle. 2) The support frames of the scopes are very different. The scope of rifle of Nov. 22 in TSBD is supported by just 2 thin shafts connecting the scope to a narrow metallic plate on the wood of the rifle, whereas the scope of CE139 is supported by (and embedded in) a rectangular metallic (silver color) plate (with a diagonal cross), that is totally absent on the scope of the rifle. 3) Gaskets on the scope On the rifle of Nov 22 in TSBD only one gasket (around 6-7 cm. far from the objective lens) is visible, whereas on CE139 there are two close gaskets (in the middle of them there is the reticule adjuster screw) whose distance is nearly 5 cm. I hope this can be of help to clarify, but of course feel free to let me know any remarks, objections, etc. Hi Alberto
  15. reticule adjuster screw.pdfTHE "POMMEL" IS A RETICULE ADJUSTER Hi, David and All here is the magnified image I mentioned . My full comments are in the post below