Alberto Miatello
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Alberto Miatello
-
-
WHY WILES’ “PROOF” OF FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM IS JUST A “MATHEMATICAL PARADOX”
(and why the great Carl Gauss was right )
I don’t like to waste neither my time, nor yours. I’m not a “crankpot”, but a serious physicist. All my papers are based on classical physics and quantum mechanics, the most sound theories of physics, all experimentally proved. You can disagree on my results - of course - but my method is correct.
The first person that can prove me I’m wrong – if he/she can –wins a 4 days FREE stay at Grand Hotel Villa Serbelloni Hotel (Como Lake). http://www.villaserbelloni.com/
I already chellenged 50 (but the number will be extended) university full professors (in physics/mathematics) to find an error in my thesis. None of them could reply.
“Cranckpots” don’t put at stake their money, I do!
So, please, read carefully what I’m writing, it’s worth it! Also because the main CONCEPT is very easy to be understood even by a high-school student , no complex or “strange” equation.
The point is that we can summarize the truth about Fermat’s Last Theorem (that I tried to show in my last papers)
https://www.academia.edu/34567537/As_Fermats_Last_Theorem_Can_Be_Solved_Like_Pythagorean_Theorem
as follows:
Wiles’ famous “proof” of 1995 is just a “mathematical paradox”, because FLT – as the great Carl Gauss suspected (but without deepening his assertion) – can be both “proved and disproved”.
I very simply tried to prove why Gauss was right, whereas Wiles/Fermat were wrong.
The point is that the solution of FLT ( a^n + b^n = c^ n) is coincident with the old Pythagorean theorem, namely a^2 + b^2 = c^2, n index cannot be larger/different than 2, and this is the CORRECT premise/assumption by Pierre de Fermat.
And yet, Pythagorean theorem refers to the PHYSICAL MEASURE of rectangular triangles, to calculate/measure hypotenuses. It was discovered by making physical measurements of physical triangles, by ancient land surveyors, mathematicians, etc.
The point is that NO theorem/algorithm involving the measurement of a physical/geometrical entity can be performed through integer Z numbers only.
Any physical measures of physical entities always need REAL NUMBERS!
Please, read the list of the 17 most important math equations by Ian Stewart https://i.pinimg.com/originals/25/6a/45/256a453c8ff909eb47eec42bf57019c1.jpg
All of them are related to a physical phenomenon, all of them need real numbers (or sometimes complex numbers = again a real + imaginary number), all of them involve (from logarithms to E = mc^2, from calculus to Maxwell equations, from Fourier transforms to wave equations, etc.) the measurement of a physical entity.
Only as an APPROXIMATE way of simplification (for elementary/middle school children) we use to describe Pythagorean theorem through integer triples: 3-4-5, 5-12-13, 8-15-17, etc., as the ancient Babylonians and Greeks were doing, instead of using triples of real numbers, such as: a = 3.7, b= 4.4, c= 5.7 etc.
Thus, the correct way to describe Pythagorean Theorem is through REAL NUMBERS, such as in the trigonometric identity: sin α^2 + cosα^2 = 1, where sinus and cosine are of course REAL NUMBERS, not integers.
So, the error by Fermat and Wiles was in not realizing that the premise/assumption of proving a physical/geometrical theorem involving PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS through Z integers only - and not through real R numbers - is FALSE/INCORRECT.
That’s the reason why Fermat’s Last Theorem is someway “half-true/half-false”, it can be both “proved and disproved” as the great Gauss was suspecting, and I showed.
Proving FLT just through integer numbers is like proving calculus (which by definition needs infinitesimals (dx)) through just integer numbers, it makes no sense, it could be just a “mathematical paradox”.
So, Wiles’ “proof” of 1995 is just a “mathematical paradox”
But what is more exactly a “mathematical paradox”?
It is a FALSE/UNPHYSICAL - “purely mathematical proof” - of a phenomenon linked to the PHYSICAL WORLD, that “forgets” a physical and necessary parameter/assumption/premise.
For instance, ZENO’s paradox of Achilles and tortoise’s motion, in a purely abstract mathematical way (through infinite series) is a mathematical paradox, because it “forgets” physical velocity (v = s/t) of Achilles and the tortoise, and examines only mathematical spaces. But this leads to a paradox, because the steps by Achilles, in a “purely mathematical way” – without any connection with time and velocity - can be interpreted as both an infinite series converging to 1 (1/2 + ¼ + 1/8…+ ½^n) , so Achilles will manage in reaching the tortoise, AND an infinite series diverging to infinity ( = ½ + 1/3 + ¼ + 1/5 + …1/n) and this way Achilles NEVER reaches the slow tortoise.
And also, BANACH-TARSKI paradox, “forgets” that in our physical world points and segments ALWAYS possess physical dimensions/sizes. And so – by setting the false and unphysical premise/assumption that points have no dimension, you can derive 2 IDENTICAL SPHERES from 1 = the mathematical “miracle” of multiplication of spheres!
And also, you can mathematically “prove” that a few centuries ago Earth was overpopulated by TRILLIONS of inhabitants, through the mathematical paradox of ancestors.
As any of us has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc., you can calculate that in the past, in just 10-20 generations, our Earth was overpopulated thousands, millions, etc. times more than today.
It is a mathematical paradox that “forgets” the empirical/physical and necessary premise that we are all RELATED to other persons, the more we look back to the past, the more people and their families were related each other, we all have common ancestors.
So, Fermat and Wiles “FORGOT” that it is impossible to measure physical/geometrical entities through integer Z numbers only, we need R REAL NUMBERS.
Any physical objects are made up by atoms, whose sizes can be measured just through REAL NUMBERS, and this is well known by calculus and quantum mechanics.
Sorry for Wiles, he didn’t prove anything, he just described a mathematical/unphysical paradox.
Please, show me that I’m wrong, if you can. I admit my mistakes. I offered a FREE 4 days’ stay at Grand Hotel Villa Serbelloni, (Como Lake) to the first person proving that we can measure physical/geometrical entities (including rectangular triangles) in our real world ONLY through integers, and WITHOUT real numbers.
I think I’ll have to wait for a long time….
Alberto Miatello
September 24, 2017.
p.s.: please, don’t tell me that other mathematicians used abstract algebra to prove their theorems. I showed here https://www.academia.edu/34326285/ (see section 4) that Grigori Perelman used Ricci-flow with surgery to prove the “Poincarè conjecture”. But his proof is totally sound and correct, as it is based on physics (Ricci flow is an operator that was derived from heat equations, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.) and it is topologically undisputable. On the contrary Wiles “proof” is totally unphysical, simply because Fermat’s Last Theorem was unsound (half-correct = index 2, and half-incorrect = “solvable” just through integer Z numbers, and not through real R numbers)
False mathematical “proofs” are unphysical, they are just “mathematical paradoxes”.
-
@George
I was forgetting….
The TOTALLY NEW very important fact that Gianluca Iori’s investigation discovered these days, and that was TOTALLY UNKNOWN so far, is that OSWALD’S CARCANO 91 (that he bought through a mail-order) WAS JUST SHOOTING MAGNETIC STEEL –JACKET BULLETS, AS PRODUCED BY SMI, AND NOT COPPER-JACKET (non-magnetic) BULLETS AS CE399.
This makes even less believable that CE399 could be one of the bullets that have been fired (even allowing that Oswald’s rifle really fired!) that Nov. 22. 1963.
-
@George
You wrote:
“ However we already knew the rifle found on the sixth floor TSBD and the rifle on display in Wash DC are not the same. That fact was so ably pointed out by David Jacobs on this forum.”
What you wrote is correct, of course, but just partially.
One thing is just an indirect, documental, logical proof.
And yet, very much stronger and persuading is any MATERIAL EVIDENCE proving directly a fact beyond any doubt.
For example: one thing is that you, me, etc. believe that President Kennedy was struck by the 1st bullet on his throat, by a frontal shooter on the Grassy Knoll, because Malcolm Perry said it was an “entry wound”, etc., etc.
Much more persuading would be (of course this is just a theoretical example!) if Kennedy’s body is exhumed, and a bullet stuck in his backbone behind his throat is found, because this would be undisputable material evidence of a frontal shot.
David Jacobs thinks that the “official” Mannlicher-Carcano CE139 of National Archives in Maryland is just a fake, based on the comparison of sizes of rifles from photos, and you, me, and thousands of persons obviously can 100% share this opinion.
But unfortunately this is just a logical, and indirect proof, much weaker than a material proof.
But now, if we can prove that the TRUE Carcano 91 (owned by Oswald) is the one discovered in Italy these days, and labeled in 1963 by WC, this is definitely the strongest and most persuading evidence that CE139 is just a hoax, don’t you agree?
-
@George + Paul
Please, note that Director Gianluca Iori is not a “conspiracist”. He does not suspect neither that Oswald could be a framed “patsy”, nor that probably he did not fire at all from TSBD that Nov. 22, 1963. And Iori does not suspect that CE399 is a fake bullet, that is - in its turn - different from the one (another fake probably planted by Jack Ruby) described by Tomlinson, and lacking several signatures by the officers who handed and inspected it.
Mr. Iori is believing the “official” version by WC, and he simply think that Oswald was the lonely gunman, and he fired 2 bullets “suitable” for his mail-ordered 91 Carcano, and then – for some unknown reasons – he added another “anomalous” bullet (CE399).
But the point is:
Now we know that 91 Carcano model that was found in LHO’s home was just shooting MAGNETIC STEEL JACKETED SMI BULLETS.
So, why should have LHO used a NON-MAGNETIC COPPER JACKETED BULLET as CE399 that did not fit with his rifle?
The answer can be just one: the person(s) who arranged the false specimen CE399 did not know that Oswald’s rifle was just shooting SMI magnetic steel jacketed ammunitions. When he(they) knew – after the inspection to SMI factory in Italy and ballistic test – that the fake bullet CE399 did not fit at all with Oswald’s rifle, they told CIA agents in Italy to leave there the rifle, because it was not the right Carcano, and then they found another Carcano to replace the one in Italy.
It was impossible to replace the fake copper bullet with a steel SMI bullet, because anyone could see the difference between a brown bullet as CE399 and a steel SMI bullet.
@Ron
What “Catholic Church” ????? Are you kidding???
The inspection by CIA agents took place in a SMI FACTORY, in CAMPO TIZZORO (near Pistoia Italy), the only one producing that model of Carcano, and that location only in last years became a museum of the factory.
Is this so surprising or “funny” for you?
Please, read here (but I think you cannot read, because it is written just in Italian)
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_e_rifugi_S.M.I.
Definitely you don’t know at all that in Campo Tizzoro there was one of the biggest producer of weapons (7,000 workers!) during II World War, and there were also military locations that until the end of XX century (a few years ago) were totally protected by military secret.
-
GROUNDBREAKING NEWS! OSWALD’S TRUE MAIL-ORDERED CARCANO 91 FOUND LAST WEEK IN ITALIAN MUSEUM.
When I recently wrote my paper https://www.academia.edu/32346233/Six_Compelling_and_Irrefutable_Reasons_Proving_that_President_Kennedy_was_Killed_by_a_Well-Organized_Plot
summarizing the 6 main reasons proving beyond any doubt why JFK was killed by a well-organized conspiracy, I devoted (see section 2) of course a lengthy analysis to the impossibility that exhibit CE-399 could really be the actual bullet striking Gov. John Connally.
But now, another surprising and unexpected confirmation comes from the Director of an Italian Museum in Tuscany, Mr. Gianluca Iori, who released yesterday the official news regarding the discovery of the TRUE Oswald's mail-ordered Carcano 91 in an Italian museum in Tuscany (near Pistoia).
Since the article covering these news is in Italian, I’m now translating and summarizing the main points.
First of all, this incredible disclosure is the aftermath of the discovery – months ago – in a corner of the Tuscan museum of the company SMI, among many ancient pieces – of a rifle model Carcano 91 showing a label of the Warren Commission. This fact led to an official inquiry, to trace the origin of the rifle, and the reasons why it was found there.
Then it was found that WC – in 1963-1964 - ordered to better investigate the official weapon of JFK murder through a direct inspection to the Italian factory that produced the Mannlicher-Carcano in 1940, and that task was carried out by a CIA team visiting the company SMI (Società Metallurgica Italiana) which was the controlling company of the factory (Carcano of Terni) producing both the weapon and the bullets..
It was found out that this model Carcano 91 (bought by LHO through a mail-order) was just firing bullets type SMI 650/91, of which the factory owned by SMI was the major producer the world over.
Another important point is that during the inspection of LHO's home in Dallas, a few hours after JFK assassination, it was found a loader type SMI.
And also, the model found last week in Italy is lacking the Japanese optical scope of Exhibit CE-399.
So, why CIA at that time “did forget” the original rifle in Italy, without carrying it back to the USA?
Probably at the end of their survey in Italy, US agents found that the features of the loader, and bullets, did not match with the “official” weapon and bullets, and they were probably ordered not to bring again with them Oswald’s mail-ordered rifle, that was finally abandoned in Italy, in a corner of SMI company.
It is important to underline that Director of SMI museum, Mr. Gianluca Iori, openly declared last week that now it is really possible to say that the “official” weapon of JFK murder, as kept by the National Archives and Records Administration in Maryland is just a FAKE.
I hope to get more news on this issue in the next days, but what we got now seems already very, very interesting.
July 10, 2017
Alberto Miatello
-
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...
-
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.)
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
-
@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
-
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!
-
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.
-
@ 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
-
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
-
@ 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
-
Here are the 2 files and photos for comparison of lengths...
-
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"
-
@ 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!
-
@ 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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
@ Tom + Michael + Micah + David
No, no, those are 2 different SCOPES of 2 different rifles. and it is NOT the bolt handle of course. (the bolt handle of the Mannlicher is not on top of the scope, it is below to the right on the rifle see here https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/95/3f/f0/953ff0fda51ba6081fa234b9f0899d59.jpg
Please, look carefully here again :https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif
As you can see , the Mannlicher Carcano has also 2 METALLIC GASKETS , LESS THAN 1 INCH LONG, and just 5 cm. DISTANT each other, wrapping the scope and forming 2 LITTLE RECTANGULAR PROTRUSIONS, 2 LITTLE BARS emerging on top of the scope for a few millimeters.
NONE of those very close metallic gaskets is visible here, look carefully http://s27.postimg.org/cxphfolsz/image.jpg .There is just ONE GASKET (7-8 cm. far from the lens opposite to that of sight).
In addition, if you magnify this image , you can see also that the scope of that rifle is more LIFTED, it is linked to the rifle through rigid JOINTS/SHAFTS. On the contrary the scope of the Mannlicher-Carcano is EMBEDDED , it runs sliding on side/lateral bars for scrolling .
My suggestion is to take this image, save it in your file of images, and then magnify it on your pc - as I've done - you can clearly see that the rifle the officer is handling is different for 3 remarkable items:
1) There is a little rigid SHAFT (and a round/spherical item "pommel" on top of the shaft) about 10 cm. distant from the lens of sight
2) In the Mannlicher Carcano there are 2 METALLIC GASKETS wrapping the scope, very close each other (around 5-6 cm., a couple of inches) , forming 2 LITTLE RECTANGULAR BARS/PROTRUSIONS in the points where the gaskets join, and clearly visible on top of the scope, On the contrary, in the rifle of Nov. 22 you can see only ONE metallic gasket
3) The scope of the rifle of the 6th floor (of Nov. 22 1:22 p.m.) was a bit more lifted and linked to the rifle through RIGID JOINTS/LITTLE SHAFTS. On the contrary the scope of the Carcano is EMBEDDED, it runs by sliding, scrolling on side bars.
Again, my suggestion is to MAGNIFY this photo https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif and watch it very carefully taking your time, keeping the close view of the scope of the Mannlicher https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif near to you, so that to compare them.
The more you watch them, the more you find the differences!
Those were different scopes (of different rifles)
Hi
Alberto
-
For those still unconvinced that the rifle found on Nov. 22 on the 6th floor of TSBD was a 7.65 MAUSER (as Roger Craig ALWAYS repeated).
Please, look carefully this “inconvenient” photo (it is “inconvenient” because they are normally showing the officer handling that rifle in a top view photo)
http://s27.postimg.org/cxphfolsz/image.jpg
You can easily notice a “POMMEL” , a little ball/sphere on top of a short shaft on the scope (for sight regulation and scroll of scope)
You can clearly see that round pommel also in the famous video on Youtube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RGZPa8FdbA&t=181s when the officers are handling and turning the rifle , precisely at the moments 2’:29”-2’:30”, 2’:46”- 2’:47”, 3’:01” (above the handkerchief in the hand of the officer).
And now, WHERE IS that pommel on the scope of the “official” Mannlicher – Carcano???
http://spartacus-educational.com/DPD12.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/95/3f/f0/953ff0fda51ba6081fa234b9f0899d59.jpg
http://68.media.tumblr.com/8f93fbec5b8fca86858795fb9f5bf63d/tumblr_mwn013FDZB1s57vgxo4_540.gif
See also the closer view of the scope of Mannlicher-Carcano
https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif
NO ROUND POMMEL AND NO SHORT SHAFT ON THE SCOPE OF MANNLICHER-CARCANO!
Oh, oh, a “vanishing” pommel!
So, the rifle found on Nov. 22, at 1:22 p.m. in the 6th floor of TSBD WAS NOT the Mannlicher-Carcano officially shown later!
Roger Craig was true, it was a 7.65 MAUSER.
A bogus Mannlicher-Carcano, a bogus Exhibit CE399, a bogus "pristine and magic bullet"...
That was a MAUSER McAdams…a MAUSER, and there’s nothing you can do…
Alberto Miatello
-
Your first question: 1) What was the nature of JFK's skull according to JFK's autopsists?
A truly "Socratic" method (i.e. maieutics = art to let the truth emerge through questions, withouth any suggestive intervention by the teacher) should simply put the students in a position to avoid biased partial/misleading interpretations of facts.
And yet, as we all know, unfortunately Bethesda's autopsists were not so reliable, because they were military personnell (subject to military discipline and codes, superior orders, etc.) , whose statements in many points contradicted those by doctors and nurses of Parkland Hospital, who were the first inspecting the injuries, a few minutes after the shooting.
However, as Dr. Aguilar noted, at least 21 persons (doctors, technicians, FBI agents, Secret Service Agents, morticians, etc.) of Bethesda confirmed what Parkland doctors said about the injuries to the head of JFK = a large occipital gap, and a smaller temporal wound to the right. Anyway, mortician Robinson, who was the last handling JFK body and touching his head for funerals, was adamant in saying that the large gap was JUST in the rear, the top of his skull was undamaged.
So, probably the best "socratic" question could be: 1) After reading what Parkland and Bethesda doctors wrote and said , what's your opinion on the injuries to the head of President Kennedy?
-
Good morning everybody.
The conspiracy behind JFK assassination, is not only an historical event, it can be proved “mathematically”, namely in these decades several very good researchers (one of the last is Richard Charnin) proved the odds that nearly 50 witnesses could ALL misidentify the origin of the shots from the Grassy Knoll, is one in TRILLION. That was the correct scientific approach I tried to follow in my last paper as well
where I summarized the 6 main points in JFK assassination, mathematically proving that the odds of a “lonely assassin” are less than 1 in 10^32 (!) = INFINITESIMAL = it is 100 TRILLION times more “likely” that a person wins a Jackpot of PowerBall + survives an airplane crash + a meteor falls a couple of meters before him/her!
But the “mathematical/scientific proof” of conspiracy, can also be easily found by proving that the fatal bullet could have been shot JUST from the PICKET FENCE and nowhere else, by applying the established laws of physics, mechanics and terminal ballistics, that I resumed in 5 points in my paper above, in section 3)
Unfortunately, too many persons (even conspiracists!) are still relying upon the totally wrong words by Larry Sturdivan, who so replied on this subject when asked by Mr. Fauntroy, as a technical expert/witness before the HSCA
“Mr. STURDIVAN: …Multiply that mass of bullet in pounds times 800 -feet per second, the velocity lost, and we have a quantity, an unusual quantity, 18.4 pound feet per second of momentum which has been deposited by the bullet. Now, in the head of the President-and I am only giving you a very rough figure here-we take that momentum, 18.4 and divide by the mass of the head, which I have guessed at as being about 15 pounds, which would produce a net velocity of 1.2 feet per second in the head… As we can see from the chart, this velocity of 1.2 feet per second is not the kind of velocity that would throw the President bodily around backwards, forwards, or in any direction no matter which direction the bullet came from. The deposit of momentum from the bullet is not sufficient to cause any dramatic movement in any direction. It would have a very slight movement, assuming that the bullet hit him in the back of the head. It would have a slight movement toward the front, which would very rapidly be damped by the connection of the neck with the body. “ (???) [HSCA, Sturdivan’s testimony, vol. I, pp. 413-414)
Firstly, the speed of the fatal bullet was NOT 800 feet per second, it was nearly 3-4 times larger (as an average between 2,300 - 3,000 ft/s), no matter the rifle was a Mauser 7.65, or a Remington, or a Winchester, or a Mannlicher-Carcano. In recent years Pat Speer wrote that maybe Sturdivan’s testimony could have been “misrepresented” (i.e. maybe someone wrote “feet” when Sturdivan said “meters”). And yet, Sturdivan was always using feet + pounds, and not meters + kg. in that testimony (even in his handwritten notes), so it seems unlikely he was “misrepresented”. Maybe some of his words have been incorrectly reported, but the sense and the meaning of his thought (= JFK head could not move so suddenly and violently in a backward direction) seem quite clear.
2nd fatal error by Sturdivan: It makes no sense to analyze the energy and/or the momentum released by a bullet when striking its target, without considering the OBLIQUITY of the bullet at the moment of impact.
It is theoretically and experimentally well-known - since 1962, after the excellent work by Ipson and Recht on terminal ballistics (“Final report. The dynamics of terminal ballistics” 1962) that of course no “expert” of the Warren Commission mentioned – that the impact energy and momentum of a bullet depends a lot on the OBLIQUITY OF IMPACT, namely, when the obliquity is > 30° and approaches 60° - the impact pressure is GROWING UP TO 4-5 TIMES! This happens because when the obliquity increases, a bullet is facing more resistance to the penetration, as the surface it is impacting in oblique position is becoming larger and more elliptical as a shape of penetration, than when it is in a perpendicular position (and the surface to cross is perfectly circular). Thus, the bullet spends much more energy to cross the target surface. But this fundamental problem was blatantly ignored by Sturdivan.
3rd error by Sturdivan: he analyzed the movement of Kennedy’s head after impact with the fatal bullet, in a fancy and unrealistic way, as if the head were someway “separated” from Kennedy’s body, as if his head were not articulated and rigidly connected to his torso and body through the backbone.
Thus, the numbers Sturdivan gave in his HSCA hearing are simply meaningless.
It is not true – as Sturdivan said - that President Kennedy received on his head a “deposit of momentum from the bullet [that] is not sufficient to cause any dramatic movement in any direction. It would have a very slight movement” (???) (HSCA ,Sturdivan, p. 414)
Actually, a correct calculation, as I reported again also in my new paper (see sec. 3) yields a pressure of a 60° impact to the head – by a bullet from a 7.65 Mauser (or even a Mannlicher-Carcano) – that is around 125,000 psi (= 50,000 psi muzzle pressure/0.4 friction coefficient by steel sliding inside the barrel) x 4.8 (60° obliquity factor) = 600,000 psi = a size of magnitude totally coincident with that experimentally by Ipson-Recht and Denver Research Institute!
You can see here http://www.handloads.com/misc/saami.htm that the main models of rifle have a muzzle pressure between 45,000 and 65,000 psi, so we can calculate an "average" muzzle pressure around 50,000 psi.
Thus, JFK received – from the fatal bullet - a pressure on his head that was (more or less) nearly 15 TIMES LARGER than the one miscalculated by Sturdivan, and this of course explains very well the violent snapshot and backward-to-the left rapid movement of his head, and explains also the impressive fragmentation of that bullet in many minute (like “grains of sand”) fragments on his right temple and inside his skull and brain, as described by Bethesda’s anatomy-pathologist Dr. Humes.
For a “layman comparison” , in order to better understand this point, the impact on Kennedy’s head by the fatal bullet, at around 600,000 psi (say between 500,000-600,000 psi depending upon the model of rifle/bullet and precise obliquity (impossible to know 100% but very likely between 55°-60°) is similar to the energy as released by a VERY POWERFUL WATERJET DEVICE and that can easily push violently in a backward direction the head of a bleeding, groggy and severely wounded person, as JFK was after the first shots to his throat and back. If you take many “commercial” waterjet cutters, the most powerful are releasing a pressure around 60,000-90,000 psi. See here what happens to a bowling ball under a waterjet of “only” 60,000 psi pressure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIYvdAO02-w , i.e. nearly 10 times smaller than that of an oblique FMJ bullet!
Moreover, in my diagram top view of fatal shot (see section 3 of my work) it is simply shown why a frontal shot from the stockade fence produced an entry smaller wound on the temple and a larger occipital gap to the right side of skull, with an impact angle of 55°-60° . As the presidential limo was curving left in that point of Elm Street, the shot was frontal for the sniper, but it was oblique for the head of JFK.
Nothing new about this, as several very good researchers such as Josiah Thompson, David Scheim, etc. correctly suggested this physical interpretation many years ago.
On the contrary, it is very easy to find totally BOGUS diagrams and images such as this one below in this website
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/english/6/
"The Moorman Photo"
Here is the author’s comment:
“6° - "Origin of the Frontal Head Shot"
Most supporters of the plot are convinced that the fatal head shot was fired from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. I have never agreed with this hypothesis because a bullet fired from any place of this picket fence would have exited the left side of JFK's head, and not the right rear.” ???
It is incredible that such TOTALLY WRONG comment received no reply or criticism!
Needless to say, it makes no sense to take the Moorman’s photo to retrace the trajectory of the fatal bullet, simply because that photo was taken AFTER the fatal shot, when Kennedy’s head was already displaced, and therefore it is useless for this purpose, in the same way as the famous photo of Bobby Kennedy deadly wounded and lying on his back on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel is totally useless to retrace the trajectory of the bullets that struck him when he was standing a few seconds before!
So, it is a GROSS and PATENT MISTAKE to say – based on Moorman’s photo – that a frontal shot from the picket fence would have exited the left side of JFK skull (???), because when Kennedy was struck his head was NOT in that position, his head was NOT yet displaced and bending backward to the left!!
It is time that not only the historical, but also the scientific truth proving the conspiracy is vigorously stated, against lies and disinformation.
Alberto Miatello
Apollo 11
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
Dear Evan (and All),
I’m pleased to inform you that I published 2 days ago (https://www.academia.edu/40162365/Seven_Conclusive_Technical_Reasons_Proving_that_U.S._Astronauts_Really_Landed_on_the_Moon_Between_1969_-_1972 ) a fresh study, showing 7 conclusive technical reasons that refute once forever any claims that human moon landings might have been "faked". This can be very interesting for those who look for technical explanations to counter supporters of “Moon hoax”. You may find everywhere short articles briefly discussing and denying those claims, but here you can find more detailed technical (but easily understandable even for “non-technicians”) analysis of the points commonly raised by skeptics on moon landings. They can be helpful whenever you meet someone saying: “Ah…moon landings…it was a swindle, and I can tell you why...” It is always better to be ready to technically counter those arguments, even if you are not a physicist, or an engineer.
Best regards.
Alberto Miatello