Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <email@example.com> fails again and again:
>1)Gottingen's Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, are you as dumb stupid and > messy about Conics as Franz? Oval is the conic section, never ellipse
So why are you trying to harass people who don't even know you exist, and may not know Franz exists? Are you trying to intimidate them into telling them "Stop trying to correct that Plutonium fool, let him babble his insanities in peace." ? Is this the next step into madness, the one after posting mystery "lists" of math professors over and over?
Quit trying to change the problem. This is a simple intersection, not a butterfly cut, not a moth cut, not a spider cut.
>the square pyramid replacing the cone
Again, quit trying to change the problem. Just because a problem that is somewhat similar to the conic sections has an outcome you like, doesn't mean it proves anything about actual conic sections.
Since you can't disprove the Dandelin Spheres proof, perhaps you should try to disprove the proof that Franz posted, rather than insulting him. Or just admit that you are wrong (as usual for you).