JFK - Attentataufdeckung

Groucho schrieb:Die Begründung ist "nationale Sicherheit" denke ich. Was das bedeuten soll und warum die nationale Sicherheit gefährdet sein sollte, wenn die Akten öffentlich werden, weiß ich auch nicht.

Nationale Sicherheit ... Wollen wir mal sehen. Also laut offizieller Version war es ein Einzeltäter der aus dem nichts heraus innert weniger Sekunden, JFK von hinten mit 2 Treffern erschoss. 2 Tage später wird LHO von JR erschossen. JR der Kontakte zur Mafia hat, stirbt ein paar Jahre später.

Man könnte meinen, der Fall wäre klar wie Klosbrühe und der Fall kann ad acta gelegt werden, doch das tut er mitnichten!

Man fängt, nachdem E. Hoover 2 Tage nach dem Attentat in einer Memo festhält, mann müsse die Amerikanische Bevölkerung von der Alleinschuld LHO's überzeugen können (wieso das denn???), eine Untersuchung an, die sich alles andere als mit Ruhm bekleckert.

Und man würde am liebsten alle Akten verschwinden lassen, weil das aber nicht geht, schliesst man sie der Einfachheit halber solange weg, bis jeder der irgendwie damit zu tun hatte, gestorben und unter der Erde liegt.

Nationale Sicherheit?
Das Versagen, oder das laissez faire des FBI und CIA vielleicht, die zugeben mussten LHO seit 1959 zu beschatten, aber komischerweise ihm den nötigen Raum gaben um den Presidenten, angeblich, zu erschiessen?

LHO war ein Patsy ...

Der Rest liegt im Dunkeln der Hintermänner die genug Machg hatten und die JFK's Politik nicht fortführten sondern sie ins Gegenteil wandelten.

CIA und FBI hängen da vermutlich mit drinn und deshalb werden die Akten nicht frei gegeben.

MMn wussten die davon und hielten sich bewusst zurück.

bredulino schrieb:Nach Abnnehmen der Tücher waren die äußeren Spuren von Chirurgie erkennbar

Welche denn, was war da zu sehen?

Groucho schrieb:Welche denn, was war da zu sehen?

Etwas, das mit den Beobachtungen am oberen Rückenmark und der Unterseite des Cerebellums kompatibel ist. Vielleicht wurde ja das Rückenmark wieder zusammengenäht und das Cerebellum wieder an den Rest des Hirns drangemacht...

Nikto schrieb:Nationale Sicherheit?
Das Versagen, oder das laissez faire des FBI und CIA vielleicht, die zugeben mussten LHO seit 1959 zu beschatten, aber komischerweise ihm den nötigen Raum gaben um den Presidenten, angeblich, zu erschiessen?

Das "Geheimdienstversagen" ist wahrscheinlich der "limited hangout", worauf es bei der offiziellen Version herauslaufen wird. Das erklärt nicht die Verbindungen zu Banister und Ferrie oder das Vor- und Mitwissen von Dinkin, cheramie und anderen, noch die Inszenierung, die in Mexico City stattfand.

"The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."
The paragraph shown above comes from an FBI memo sent to both the White House and the Secret Service on November 23, 1963, the day after President Kennedy's assassination. It was a follow-up to a phone call at 10:01 AM, in which Director Hoover informed Lyndon Johnson of the same fact. Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of Kennedy held in police custody in Dallas, had been impersonated in phone calls to the Soviet Embassy in Mexio City.

The fact that Oswald was impersonated less than two months prior to the Dallas shooting was obviously important news. What made the revelation even more stunning was that, in one such call, "Oswald" referred to a previous meeting with a Soviet official named Kostikov. Valeriy Kostikov was well-known to the CIA and FBI as a KGB agent operating out of the Embassy under official cover. But, far more ominously, the FBI's "Tumbleweed" informant had previously tipped off the U.S. that Kostikov was a member of the KGB's "Department 13," involved in sabotage and assassinations.

An otherwise inexplicable impersonation episode takes on an entirely new meaning in this light. The calls from the Oswald impersonator made it appear that Oswald was a hired killer, hired by the Soviet Union no less. This was a prescription for World War III.

Perhaps the perfect plan was foiled by the fact that Oswald was captured, allowing the FBI to interrogate him and compare his voice to the tapes of these tapped phone calls, which were apparently flown up from the CIA's Mexico City Station on the evening of November 22. In any case, what should have been a hot lead to sophisticated conspirators was instead quickly buried—by November 25, FBI memos made no more mention of tapes, only transcripts. The CIA has maintained to this day that the tapes were routinely recycled prior to the assassination, and no tapes were ever sent. But the evidence that the tapes did exist and were listened to is now overwhelming, and includes several FBI memos, a call from Hoover to LBJ which appears to have been suspiciously erased, and even the word of two Warren Commission staffers who say they listened to the tapes during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964!

Back in November 1963, with the knowledge that it wasn't Oswald in these calls to the Soviet Embassy tightly held, and with witnesses coming forward to claim seeing Oswald take money to kill Kennedy from Cuban operatives, a coverup went into high gear. Lyndon Johnson used the fear of nuclear war, bandying about the figure "40 million Americans" who would die in a nuclear exchange. Even though he knew of the impersonation, Johnson used this false scare to press men like Richard Russell and Earl Warren onto a President's Commission which another Commissioner, John J. McCloy, said was to "settle the dust."

The Mexico City story, which involves far more than the telephone tapes and remains truly mysterious in many ways, is not the only element in the setup of Oswald. Whether he was part of a murder conspiracy or just a "patsy," Oswald was set up for the role as lone gunman. Several incidents prior to the assassination painted him as a "Red" assassin, including his test-drive at a car dealership in Dallas and an episode at a shooting range. In both cases, the Warren Commission showed that Oswald could not have been present, and thus dismissed the claims. They should have instead asked, who was there pretending to be Oswald?

The frameup also included the planting of Commission Exhibit 399, the "magic" bullet which matched Oswald's rifle, and the laydown of that junky weapon and matching shells near the so-called "sniper's nest" in the Book Depository. While the pre-assassination Oswald setup events are the most interessting, because they are inherently part of the assassination plot, post-assassination coverup activities also served to frame Oswald for the murder, and to hide his connections to the intelligence community. Essays in this topic area include discussion of the circumstantial evidence that ballistics evidence was tampered with in order to support the lone gunman answer. And the medical coverup writings on this site abound with examples of such manipulation.

But the most important setup was the incriminating connection to a planted Communist conspiracy. This episode is important because it helps explain why men like Earl Warren might engage in a coverup. It also narrows the field of potential conspirators considerably. In 1963 these intelligence activities were kept under extremely tight wraps. So who knew that the Embassy phone lines were tapped? Who knew that Kostikov was involved in assassinations and that this fact was known to the U.S.? Who knew that this phony Red connection would scare the government into a coverup?

https://www.history-matters.com/frameup.htm

bredulino schrieb:Vielleicht wurde ja das Rückenmark wieder zusammengenäht und das Cerebellum wieder an den Rest des Hirns drangemacht...

Und behauptest nicht zu behaupten, dass man das mit dem Cerebellum sofort sehen kann.

Such dir jemand anderen für deine dämlichen Spielchen.

Was für ein Schwachsinn

Groucho schrieb:Und behauptest nicht zu behaupten, dass man das mit dem Cerebellum sofort sehen kann.

Mein Gott, du hast doch selbst geschrieben:

Groucho schrieb:Indirekt schon

delta.m schrieb am 03.11.2018:LHO wurde doch sogar mit den Gardinenstangen dem Gewehr fotografiert.

Wie erklärt sich der Unterschied zwischen der offiziellen Tatwaffe und dem Gewehr auf den Fotos?



http://www.harveyandlee.net/Ryder/Ryder.html

McMurdo schrieb:Stimmt, vergaß ich ja schon wieder: Regierungsbeamte erzählen ja im Rahmen einer vermuteten Verschwörung immer die Wahrheit.

was wäre in diesem konkreten Fall die Alternative? Dass sie vertuschen, dass JFK die Agenten wegbefohlen hatte,, weil er selbst an der Verschwörung beteiligt war?

bredulino schrieb:Mein Gott, du hast doch selbst geschrieben:

Ja, ich, aber du hast es bestritten:

proteus schrieb (Beitrag gelöscht):Wo habe ich behauptet, dass man auf den ersten flüchtigen Blick erkennen kann, dass am Cerebellum etwas nicht stimmt?

Und dann plötzlich doch wieder

bredulino schrieb:Vielleicht wurde ja das Rückenmark wieder zusammengenäht und das Cerebellum wieder an den Rest des Hirns drangemacht...

Wie gesagt, such dir jemand anderen für deine blöden Spielchen.....

bredulino schrieb:Wie erklärt sich der Unterschied zwischen der offiziellen Tatwaffe und dem Gewehr auf den Fotos?

Neues Zielfernrohr? Welches Problem siehst du den dabei?

Groucho schrieb:Ja, ich, aber du hast es bestritten:

"indirekt" klingt aber danach, dass du etwas reindeutest, was nicht dasteht. Das Gegenteil von direkt, explizit.

Groucho schrieb:Wie gesagt, such dir jemand anderen für deine blöden Spielchen.....

Bleib mal sachlich. Die Angaben zur "surgery" kannst du nicht leugnen.

@Nemon
@Nikto


Hier werden noch weitere Anomalien in Dallas beschrieben- intessant ist, dass einige geplane Maßnahmen sehr kurzfristig über den Haufen geworfen wurden, manche wenige Minuten vor der Abfahrt.

VII: Uniquely Insecure
Regarding the issue of the bubbletop, although Blaine (on page 188) states that agent Lawson conveyed to Sam Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car, that the bubbletop was to be removed in Dallas, Sam told this reviewer on 10/19/92 and, again, on 3/4/94 and 4/15/94: "It was my fault the top was off [the limousine in Dallas] – I am the sole responsibility of that."42 In addition, Kinney's oft-ignored report dated November 30, 1963 confirms this fact43, as does the former agent's recently-released February 26, 1978 HSCA interview: "... SA Kinney indicated that he felt that his was the responsibility for making the final decision about whether to use the bubble-top."44 Blaine later states, on page 244, that the bubbletop "was meant to shield the passengers from the weather – he [agent Sam Kinney] could count on one hand how many times it had been used," but this is simply untrue on two counts: the bubbletop was often used in nice weather conditions and was used more frequently that Blaine, speaking for the long-deceased Kinney (died 7/21/97), admits.45 On page 193, Blaine states that agent Henry J. Rybka "never worked [the] follow-up [car], other than driving," yet the record indicates otherwise.46

Predictably, on pages 306-307 & 312-313, Blaine covers up the infamous drinking incident involving NINE agents of the Secret Service, including Clint Hill, Paul Landis, Glen Bennett, and Jack Ready! Interestingly, they were all from Shift Leader Emory Roberts' particular shift. Significantly, none of the agents from the V.P. LBJ detail were involved in the drinking incident.47

Blaine doesn't even touch the issue of the Secret Service and their involvement of removing motorcycle coverage for JFK on 11/22/63. During a November 19, 1963 security meeting in Dallas, with no Secret Service men present, it was agreed that eighteen motorcycles would be used, some positioned along side the limousine, similar to the plan used in the prior Texas cities of San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth.48 However, there was another meeting on November 21, 1963 in which those plans were changed.49 Captain Perdue Lawrence of the Dallas Police testified to the Warren Commission: "I heard one of the Secret Service men say that President Kennedy did not desire any motorcycle officer directly on each side of him, between him and the crowd, but he would want the officers to the rear."

And yet:

Mr. Dulles: "... do you recall that any orders were given by or on behalf of the President with regard to the location of those motorcycles that were particularly attached to his car?"

Mr. Lawson: "Not specifically at this instance orders from him." (emphasis added)50

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) summed up the situation best:

The Secret Service's alteration of the original Dallas Police Department motorcycle deployment plan prevented the use of maximum possible security precautions ... Surprisingly, the security measure used in the prior motorcades during the same Texas visit shows that the deployment of motorcycles in Dallas by the Secret Service may have been uniquely insecure.51
Blaine ALSO does not deal with the issue of the press and photographer's displacement from the motorcade. Dallas Morning News reporter Tom Dillard testified to the Warren Commission:

We lost our position at the airport. I understood we were to have been quite a bit closer. We were assigned as the prime photographic car which, as you probably know, normally a truck precedes the President on these things [motorcades] and certain representatives of the photographic press ride with the truck. In this case, as you know, we didn't have any and this car that I was in was to take photographs which was of spot-news nature.52
On pages 221-222, Blaine, referring to the president's physician, Admiral George Burkley, writes:

Normally the admiral rode in a staff car in the motorcade, or in the rear seat of the follow-up car, but he and the president's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, had misjudged the timing of the motorcade's departure from Love Field and wound up scurrying to the VIP bus. He was furious for not having been in his normal seat but had nobody to blame but himself. His sole purpose for being in the motorcade was to be close to the president in case anything happened, but who could have predicted this?" (emphasis added)
Again, the record indicates otherwise: "Dr. George Burkley ... felt that he should be close to the President at all times ... Dr. Burkley was unhappy ... this time the admiral protested. He could be of no assistance to the President if a doctor was needed quickly."53 Burkley also said: "It's not right ... the President's personal physician should be much closer to him," even to the extent of "... sitting on an agent's lap".54 Burkley stated a few years after the assassination:

I accompanied President Kennedy on every trip that he took during his time as President ... I went on all trips ... we had a regular setup ... all the possible angles were covered by cooperation with the Secret Service, in that we knew the areas of most likely danger. We knew where additional medical aid would be available, and things of that nature ... When we were in Fort Worth, Mrs. [Evelyn] Lincoln and I were in the second car in the motorcade ... [in Dallas] I complained to the Secret Service that I should be either in the follow up car or the lead car ... this was brought to their [the Secret Service's] attention very strongly at the foot of the stairway from the airplane [Air Force One] ... Most of the time, however, I was within one or two cars of the President. This was one of the few times that this did not occur. (emphasis added)55
In fact, Burkley rode in the lead car in Miami on November 18, 1963.56 "The only other time that it did not occur, to my direct recollection, is when we were in Rome [July 2, 1963]"57 (emphasis added), which was a model of very good security in every other respect.

Evelyn Lincoln, JFK's secretary, confirmed Burkley's feelings on the matter to the HSCA:

Mrs. Lincoln also mentioned what she thought was a curious incident in Dallas prior to the assassination. She said she was with Dr. Burkley ... when they left Love Field for the beginning of the motorcade. She said they were somewhat surprised at being ‘shoved' back in the motorcade into a bus. She said they usually rode in an automobile a few cars behind the car carrying the President.58
It appears even Jackie Kennedy and, by extension, Dave Powers, were wondering about this situation regarding Burkley: On the weekend after President Kennedy's funeral, Powers showed Mrs. Kennedy the color still frames from the Zapruder film as displayed in that week's Life magazine. The pictures, of course, depict Jackie leaving the rear seat to crawl onto the back of the car. "Dave, what do you think I was trying to do?" she asked. Dave could only suggest that maybe she was searching for the President's doctor, Rear Admiral George G. Burkley, who was in a bus at the rear of the motorcade."59

Incredibly, as documented in agent Andy Berger's report60, Blaine writes on page 233, with regard to Parkland Hospital: "A representative of the CIA appeared a while later." Also, as Blaine never even mentions, JFK's Military Aide, General Godfrey McHugh, a devout Kennedy loyalist was relegated to the distant VIP car in the Dallas motorcade61, stated that he was asked by the Secret Service "for the first time" to "ride in a car in the back [of the motorcade], instead, as normally I would do, between the driver and the Secret Service agent in charge of the trip."62

Indeed, McHugh had just occupied this very spot on JFK's previous trip to Florida, not to mention countless other times beforehand when either he or fellow military aide, General Ted Clifton, rode in this position. (Greer admitted that many times an aide rode in the front seat of the limo with the driver and the supervisor63, as the film and photo record bears out.) McHugh admitted that this was "unusual": "That's exactly what I thought." The reason? "To give the President full exposure ... they told me it would be helpful politically to the President."64 (emphasis added)

There's that qualifier again: "politically." The HSCA's Mark Flanagan, who interviewed McHugh, reported: "Ordinarily McHugh rode in the Presidential limousine in the front seat. This was the first time he was instructed not to ride in the car so that all attention would be focused on the President to accentuate full exposure."65

In yet another matter Blaine chose to ignore, Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker, who rode in the lead car with Lawson and Sorrels, told his men to in no way participate in the security of the motorcade.66 As verified in several films and photos, Decker's men were standing idle at the corner of Main and Houston as mere spectators, nothing more. Indeed, Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney told author Larry Sneed: "I was merely a spectator with a number of other plain clothes officers on Main Street just north of the Old Red Court House. We in the sheriff's department had nothing to do with security."67

Decker had given this unusual order to his men after telling Forrest Sorrels the previous day that he had agreed to incorporate additional personnel for security purposes, and even offered his full support to the agent: Decker had agreed to furnishing fifteen of his men for duty!68 Incredibly, the Dallas Morning News on October 26, 1963 reported the following, based on an interview with DPD Chief Jesse Curry: "LARGE POLICE GUARD PLANNED FOR KENNEDY – Signs Friday pointed to the greatest concentration of Dallas police ever for the protection of a high-ranking dignitary when President Kennedy visits Dallas next month ... The deployment of the special force, he [Curry] said, is yet to be worked out with the U.S. Secret Service."69 Yet Homicide Detective Gus Rose said: "I didn't hear of any extraordinary security measures being set up thus we continued our normal rotation."70

Blaine also is seemingly unaware of the following, as noted by reporter Seth Kantor: "Will Fritz's men called off nite before by SS. Had planned to ride closed car w/ machine guns in car behind Pres." (Which could mean someplace behind JFK's car, as was the case in Chicago, IL, on 3/23/6371 & New York on 11/15/63.)72

Furthermore, Milton Wright, a Texas Highway Patrolman who was the driver of Mayor Cabell's car, wrote this reviewer: "As I recall, prior to the President arriving at the airport we were already staged on the tarmac. I do not recall what position I was in at that time but it was not #1[the number taped to his car's windshield]. At the last minute there was a lot of shuffling and I ended up in the 5th vehicle. My vehicle was the last to leave downtown after the shooting because the police set up a road block behind my car."73

On page 224, Blaine writes: "It was very rare for both the president and vice president to be together at the same time in the same place." This is an understatement – being in the same MOTORCADE was unique!74 Agent Youngblood later wrote: "It is strictly taboo, from the security standpoint, for the President and the Vice President to ride together in the same car, boat, plane, wagon, or anything else."75 As J. F. terHorst (from the White House Press Corps), a man who covered every major presidential trip – including November 22, 1963 – both at home and abroad, and Colonel Ralph Albertazzie (Nixon's Air Force One pilot) observed in their book: Beyond the Environs of Washington, the Vice President rarely accompanies the President. The reason is not only a matter of physical security but one of politics ... But Texas was a special case, the exception that proved the rule."76 As HSCA attorney Belford Lawson succinctly put it: "Why for the first time in American history were the President and Vice-President together in the same motorcade?"77

Blaine ALSO ignores the fact that the roofs along the route were not manned or checked. SAIC of the Nashville office Paul Doster told the Nashville Banner back on May 18, 1963 that "a complete check of the entire motorcade route" was done for JFK's trip to Nashville. In addition, Doster stated: "Other [police] officers were assigned atop the municipal terminal and other buildings along the route. These men took their posts at 8 a.m. and remained at their rooftop stations until the president and his party passed." The roofs of buildings were also guarded on November 18, 196378, four short days before Dallas, in addition to San Antonio on November 21, 196379, just the day before, as well as in Fort Worth on the morning of the assassination.80

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/blaine-gerald-the-kennedy-detail

gorasul schrieb:Neues Zielfernrohr? Welches Problem siehst du den dabei?

Warum nicht "neues Gewehr"?

@bredulino

bredulino schrieb:Warum nicht "neues Gewehr"?

Frag ihn.

Nochmal:

gorasul schrieb:Welches Problem siehst du den dabei?

bredulino schrieb:Bleib mal sachlich.

Nun werd' mal nicht komisch

bredulino schrieb:Die Angaben zur "surgery" kannst du nicht leugnen.

Äh, doch, deshalb diskutieren wir doch hier, weil es eben keine Angaben gibt, was mit "surgery of the head" gemeint ist.

Groucho schrieb:Äh, doch, deshalb diskutieren wir doch hier, weil es eben keine Angaben gibt, was mit "surgery of the head" gemeint ist.

Doch haben wir:

bredulino schrieb:Dr. Pierre Finck, who had been called by the defense team in the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw (the Garrison trial) in 1969, told the defense team (per William J. Wegman’s interview notes) that President Kennedy’s brain had been severed from his spinal cord, and that this had been described in the autopsy report.
Jenkins recalled that at the time Dr. Humes removed the brain, it was not necessary for Humes to resect the spinal cord in order to remove the brain. Jenkins stated that the spinal cord had already been completely severed [not torn] by incisions on each side, in different planes.
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html (Archiv-Version vom 28.10.2020)

Willst du mit mir darüber diskutieren, ob sich das Cerebellum im Kopf befindet?

Akzeptierst du wieder mal eine Angabe, um eine andere zu ignorieren, wie beim Defekt und den 17 cm missing scalp and bone?

@bredulino
Okay. Also hatte Oswald mehrere Gewehre. Nochmal die Frage:

gorasul schrieb:Welches Problem siehst du den dabei?

bredulino schrieb:Vielleicht wurde ja das Rückenmark wieder zusammengenäht

Warum hätte man das tun sollen?

off-peak schrieb:Warum hätte man das tun sollen?

Und wie hätte Humes das sehen können, direkt nach dem Abnehmen der Tücher?

bredulino schrieb:Bleib mal sachlich. Die Angaben zur "surgery" kannst du nicht leugnen.

In diesem Zusammenhang werfe ich mal folgenden Link ein:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/6882-head-wound-manipulation/

Generell scheinen die Namen Janie B. Taylor bzw. Clarence Israel im Zusammenhang mit möglichen Manipulationen vor der eigentlichen Autopsie Kennedys, verfolgungswürdig / interessant zu sein.

Hier wäre es toll, wenn wir zusammen Info´s sammeln würden.

Da ich davon ausgehe, das die OTler eher wenig bis keine Mühe erbringen werden, spreche ich somit vorrangig die geistigen Vertreter der "VT" an, also Proteus oder Nikto und Co.

In Ergänzung dazu auch nochmal folgender Buchauszug:

https://books.google.de/books?id=cNwUCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT269&lpg=PT269&dq=clarence+israel+jfk&source=bl&ots=WpFJkrCd4U&sig=ACfU3U24fDC3IL2f4qkRgIxj3nJUwjxw3A&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6kLCj_ZXjAhUQLFAKHZgSCcQQ6AEwBnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=clarence%20israel%20jfk&f=false

sunlay schrieb:Generell scheinen die Namen Janie B. Taylor bzw. Clarence Israel im Zusammenhang mit möglichen Manipulationen vor der eigentlichen Autopsie Kennedys, verfolgungswürdig / interessant zu sein.

Aber wie soll man hier eine Glaubwürdigkeit festmachen? Clarence Israel erzählt von einer Geschichte, die ihm sein Bruder erzählt hat, die er aber sonst niemandem erzählt hat. Warum ist sowas interessant und der weiteren Verfolgung würdig?



Quelle:
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md45.pdf

Aniara schrieb:Clarence Israel erzählt von einer Geschichte, die ihm sein Bruder erzählt hat, die

Genau genommen erzählt eine Janie Taylor, dass ein Clarence Israel ihr erzählt habe, sein Bruder habe ihm was erzählt....

Groucho schrieb:Genau genommen erzählt eine Janie Taylor, dass ein Clarence Israel ihr erzählt habe, sein Bruder habe ihm was erzählt....

Ja, richtig, aber diese Verbindung habe ich tatsächlich ignoriert, macht diese ganze Sache aber noch viel absurder. :D Und dann ist nicht mal der Name des Bruders bekannt?
Dein ernst? @sunlay