Robert Ransdell's Elie Wiesel tattoo challenge

[twila]

Ilrh:

It sounds like a setup for a fall.

Then let it.

Let's say he shows a tattoo on his upper left arm.

Carolyn and Eric and others will destroy him.

Why are people so afraid of putting presure on the weasel?

[mincuo]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but your aguments ring hollow with me mincuo.

Let him show a tattoo on his right arm or his upper arm.

I for one am not worried about such a thing because it will only be used by skeptics to discredit him further.

Your "what if this" and "what if that" arguments are very, very weak IMO.

Very weak?
Yes Twila, the skeptics will (perhaps) discredit him speaking with their few skeptics friends. How many they are? In the meantime Mr Wiesel & C. have discredited you and the few skeptics. Millions of Joe and Jane will be convinced to discredit the skepctics, and they will not read or hear even a word of the skeptics.
I don't think it's so difficult to understand.
When you challenge what is your goal? To be happy with your Revisonist friend? Or to open a breach in the wall of people? In the latter case it is better that you calculate carefully the possible outcomes, and that you write the challenge accordingly. IMHO.

[neugierig]

I am also with you, mincuo. If this comes off it will backfire on Revisionism just as the Irving trial did. Anyone can draw a number on his arm and make it look real. And without verification by experts who is to say that it is not? Revisionists? Surely you jest, just mumble the word ‘forgery’ and see what happens.

I hope this Gentleman, well meaning as he is, either adds some conditions or withdraws the offer. The way it is it spells disaster.

Regards
Wilf

[twila]

mincuo:

Very weak?

No, I said "very, very weak."

mincuo:

If Mr. Wiesel showed the tattoo, (on a hidden part of the arm, or near the shoulder, or on the right arm, and so on)

What tattoo?

He has no tattoo.

Nothing on his lower right arm and nothing on his lower left arm with the possible exception of under his watch band.

It would be a disaster for him to show a tattoo anywhere on his right arm or on his upper left arm.

And it would be a disaster for him to show a little tattoo that could be hidden under his watch band as well.

Carolyn and others would destroy him.

It would be a gift to revisionists.


mincuo, let me ask you a question:

Does Elie Wiesel have a tattoo anywhere on his left arm?

[twila]

neugierig:

Anyone can draw a number on his arm and make it look real.

Watch this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8_JaKde2Q

And then tell us - Where is he going to draw it?


Look at Nikolaus Grüner's tattoo:

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/nikolau ... res-elies/

And you're afraid that the weasel is going to try to pull some kind of stunt with a fake tattoo?

[neugierig]

All I am saying is: Do not underestimate the power of the Holocaust Industry. If need be, a number will appear on the Weasel’s arm somewhere, but I doubt he will even respond to this. Too much rests on “The Holocaust” to have this interfere with it, and they will drop this Weasel like a hot potato if that serves their interests.

Regards
Wilf

[twila]

neugierig:

All I am saying is: Do not underestimate the power of the Holocaust Industry. If need be, a number will appear on the Weasel’s arm somewhere...

Watch this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8_JaKde2Q

And then tell us - Where on his arm will it magically appear?

[neugierig]

You are missing the point, twila, the Weasel is just a propaganda tool and if he is exposed as a liar they will drop him. As for the video, I’ve seen it some time ago, or portions of it, and I am sure there are spots on his arms not yet exposed, and the story will be: Well, the Nazis tried…, anyway, good talking to you.

Regards
Wilf

[twila]

neugierig:

I am sure there are spots on his arms not yet exposed

Watch this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8_JaKde2Q

And then tell us - What spots on his arms are not yet exposed?

[Ilikerealhistory]

You are missing the point, twila, the Weasel is just a propaganda tool and if he is exposed as a liar they will drop him. As for the video, I’ve seen it some time ago, or portions of it, and I am sure there are spots on his arms not yet exposed, and the story will be: Well, the Nazis tried…, anyway, good talking to you.

Regards
Wilf

I doubt they will drop him if he is exposed. The diarrhea of ann frank was proven to be written in ball point pen; something which she could not have possessed in the early to mid 1940s. It was also proven that the writing done in ball point pen matched other parts of her diarrhea. Lipstadt now claims the diarrhea of ann frank has been proven to be real because all the handwriting matches. She cherry-picked what she could use and discarded what didn't fit her holohoax agenda.

[mincuo]

neugierig:

I am sure there are spots on his arms not yet exposed

Watch this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8_JaKde2Q

And then tell us - What spots on his arms are not yet exposed?

I repeat:
He has the tattoo on the arm (near the shoulder). It was a very fascinating history and had never talked about this, but now he finally speaks. That's it. Or if the existing images leave a portion hidden then the tattoo will appear there (they will check carefully).
I see:
1) A challenger who was very naive to write the text of the challenge.
2) If he don't precise now better, I cannot completely exclude something different from a challenge, organized just for the gullible goyim.

[mincuo]

Twila, what bothers you ? I say that the challenger add a clarification, concerning the examination of the tattoo (if shown), for the avoidance of doubt.
That's all.
BTW I'm not the only who see some risks in the way it was written the challenge

[twila]

mincuo:

if the existing images leave a portion hidden then the tattoo will appear there

Watch this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8_JaKde2Q

And then tell us - On what hidden portion of his left arm will the tattoo appear?


mincuo, I asked you a very simple question that for some reason you refused to answer.

I repeat:

mincuo, let me ask you a question:

Does Elie Wiesel have a tattoo anywhere on his left arm?

A simple yes or no will suffice mincuo.

Thank you.

[mincuo]

I answered. Very clearly. The images seem to confirm that there aren't hidden areas to fake a tattoo on the left forearm. So what? You and some few Revisionists are quite happy. We have won the challenge!! Urrah!
And here comes out the tattoo on his shoulder. For all the world. They have turned your victory in a Revisionist debacle. You will cry "I said left forearm, I said left forearm!!" You will cry with some friends, I suspect, not in the New York Times.
For people who forged documents, reconstructed gas chambers, wrote 4 millions for 50 years, knowing it was false, and so on, this is just a breeze IMHO.
Hope I explained. Sry for my bad English.
.

[Kladderadatsch]

This is probably as good a place as any to put in a recommendation for Carlos Porter's articles on "Nazi tattooing machines":

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/tattoo1.htm
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/tattoo2.htm
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/tattoo3.htm

Porter examines the various "testimonies" of former KZ inmates who claim to have been tattooed, or even been involved in the tattooing process themselves, and shows (pretty conclusively, I think) that their claims cannot be true. Simply put, the "tattooing machines" depicted in the various stories would never have worked as described, and would have resulted in massive epidemics of blood-borne disease and infection if used anyway.

Of course, demonstrating that such "testimonies" are foolish falsehoods does not necessarily prove that tattoos were not sometimes given to inmates by camp authorities. (Porter suggests that inmates tattooed each other, which is plausible, but not provable.) Porter does, however, make a sufficiently convincing case, I think, that revisionists should be aware that not having an Auschwitz tattoo does not of itself prove that someone was not there as a registered prisoner.

As for lying about having one, however, that's something else again. My personal belief is just that there's so much pressure to conform to the official mythology that even genuine "survivors," people who really were at the camps and thus should know better, feel compelled to play along. (That doesn't mean that many of them are not, in fact, only too eager to do so.)

And so you get people like Irene Zisblatt concocting her ridiculous story about Mengele removing her tattoo, rather than simply admitting that she never had one to start with. Or Elie Wiesel, with his phantom tattoo. If he really did have one, surely he'd have shown it to the world by now, if only inadvertently. But in itself that does not (necessarily) mean that he wasn't at Auschwitz.