Robert Ransdell's Elie Wiesel tattoo challenge

[twila]

I think this is great:

Robert Ransdell, who lives in the Kentucky/Ohio area, has been flyering both the University of Cincinnati and Xavier University for the past month — since he found out Wiesel would be making the speech there. He has come up with “The $1000 Challenge”—the money promised to the first person to get Elie Wiesel to show his left forearm and reveal his A-7713 tattoo number … or lack of it. If there is no tattoo visible, no reward will be given. The winner must show proof that Elie Wiesel does have a tattoo—which would require Wiesel’s cooperation.

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/kentuck ... -6-speech/

Thank you Robert, I wish there were more like you.

[The Warden]

He should definitely be at the speech. Since all eyes will be on Mr. Ransdell, it would be perfect for someone to ask Wiesel [immediately after Ransdell is thrown out (inevitable)] if he would be interested in answering the challenge, showing his tattoo, and claiming the reward which Wiesel could easily donate to a Holohoax charity.

One thing is for sure, you'll never hear about any of it from the MSM.

[mincuo]

Honestly, I find that a bit suspicious. Mr Randsell didn't ask for a medical, scientific examination of the Tattoo, if I understood.
He asked that Mr Wiesel will show just for a moment his left arm with a number. Not very difficult even for me, if Mr Randsell challenged me in that way. And a very good propaganda for me.

[twila]

What part of:

"The winner must show proof that Elie Wiesel does have a tattoo"

don't you understand mincuo?

[SevenUp]

I think it's a great move. Can we see the flyer ?

I have a suggestion too - he should note on the flyer that when the Russian army approached Auschwitz Wiesel, along with Primo Levi and Otto Frank, where in the Auschwitz hospital, and that the Nazis gave them the option of awaiting the Russians or evacuating with the Nazis, and Wiesel chose to evacuate.

[mincuo]

What part of:

"The winner must show proof that Elie Wiesel does have a tattoo"

don't you understand mincuo?

May be I didn't understand (My English is poor). Anyway I read: "If there is no tattoo visible, no reward will be given. The winner must show proof that Elie Wiesel does have a tattoo—which would require Wiesel’s cooperation"
So in my poor English I'wasn't sure if it could mean i.e.
1) if there is no tattoo visible no reward, (but if there is then reward?). So the proof that the winner must show is the tattoo visible, or it is a successive proof? The Wiesel's cooperation is only to show the tattoo or another?
2) an independent proof performed after he showed the visible tattoo.

Now You tell me that the only way to read is the second. I Thank you.

[SevenUp]

Now You tell me that the only way to read is the second. I Thank you.

I read it the first way. But it doesn't make any difference which way you read it, it doesn't make any difference if Wiesel has the tattoo or not, the point is to publicly confront this lying freak at every opportunity.

The holohoax is not about did it happen or did it not, the holohoax is absurd, it didn't happen, what it is about is the massive propaganda that is pumped out every day by every US news organization that goes completely unchallenged. You can't write a letter to the NYT saying that the holocaust is a hoax, it won't be published, there is probably not one paper in the US that will publish a 'letter to the editor' challenging any one of the absurd holohoax lies. But, as this guy is showing, you can leaflet, you can disrupt, you can challenge them on the street. Besides the internet, this is the only avenue open to hoax deniers. This guy is going at it full steam. He is a role model.

[mincuo]

@SevenUp
TY. But your reading adds some confusion to me. If you read in the first way, i.e. the only proof and the only Mr Wiesel's collaboration is to show a tattoo on his left arm, without any successive independent scientific examination, well I think it would not be very difficult to show a tattoo even for me. Suppose Mr Wiesel shows the tattoo. Revisionists then will say that there isn't a real proof, and that the tattoo could be fake. Believers will say: "They challenge, then when Mr Wiesel shows the requested proof, they cry, they don't believe, they doubt, they say it is fake. This is the Revisionist method for ALL the Holocaust" What a good propaganda for Holocausters and what a ruin for Revisionism! It seems almost agreed this challenge to me, if it is conducted in this manner. If I were Mr. Randsell I would be very cautios, precise and unambiguous in the text, knowing I'm against all the media, politic, financial powers in US. The text is not very clear to me, but I'm very poor in English, anyway not the best text to challenge big guns and masters of tricks, IMHO.

[twila]

mincuo, are you aware that there are photos that prove that the weasel does not have a tattoo on his left arm?

How would he explain the sudden appearance of a tattoo that wasn't there in earlier photos?

And a new tattoo can be distinguished from an old one.

As far as I'm concerned, that should be the issue here.

Rather than challenge him to show a non existent tattoo, show the photos that prove he's a liar and a fraud.

Asking him to show the non existent tattoo gives the impression to some that he actually has one.

Best to state the fact that it has already been proven that he doesn't have one as that takes away the moral high ground that he's hiding behind.

[mincuo]

mincuo, are you aware that there are photos that prove that the weasel does not have a tattoo on his left arm?

How would he explain the sudden appearance of a tattoo that wasn't there in earlier photos?

And a new tattoo can be distinguished from an old one.

As far as I'm concerned, that should be the issue here.

Rather than challenge him to show a non existent tattoo, show the photos that prove he's a liar and a fraud.

Asking him to show the non existent tattoo gives the impression to some that he actually has one.

Best to state the fact that it has already been proven that he doesn't have one as that takes away the moral high ground that he's hiding behind.

I'm aware of the photos. So what? Mr Wiesel could be well special. He could have the tattoo near the shoulder, for example. Not possible, really? It could be a fascinating story why he had the tattoo put near the shoulder. May be he" has always been silent on that, but now finally he talks".
Instead I'm not completely aware, and it was just my question, how a "new tattoo can be distinguished from an old one" if it is not very clear from the text if, how and who will perform a real examination.

[The Warden]

I'm aware of the photos. So what? Mr Wiesel could be well special. He could have the tattoo near the shoulder, for example. Not possible, really? It could be a fascinating story why he had the tattoo put near the shoulder. May be he" has always been silent on that, but now finally he talks".

Mincuo, please direct your attention to the quote from March 2010:

“I don’t need that to remember, I think about my past every day,” he responded. “But I still have it on my arm – A7713. At that time, we were numbers. No names, no identity.”

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/day ... 21132.html

[mincuo]

Maybe you're not aware of this possibility :
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) and there is no real verification, because the text is some ambiguos on that, then the entire story will be on all the TV and newspapers in the world, but told and filmed in one way .
You can be sure of this, because they will not miss such opportunity, put on a silver plate, so to obtain at least 3 results:
1) Another indirect "evidence" of the Holocaust. "Do you see, all? Here is the tattoo!!"
2) The evidence that the Revisionists are just haters, not serious people. "People, don't read their garbage!"
3) That is completely right never to discuss with them. "Do you now understand, Joe and Jane, why we don't debate with those stupid haters?"

Not very bad results.
The risk of that challenge, IMHO, could be great, with that ambiguos text, to say the least. You don't have the media. They have the media, they will tell the story, not you. That is the big difference. The arm? Or near the shoulder?, Or an hidden part of the arm not showed by the photos? Or the right arm? What Joe and Jane know about those kind of arguments?They will see the tattoo. A successive medical examnination requested? Who will publish that? CODOH? And then?

[twila]

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.

[mincuo]

I asked a friend who works for the film industry, as a makeup artist , etc ... It 's very difficult to play a fake tattoo (I showed an example), which is indistinguishable from a photographic examination even close ?
Are you kidding ? He said. "It 's a breeze for a professional"
So much for the proof, if it is nor very serious. All the Joe and Jane in the world will see very well the tattoo and all the Joe and Jane in the world will know definitively that those who doubted were TATTOO DENIERS and antisemitic haters in the same way they are Holocaust deniers.

[Ilikerealhistory]

Maybe you're not aware of this possibility :
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) and there is no real verification, because the text is some ambiguos on that, then the entire story will be on all the TV and newspapers in the world, but told and filmed in one way .
You can be sure of this, because they will not miss such opportunity, put on a silver plate, so to obtain at least 3 results:
1) Another indirect "evidence" of the Holocaust. "Do you see, all? Here is the tattoo!!"
2) The evidence that the Revisionists are just haters, not serious people. "People, don't read their garbage!"
3) That is completely right never to discuss with them. "Do you now understand, Joe and Jane, why we don't debate with those stupid haters?"

Not very bad results.
The risk of that challenge, IMHO, could be great, with that ambiguos text, to say the least. You don't have the media. They have the media, they will tell the story, not you. That is the big difference. The arm? Or near the shoulder?, Or an hidden part of the arm not showed by the photos? Or the right arm? What Joe and Jane know about those kind of arguments?They will see the tattoo. A successive medical examnination requested? Who will publish that? CODOH? And then?

I agree. It sounds like a setup for a fall.

Just because he has a tattoo, doesn't mean the Germans gave it to him in Auschwitz.