Posted on May 1, 2011 at 11:32 am
The Wiesel tattoo issue remains “most sensitive” for readers
by Carolyn Yeager
Today, May 1st, Elie Wiesel Cons The World received the 17th comment on the blogpost “Is Elie Wiesel a perjurer?” This is the most comments for any article posted here except for our very first “Welcome” blog .
Six ‘believers’ were disturbed enough by this article to write a comment scolding us for it. This tells me that the idea that Elie Wiesel does not have a tattoo, yet says he does, is the most worrisome issue for believers. They get angry when faced with the proof that Elie Wiesel tells lies. They have no way to talk around it.
Realizing this, I am re-posting that article with some added material which I have put in brackets []. This version of the article should be circulated as widely as possible to the mainstream media and mainstream commentators by those of you who want to see some action on this.
Is Elie Wiesel a perjurer?
Written on August 24, 2010 at 10:01 am, by Carolyn Yeager
Elie Wiesel stated under oath while giving testimony in the trial of Eric Hunt in San Francisco, California in July 2008 that the number A7713 was tattooed on his left arm. (see Where is the Tattoo?)
Wiesel should have been asked to show his tattoo to the court at that time, but he wasn’t. This was a failure of the defense, for sure. But obviously, at that time, Mr. Hunt, the defendant, was not questioning whether Elie Wiesel had been an inmate of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Since then, Mr. Hunt and others have uncovered video photography of Wiesel’s bare left arm from all angles, leaving no reasonable doubt that no tattoo is there. Backing up this conclusion is the fact that Wiesel has also famously refused to ever show his tattoo when requested to do so. For those who will retaliate that Wiesel may have had the tattoo removed, he said as late as March 25, 2010 that he still had the number A7713 on his arm. (see Where is the Tattoo?) [In September or October 2012, AP reporter Verena Dobnik wrote in a published news report that Elie Wiesel showed her his tattoo during an interview. Wiesel has never denied the story.]
From this, the average man on the street would probably agree that Elie Wiesel has committed perjury (a criminal offense) if he does not indeed have the number tattooed on his arm. The law, according to http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm, says:
When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; (18 USC )
In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.
[Under the law, Elie Wiesel did knowingly lie to the court about a tattoo on his arm.] However, in practice, the question of materiality is crucial. Perjury is defined at www.criminal-law.freeadvice.com as:
the “willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding.” It is sometimes called “lying under oath;” that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.
So the question becomes: Was the status of Elie Wiesel as a survivor of at least a seven-month incarceration at Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1944-45, in which case he would certainly have been tattooed on his left arm, as he states himself, material to the guilt or innocence of Eric Hunt in light of the charges that had been brought against him? Certainly, Eric Hunt, not long out of college at the time and who had been assigned to read Night in school, had come to doubt the truth of Wiesel’s assertions and descriptions in the book, and believed that if he could confront Wiesel alone, unguarded, he could convince him to tell the truth.
Does the suspicion that Wiesel necessarily lied in his book Night about what he saw and experienced at Auschwitz-Birkenau because he lied about the existence of a tattoo which he has always claimed as proof of his credentials as an Auschwitz survivor, exonerate Eric Hunt from some of the charges brought against him by the State of California? Is it material to the case? Perhaps not, but it does show cause for Eric Hunt’s desire to speak to Elie Wiesel in an unguarded moment, which was what he was attempting to do.
[I have changed my mind about this materiality issue. Whether Wiesel has a tattoo or doesn’t is very “material” to whether his “protected status” as a holocaust survivior gives him the right to avoid questions by the public, such as Eric Hunt was seeking to ask. Wiesel admits he was not harmed in any way by Hunt, but only frightened for a moment — this hardly warrants a charge of kidnapping against Hunt, or for Hunt to be found guilty of “assault”, and even more, of being guilty of a “hate crime,” which is a felony. Without the “hate crime” attachment, Hunt would not now be burdened with the legal status of felon.
If Elie Wiesel is lying about having a tattoo from Auschwitz on his arm, it is Elie Wiesel who is guilty of spreading hate (against Germans collectively, and yes, against Eric Hunt), and has been doing so since 1960 when his book Night was first published. Eric Hunt was therefore trying to stop the hate by trying to get the truth out of Elie Wiesel.]
If Elie Wiesel cannot be legally found guilty of perjury because of questions of materiality, he will certainly be guilty of perjury in the eyes of the public if he does not produce the famous tattoo A-7713 on his arm—the sooner the better. We are waiting, Mr. Wiesel.
Watch a new, short video on the subject.
Addendum:
”Auschwitz survivor Sam Rosenzweig displays his identification tattoo.” From Wikipedia According to the information below, this man was in the “regular” series—numbers not preceeded with a letter of the alphabet. Note also that the tattoo is on the outside of the left forearm.
This is the best looking tattoo I could find on the Internet. If you want to have your faith in the Auschwitz Holocaust story badly shaken, google “Auschwitz tattoos” (or any variation thereof) – Images, and see what comes up. Frightening! Of the little that is there, most look like the numbers are way too big, and you find the same few people exhibiting their specimen.
[It should be noted that Auschwitz-Birkenau was the ONLY camp that tattooed its inmates. It was a decision by the camp authorities, not by the SS hierarchy or Adolf Hitler. It probaby came about because of the large number of inmates at Auschwitz-Birkenau-Monowitz and their tendency to give false names and trade places with one another.]
However … George Rosenthal, Trenton, NJ, an Auschwitz Survivor, has written an “authoritative” account at Jewish Virtual Library based on “documents” obtained from The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (Sorry, no pictures here either, or on the USHMM website. Elie Wiesel was a major driving force in the creationof the USHMM; why didn’t he volunteer his tattoo to be pictured on their website as an example of what a genuine tattoo looks like? Why does the USHMM have no images of a tattoo?)
Mr. Rosenthal writes:
The sequence according to which serial numbers were issued evolved over time. The numbering scheme was divided into “regular,” AU, Z, EH, A, and B series’. The “regular” series consisted of a consecutive numerical series that was used, in the early phase of the Auschwitz concentration camp, to identify Poles, Jews, and most other prisoners (all male). This series was used from May 1940-January 1945, although the population that it identified evolved over time. Following the introduction of other categories of prisoners into the camp, the numbering scheme became more complex. The “AU” series denoted Soviet prisoners of war, while the “Z” series (with the “Z” standing for the German word for Gypsy, Zigeuner) designated the Romany. These identifying letters preceded the tattooed serial numbers after they were instituted. “EH” designated prisoners that had been sent for “reeducation” (Erziehungshäftlinge).
In May 1944, numbers in the “A” series and the “B” series were first issued to Jewish prisoners, beginning with the men on May 13th and the women on May 16th. The “A” series was to be completed with 20,000; however an error led to the women being numbered to 25,378 before the “B” series was begun. The intention was to work through the entire alphabet with 20,000 numbers being issued in each letter series. In each series, men and women had their own separate numerical series, ostensibly beginning with number 1.
According to this, since there was never a “C” series, the maximum number of prisoners that could have been tattooed after May 1944 was 45,378.
Under “Notes” at the bottom of the page, four books are listed, all by holocaust historians. Are these the “documents” referred to? It also says Source: Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the very bottom of the page, as if referring to the entire page. This Center is located at the University of Minnesota. The affiliated faculty reveals mostly Jewish names.
I report all this because I’m looking for authoritative sources for the exact placement of the tattoos on the left arm, but one doesn’t find that answer even at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Museum. Why all the uncertainty? Could it be because so many pseudo-survivors have tattooed themselves in unusual ways and places, and the authorities don’t want to nullify their legitimacy?
Categories Featured | Tags: Auschwitz tattoos, Elie Wiesel, Eric Hunt, George Rosenthal, perjury
Leave a Reply
By submitting a comment here you grant Elie Wiesel Cons the World a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.
19 Comments to The Wiesel tattoo issue remains “most sensitive” for readers
by J M Damon
On May 1, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Thanks for this informative and well-researched article.
Unfortunately the CEO of “Holocaust Industries Inc.” cannot be bothered by trivialities such as tattoos and empirical evidence.
Your reference to “…faith in the Auschwitz Holocaust story” is indeed the key to the entire “Shoah Business.”
One has got to BELIEVE, just as one has to believe in the BURNING BUSH and JONAH IN THE BELLY OF THE WHALE.
Otherwise, as far as the Zionist controlled media are concerned, one is a recreant DENIER and ANTI SEMITE (even if one happens to be Jewish.)
by Joe Bassett
On May 2, 2011 at 3:44 pm
If there was millions of prisoners there has ti be someone with a tattoo that numbers into the millions. Or did they tattoo them and then kill them and just kept running the same damn numbers? The Germans would have made the tattoos in the same exact place on their body. They would have all looked the same and they would have been visible from the outside . So Jews show a few numbers? Challenge them to show someone with a tattoo that numbers something like this…2,342,632 I’m pretty sure the Germans carried the numbers in order.
by Mike Trice
On May 2, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Why not just put the holocaust on the backburner for the time being and concentrate on the mass graves. There is a lot of interest being drummed up on this. It just takes someone like me pushing the issue. I just need other dissidents to do the same thing. The Jews are not going to throw up their hands and admit the holocaust is a hoax. This Jew will just go get a tattoo if pushed. We proven the holocaust is a hoax. The shower rooms and the yards have been examined. The Jews have nothing. They have zero evidence. We have the truth, but why does our side go to prison for the truth? If the Jews can send someone to prison for just questioning the holocaust, then they control everything. You can’t get laws passed to send all the Communist Jews that came to America packing. They are here illegally. Some could face crimes against humanity.
by Steve Barnett
On May 2, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I think the holocaust debates like they had in Iran work. I think it draws attention to the holocaust. I think you should go to Asia and debate the issue. The Japanese don’t care about the holocaust. I would have a debate every week somewhere, before this NWO thing rears it’s ugly head.
by Bernie Cohen
On May 2, 2011 at 3:58 pm
If the Jews were handling this we would go to this Jew and put a gun to his head and ask him to show his tattoo. You goyim don’t know how to be ruthless. We Jews can be ruthless. It’s how we killed 65 million of you and buried you in Europe, but you people keep wasting time. How close are you to getting the Jews to have a national televised debate on the holocaust than you were 20 years ago? You’re going to have to get a Jew like me to tell you what to do, because this is for all the marbles. If you’ll notice the Jews are about to rear the ugly Communist head and then what? You will be screwed.
by Carolyn
On May 5, 2011 at 10:34 am
I don’t know if you are Bernie Cohen or not, but nevertheless I think you’re right that we “goyim” don’t know how to be ruthless. Most don’t even know how to protect their own self-interests. Where that got lost is an interesting topic for consideration. Give us a little more advice, Bernie. But keep it acceptable for family-viewing, if you please.
by Jett Rucker
On May 2, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Wiesel was not assaulted, but Hunt was lynched – by the “justice system.”
Although he retains his life, he evidently will bear the stigma of felon throughout the rest of it (long after Wiesel has gone to his reward, which I hope will be one he deserves).
by Ray Goodwin
On May 3, 2011 at 1:17 pm
One of the major problems for Eric Hunt is that the courts are the bailiwick of the purveyors of the extermination lie. It is only my opinion, but I do not think it was just a slip-up by the defense lawyer not to ask to see the weasel’s tattoo. Attorneys in cases like these are allowed to play the game only if they stay within the designated boundaries – the same boundaries plaved upon academia, government, pulpit, and media.
by Carolyn
On May 5, 2011 at 10:22 am
Ray, I agree and think Eric’s attorney would never have asked to see the tattoo even if Eric had had the awareness at that time to ask him to do so. The question was probably meant to establish Wiesel’s credibility! Although I am no courtroom expert, having never been involved in a court case of my own.
Eric’s defense was court appointed, I believe, so the only objective was to give him a decent, proper representation, not to WIN. We can be sure that if Wiesel were asked to display his tattoo for the court, the prosecutor would have objected strenuously that the witness was being insulted or mistreated or something, and the judge would have sustained it. It would be interesting to have a record of something like that, wouldn’t it? Then again, something like that could have ended up being ‘stricken from the record’ and we might not have the confession that we have today. So you never really know what will help the most in the long run.
by Jim vonBeker
On May 8, 2011 at 6:05 am
Why doesnt someone put a gun to his head when he is alone and take a pic with his cell phone, Then he could post the pic and it would be settled once and for all, That is his name , weasel, is apt for a scoundrel , knave and liar juden such as he is.
by John
On May 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm
For his perjury, Wiesel should be forced for the rest of his life to change the spelling of last name to “WEASEL.”
John
300Sploggers.com
by Laura M.
On May 25, 2011 at 7:27 pm
I’ve read Night and I thought it was very good, but now I cant help but wonder if it was really a true-life experience or just a fictional work of art……..
by Carolyn
On May 26, 2011 at 9:07 am
Hello Laura,
I am glad you are questioning. Books like “Night” make a big emotional impression on readers who are already convinced that “The Holocaust” in general is totally true as presented. That is why such people can bypass or ignore passages that are physically impossible, historically untenable and/or humanly outlandish.
It’s a big step to take to begin to question truth vs. fiction in what’s called The Holocaust. A good place to start is with Elie Wiesel and especially his first book “Night.” Be sure to read my 3-part article entitled “The Shadowy Origins of Night”, posted in August and September 2010, if you have not already done so. There you will find irrefutable evidence that the story in Night is not Wiesel’s own personal experience.
I welcome your further comments about Elie Wiesel and Night. Write to me at [email protected] if you want to discuss this in more detail.
by JJ
On May 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm
I enjoy listening to your Heretic Hour podcast. Your latest broadcast mentioned the brainwashing of our children about holocaust (left off the “the” as you correctly suggested in your show). I’d like to add that my child’s NYC middle school English class has nearly spent 3 mos. on the topic. Forcing them to read Night and Frank’s Diary. I questioned the teacher why is it taught in English (of all places) where they should learn the beauty of the language and literature. Additionally why the focus on the event when there countless examples of inhumane treatment throughout history – look at Palestine! Of course the answer is that they must teach it. I added it is more appropriate to discuss in history or social studies. I also told the teacher that Night was considered for decades a work of fiction prior to pressure they bared on book sellers just after Wiesel’s Oprah appearance. Anyway, keep up the good work in getting the truth out to stop these nefarious people….before it is too late.
by Carolyn
On May 27, 2011 at 9:19 am
Thanks JJ. You did really well to talk to the teacher — you should try talking to the Principal too. More parents should express their disapproval of the program; it would really help even though it is mandated by the state Boards of Education (i.e politicians — sometimes it’s first voted into law by state legislatures) and school districts have no choice but to follow it.
Politicians are desirous of Jewish campaign money and also Jewish media approval — they care far, far less about what happens to childrens’ education. Three months is incredible — usually it is a 4-week “unit” but one month out of 9 months is too much taken away from, as you say, quality literature and English grammer and writing for something that is pure political indoctrination. Our children cannot read and write as it is. Plus it is taught by teachers totally ignorant of the subject who get their teaching materials from the ADL and a few other Jewish “non-profit charitable” institutions who produce the most biased nonsense possible. My town’s Middle School Guidance Counselor, who was an acquaintance of mine, told me she had a session with the 8th graders and taught them about the tattooed lamp shades!! I was aghast and told her it was proven to be untrue. She just stared at me and said she didn’t know; she had gotten it off a teacher’s site on the Internet — a story that revolved around a young girl that the kids could relate to. She thought she had found just the right thing.
This is the horror that goes on in our schools. As to who needs to get the truth out, it is all of us. I can’t emphasize that enough.
by Chris
On June 21, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Hello Carolyn, I came across a photo of EW which is new to me, I have no idea where it originates.
It shows the left forearm, with no obvious tattoo. Although there is something some might imagine is a tattoo.
Found at:
http://referee1.blogspot.com/2010/06/opposites.html
by Carolyn
On June 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Thanks very much for the new photo, Chris. You are right; enlargement does not reveal a tattoo, but some would try to say it was … that it had gotten blurry over the years. If that would be the case, why haven’t other’s tattoos gotten blurry? This is a great find because it shows no tattoo. I’ll write to the blog owner and ask him where the photo is from.
by Elie Wiesel
On September 14, 2011 at 10:41 am
The reason I cannot show you my tattoo is one of the following:
1) The Nazis put it on my arse and I am too embarrassed to show it.
2) It washed off after my first shower.
3) It was tattooed using “invisible” ink.
4) I sold it to a goy. I am a Jew, after all.
5) My dog ate it.
by J.E.
On February 1, 2013 at 8:16 am
I have been looking there is no other record of someone with a “AA” before there number. There are many “A” but no doubles can someone explain this to me.