Posted on January 2, 2016 at 10:29 pm

Elie admits he doesn’t have the tattoo A7713

 

A7713

The number A-7713 is hugely important in the life of Elie Wiesel, but not in the way most would think.

By Carolyn Yeager

A7713 IS A NUMBER that is widely recognized because of the story Night written by Elie Wiesel.

According to the story, 15-year old Eliezer had that number tattooed on his left forearm two days after he arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau in May (or was it April?) 1944.

Wiesel says the story is a true report of his life experience and that he has that number on his arm still today. Yet by refusing to show it to the public for the past 60 years, he is as good as admitting that he does not have it.

In courts of law, whenever a claimant fails to provide proof of his claim, he forfeits his right to that claim.  Wiesel has failed to provide proof that he has the tattoo so he must give up the claim. This is the clearest admission he could make, would you not agree? I mean, we’re not talking about a private area of his body that he would not want to expose, but only his left forearm.

When this image is magnified, the possible "tattoo" is seen to be just a shadowy spot, not in any way a number. So sorry.

FALSE ALARM. When this image is magnified, the possible “tattoo” is seen to be just a denser area of spots and discoloration on Wiesel’s arm, not in any way a number. See here.

Wiesel keeps his arm covered at all times in public and is never asked about it by the complicit media. However, on a few occasions he must have forgotten and did allow himself to be photographed with bare arms, so we do have a few photos of this part of his anatomy—but with no tattoo visible at all! When asked to comment on that fact, not only Mr. Wiesel, but Mrs. Wiesel, and all Wiesel’s friends and business and academic associates remain totally silent. Even Oprah Winfrey has said nothing about it. This is not a reasonable way to behave.

Now put together the above with the knowledge that Wiesel’s entire fabulous career, success and wealth (including the Nobel Peace Prize and other coveted awards) is dependent on his being Auschwitz prisoner A7713, and you easily see the crucial importance it has for him. There is no debate about it.  A7713 is essential to Wiesel’s life story and the prestige and book sales he enjoys today.

Even with all that at stake, he won’t show it to anyone.

This can only be interpreted as an admission that he doesn’t have it. And he knows it. He knows that he has admitted by default that he does not have that tattoo (and therefore is not who he says he is) but he obviously prefers not to say so. He will keep the charade going as long as he lives, which is not much longer.

At this point his admirers and supporters start coming up with harebrained reasons for why he doesn’t have it or why he doesn’t show it. Their “reasons” ignore known facts and common sense, and are easily knocked down. I look forward to receiving some in the comments, although defense for Elie doesn’t have much staying power. His supporters may be starting to realize that it is he who makes them look foolish because of his refusal to engage on the issue. Especially, he refused to engage with Miklos Grüner on the issue—Grüner whose registration and other documentation at Auschwitz is in perfect order and who actually has a tattoo to match.

It was a fateful day for Elie Wiesel when, just off his great triumph at the Nobel Prize ceremony in Oslo in 1986, he went to Stockholm to meet “fellow Buchenwald child survivor” Miklos Grüner on a television show. That short meeting (“Wiesel refused to show me his tattoo”) and the book Night he was given raised Grüner’s suspicions. He began his search for documents relating to Elie Wiesel and Lazar Wiesel.

The result is that we discovered there are no documents at Auschwitz for Elie or Eliezer Wiesel with the birthdate 9-30-1928,  nor is there a single photograph of him in any camp. Without the tattoo, Wiesel’s got nothing at all to show he’s a survivor except his own fake memoir.

So let’s stir things up and get the information out there. A huge number of people, institutions and governments are guilty of being complicit in the fraud. It has become one of those “too big to fail” things, and in truth, without Grüner hunting down the documents (which only a former inmate could access), Wiesel would have gotten away with it.

Hats off to Michael Grüner! He’s not perfect but he’s done the world a great service.

 

 

49 Comments

Categories Featured | Tags:

49 Comments to Elie admits he doesn’t have the tattoo A7713

  1. by steve

    On January 2, 2016 at 11:09 pm

    I just cannot believe the weasel does not have a tat. my god! carolyn, your the only one I hear talking about this. if your right, I think you should get a Pulitzer prize, a good part of his money, and a thank you from the whole world!

     

  2. by Carolyn

    On January 3, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    steve – Seeing is believing. Should we believe what the media, governments, schools tell us when they have never seen it themselves? Some lie and say they have (see next comment).

    I believe I have spent more time studying Elie Wiesel than anyone else on this side of the question and I am 100% sure he doesn’t have a tattoo.

     

  3. by Zulu

    On January 3, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    The French journalist Jean Robin tried to find an answer by writing to the Museum of Auschwitz which has a record for a certain Lazar Wiesel, A-7713, born in 1913 (15 years before our man)
    As an answer, on this article the French writer Michaël de Saint-Cheron assumes that he saw the tattoo of Elie Wiesel ¨as well as many people¨ (sic). He alleges that the archives of the Auschwitz Museum are not reliable…
    http://laregledujeu.org/2013/03/11/12685/quel-proces-pour-ceux-qui-mettent-elie-wiesel-en-proces/

    Wikipedia French articles on Wiesel and Jean Robin tells that version of the tattoo.

     

  4. by Carolyn

    On January 3, 2016 at 8:05 pm

    Zulu – Thanks for bringing these persons to my attention. I don’t read French so I have to use automatic translation to give me the gist of what they’re saying. I got from French Wikipedia that Jean Robin seeks “objectivity” while Michael de Saint-Cheron makes excuses for Wiesel. I found this on a Facebook page:

    Michaël de Saint-Chéron is an acclaimed scholar of Wiesel’s works and has authored seven books on the Jewish writer.

    Well, my, then he must be an expert on the subject. But no, he is simply an apologist. To Saint-Cheron, if the German records don’t support Elie Wiesel, it’s the records that are wrong! Similar to Marion Wiesel in her “new translation” of Night: Since Elie was not 14, but 15 in May 1944, Eliezer could not have said, “Fourteen going on fifteen.” It’s a mistake that must be changed! And if Eliezer said it was April, but we know the Sighet Hungarians were deported in May, that must be changed too!

    If Miklos Grüner accuses Wiesel of not being at Buchenwald in the “children’s barracks” that he himself was in, then Grüner is a despicable person and a liar. Wiesel’s Hungarian Rabbi-friend said so!

    If Wiesel’s tattoo has never been shown to the public, well he, Cheron, has seen it and can vouch for it. That should be good enough. I’ve had anonymous people writing to this site saying that Wiesel showed it to them! It was real!

    Interesting that he mentions this site:

    “There is a known US site powered by some Carolyn Yeager. “Wiesel cons the world” (Elie Wiesel defrauds the world), which is dedicated to “false testimony of the most famous Holocaust survivor.”

    It features a photo of Wiesel and his bare left arm folded without one discerning a tattoo and we deduce that no number is there. But this tattoo many people saw who have experienced or are experiencing Wiesel – I have. What then do these slanderers seek to prove?

    Isn’t that amazing? It’s not on the still shot from the Wiesel video, but HE saw it. So there. Finally, since all this is hot air, he brings out the emotional last shot:

    “Elie Wiesel’s older sister, Hilda, who died two years ago in Nice, remembered the last scene on the Birkenau train platform with his mother saying: “Now, go and tell Dad not to let your brother be separated from him.” [Thus] It is absolutely immoral, indecent, to raise the question of the truth of the words of Elie Wiesel.

    That’s all they’ve got. Zulu, you ought to get more involved in this and help to force it into the public consciousness. It’s a fail-safe argument that Wiesel doesn’t have a tattoo. That’s the one thing they freak out over. I’m already getting a bunch of crazy emails from people with pointedly non-Jewish names.

     

  5. by Riket Kosmos

    On January 4, 2016 at 2:12 am

    Bonjour Carolyn je connais très très bien ce Jean Robin et croyez moi il n’est pas du tout mais alors pas du tout “négationniste” !! il est lui même 1/2 juif (enfin son père l’était donc au regard des “lois” juives il ne peut être 100% juif que si sa mère est juive ! bref ..)
    Jean Robin a voulu montrer en faisant cette enquête qu’il était un journaliste “honnête” et “objectif” (sic) en gros tout ce qu’il n’est pas ! Vous pourrez vous en rendre compte en allant sur son site “enquêtes & Débats” et vous y verrez sa “vision” toute personnelle de “l’honnêteté” journalistique (ça aussi c’est l’oxymore par excellence !!)
    Bien à vous Carolyn ! moi je suis comme vous ! certain que Wiesel n’a jamais mis un seul orteil dans un camp de concentration !

     

  6. by Carolyn

    On January 4, 2016 at 8:06 am

    Thank you, Riket. On the French Wikipedia “Elie Wiesel” page he was called a Holocaust Denier. So I will change that. Maybe I misunderstood the French.

    It actually says (translated):
    “This thesis is supported by Holocaust deniers and the editor and journalist Jean Robin, who says he is “anti-Semitic” and received by mail [from] the archives of the National Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau that the registered deported was named A-7713 Lazar Wiesel and had the birth year 1913 (when Elie Wiesel was born in 1928).”
    It is probably Saint-Cheron who calls him anti-Semitic! Cheron is a fanatic.

    Automatic translation of your comment:
    Hello Carolyn I know very well what Jean Robin believe and it is not at all "Holocaust denier" !! He is himself half Jewish (well his father was, therefore in the light of Jewish "laws" can not be 100% Jewish unless his mother is Jewish!)
    Jean Robin wanted to show by this investigation he was a "honest" journalist and "objective," basically everything he's not! You can realize by going to his site "Surveys & Debates" and you should see his "vision" of any personal "honesty" journalism (this is also the quintessential oxymoron !!)
    Sincerely Carolyn! I am just like you! Certainly Wiesel never put one toe in a concentration camp!

     

  7. by Carolyn

    On January 4, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    Riket – Oh yes, “Enquete & Debat” – I just found it. I’m familiar with their Elie Wiesel debate but have not been there for a couple of years. I did read this at the time: http://www.enquete-debat.fr/archives/elie-wiesel-does-not-have-the-auschwitz-tatoo-he-claims-to-have-59675 someone alerted me to it, and I found it very interesting. They want to protect the holocaust narrative from Elie Wiesel’s lies, as does Mr. Gruner, and they don’t want people like me and Alain Sorel to get any credit! That seems to be their motivation.

    In March 2013 they published a piece with photos taken directly from “Elie Wiesel Cons the World” and didn’t give any credit for it. This ticks me off.

    This also turns me off: Robin added in his letter to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Archivist, “I am also interested in these matters since a part of my jewish family on my mother side died in Auschwitz, and a great grand father on my father side, Noël Robin, was deported in Buchenwald and died in Dora for resisting the nazis).”

    How does he know a part of his mother’s family died in Aushchwitz. Its no doubt a rumor. He needs to supply the name to the A-B Archivists and find out definitely what happened to them. Same with his great grandfather. Until he does that, and shares the information, he has no business criticizing Elie Wiesel.

    But I liked this in the article:

    M. Wiesel (who didn’t reply to our request when we contacted him through his foundation) to show his tatoo in order to stop rumours about this,

    and

    Addendum 10th of january, 2013 : the assistant of Elie Wiesel, Mrs Mansard, hang up on us.

    Haha, and he’s a Jew. How do people think that I should contact him and he would talk to me?

     

  8. by frank scott

    On January 6, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    the only problem with this is that if he suddenly revealed his tattoo that could make it seem that everything he’s ever said was true. earth bleeding, six million, babies thrown into ovens, all of the tales to make a brutal reality somehow more brutal than anything ever experienced by anyone else, all resolved by such a moment of truth? others have tattoos, suffered terribly, and i still don’t believe in the six million in gas chambers. screw the tattoo!

     

  9. by Carolyn

    On January 7, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    frank – I've had a few comments like this from the very beginning; maybe one was from you? But it's a cowardly argument, and stupid too … if I may say so. Don't be offended.

    Wiesel will NOT "suddenly reveal his tattoo." He has no tattoo. He refuses to discuss his claimed tattoo in any public way. He hides. But he has said he has one! Which was not too smart. Instead of saying "screw the tattoo" you should be calling him a big liar, but you have no confidence. In the 5.5 years this website has been online, he's not responded to it. What a coward! But you still cling to half believing him. So screw you.

     

  10. by George

    On January 6, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    I have no doubt that this con artist could easily put a needed tatoo on his hand and deny any further investigation. However the key element is his age which doesn’t correspond to Lazar’s (the real writer with the tatoo). There is no doubt that Lazar had that number and that he was the original author of the title “Un di Velt hot Gesvigen”, which was published in Paris 1955.- See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/translated_from_the_hungarian.html .
    What actually happened to the real Lazar? Is this lunatic also involved in his disappereance?
    The main question is how to bring to justice this impersonator without broader support. This would put to shame many ‘respectable’ persons and organizations and they have no interest in pushing this. Can we make some sort of class action? Can we, as responsible citizens, support Miklos Gruner before he dissapears?

     

  11. by Carolyn

    On January 7, 2016 at 8:23 pm

    George – Do you really believe that EW could show the number A7713 on his arm now and be believed? He would also stir up the tattoo issue which his handlers know would be worse than the present situation.

    It's possible the real Lazar was done away with, but it would take a lot more resources than I have to seriously investigate it. We have to just leave that. Grüner has not been able to discover anything.

    To contribute to a class action suit, send a lot of money to Eric Hunt. He wants to bring a lawsuit against Wiesel. Write to [email protected] and I can connect you.

     

  12. by Stephan Pickering / Chafetz Chayim ben-Avraham

    On January 31, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    Shalom & Erev tov…I have sat across from Reb Wiesel at a table with others. His blue tattoo, while fading (the woman who raised me, a Dachau survivor 246744, had a tattoo, as well, fading in the mid-1950s), was clearly readable. This is your phantasy, not mine.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    STEPHAN PICKERING / חפץ ח"ם בן אברהם
    Torah אלילה Yehu'di Apikores / Philologia Kabbalistica Speculativa Researcher
    לחיות זמן רב ולשגשג

    THE KABBALAH FRACTALS PROJECT

     

  13. by Carolyn

    On February 1, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    To Stephan Pickering: Oh really …? We have another nutcase here.

    Guess you don't know that Dachau inmates were not tattooed. Tattooing was only done at Auschwitz. And “Reb Wiesel” was not at Auschwitz.

     

  14. by Stephan Pickering / Chafetz Chayim ben-Avraham

    On January 31, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    A footnote…Reb Wiesel's original book (which I have before me) was published in 1956, not 1955: …Un die velt hot gesvign. Note the correct spelling. I have seen the Yiddish manuscript at Boston University (and, no, the handwriting was not that of Lazar, who wrote nothing).
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    STEPHAN PICKERING / חפץ ח"ם בן אברהם
    Torah אלילה Yehu'di Apikores / Philologia Kabbalistica Speculativa Researcher
    לחיות זמן רב ולשגשג
    THE KABBALAH FRACTALS PROJECT

     

  15. by Carolyn

    On February 1, 2016 at 11:09 pm

    Stephen Pickering – The book was printed in 1955; Wiesel writes that he received a copy in the mail in Paris in December 1955, even if the copyright says 1956. The spelling is di, not die — otherwise your spelling is the same as mine.

    The manuscript was not handwritten, plus it doesn't exist today so you did not see it at Boston University. You are just playing games. aren't you? I think you are putting us on, having fun.

     

  16. by dr kim

    On February 11, 2016 at 8:50 am

    1) glad to read the clarification of the text by Mr. Robin, as I do read French and wondered.
    2) the jiddish text about the 'shikses' (which I often heard used in a neutral way, just meaning 'non jewish girl') is absolutely clear: in German it would be 'vergewaltigen' which is rape used in connection with girls. It is based on the word 'Gewalt' meaning 'force, power'
    3) The signatures: The Lazar signature is an original signature dating from the period it is supposed to be from and the country where such handwriting was used. The Ely signature looks too modern to me.
    4) While reading your articles I often got the idea that the Jiddish original must have been in longhand. Why? I would find it more logical. And didn't I read 'scribble' somewhere in Wiesels texts?
    5) Thank you for your work sorry I cannot contribute more

     

  17. by Carolyn

    On February 14, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    dr kim – Answering your 4) -Elie Wiesel is on record as saying he wrote all his books in longhand, in French — EXCEPT for his first book which was typed in Yiddish. Now, the facts are that he first volunteered information about the Yiddish book in his 1995 memoir All Rivers Run to the Sea. According to his account, no one saw his manuscript except the publisher, a stranger to whom he handed his only copy upon landing in Brazil in 1954. Sound plausible? Furthermore, the publisher did not return his manuscript and Wiesel never tried to get it back. C’est la Vie, you know. Therefore no original manuscript of Un di velt hot geshvign exists … except in Wiesel’s imagination.

    That means there is no confirming evidence that it was typed; however it was published in Argentina with the name Eliezer Wiesel as the author. And the book La Nuit/Night was taken from it.

    PS. You should read “The Shadowy Origins of Night” Parts 1,2 and 3 if you haven’t already.

     

  18. by Anon

    On March 2, 2016 at 9:40 am

    It has come to my attention that the statements made on the page referring to the tattoo being a sensitive matter for readers contradicts some of the comments made on this page. Before stating these statements which have been made and are in my opinion contradictions I wish to convey that my intentions are simply to inquire as to which is the correct answer, not to deny your statements as being true or confirm them. Firstly, you state on this page that Aushwitz was the only camp to tattoo numbers on their prisoners, while on the previously mentioned pages you state that Aushwitz was not the only camp to do this. You also state the name Lazar as being the recorded name of who ever was given the ID A-7713, but if in fact prisoners often lied about their age and name, is it so far from possible that Lazar is in fact Elizer by a different name? They even sound the same. My hopes that you do not take offense to my questions and my thanks for answering them.

     

  19. by Carolyn

    On March 2, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    To Anon (also goes by the name clone) — I think you are a troll who has been assigned to find some discrepancy in the information on this site. Others have tried, and it says a lot about the quality of my work that no one has been successful. But I’m posting your comment because I want to draw attention to the tattoo subject. I am almost ready to introduce a new article about it.

    Your first assertion is untrue, plus you fail to quote what you claim I wrote, or give a link to or even properly name the page(s). You are wrong to say that I state that Auschwitz was not the only camp to do this [tattooing]; I never did.

    I have discussed the various forms of the name Eliezer here. Your speculation that "prisoners often lied about their age and name" [they more often lied about saying they lied and got away with it] is in no way a reason to believe the German officials could not tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 31 year old with a trade. It is not believable!

    It also does not follow along with the “autobiography” Night or Wiesel’s memoir All Rivers Run to the Sea. If he had done such a thing, wouldn’t he have told about it between 1954-1960? Therefore, people like you are dreaming, without even attempting to ascertain the facts or to use logic.

     

  20. by Anon

    On March 2, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    Ma'am you say exactly what I claim in my "first assertion" on this page: http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/the-evidence/the-tattoo/the-wiesel-tattoo-issue-remains-most-sensitive-for-readers/. In fact your exacts words are as follows.
    [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.] This being the third paragraph underneath the picture of the tattoo on the arm of the survivor.

     

  21. by Carolyn

    On March 3, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Anon – I was referring to what you wrote:

    Firstly, you state on this page that Aushwitz was the only camp to tattoo numbers on their prisoners, while on the previously mentioned pages you state that Aushwitz was not the only camp to do this.

    Where did I state that?

    Then you quote me that the tattooing probably 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.” This trading places was “a tendency” and usually temporary, but the “large number of inmates” relates to the need to keep track of so many going to so many different places.

    This really doesn’t speak to newly-arriving prisoners in Spring 1944. Who would they have traded places with, and why? Please also remember that in Night and in the Yiddish And the world remained silent and also in his 1995 memoir, the Wiesel character gives his name as Eliezer Wiesel, and continues to use that name. He never uses the name Lazar. Why do you and others keep trying to dream up scenarios for Wiesel that don’t fit what he himself has said??

    Probably because you don’t know what he said.

     

  22. by Joe

    On March 5, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    He may have changed his name to protect himself. And he may not wish to show his tatoo because it triggers bad memories, or he may have another reason for not wanting to show it but you have no proof of this.

     

  23. by Carolyn

    On March 6, 2016 at 9:26 am

    Well, Joe, you have changed your name, but it wasn’t so easy for Elie Wiesel or anyone else to do that in a German wartime camp. You are just talking nonsense as girls like you keep on doing here.

    Most people can understand that it is not up to me to prove Wiesel doesn’t have the tattoo he says he does, but it’s up to him to prove he does. He has failed to do so. His feelings about it carry no weight at all.

     

  24. by Silver

    On April 1, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    Let me apply some revisionist argumentation methods myself:

    1) What if Elie got the tattoo removed because he hated that it degraded and kept reminding him of his past? You know tattoo removal is possible.

    What if he now thinks, in retrospect, that having removed the tattoo is a bad idea because it removed the evidence and showing his bare army will only make holocaust deniers jump and rejoice in victory? Therefore he hides his arm.

     

  25. by Carolyn

    On April 2, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    To Silver: If this is the best you can come up with …
    It makes Elie a liar, which of course we know he is, and stupid too. What kind of a fool would remove the tattoo he had already written in a book that he had on his arm? Of course the book was fiction; it was intended as fiction at the time it was published, but after getting famous from it he started saying it was all true. And then there was the quest for a Nobel Prize.

    Anyway, it's not legitimate to put thoughts in Wiesel's head that he has never expressed himself or even hinted at. It's lame and you are not earning your pay, Hasbara worker. But you are giving my readers a good laugh. Thanks.

     

  26. by Zack

    On April 12, 2016 at 12:13 pm

  27. by Carolyn

    On April 13, 2016 at 2:02 pm

  28. by Tiffany Yep

    On May 30, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Tattoos can easily fade over the course of many decades. Even if he is not truly a survivor, his book "Night" has done wonders to teach people what went on in concentration camps. All you hear are tales of bravery and resistance and love from books about the Holocaust. These books betray the true horror of the Holocaust. Many of the survivors did not speak of what if actually felt like to be imprisoned in Auschwitz or Monowitz. Wiesels' novel, real or not, accurately displays the anger and helplessness felt by the Jews in Germany and Poland and in other parts of Europe. Even if you are right and he is conning people, he still deserves that Nobel Peace Price. Millions of youths from around the world have learned from "Night", and in order to mot repeat history, we must learn the history. he could also have removed the tattoo, since his entire life does not center solely on his novels, and he can possibly be triggered when looking at the tattoo. If you haven't picked up what I've been saying in this essay, basically a) you call him an idiot if he removed the tattoo because he wrote the books-he has his own feelings outside of proving he was at Auschwitz, and he may be triggered by the tattoo and the memories behind it, and b) even if he has never set foot in Auschwitz, his book has still done wonders to educate people on the honest horror and devastation in the concentration camps, versus the stories of faith and love and selflessness of people who managed to avoid it. And answer this question-if he was never in a concentration camp, how on earth was he able to depict them so accurately?

     

  29. by Carolyn

    On June 2, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    See here

     

  30. by A

    On June 2, 2016 at 11:32 pm

    Would there not be at least a scar if he had it removed? I think your right, it has gone too far to admit he's a fake and risk backlash on all the good work that has come from his lies, or in the more probable case, risk the money they have made from his lies, i just pity the real Lazar, his disappearance needs to be investigated and the only way to initiate this is to get this fool proven fake. Its a disgrace to use the horror of another's ordeal to reap your own benefits. He should not be allowed go to the grave branded a survivor. If there was a plausible excuse he would have disclosed by now! If he had it removed he would have explained why and shown his scar. But then I also wonder why he did not get it tattooed on his arm to back up his story. Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do if your going to steal someone's past? I dunno, I feel like I want to believe him because it's too difficult to think someone could be so conniving!

     

  31. by Get over yourself

    On June 15, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Someone who's been through so much is bound to be more or less traumatized.
    You talk a hell lot about this person as if you know him. Since you're so bloody obsessed with this, why don't you try concentrating all your efforts in trying to meet him in Boston University instead? You're sounding quite like a hypocrite yourself.

     

  32. by Carolyn

    On June 16, 2016 at 7:50 am

    Get over – So this is your defense of Elie Wiesel's failure to show the tattoo he claims he has? You are reduced to attacking the messenger? Your best argument is to tell me I have no right to question Mr. Wiesel? This is how the holohoax industry operates in all regards — "you have no right to question!"

    We do have a right, and I have asked all the right questions. But you are unable to answer a single one. Keep writing stuff like this and revealing your complete and total poverty.

    About trying to meet him in person, look what happened when Eric Hunt tried to talk to him. He became frantic and started screaming. He is scared to death of coming face to face with someone who would really question him and not lie for him … as you do. By the way, don’t think he’s wandering around Boston University now, too old.

     

  33. by Al Milligan

    On July 3, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Another great column. Yeager’s comments are so good and right on topic. I like the one about the tattoo didn’t matter comment. Talk of Wiesel’s tattoo, or rather lack of a tattoo, reminds me of irene zisblatt’s claim (Spielberg’s Last Days) that her tattoo was removed by Mengela as part of an experiment. It would have been hilarious if it didn’t reveal her and Spielberg to be holocaust liars. Anyone found lying about the ‘holocaust’ should be prosecuted for perjury. It is a crime against humanity.

     

  34. by Mike

    On July 6, 2016 at 6:59 am

    Tattoos do not fade so completely as to disappear. They just get a little less vibrant. They also can never be 100% removed even with lasers; there is always a white mark in the shape of the tatooo left. jewish people, for the most part, tend to not be cremated or get tattoos, which is why they are so ignorant about these subjects that they slip up when lying about the holocaust – tattoos disappearing magically, already cremated bodies spurting geysers of blood a month later from their burial places (roflmao), thousands of bodies being able to be lit and burned in a huge bonfire (impossible), etc. Lying Weasel was just another fraudulent scammer.

     

  35. by NikolaTesla

    On July 7, 2016 at 12:08 am

    Thank you, Carolyn. You really made me laugh with your 100% success ratio of crashing trolls.

     

  36. by Sarah

    On July 7, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    Carolyn you are a big got piece of shit. How much of your life so you spend trying to discredit a dead man. The holocaust happened you disgusting human being. Maybe your grandpa was throwing babies in the fire. Tattoos can be removed. Many from that long ago have faded and become unrecognizable. You must be so filed with hate. You are pathetic. Get a life. Do something positive in the world. Do something. Jesus

     

  37. by Stu

    On July 12, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    As much as I suspect Elie Wiesel may have fabricated some of the facts presented in his books, I think you are way off base with the tattoo. In one picture, you claim the disputed tattoo is probably a bruise, but the same mark can be seen on at least one other picture on the website in the same place. It seems unlikely that he would have the same bruise in the same place at different times. To my mind, it is far more likely that it IS a faded tattoo of some kind. Who put it there is – of course – open for speculation, but that there is something on his arm exactly where one would expect his tattoo to be seems to be highly probable. It is highly improbable that it is a bruise (unless repeatedly self-inflicted for the purposes of deception — in which case why not just get a back-street tattoo?).

    You can’t magnify low-resolution compressed images to determine anything useful; The image data simply isn’t there, and all you are seeing is image artifacts. Get a pen, draw a number on your arm with a green pen (partially remove it — today’s tattoo inks fade, so it seems reasonable that Nazi-era inks would also fade), film a video (using 1996-era technology) and transfer the clip to VHS. Digitise the VHS and upload to Youtube. You won’t see your “tattoo” in your clip, even though you just put it there.

    Unless you have any high-resolution imagery of Weisel’s left forearm, you really don’t have any evidence, either way, just conjecture coupled with dubious analysis.

    There may be many other facts that point to deception in Weisel’s accounts, but the tattoo does not appear to be such a deficiency.

     

  38. by Carolyn

    On July 12, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    Stu – You are being a bit disingenuous. The picture on this page has been available for several years, but the one in the article you are referring to, but not linking to, was first published on June 9th by Haaretz.

    In all these photographs of Wiesel’s alleged tattoo, there is no detail to the “tattoo.” The method I suggested does not lose resolution as its magnified; there is just nothing to see but a blur. In any case, it is not up to me to use high-resolution technology, but up to those, like you, who claim it is an Auschwitz tattoo to prove it. Yes, something is there, but is it an Auschwitz tattoo? Or something homemade? I have several ideas and am going to write another article, thus I won’t go into it with you here.

    “… you really don’t have any evidence, either way, just conjecture coupled with dubious analysis.”

    Neither do you. These pictures are not proof of an Auschwitz tattoo, or of A-7713. Why couldn’t Wiesel have done better than this?

     

  39. by Stu

    On July 12, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    I wasn’t aware of the timeline of the photos being uploaded, but I don’t think it is that relevant (especially as the content is still in place).

    Nevertheless, the fact that “tattoo” (or whatever it is) on the arm is blurred is exactly my point; The data simply isn’t there to make a judgement either way (the suggestion of magnification didn’t come from me, it came from the article — I wasn’t suggesting detail is lost during enlargement, just that enlargement gains nothing).

    I disagree that it is down to me to prove it ISN’T an Auschwitz tattoo. I don’t know if it is or it isn’t. However, because it is such is a widely accepted belief (rightly or wrongly), a deviation from accepted belief requires proof (not vice-versa). It is like if I say the earth orbits the sun, there is no burden of proof on me for that assertion, but if I claim the sun orbits the earth, I need to show some solid evidence.

    I really dislike the holocaust industry (and that is what it is — an industry ruthlessly profiting from a likely not very accurate version of past events), but criticism needs to be evidence based, and I don’t think this is. Even the title of the article is dishonest, as Wiesel admitted no such thing.

    I fear that the truth in all these matters is probably lost with significant distortion on both sides of the mainstream and revisionist fences.

     

  40. by Carolyn

    On July 13, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Stu – Just briefly, your analogy is completely ridiculous – to compare Wiesel having a tattoo with the sun orbiting the earth rather than vice versa! Wow. The public never saw Wiesel’s tattoo, but everyone sees the sun moving across the sky sun every day. You need to come up with something better than that.

    I still like the title of the article, and think it’s very apt. It expresses the truth. I specified A7713, not just any tattoo. What I definitely want to avoid is “Well, now we’ll never know.” I made my argument on that in the article and it still stands. Wiesel could have shown his ‘tattoo’and explained what happened to it. Instead he hid it away and refused to comment. He should be held accountable.

     

  41. by Stu

    On July 14, 2016 at 12:00 am

    I disagree that my analogy is ridiculous. The point is that burden of proof always lies with the party trying to change accepted belief. That is just the way it is, not just with this case but with most things. I really believe the title is a poor one, because it is a lie (Wiesel admitted no such thing), and fighting lies with lies doesn’t work (it actually discredits the valid points you may have).

    The holocaust industry will be milking things until the end of time, and the only answer to that is fact based analysis (i.e. analysing things that can be proven one way or the other).

     

  42. by Carolyn

    On July 14, 2016 at 6:49 am

    Okay Stu – enough of this. The title is not a lie – it is a title to an article and you are supposed to read the article. This article and title has actually done a whole lot of good and that is what you’re upset about. You’ve made your point so no more from you.

     

  43. by Mae

    On August 25, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Just going to throw a few things out there:

    a) The end of your post says: “Hats off to Michael Grüner!” And I hate to break it to you but that’s not his name. The fact that you messed his name up in 2016, is enough to explain how easy it would be to mess something up on concentration camp paperwork where you are processing person after person. This, to me, easily explains the birthdate inconsistencies on concentration camp paperwork. And additionally, Myklos Grüner changing his name to Nikolaus can explain Lazar / Eliezer / Elie, because even if they aren’t from the same technical root, they sound similar.

    b) Makeup, (need I say more? It could easily cover a smudged and fading tattoo.)

    c) I have yet to see firm, rather than speculatory evidence from this blog. Almost everything has either a) a reasonable explanation or b) is based off of somebody’s (often your’s) opinion, which frankly I trust what Elie Wiesel says far more than I trust your opinion, or that of “Michael Grüner.”

     

  44. by Carolyn

    On August 27, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    To Mae – Yours is another attempt to pretend that you are disputing the argument presented in this article — but you are merely throwing out Red Herrings.

    a) My using Grüner’s anglicized name, Michael (see here), has nothing to do with Lazar/Eliezer, which are variations of a name in the same language. When speaking with Grüner, he used the name Michael with me. But Elie Wiesel never called himself Lazar (even in his books), nor did members of his family. One thing does NOT explain the other.

    b) Why would Wiesel want to cover his tattoo with makeup? Especially when he spoke about it so often? Don’t give me the tired old answer that “it brought up bad memories” or “he hated the sight of it.” If that were so, he would have said so at least once over his long, long career.

    c) This is purely bulls–t opinion — carries no weight whatsoever. It reveals how bankrupt you believers are. Absolutely rock-bottom.

    And by the way, there are now 44 comments to this particular post, which says that proving Wiesel’s UNtruthfulness is what bothers his loyalists the most. The highest number is 50 for “Gigantic Fraud Carried out for Wiesel Nobel Prize.” Another article about the tattoo was “Is Elie Wiesel a Perjurer?” which drew 23 comments. Shows you all know he lies, and try to divert attention or make excuses for him.

     

  45. by Michelle Walker

    On November 18, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    You are using the lack of evidence to “prove” your point and yet, you lack any evidence of your own. It goes both ways in a court of law.

     

  46. by Carolyn

    On November 19, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    Michelle – The “evidence” is that there is no tattoo on Wiesel’s arm. Since this article was written, a photo surfaced (see http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/new-old-pictures-come-to-light-in-wake-of-elie-wiesels-death) which showed a blurred discoloration on his left arm. It is something that he had never, never pointed out to the public as his tattoo. But apparently, we are to believe that that is exactly what it is. This is not an honest approach by Elie Wiesel; it is in fact duplicitous. It is unacceptable.

    The fact that Wiesel lied about being in the famous Buchenwald liberation photo is more evidence of his dishonesty.

     

  47. by William Haynes

    On May 19, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    You stupid fools. Elie Wiesel is a fucking hero. His strength throughout one of the worst genocides in international history is unmatched by an other human being since the dawn of the millennia. I’d be willing to bet that the reason Sir. Wiesel has yet to uncover his tattoo is because it takes away from his personality. Furthermore, being a Jew, I can tell you that having a tattoo in our race is shameful. So screw you Christian idiots, your constant persecution of my race is shameful. Fuck you.

     

Trackbacks

  1. Elie Wiesel admits that he has no concentration camp tattoo | Scrapbookpages Blog
  2. Where was tattoo-less Elie Wiesel in 1944 if not at Auschwitz? | Elie Wiesel Cons the World Where was tattoo-less Elie Wiesel in 1944 if not at Auschwitz? | A Blog Dedicated to Finding out the Truth about Elie Wiesel's Tattoo

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

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.

This website makes use of some non-original copyrighted material. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information Click Here