About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.

Web Hoax Museum

RUDE ROVER
The Christmas dog with no class! He sings and toots Jingle Bells.
INFLATABLE TREE
Who needs the hassle of a real Christmas tree?
FARTING SANTA
Go ahead and pull his finger!

It is not actually true that they were the first Europeans to see the Mississipi river. The first documented Europeans were the members of Hernando de Soto's expedition in 1540-1541. Even wikipedia gets it right:

"On May 8, 1541, de Soto's troops reached the Mississippi River. It is unclear whether he, as it is claimed, was the first European to see the great river. However, he is the first to document this fact in official reports."

And a brief description of the Mississipi part of the expedition in britannica.com:
"Moving northwest through Alabama and then west through Mississippi, de Soto's party was attacked relentlessly by Indians. On May 21, 1541, the Spaniards saw for the first time the Mississippi River, the “Father of the Water” south of Memphis, Tennessee. They crossed the river and made their way through Arkansas and Louisiana. Then, early in 1542, de Soto turned back to the Mississippi River. Overcome by fever, he died in Louisiana, and his comrades buried his body in the Mississippi. Luis de Moscoso, whom de Soto had named his successor, led the expedition's remnants (half the original party) down the Mississippi on rafts, and they reached Mexico in 1543."

Umm, Alex....why did you change Weber's name all of a sudden to the name of his University (reread the post - it's very confusing)???

Who cares who was the first to see the river? It's a river. Big deal.

They have history professors at DeVry???

>>Umm, Alex....why did you change Weber's name all of a sudden to the name of his University (reread the post - it's very confusing)???<<

A brain fart. Sorry. I corrected the mistake.

Well, it is not so irrelevant who did it first. Jolliet and Marquette pretension to have been the first Europeans to see the Mississipi river should be taken, in the best of cases, as a hoax.

Hi,... yes DeVry University has history classes. My name is Carl J. Weber.

True enough, DeSoto should be credited as the earliest known European to have come upon the Mississippi. There's a little quirky nuance, though, with "discover." The word has the sense that the discoverer brought the news back home, made it available to other people who, if they wanted to, could go themselves to the place that was discovered. That was not the case with DeSoto's survivors. Enrique has the spirit of the thing down well... the map is a hoax because it is too correct for maps before 1813, Marquette is not known to have had training as a map maker, and there is no other map of Marquette's ever known to have existed.

I could add a few extra commnents, but most importantly, the map on this weblog is NOT the right map. See http://carljweber.com/JacquesMarquetteMapHoax.htm
for the right map.

I think skeptics may have confused your school with DeVry Technical Institute - thus the incredulity about a history professor. I'm certainly not qualified to speak as to the authenticity of the map, but ironically the Marquette Autograph map appears to be poorly drawn enough to be the real thing. Strange how the Anglo-American prejudice against crediting the French persists after all these years. Nor do we advertise the fact that King Carlos II of Spain freed all Spanish slaves in the New World in 1693.

Hi Tom,
DeVry University evolved FROM DeVry Institute. Essentially, we give degrees in addition to certifications. There is a pervasive Franco phobia – no doubt about that, but there are always recesses in the canvas missed by the broad brush. The French history in the continental interior is seriously neglected in our schools. Did you look at the Marquette Hoax item at carljweber.com? I say three things…There is no map drawn before 1813 with the approximately correct shape of the Illinois River – except the Marquette Map. AND, Marquette never had training to make maps, nor are there any other maps of his known to exist. You’re not persuaded?

I’ve given a presentation on the Marquette Hoax to an audience of distinguished map experts, and I’m giving a presentation in a few months at a historical conference in Springfield Illinois.

The REAL credit for what Marquette and Jolliet are supposed to have done should go to La Salle. I’m writing a defense of La Salle currently – it concerns the salvage rights to what might be his shipwreck remnants – the Griffon. I’m on the side of France and the discoverer against the State of Michigan, which wants to hog it all up. The discoverer might be thrown in jail for not telling the State of Michigan where the shipwreck is. He has to divulge where it is to get the permits to continue his work. If you’re interested, I’ll send you a link. Also, check out ellingtonstone.org. Ijust put it up yesterday… The man has been trying to get people interested in this mysterious artifact for fifty years.
Carl

Mr. Weber is both lunatic and bad scholar. He fails to mention Dr. Lucien Campeau's extensive research into Marquette's map. He fails to tell readers the well-known fact that Marquette ascended the Illinois River from Mississippi on the return voyage--which of course explains why the map is accurate. If you look around on the web, you will find that Weber has been discredited over and over again. I found other example of his insanity by looking at the discussion of the place-name "Chicago" at the Linguist website. Weber is sham. Pay no attention to this dude. He has nothing to offer of any value to historians.

I intended to add earlier today that the map that Mr. Weber presentes on his website appear to be a strange copie of the Maquette map that he lift from a website on the history of Wisconsin:

http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/tp&CISOPTR=2375

The reason for this is that the original, archived near Montreal, is not available to Mr. Weber. The archivist will not allow him to see it since she cannot trust him.

Finally, I would like to say that a study of Lucien Campeau's work on Marquette (at least two article, I believe) will answer full well all of Mr Webers concernes about authenticity of the Marquette's map, including the missionaire's background in mapmaking.

I was just told about this website this morning by friends in Canada. Mr. Daoust summary of Weber's work is correct. I have corresponded with this man on a couple of occasions. His understanding of the early history of the midcontinent is seriously limited. Moreover, his anti-Jesuit diatribes seem to have a personal twist. Weber is becoming well-known among historians and linguists for his off-the-wall ideas based on nothing but his delusions. For example, he explicitly avoids any evidence that might debunk his bizarre theories about Marquette. I will be happy to correspond privately with anyone interested in knowing the full story.

Michael McCafferty

CARL J. WEBER writes regarding the subject at hand, the Marquette map.

I'm quite familiar with the writer my detractors cite. CHALLENGE: Can they name one map expert who will argue against my thesis and take their side?. NO! My work regarding this map is recognized by distinguised scholars, for example at the Newberry Library. There is one little point about this map that will come up... you make sure you come back to see that it has no legs to stand on.

My detractors do not respond to my points. 1.The map is too perfect, 2. Marquette never was trained that we know of to make maps, and 3. there is no other map by Marquette known to exist (except that Campeau says the Lake Superior map was in part by Marquette... it falls apart)

Might these attackers a la ad hominum really think they can convince you to the merits of their side by slanderous and mean spirited "intellectual arguments," like "Weber's a lunatic." You can judge for yourself, look at my vignettes at carljweber.com.

And another thing, I'm presenting my work at the Conference on Illinois History next month. Do you, my reader, think that the committee for the most prestgious history conference in the state would invite my to present if my evidence had holes in it, or for that matter, my reputation?

I don't agree with Mr. Doust personal assessments of Mr. Weber. I think Daoust is just
venting some Gallic spleen. In my interactions with Mr. Weber he has been gentlemanly
enough. And I do think his discussion of La Salle's boat the Griffon on his webpage is
very interesting, and has its merits. However, as I said earlier on this webpage, I agree
with Daoust's "summary of Mr. Weber's work." For example, his venturing into Algonquian
linguistics in his attempt to revision the place-name "Chicago" met with embarrassment
and disaster. I can point the interested reader to websites and journal articles that
discuss this, although it is really not that interesting.

Moreover, I have to disagree with certain points in Mr. Weber's rebuttal above. No one at
the Newberry Library believes his Marquette map thesis. The Newberry folks simply
politely listened to the presentation he gave there. And I know of no map expert who
agrees with Mr. Weber, and I know some experts who certainly don't.

In fact, none of Mr. Weber's "points," noted above, about the map hold water. As I said,
I would be happy to discuss these points with interested readers.

All in all, Mr. Weber simply doesn't have enough experience, hasn't read enough, and
perhaps entertains points of view that are too biased and in favor of revisioning history
for whatever purposes to be able to judge matters correctly.

But I actually wish Mr. Weber well--I certainly hope he works more on the Griffon
project. That is a GREAT discovery to be involved in.

Also, I should add that practically *anyone* can present a paper at the upcoming Illinois
conference, and the accuracy of such papers is not reviewed beforehand. I wish I could be
there to ask Mr. Weber a few questions.

My detractors seem to be easing up in their incivilities. If they have a question, don't you think, ladies and gentlemen, that they should just ask away? right here? ... so that you, reading this, can see what's up. Notice... I made a challenge that was NOT taken up.

Questions: 1.What does Campeau write about Marquette's "background in mapmaking" (see Doust comment above). (bibliographic information please)
2."And I know of no map expert who
agrees with Mr. Weber, and I know some experts who certainly don't " - so, Mr. McCafferty, who are these experts?
3."For example, he explicitly avoids any evidence that might debunk his bizarre theories about Marquette." Can you provide bibliographic evidence to the contrary? Perhaps the books will speak for themselves. Thanks.
Emma

CARL WEBER WRITES, RE MARQUETTE MAP HOAX

Thanks Emma,
for the incisive thoughtfulness. I am quite familiar with Campeau's two relevant articles, notwithstanding the comments of Mr. Daoust and Mr. McCafferty. Yes, Emma, Mr. Daoust might give us some bibliographical info to support his -- Mr. Daoust’s – claim, and he might tell us EXACTLY WHERE?? Campeau tells of Marquette getting trained in map making.

And yes again, Emma, Mr. McCafferty might help us along by, FIRSTLY, giving the name of an expert who rejects my finding that the Marquette Autograph Map is a forgery (see carljweber.com). They and I can debate it at MapHist, and get some expert feedback.

SECONDLY, Emma challenges McCafferty when he says, "For example, he [Weber] explicitly avoids any evidence that might debunk his bizarre theories about Marquette."

Emma continues, “Can you [McCafferty] provide bibliographic evidence to the contrary? Perhaps the books will speak for themselves.”

Mr. Weber, you are following the particular but dodging the essence of Emma's question. If you are familiar with Campeau's work why do you not tell her of the powerful evidence he presents that is so contrary to your theses?

Why pull at this tiny string of "No, Mr Daoust must tell me where Campeau says in that article that Marquette was formally trained in map-making?" What nonsense! Marquette was a Jesuit - the most educated scholars in the world at the time - we don't need a formal genealogy of Marquette's training to believe he was literate in cartography. He used instruments to record latitudes on his 1673 voyage. By focusing on whether we have documentation of Marquette's formal training in cartography you are simply avoiding admitting how powerfully Campeau rebuts your arguments, especially how he links the Marquette map in form and composition to the Jesuit's Lac Tracy map of 1669, even to the point of also having a similar latitudinal displacement (probably caused by using the same instrument). You read Campeau's article and are unaffected? More likely you hope none of the people you stir with your conspiracy theories will read Campeau. But you say you have. Can you not admit that Campeau assigns the authorship of the 1669 Lac Tracy map to Marquette and Allouez? Or does that perhaps make one of your slips show? If you did read Campeau's articles then you certainly saw these things. Why not clarify the gist of Emma's question - to elucidate the degree to which Campeau answers the question of whether Marquette could have made this map, rather than pulling at this stitch that you created as a nonsensical arbiter - whether Marquette had "formal" training. Since Campeau shows us that Marquette was clearly capable by referring us to his work on the 1669 Lac Tracy map, why would you fall back to the question of his formal training. You are not being forthright.

Likewise you are redirecting by insisting Mccafferty has to provide you with experts to argue publically with you. Campeau is the third party evidence cited - let me add to the chorus - I say you are indeed avoiding Campeau. No third party wants to be named as a champion against your one-sided rantings. Why would they - who wants to argue in public against this kind of revisionist nonsense? This is why we have journals. Since you only desire attention and never change your mind or admit contrary evidence why would anyone argue publically with you? There's no end - no goal. Go ahead and peddle your nonsense - the web is full of such things. It takes endless effort to joust with someone like you and to no apparent avail. The joust with Mccafferty in the Illinois journal clearly shows your single mindedness. He smeared you and yet you admit nothing. This is why we have refereed journals. Publish your nonsense in one of them, if you can. This forum has no meaning except as attention getting. Dominate it at will.