Whoops, I see that Emma requested a citation. The Campeau article in question is:

Writing the name of a book is not a "citation."

It is now important to indicate that Mr. Weber and his ideas about the Marquette map were utterly discredited this past Thursday the Illinois Conference of History. In fact, Mr. Weber, flustered by his own ignorance and failings, stormed out of his own lecture. The historian who had called Mr. Weber on his erroneous notions then gave an informed lecture to the audience about the authenticity of the Marquette map and of Marquette's achievements.

FROM WEBER

Not so Ms. Bertrand. I did not storm out for any other reason than, as I said at the beginning of my presentation, I had to catch the 5:07 back to Chicago. Except for the insults and derision of the speaker before me, and apparently who spoke after I left, the audience was receptive. I received complements, and have been asked for my

RE: Carl J. Weber and the Jacques Marquette Map Hoax

With reference to the two messages above,
one other thing... students of the history of cartography might find this interesting...http://carljweber.com/marquetteDeLisleCompare.htm

(Ms. Bertrand mistakenly called the Springfield Illinois event the "Illinois Conference of History." The proper name is Conference on Illinois History.)

Part I:

'm not sure if anyone reads this website beside Mr. Weber and some Canadians. I don't, but I was again referred to it this morning.

To respond to Mr. Weber's latest statements, let me say, first of all, that Mr. Weber's excuse, which he offers above, for running out on his own presentation, however true it may be in a basic way, needs to be presented to readers here within the context of what actually transpired during his presentation at the Conference on Illinois History. So, I will soon provide this website with a reliable eyewitness account of what happened. In the meantime, let just say that Mr. Weber should have done a far better of planning his train schedule in order to deal with the inevitable questions that would come up after his lecture. Isn't it a little fishy that he left no time for what would inevitably be a hardy question-and-answer session following his lecture? If this presentation by Mr. Weber was his great moment on the stage of Illinois Country history, he obviously did not prepare for it. Furthermore, I have been informed that there will be no invitation extended to him to attend future conferences. That was it. The conference was completely embarrassed by his presentation and his antics.

(I will write another message immediately since this site has a limit of 3000 words per message.)

Michael McCafferty
Indiana University

Part II:

As to the subject matter of Mr. Weber's presentation, it should be noted that his theories can all be soundly refuted in about **five** minutes. I don't plan to do that here as I'm no longer in the business of teaching Mr. Weber. I gave up on that. I tried on several occasions to lead this man to some sensible paths but it was a waste of time. Now, there is even an article, in French, which Mr. Weber cannot read and has not had translated obviously, that deftly brushes aside his ideas.

Indeed, the burden of proof for his Marquette map hoax notions rest entirely on his shoulders, but he cannot offer any. He can't even give the names of the so-called experts and archivists who he says believes his theories. In fact, he demonstrated perfectly well at his lecture at the history conference his utter inability to defend his position with facts and reasoned argument.

Finally, I'd like to say that I know no "Jesuit apologists". I don't even know any Jesuits. I don't even care about the Jesuits, or about Catholicism, or Western religions for that matter. In fact, the only Jesuit I've ever met was the great Canadian historian Lucien Campeau. And even Campeau was not a "Jesuit apologist". He was quite capable of turning his critical eye on Jesuits and non-Jesuits alike, including the Jesuit scholars Delanglez, Toupin and Hamilton.

Weber's "Jesuit apologists" lurking in the shadows are simply his own shadow. What Mr. Weber is simply running up against is experts who know the material and are not the least bit impressed by what he has to offer. Take for example, Duane Esarey, whose comments appear twice above. He is an expert on early Illinois cartography. Has Weber consulted him? Would he dare? Of course not. That would take away his game.

Finally, it's important that Mr. Weber realize that what he is confronting is not some "ad hominen" conspiracy. Mr. Weber is simply facing the experts--that's what happens in academia-- and the experts say that his theories are incorrect, misguided and worthless. And it's not that I and others didn't try to warn him. The scholarly community is not out to damage Mr. Weber in any way. We actually couldn't care less. Mr. Weber has been digging his own pit, and we've just been watching this happen, amused of course, but at the same time somewhat shocked that education can lead one to such inane depths of confusion and to what is now Mr. Weber's total lack of credibility. It's unfortuntate, since I did note in earlier discussions with Mr. Weber that he once had some potential as a student of Illinois Country history.

Once I can get to my IU email files today (the email system being temporarily out of order), I will supply the readers of this site with details about Mr. Weber's presentation at the conference.

Sincerely,

Michael McCafferty
Indiana University

Here are comments from one person who attended Mr. Weber's presentation. More will follow. As this description is too long for this website, I will have to cut it up into three parts.

Michael McCafferty

-------------------------------------------------


"In style, I graded him D+. He was jumpy, erratic, and there was no clear sense of direction in his presentation.

In content, I gave him an incomplete. He began by saying that theMarquette documents were frauds. He said they were hoaxes as Father Steck closely examined the material and found them to have been forgeries. Then he talked about the
Ellington stone, a rock some guy on the Mississippi found a long time ago that has the
date 1671 inscribed on it. He said that this remarkable find will be sent to various labs
for verification. At this point I thought it strange that he considered some stupid rock
possibly legit, yet he found the Marquette documents a hoax.

Then he jumped to some date written on the Boucherville register and said it

Cont.

Then Weber took and answered a question from a gentleman in the front row. Another man, who it turns out is a doctoral student in history,
raised his hand. Weber asked if he had a question and the man said

cont.

At this point the man was in total control of the room; the audience was all ears; they
realized the gig was up! Weber could not and would not answer ANY of the man

The kind of behavior demonstrated in this blog would be disallowed in any intelligently moderated discussion. There are straightforward answers to the "watermarks," to "what Gravier in 1700 was reading," why it "must have been Marquette who, with Allouez, created the map of Lake Superior." That has all been looked in to. The defenders of the Marquette persona, but particularly of the Marquette Autograph Map, take their evidence from Lucien Campeau. One can choose to be swayed by it or not. The flip side of Jesuit apologetics is extreme dislike of La Salle.

I maintain the Marquette map in question is a fraud foisted on history in the mid-1800s to enhance the historical reputation of the Jesuits as the Mid-West was industrializing, and the Catholic immigrants were flooding in. My three arguments are at carljweber.com. One can accept them or not.

When asked for citations in Campeau, that the map is authentic, none are given. With Campeau, and everyone else, except Francis Borgia Steck, it was a given that the map was authentic. My principal argument is that cartographers never got the course of the Illinois River right until John Melish did, in 1813. To claim that every map from 1673 to 1813 is incorrect is untenable and against sound judgment. To make the issue uncomplicated, I prefer to stay on target. The map. Other matters that are brought up -- Gravier, watermarks, the Lake Superior map, my character and behavior -- quickly complicate the only issue I

Unfortunately, sir, everything you say above is a sign of your ignorance. You are so ill-informed that what you state above is just babble. The experts see through this. And none are "Jesuit apologists" or "extremely dislike Lasalle". I have to think hard to remember hearing anyone say anything so ludicrous.

But the thing is, you don't even realize that no one at this point in your game, no expert, is willing to show you your mistakes. Too bad.

My sense is that you are incapable of changing your mind or looking at things objectively (as for instance how you appeared to the audience at the Illinois history conference.) Your paper on the Marquette map on your website is
featherweight and bears only a superficial resemblance to your lecture. Of course, your
presentation at the conference will be something that the audience will remember for a long time.

Webers'ideas sound like those of charlatan. The facts are meaningless to him. The historian questioning Mr. Weber never got the opportunity
to ask any in-depth questions because Weber had mental melt down with the first few simple questions that the historian asked. And, how convenient; after giving his pathetic
presentation, Weber had to leave immediately rush to catch a train. Yeah right! There were several trains leaving for Chicago in the hour after his presentation. But it was obvious to the audience why he never said goodbye, thank you for coming, that's my presentation, break a leg, etc. He just bolted out the door and never responded to the historian's request for a public debate at the location of his choice.

A thirteen year old kid can read a couple of historical markers around St. Ignace, Michigan would have enough information to destroy Weber's theory. That's how shallow his material really is! To destroy Weber's arguments, one doesn't even have to know the facts, all one has to do is make him prove his point. Essentially, using the rules of evidence. Weber's program is devoid of material and relevant facts. Moreover, it comes from someone who is simply not competent to say that the Marquette documents are frauds. Who is this guy, anyway? Doesn't the historical conference screen out this type?

FROM CARL J. WEBER TO ALAIN ROCQUET regarding the Jacques Marquette Autograph Map Hoax.

Hi Alain,
You said "A thirteen year old kid can read a couple of historical markers around St. Ignace Michigan would have enough information to destroy Weber's theory." OK, Please provide links or images and/or, particulary, CITATIONS in literature on the subject of the St. Ignace markers and this map. WHAT DO THE MARKERS SAY? I have never heard of these markers, and if, as you suggest, they are enough to make my argument collapse, I will stand corrected. To remind anyone, my basic core argument is that (1) the Illinois River on this map (which emerged into history in 1844) is 139 years too early to be correct. The approximately correct shape of the river (three sides of an octagon) was never on a map, except "Marquette's," before 1813. (2)Marquette is not known to have had map training, and (3)no other maps by Marquette exist.

1) Marquette ascended the Illinois River in a canoe in the late summer of 1673, with Louis Jolliet, a very capable voyageur. The directions that the Illinois River takes are not hard to plot. This is simple matter. 2 + 2.

2) He was a Jesuit, for heavens sakes. Learn something about those early Jesuits, sir. Your general education is severely lacking.

3) Indeed he did. Read the article by the great Canadian historian Lucien Campeau, _Les Cartes Relatives a` la decouverte du Missisipi_. And that map, of Lac Superieur and the surrounding lands, from 1669, is the best in West before the map he draw concerning the Mississippi voyage. Only Marquette and his compagnon Father Allouez could have drawn that map. End of discussion.

It is time to move on to other topics. This is extremely boring. Mr. Weber appear to have nothing better to do with his time than beat a dead horse. If he think that Marquette did not draw the Missisipi map, then Monsieur Weber must produce the evidence. But he produce no evidence. Nothing. Rien. From reading his postings above, he think, for example, that ancient documents do not hide. What about the french/miami-illinois dictionary by Father Pierre-Francois Pinet, begun at Chicago in the 1690s, that was discovered and identified in *1999* by Dr. McCafferty. It lain in the archives for three hundred years without be recognized or identified. Old documents will continue to turn up in this fashion. Stupid argument, monsieur Weber.

It was simple glaring fact to all in the auditoire of the Illinois history conference that Mr Weber is incapable of dealing with the many questions that his thesis brings up. The prouf was in the pudding. There is nothing to this but Mr Weber's feverish imagination and equally feverish incapacities. There is nothing more to say about this topic. The story is over. Les jeux sonts faits. Mr Weber loses. Let us move on to his
"Ellington Stone" ridiculousness. And after that has been put to rest, what will come next? Marie Antoinette discovered the Mississippi? Mersenne was advisor to Govenor Frontenac? 2 +2 =5. Whatever the new exploits, the historian community will continue to be amused. No doubt about that. Comedic relief is, of course, a good thing to have around these days.

Mr. McCafferty (and his team)continues his style of ad homonym argumentation. He says the discussion of the Marquette Map is over, and I lose. Not so. He does not make the rules. He could easily settle the question of the map

re: Carl J. Weber Marquette Map Hoax
For those of you who are seriously interested in the history-of-cartography substance of my argument, note what some authorities reflected on my work. 1.) When I gave my talk at the Newberry Library, before the Chicago Map Society last year, Mr. Robert Karrow, curator of the map collection at the Newberry, said that he had had some room for doubt about the map's authenticity because of the way the lettering appeared on the map. He also pointed out to me that when he put the map exhibit up at my talk, at the Chicago Map Society, that he put quotes around the words, so it read

Well, here we go again. Haha. This would be fun if the matter in question wasn

cont.

Now, on occasion, people do point out websites to me and note what they have seen. But in truth, many a website is garbage in my estimation, and I certainly don

Carl J. Weber RE Jacques Marquette Map Hoax

Mr. McCafferty's style speaks for itself. Mark Walcynszki is apparently unavailable to speak for himself.

Mr. McCafferty's style speaks for itself again. I did NOT say any scholars necessarily take my hypothesis unquestioningly... I DID say that they would be interested in a test of the map. Putting my material on a web site IS publishing and can be cited. Isn't the way to settle this matter, hopefully, to test the map? Mr. McCafferty says he doesn't want to do that. Wouldn't that be the way to go?

I found this site by chance today while looking for other information. It

to continue my observation:


I don

Mme Lavigne is correct on all counts. Thank you, Mme Lavigne, for taking the time to lay out these mistakes in Mr. Weber

WEBER SAYS
Sylvie, in your post two posts above, what you say is in quotes...

Mr. Weber was adjunct faculty at DeVry.

WEBER SAYS

Alain,
Please check your language. You are not saying anything new, but only extending the tastelessness of the McCafferty team. NOTE --Isn't the summation of the McCafferty team that from 1673-74 until 1813 every map produced, of which about 70 are easily available -- they were all wrong and bad??? It at least raises questions. NOTE -- Are you saying there are more than three examples of Marquette's handwriting? Please let me know. Are you saying that Frontenac mentions Marquette? Please show me? What about these St. Ignace Markers that a 13-year-old would understand? Please help. Where did you see this?

Mr. Weber:

It would take me too long to lay out all the many mistakes in your thinkings. It would take a book. You obviously have not read enough to **even begin** discussing what you feign to know. More importantly, however, I don't like your tone, which, I've noticed in other postings is more like a drone. So, I will not help you at all, nor would I expect any help coming to you from other sources. You've dug yourself a pit and te voila. Go learn something, professeur.

S.M. Lavigne

WEBER SAYS
You see, readers, and Sylvie, I make very specific points that require substantive answers, and I ask to tell me where Frontenac mentions Marquette. It can't be done, because there is no record of his having done so. Correct me if I'm wrong. Where, I ask are the examples of Marquette's handwritting except for the three I mentioned? -- these are the only ones Campeau mentions. What are the St. Ignace Markers that could settle the authenticity question. I would really like for you to tell me.

Comments: Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >