Funny T-Shirts

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

“Les Cartes relatives a la decouverte du Mississipi par le P. Jacques Marquette et Louis Jolliet”

It is published in "Les Cahiers des Dix" Vol. 47:41-90, Quebec, 1992

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 “valued input” on some years-long work on the period.

The paper that I gave at the conference is available at carljweber.com. If the Jesuit apologists and others want to really discredit me, they might first raise the tone a little to a more dignified level and cease their personal attacks. They might initiate an effort to subject the allegedly "real" map of Marquette to forensic tests. I’m all for it. And they might focus on the message instead of attacking the messenger. I can list distinguished map experts who believe my work should not be so readily dismissed. Individuals opposing my theory can not provide one expert.

As an act of good faith, the opposition might also give us the citation in the work of Jesuit apologist Lucien Campeau, their authority, providing the “overwhelming evidence” that I'm wrong. Could we please have a page? The best the assault on me at the conference could do was to say that Marquette got the course of the Illinois River right in 1673-4, and then everyone else got it wrong until 1813. People are too smart to believe the content of that bluster. Mr. Leroy Politsch’s work on the Ellington Stone, and Father Francis Borgia Steck’s revelations in his books of 1927 and 1960, are dismissed and assaulted as irrelevant trifles. I’m in very good company.

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’s a forgery.
Then he went back to the Jesuits, then he jumped to La Salle’s incredible map of the
Mississippi (you know the one La Salle purposely changed the course of the Mississippi
on, so he could hoodwink the king). Then he began dropping names of archivists in Canada
who agree with him etc. etc. Then he showed a bunch of bad maps. He said the Jesuit apologists use Campeau as a source but cannot give chapter and verse etc. etc. He finished with statements that Jolliet never mentioned Marquette when he (Jolliet) was in Quebec, and that there was evidence that Marquette never even went to the Arkansas, that it was Jolliet (I think he was insinuating that Marquette never went on the Journey, or something to that affect).

All the while, he was jumpy and nervous, as if he had consumed a dozen cups of coffee and a box of “No Doze” tabs. I could see that some in the audience were either confused or were annoyed by his mannerisms.

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 “yes,” but he also said that he would like to make a point or two. This is where the show began.

The man said, reference Weber’s presentation, “You are all over the place, like gray fuzz on a white hat.” And you haven’t presented any evidence to prove your point. The man hardly got the words out of his mouth when Weber began rambling about something,
and then jumped to La Salle, then to the Gulf of Mexico, then to some map, etc. a sure
sign, in my view, of great confusion. The man told Weber that all of the maps he showed
were irrelevant to his thesis topic (i.e., Marquette’s map was a hoax), that all that Weber had done was just show a series of
bad maps, nothing more. The man told Weber that he could draw him a bad map too if he
wanted.

Weber, patently disturbed, began rambling about, jumping from this topic to the next every three seconds. When Weber stopped to catch his breath, the man told Weber that Steck never saw or handled the documents; he saw them on microfilm. That being the case, Steck couldn’t have seen the watermarks hidden in the bindings. Weber’s antics continued as the audience watched him with amazement. For a second, and only a second, Weber kind of regained his composure and said Marquette never drew a map. The man then told Weberthat it was Allouez and Marquette who drew the 1669 Carte du LacTracy, and explained that they were the only Jesuits who could have
possibly composed it. Weber said the man was wrong. The man countered by saying, if he
was wrong, why does the Newberry list the Carte du Lac Tracy as being authored by Allouez
and Marquette. Weber then freaked and said, 'They’re Wrong!!!' The man then tried to
explain that the Jesuits, and other clerics, were the Harvard graduates at the time etc. etc. But Weber became extremely agitated and wouldn’t even look at the man.

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’s questions;
he just ranted to himself and paced to and fro.

Then the man asked the question that made Weber go over the top. He asked him if all the
Marquette documents are forgeries, why is it that three copies are in the Vanves in
France, one’s in St. Jerome, Quebec, and how on earth did Gravier have a copy in his
possession in 1700? Weber’s response was not what anyone expected. He stopped talking to
himself and bolted for the door. When he was half way across the room, the man said to
him, 'Anytime you want to have a public debate or forum on this topic, you name the time
and place.' Weber said nothing. At a brisk pace he left the room and never returned.

Needless to say, the audience was astonished. The man had never raised his voice, he
simply used the same manners a person would use, say, in a criminal investigation, nothing more.

But here’s what was really interesting. As the door closed behind Weber, the man stood up and
addressed the audience. He explained Marquette’s background, his mapmaking ability, the
crummy sources that Weber used etc. etc. For fifteen minutes, he fixed the problem, gave
the real facts, and answered questions. In fact, the man couldn’t leave the room because
of the questions. He told the audience that he was not even supposed to be there doing
that (staying and correcting Weber), but he would not allow the reputation of one of
early North America’s most influential and trustworthy people be besmirched. And he
wouldn’t allow the folks in the audience, who went there with open minds and open hearts,
to be given inaccurate or misleading information. He also told several of the more
interested people to look up McCafferty’s article on “Chicago Revisited” in the Journal
of the Illinois State Historical Society to see how Weber has operated in the past.
Finally, a group from one of the Illinois communities asked the man if he would speak to
their group sometime this winter. Finally, he explained what had happened to the lady in
charge of the conference. She said that she had received a couple of calls about Weber
before the conference. She said that Weber would not be coming back.

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’m addressing -- is the map authentic? Very unlikely.

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’s authenticity by initiating a forensic examination. This challenge goes unanswered by Mr. McCafferty and his team.

Note that Emile Laroche above did not answer my simple request about the “St. Ignace markers,” that a ten-year-old would understand. I’m waiting, and am seriously interested in what this is about. This is not unreasonable to ask for. Note far above that Emma’s request for a proper CITATION in Campeau (the "ultimate scholar" on the matter) has gone unanswered – instead, Mr. McCafferty sent her, offline, a package of smut-level derision about me, that, sopposedly, scholars sent to him. I apologize for having to bring this up.

Also, if the fellow at the history conference who was so “rude” to me (as his actions were characterized by someone who was at the conference) wants to “debate me anytime and place,” as he angrily yelled as I rushed out the door to catch my train – that LAST TRAIN OF THE DAY (dispite Mr. McCafferty's team's claim there were later trains) -- the fellow might speak for himself instead of using Mr. McCafferty (who wasn’t there) as a stand in.
(SEE CONTINUATION IN NEXT ENTRY)

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 “Marquette Map,” Mr. Karrow pointing out to me the quotes he put there to draw attention to the dubious nature of the authenticity of the map. 2.) David Buisseret, working on the Oxford University Press History of Cartography, and known to all map experts, has voiced no criticisms of my work. Very recently he thanked me for keeping him in the loop, and he had asked me to speak at the 2007 convention of his group, Society for the History of Discovery (see their site http://www.sochistdisc.org/). 3.) The Jesuit magazine editor, in discussing with me the Marquette map (Marquette was a Jesuit) referred to my discovery as raising a “mystery.” 4.) Tony Campbell, known to all in the cartography world, was not dismissive of my claim (google “maphist,” then go to archives, go to June 2006, search page for word “Marquette.” I DO NOT EXPECT ANY OF THESE AUTHORITIES TO SAY UNEQUIVOCALY THAT I AM RIGHT, HOWEVER, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THEY would not view as unwelcome an effort by Mr. McCafferty to initiate a forensic test on the map. Mr. McCafferty has not responded to my challenge on maphist – where the experts are – for an effort to help clear this up with a forensic test.

The argument against the fact that scores and scores of maps never got the shape of the Illinois River right, until 139 years after Marquette (1673-4) supposedly got it right, is, in my opinion, at face value untenable. (This map, supposed to have been by Marquette, was never known to historians before 1844). Mr. McCafferty’s team says, “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 a simple matter. 2+2=4.” Case closed. Not really Mr. McCafferty -- If my Aristotelian syllogism is correct, scores and scores of cartographers after Marquette could not do 2+2. What about Marquette being learnèd? I have no motive to disparage him, nonetheless, those who have studied his life know that his superiors, when he was in school, regarded him as a mediocre student. The ACTUAL state of Jesuit map making ability a decade after the Marquette map was supposed to have been drawn is seen at http://carljweber.com/Raffeix.htm. It is a far cry from 2+2=4.

Well, here we go again. Haha. This would be fun if the matter in question wasn’t so pathetic.

Let’s begin by saying that it’s not my responsibility to prove anything. The burden of proof rests entirely on Mr. Carl J. Weber’s shoulders; he’s the one who has dredged up Steck’s old nonsense. So, go prove your case, Mr. Weber. Unfortunately, you can’t.

In truth, Mr. Weber’s ideas, I mean F.B. Steck’s ideas, reveal no evidence. They are not weighty enough and do not have enough bearing on the case to be significant. They are not relevant—what especially comes to mind is his attempt to point people to later historical *bad* maps to prop of his faulty thesis. Mr. Weber is not competent enough to evaluate the material. This last remark is not a “ad hominen” attack. That is just a fact that has been demonstrated simply by his previous “work”. Finally, to claim that there is a hoax requires *physical* or *written* evidence, not just hearsay, not just innuendo, not just a bunch of hunches.

My sense is that Mr. Weber is simply incompetent, nothing more, nothing less. And neither is that an “ad hominen” attack. I have incompetent students, but I trust in their ablities to change. There is a lot of incompetency going around, so it’s nothing out of the ordinary, nothing special, and nothing to get hung up about. As I’ve suggested to Mr. Weber before, if he wants to be a serious “history professor,” he needs to buckle down and do some serious work, not just spend all his time mucking around in untenable conspiracy theories. There are better things to do, and there is plenty of things that need to be done.

As I sit here and chuckle reading Mr. Weber’s diatribe, I do need to say a few things. I have no “team”. And I’m certainly not standing in for anyone. The crack Illinois Country historian, Mark Walcynszki, who attempted to ask Mr. Weber some questions at the history conference, is, obviously, perfectly capable of asking his own questions. Haha.

to be continued below

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’t have much respect for people who hide behind them. Mr. Weber needs to come out from behind his websites, publish his “findings,” and then let the chips fall. Any number of historians I work with are more than willing and able to thoroughly crush anything Mr. Weber says. Simple as that.

It should be noted, too, that Bob Karrow at the Newberry is simply a mice, openminded fellow. He and I are friends and communicate fairly often, including recently, and I can assure any reader of this website that Bob doesn’t buy Mr. Weber’s “Marquette Map Hoax” business. If Buisseret doesn’t know what’s going on, he will soon enough. If Mr. Weber presents at the said conference, I’m confident that there will be competent people there to give him a fine “greeting,” so to speak. Although the dozen or so scholars I’ve discussed Mr. Weber’s map ideas with find them ignorant albeit amusing, there are some who are quite interested in doing some serious stomping.

As for the editor of the Jesuit magazine…wow!
(In truth, just another person I will have to contact.)

I have reams of material on hand, and some of it, it is true, was given to me by other scholars (“my team” . They have followed Weber’s various meanderings (I don’t). This material consistently and masterly refutes *every one* of Weber’s ideas point by point. (This material is just waiting for the time when Weber gets around to actually publishing his ideas, and I certainly have no intention of sharing these with him in order to satisfy his curiosity.) However, in closing, allow me to briefly say that the Jesuit map of 1675 depends heavily, in terms of both hydrology and onomastics, on Marquette’s map of 1673.

I guess it might be a good thing at this point, too, to direct David Buisseret and some Canadian journalist to these websites. They might get to know Weber’s thoughts as only we few lucky ones do.

Michael McCafferty
Indiana University