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 Hoaxipedia (the museum's online encyclopedia of hoaxes), the Hoax Forum, and the Top 100 April Fools' Day Hoaxes.

The museum was created in 1997 by Alex Boese. He's assisted by a staff of deputy curators and docents. Alex is the author of three books, most recently Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments (which has nothing to do with hoaxes). Check out the list of the Top 20 Most Bizarre Experiments of All Time for a preview.

Web Hoax Museum

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’s very interesting, although at the same time pitiful. I also read Mr. Carl’s write-up on his website about Jacques Marquette’s map. I have a few observations to offer. First, Mr. Carl’s piece would not stand up in the academic world if it were published. Not only are many of the facts wrong—and I hope to address them below if I have time—but he seems to not be aware of the French sources at all. My impression, since I know the Steckian material first hand, is that Mr. Karl is simply parroting Steck. Moreover, the lack of citations of French sources suggests an offputting anglocentric mentality. I can’t say with conviction that that is the case, but it seems like it. The only other alternative I can think of is that Mr. Carl is avoiding the French sources because they would undermine his work. I can think of no other reasons. In any event, there are many errors in the paper owing to the fact that he has not used any French sources. Furthermore, and in this connection, one simply cannot work in this field without knowledge gleaned from the eminent Canadian historian Lucien Campeau. Come to think on it, it could be that Mr. Carl avoids using Campeau since Campeau was a Jesuit priest. Perhaps he thinks that Campeau was a Jesuit apologist. Of course, anyone who knows the field understands that Campeau was the historian’s historian. He was extremely rigorous and of the highest calibre. It’s true that he worked mostly in Jesuit-related history, but he was a hawk, and nothing escaped him, whether it be Jesuit or non-Jesuit mistakes or incompetencies. Moreover, most anyone who knows the French sources knows that, concerning the papers of Marquette’s Mississipi expedition, Campeau set to right not only Steck’s aberrant ideas but also those of Delanglez. Mr. Karl only confuses the issues, extremely, and does not know the facts. In fact, his write-up for the history conference is a mess and is full of errors. For example, he does not know the full extent of our knowledge of Marquette’s handwriting—there exist well-known other exemples of his hand. Another exemple is that Mr. Carl does not know the documentary sources. We know, for exemple, that governor Frontenac was aware of Marquette’s taking the Mississippi voyage. All in all, Mr. Carl limits the framing of his arguments and jumps to conclusions that can only be called *wild*.

to continue my observation:


I don’t know Dr. McCafferty personally, but I correspond with him once in the 1990s while I was working on a master degree. My impression from reading Mr. Carl’s note that McCafferty expressed that he was not an expert in maps is that the latter was just playing the common academic ruse of feeling out what Mr. Karl knew. When I corresponded with McCafferty, I was absolutely impressed by his thoro knowledge of early North American cartography. He was aware of provenance, patrimoine, etc. of the many maps we discussed. I believe that Mr. Carl was just the naïve victim of academic sleuthing in this case.
In addition, Mr. Carl’s use of various maps to try to prove that Marquette could not have drawn the Illinois river so well is specious simply because the maps he cites are all bad maps, made by incompetents. That’s not proof of anything. Anyone can make a bad map. And God knows there are plenty of them in the archives and in print. In this connection, it should be noted that, while the 1675 Jesuit map may not be precisely from 1675, it was sent to Colbert by the Jesuits and it indisputably contains information borrowed from Marquette’s earlier chart of the Missisipi.

In sum, all that I can say about Mr. Carl’s write-up and his website offerings about Marquette, if anyone besides a few people see them, is that they will spark more positive interest in this very important figure in early French colonial history.

Finally, I would like to beg pardon for using this website to ask for Dr. McCafferty’s address. If it’s here, I ‘ve overlooked it. If you are still visiting this website, Dr. McCafferty, would you please contact me. I have some questions that I’d like to ask you. My coordinates are


Lavigne, Sylvie
Doctorant in History and Cartographie
Sorbonne

Mme Lavigne is correct on all counts. Thank you, Mme Lavigne, for taking the time to lay out these mistakes in Mr. Weber’s (not Mr. Carl’s) ideas. However, what you pointed out is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of his errant notions. This would be an interesting discussion if Mr. Weber had any knowledge of what he is talking about. He certainly does not know the French material, as you said, and he seems, as you also pointed out, to be versed only in Steck’s ideas, which is, of course, about as quicksand as one can get. I must admit that I tried to contact De Vry University, a technical school, by the way, to find out about him but the official would not divulge any information. So, I’m wondering if he is really a “history professor” or just some crank. I have been unable to find anything published by him. Like Dr. McCafferty seems to suggest for himself, I don’t plan to revisit this site anymore. At least in terms of Mr. Weber’s ideas, it has nothing to offer. However, if the reader has not read the posting by D.E. (which must be, according to a subsequent posting), Duane Esarey,
then I would suggest you read it. It pretty much sums up this entire farce. Ah. Mme Lavigne, veuillez s'il vous plait m'envoyer les coordonnees du Dr McCafferty. Moi aussi je voudrais le contacter, et je les ai perdues. Merci beaucoup!

Alain Rocquet

WEBER SAYS
Sylvie, in your post two posts above, what you say is in quotes...
“He seems to not be aware of the French sources at all.” This is not so, and, it seems to me, hasty conjecture on your part. “Mr. Karl is simply parroting Steck.” What you say about me and Steck is not true. There are numerous items I disagree with Steck about… for example, 1.) the source of Dablon’s Aug. 1, 1674 letter, 2.) the relevance of various Indian tribes in 1703 and several decades later to the authenticity of the map, 3.) the part played by La Salle in the factionalism… “…one simply cannot work in this field without knowledge gleaned from the eminent Canadian historian Lucien Campeau.” I’m familiar with Campeau’s article 1. on the maps, his 2. article about Marquette, and his 3. book review of Steck’s Marquette Legends. Please let me know what else I might look at in addition to these three pieces. “Moreover, most anyone who knows the French sources knows that, concerning the papers of Marquette’s
Mississipi expedition, Campeau set to right not only Steck’s aberrant ideas but also those of Delanglez.” That opinion has been found in no other source than Mr. McCafferty. Would you please let me know someone who knows the sources well that says that? “Mr. Karl only confuses the issues… For example, he does not know the full extent of our knowledge of Marquette’s handwriting—there exist well-known other exemples of his hand.” Are you saying there are more than three examples of Marquette’s handwriting??? In addition to the Map, the Boucherville Parish Registry, and the Diary of the Second Voyage??? Please let me know. Gilbert Garrigahn found some Marquette material, in Latin, in the 1930s in Rome, but since Campeau, Steck, and Delanglez don’t seem to have referred to it, no claims are made for it. “Another exemple is that Mr. Carl does not know the documentary sources. We know, for exemple, that governor Frontenac was aware of Marquette’s taking the Mississippi voyage.” You are absolutely wrong, unless Broadhead is not to be relied on. Your Frontenac/Marquette connection was posited by Delanglez in the 1940s – he really stretched Frontenac’s mention of Jolliet – in Frontenac’s letter to France. There was NEVER a mention of Marquette in connection with any expedition before Thèvenot in 1681. I challenge YOUR understanding and familiarity with the material.

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.

No, monsieur. You don't understand. Your tone, your very work itself, your methodology, and *especially* your attitude, nothing about you inclines me to help you. There are, as other readers of this blog know, other Marquette writing samples. That is an *easy* one. Go back to square one. But, in truth, the fact that you don't know about the other writing samples simply demonstrates the alarming shallowness of your research...and the untenable nature of your overall argument. I'm confident that people like this Mr. Rocquet and the Dr. McCafferty, and from which I can gather, even visitors such as Mr. Esarey, are well aware of the other handwriting samples. The same of course goes for Frontenac's mention of Marquette on the Missisipi trip. Again, your lack of knowledge of the facts that you exhibit here only goes to undermine you. And yet you continue to act like an all-knowing boor. Don't you realise that, in the eyes at least of scholars who know this material, you lack total credibility and are make a laughing stock of yourself? Finally, Campeau wasn't aware of everything. And you are aware of next to nothing. Bonne journee and good researches!

S. Lavigne
Paris

Now, back to the matter at hand.

I telephone Dr. McCafferty yesterday and we had a wonderful talk. I was again very impressed by his knowledge of cartography and especially about Father Marquette's map. He knows this material inside out. I realise he's no longer participating in these discussion in these blogsites, and, as we who have followed this know, has stated that he is no longer unwilling to help Mr. Weber, he did not tell me that I couldn't talk about some of the things we discussed on the telephone.

First of all, his knowledge of Marquette's map is astounding. He knows details about it that no one has ever mentioned, and which are relevant to this discussion. He said that he is not sure if he has already published some of the facts about these details or not, but that they will be out in a forthcoming book of him. The two things that I remember are

1) Marquette marked on his map the rapids at the mouth of the Wisconsin river and the Keokuk rapids at the mouth of the Des Moines River. No French Jesuit returning to North America, i.e., Father Martin, in the mid-1800s would have known such a detailed fact about the Missisipi. The rapids are not mentioned in the Jesuit Relations or any other known Jesuit writing.

2) McCafferty noted that an important archaeological identification of the Peoria village site that Marquette and Jolliet visited near the summer solstice of June 1673 on the Des Moines River would not have been possible without Marquette's map.

In addition, in respect with other matters that have been discussed on this or the other blogsite, McCafferty said that between 1675 and 1677, Claude Bernou, no friend of the Jesuits as anyone knows, sent three questionnaires to New France to find out more about the voyage of discovery of 1673. In two of the questionnaires, Marquette and Jolliet are mentioned specifiquely. Frontenac naturally would have reviewed these questionnaires, and we know that he expressed no problem with them. Moreover, Frontenac in the spring of 1673 would have read the published Jesuit Relations from the previous two years in which Marquette is mentioned as the one to be going down the Missisipi. Frontenac would have had cow about this if he did not know that Marquette was going on the trip, since he had only recently proclaimated that everyone had to have a passport to go in the West. There was never any problem with this matter chez Frontenac.

SL

continued below:

Finally, Dr. McCafferty mentioned that there is an autograph letter from Marquette to Father Oliva dated 31-05-1666 in the Jesuit archives in Rome that offers conclusive proof as to the holographic nature of Marquette's second journal and of his Missisipi valley map. He also mentioned in passing a wonderful coup by Campeau who demonstrated that the Missisipi trip narrative was Marquette's and not Dablon's invention by way of analysing the writing styles of the two men. Fantastique! Absolument. He also mentioned that Dablon expressed to Jolliet his pleasure that Frontenac and Talon had agread to Marquette's going on the trip as Jolliet's partner. This is in the Jesuit Relations. (But I imagine that Mr. Webers dismisses the Jesuit Relations as Jesuit subterfuge. Oh, well. Little does that matter.)

Sylvie Lavigne
Doctorant
Sorbonne

Je suis desole:

I intended to add that McCafferty also mentioned linguistic facts about Father Marquette's map, about certain terms on the map, that only Marquette would have known, and especially not a mid-19th century Jesuit coming from France to North America for the first time. There would be no way for such a new arrival to come up with such terms. Thesee are specifically items from the Illinois-Miami language on the map that only Marquette, as a student of the language, would have known. Dr. McCafferty ran through these items but I was not able to write them down. However, if anyone is interested in communcating with him, he did give me his email address, which is

Cheers,

S. Lavigne

Merci, Sylvie, de tous vos renseignements. Il va sans dire que le pauvre Mr Weber n'a aucune chance.

Alain Rocquet

FROM WEBER TO SYLVIE PART 1 of 3


Hi Sylvie,
You say “[Mr. McCafferty] is no longer unwilling
to help Mr. Weber.” I say, this gives an impression that has no standing. I kindly listened to Mr. McCafferty’s lecture-like correspondence, but to say he was my teacher is his own self-estimation.

YOU SAY “there are two things that I remember [Mr. McCafferty told me]” 1.) regarding the rapids, Sylvie, could you point out where these rapids are? Here is the Marquette map http://carljwber.com/MarquetteMapVeryLrg.jpg -- I do not see the rapids on the map. Nonetheless, if you can point them out to me, it remains to be said that those rapids were on MANY published maps available in the mid-1800s, and if this Marquette map where made in the mid-1800s, these maps with the rapids on them would have been available – I have seen more than a few. Technically speaking, nothing about the 73-74 expedition would have been mentioned in the Jesuit Relations, because at this Marquette moment, the Jesuit Relations had stopped being published. The state of Jesuit map making knowledge seems to be revealed on http://carljweber.com/RaffeixLarge.jpg. Why wouldn’t this primitave-state Raffeix map have the Marquette detail of the Illinois River on it? That is part of the evidence to be weighed. Why?

2) Regarding the Peoria site, the narrative says it was at the 40th degree of latitude, which places it lower on the River, where the Ellington Stone was found – with the Jesuit Symbol on it. My surmise is that if the Ellington Stone is in fact what it purports to be, it was put where it was found by Jesuit Claude Allouez. Mr. Politsch and I have a friendly disagreement on this – he believes the Ellington Stone is associated with La Salle.

FROM WEBER TO SYLVIE PART 2 of 3

YOU SAID
“McCafferty said that between 1675 and 1677, Claude Bernou, no friend of the Jesuits as anyone knows, sent three questionnaires to New France to find out more about the voyage of discovery of 1673. In two of the questionnaires, Marquette and Jolliet are mentioned specifiquely.” I SAY, I question this. If it is true, I’ll stand corrected. I have, before me, an index of the relevant documents (Guide to the Materials for American History in the Libraries and Archives of Paris) – what is the document reference?? YOU SAID, “Moreover, Frontenac in the spring of 1673 would have read the published Jesuit Relations from the previous two years in which Marquette is mentioned as the one to be going down the Missisipi. Frontenac would have had cow about this if he did not know that Marquette was going on the trip, since he had only recently proclaimated that everyone had to have a passport to go in the West. There was never any problem with this matter chez Frontenac.” I SAY, Frontenac never mentioned Marquette. Please ask


Mr. McCafferty where I might find this reference, so I can stand corrected. The closest connection between Frontenac and Marquette is in the opening pages of the Montreal Manuscript, which was “discovered” in 1844. The author made the mistake of saying Frontenac was the governor – it was in fact Courcelles who, with Talon, first chose Jolliet, apparently as recommended by Bishop Laval – who had sent Jolliet to France, perhaps for map making training, but, for me, the purpose of Jolliet’s being sent to Paris is vague.

FROM WEBER TO SYLVIE PART 3 of 3

YOU SAY, “Finally, Dr. McCafferty mentioned that there is an autograph letter
from Marquette to Father Oliva dated 31-05-1666 in the Jesuit archives in
Rome that offers conclusive proof as to the holographic nature of
Marquette's second journal and of his Missisipi valley map.” I SAY, As I mentioned in a preceding post, I am aware that Gilbert Garrigahn in the 1930s found material in the Roman archives. But, it had nothing to do with what you mentioned. Rather, the material to Oliva, General of the order, consisted of a request, in Latin, that he, Marquette, be sent to, as I remember, China (or Portugal?) to missionize. I do not believe Campeau or anyone else considered this document to be holographic evidence. Campeau cites only three examples of Marquette’s handwriting and this is not among them.

I SAY, The reference to Campeau’s analysis of Marquette/Dablon sentence structure – I am familiar with this. Creative, but other evidence, in my opinion, is better suited to analysis. YOU SAID “He [McCafferty]also
mentioned that Dablon expressed to Jolliet his pleasure that Frontenac
and Talon had agread to Marquette's going on the trip as Jolliet's partner.
This is in the Jesuit Relations. (But I imagine that Mr. Webers
dismisses the Jesuit Relations as Jesuit subterfuge. Oh, well. Little does that matter.) I SAY, I do not dismiss them as you suggest. They set forth material in the manner suggested by Loyola, in his letters – material for public consumption. I SAY, the agreement you mention was not in the document that was “discovered” in 1844, or anywhere else, and besides, The Jesuit Relations of Thwaites (c. 1900) does not print the 1681 document – Thwaites prints the 1844 document!! – Thwaites even says the 1844 document is in Marquette’s handwriting – nobody else to my knowledge supports this claim.

It sounds like you would like to know the substance of this history. I can give academica-standard citations – that can stand or fall – for my observations. Mr. McCafferty, no doubt has authority in these matters, but you take his word. I’m saying show me. Did you see the letter from the scholar who was at the conference, at which in the written opinion of nobody who was there, was so negative about it?

This will be my last posting and, again, I'm unimpressed with Mr. Weber's belligerent and self-righteous tone.

I just now communicated for the last time on behalf of this blogsite with McCafferty. I rang him and told him that Weber had posted some questions and challenges. He laughed and then told me that he was expecting my phone call and that he would take a look at what Weber had posted and that he would respond me by email. I just receive his email message and will pass onto all readers a few things. (Alain Rocquet, ecrivez-moi pour avoir des informations additionelles.)

First, McCafferty noted that he had never been Weber's teacher, but that he had tried to show him a few things a few years ago but to no avail. This was at the time when Weber was in McCafferty's words "mucking around in Algonquian and French languages but without a clue, and had blasted onto the Algonquian language scene as if he were some sort of expert". McCafferty allso note that he was extremely offput by Weber's untoward behavior and all-knowing approach and that Weber reminded him of President Bush. McCafferty described Bush as an insecure bully. He noted that when he realized that there was no way that Weber would listen to anything offered in the way of help, so he just give up.

McCafferty said he was not surprised that Weber in his most recent repost did not bring up the fact that Marquette's map contains Miami-Illinois language material that only Marquette could have known; in other words, no Jesuit from the 19th century or thereafter would have known those items. Jesuits in the 1800s no longer knew the language or even had access to the Miami-Illinois language data in question. In fact, if you have read McCafferty's article, published some two years in the <>, on the first book ever made in Chicago, Pierre-Francois Pinet's French/Miami-Illinois dictionary, you will find that the Jesuits could not even identify the language of the dictionary. Once 1763 arrive, once the Jesuits were expeled, once the Britons ransack the Jesuit archives in Quebec and made off with the other two dictionaries of the Miami-Illinois language, that was the end of Jesuit knowledge of Miami-Illinois. The linguistic data on Marquette's map, along with his cursive script on the map, establishes unequivocally its true nature as a creation of Marquette. McCafferty did note, however, that those linguitic items will "blow Weber's thesis out of the water".

Regarding Marquette's marking of the rapids in the Missisipi, McCafferty said that Weber needs to get a better copy of Marquette's map and look for himself. The course of the Missisipi is marked with little tiny dots, but the rapids are marked with little horizontal lines. He said he works with an excellent, high-definition, full-size photo of the original map which he bought for $100 at the Jesuit archives in Quebec.

to be continue below:

Regarding the Ellington stone, McCafferty note that Allouez had never been near the Des Moines River and that Mr Politsch idea that La Salle was in the area in 1671 is idiotic, revealing an utter lack of knowledge of French-Indian and French-Iroquois trade relations in the 1600s. There was no way the Iroquois were going to let La Salle go "sallying" around in the Ohio valley. Funny word. He added, in passing, that even though Bernou tried to reduce the importance of the Jesuit's discovery of the middle Missisipi valley, he never question that it had occured, as one can read in the "First Establishment of the Faith". But in connection with the Des Moines River Peoria site, known today as the "Illiniwek village site," McCafferty again reiterated the fact that archaeologistes were able to identify that site because of the information that Marquette provided about it on his map.

McCafferty gave me the location and the file numbers and pages for the Bernou questionnaire item noted above. It is in France. On McCafferty's request, however, I will not share it with Mr Weber. McCafferty said in this connection that "Weber's ideas have enough rope to hang themselves" and that he would just reserve these items for if Weber ever is able to publish on the Marquette map. He did quote from it, though, for me, and I don't see any harm in writing this. (He also said the questionnaire was written to Frontenac's secretary, so Frontenac would have seen it.) It says that Bernou is asking for <> (<>)

As for Frontenac's proclamation requiring passports, and the fact that this law was required of missionaries until the king rescinded it in 1675, that is in RAPQ.

Regarding the Marquette autograph letter to Father Oliva, McCafferty has seen an excellent copy of it and it is the exact same handwriting as in Marquette's second journal and on Marquette's map. He said that Campeau told him that he didn't use it because he didn't need to. Campeau had explained the Boucherville registry entry in a paper in the 1960s and was satisfied. In any event, the letter from Marquette to Oliva is the very same cursive script. And, yes, it is in Latin, but that does not matter one iota. The handwriting is exactly the same. McCafferty sent me a copy of the letter by computer and it is indeed the same handwriting as all of Marquette's other known handwriting samples.

He also added that the man Weber identifies as J.J. is Jerome Jacobson. He's not a profeesor. He is a retiree from the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Ok. Good bye to all,

Sylvie Lavigne
Paris