Professor Weber is the owner of the URL davidBuisseret.com., and the content is exclusively posted by Weber. Buisseret and Kupfer are invited to contribute, but decline to participate. Weber has been "cancelled" and censored from presenting his rebuttal to certain senior Chicago Map Society members who have slammed the academic free speech door on him and his 2005 Marquette Map Hoax Thesis.

David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer Challenged by Carl Weber over Authenticity of 1674 Jacques Marquette's Map of Marquette/Jolliet 1673 Mississippi Expedition.

 

As Chicago Tribune Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune Bill Mullen emailed Professor Weber years ago, Weber's research will necessitate the history books being revised regarding the maps of the period and the parts played by La Salle, Jolliet, and Marquette.

Not long afterward, Mullen wrote to Weber: "Carl, the field you are in is so full of academic intrigue and back-stabbing, so rife with charges, counter-charges and ad hominem attacks that I wearied of trying to sort through it.”

Therefore kind readers, don't think of me askance if I paraphrase Aristotle, and say it is what it is when I call out the senior members of the Chicago Map Society and their shills for lying, cheating, stealing and plagiarism, or abiding such misfeasance..

Marquette Map Hoax Thesis... This is the three point Marquette Map Hoax Thesis that has been around for twenty years.

1  Marquette, in 1674, had had no specialized training in map making.
2. Marquette is associated with no other maps.
3. Yet, the core of the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis: The shape of the Illinois River, as three sides of an octagon, was not to attain that contour until the map of John Melish in the 1800s.

The Marquette Map, "discovered" in 1844, was accepted posthaste in academia, lead by Jesuit apologia, without question as it having been drawn by Marquette in 1674.

Dr Buisseret and Carl Kupfer, regarding your Journal of Illinois History article.

You misrepresented my ideas, invented MANY of your own, and made serious  misattributions to me.

You cite Louis Phelps Kellogg for evidence you claim is in her article  about Jesuit archive documents in Marquette's hand.  She says nothing of the sort, and furthermore, no such "in his own hand" documents exist.  More disinformation.   

"...from 1670 or so onward we read in numerous documents of Marquette's ... connection with Jolliet."

In the same vein, Dr. Buisseret, in the text which you edited, in the Oxford Companion to World Exploration, we find:

Together, Jolliet the pioneer and Marquette the missionary planned the discovery and exploration of the Mississippi River. Talon the intendant appointed the two young men to carry out their plans in the name of France. Frontenac the governor approved the partnership.

No such Marquette and Jolliet plans are found, nor is the M & J "team" mentioned together in any contemporaneous documents prior to 1674, nor is an "appointment" or "approval" by Intendant Talon or Governor Frontenac to be found in any documents. This Jesuitista apologia is unconscionable.

You WILL see it in the fake narrative of the 1673 Mississippi exploration, "discovered" in the mid-1800. The claim that it is legitimate has no grounds to stand on. If so, what are they? This document, the "Recit" ("Report"), me,  getting it from the Jesuit Archives in Canada -- I was the first to post it on the INTERNET many years ago.  As I was also the first to post on the INTERNET the very Marquette map under discussion itself.        

Your  claim, as you emailed me, that you located in France a "precise" copy of the Marquette Map, in Paris since 1676, is total fabrication.

You emailed me that you had discovered a "precise" copy of the Marquette map in France, that had been there since 1676 -- proving the existence of a Marquette map original in the 17th Century, from which original, the supposed French map was copied, in Canada and then sent to France. No such 1676 map exists.

You guys waited 6 years, presenting to the Chicago Map Society, to try to refure MY observations that the map was a hoax. In a contemptible breach of academic protocal, and stating them incorrectly, you failed to mention Weber's ideas you were attempting to refute. And the Chicago Maps Society refused me the chance to counter your false information againtst me -- more cotemptible breaching.

As I'm sure you recall, you were at my presentation to the Chicago Map Society, Marquette Myths, in 2005, at the Newberry Library. I presented my evidence and argument showing the Marquette Map was not a 1674 creation, but is a 19th Century historical deceit.

Below, the 1844 "Discovered" Marquette Map, the image on the left, is what Marquette was supposed to have drawn in 1674. Note the three sides of the Illinois River, they are roughly three sides of an octagon. That contour is seen on no map until the19th Century Melish map, on the right. I had examined 70-80 maps in chronology before arriving at the Melish map.

Using the notion of common sense assumptions that an intelligent person would have -- given the three points of the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis -- the chances are extremely unlikely to nil Marquette was the creator of the map.

  • melishMarquetteCompare
  • In 2006 I presented the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis at a history conference in Springfield:

     

    * * *

    Two Publicity Notices of David Buisseret's Attempted Debunking of the Carl Weber Marquette Map Hoax Thesis

     

    To Dr. Buisseret:

    Years after my 2005 presentation to the Chicago Map Society, you offered a rebuttal to my Marquette Map Hoax Thesis. I was there. Of note, you overlooked the standard academic politesse (for example in the University of Chicago guidelines for academic presentation) that is: if you are going to rebut someone's ideas, in this case me and my evidence that the Marquette Map was a 19th Century deceit, it is incumbent upon the person posing the rebuttal (you) to name who and what they are rebutting -- this is particularly incombant on you, with your challenging language, "A Hoax Unhoaxed."

    In the following, you say "thought by many" to be a more recent forgery. Can provide evidence of the "many"? I don't thinks so. There has always been just me.

    manyDoubted

     

    Dr. Buisseret:

    Did you make a gross error in the above in saying, "been thought by many to be a more recent forgery"? Of whom do you speak saying "many... more recent forgery." I am the only one.

     

    Dr. Buisseret:

    Again, in the notice below, you say "thought by some to be a relatively recent forgery." Who besides me has doubted the authenticity of the map? What is your evidence showing it is "genuine"? Further, if you claim "the map to be the first European mapping of the Mississippi valley" -- if the map is a 19th century fake it, can't be the "first mapping." That distinction of the "first," as my conclusion, should go to the map 1683 LaSalle -  formerly known as 1685 Minet.

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