Buisseret's plagiarism to disprove Weber's Marquette Map Hoax Thesis. See Weber's sworn affidavit showing Buisseret's shameful malfeasance as Jesuit apologist.

make sure to see more thorough -----------> here

Weber Shows Ellingtonstone to Buisseret

Weber showing Buisseret rubbing of Ellington Stone, which Weber has
identified as the earliest European artifact in the Heartland of America. It places
Europeans at the Mississippi two years earlier than generally thought.


Critique of Dr. David Buisseret Relative to the
Marquette Map Hoax Thesis of
Carl J. Weber and the Serious Issue of Academic Plagiarism

Update, September 7, 2017
In Weber's 20 years of study in this French Colonial material, he has made a number of original discoveries and observations. He has recently become excited over an unexpected discovery, which he deems his most noteworthy.

In April 1946, in the academic journal Mid-America, the author Jean Delanglez, reputed to be the most knowledgeable historian on these early French Maps, wrote a piece, "The Jolliet Lost Map of the Mississippi." Delanglez attempted to reconstruct the map from extant maps. Weber found and identified an image of the map. It has never been on line, nor has it appeared, to Weber's knowledge, in any printed work on the subject of these maps.

Using Jolliet's Lost Map, Weber has hypothesized derivitive contexts for seven maps from the 1670's that have long bemused scholars.

As Weber says, "as soon as I get all this Buisseret and Kupfer plagiarism business over with, and they get their deserved comeuppance, I'm going to write some awesome papers."

In 2005 Carl J. Weber elaborated his Marquette Map Hoax Thesis to the Chicago Map Society. Weber claims the map is a 19th century forgery. Dr. David Buisseret, long aware of Weber's work, was in the audience. See announcement.

In 2011 Buisseret struck back at Weber with his own presentation to the Map Society, The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a Hoax Unhoaxed, although unacknowledged as such, it was an obviously snarky response to Weber's Chicago Map Society presentation six years earlier. See. Soon followed several other presentations by Buisseret and an academic article in the Journal of Illinois History, "Validating the 1673 Jacques Marquette Map." See announcement.

In 2016, in a paper, Invalidating the Jacques Marquette Map, with well over 100 footnotes, many with live links, Weber addressed Buisseret's "unhoaxing/validating material." Weber's was a direct response to Buisseret's Journal of Illinois History article. Weber had spotted cases of flagrant plagiarism in the journal article, as well as other serious instances of breaches of academic ethical standards.

In the 2012 Journal of Illinois History article published by Buisseret against the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis, the mainstay of Buisseret's argument against Weber's hoax thesis he plagiarized from Jesuit author, Lucien Campeau. Ironically, what Buisseret plagiarized from Campeau, was wrong!

For Weber's affidavit citing the plagiarism, very specifically, with the original French, see above.

Weber, knowing the seriousness of the charge, thought it fitting to keep the plagiarism allegation at low resolution. But to no avail. He had communicated with more than a dozen state of Illinois officials and agencies about the issue of very serious academic plagiarism.

Numerous state officials and agencies have thus far been unable or unwilling to assume their responsibility and do something about it.

Contacts Weber has made to try to clear up this plagiarism concern:

Editor, Journal of Illinois History
Illinois Assemblywoman Linda Chapa LaVia
Director, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
Advisory Board, Journal of Illinois History
State of Illinois Executive Ethics Commission
Office of Executive Inspector General
___ At this point the Office of Inspector General referred the case back to the Illinois Historic Preservation ___Agency, then it moved to
The General Counsel for IHPA, then it moved to
Another General Counsel for the IHPA, then Weber wrote again to the
Inspector General that the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency had done nothing,
__ they told Weber the case had been referred back to the
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, reffered then to
General Counsel, Abraham Lincoln Presidentioal Library and Museum.

State Assemblywoman Chapa LaVia's office said Weber appears to be getting "the runaround."

See copy of Weber's letter to Office of Executive Inspector General.

Weber has pushed through the above state agencies, purportedly these agencies have authority over academic integrity. They abruptly slammed the door in Weber's face. He immediately wrote to the appropriate FOIA requesting the files in the case. He is now going to lodge a complaint with the state Attorney General. He is also seeing what the American Association of College Professors has to offer in their ethics code. In the FOIA papers, state academics say that because Weber's claim is not "traditional plagiarism," when two scholars arrive at the same conclusion, it is hard to prove plagiiarism. Weber will be making a short YouTube video soon to show how deteriorated have become the academic standards. See his several videos at "David Buisseret Youtube."


Summery timeline of controversy

Weber's Marquette Map Hoax Thesis findings in 2005.

Weber 2005 Chicago Map Society Announcement

Buisseret, in 2011, in response to Weber's Marquette Map Hoax Thesis, presented The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a Hoax unhoaxed, to the Chicago Map Society in 2011.

ChicagoMap Society announcement Buisseret 2011


In this March, 2011 talk, Buisseret never mentioned he was arguing against Weber's Marquette Map Hoax Thesis, a breach of academic etiquette. He's supposed to postulate the history and various sides of the argument. In the announcement above, when he writes, "some" thought the map to be a "relatively recent forgery," "some" is misleading and unfounded, says Weber. There was a doubter in 1960, Francis Borgia Steck (not in the 1920s, as Buisseret maintains). But the only other doubter since Steck has been Weber.

Steck wrote in his earlier work (1929) that the originally published first person Marquette Mississippi River narrative (published in 1681) was not written by Marquette. Rather, it was based on an oral account of Jolliet of August 1, 1674, as transcribed by Marquette's superior, Claude Dablon in Quebec. Foreign to Buisseret's understanding, Steck, in 1929, did not doubt the map's authenticity. But Steck did, however, come to doubt it by 1960 (Marquette Legends).



Email from Buisseret to Weber.

Buisseret gives false information about who doubted the map. Buisseret's two citations do not check out. They do not support what Buisseret says they do. As stated, Steck didn't doubt the map in the 1920s, so there could be no "many subsequent commentators" (on Steck's non-existent doubts of the 1920s). The only doubter since Steck has been Weber.

It has always been clear that Weber's Marquette Map Hoax Thesis of 2005 was the catalyst that after six years coaxed Buisseret to attempt a refutation of the thesis. Several emails from Buisseret to Weber, such as above, confirm that Weber "incited" Buisseret to "undertake the study." Yet when asked by a member of the audience how he got interested in this research, he deceptively said his children pointed out a site on the internet criticizing him "for making a mistake." This is academically unpardonable and a great disservice to academic debate. No such site existed.



Buisseret untruthful "on how this all came about":

Buisseret, with hardly a scruple, writes Weber out of the story.



Buisseret tells question from audience member that nobody today doubts the map.

Buisseret knows of Weber's work, and saying no one currently doubts the map is insulting to his audience and Weber's years of research.


When asked by this audience member at his Caxton Club presentation if there was anyone currently who doubted the map, Buisseret, stepping out of the guidelines of fair academic ethical standards, said, "I don't believe there is." He said this, despite the fact that his only antagonist, Weber, whom he has know for years, is the sole reason for resurrecting the "Marquette/Jolliet corpus," in the first place, as he described it in an email to Weber. In several emails to Weber, he acknowleded that he had been incited by Weber to undertake the research.

Buisseret: It's an Illusion to Say Jesuits Were Incapable of Drawing Maps

Given that Weber is Buisseret's only adversary, Weber never said Jesuits could not draw maps, a straw man argument. Weber said Marquette did not draw the map. The question that Buisseret is asked by Weber to respond to is: "who said the Jesuits could not draw maps?"


Weber's Map Hoax Thesis states:

1.) Jacques Marquette is not known to have had any map training.

2,) He is not associated in any way with any other maps.

3.) Yet, the degree of accuracy of the three-sides-of-an-octagon shape of the Illinois River appears on no map for140 years.

marquette melish compared


From Weber's Invalidating the Marquette Map. Marquette Map (1673-74?) detail left, Melish (1813) detail, right.

It is not believable that Marquette, with no known associations with maps, could have drawn a map, a feature of which, above, is first found a century-and-a-half into the future.

Weber says Buisseret "cheated" by not quoting his Marquette Map Hoax Thesis correctly.

The third point is that "the the degree of accuracy of the three-sides-of-an-octagon shape of the Illinois River appears on no map for140 years." Whereas Buisseret is shamefully misleading in saying simply, the third point is that the map is "too accurate."


"Elbowing out" shape taken from a Delisle Map

Continuing with the shapes on the map, the "elbowing out" of the Mississippi River seems to have been "borrowed" by the creator of the Marquette Map from a 1703 map by Guillaume Delisle. Weber says this resemblance of the Mississippi Rivers to each other on these maps is one of his observations subsequent to his earlier investigation.

elbowing out mississippi


From Weber's Invalidating the Marquette Map. The "elbowing out" feature on Marquette, left, taken from Delisle, right.

Buisseret, skews and does not state the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis correctly

As already stated, Buisseret mischaracterizes and misrepresents the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis when he incorrectly presents Weber's third point, Buisseret incorrectly says Weber says:

3.) The map is too accurate for its time.

This mischaracterizes and misrepresents the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis because Buisseret neglects to include Weber's words: "too accurate by 140 years," a very significant criterion. Buisseret is consequently expunging the coup de gras of Weber's reasoning. The question arises: how can a person who is associated with no other maps create a map, not merely a map that is "too accurate for its time" -- but create one that is, as Buisseret neglected to mention, 140 years too accurate for its time. Buisseret left out the "140 years too accurate," which Weber says is "academically malevolent and foul play," because it is so overwhelmingly persuasive for the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis.

Again, did Weber say Jesuits in general could not draw maps, as Buisseret suggests? No, he was only speaking of Marquette. Buisseret seems to have Weber saying "a Jesuit could not have constructed a map."

Having said that in his Caxton Club presentation, Buisseret goes on to show on the overhead several maps by Jesuits. Therefore Jesuits could make maps! Marquette was a Jesuit, therefore Marquette, could have, drawn the map. Buisseret tries to wedge Marquette into association with the Lake Superior Map by making Marquette's superior, Dablon, seem to make Marquette one of the authors of the Lake Superior Map by misleading footnoting.

The question of specifically Marquette being trained in map making is not addressed by Buisseret. Instead he gives, in footnotes, voluminous references for reading about Jesuit education, better suited for a bibliography than footnotes.

Marquette neglected to put his own mission on the map

As pointed out by Steck in Marquette Legends, 1960, the very mission, St. Xavier, at Green Bay, where Marquette was living when he supposedly created the map, is not on the Marquette Map. That is Steck's major point for doubting the map. The appearance on the map of the much-too-early shapes of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers was Weber's discovery.

Site in process



Buisseret: "Steck did altogether too much reading, ha ha": a less than civil treatment of Steck.

In fact, says Weber, who can enumerate in detail, Buisseret hardly knew Steck's work at all.


There were not "many" doubters, as Buisseret claims. There have been only Steck and Weber


No one doubted the Jesuits could make maps.

From Weber's Invalidating the Marquette Map.

Steck, in 1960, was the only author prior to Weber to doubt the authenticity of the map. As already mentioned, Buisseret says there were many doubters. When pressed by Weber, he named two, neither of which citations were valid. Weber pointed this out to Buisseret, who was non-responsive.




From Weber's Invalidating the Marquette Map. Steck incorrectly says
there were many doubters. There have been only Steck and Weber


From Weber's Invalidating the Marquette Map. He has numerous graphics to substantiate his arguments.


Buisseret sets forth his case against Weber in four venues

1.) "Validating the 1673 Jacques Marquette Map,"

Winter 2011,

David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer, “Validating the 1673 Jacques Marquette Map,” Journal of Illinois History, Vol. 14 (Winter, 2011): 261-276. Much of Weber's Invalidating the Jacques Marquette Map addresses this article.


2.) The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a Hoax unhoaxed

March 15, 2012

David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer, “The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a Hoax unhoaxed” (presentation, March 15, 2012 meeting of the Chicago Map Society, Newberry Library), Chicago, Illinois. See Lecture announcement. Weber says he caught Buisseret in a flagrant falsification, which he has on audio recording, of saying a copy of the Marquette map had been in Paris since the 17th century, instead of having been "discovered" in 1844.


3.) For Better and Worse: The Cartographic Legacy of Jesuit Era Maps of the Upper Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Valley,

Sept. 20, 2012

David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer, For Better and Worse: The Cartographic Legacy of Jesuit Era Maps of the Upper Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Valley, (presentation, September 20, 2012 meeting of the Chicago Map Society, Newberry Library, Chicago, Illinois. Lecture Announcement. Another shocking instance of plagiarism in this presentation, says Weber, in which again Lucian Campeau is plagiarized for his theme that there were two threads of maps, one from Marquette, one from Jolliet (that is the "for better and worse" connection). That was the major theme of the presentation. Weber says that until now, he has not alluded to this ethical breach.


4.) David Buisseret, Latest Information on the Marquette Map,

January, 2012

DVD, David Buisseret presentation to Caxton Club, January 11, 2013: Chicago, IL. Many ethical transgressions, which Weber says he has as video clips. Most disconcerting is Buisseret's denying there are any current writers who doubt the map, despite the facts he is fully aware that Weber has been researching for many years, and that Weber's "Marquette Map hoax" was the very reason he, Buisseret, initiated his "the Great Marquette Map Hoax, a Hoax Unhoaxed" in the first place.

The motive of the Jesuits, says Weber, was to nurture their ecclesiastical power. The fraud, says Weber, was not to "enhance" Marquette's role, but the role the Jesuits, generally. Marquette's own religious order defrauded history by attributing Marquette authorship to Mississippi expedition documents, including two maps -- one published in 1681 and one "discovered" in 1844. Weber has identified two other maps, claimed to be, but not authentically, Jesuit. (The Jesuit Map, so named by Campeau, and the Raffeix Map.)

The Jesuits, says Weber, were a political force that held sway at the highest seats of global power, extending their power all the way from 17th century China to the current papal throne. To consider "the missionaries," as might be considered through modern eyes, a humble small group over on the sidelines, is totally inaccurate given "power politics," generally; and given the place of the clergy as the "first estate" in the French feudal system. Spending a little time searching Jesuit history begins to reveal many dark pages of dark deeds.