Maps

[Cubfan64]

Joe,

While I am in the same boat as Paul, Paul does need to remember this thread:

OLBERS MANIFEST

This document provided to Helen Corbin was absolutely proven by Paul, Garry, and I to have been 100% fraudulent. Not a "possible fraud", but one which there was zero deniability. FAKE

MIke

I absolutely remember that thread, and I still stand by the fact that it's my judgment based on the things we found that the Olbers Manifest in Helen's Book was manufactured and is not accurate. What I believe I didn't do in that thread was cast blame or doubt on anyone - if I did, that was a mistake on my part because in the end I don't know the entire story.

It's one thing to prove a document is fake but quite another to place the blame for it on any one individual. I may know the person Helen received that manifest from, but I have no idea where that person got it from. Did they mfg. it themselves? Did someone else fake it and pass it along as proof? Did the forger sell it to someone who passed it to someone, etc...?

My feelings on the matter were posted a couple above this one and I'd like to leave it that.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Joe, whatever feelings I may have are mine to share if I choose not anyone else's especially on a public forum - I've felt for a long time that there are 2 sides to every story and I haven't completely heard all sides of this one and may never do so - that's out of my hands.

In the meantime, ultimately what I think about all of it, who and when I choose to say something is up to me to decide - I would appreciate you editing your post to remove the portion that references me.

Paul,

My apologies. Sorry for crossing the line.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

At this point it should be obvious to you......that you are very....very late to this party/discussion. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to find something to research, this one has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

You need to know the personal history that this man has related to many of us. He deleted all of his posts on this forum,
and many on other forums. Thankfully, many were saved by Greg Davis, and are recorded by any number of interested Dutch hunters. Without those posts, you will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Take care,

Joe

Yes, years late. I just needed one substantial example of deception. Gollum has offered that and I am now going to follow up on his research. I don't doubt him but I want to see for myself. But if Gollum posts the explanation given by the source, for the apparent bogus manifest, it might be enough to prove my effort pointless.

 

[cactusjumper]

Yes, years late. I just needed one substantial example of deception. Gollum has offered that and I am now going to follow up on his research. I don't doubt him but I want to see for myself. But if Gollum posts the explanation given by the source, for the apparent bogus manifest, it might be enough to prove my effort pointless.

Hal,

This will be my last post on this subject. It appears that I have stepped on my friends toes, and I need all the friends I get, at this period of my life.

Good luck in your research,

Joe

 

[Cubfan64]

Paul,

My apologies. Sorry for crossing the line.

Take care,

Joe

Apology accepted and thank you.

I know my feelings will be considered weak minded or naïve by some and maybe they are on both counts, but I'm entitled to my feelings. It's strange in a way because I'm generally a cynical and pessimistic person by nature, but I still want to believe in the inherent goodness of all humans - maybe even to a fault, but I am who I am.

 

[Hal Croves]

Apology accepted and thank you.

I know my feelings will be considered weak minded or naïve by some and maybe they are on both counts, but I'm entitled to my feelings. It's strange in a way because I'm generally a cynical and pessimistic person by nature, but I still want to believe in the inherent goodness of all humans - maybe even to a fault, but I am who I am.

Someone once told me that it would take a person pure in spirit to find treasure in the Sups. Probably why it's still lost. I think that you have a decent chance Cubfan64.

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

This will be my last post on this subject. It appears that I have stepped on my friends toes, and I need all the friends I get, at this period of my life.

Good luck in your research,

Joe

Joe, push comes to shove, you have more friends than you apparently appreciate.

 

[Gregory E. Davis]

Good evening gentlemen: From the independent research I have done, I am of the opinion that you can take to the bank the material that Mr. Roberts has presented. If there were any incorrect items, they most likely came from second or third research sources given to him that were faulty. I am talking about documents here and not oral history, diaries, and personal memories. As for his background, there have been a number of acquisitions stated without proof presented, and some of the conclusions are the result of faulty research. My work has shown that his background is correct as stated by him. For those who are new to this forum, I suggest that you contact Mr. Roberts directly for his side of the story. Lastly, Why did Mr. Roberts delete his posts? I would have done the same thing if I were as poorly treated as he was for, say, "My take on the Lost Dutchman Story". Finally, how did this post every get off from its original subject matter regarding MAPS? Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

The forger of the Olbers Manifest did a fairly good job. Two things screwed that person though:

1. Redoing an entire passenger list is long and tedious work. Even someone good with Photoshop will many times make errors of laziness. This happened with the manifest.

2. This manifest was made (mid to late 1990s) before the Internet REALLY came into its own. Now it is so easy to check on things. When I emailed the scan of the Manifest from Helen Corbin's Book to the ISTG, they responded back that "Sir, The documents you sent are not ISTG documents". This means that someone went to the trouble of trying to make the Olbers Manifest they gave to Helen Corbin look like something official.

Mike

gollum,
Will you post the first page of the scan so I might have some idea of what you are describing? I don't have access to the book and would appreciate seeing it. If you can.

 

[djui5]

I get a little passionate about this subject, it's part of why I took a year and a half hiatus from the LDM. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[Hal Croves]

I get a little passionate about this subject, it's part of why I took a year and a half hiatus from the LDM. Thanks for your understanding.

Passion can blind a person and who knows, perhaps your initial instincts were correct. Anyway, it sounds like you are invested in the book. I am still hoping that someone will post the manifest scan. It would help the rest of us understand your frustration.

?

 

[Hal Croves]

Joe,

While I am in the same boat as Paul, Paul does need to remember this thread:

OLBERS MANIFEST

This document provided to Helen Corbin was absolutely proven by Paul, Garry, and I to have been 100% fraudulent. Not a "possible fraud", but one which there was zero deniability. FAKE

MIke

Mike,
You are not going to like this post and no doubt you will feel attacked and perhaps a bit embarrassed. This is not personal and I have no axe to grind with you or with Gary. I have a good deal of respect left for both your words and your work. I am also hoping that you are man enough to admit error on your behalf and, in this example, that you consider making a public apology to Corbin's Source. Let me explain why.

You posted that both you and Gary had proven the document, depicted in Mrs. Corbin's book to be absolutely 100% fraudulent and "zero deniability" "Fake". I found the document on google books since you obviously didn't want to share it. Here is the problem with your research. That document is so obviously new that only someone looking for fraud would mistake it for anything other than something that was recreated for the book. Who told you that it was an original document?

It's done all the time in publishing and you can even see the fake parchment pattern it was printed on. It's actually quite amateurish and in no way representative of an original document. I am sure that you have seen authentic manifests before and rarely are they in Word Perfect condition. This one, the form itself, has no steel engraving marks or the appropriate formatting. It is an OBVIOUS recreation, of another list I presume, for a book.

Why would you expect a response different than the one you received (ISTG) and built your charge of fraud on? Yes, it is not an official document. Anyone thinking objectively can see that. What you failed to show was that the contents were fraudulent. Perhaps you have I am not there yet.

If you have, that still does not excuse the underlying error in your claim, made in the above post. You invalidated the information because you misunderstood what you were seeing. I am not sure what else to say about your accusation except that it is unfounded, disappointing and a PERFECT example of the trappings of calling some a liar, either directly, or by implication.

Now if you want to talk about the contents of the manifest, that is another conversation. I am just starting to look at things.


Mike, I am curious to see how you will address this.

 

[Hal Croves]

Mike,
You are not going to like this post and no doubt you will feel attacked and perhaps a bit embarrassed. This is not personal and I have no axe to grind with you or with Gary. I have a good deal of respect left for both your words and your work. I am also hoping that you are man enough to admit error on your behalf and, in this example, that you consider making a public apology to Corbin Source. Let me explain why.

You posted that both you and Gary had proven the document, depicted in Mrs. Corbin's book to be absolutely 100% fraudulent and "zero deniability" "Fake". I found the document on google books since you obviously didn't want to share it. Here is the problem with your research. That document is so obviously new that only someone looking for fraud would mistake it for anything other than something that was recreated for the book. Who told you that it was an original document?

It's done all the time in publishing and you can even see the fake parchment pattern it was printed on. It's actually quite amateurish and in no way representative of an original document. I am sure that you have seen authentic manifests before and rarely are they in word perfect condition. This one, the form itself has no steel engraving marks or appropriate formatting. It is an OBVIOUS recreation, of another list I presume, for a book.

Why would you expect a response different that the one you received and built your charge of fraud on? Yes, it is not an official document. Anyone thinking objectively can see that. What you failed to show was that the contents were fraudulent. Perhaps you have I am not there yet.

If you have, that still does not excuse the underlying error in your claim, made in the above post. You invalidated the information because you misunderstood what you were seeing. I am not sure what else to say about your accusation except that it is unfounded, disappointing and a PERFECT example of the trappings of calling some a liar, either directly, or by implication.

Now if you want to talk about the contents of the manifest, that is another conversation. I am just starting to look at things.


Mike, I am curious to see how you will address this.

Edit: I should note here that this was the only page available for me to view in GoogleBooks and that I am assuming that this is the manifest in question.

 

[Old]

Hal,

I can't follow your logic on this.

Not Mike, or anyone else owes "the source" an apology. Far from it. A kick in the backside would be more appropriate.

Google Olbers Manifest and read the many pages what went into the excellent research on this topic on another site. Years of excellent work. Its a fake, proven a fake beyond doubt.

Seems to me you may be splitting hairs with this argument. For what purpose, I can't say.

signed: Lynda Cooke
(folks seen to want real names, that's mine)

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

I can't follow your logic on this.

Not Mike, or anyone else owes "the source" an apology. Far from it. A kick in the backside would be more appropriate.

Google Olbers Manifest and read the many pages what went into the excellent research on this topic on another site. Years of excellent work. Its a fake, proven a fake beyond doubt.

Seems to me you may be splitting hairs with this argument. For what purpose, I can't say.

signed: Lynda Cooke
(folks seen to want real names, that's mine)

Lynda,
I respectfully disagree. For those of us who value clarity, it is important to keep things accurate. Mike made the accusation that the document itself was an intentional fraud, used to deceive people. That is simply not the case and the fact that you or anyone else could ignore the error leaves me speechless.

Once again, if the information contained in that document is fraudulent, then shame on the publisher for not fact checking his writers work. Read the caption below the manifest image. There, that's the disconnect and the blame lies solely on the editor/publisher.

For what purpose? How about for fairness. If Corbin's Source is a bad egg, as you claim, I haven't seen any proof of it yet. But again, to Joe's point, I am a few years behind. Perhaps you can provide something more substantial to support your position?

Thanks Lynda,
Victor

 

[Old]

Makes no difference (to me) if its an attempted effort to resemble an official document, if its written on lined paper, perfumed notes, vellum or written on a lunch bag. The vehicle is not the crime here, its the fraud. The intent was to deceive.

When one copies names, city of origin, age, trade from one or several "official" transcriptions of manifest, changes slightly some of the information and inserts them into a similar looking document and passes it off as proof positive of a non occurring event, its fraud.

For clarity sake; what do you call it?

 

[Hal Croves]

Makes no difference (to me) if its an attempted effort to resemble an official document, if its written on lined paper, perfumed notes, vellum or written on a lunch bag. The vehicle is not the crime here, its the fraud. The intent was to deceive.

When one copies names, city of origin, age, trade from one or several "official" transcriptions of manifest, changes slightly some of the information and inserts them into a similar looking document and passes it off as proof positive of a non occurring event, its fraud.

For clarity sake; what do you call it?

A separate issue.

Please. Go back and re-read Mike's post. Mike is clearly questioning the authenticity of the physical document itself. How is it possible that you do not read that exact sentiment in his words? My criticism is of Mike's attempt to discredit someone, someone I know little about, with a false argument that, quite honestly, makes absolutely no sense.

Why in the world anyone would contact ISTG to ask if that list (that's what it is, a list) was and original document is beyond me. Mike's an experienced researcher, Gary as well. They both know what an original period manifest looks like. The question to ISTG should have been: could you please confirm the names on this list as accurate, when compared against the original manifest?

And if ISTG provided an answer, and that answer was no, the names on that LIST do not match the original document, or there is no such document, then that should have been the argument. Meaning, the list of names in Mrs. Corbin's book was the fraud, not the document itself.

Can you see the difference? A forged document is not the same thing as an incorrect, even fraudulent list.

And if you are a fair person, you will note that I wrote that the contents of the document, the information (apparently fraudulent), is not at all my issue. It may be a fraudulent list, but it is not a forged document.

So, there you have it. Is it semantics? I don't believe it is. It is about being accurate. And fair.

All you have at the end of the day is a faulty list, sent to press by a lazy publisher, who apparently had no problems pressuring an ill woman to complete her work.

ps. It seems to me that your disgust, if that's what it is, should be with the publisher. When you purchase a book, there is an imprint. That imprint represents all the effort that went into producing that title. They, like any television producer are solely responsibly for the content.

 

[Cubfan64]

Since my name is associated with doing some of the digging that found matching names and occupations, etc... that strongly suggest that the ISTG transcribed list from the Olbers manifest is fraudulent, I'll make one last post on this subject and then I'm out of this discussion unless someone wants to PM me privately.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your argument Hal is that Gollum was implying that the actual document presented in Helen's book was a forged original manifest. You would be correct in saying that it’s obvious that was not an original manifest nor a forgery of one – although I don’t know exactly what the “script” page was designed to be which is located on the page previous to the image you posted of part of the list.

The list came from the ISTG, so by definition it’s supposed to be a transcription from an original manifest – one which I don’t believe existed not the least of which because I found over a dozen names from a later ship (1846 ship named the Mississippi) along with occupations, ages and places of origin that just seem too close to be coincidental.

You’re also correct that blame needs to be placed on both the writer and publisher for not fact checking what they put in the book, but (and it’s a big but), that doesn’t take blame away from whoever fraudulently put together that list.

Hal you stated...

All you have at the end of the day is a faulty list, sent to press by a lazy publisher, who apparently had no problems pressuring an ill woman to complete her work

I don't agree that's all you have at the end of the day - you also have someone somewhere who put together that list, and here's where the issue gets very muddled. The fact is nobody here knows who put together that list. It could have been a lazy transcriber, it could have been someone trying to make $$ by selling "Lost Dutchman" historical memorabilia (it's been known to happen!), or a variety of other possibilities - I just simply don't know and likely will never know.

You are correct though, that technically the list provided in Helen’s book is not a forged copy of a manifest (although I still don't know if the script written heading page on page 9 of her book was supposed to be original). I know I used words like forge in the wrong manner at one point - I never meant to imply that the list in Helen's page was a copy of an official ship manifest.

Ok - I'm out of this one now as I hopefully explained things from my perspective. If I misinterpretted your argument Hal, I apologize and again it's better if I just bow out of the discussion.

 

[Hal Croves]

Since my name is associated with doing some of the digging that found matching names and occupations, etc... that strongly suggest that the ISTG transcribed list from the Olbers manifest is fraudulent, I'll make one last post on this subject and then I'm out of this discussion unless someone wants to PM me privately.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your argument Hal is that Gollum was implying that the actual document presented in Helen's book was a forged original manifest. You would be correct in saying that it’s obvious that was not an original manifest nor a forgery of one – although I don’t know exactly what the “script” page was designed to be which is located on the page previous to the image you posted of part of the list.

The list came from the ISTG, so by definition it’s supposed to be a transcription from an original manifest – one which I don’t believe existed not the least of which because I found over a dozen names from a later ship (1846 ship named the Mississippi) along with occupations, ages and places of origin that just seem too close to be coincidental.

You’re also correct that blame needs to be placed on both the writer and publisher for not fact checking what they put in the book, but (and it’s a big but), that doesn’t take blame away from whoever fraudulently put together that list.

Hal you stated...



I don't agree that's all you have at the end of the day - you also have someone somewhere who put together that list, and here's where the issue gets very muddled. The fact is nobody here knows who put together that list. It could have been a lazy transcriber, it could have been someone trying to make $$ by selling "Lost Dutchman" historical memorabilia (it's been known to happen!), or a variety of other possibilities - I just simply don't know and likely will never know.

You are correct though, that technically the list provided in Helen’s book is not a forged copy of a manifest (although I still don't know if the script written heading page on page 9 of her book was supposed to be original). I know I used words like forge in the wrong manner at one point - I never meant to imply that the list in Helen's page was a copy of an official ship manifest.

Ok - I'm out of this one now as I hopefully explained things from my perspective. If I misinterpretted your argument Hal, I apologize and again it's better if I just bow out of the discussion.

Cubfan64,

Yes, I think that you explained it perfectly. Alright, the faulty document is supposed to be a forgery of an official ISTG document. Here is an official document and the one provided by the source. Do they look anything alike? Are you telling me that Mike and Gary were tricked into thinking that the sources faulty list was a forged ISTG document?

There is no proof that this faulty list was written by Corbin's source or that he/she tried to pass it off as an official document. He/she was the vehicle by which Mrs. Corbin obtain a faulty list. That's all anyone can say and that is NOT enough to label someone a liar. Is it unfortunate? Absolutely. Did the source create the faulty list? I can't say. I only know that he/she has been branded a liar. A source of unreliable data? Perhaps. No one is perfect. A liar? It's not been proven, especially by Mike.

View attachment 1132836

 

[Old]

Quoted text: "Can you see the difference? A forged document is not the same thing as an incorrect, even fraudulent list" end quoted text

I think this is the critical difference in how you and I approach this.

In my opinion; forgery, in this case, includes the lesser crimes (substitute sins if that term better suits) of uttering and false attribution.

Forgery includes the manufacture of a false document for the purpose of deception. Uttering is the passing of it as authentic and false attribution is to add borrowed credibility to the document in the eye of the beholder. All of these happened with this record. Sufficient discovery unearthed the deception. No credible alternative other than the "Corbin source" has surfaced. The document and the underlying sins, crimes, failure of moral dealing, (chose your favorite) are inseparable.

I think we need to just agree to disagree on this. Its gone far afield from the topic at hand.