Olber Manifest, and other fables of fantasy

[Old]

Sometimes its a real struggle to bring the light of truth to these subjects.

The Olber Manifest is a fabrication. Its not something lost, misplaced or mislaid. Its a fabrication. And; a poor one at that. The fabricator got lazy and after a fashion, didn't even cover his tracks. That is no speculation, its proven fact. The indisputable evidence is easily obtainable. I'm more than willing to share with those seeking truth.

For those wanting to continue to watch the magic show in front of the curtain you are welcome to do so. Bless you, there is gentleness in naiveté. I'd suspect you have a years supply of Flex Shield too. But; having threads deleted doesn't change the truth.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Sometimes its a real struggle to bring the light of truth to these subjects.

The Olber Manifest is a fabrication. Its not something lost, misplaced or mislaid. Its a fabrication. And; a poor one at that. The fabricator got lazy and after a fashion, didn't even cover his tracks. That is no speculation, its proven fact. The indisputable evidence is easily obtainable. I'm more than willing to share with those seeking truth.

For those wanting to continue to watch the magic show in front of the curtain you are welcome to do so. Bless you, there is gentleness in naiveté. I'd suspect you have a years supply of Flex Shield too. But; having threads deleted doesn't change the truth.

Lynda,

EXACTLY!

Good post,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[gollum]

Old,

I don't really understand the reason for this thread. I don't think that anybody has taken the Olbers Manifest seriously since some of us COMPLETELY shot that down on Feldman's Old LDM Forums a few years ago. Can't link to another forum here, but just go there and look for the "Olbers Manifest" Thread.

I even made a look-a-like version in MS Word:

Original from Helen Corbin's "Bible":


My Version:



A patent fabrication, made in MS Word.

I had sent a copy of the "manifest" from Corbin's Bible to the ISTG, asking for them to authenticate it for me. They responded saying that they have never issued a manifest that looked like that.

Mike

 

[Old]

Hey Mike,

You may want to contact me by PM. I think there may be a WHOLE lot you are not aware happened with this thread, and more particularly the one that preceded it that has now been taken down.

Lynda

 

[Hal Croves]

Old,

I don't really understand the reason for this thread. I don't think that anybody has taken the Olbers Manifest seriously since some of us COMPLETELY shot that down on Feldman's Old LDM Forums a few years ago. Can't link to another forum here, but just go there and look for the "Olbers Manifest" Thread.

I even made a look-a-like version in MS Word:

Original from Helen Corbin's "Bible":
View attachment 1239091

My Version:

View attachment 1239093

A patent fabrication, made in MS Word.

I had sent a copy of the "manifest" from Corbin's Bible to the ISTG, asking for them to authenticate it for me. They responded saying that they have never issued a manifest that looked like that.

Mike

Mike,
Just to be clear. Are you suggesting that Mrs. Corbin represented the image in her book to be a photographic reproduction of an original 1889 document?
You have shared your comparison before but because the Corbin document is so obviously modern, your comparison, your sending a copy to the ISTG, and your use of "patent fabrication" (suggesting fraud) is honestly misleading.
With respect, I am having a difficult time with your logic.


Old,
The answer to the Olbers question was found in several period newspapers.
With that said, I would enjoy reading your thoughts on this very misunderstood story.

 

[gollum]

Mike,
Just to be clear. Are you suggesting that Mrs. Corbin represented the image in her book to be a photographic reproduction of an original 1889 document?
You have shared your comparison before but because the Corbin document is so obviously modern, your comparison, your sending a copy to the ISTG, and your use of "patent fabrication" (suggesting fraud) is honestly misleading.
With respect, I am having a difficult time with your logic.


Old,
The answer to the Olbers question was found in several period newspapers.
With that said, I would enjoy reading your thoughts on this very misunderstood story.

Nothing misunderstood nor misleading. Very simple, Helen Corbin had this in her Dutchman'S Bible. It is fraudulent from start to finish. I have never assigned specific blame to ANYONE. I think Mrs. Corbin used the manifest believing it was authentic. I think Bob Corbin's Actions after learning of the bad information are admirable. He bought up all the copies of the book he could find. There are understandably a lot of questions, and there are some things about the origins of the manifest that I am not currently at liberty to discuss.

What do I mean by "fraudulent from start to finish"?

1. No record exists for The Ship Olbers making Port in New Orleans in 1839 (the closest dates are 08 Dec 1836 and 03 June 1846). So, if the ISTG does not have a record of the Ship Olbers docking in New Orleans on 17 November 1839, how in God's Name could someone have gotten a legitimate copy FROM THE ISTG?

2. Now, to the document itself: I sent a copy to the ISTG for authentication, and they told me that the ISTG has NEVER sent out a document like that. Is it possible that someone just reformatted an original ISTG Document so it looked better? Sure, EXCEPT for the fact that the ISTG HAS NO RECORD OF THE SHIP OLBERS DOCKING IN NEW ORLEANS ON 17 November 1839!

3. Many chunks of information were cut and pasted from other ships' manifests. For details, read the whole episode on Feldman's Forum.


So, do you still feel misled or are you still misunderstanding? It is a very simple thing. Someone MANUFACTURED the Olbers Manifest for whatever their reasons. I don't know what "newspapers" you think you have that settled anything, but here is the "MARINE INTELLIGENCE" Report from the New Orleans Times Picayune on 17 November 1839:



The Marine Intelligence Report is a day-by-day listing of ALL the ships cleared to depart and arrived at port. Maybe you can show me where the Olbers is either arrived at or cleared to depart? You can't because its not there. I looked for the name "OLBERS" in a date span from September 1839 till December 1839. I looked at all the "Marine Intelligence Reports" from the time period...NOTHING.

So, if the main newspaper in New Orleans, that keeps a day to day track of the comings and goings of all ships, has no record of the Olbers arriving at New Orleans on the date stated on the manifest, how can ANYBODY see the Olbers 1839 Manifest as ANYTHING other than a document meant to deceive? Please keep something in mind, I don't want to be right about this. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong. Remember, the Olbers Manifest is THE record of Jacob Waltz coming to America. I would like nothing more than for this to be real. It just isn't.

......and as an aside, here is a neat report of a hurricane shredding the Olbers in 1858:



THAT MUST HAVE SUCK-DIDDLY-UCKED!

Mike

 

[Hal Croves]

Nothing misunderstood nor misleading. Very simple, Helen Corbin had this in her Dutchman'S Bible. It is fraudulent from start to finish. I have never assigned specific blame to ANYONE. I think Mrs. Corbin used the manifest believing it was authentic. I think Bob Corbin's Actions after learning of the bad information are admirable. He bought up all the copies of the book he could find. There are understandably a lot of questions, and there are some things about the origins of the manifest that I am not currently at liberty to discuss.

What do I mean by "fraudulent from start to finish"?

1. No record exists for The Ship Olbers making Port in New Orleans in 1839 (the closest dates are 08 Dec 1836 and 03 June 1846). So, if the ISTG does not have a record of the Ship Olbers docking in New Orleans on 17 November 1839, how in God's Name could someone have gotten a legitimate copy FROM THE ISTG?

2. Now, to the document itself: I sent a copy to the ISTG for authentication, and they told me that the ISTG has NEVER sent out a document like that. Is it possible that someone just reformatted an original ISTG Document so it looked better? Sure, EXCEPT for the fact that the ISTG HAS NO RECORD OF THE SHIP OLBERS DOCKING IN NEW ORLEANS ON 17 November 1839!

3. Many chunks of information were cut and pasted from other ships' manifests. For details, read the whole episode on Feldman's Forum.


So, do you still feel misled or are you still misunderstanding? It is a very simple thing. Someone MANUFACTURED the Olbers Manifest for whatever their reasons. I don't know what "newspapers" you think you have that settled anything, but here is the "MARINE INTELLIGENCE" Report from the New Orleans Times Picayune on 17 November 1839:

View attachment 1245620

The Marine Intelligence Report is a day-by-day listing of ALL the ships cleared to depart and arrived at port. Maybe you can show me where the Olbers is either arrived at or cleared to depart? You can't because its not there. I looked for the name "OLBERS" in a date span from September 1839 till December 1839. I looked at all the "Marine Intelligence Reports" from the time period...NOTHING.

So, if the main newspaper in New Orleans, that keeps a day to day track of the comings and goings of all ships, has no record of the Olbers arriving at New Orleans on the date stated on the manifest, how can ANYBODY see the Olbers 1839 Manifest as ANYTHING other than a document meant to deceive? Please keep something in mind, I don't want to be right about this. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong. Remember, the Olbers Manifest is THE record of Jacob Waltz coming to America. I would like nothing more than for this to be real. It just isn't.

......and as an aside, here is a neat report of a hurricane shredding the Olbers in 1858:

View attachment 1245622

THAT MUST HAVE SUCK-DIDDLY-UCKED!

Mike

I am not arguing about the validity of the manifest as I had settled that a few moths back if you remember. I am questioning your interpretation of the image in Mrs. Corbins book.
For you to send it to ISTG, you must have felt that the image in the book was being passed off for an original. Correct?
And above you say that Mrs. Corbin believed the manifest was authentic. Right?

So, either you think that Mrs. Cobin was tricked by that very modern manifest in her book or she was tricked by another document, the one used to make the modern document in her book.
I think that the difference is important.

 

[cactusjumper]

I am not arguing about the validity of the manifest as I had settled that a few moths back if you remember. I am questioning your interpretation of the image in Mrs. Corbins book.
For you to send it to ISTG, you must have felt that the image in the book was being passed off for an original. Correct?
And above you say that Mrs. Corbin believed the manifest was authentic. Right?

So, either you think that Mrs. Cobin was tricked by that very modern manifest in her book or she was tricked by another document, the one used to make the modern document in her book.
I think that the difference is important.

Hal,

Helen Corbin was progressively getting sicker as she put the "Bible....." together. That illness, eventually, took her life. She was easy prey for a source that was trying to make a name for himself, by using some manufactured stories, "facts". On top of that, I was told by her deceitful source, that she was under considerable pressure from her publisher to get the book done. Once Bob Corbin learned the facts, after Helen's passing, he removed every copy from the market that he could. That is no small thing since he has cases of leather bound copies of her book in storage.$$$$$$$

As the truth has been coming out, Helen's source has tried to shift the blame onto her, for not being diligent enough in checking his "facts". I had tried to defend Helen, and his reply is still available on this forum. I believe others also jumped on his bandwagon, agreeing with him. Basically, stating it's the authors obligation to research her sources facts to authenticate them.

He had the opportunity to speak to Bob Corbin at the last Rendezvous, and I believe he passed on it. I could be wrong about that, but I will ask Bob.

As for the source of the Olber's Manifest, he was the source. In defense, he claimed he paid someone else to procure the manifest for him. Since we were heavily into researching that document, among other "facts", he got quite angry with me that I had not simply asked him who the source was. Believe I still have that email but can assure you he would deny it's authenticity.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

Helen Corbin was progressively getting sicker as she put the "Bible....." together. That illness, eventually, took her life. She was easy prey for a source that was trying to make a name for himself, by using some manufactured stories, "facts". On top of that, I was told by her deceitful source, that she was under considerable pressure from her publisher to get the book done. Once Bob Corbin learned the facts, after Helen's passing, he removed every copy from the market that he could. That is no small thing since he has cases of leather bound copies of her book in storage.$$$$$$$

As the truth has been coming out, Helen's source has tried to shift the blame onto her, for not being diligent enough in checking his "facts". I had tried to defend Helen, and his reply is still available on this forum. I believe others also jumped on his bandwagon, agreeing with him. Basically, stating it's the authors obligation to research her sources facts to authenticate them.

He had the opportunity to speak to Bob Corbin at the last Rendezvous, and I believe he passed on it. I could be wrong about that, but I will ask Bob.

As for the source of the Olber's Manifest, he was the source. In defense, he claimed he paid someone else to procure the manifest for him. Since we were heavily into researching that document, among other "facts", he got quite angry with me that I had not simply asked him who the source was. Believe I still have that email but can assure you he would deny it's authenticity.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

I simply don't believe that Mrs. Corbin was so ill or inexperienced to consider the document in her book authentic.
She my have considered the information authentic, but not the document as it is presented.
To suggest so undermines her credibility as a researcher and professional.
I want to see the original forgery.
Does Mr. Corbin have it still?
Do you know how Mrs. Corbin obtained the information from the source?
Is he/she credited in her book?
Was money exchanged?

Thank Joe!

 

[Oroblanco]

I simply don't believe that Mrs. Corbin was so ill or inexperienced to consider the document in her book authentic.
She my have considered the information authentic, but not the document as it is presented.
To suggest so undermines her credibility as a researcher and professional.
I want to see the original forgery.
Does Mr. Corbin have it still?
Do you know how Mrs. Corbin obtained the information from the source?
Is he/she credited in her book?
Was money exchanged?

Thank Joe!

I am not trying to speak for Joe here, and although I did not get to meet Helen while she was alive (something I still regret) I do know Bob, and based on all of Helen's other work, it is clear to ME (personally) that she simply trusted her source. That source is the person you would need to approach to obtain the original document. If his tale of where and how he obtained it is true, then he should provide the name of his provider of that phony document. Otherwise it looks like he was the real originator. This is not the only questionable evidence to come from this particular source. I won't post his name publicly but if you want it drop me a PM.

I have ZERO doubt that Helen would have been greatly offended to have learned that the materials provided to her for that last book proved false. I also do not doubt that she would want to remove the books from store shelves, as Bob has been doing. The phony materials came mixed with genuine info, which makes it far harder to detect. If I were to send you a bundle of documents, with most of them genuine, and a few fakes mixed in, I think you might find it difficult to pick out the false.

 

[cactusjumper]

I simply don't believe that Mrs. Corbin was so ill or inexperienced to consider the document in her book authentic.
She my have considered the information authentic, but not the document as it is presented.
To suggest so undermines her credibility as a researcher and professional.
I want to see the original forgery.
Does Mr. Corbin have it still?
Do you know how Mrs. Corbin obtained the information from the source?
Is he/she credited in her book?
Was money exchanged?

Thank Joe!

Hal,

Surely you're joking! Helen died. I would not care to make some kind of judgment as to just how sick she was. If you want to pursue some kind of truth about the facts here you're on your own. I have been there and done that.....to my complete satisfaction.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Old]

Hal, I'm not sure I understand your question to me. I'll answer what I believe is at the heart of your question. But, I could be misunderstanding your inquiry.

The reason for this thread is because of an attempt to again cloud the issue of the authenticity of the Olbers Manifest under layers of spin. There was insinuation its provenance was lost, mislaid, etc. as families died out and their documents were lost to history. That's not the case. Its a fabrication.

Do you doubt it's a fabrication? Or; if you've come to the realization that its a fake yourself, do you have some other compelling reason that would justify remaining silent and misleading newcomers to believe the document has any place along side genuine fact based material?

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal, I'm not sure I understand your question to me. I'll answer what I believe is at the heart of your question. But, I could be misunderstanding your inquiry.

The reason for this thread is because of an attempt to again cloud the issue of the authenticity of the Olbers Manifest under layers of spin. There was insinuation its provenance was lost, mislaid, etc. as families died out and their documents were lost to history. That's not the case. Its a fabrication.

Do you doubt it's a fabrication? Or; if you've come to the realization that its a fake yourself, do you have some other compelling reason that would justify remaining silent and misleading newcomers to believe the document has any place along side genuine fact based material?

As I have already said, I have no question as to the validity of the document in Helen's book. It is without question a modern work. I think the information it contains was taken from another fraudulent document or from someones notes.
With that said I do NOT believe that someone as skilled as Helen Corbin or Bob Corbin would have been fooled by this modern work. It makes no sense. They are/were obviously intelligent people with some level of experience in research and historical documents. I simply don't believe that Helen represented or believed the document featured in her book to be an "original".

So, while it may seem like I am being critical of Helen, I am in fact trying to sift thru the BS to understand how this intelligent, educated woman was deceived.
I don't blame Helen the author or her mysterious source. I have said before that in my mind, the publisher is responsible for everything found between the covers.

I simply want to see the original notes or the original document. That is where the "intent" will be found. Was it a fraud or an unnamed author taking creative license?

As far as assigning any blame, it seems that you have already formed an opinion.
Hopefully you have all sides of the story.

 

[Old]

Hal, I too would be interested in seeing what exactly was provided. But; I don't think it will change the outcome very much. A road apple is still a road apple whether its wrapped in toilet tissue or silk. And no matter how many hands the object may have been through before it reached its destination. All parties to this story are amateur or veteran historians. Does it matter if the material passed to Ms. Corbin was in hand written form on loose leaf notebook paper that she transposed into a word document, or; if it was already typed into the format we see. It is the meat of the fake that is at issue. Unless you harbor some idea Ms. Corbin added additional false information to the already false content document. Is that your question?

We know the source to Ms. Corbin. We can evaluate the subsequent actions of both sides of that puzzle. Mr. Corbin went to great lengths and personal expense to remove the offending piece from public view. The source and those close to the source still continue to spin the history of the document to create some smoke screen of possible authenticity. However weak those smoke screens may be. Thus, the very reason for this thread. Does that not speak to you?

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal, I too would be interested in seeing what exactly was provided. But; I don't think it will change the outcome very much. A road apple is still a road apple whether its wrapped in toilet tissue or silk. And no matter how many hands the object may have been through before it reached its destination. All parties to this story are amateur or veteran historians. Does it matter if the material passed to Ms. Corbin was in hand written form on loose leaf notebook paper that she transposed into a word document, or; if it was already typed into the format we see. It is the meat of the fake that is at issue. Unless you harbor some idea Ms. Corbin added additional false information to the already false content document. Is that your question?

We know the source to Ms. Corbin. We can evaluate the subsequent actions of both sides of that puzzle. Mr. Corbin went to great lengths and personal expense to remove the offending piece from public view. The source and those close to the source still continue to spin the history of the document to create some smoke screen of possible authenticity. However weak those smoke screens may be. Thus, the very reason for this thread. Does that not speak to you?

Old,
I think that Helen was experienced enough to discern a historical document from a modern work.
I think that what we see in her book is a modern reproduction (content) reproduced specifically for her book with it's information taken from bogus document(s) or author notes.
But... if it was copied (info taken) from a forged document, why not photograph the document and use that photograph to illustrate the book?
If taken from author's notes, those notes must first be interpreted ---- an intentional work of fiction or an attempt to deceive for personal gain?

Was the source compensated?
Credited in the book?

Things are never quite what we perceive them to be.

And no. I am not suggesting that Helen intentionally contributed to a fraud.

 

[cactusjumper]

Old,
I think that Helen was experienced enough to discern a historical document from a modern work.
I think that what we see in her book is a modern reproduction (content) reproduced specifically for her book with it's information taken from bogus document(s) or author notes.
But... if it was copied (info taken) from a forged document, why not photograph the document and use that photograph to illustrate the book?
If taken from author's notes, those notes must first be interpreted ---- an intentional work of fiction or an attempt to deceive for personal gain?

Was the source compensated?
Credited in the book?

Things are never quite what we perceive them to be.

And no. I am not suggesting that Helen intentionally contributed to a fraud.

Hal,

The source admitted to me, personally, that he was the source. You are way off base here, as far as I'm concerned.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[gollum]

Hal,

Now, I completely understand what you are looking for. My simple answer is that I don't know. I didn't have the pleasure of ever meeting Mrs. Corbin. I don't know if the document in her book was the same document she received. I have always assumed that the "Manifest" was made to emulate what I would get if I emailed the ISTG requesting a copy of ANY manifest. It wouldn't have been anything old (from 1839). Like if you request a Coat-of-Arms and family crest from one of those companies. They use an old looking font for the certificate and history, because it looks cool.

I think Helen Corbin used the exact document in her book that she was given. I don't believe that she changed a thing. I don't believe for a second that she had any idea that the document was a fraud. Her husband's actions after finding that out bears that out to be the truth (to me).

Now, where did that document originate? I can't say. I (and most others) know Helen Corbin's Source for the document. Where the point of contention lies, is was that person the originator, or was that person provided the document. I honestly cannot say. So, in the light of a plausible explanation, and the FACT that I DO NOT KNOW from whom the original document originated, I call it a push. I discount the document itself, because I know for a fact that it was NEVER obtained from the ISTG, and the Ship Olbers NEVER docked in New Orleans on 17 November 1839. Not one person here can say 100% whether the manifest originated with that person or that person got it from someone else believing it was authentic. I agree with Joe, that in the case of Helen Corbin, I believe she trusted her source, so she did not delve into it as deeply as she may have if she had gotten it from another source.

As I have stated about a gazillion times, I am not taking anybody's side against anybody else. I am only being true to who I am. I am a fair minded person that gives the benefit of the doubt when I don't personally know exactly how something happened. I will tell you that if I knew for a fact that this person (hell, why are we tippy-toeing around this) Matthew. I don't think this is any secret. I hate saying "this person" or "that person", when everybody knows who the subject is. I don't personally like bashing anybody that is not here to defend themselves. BUT, if I knew for a fact that Matthew had forged the manifest, I would be shouting it to the heavens. And conversely, If I knew for a fact that the document had originated with another person, I would be telling Joe that he is full of it, and that he is wrong. I think everybody here knows me well enough to know that I don't back down from anybody if I am right. I may be mistaken from time to time, but I don't lie.

Hope that helps ya Hal - Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

Just curious, have you ever seen any of the posts Matthew made about his dad being a missionary on San Carlos Apache Reservation and the years he spent there with him?

Take care,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Mike,

Just curious, have you ever seen any of the posts Matthew made about his dad being a missionary on San Carlos Apache Reservation and the years he spent there with him?

Take care,

Joe

Hey Joe,

I think maybe some time back on Feldman's Forum. But I don't remember any details. I also don't want to get between you and he and be put in the position of arguing for or against someone when it is not my argument. I said before that nobody is pulling my strings or using me for any purpose. I also think maybe private talks go a lot further than online postings with some subjects, and some people. I have had talks with people over the years (separate from Arizona), that would never post anything online, but don't mind answering via face-to-face or email. Some people are more private than others. I can't say why any person would or would not answer questions on a public forum (even if it is about something they posted online). I noticed that when you asked Matthew by email about the manifest, he told you his side. You seemed to have remembered he even gave you the name of the person/persons he got the manifest from. You might not believe him, but he did answer your question.

It is sort of like the whole Roland Gassler thing. While he has VERY legitimate questions that he and his family deserve answers to, some of those questions are better left OFF-LINE and stay face-to-face (or at least a phone conversation). We have both said that neither Tom K nor Bob C would likely come online to answer Roland's Questions. You said that Tom was willing to talk to Roland via phone. I think the same can be said of Matthew. He has answered every question I have asked him in person (or by email). Personally (and I have stated this before), I don't think the answers to Roland's Questions will reflect negatively on Tom K or Bob C. I think that there are simple answers with no malice or maliciousness on their parts at all. Only that those conversations would be better served offline. My entire point here.


.......and that's all I have to say about thaa'aaaat.

Mike

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

Now, I completely understand what you are looking for. My simple answer is that I don't know. I didn't have the pleasure of ever meeting Mrs. Corbin. I don't know if the document in her book was the same document she received. I have always assumed that the "Manifest" was made to emulate what I would get if I emailed the ISTG requesting a copy of ANY manifest. It wouldn't have been anything old (from 1839). Like if you request a Coat-of-Arms and family crest from one of those companies. They use an old looking font for the certificate and history, because it looks cool.

I think Helen Corbin used the exact document in her book that she was given. I don't believe that she changed a thing. I don't believe for a second that she had any idea that the document was a fraud. Her husband's actions after finding that out bears that out to be the truth (to me).

Now, where did that document originate? I can't say. I (and most others) know Helen Corbin's Source for the document. Where the point of contention lies, is was that person the originator, or was that person provided the document. I honestly cannot say. So, in the light of a plausible explanation, and the FACT that I DO NOT KNOW from whom the original document originated, I call it a push. I discount the document itself, because I know for a fact that it was NEVER obtained from the ISTG, and the Ship Olbers NEVER docked in New Orleans on 17 November 1839. Not one person here can say 100% whether the manifest originated with that person or that person got it from someone else believing it was authentic. I agree with Joe, that in the case of Helen Corbin, I believe she trusted her source, so she did not delve into it as deeply as she may have if she had gotten it from another source.

As I have stated about a gazillion times, I am not taking anybody's side against anybody else. I am only being true to who I am. I am a fair minded person that gives the benefit of the doubt when I don't personally know exactly how something happened. I will tell you that if I knew for a fact that this person (hell, why are we tippy-toeing around this) Matthew. I don't think this is any secret. I hate saying "this person" or "that person", when everybody knows who the subject is. I don't personally like bashing anybody that is not here to defend themselves. BUT, if I knew for a fact that Matthew had forged the manifest, I would be shouting it to the heavens. And conversely, If I knew for a fact that the document had originated with another person, I would be telling Joe that he is full of it, and that he is wrong. I think everybody here knows me well enough to know that I don't back down from anybody if I am right. I may be mistaken from time to time, but I don't lie.

Hope that helps ya Hal - Mike

Mike,
Much appreciated.
I wrote earlier that I find no fault with the author. And the source, we can't know how that information came to him or if he himself believed it.
What I am perplexed by is a blatant modern work being accepted for an authentic ship manifest dating to the mid 1800's.
So much so, that I am a little angry about it. You are as well I suspect and I point to your sending the sample to ITSG. You knew that the image in Helen's book was well, wrong, and confirmed that suspicion yourself.
Be honest with me.
Just how long did it take you to question what it was that you were reading/seeing?
Was it instantaneous?

If it was anything close to that time you must ask how it then passed for something authentic.
No level of trust could explain it.
This is my point.


cactusjumper,
I would ask you the same question. How long did it take you to suspect the manifest in Helen's book?