Clancy Tucker's Blog - Storyteller, Author, Publisher, Photographer, Human Rights Activist, Social Justice Campaigner and sometime poet.
Interview with Manuel Rosa, author of COLUMBUS: The Untold Story -
For 500 years we have been saying that a Genoese wool-weaver Christopher Columbus discovered America. That is just not true. The man who discovered America was a well-instructed nobleman whose name was Cristoval Colon. This mixed identity is the cause of all the misinformation. This blog is a place to address the facts of the history.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
KOLUMBAS: Atskleistoji istorija
Link to interview:
O MISTÉRIO COLOMBO REVELADO (2006)
COLOMBO PORTUGUÊS-NOVAS REVELAÇÕES (2009)
COLÓN: LA HISTORIA NUNCA CONTADA (2010)
KOLUMB. HISTORIA NIEZNANA (2012)
KOLUMBAS. ATSKLEISTA ISTORIJA (2014)
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Tribute to Dad
(Português aqui) Dad, Francisco Garcia da Rosa, passed away on 22 de Abril, 2013, Born at Valverde, Madalena, Pico, Azores in 1922, passed in Boston, USA.
A man who never had anything in all his life, but who made all efforts possible to give everything to his children. A man who preferred to hurt rather than cause others pain.
My dad, my friend and my hero. May God permit that I learn to be half the man he was.
My dad, my friend and my hero. May God permit that I learn to be half the man he was.
Dad never went to school, yet he managed to learn how to read by learning with my granddad at home. Granddad, Manuel Rosa, was the only person who could read on the village, because as an orphan he was raised by a priest who taught him how to read.
My dad taught himself how to write in 1967 while interned for almost a year in the hospital for tuberculosis.
He was a great poet and I have translated one of his poems here:
He was a great poet and I have translated one of his poems here:
VERSES IN POOR RHYME
I always feel like saying, when anyone asks me if I know them,
How can I say if I know you, if I don’t even know who I am?
Neither you know who you are, how could I make that mistake?
Are you what you look like, or do you pretend for your own sake?
I also pretend as I say to myself "I must be an honorable man"
But I am all an imagination, not knowing where I end or begin
(We are all from our imaginary plan)
I searched for me inside out, with all possible strictures
Till I thought I knew who I was, but I am nothing like my pictures
Within this suit that I dress, looking in the mirror at the bloke
I feel like saying to myself, "You think you pass for a joke?"
But am I certain that I exist? There I began to meditate
People tell me "Hey I know you," but how could they relate
Since I hardly know who I am, for man is a stranger to himself
They say what I am like, and it seems nothing like myself
Every man is an unknown with age his self-knowledge worsens
All unaware of their deeds, keep thinking, "We are good persons”
How interesting if you filmed two people with a hidden cam
And afterwards you went and showed their film to them
(One’d say "You filmed someone else" the other "that’s not who I am")
We would die laughing, watching those two persons argue
"We are not the persons you filmed, we are good people, like you"
This could very well be done, but only if filmed undercover
Because if they knew, they would make themselves over
The easiest thing is to give advice; the hardest is to truly know yourself
No matter how old, we never know who we are, and advice? Give it to someone else
Francisco Garcia da Rosa -February 1994
(Translated by Manuel Rosa, April 23, 2013)
(Translated by Manuel Rosa, April 23, 2013)
This 1969 photo was taken when my dad's oldest brother Manuel Rosa, living in San jose, Califronia, since 1924, visited his village in Pico, Azores. The half white half stone house in the back was where I was born in Valverde. The four men on horseback are my uncles, three of my dad's eight siblings. My dad is the one on the right with the straw hat. I am barefoot next to my dad and two of my six brothers are on either side of us.
June 1962, the only time all the siblings were together (I was 1 year old)
I am in the black shirt in the center. This year my dad was interned with tuberculosis in a hospital on the neighboring island where he stayed for 10 months. My mom was left to tend the fields with us, since all we ate, we needed to grow.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Christopher Columbus’s True Identity Unmasked
Will the National Lithuanian American Hall of Fame have Christopher Columbus as a new candidate for induction? The answer looks to be yes, according to a new theory that Columbus was the Portuguese-born son to the King of Poland, Hungary and Lithuania, Wladyslaw III.
How could this be true? The hypothesis supporting Columbus’s royal origins was first published in 2009 in the Spanish book “COLON: La Historia Nunca Contada,” and then in 2012 in the best-selling Polish book, “KOLUMB: Historia Nieznana,” both written by Manuel Rosa, a Portuguese-American historian and author who has been recasting the Columbus biography in the light of recently uncovered evidence.
 |
| On April 6, 2013, Manuel Rosa will present a lecture at Boalsburg’s Columbus Chapel, in Boalsburg, PA, (http://www.boalmuseum.com/columbus-lecture.html) where more evidence will be presented supporting his conclusion that Columbus was of Polish-Lithuanian descent. |
The fact that Columbus used some 80 Portuguese toponyms to name the New World, and that he never wrote in Italian, but did write in Portuguese flavored Spanish, and referred to Portugal as his homeland constitute clues to his Portuguese identity. To substantiate the noble birth, Rosa points out that Columbus and his two brothers had easy access to four courts in Europe, and one brother even lived as a guest of the King of France, all of this long before 1492. Among the more intriguing new pieces of evidence, Rosa shows that the Last Will of 1498 (Mayorazgo or deed of primogeniture), where Columbus supposedly claimed to be “born in Genoa,” is a forgery written by a Genoese interloper long after Columbus died. Henry Harrisse had considered the 1498 Last Will a forgery from a later period, but Rosa was the first to prove that the document was falsified.
After reading the known biographies of Columbus, one realizes that there are enough bits and pieces to support the idea that Columbus, his biographer son Fernando, and the court of Spain made herculean efforts to obscure his true identity and origins. Columbus even changed his name in Spain to that of Cristóbal Colón in order to distance himself from his true lineage. Cristóbal Colón is the only name he ever used during his public life and there is no record in Spain of what his original name was. That by itself does not prove Columbus was royalty, but it appears that, if the identity was successfully obscured during his lifetime, it is almost impossible at this point in history to definitively prove Columbus’s true identity without forensic research. All that remains is the evidence that the obscuring was done and a few clues pointing to his true identity.
Over the centuries, many respected historians came up with different opinions about the true birthplace of Columbus. They had to speculate about what the truth might be since little evidence remains. The majority of scholars came to a conviction that Cristóbal Colón, discoverer, was the same person as Cristoforo Colombo, Genoese wool-weaver, while other historians supported their own convictions that the wool-weaver and the discoverer could not be the same person.
The Italian historian, Paolo Emilio Taviani, fierce proponent of the Genoese Colombo wrote: “What wild imaginings could have generated a Greek Columbus, an English Columbus, three French Columbuses, and, as if that were not enough, a Corsican Columbus, a Swiss Columbus, and three Portuguese Columbuses? For an explanation, we can look only to the immeasurable greatness of Columbus’s achievement and to its profound consequences on the course of human history.”
Antonio Ballesteros Beretta wrote: “One person is responsible for the polemics about the birthplace of Christopher Columbus, and that person is his own son Ferdinand, who, in his biography of his father, displayed ignorance and doubts on a subject which, on the contrary, he should have known well. His dubious attitude” continues Ballesteros, “about the Discoverer’s origins has given rise to an endless series of hypotheses, some of which are farfetched and fantastic.” Ballesteros adamantly stuck to the belief that Christopher and his son Ferdinand were peasants who wanted to conceal, with a “claim of noble ancestry, their humble wool-weaving origins.”
 |
| Stanley Balzekas, (Owner of Balzekas Museum of Lithuanian Culture in Chicago) Eglė Juodvalkė (Lithuanian author and poet), Manuel Rosa and Eric Steele (Columbus authors), Henryk Skwarczynski (Polish author) and Rita Janz (director of Balzekas Museum) |
These Genoese documents were proudly published by the City of Genoa in 1892 and 1896 in a collection of books known by its short tile of Raccolta Colombiana. There one can clearly see that the Cristoforo Colombo of Genoa was by trade nothing more than a lanaiolo: a lowly wool-weaver, son of another wool-weaver.
Mr. Taviani and the other supporters of the Genoese Columbus, however, completely downplayed the fact that the discoverer was a man with extensive schooling who moved within noble circles and that, in Spain, Columbus’s origins were maintained secret from the public. Thus, the Genoese theory discarded many inconvenient truths and invented details to mesh the weaver’s life with the discoverer’s life.
One of the questions we asked Mr. Rosa was how could these accepted documents be contested?
“In actuality there should not even be a need to contest them, because anyone who spends a few hours looking at them will realize that the documents from Genoa are related to a completely different person and have nothing to do with the life of the discoverer. However, since those documents have been accepted for over a century as being related to the discoverer, one is forced to explain them,” Mr. Rosa stated.
When pressed for more specifics, he advises reading his books carefully as they cover 22 years of scientific research that tackle each issue step by step. “However”, he cautioned, “keep in mind that most of the documents in the Raccolta Colombiana are fodder and irrelevant to the solution of Columbus’s identity. Some of the documents do not even exist from the date they were supposedly created but are only referenced in other documents centuries later. Other documents are forged to add information that was not there initially.”
In fact, copies of documents that made it out of Genoa prior to the start of the Columbus controversy, such as Antonio Gallo’s chronicle, do not even mention Columbus, while Gallo’s copy found in Genoa today does. Of the four manuscripts that are attributed to Gallo, where the “Columbus brothers” are mentioned, (British Codex, Torino Codex, Civica Genoa Codex and Federici Codex) NOT ONE is from 1506, when Gallo wrote his chronicle. They are copies done in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Interestingly the Codex stored in the Library of Copenhagen “Ms. Reale antico fondo n. 2205″ the oldest writing from the sixteenth century – therefore written long before the British, Torino, Civica and Federici codexes – has nothing in it about “Columbus brothers”! Clearly Gallo had not written this additional text about Columbus before he died, someone added it later. The famous Asseretto Document was doctored in the Italian publications to remove several blank pages, fraudulently making it look like the text was continuous.
These are only some examples that show how unreliable the Genoese documents and the Raccolta Colombiana are to solving the mystery of Columbus’s identity. “What the Raccolta Colombiana did was help to cover up the truth for yet another 100 years” claims Rosa.
Considered one of today’s leading scholars on the life of Columbus, Mr. Rosa points out that Ferdinand Colón, the discoverer’s son, claimed that his father descended not only from Italian aristocracy, but from the legendary Roman General Colonius and that people were wrong to call him “Christopher Columbus” in Latin, warning that the correct Latin form is “Christopher Colonus.” While historians widely inferred that Christopher Columbus used this noble persona to ingratiate himself to the good graces of the Spanish court in an elaborate illusion to mask a humble weaver background, Rosa thinks Ferdinand was telling the truth. The historians, going against solid evidence in Spain and Portugal, came up with the wrong solution swapping “Cristobal Colón” for a “genovés Cristoforo Colombo.”
The particulars were not always obvious, but because of his familiarity with the Portuguese history of the discoveries and fluency in several languages, Rosa was able to see that something was not right in the official narrative. His biggest clue came when he learned that Columbus had married a Portuguese noblewoman in 1479, a full 14 years before becoming famous in Spain. Knowing that peasants and wool-weavers could never marry nobility, it was apparent something was not correct. By examining more carefully Columbus’s assumed identity, he was able to show how historians had made several simple mistakes that completely changed the course of their research.
First, they mistranslated the name Colón to Columbus, even though Ferdinand alerted us that Colón is not the same as Columbus. Colombo is Italian, Colombe is French, Colom is Catalan, Palomo is Spanish, Pombo is Portuguese and Columbus is Latin. All these names are the same for they mean Pigeon. However, the discoverer’s name was Colón, as in the English colon, and semi-colon, coming from the Greek κωλον (kólon) meaning Member, just as Ferdinand also informed us.
Second, although many contemporary Spanish writers referred to Cristobal Colón as “ginovés” historians missed the important point that in 15th Century Spain, ginovés was slang for “foreigner” and not necessarily confirmation that Columbus was from Genoa. These are two honest mistakes that have led historians in a wild-goose chase to Genoa.
Instead of relying on previous published biographies, Rosa went directly to the medieval sources from multiple kingdoms, plus ancient genealogy and heraldry, in order to cross-reference the historical events with the personalities. In addition, Rosa’s mastery of Spanish and Portuguese, allowed him a more accurate interpretation of these primary source documents, so often prone to errors of translation into English.
By reviewing the ancient documents, chronicles and manuscripts, and taking an active involvement in the DNA studies of Columbus’s bones at the University of Granada, Spain, Mr. Rosa was able to disprove the official narrative as nothing more than a fairytale which was based on repeated misinterpretations of the original facts. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Columbus married Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. Filipa was not only daughter of a high noble and Captain of the Portuguese Island of Porto Santo, but a member of the elite Portuguese Military Order of Santiago, as the newly presented documents show. This makes it impossible for her husband to be a wool-weaver from anywhere. Filipa required the approval of the King of Portugal, Master of the Order of Santiago, in order to marry anyone. Such a granting was a procedure reserved only for someone of high noble standing in Portugal.
It becomes irrelevant what the writers of the last Century, such as Tavianni and Morison concocted about the noble Filipa Moniz. Today we have valid documentation that Filipa Moniz was one of the twelve elite “donnas” of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. This new Portuguese document alone, according to Rosa, makes the entirety of the history about an Italian wool-weaver’s son named Colombo a false account.
Aside from the Order of Santiago document, Rosa was also the first to show Columbus’s original coat of arms and to publish the similarities that exist between it and that of the Polish king. The evidence appears irrefutable that Columbus, who had been housed in the palaces of the nobility, had access to royal courts, and married into nobility, could not be, as our history books tell us, the illiterate son of a poor weaver from Genoa.
Columbus never wrote in Italian or Genoese, not even to his two brothers, and the scholars who have dedicated themselves to in-depth research of Christopher Columbus’s language have declared it to be a rough Castilian punctuated by noteworthy and frequent Portuguese words. This is clearly a clue to his Portuguese birth as are Columbus’s own words written to the Spanish court in March 4, 1493 saying that he “left wife and homeland” (Portugal) to go serve the court of Spain.
Now, 21st Century science is shedding more light on the Centuries-old Italian invention of a Genoese Colombo. Prof. José Lorente’s DNA studies prove that the discoverer Cristóbal Colón’s DNA did not match 477 Colombo families from the Genoa area. This constitutes 477 proofs that Colón was not a Colombo.
So, who was Christopher Columbus, or better Cristóbal Colón, if not a poor weaver’s son from Genoa? With so much uncertainty, how can we be sure of what is the truth?
 |
| Jon Platakis (right) looks on as Manuel Rosa discusses his book on Columbus with Lithuanian researcher Violeta Rutkauskiene |
When pressed to further expound on his theory, pointing to his extensive research, Rosa confidently, and with source documents to verify his assertions, claims “Colón was a royal prince, son of a Portuguese noblewoman from the Italian Colonna family and a man named Henrique Alemão (Henry the German) resident on the Portuguese island of Madeira.”
Turns out that Henrique Alemão was the false name of none other than King Wladyslaw III (a direct descendent of one of Europe’s greatest ruling dynasties, Lithuania’s Gedimin dynasty). After disappearing in the Battle of Varna in 1444, King Wladyslaw III went into self-exile at the Island of Madeira and hid his identity from the public at large. Ferdinand Colón also claimed that his father was a resident of Madeira.
Rosa has pieced together many previously missed clues, including the fact that Prince Georges Paleologue de Bissipat, an exiled Byzantine nobleman living in France nicknamed “Colombo the Younger”, said to be a relative of Christopher Columbus was also a relative of King Wladyslaw III and that Wladyslaw III descended from the “Kings of Jerusalem” just as Ferdinand states Columbus did.
According to Rosa’s book, documents show that some of Europe’s courts knew exactly who Henrique Alemão was and who Cristóbal Colón was. Their high connections explain why the mystery was perpetrated to hide the famous discoverer’s true identity.
Rosa theorizes that Columbus’s original name was Prince Segismundo Henriques, born on Madeira and son of King Władysław III and his wife Senhorinha Annes, a noblewoman from the Portuguese Sá and Italian Colonna families. Thus the navigator descended from Italian aristocracy as Ferdinand claimed and shortened his mother’s last name Colonna to end up with his new Spanish identity of Colón. The last name, Colón, was mistakenly changed to Colom (Catalan for Pigeon) by the publisher Pedro Posa in April, 1493, and picked up by may other printers over Europe. But all who utilized the names Colom/Colombo/Columbus, were referencing the wrong person.
Is this just another run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory? Not according to historians from University of Lisbon and St. Joseph’s University, and most recently renowned Greek historian, Miltiades Varvounis, who wrote that Rosa’s book “is a magnum opus and by no means should be considered a work of pseudo history or just another source of nutty conspiracy theories. Rosa’s numerous reliable findings and solid theories would make Sherlock Holmes jealous. The History of Columbus has many mixed-up facts and personalities, and maybe the time has come for the discoverer’s life to be finally rewritten.”
Although in Portugal and Poland academics have taken to debating and supporting the new findings, it is lamentable that, up until now, there is little or no debate in America or Lithuania to either accept or contradict Rosa’s findings. It is hoped that Lithuanian publishers, historians and researchers will take an interest in this history altering evidence, as this book deserves an audience not only in Lithuania, but worldwide, since Columbus is a world renowned figure who changed the course of our human history.
Prof. D. Félix Martínez Llorente, of University of Valladolid affirmed “the book is an extensive and well-documented work on the still-enigmatic figure of Christopher Columbus, with evocative and notorious contributions that will, with absolute certainty, be talked about for a long time.”
Based on the extensive research, one can now be assured that the discoverer of America was not the poor wool-weaver’s son from Genoa. Hopefully, in the near future, forensic DNA evidence can be obtained to prove that Christopher Columbus descended from Lithuania’s Royal House but hid his royal lineage to protect a paramount secret. The secret that his father, King Wladyslaw III, did not die at the Battle of Varna in 1444, but survived, and rejecting the crown of Poland, Lithuania and Hungary, went to live out his days in secret exile in Portugal, was the reason for the whole mystery surrounding his identity.
Will Lithuanians now be able to add another page to their already epic history to include the discovery or America?
Friday, February 15, 2013
KOLUMB. Historia Nieznana is a magnum opus
Miltiades Varvounis, distinguished Greek-Polish historian, researcher and author of the critically acclaimed Jan Sobieski: The King Who Saved Europe among several other history books, wrote in an extensive article about Manuel Rosa's Polish book on Christopher Columbus saying that KOLUMB. Historia Nieznana:"... is a magnum opus and by no means should be considered a work of pseudo history or just another source of nutty conspiracy theories. Rosa's numerous reliable findings and solid theories would make Sherlock Holmes jealous. The History of Columbus has many mixed-up facts and personalities, and maybe the time has come for the discoverer's life to be finally rewritten." - Source Lithuanian Heritage Magazine, (January/February 2913) pg. 28.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
False Documentation and Forgeries in Christopher Columbus History
I have often pointed out how much of the documentation utilized to support the official history of Christopher Columbus is unreliable. The fact is that forgeries were created over the last five centuries, documents were modified, details were invented and facts were censored, discarded and ignored. All of this has been presented in my various books on Columbus. I have succeeded in proving that the Last Will of 1498, also called the Mayorazgo de 1498, was never written by Columbus but fabricated during the Inheritance Lawsuit for the Dukedom of Veragua (los pleitos sobre la sucesión del Estado y Ducado de Veragua) initiated in 1578 and finally put to rest in 1609.
The lawsuit for one of the greatest inheritances ever left, lasted 31 years. In 31 years a lot of forgeries can be created by those eager to benefit from them.
There are many reasons as to why forgeries are created, money being the most important reason. I have already shown how the Genoese publications fooled the historians with the Assereto Document by cutting out the blank pages and joining together the written pages as if they were continuous which they are not. Furthermore, there is no way to stitch the Assereto pages together as a single document, if you do the pages do not read correctly.
When I began to claim that the Assereto was a blatant forgery by the City of Genoa to influence history, I was quickly told of this short quote by Paolo Emilio Taviani as to why the document is authentic:
"It is important to bear in mind that at the time when Assereto traced the document, it would have been impossible to make an acceptable facsimile. Nowadays, with modern chemical processes, a document can be 'manufactured', made to look centuries old if need be, with such skill that it is hard to prove it is a fake. Fifty years ago this was still impossible."§
Today I am posting here two documents which I declare are forgeries. The "original" forgery is a supposed letter from Columbus to the Genoese Bank of St. George in 1502. I have not had the opportunity to go see this original in person, but simply by what the text itself says, as well as by the format of the signature, i declare that Columbus could never have written this letter but that someone forged this letter after his death in an attempt to connect Columbus to the Bank in Genoa.
The "copy" is clearly a forgery since it is almost indistinguishable from the "original" housed in Genoa. Simply by comapring both, it is obvious that one was copied from the other with the intent to fool someone and everyone into accepting that Columbus had written it.
Look carefully and you will note that all the lines break on the same words, that all strokes of the pen are copied exactly and how the missing text in the original, due to the holes in it, is blank on the copy.•
Strangely enough, the discoverer, who was supposed to have been born in Genoa and was supposed to have lived there for half his life, wrote to the Genoese Bank not in Genoese but in Castilian. Even stranger is that we are supposed to believe that the Bank's replies, that we are supposed to believe were addressed to Columbus's son and to Columbus, instead of being written in Castilian, were written in Genoese, instead. The following image taken from John Boyd Thacher's Christopher Columbus: his life, his works, his remains: as revealed by original printed and manuscript records, published in 1904, shows a letter dated December 8, 1502, that Columbus never received.
No letters from the "prestigious" Bank of St. George were ever found in the Discoverer's Archives in Spain, but are found, instead, in the Bank's own archives! Talk about a case of miscommunication!
Now comes the part where I prove how Paolo Emilio Taviani and all his followers are wrong about forgeries in saying that it was impossible for the Assereto Document to have been forged. take a good look at the two images of the letter above and see if you can tell the difference between them. The two documents are so close to one another that if one had not been done in vellum and if the other did not have the two holes punched in the middle, it would have been impossible to tell which one was written first.
The "original" with the holes through it came to light in 1829 and has, since then, been housed in Genoa. The "copy" came to light in October 1883, while Henry Harrisse was in Paris. The "copy" was then offered for sale in New York and Chicago in 1887, as told by Mr. Harrisse.
The letters are such perfect copies that when you take one and place it on top of the other, they match up almost perfectly, as the photoshop image here shows. (Try it yourself by downloading each letter.)
 |
| The yellow image is of the paper document with the holes in it. The pink image is of the vellum document. I placed one image over the other in photoshop and changed the opacity on the pink image so that the yellow image would bleed through. Note how they match up exactly, especially on the signature, where the image below has not overlap at all. The other text follows the same exact pattern. The lower left leg of the pink "M" has an upstroke that is not on the yellow. |
This seems to me that this could only have been done with some sort of direct tracing which would have been impossible to do if the "original" was held in the custody of the City of Genoa since 1829. It seems to me that, if one is in vellum and the other on paper, that it would be easier to trace with the paper over the parchment than vice-versa. In that case the "copy" would have to be the letter held by the City of Genoa and the "original" would be the vellum.
Possibly the vellum copy forgery was created first, I don't know how translucent parchment can be in order to trace over another document, but either way, the important thing here is that an exact forgery was done in Italy of an essential document that is used to support the "official narrative" of the peasant wool-weaver and, thus, Taviani was wrong again in saying that forgeries were impossible to create in 1904.
If such an exact forgery could have been done in 1883, imagine how easy it would be to forge a stand-alone document, one that did not have to match any other document, as is the Assereto?
Needless to say, historians the world over have been fooled for centuries by the many forgeries and adulterated documents and have "agreed" to a history which turns out to be a fairytale.
New research continues to reveal more and more lies in the history books relating to Columbus and his "discovery" of America.
We have not yet uncovered all the lies, nor do we have yet the full truth, but at least we have opened the door to reality and begun to shed some light on those old dusty documents so long held as the "proof", but which turn out to be only proof of a misled world which accepted that the great Admiral and Viceroy had started his life as the poor peasant wool-weaver from Genoa.
Along with this forgery, I am inserting another type of forgery. That is the forgery of documentation, either by evil intent, by good intent or by ignorance. Forgery of documentation occurs when a document is modified from its original state or copied with wrong information. The case I present next is important because it relates to the first English translation of Peter Martyr's text on the Discovery of America.
The reader will note that Peter Martyr, writing in Latin, always called the discoverer by the correct Latin form Colonus and never Columbus.
As I have written many times before, the name Christopher Columbus is not the correct name of the discoverer.
His correct name in Spanish is Cristóbal Colón which gives us Christopher Colonus in Latin, while the Latin Christopher Columbus would give us Cristóbal Paloma in Spanish, Columbus/Paloma can never equal Colonus/Colon.
Here you can see an explanation of how the name Colon (from the Greek meaning Member) began to get corrupted to Colom (Catalan meaning Pigeon) and then to Colombo (Italian meaning Pigeon) and finally to Columbus, which means Pigeon in Latin.
I can't put into a blog article the whole of my book, KOLUMB. Historia Nieznana (COLUMBUS. Unknown History), however, the important thing is to remember that the name Colonus was wrongly corrupted to Columbus and the following image from Richard Eden book shows this forgery of the documentation in action.
Richard Eden inserted into his translation the following text which is not part of the original text written by Peter Martyr. However, Mr. Eden does not bother to alert the reader that he had taken it upon himself to add this text: (otherwise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua."
Richard Eden added this information without a reference as to where he got it, trying to put words into Peter Martyr's mouth. However, it can be safe to say that Eden followed rampant rumors and innuendo and not any official document or statement issued by the Colon family. The Colon family was intentionally hiding the true identity and birthplace of Christopher from the public eye.
 |
| Peter Martyr's original text on the left and Richard Eden's on the right. The blue arrows show the insertion by Eden that is not on the original. |
Inventions like the one Eden implemented are rampant in the documents, chronicles and translations but have no factual basis, as is excruciatingly detailed in the three books that I have already published in Portugal, Spain and Poland.
We should learn to call the discoverer by his correct name, which was Cristóbal Colón and systematically denounce the false name of Christopher Columbus because it is the name of an impostor fabricated by unreliable and false Italian documentation that does nothing but add to the confusion.
We should learn to call the discoverer by his correct name, which was Cristóbal Colón and systematically denounce the false name of Christopher Columbus because it is the name of an impostor fabricated by unreliable and false Italian documentation that does nothing but add to the confusion.
The fact is that, with so much false information, we may never know the true identity of Colon without a wide ranging DNA study, which we hope to be able to perform in the upcoming years.
_
§ Christopher Columbus: the grand design, Taviani, Paolo Emilio.
• Christopher Columbus and the Bank of Saint George, Henry Harrisse, Chiswick press; C. Wittingham and co., London, 1888
• Christopher Columbus and the Bank of Saint George, Henry Harrisse, Chiswick press; C. Wittingham and co., London, 1888
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Historian to Reveal Columbus Identity at Chicago’s Copernicus Center
CHICAGO
Historian to Reveal Columbus Identity at Chicago’s Copernicus Center
- Details
- Published on Saturday, 10 November 2012 10:29
History of America's Discovery turned upside-down by new research: Columbus was not Italian and didn't discover America. Columbus's voyage was a political plot planned by Portugal and meant to deceive the Spanish Queen Isabel, sworn enemy of King John II of Portugal, whom she had tried to assassinate in 1484, as exposed in a new Polish language book, KOLUMB. Historia Nieznana, (COLUMBUS. Unknown History).
Chicago, IL, November 09, 2012 --(PR.com)-- Chicago’s Joseph Conrad Yacht Club would like to invite you to join "The Secret Identity of Columbus: Peasant to Viceroy in 33 days" held this Saturday, November 10, 2012 at 6:30pm, at the Royal Hall of the Copernicus Center in Chicago where the short film “Kolumb jest nasz” will also be shown.
This controversial presentation by author and historian, Manuel Rosa, unveils the polemic identity of the famous Christopher Columbus. After the lecture, participants will be able to purchase an autographed and personalized copy of his book, KOLUMB. Historia Nieznana, published this May in the Polish language.
This controversial presentation by author and historian, Manuel Rosa, unveils the polemic identity of the famous Christopher Columbus. After the lecture, participants will be able to purchase an autographed and personalized copy of his book, KOLUMB. Historia Nieznana, published this May in the Polish language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)