Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus/Archive 2

The Genoese Hypothesis

A problem that may be encountered is that all of those mentioned in support of this hypothesis, may have had their information from Antonio Gallo. By comparing the coat of arms, as it is shown for the Colon brothers in Antonio de Herrera's "Historia" from 1601, and Antonio Gallo's coat of arms, Tor Borch Sannes assumed that Christopher Colon and Antonio Gallo were relatives. If Cristopher Colon did not want to reveal his origin, he may have had support from Antonio Gallo.

Christopher Colon's grandfather's name is "Johannis" in the original document. It is "Giovanni" only when translated (p. 13). Same place his father's surname is "de Columba" in the original, only the translated name is Columbus. St.Trond (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Take Out This

"Genoese Italian was not a written language in the 15th century" Of course Genoese was a written language and had been for centuries. Genoa had its own version of its language just like all other developed regions of the world did at that time. It is not true that Genoese was not written.Colombo.bz (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Genoese dialect supports your statement, although without sources. It seems like this sentence should indeed be changed. ClovisPt (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Royal Confirmation

It is highly suggested that this statemet be deleted:
"However, there is a royal confirmation of the will dated 1501, and a number of authorities consider the 1498 will to be genuine."
There is NO confirmation of any kind for the will of 1498 it appeared only in 1588 and is a fraudulent piece of paper.71.111.205.224 (talk)

Portuguese hypothesis

Since the "editors" see fit to keep removing this info from the article I am forced to place it here in hopes that readers have access to it:

One of several theories claiming that Columbus was Portuguese, put forward by Portuguese Manuel Rosa in his book O Mistério Colombo Revelado ("The Columbus Mystery Revealed"), implies that Columbus may have been a "secret agent" for King John II of Portugal, as part of a plan to misdirect Portugal's rival Castile concerning India.

One of several theories claiming that Columbus was Portuguese, put forward by Portuguese Manuel Rosa in his book O Mistério Colombo Revelado ("The Columbus Mystery Revealed"), implies that Columbus may have been a "secret agent" for King John II of Portugal, as part of a plan to misdirect Portugal's rival Castile concerning India. Rosa and Steele point out several facts that only fit into a Portuguese nationality:

• In the first and only reference made to the Navigator's nationality by Queen Isabel's court they call him "portogues" twice in 1487.
• The Navigator never wrote in Genoese to anyone not even when he wrote to Genoa. But he did write in Portuguese flavored Castillian.
• In 1493 in a letter to the Catholic Kings, Columbus referred to Portugal as "mi terra" my homeland.
• Paolo de Toscanelli infers that Columbus is a Portuguese.
• The place names used by the Navigator in the New World were in their majority taken from Portuguese locations including Cabo Talhado, Cabo Agulhas and Natal used by Bartolomeu Dias in 1488.
• The Navigator already possessed a coat of arms in Portugal which no wool-weaver from Italy possessed.
• He communicated with is brothers, Bartolome and Diego, in Portuguese flavored Castilian and those two brothers wrote back in the same language.
• 20 years before his epic voyage, the Navigator was already uncle to one Marquis and two Counts in Portugal and was uncle to the King's Lord Chamberlain, Pedro de Noronha.
• Violante Nogueira, aunt of Columbus's wife, raised King Duarte's daughters which included Queen Joana of Castile.
• Columbus's wife was cousin to King John II's Mistress, Ana de Mendonça.
• Columbus's brother-in-law, Pedro Correia Lacerda da Cunha, was King John II's bodyguard.
• Columbus's wife, Filipa Moniz, was a member of the Military Order of Santiago and so privileged that she was only one of twelve "comendadoras" to live at the Monastery of Todos-os-Santos in Lisbon.
• As a "comendadora" Filipa Moniz's marriage required authorization from the Master of Santiago. Santiago's Master was King John II.Colombo.bz (talk)

Regarding the comment included in the main article that: "This is based on interpretation of some facts and documents of his life (as above), but mostly on an analysis of his signature under the Jewish Kabbalah, where he described his family and origin. Mascarenhas Barreto, however, has been discredited by Portuguese Genealogist Luís Paulo Manuel de Meneses de Melo Vaz de São Paio in his works Carta Aberta a um Agente Secreto, Primeira Carta Aberta a Mascarenhas Barreto[23] and Carta Aberta a um "Curioso" da Genealogia[24]." This is not true. Indeed Mr Barreto also included in his book an analysis of the signature, that also includes interpretations from the Jewish Kabbalah, but to say that a part of the book is mostly his work, it is not correct (his book has 36 parts). There is also another component of his book, among the 36 parts, that covers a genealogy study. However, to say that Mr Barreto was discredited because of a different opinion regarding a chapter of his book, is incorrect and pushing the limits of reality. Actually, Mr Barreto work is an impressive work even if one may disagree with certain interpretations but, overall, all the Portuguese origin angle is well established and defended. So Mr. Barreto wasn't discredited... someone may have a different interpretation to part of one of his books, not Mr. Barreto or his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.68.254 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of wrong assertions

For abut 5 years now I have been visiting these pages trying to add factual information for those who truly wish to learn about this controversy. At times the article on Christopher Columbus (a misnomer for Cristobal Colon) began to take a more factual turn but it was always short/lived as people keep adding info without verifying if it is true or not. At one point I was blocked from editing. As time went on I decided it was fruitless to fight the powers that be and that I would just point out in these discussions what the errors of assertion are. Every piece of info that I have added to these pages I have been able to present its proof and when I have stated that others were wrong or misinformed I have pointed out how that was true. In cases where the facts presented were wrong or unclear I have asked the editors to present their proof. Needless to say no one has brought any proof for the statements that I have contested, yet they insist on deleting info that is inserted based on facts to insert instead hearsay just because they believe it is true. We again have such a case with someone adding that: 'A reference, dated 1492 by a court scribe Galindez, referred to Columbus as Cristóbal Colón, genovés. But without a citation.
In fact GALINDEZ DE CARVAJAL was not a scribe but a Salamanca University teacher in Law and only joined the court in 1502. Aside from this he only wrote his chronicle years after Colon died and in his own words Colon was from SAONA which is not the same as Genoa. «Y este año tomaron los Reyes asiento con Cristóbal Colón, ginovés, natural de Saona, sobre el descubrimiento de las Indias e islas del mar Océano, de que tanta honra y provecho se ha seguido a estos reinos». (p. 545). REF: Biblioteca de Autores Españoles (Vol. III de las Crónicas de los Reyes) Madrid, 1878, pp. 554-585.
What we have here on a consistant basis is a failure to verify the facts while accepting that the Official Version of the history is correct no matter how far off the facts are. It was not long ago that we had an Official Version of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that 90% of the world believed and wrote about and went to war over but it was in fact a lie and the Official History of a Columbus from Genoa being the same guy as the Colon from Spain will soon be exposed to the world as the greatest lie ever told.Colombo.bz (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "Saona" can be 3 things: a caribbean island, a french river or a strange spelling for the italian city of SaVona, very close to Genoa and part of the former Republic of Genoa, where Columbus was supposed to be born. I don't think neither that he was caribbean, nor that he was born in a river, so the third option appears more reliable, what do you think?

Anyway, comparing the theory of WMD in Iraq with the theory of Columbus being Genoese is nonsense. The first theory lasted about 2 years, the second 5 CENTURIES, and whether you like it or not, is still considered the most reliable by the vast majority of academics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.44.126 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Turning into a witch hunt

We would like to ask mr. DougWeller to not delete facts inserted by other editors unless he can prove that those facts are not true and correct. Otherwise mr. DougWeller is carrying out censorship against the truth just because he assumes mr. Rosa to not be correct or not "notorious" enough as he like to say.Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 23:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Jose

The word is 'notable', not 'notorious', and the article on Manuel Rosa was deleted because he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. The corollary to this is that if we use him at all in this article we need to follow our policy at WP:NPOV and also WP:UNDUE, and any mention should be minimal (which it is without your repeated edit). This has nothing to do with whether he is correct, Wikipedia simply reports what WP:RELIABlE SOURCES have to say, it doesn't try to prove anything. dougweller (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, are insinuating that Rosa is not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to think he is, and reliability is not the default on Wikipedia. If you think he and the high school teacher he worked with are, take it to the RS Noticeboard. And I also suggest you remove your comments attacking me. dougweller (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What comments specifically you want me to remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestion that I or any other editor are on a witch hunt. Please see WP:AGF. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've changed the terms you've used to attack me. I guess I should be grateful. :-)

Dougweller, it is no reason to be joyful. By continuously deleting the facts that we have added you have left the public with a slanted point of view that is not factual and turned a controversy into a non-controversy. Furthermore in the "Portuguese Theory" the facts added are all proven facts while the other theories are speculative. And lets not forget that this is a "theory", which by definition does not even need to show facts. Why should the non-facts of the Genoese theory outweigh true facts presented in the Portuguese theory? Because you see fit? Colombo.bz (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE THIS OUT IT IS NOT TRUE

"However, there is a royal confirmation of the will dated 1501, and a number of authorities consider the 1498 will to be genuine."
There is NO royal confirmation anywhere of the 1498 Last Will. It never existed in any of the inventories before being shown at the Inheritance Law Suits in 1580. What is confirmed by the royal scribe is the King and Queen's decree giving Columbus the right to make a will. They are two different documents.71.111.240.96 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)History Buff

It's from a reliable, verifiable source, unlike for instance the blog that you tried to use as a source. That's why it shouldn't be removed. Your opinion I'm afraid is not enough. You really need to read WP:RS, please. Doug Weller (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"It's from a reliable, verifiable source" - DougWeller. If being printed on paper as opposed to being in a blog makes something verifiable and reliable we are all in trouble. Kirkpatrick Sale is wrong 100% in stating that "there is a royal confirmation of the will dated 1501" the Last Will of 1498 was never notarized, confirmed, or otherwise ever inventoried anywhere before 1580 and when it showed up it was presented as non-notarized a copy and not as an original. What was notarized in 1501 was the royal authorization of 1497 for Columbus to make a Last Will which Columbus made in 1502 and not in 1498... But I know that unless I show the documents you will not believe me. That is why I had to rub in your face the "Portogues" Columbus of Pedro Diaz de Toledo before you decided it was OK to remove that lie from the article. Ask Kirkpatrick Sale to show the proof that the Will of 1498 was confirmed by anyone in 1501. Go ahead lets see that proof that you say is verifiable.71.111.240.96 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC) History Buff

Please see WP:RS to understand how Wikipedia works. And WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. The claims are from a source that can be used here, and changing them is like changing a quote. Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller, many of the new claims Rosa made here are also "from a source that can be used here" titled O Misterio Colombo Revelado. Do you see your double-standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.7.182 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are entirely missing the point. You can't change a quote or in this case a list of claims from a reliable source. The article includes a whole variety of claims, they can't all be right and some are pretty barking. Take it to the WP:RSN if you are unhappy. It isn't as though this article only presents one hypothesis. Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirkpatrick Sale is not a reliable source. He is simply "a source," like Morison, that you like because it fits your biased view. If Kirkpatrick Sale was a reliable source he would have stated that there is NO royal confirmation of the Last Will of 1498. Because there isn't. Kirkpatrick Sale never saw it and neither did anybody else. Even Navarrete said such royal confirmation doesn't exist: "carecemos de la satisfaccion de haber encontrado en los archivos que hemos reconocido y citamos siempre, un original de letra del Almirante ó firmado por él, ó una copia legalizada en toda forma como lo está la facultad Real que antecede para instituir el mayorazgo y el codicilo otorgado en 19 de Mayo de 1506" Navarrete Page 275, Tomo II.
Translated here for you and Kirkpatrick Sale. "We lack the satisfaction of having encountered in the archives that we have examined and always cite, an original in the Admiral's handwriting or signed by him, or a copy notarized in all form as is the Royal faculty that preceded to institute an inheritance and the codicil done on 19 of May of 1506.Colombo.bz (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for for the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.177.114 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

'Reliable source' has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. It means that we can use him, it never means that they are right. Wikipedia reports what such reliable sources have to say about a subject. Wikipedia articles are not an attempt to find out the truth, as I've said, they simply report what reliable sources have to say. You are pushing a particular viewpoint that you think is the truth (and your username is that of a website pushing that view). dougweller (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, I fail to see how a source that is wrong can be a "reliable source" at the same time. All the statements I have made have been verifiable by the documents and the facts of history and are a result of 18 years of investigation. I am not pushing a viewpoint I am pushing facts so that readers can decide for themselves. While at the same time the article is pushing hearsay and misinterpretations of the documents. But I am learning that indeed Wikipedia articles are not an attempt to write about the truth. That is where I went wrong. I assumed we were trying to work towards an accurate encyclopedia but it turns out readers are actually reading articles full of fantasy and they should beware when using this encyclopedia as a "reliable source". I also realize that while you delete my insertions that are factual you fail to delete those that are false. Such is the case of the Galindez entry that I explained above. Although it is true that half the world wrote that the navigator was a "Columbus" and "Genoese" after he became famous the facts of his life don't support this. For one he never called himself Columbus nor was that his real name and secondly he hid his true identity and nationality therefore none of those blabbermouths would have known where he was truly from and thirdly the man who sailed to America in 1492 was already a nobleman in Portugal 20 years before and was an educated scholar as well as an expert navigator who never wrote in Genoese or Italian not even to Italy nor to his 2 brothers and he is far from that wool weaving peasant the Genoese told us he was.
For you to understand this I will give you a simple scenario. Lets say that you come across some 1000 documents in Ghanna written by 1000 people from the late 1700s early 1800s that tell the tale of an African man "John Adamastor" captured in 1760 when age 25 who was enslaved and sold in America. In 1776 this African man saved George Washington's life in a battle. Because of this event George Washington married this African, John Adamastor, with the daughter of Vice-President John Adams. John Adamastor wrote back home to all his relatives, in Perfect English mind you, that he was now the son-in-law of the Vice-President and in his honor the Vice-President changed his name to John Adams. It is of course pure fantasy even if 1000 people wrote it as truth.- This is the same with Columbus. Just like a slave couldn't marry any "lady" in the 1700s NO wool-weaver from Genoa, Portugal or Mars could marry the woman that Columbus married in 1479. I hope you can now see the ridiculousnesses of the story of a Genoese wool-weaving Columbus.Colombo.bz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

{{Editsemiprotected}}

Note I am not the editor who posted the edit request, but I assume that the sentence "However, there is a royal confirmation of the will dated 1501, and a number of authorities consider the 1498 will to be genuine." is requested to be removed.—C45207 | Talk 09:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was dealt with last year, although I see that some of Columbo.bz's OR is still there. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I've removed the request for now. If there is a specific edit that needs to be made, and a non-confirmed user wishes to request it, please use another {{Editsemiprotected}} with the exact details of the changes required. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

looks like the third link, the one to the Discovery Channel's documentary about Columbus being a catalan, unsuprisingly, is not working. I can't seem to find the video anywhere on the net. The google video link doesn't work either.

I can't also find any torrent. Is in it curious that a documentary about the 2nd most written-about man in history, and second only to Jesus, has literally disappeared?

If someone able to edit has a link to the actual video, please add it, as it is a quite revealing documentary.

Thanks to whoever reads this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.158.105 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and please, no one link to the video unless it is explicitly clear on the site that it is not a copyright violation. I'd love to see the evidence that he is the second most written-about man in history. Anyway, as I can't find the link on the Discovery Channel site, and am dubious about its use anyway, I'll delete it. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The program "Columbus: Secrets From the Grave" was broadcast on 1 Aug 2004 at 10PM EDT on the Discovery Channel. The program was produced by Atlantic Productions, and is listed at: http://www.atlanticproductions.co.uk/docspec2.html

The "video is currently not available" at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3509711128767762641#

A very brief synopsis is at: http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/vidColumbus.php

A longer summary is at: http://histocat.cat/php/ls.php?fx=1vadv00200

The program was saturated with all sorts of flimflam. Near the end of the program, a pundit states that, based on an analysis of Columbus' writings, "one cannot exclude that he was Catalan." I wonder if, based on the same analysis, one cannot exclude that he was Portuguese, Galician, Corsican, Greek, and whatever! Italus (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Catalan Colom

This same theory suggests he was the illegitimate son of a prominent Catalan seafaring family of patricians, bankers, and merchants who sailed across the Mediterranean, the Colom, which had served as mercenaries in a sea battle against five merchant genoese vessels 10 kilometers off the coast of Portugal in 1476, as Columbus himself recognized at the end of his life, also saying that he wasn't the first Admiral of his family, an allusion to Guillaume Casenove Coulon, Commander of the corsair ship of 1476 with whom he sailed because he was his relation, as mentioned by his son and biographer Fernando Colón.

Attention: Fernando Colón did NOT say Cristóbal Colón was related to "Guillaume Casenove Coulon"- known as Colombo the Elder. Fernando says his father was related to Colombo the Younger, who was in fact, George Palaeologus Byssypatt "Dissipatos, dit le Grec"- a Byzantine Prince who escaped to France at the fall of Constantinople and who was a "Knight, Captain of the King's ship La Normande and even Chamberlain" to Luis XI of France (as is clearly proven in Colón. La Historia Nunca Contada, Esquilo, Bodajoz, Spain, 2009). The Catalan Colom theory is far-fetched because it leaves out completely Colón's life in Portugal. It shows not one single piece of evidence that any Catalan Colom moved to Portugal and ignores the fact that "Colón" is an assumed identity, as all investigators of this subject are well aware. Colón was as much a "Colombo" by birth as was Prince George Dissipatos or Guillaume Casenove Coulon. Colombo.bz (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could this sentence be broken up a smidge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.235.42 (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Catalan Theory paragraph - Worst on the internet or just on Wikipedia?

I've removed the following:

In 2003, a team of Spanish scientists gained the right to exhume Columbus' remains from the Cathedral of Seville, Spain. The exhumation was taken by Prof. Miguel C. Botella, Forensic anthropologist and Bioarchaeologist and Prof. José Antonio Lorente at the University of Granada and also at the Orchid Laboratories in Dallas, Texas, with the new technique created for 9/11 victims. They performed a DNA analysis of bones from Columbus, his son Fernando, and his brother Diego, and looked at Columbus' writings.

The source relates not to C's origins, but his place of burial. At this moment (and probably forever) it is impossible to use DNA testing to reliably distinguish between an Italian and a Spaniard, especially if they come from port sities facing each other at a distance of a few hundred miles!

The first half of the section is just a garbled synopsis of a tv program, containing factual inaccuracies and non-sequiters. The middle section recycles the discredited "Joan Colom i Beltram" theory, which has been firmly disproved by a Catalan historian, who shows that said Joan Colom i Beltram wasn't just old at the time of C's voyage, he was dead.

The last section relates to an old lady talking outside her speciality, but should probably stay.

--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The majority view among historians is that Columbus was Genoese

This statement is true and sourced through the Britannica article, please discuss before reverting.

--58.8.251.108 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this article overall can be said to be the worst on wikipedia, look at this phrase:"Then he devised a plan to get revenge against England by helping Spain find a new continent to exploit." lool a new continent to exploit? no one knew that a new continent ever existed lol, he though he was on India jajaja. It is doubtful that he ever realised that he had discovered a new continent, not a route to India. 83.43.38.156 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese hypothesis

Why does the following entry keep getting removed from the Portuguese section?? Do you have something against presenting evidence to your readers?

Support for the Portuguese theory comes from documents written by Columbus and contemporaries of Columbus:[23] Spanish historian, Antonio Rumeu de Armas presented a document where in 1487 Queen Isabel's accountant, Pedro Diaz de Toledo, refers to Columbus as "The Portuguese who was at El Real. This was at the departure from Linares and Your Highness ordered me in person.[24] In the Achivo de Indias in Seville is a secret letter dated 1488 from King John II calling him Xpoval Colon and describing the future discoverer as "industrious, ingenious and very necessary to the crown of Portugal". In the Portuguese Archives, Torre do Tombo in Lisbon is a documented dated 1475 that shows the future discoverer's wife, the portuguese noble lady Filipa Moniz Perestrelo whom he married in 1479, was a member of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago, a lady belonging to the top tier of Portuguese society, sister-in-law to the king's bodyguard, aunt to a Marquis and two Counts and aunt to the king's own Lord Chamberlain. In March 1493 the discoverer himself called Portugal "mi tierra" my homeland in a letter to the Spanish Monarchs writing "remember Your Highnesses that I left wife, children and my homeland to come serve you.[25] Menéndez Pidal asserts that all of the discoverers letters are written in a Portuguese flavored Spanish and not a single letter is written in Genoese or in Italian. Even those written to his brothers and to the Genoese Friar Gaspar Gorricio are in this Portuguese flavored Spanish. The correspondence between the discoverer and his brothers, Bartolomé and Diego, is also written in Spanish and not in Italian or Genoese. Henry Harrisse asserts that Paolo de Toscanelli (an Italian) in letter to the future discoverer (prior to 1482) wrote "I am not surprised that you and the entire nation of Portugal", thus accepting that the recipient was a "Portuguese". Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

COLUMBUS. The Untold Story

An investigation into the lost pages of history uncovers how the king of Portugal employed Columbus as a Portuguese spy in deceiving Spain with a false route to India. OVERVIEW: Some 500 years ago, the man we know today as Christopher Columbus sailed across the dangerous Atlantic for the Spanish monarchs and returned to Europe with the news of having reached the famous lands of India. Initially hailed as a hero he soon fell from grace, was arrested, deposed and shunned by the very monarchs who, seven years earlier, had made him Governor, Admiral and Viceroy of the those Indies by a contract dated April 17, 1492. His descendants litigated for decades to enforce that contract and recoup their rights over those titles and the vast New World. For nearly a century the Crown of Spain did all it could to prevent the discoverer’s descendants from acquiring those rights. The court employed delay tactics, false witnesses, accused Columbus of disloyalty, lying, stealing gold, embezzling pearls, planning a rebellion to overthrow Spanish rule in the New World and even committing murder to prevent the monarchs from finding out the true plan of deception behind that epic First Voyage to America. What this book presents is factual evidence that the Spanish Monarchs were deceived. Based on 20 years of systematic research from ancient manuscripts to modern DNA and from forensics to genealogy, the book shows that the Spanish Monarchs had good reason to believe they had been tricked by Columbus who was in fact a sly, cunning, devious and masterful genius whose role as a double-agent for the King of Portugal managed to fool the world for five centuries. “Columbus is guilty of huge fraud carried out over two decades against his patrons,” wrote professor James T. McDonough, Jr., Ph.D. from Columbia University who taught at St. Joseph's University for 31 years. The book is also hailed by Prof. Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão, Dean of the University of Lisbon, who wrote the Preface, as well as other experts in the field like Prof. Trevor Hall, Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Marcel Balla, Boston University, Prof. Manuela Mendonça, President of the Portuguese Academy of History, and Prof. D. Félix Martínez Llorente, University of Valladolid, among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)