The other colonization of America, according to maps and neochronology

Andreu Marfull Pujadas
Prologue by A.T.Fomenko

Based on research by Enric Guillot and
the New Chronology of Fomenko and Nosovskij

Self-publishing

Published on the official website of the New Chronology: https://chronologia.org/en/marfull/the_other_colonization_of_america.pdf

Presentation

In this work, prepared with Enric Guillot’s research material (which he has kindly agreed to share), it is shown that: 1) the most widespread symbols on maps of the 15th and 17th centuries were the Portuguese, Catalan, and Ottoman symbols; 2) the Catalans and Ottomans occupied a good part of America; and 3) the Catalan presence in America is the main one, above Portuguese and Castilian. And official history says that neither Catalans nor Ottomans did anything to America, at least not as conquerors. Given this contradiction, which is supported by other evidence and reasons, the question that arises is why is it denied? Or, put another way, does it make sense to say, everywhere, that this never happened? In the case of the Catalans, it is especially intriguing, insofar as it is a Christian kingdom, unlike the Ottoman one, which is understood as Muslim. And they were in conflict. It could be that Christian zeal has erased the Ottoman presence, but why the Catalan one? According to the official account, there is no reasonable explanation, unless we go back to the 18th century, when it is known that the Catalans are occupied by the Castilian powers under the command of the Bourbon king, and force the dismantling of their institutions, as well as the condemnation official use of their language, Catalan. But, of course, accepting this means validating a disturbing hypothesis: the entire history of the 16th and 17th centuries has been manipulated, since, according to this official story, the Catalans decided to stop caring about the world and even abandoned the use of literature of their language, hitherto of recognized diffusion and prestige. And this does not link with the information that the maps give. In any case, in this research it is proposed as an argued hypothesis, which is proposed to contrast and resolve.

With the problem and the hypothesis raised, a method and a discussion are developed. In a summarized way, to promote a debate, other theses and investigations are presented, which jointly help to find an explanation.

To avoid misunderstandings, it is convenient to clarify what the Catalan emblems refer to. This are the set of territories organized around the Principality of Catalonia, which here are assimilated to Tarraconensis, honouring an investigation by Ivan Giménez, which shows that the term Aragon comes from Tarraconensis (with Catalan capital), and that the kings of Aragon knew each other, really like kings of the Tarraconensis. On the other hand, it should be said that in none of the maps studied here (and in the rest of the previous historical maps, except for some unpublished or unique maps), the flag of the kingdom of Aragon appears, and the flags of Barcelona (Catalonia) do, and Valencia, as well as the rest of the kingdoms of the so-called Tarraconensis, Catalan. In fact, one of the pillars of this investigation consists of deciphering the meaning of that denomination.

The structure of the document is simple: made an introduction where the contradictions of the official account of the conquest of America, is shown the need to open one’s mind and be willing to delve deeper with a critical spirit, with the use of logic applied to other research streams. Below is the research by Enric Guillot, which is the continuation of a first sample of maps with a Catalan presence in America, published in 2012. Some maps are reported that are the subject of statistical analysis, from which questions and evidence arise that call into question the account of the official story. Afterwards, the maps are shown and commented on, in order to go deeper into them, and, later on, to dislodge the contradictory space that cartographic analysis expresses, a logical dissertation is developed based on four investigations, one by Ivan Giménez, another of his own, which expands and reinforces the findings of Giménez, another of the Russian mathematicians Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskij, with contributions from the complementary research of Chronology X-185, and a last one, focused on presenting the thesis of Jewish, princely, Catalan and Occitan identity Christopher Columbus, King of the Jews. This quadruple contrast allows finding common points and reasons for its interpretation, while the order of the investigations is determined by the scope of its deepening, so that, after this analysis, in the end the resolution is deciphered in the hypothesis raised here. And, finally, as a conclusion, the main findings are summarized, and the results of the investigation in each stage of the analysis. As a final note -of this introduction- highlight that the official history contradicts this investigation, but given the results obtained, a series of reasons and contrasted evidence are proposed, which suggest that the history presented here has the capacity to contradict the official story. The hypothesis is confirmed, giving it a reasoned explanation. From there, let everyone make their interpretation.