.
Wikipedia says, “Norumbega, or Nurembega, is a legendary settlement in northeastern North America which was featured on many early maps from the 1500s until European colonization of the region.”
.
Wikipedia has a MAJOR problem. Scholars, who learned the NEW WORLD MYTH as kids, write Wikipedia. The MYTH has hardened into a paradigm. The NEW WORLD MYTH has a major belief, “There NEVER WERE NORSE in America.” The belief is false.
.
Original sources like the LOK map say that Corte Real and Columbus rode in a Norwegian crew-rowed boat in a 1472 voyage to America.
.
The Norwegians did not need maps. They had been there before, probably many times. But Corte Real tried to make a map of his observations. Corte Real wrote the word for Norway on the LOK map, a 16th century map.
.
.
But look at this modern translation,
.
Norway in English
is
Noruega in Portuguese
Look at
Noru(mb)ega on 16th century maps
.
The word "Norumbega" meant "NORWAY" in the, 16th century. The two constants “mb” dropped from vocalization during the four centuries since the 17th century.
.
The 17th century English tried to make the name “Norumbega,” mean something other than “Norway.” Hence the “legendary” settlement.
.
I have edited “Norumbega” in Wikipedia - twice,- only to have the Wikipedia “scholars” find another 16th century map with the word “Norumbega” written on it.
.
So, the scholars said, “It (really) was a “legendary settlement” and NOT the name of NORWAY in America. .
.
.
I understand; to people with the NEW WORLD MYTH in their heads, “Norumbega” cannot be the Portuguese word for “Norway” in the 16th century. Or can it?
.
Who are you going to believe?
.
A cadre of Wikipedia scholars, who learned the NEW WORLD MYTH as kids, or Corte Real, a Portuguese mapmaker, who wrote “Norumbega” on the LOK map to show the world that the Norwegians had a “Norway” in America?
.
Your mission, if you accept it, is to convince the Wikipedia scholars, who have the NEW WORLD MYTH in their heads, that “Norumbega” was the 16th century Portuguese name for “NORWAY.”
.
Comments:
Unknown:June 12, 2020 at 7:43 PM
Clearly, original documents are more valid sources than subsequent interpretations by "scholars" with an agenda.
Clearly, original documents are more valid sources than subsequent interpretations by "scholars" with an agenda.
ReplyDelete