🇺🇲The Two Cubas🇺🇲
Im sure everyone knows about the "Second" Cuba, which was discovered and named by Christopher Columbus in 1492. The territory of modern day Cuba was inhabited by the Ciboney Taíno people from the 4th millennium BC until Spanish colonization in the 15th century..

1) But....do you know about the "First" Cuba??

In the small district of Alentejo, Portugal, there is a small town known as Cuba.

This town has quite a historic claim to history...
2) In this small village there stands a bronze statue of Christopher Columbus. Around the base of the statue are plaques that tell a remarkable.. yet unprovable story.
3) The story is that Christopher Columbus was originally from Portugal, NOT Italy, as written in the Washington Irving biography of Christopher Columbus which claims Genoa, Italy as Christopher Columbus birth city.
4) I will not dispute one way or the other, but will let you decide for yourself. So, in 1492, Columbus sails the ocean blue...and he finally hits land and names it "Cuba"...why not Genoa?
🤔🤔🤔
5) Now Columbus made several trips back to the new world, and every time he was "discover" a new island.

New island, new name.

New island, new name.

New island, new name.
6) I have compiled a short list of Islands named by Columbus:
San Juan
S Cristovo de Neves
Guadalupe
Santa Lucia
Sao Vicente

Cuban cities too:
Santa Clara
Moron
Santiago
7) Guess what you'll find if you search Google earth "Cuba, Portugal"?

You will find all of these places within a 100 mile radius of Cuba, Portugal!
8) Now why on earth would an Italian explorer name the very FIRST island he discovered after a tiny village in ANOTHER COUNTRY????

More over, why proceed to name every island and city discovered after the surrounding villages names in THAT foreign country????
9) Unless...🤔🤔🤔

.......but who would challenge history????

More from World

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.

https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d


Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.


...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.


Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.