[Round fact]

Wild guesses. That sums up FE perfectly

How does it change the fact that you are not able to provide credible sources? I recommend you consult Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus yourself, instead of reading the interpretation of some random author who is not from the field and haven't learned how to provide quotations for his review.

The source IS creditable. You just don't like the results. As proof here is another link;
http://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus

I'm betting  you find some minor fault with this too.

Minor fault like reviewing a book without quoting the pages you've consulted? You need to follow some rules to write something. How difficult is to grasp that?
Look, stop looking for science blogs/sites. Do you think History.com is the final authority? It's the same commom sense. I ask you to go after the first source you provided in order to be coherent. But somehow you decided to change the line again. Stop playing a fool.

SOP knee jerk response. Well I DID call it.  Did you try this in school?

[Rounder]

For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?

Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied.  If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site.  Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500.  I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe.  It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is.  Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.

[Round fact]

Rounder, I think you have sent Bzz into hiding and shock. When he recovers he is going to want references and citations. Then of course citations for the citations

[rabinoz]

Rounder, I think you have sent Bzz into hiding and shock. When he recovers he is going to want references and citations. Then of course citations for the citations

I think that all these Flat Earth Sheeples have been indoctrinated to believe that:
NASA invented the Globe idea,
NASA first said that the earth was about 7,900 miles in diameter,
NASA invented the the 8" per mile² "formula" for "curvature",
NASA invented Gravitation.

It has come as a bit too much of a shock to find that Globes were actually used for (rough) navigation centuries ago.
And of course, that usual flat earth response is

[geckothegeek]

Rounder, I think you have sent Bzz into hiding and shock. When he recovers he is going to want references and citations. Then of course citations for the citations

I think that all these Flat Earth Sheeples have been indoctrinated to believe that:
NASA invented the Globe idea,
NASA first said that the earth was about 7,900 miles in diameter,
NASA invented the the 8" per mile² "formula" for "curvature",
NASA invented Gravitation.

It has come as a bit too much of a shock to find that Globes were actually used for (rough) navigation centuries ago.
And of course, that usual flat earth response is

NASA is the root of all evil.  Nothing but a den of sinners, liars, satanists and satan worshippers....amongst other things of the same unspeakable nature.
You missed a few things.
And "indoctrination" is only a flat earth bad word for round earthers.

[Bzz]

For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?

Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied.  If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site.  Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500.  I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe.  It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is.  Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.

I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.

What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?

Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.

[Bzz]

Rounder, I think you have sent Bzz into hiding and shock. When he recovers he is going to want references and citations. Then of course citations for the citations

I think that all these Flat Earth Sheeples have been indoctrinated to believe that:
NASA invented the Globe idea,
NASA first said that the earth was about 7,900 miles in diameter,
NASA invented the the 8" per mile² "formula" for "curvature",
NASA invented Gravitation.

It has come as a bit too much of a shock to find that Globes were actually used for (rough) navigation centuries ago.
And of course, that usual flat earth response is

Nasa has only adopted ideas, giving them new looks.

[Round fact]

For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?

Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied.  If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site.  Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500.  I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe.  It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is.  Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.

I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.

What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?

Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.

So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. And the globs used were... Christmas Tree ornaments? So all of history that doesn't fit FE is lie? All of math that doesn't fit FE is a lie? All photos of a round Earth are CGI lies? All Physicist are liars?

Son, you're RBSC

[Bzz]

For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?

Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied.  If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site.  Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500.  I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe.  It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is.  Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.

I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.

What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?

Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.

So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. And the globs used were... Christmas Tree ornaments? So all of history that doesn't fit FE is lie? All of math that doesn't fit FE is a lie? All photos of a round Earth are CGI lies? All Physicist are liars?

Son, you're RBSC

So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. lol I said Columbus had the map. Are you still able to read?
The late translation indicates that it was available around only a couple of decades before the first Portuguese navigation began. Navigation demands long preparation.

[Round fact]

For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?

Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied.  If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site.  Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500.  I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe.  It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is.  Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.

I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.

What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?

Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.

So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. And the globs used were... Christmas Tree ornaments? So all of history that doesn't fit FE is lie? All of math that doesn't fit FE is a lie? All photos of a round Earth are CGI lies? All Physicist are liars?

Son, you're RBSC

So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. lol I said Columbus had the map. Are you still able to read?
The late translation indicates that it was available around only a couple of decades before the first Portuguese navigation began. Navigation demands long preparation.

Thank you for admitting that Columbus knew the world is a globe.

[Rounder]

I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.

What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?

Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.

What did I want to prove?  I wanted to prove that there were people contemporary to Columbus who thought the earth was round and not flat.  After reading your comment, I did some more digging.  I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history, produced by the Persian astronomer Jamal al-Din and presented to Kublai Khan in Beijing, all the way back in 1276.  (This is why I called the Behaim Globe the "oldest" instead of the "first" globe)  One such reference, Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China, vol 3 is cited by David Woodward in his work The Image of the Spherical Earth, MIT Press, 1989.  The link takes you to a registration-required site, but it's free.  The work is a brief history of globe maps, worth a quick read.

On page 9 we find this: "From the Christian Middle Ages we have direct literary allusions to the idea that the earth was viewed as spherical, but no allusions to the making of a globe before the 15th century.  Why is this? ... To the scholars who knew it was a sphere, and cared enough to write about it as such, the construction of a globe might have been an unnecessary elaboration"  So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant. 

On page 12 there is a quote from a letter by the cartographer Toscanelli, whose globe ideas were the ones rejected by the royal navigators of Portugal and Spain.  We know Columbus had opportunity to read this letter, as it appear in his personally owned copy of the flamboyantly named Historia Rerum Ubique Gestarum ("History of all things and all deeds"), a compendium of the scientific and geographical knowledge of the time published in 1477 by Cardinal Piccolomini (later Pope Pius II): "although I know from my own knowledge that the world can be shown as it is in the form of a sphere, I have determined to show the same route by a chart similar to those which are made for navigation.  The straight lines which are shown lengthwise on the said chart show the distance from west to east, the others which are across show the distance from north to south"

So that's what I wanted to prove.  Instead, however, what I seem to have actually proven is that flat earthers are hypocrites.  I cannot count the number of times I have seen a variation on the theme "sailors don't navigate by globes, ha ha, they navigate by flat paper charts, because the world is flat and they know it"  I now present a globe, of the type available to Columbus (without suggesting he actually saw it) and based upon the data used by Columbus to plan his voyage.  In response, did you acknowledge that the same logic that leads you to say "flat maps, because someone believes the earth is flat" should also apply to "globe map, because someone believed the earth was round"?  No, you didn't, you jumped immediately to "it doesn't mean...that 'they' clearly thought so"  How could it mean anything else???  Also of note is your statement, with which I agree wholeheartedly: "The coordinate system they used applied to this format."  Yes, yes it did, and why do you suppose that is?  If people did not think the world was a globe, what would possibly be the point of creating a coordinate system that fits on a globe for use navigating upon its surface?

Please note, I am not even asking you to come all the way to "globe map, because the earth IS A GLOBE".  I just want you to acknowledge that "globe map, because somebody THOUGHT IT WAS."

[Bzz]

For the part "it was widely known by the 15th Century that the Earth is spherical. The question was, how big is the sphere?", I wonder who posed this question... maybe he himself?

Well, since nobody had yet circumnavigated the world at that point, the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied.  If you want some fascinating reading (not being facetious in the least here, I truly mean that both sides of the FE/RE debate should find some fascinating stuff here) you could spend many hours at the Cartographic Images web site.  Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500.  I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, the oldest surviving globe.  It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world" and depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is.  Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.

I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.

What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?

Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.

So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. And the globs used were... Christmas Tree ornaments? So all of history that doesn't fit FE is lie? All of math that doesn't fit FE is a lie? All photos of a round Earth are CGI lies? All Physicist are liars?

Son, you're RBSC

So you assume Columbus didn't read Latin. lol I said Columbus had the map. Are you still able to read?
The late translation indicates that it was available around only a couple of decades before the first Portuguese navigation began. Navigation demands long preparation.

Thank you for admitting that Columbus knew the world is a globe.

Are you fine? Let me be clearer for you: even though Columbus had the map and read Latin, this doesn't mean he had adopted its ideas; as we have several books on our shelves and this doesn't mean either we agree with them all. So far we know that Columbus disagreed with ptolemy's calculus. That's all.

Now i'm expecting you to show it is clearly that Columbus thought Earth was round. But I'm getting tired of your trial and error method pasting history.com links.

[Bzz]

I searched into this gallery. Very time consuming indeed, and I don’t have many hours to spend as I wish. I’ll let you bring me the evidence then, since you are the one expressing dissatisfaction.

What do you want to prove by posting a picture of an old map on a globe? The fact they used a globe representation for a map doesn’t mean the Earth is round, and that 'they' clearly thought so. The coordinate system they used applied to this format. It is just a format and not a physical reality. Indeed the point was in fact an open question, and opinions varied, and maybe Columbus opinion varied too, no? What map Columbus used to navigate? Have you seen this one?

Columbus owned copies of the 1478 edition of Ptolemy, which was translated to Latin only in late 1400's.

What did I want to prove?  I wanted to prove that there were people contemporary to Columbus who thought the earth was round and not flat.  After reading your comment, I did some more digging.  I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history, produced by the Persian astronomer Jamal al-Din and presented to Kublai Khan in Beijing, all the way back in 1276.  (This is why I called the Behaim Globe the "oldest" instead of the "first" globe)  One such reference, Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China, vol 3 is cited by David Woodward in his work The Image of the Spherical Earth, MIT Press, 1989.  The link takes you to a registration-required site, but it's free.  The work is a brief history of globe maps, worth a quick read.

On page 9 we find this: "From the Christian Middle Ages we have direct literary allusions to the idea that the earth was viewed as spherical, but no allusions to the making of a globe before the 15th century.  Why is this? ... To the scholars who knew it was a sphere, and cared enough to write about it as such, the construction of a globe might have been an unnecessary elaboration"  So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant. 

On page 12 there is a quote from a letter by the cartographer Toscanelli, whose globe ideas were the ones rejected by the royal navigators of Portugal and Spain.  We know Columbus had opportunity to read this letter, as it appear in his personally owned copy of the flamboyantly named Historia Rerum Ubique Gestarum ("History of all things and all deeds"), a compendium of the scientific and geographical knowledge of the time published in 1477 by Cardinal Piccolomini (later Pope Pius II): "although I know from my own knowledge that the world can be shown as it is in the form of a sphere, I have determined to show the same route by a chart similar to those which are made for navigation.  The straight lines which are shown lengthwise on the said chart show the distance from west to east, the others which are across show the distance from north to south"

So that's what I wanted to prove.  Instead, however, what I seem to have actually proven is that flat earthers are hypocrites.  I cannot count the number of times I have seen a variation on the theme "sailors don't navigate by globes, ha ha, they navigate by flat paper charts, because the world is flat and they know it"  I now present a globe, of the type available to Columbus (without suggesting he actually saw it) and based upon the data used by Columbus to plan his voyage.  In response, did you acknowledge that the same logic that leads you to say "flat maps, because someone believes the earth is flat" should also apply to "globe map, because someone believed the earth was round"?  No, you didn't, you jumped immediately to "it doesn't mean...that 'they' clearly thought so"  How could it mean anything else???  Also of note is your statement, with which I agree wholeheartedly: "The coordinate system they used applied to this format."  Yes, yes it did, and why do you suppose that is?  If people did not think the world was a globe, what would possibly be the point of creating a coordinate system that fits on a globe for use navigating upon its surface?

Please note, I am not even asking you to come all the way to "globe map, because the earth IS A GLOBE".  I just want you to acknowledge that "globe map, because somebody THOUGHT IT WAS."

What did I want to prove?  I wanted to prove that there were people contemporary to Columbus who thought the earth was round and not flat.
That's pretty obvious. My complain is that Columbus himself may have not shared this idea.

I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history.
Yes, since before Christ. What does that prove?

To the scholars who knew it was a sphere...
The passage "To the scholars who", with definite article and relative pronoun, implies there have been other scholars who thought otherwise. Interesting.

So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant.
Whatever. This doesn't prove anything except how cartographers worked.

I recognize people thought of a round globe. My point is not everyone at medieval times - where translations and documents were not easily reacheable, and where information travelled very slowly, not everyone behind Portuguese nagivations followed this Globe logic, because you don't need this concept to nagivate.

When I say "clearly stated" is not to bother you. I don't believe in words dropped on forums and history.com. My bad I guess?

[Rounder]

What did I want to prove?  I wanted to prove that there were people contemporary to Columbus who thought the earth was round and not flat.
That's pretty obvious. My complaint is that Columbus himself may have not shared this idea.

It is obvious, yes.  I took pains to demonstrate it so I could make the link to the idea (which I guess needs to be stated outright) that since by this point in human history the round earth was the commonly held view among the educated, there is every reason to think Columbus shared this view, and no reason to think he did not.  Among the other, non-circumstantial reasons is the fact that his own personal collection of manuscripts included materials of the round earth persuasion, while apparently (as far as I can tell) containing nothing of the flat earth persuasion.

I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history.
Yes, since before Christ. What does that prove?

This belonged with a train of thought which I forgot to flesh out.  You made a comment about the long preparation required before a voyage of the types undertaken by Columbus.  I was trying to demonstrate that globe maps were not new, but I see that you already knew that, good.  This was meant to support the idea that while it is true that this particular globe map was produced too late for Columbus to have used it during his planning stages, there might have been other globe maps available to him.

To the scholars who knew it was a sphere...
The passage "To the scholars who", with definite article and relative pronoun, implies there have been other scholars who thought otherwise. Interesting.

This is a different understanding of the original material than I reached, probably due to the things I omitted for the sake of both brevity and amity.  Abandoning brevity, let's get into it: Taken in the larger context, "the scholars who knew" are not being compared against other scholars who had other ideas; "the scholars who knew" are being contrasted with the uneducated classes, the non-scholars, who did not know.  In fact the author states outright that if the uneducated thought about the earth's shape at all they would likely have thought as you do: it LOOKS flat, it must BE flat.  This was another reason given for not producing globe maps, to avoid causing fear or anger in the uneducated.  Which leads me to the "amity" reason for not including this.  I did not want to introduce the word "uneducated" to the discussion, out of concern that it would be taken as a pejorative aimed at modern participants in this group.  That wot my intent.  The word is simply an accurate description of the state of the world then.  Very few people got "educated" at a school in the manner common today.  This is not to say they were stupid, just that they had not recieved an education.

So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant.
Whatever. This doesn't prove anything except how cartographers worked.

Maybe, but it supports the difference between my contention that scholars all agreed on a round earth, and your suggestion that they did not agree.  If there were some who believed and some who did not, I think it likely that the believers would have produced globe maps for the purpose of trying to win the debate.  Much as we round earthers here try to do.  (Saying nothing about whether it would have been any less futile for them than we're finding it to be, of course)

I recognize people thought of a round globe. My point is not everyone at medieval times - where translations and documents were not easily reacheable, and where information travelled very slowly, not everyone behind Portuguese nagivations followed this Globe logic, because you don't need this concept to nagivate.

As acknowledged above, not everyone was a round-earther then.  I think you are wrong about those who navigated far away, though.  Perhaps if you sailed only near the coast, or within the Mediterranean, sure; on a small scale a flat earth map is close enough and any time you came ashore somewhere you didn't expect, that could easily be blamed on wind or current or human error.  But if you were looking for a westward route to Cathay, you were in the round earth camp.  For that matter, you only thought such a thing possible BECAUSE of the round earth idea.  Without a round earth, why should a voyage west on flat earth ever take you to a point you could reach by going east?  On a flat earth (as a person of that time would picture it) a straight line going west should go straight west for ever, perhaps to new and exotic lands, but never ending up somehow behind yourself.  Why should a straight line going west actually be an imperceptibly curved line arcing ever so slightly to the right until it comes back around on itself?  We only have that model now because people who knew the world was round actually went out and sailed around it, a feat which now must be explained by flat earthers.

When I say "clearly stated" is not to bother you. I don't believe in words dropped on forums and history.com. My bad I guess?

So why are you here, in a forum, dropping words?

[Bzz]

What did I want to prove?  I wanted to prove that there were people contemporary to Columbus who thought the earth was round and not flat.
That's pretty obvious. My complaint is that Columbus himself may have not shared this idea.

It is obvious, yes.  I took pains to demonstrate it so I could make the link to the idea (which I guess needs to be stated outright) that since by this point in human history the round earth was the commonly held view among the educated, there is every reason to think Columbus shared this view, and no reason to think he did not.  Among the other, non-circumstantial reasons is the fact that his own personal collection of manuscripts included materials of the round earth persuasion, while apparently (as far as I can tell) containing nothing of the flat earth persuasion.

I found several mentions of a globe long ago lost to history.
Yes, since before Christ. What does that prove?

This belonged with a train of thought which I forgot to flesh out.  You made a comment about the long preparation required before a voyage of the types undertaken by Columbus.  I was trying to demonstrate that globe maps were not new, but I see that you already knew that, good.  This was meant to support the idea that while it is true that this particular globe map was produced too late for Columbus to have used it during his planning stages, there might have been other globe maps available to him.

To the scholars who knew it was a sphere...
The passage "To the scholars who", with definite article and relative pronoun, implies there have been other scholars who thought otherwise. Interesting.

This is a different understanding of the original material than I reached, probably due to the things I omitted for the sake of both brevity and amity.  Abandoning brevity, let's get into it: Taken in the larger context, "the scholars who knew" are not being compared against other scholars who had other ideas; "the scholars who knew" are being contrasted with the uneducated classes, the non-scholars, who did not know.  In fact the author states outright that if the uneducated thought about the earth's shape at all they would likely have thought as you do: it LOOKS flat, it must BE flat.  This was another reason given for not producing globe maps, to avoid causing fear or anger in the uneducated.  Which leads me to the "amity" reason for not including this.  I did not want to introduce the word "uneducated" to the discussion, out of concern that it would be taken as a pejorative aimed at modern participants in this group.  That wot my intent.  The word is simply an accurate description of the state of the world then.  Very few people got "educated" at a school in the manner common today.  This is not to say they were stupid, just that they had not recieved an education.

So, globe maps were not produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was redundant.
Whatever. This doesn't prove anything except how cartographers worked.

Maybe, but it supports the difference between my contention that scholars all agreed on a round earth, and your suggestion that they did not agree.  If there were some who believed and some who did not, I think it likely that the believers would have produced globe maps for the purpose of trying to win the debate.  Much as we round earthers here try to do.  (Saying nothing about whether it would have been any less futile for them than we're finding it to be, of course)

I recognize people thought of a round globe. My point is not everyone at medieval times - where translations and documents were not easily reacheable, and where information travelled very slowly, not everyone behind Portuguese nagivations followed this Globe logic, because you don't need this concept to nagivate.

As acknowledged above, not everyone was a round-earther then.  I think you are wrong about those who navigated far away, though.  Perhaps if you sailed only near the coast, or within the Mediterranean, sure; on a small scale a flat earth map is close enough and any time you came ashore somewhere you didn't expect, that could easily be blamed on wind or current or human error.  But if you were looking for a westward route to Cathay, you were in the round earth camp.  For that matter, you only thought such a thing possible BECAUSE of the round earth idea.  Without a round earth, why should a voyage west on flat earth ever take you to a point you could reach by going east?  On a flat earth (as a person of that time would picture it) a straight line going west should go straight west for ever, perhaps to new and exotic lands, but never ending up somehow behind yourself.  Why should a straight line going west actually be an imperceptibly curved line arcing ever so slightly to the right until it comes back around on itself?  We only have that model now because people who knew the world was round actually went out and sailed around it, a feat which now must be explained by flat earthers.

When I say "clearly stated" is not to bother you. I don't believe in words dropped on forums and history.com. My bad I guess?

So why are you here, in a forum, dropping words?

History is just a bad representation of ideas (commonly hold by those who try to persuade you into things). You're just guessing from the little you've read (and me too). The difference is that you push your opinion though as if it were the right one.

You can go east and end west with a flat earth concept. If you don't know that, go to faq. Navigators may have the same idea and know more about Earth than you imagine. Don't conclude you know everything.

 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

First and foremost, Columbus was not the leading sailor of his time, by a long shot. He was also by all accounts a bastard, slave owner, and exploiter of native peoples.

But I also recall the point of his voyage of sailing West was apparently to find a faster route to India. Hence why America was called the "West Indies" and Native Americans called Indians still to this day.

That implies his belief of the Earth to be a globe. This doesn't change the fact that circumnavigation is possible on flat earth model, though. His landing in the Americas also didn't verify that the earth was a Globe either, just that he "found" more land to the West of Spain. That discovery couldn't have come any sooner than the full colonization of America from "sea to shining sea," a relatively recent accomplishment.

[Rounder]

You can go east and end west with a flat earth concept. If you don't know that, go to faq.

Yes, I do know that.  I disagree, of course, but I do know the FE model includes that.  I probably read the FAQ and the Wiki more often than any FE does, because I have to continually remind myself what you guys think.  What I'm saying is that if you didn't ALREADY KNOW that going west would bring you to a point east of you, the "look out you window" flat earther has no reason to think it would.  A person of that time would be quite reasonable in assuming that going west on a flat earth would always be a STRAIGHT LINE going west forever.  They would have no basis upon which to extrapolate that travelling a very long distance westward would be any different that going a short distance westward.  You sail west from Italy you end up in Spain.  You had (at that time) no reason to expect that going still further west on a flat earth would somehow bring you around to end up in Greece.  We NOW know that it happens, and FE theory has ADAPTED to that fact by placing a magnetic north in the middle of a flat disc with east-west lines being giant circles upon the flat plane. 

You know who thought you could end up east by going west?  The ones who knew the earth was round.

First and foremost, Columbus was not the leading sailor of his time, by a long shot. He was also by all accounts a bastard, slave owner, and exploiter of native peoples.

All true.  Most of the leading sailors of his time believed the “bigger ball” version of the globe, which put India much further away and more or less out of reach (or at least not worth the effort, since you could get there by land already).  Indeed, had the Americas NOT been where they are, Columbus and his men would likely never have made it.

But I also recall the point of his voyage of sailing West was apparently to find a faster route to India. Hence why America was called the "West Indies" and Native Americans called Indians still to this day.

That is my understanding as well. 

That implies his belief of the Earth to be a globe.

I made this one BIG to draw Bzz's attention to it.  As per the next comment, it doesn't prove that the belief was correct, it merely demonstrates that he held the belief.

This doesn't change the fact that circumnavigation is possible on flat earth model, though. His landing in the Americas also didn't verify that the earth was a Globe either, just that he "found" more land to the West of Spain. That discovery couldn't have come any sooner than the full colonization of America from "sea to shining sea," a relatively recent accomplishment.

This all holds together logically too.

For the second time this week, I find myself NOT arguing with TheTruthIsOnHere.  It’s kinda freaking me out, I’m not gonna lie.

[Pete Svarrior]

going west on a flat earth would always be a STRAIGHT LINE going west forever

Your definition of "west" is bizarre, as it seems to imply a single, static direction. Your idea of "west" seems to suggest that, on a round Earth, you would have to lift off and eventually exit the Earth's gravity, since, after all, you would logically be walking in a straight line!

[Rounder]

going west on a flat earth would always be a STRAIGHT LINE going west forever

Your definition of "west" is bizarre, as it seems to imply a single, static direction. Your idea of "west" seems to suggest that, on a round Earth, you would have to lift off and eventually exit the Earth's gravity, since, after all, you would logically be walking in a straight line!

You omitted the key part of that sentence: "a person of that time would be quite reasonable in assuming that going west on a flat earth would always be a STRAIGHT LINE going west forever."  I'm not talking about the modern flat earth model, because at the point you're joining us this thread is talking about pre-Columbus times.
MY definition of west, in the real world, is likely very similar to yours: as viewed from a point above the north pole, 'west' is a clockwise circular movement perpendicular at every point to the imaginary line from the object to the north pole.  This was worded so as to work for round spherical worlds and flat disc worlds.  On a pre-Columbus flat earth, however, there was no reason to imagine 'west' as being anything but a perfectly and perpetually STRAIGHT line. 

Seems to me that the Zetetic observation goes something like this: I have walked west in a straight line plenty of times, and never once has that walk mysteriously returned me to my starting point from the east.  Why would a really long walk west in a straight line be any different than all the short ones?