Five years ago, in February of 2020, Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture edited a few of his videos which I had critiqued. They weren't very good edits as the audio remained the same while only the slides had changed, resulting in contradictions. Once more Tim has relented and retracted a glaring lie which I pointed out in an article critiquing his conflation of Peter Fidalgo and Fernando Pinto. Yet, just as with those dishonestly edited videos from years ago, Tim's recent retraction is not all that it seems.
It will be best to examine a few of the more important arguments as a whole rather than each one individually. Tim begins by appealing to "the spirit of scholarly rigor and transparency."
In the spirit of scholarly rigor and transparency, we undertake a further testing of Fernão Mendes Pinto's account regarding the "Lequios" Islands, prompted by recent critiques. Through this reassessment, we aim not only to clarify a factual correction regarding the identities of Peter Fidalgo and Pinto, but also to reinforce the broader historical-geographical case that Pinto’s descriptions overwhelmingly align with Luzon and the northern Philippine islands, not with the Ryukyu Islands. Far from weakening the position, this deeper analysis only strengthens it.
Clarifying Peter Fidalgo vs. Pinto
Upon careful review, it is acknowledged that Peter Fidalgo and Fernão Mendes Pinto appear to have been distinct individuals. Galvão’s account references Peter Fidalgo being blown northward to the "Isle of the Lucones" (Luzon) around 1545. Given the extremely close dates and geographic proximity, both accounts clearly refer to the same broader region. Meanwhile, Pinto records his own shipwreck experience and subsequent captivity in the "Lequios" Islands.
Though it is difficult to extract meaningful points from a critic so infected with viral venom and demonic, unacademic rigor, it is fair to acknowledge that even flawed adversaries occasionally stumble upon a technical correction. Yet he utterly fails to realize that his observation — even if granted — has no bearing on the final conclusion.
After reading my article Tim has come to the conclusion I am correct. Pinto and Fidalgo are not the same person. But only technically. Yeah, it's only a technicality that Tim conflated the identities of two distinct persons. It's not a glaring foundational error.
Did Tim not engage in scholarly rigor and careful review before he created this slide and wrote his article? This error and correction is not a technicality. It's not a slip up. It's not a mistake. Tim's article, and the slide that accompanies it, is a lie. He has not read Pinto's journal. He has not done any scholarly rigor or careful review. If he had then he would never have fused Pinto and Fidalgo into the same person. Did this obvious and blatant falsehood pass muster with the alleged God Culture Research Team? Was this lie a team thing or a Tim thing?
But Tim waves it all away and says even though I am correct it "has no bearing on the final conclusion." The conclusion being that the Lequios Islands and the Philippines are the same location. The whole argument rests on Tim's assertion that Pinto's lone coordinate for the Lequios Islands of 29° N is wrong and must be interpreted as a range of latitudes somewhere between 9° and 20°. Tim continues:
Worse still, he neglects the very foundation of his own argument: the scholar he quotes, Rebecca Catz, explicitly doubted Pinto’s coordinate reliability across multiple accounts. Thus, his attack collapses under the weight of his own evidence. Furthermore, critics demanding perfect year-matching from Pinto commit academic fraud against the historical record. Scholars explicitly warned that Pinto’s voyage timelines, dates, and navigational details are often imprecise or dramatized. His broader descriptions — not precise days or coordinates — are the evidential core.
What a ridiculous straw man. The foundation of my argument IS NOT REBECCA CATZ! The foundation of my argument is Fernando Pinto's journal which Tim, as far as I am aware, has yet to cite in any video or article he has produced on the subject. Imagine that. Tim is so gung-ho to draft Pinto onto his team yet he won't even glance at his scouting report! Here it is in the original Portuguese.
Esta ilha léquia jaz situada em vinte & nove graos
Vinte & nove graos means 29 degrees. There is no room for interpreting this as a place between 20 and 9 degrees. Here is a modern Portuguese version:
Essa ilha léquia jaz situada em vinte e nove graus
https://fundar.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/peregrinacao-vol-ii.pdf pg. 53
29 degrees. End of story. There is no wiggle room for any other interpretation except 29 degrees because that is what the text says. Tim dismisses Pinto’s clearest geographic anchor because it conflicts with his thesis, not because Pinto was ambiguous here. His entire case crumbles under the weight of a single, unambiguous number: twenty-nine degrees.
The rest of my argument lies in Pinto's description of his shipwreck and subsequent captivity. I have posted that part of the journal here. But let's quote the narrative of the shipwreck from Rebecca Catz's translation since Tim mentions her.
Driven by their hunger for profits, in only two weeks they readied nine junks that were in the harbor at the time, all of them so ill prepared and poorly equipped to sail that some of them were carrying as pilots only the ships' owners, who knew absolutely nothing about the art of navigation. And that was how they departed, all together, on a Sunday morning, against the wind, against the monsoon, against the tide, and against all reason, without a moment's thought for the perils of the sea, but so blind and obstinate in their determination to leave that none of these drawbacks were considered. And I too went along on one of them.
In this manner, that first day they picked their way blindly between the islands and the mainland, and at midnight, in a dense fog, with heavy rain and wind that descended upon them, they all foundered upon the shoals of Gotom,' at latitude thirty eight degrees; with the result that only two of the nine junks, by a great miracle, escaped, while the other seven were all lost, with not a single survivor from any of them. The losses were estimated at more than 300,000 maadas in merchandise, to say nothing of the much greater loss of six hundred people who died on them, including 140 Portuguese, all rich, honorable men.
We proceeded on our course in the two junks that escaped miraculously, sailing together in consort until we got as far ahead as the Ryukyu Islands,' and there, with the conjunction of the moon, we were struck by such a fierce contrary wind from the northeast that we never saw each other again. And there, sometime near afternoon the wind shifted to west-northwest, and the seas became on heavy with swells and waves so high that it was a most frightful thing to see. When our captain, a wry courageous nobleman by the name of Gaspar de Melo,• saw that the junk was already leaking at the stem, with nine handspans of water filling the hold of the lower dock, he decided, after consultation with the ship's officers, to cut away both masts because they were splitting the junk. The dismasting was done as carefully and cautiously as possible, but in spite of all the precautions taken, it could not be accomplished safely enough to avoid catching beneath the weight of the big pole fourteen people, five of them Portuguese. All of then, were crushed, each one bursting into a thousand bits—a most pitiful thing to see—which brought our spirits so low that we were left in a state of shock.
With all that, the storm grew gradually worse, and suffering great hardship, we abandoned ourselves to the fury of the sea until nearly sundown when the junk finally split wide open. Then, when the captain and all the rest of the people saw the sad state to which our sins had reduced us, we sought refuge in an image of our Lady, to whom we prayed, with many tears and loud cries, asking her to intercede for us with her blessed Son to pardon us for our sins, for by then none of us expected to come out of this alive. We spent most of the night this way, and with the junk half waterlogged we drifted on till the end of the midwatch, when we ran aground on a reef. At the first impact the junk was smashed to bits, and sixty-two people lost their lives, some drowned and others crushed under the keel, a tragedy as painful and heartrending as anyone of sound judgement can imagine.
There were only twenty-four of us, besides some women, who survived this miserable shipwreck. When day broke we could tell from the landmarks of Fire Island and the Tavdacéo Mountains that we were off the main island of the Ryukyus. Wounded as we were from all the cuts and abrasions we had sustained on the oyster beds and rocks of the reef, we all gathered together, and commending ourselves tearfully to the Lord, we began to walk breast deep in the water, even swimming in some places. We kept on going this way for five consecutive days, suffering from extreme hardship as one can imagine, without finding a thing to eat in all that time except for some rockweed. At the end of these five days it was the will of the Lord that we should reach shore.
Travels of Mendes Pinto, pgs 287-288, Translated by Rebecca Catz
Pinto leaves Ningbo China. Shortly thereafter a storm arises and he is immediately shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands which is translated here as the Ryukyu Islands. Ningbo China is at 29.8683°N. Tim would have us believe that after a storm destroyed his ship Pinto drifted for many days over hundreds of miles until he landed in Luzon!
The journal does not support that happening. Not even the possibility is hinted at. If such had been the case there would have been no survivors. The timeline is clear: departure from China, storm, then immediate shipwreck in the Lequios Islands.
Tim's ad-hoc work around is that Pinto's journal is not reliable.
Scholars such as Rebecca Catz and Donald Lach have long noted that Pinto’s Travels contains numerous geographical imprecisions:
Catz notes directly that Pinto’s narrative "has confused places and times" and "conflated events" in many cases.
She states that Pinto's voyage timelines do not always match realistic sailing durations, meaning Pinto sometimes compressed or stretched timelines inaccurately.
She warns that Pinto sometimes confused river systems and coastal shapes, making his geographic coordinates unreliable.
She emphasizes that some of the places Pinto describes seem to be conflations—two different places blended into one narrative.
Voyage timelines do not always align with realistic sailing durations causing one to question dates in Pinto's account.
These well-known characteristics of Pinto’s writing caution against rigid literalism, especially regarding geographic coordinates. This is why a straightforward reading of Pinto’s account — as reflected by Cheock’s view that the voyage covered between 9° and 20° North — remains a valid interpretation within the historical context.
The quotation was accurately reflected and properly sourced with the original context in our Sourcebook. Most importantly, the overall conclusion — that the Lequios correspond to the Philippine archipelago — remains fully intact and reaffirmed by the broader weight of historical evidence.
Critically, Pinto’s 29°N latitude claim likely reflects one or more of the following factors:
A navigational error typical of the period, worsened by the aftermath of a catastrophic storm.
Survival-driven dead reckoning without accurate instruments.
Post-facto narrative compression, blending multiple geographic impressions into a single storyline.
An intention to describe the region between 9° and 20° North, matching the latitude corridor of Luzon and the northern Philippines.
To insist otherwise would render Pinto incorrect in his geographic placement — a known and recurring limitation acknowledged even by the scholars critics themselves cite. Yet even if his numbers drift, Pinto could never move the Land of Gold — the Lequios — long equated with King Solomon’s Ophir.
Thus, minor latitude discrepancies are neither unexpected nor disqualifying, and must be weighed against the totality of descriptive evidence. We maintain that interpreting Pinto’s voyage as spanning between 9° and 20° North remains more accurate, consistent with his broader pattern of approximate geographic reporting. Otherwise, his entire account falls apart as he clearly indicated Lequios in the Philippines just as maps of his era did.
For one to deny the overwhelming evidence and hyperfocus on a perceived "gotcha" — which collapses under even minimal scrutiny — only proves their intent is not scholarly inquiry, but deliberate deception.
That is a whole lot of conjecture, unfalsifiable assumptions, and post-hoc justification to deny that 29 does not mean 29. Tim mentions "minor latitude discrepancies" thinking that somehow a range between 9° and 20°, which is hundreds of miles, is "a minor latitude discrepancy." What a joke.
In a nutshell, Pinto's geographic coordinates are unreliable which means interpreting 29 "as spanning between 9° and 20° North remains more accurate, consistent with his broader pattern of approximate geographic reporting." But if they are unreliable then why is Tim relying on them at all by reinterpreting them? He is cherry-picking and contradicting himself.
Let's look at what Tim has to say about Rebecca Catz casting doubt on the reliability of Pinto's journal.
1. "Has confused places and times" does not occur in the text
2. "Conflated events" does not occur in the text.
3. "Pinto's voyage timelines do not always match realistic sailing durations" does not occur in the text.
4. "Pinto sometimes confused river systems and coastal shapes" does not occur in the text.
5. "Some of the places Pinto describes seem to be conflations—two different places blended into one narrative" does not occur in the text.
6. Rebecca Catz, explicitly doubting Pinto’s coordinate reliability across multiple accounts does not occur in the text.
Here is what Catz has to say about Pinto's reliability.
Nevertheless, the debate on Pinto’s veracity and reliability continues. Veracity and reliability, it must be stressed, should be seen as two distinct problems. This delicate distinction becomes important when we stop to consider that if Pinto—to take the question of the discovery of Japan as an example—was not actually present on that historic occasion, he was certainly among the earliest group of travelers to arrive on the scene. As such he was close enough to events to have been in a position to pass on a fairly accurate description of the discovery, which cannot easily be dismissed by the historian as unreliable, or as any less reliable than hearsay European accounts, written long after the facts.
pg. xlii
Rebecca Catz does not say Pinto is unreliable. She says his accounts cannot be easily dismissed. In contrast, Tim's alleged citations from Catz about the unreliability of Pinto's journal are not to be found in her book. If Tim wants to discredit Pinto he is going to have to try a lot harder than fabricating phony citations.
As for J.G. Cheock, Tim's claim that
Cheock’s view that the voyage covered between 9° and 20° North
is false. Cheock writes
Explorer and writer Ferdinand Mendes Pinto who travelled in service to the Portugese crown and in association with the Jesuit Missionaries, recounted in his journal, how he had been shipwrecked on the island of Lequois while passing through the Malay Archipelago. He described the Lequios as a land belonging to a large group of islands that had abundant resources of gold and silver. In his journal he had the audacity to give details on Lequois, putting it in the latitude of 9N20 on a meridian similar to that of Japan. Given these directions, Lequois would be at the very heart of the Philippines. The story of his shipwreck on Lequios was deemed so outrageous that it was omitted from his book when it was first published.
Phoenicians in the Lands of Gold, pg. 11
She says point blank that he located the Lequios Islands "in the latitude of 9N20 on a meridian similar to that of Japan." That is gibberish. 9N20 is not a geographic coordinate. Interpreting 9N20 as a range of latitudes is Tim's ad-hoc rationalization and defense of the indefensible. She also claims that the story of Pinto's shipwreck was "so outrageous that it was omitted from his book when it was first published" which is also a demonstrable lie. The first edition English translation of 1663 has that story. J.G. Cheock is not a reliable person in the slightest. Since Tim has labeled her a Chinese propagandist it's a wonder he continues to defend her and her lies about Fernando Pinto.
Focusing on the overwhelming evidence, which is the totality of Pinto's description of his shipwreck and imprisonment, is the method I have taken. I have not "hyperfocused on a perceived "gotcha." Unlike Tim I have taken seriously Pinto's journal as a primary source. Tim casts doubt on the reliability of Pinto's journal. However, he contradicts himself by proceeding to list things from that journal as proof that the Lequios Islands are the Philippines.
Pinto’s observations consistently defy the geography and culture of Ryukyu:
Horses:
Ryukyu had no significant horseman culture in the 16th century. Luzon, however, had a known tradition of horsemanship, bolstered through Chinese and Japanese trade influence. (Mackie, Philippine Horses, Bureau of Agriculture, Manila)
Island Size:
The Ryukyu islands collectively measure far too small (~100 leagues in total) to match Pinto’s description. In contrast, Luzon’s coastal circumference approaches 200 leagues, aligning perfectly.
Trade Riches:
Luzon was a major silver-for-gold hub with thriving regional trade networks. Ryukyu was a relatively minor tributary polity with limited wealth and minimal impact. 🔥"No mines. No gold rush. No Ophir.") 🔥
Volcanoes:
The Babuyan Islands — historically known as the "Burning Isles" — north of Luzon offer a far better match for the "Island of Fire" than Tokara’s Suwanosejima.
Imagine attempting to pass off an island covering just 27.66 km² (with a modern population of only 48 people) as the grand 200-league island bustling with horsemen and treasures Pinto described. Such a claim strains not only geography but credulity itself. Notably, the Tokara Islands show no historical record of significant gold mining, suggesting that any deposits — if present at all — were either economically insignificant or remained undiscovered.
✅ Conclusion:
The Ryukyu identification collapses completely under geographic, archaeological, and cultural scrutiny. The only location matching Pinto’s description — in size, wealth, population, resources, and trade — is the Philippine archipelago, centered on Luzon and its northern regions.
Oh, now Pinto's observations are accurate? It's only the geographic coordinates which are incorrect while the geographic and cultural observations are correct?
If that is so then where in the Philippines is Pungor and who was its King and Queen? Where is the town of Sipautor? Where is Gundexilau, the city where Pinto was imprisoned in a dungeon? Where is the town of Bintor? Where are the lush, fertile fields in the interior of Luzon growing wheat and rice? And, pray tell, what islands are to the WEST OF LUZON?
This Ryukyu island is situated at twenty-nine degrees latitude. It is two hundred leagues in circumference, sixty in length, and thirty in width. The land in itself is more or less on the order of Japan, a little mountainous in some parts, but it becomes more level in the interior, where many of its lush, fertile fields are irrigated by freshwater streams which produce an endless number of fresh crops, especially wheat and rice. There are mountain ranges where they mine a great quantity of copper which, because it is so plentiful, is so cheap among these people that they load junks full of it to sell in every port of China, Lamau,* Sumbor,’ Chabaqué, Tosa,” Miyako," and Japan, with all the other islands to the south, Sestras, Goto,” Fucanxi, and Pollem. In addition, all this land of the Ryukyus has great quantities of iron, steel, lead, tin, alum, saltpeter, sulphur, honey, beeswax, sugar, and large amounts of ginger which is of a much better quality and far superior to the ginger produced in India. They also have large forests of angely wood,"" jatemar,"' poytao,’ pisu, pine, chestnut, cork oak, oak, and cedar, from which thousands of ships can be made.
To the west, there are five very large islands which have many silver mines, pearls, amber, incense, silk, rosewood, brazilwood, wild eaglewood, and large quantities of pitch," though the silk is somewhat inferior to that of China. The inhabitants of all these islands are like the Chinese, and they dress in clothes made of linen, cotton, and silk, along with some damasks that they import from Nanking. They are overly fond of food, given to the pleasures of the flesh, and have little inclination for bearing arms, which are in short supply, from which it appears that it will be very easy to conquer them. So much so that in the year 1556 there arrived in Malacca a Portuguese in the service of the grand master of Santiago" by the name of Pero Gomes de Almeida,' bringing a magnificent gift and letters from the nautoguim, prince of the island of Tanegashima, for King John III, may his soul rest in peace, which in essence amounted to an appeal for five hundred men to help him and his men conquer this Ryukyu island, in return for which he offered to pay an annual tribute of five thousand quintals of copper and one thousand of brass. Nothing ever came of this embassy because the message was sent to Portugal on board the galleon on which Manuel de Sousa de Sepulveda was shipwrecked.
Pinto, pg. 300, Rebecca Catz, translator
There are NO islands to the west of Luzon! There is only the empty and desolate ocean until you hit mainland Asia.
Tim's retraction, like his video edits, is dishonest. He calls the conflation of Fidalgo and Pinto a mere technicality when it is actually a major fault once more revealing his poor research skills. He brushes off the mix-up as meaningless to his overall thesis despite it having been central enough to his thesis that he wrote an article about it. He says Pinto's journal is geographically unreliable in regards to coordinates and yet he uses the geographic and cultural descriptions in Pinto's journal to prove his case which is cherry-picking of the worst sort. This is not a retraction of a lie but a calculated retreat, one that only digs Tim deeper into the historically and demonstrably false claim that the Lequios Islands are the Philippines.
