No text, but a visual code

[R. Sale]

Sounds good, but it doesn't work out very well. Which opinions should be given weight and which should not? If we listen to the experts, who are those experts? Was Newbold an expert, before he opened his mouth. Andromeda with a telescope is simply an anachronism. And the micro writing was technologically impossible.

The opinions to be given weight are the ones that have the best evidence. That is evidence that connects to historical material, with even more significant evidence present internally in the VMs illustrations. Take the example above of the cosmic spindle. The identification of the 'thing' was unclear, hypothetical, or just plain wrong - *until* the discovery of the illustration. Then it was perfectly clear what the VMs *spindle holder* was holding. It's the cosmic spindle. Internally, the identity of the spindle is confirmed by the remarkable similarity of its shape and the presence of its markings. This is evidence.

The *spindle holder* (the possessor of the cosmic spindle) is identified in the historical illustration and in Greek mythology. Nothing hard about that. It's more evidence.

What's the matter with the old experts, then? Apparently, they missed it. And a whole lot more.
Obviously, there is a significant advantage to be gained from internet access.