Expert opinions about the VMS

[Diane]

Indeed: what should be the criteria by which an (supposed) expert's opinion is to be "respected" or "trusted" by non-experts? Let's say, a person comes in and makes some statements. What should we ask him to support his credibility? Should we ask him to show us his diploma? His CV? His list of peer-reviewed papers? His professional certificates? Letters of recommendation, may be?

Perfect question, which it has a conventional answer. It has nothing to do with personality. Friedman was a lousy historian but a well-experienced cryptanalyst.

Look at what the people have actually produced, and then the thing to consider is whether that displays an adequate understanding of the basic issues involved - as, I'm sorry to say, few have done in relation to this manuscript as an artefact or its imagery as atypical.


After that basic test - 'do they know anything about e.g. ciphers, provenancing images etc.', move on to the hard matter..


*Evidence
 *Argument
 *Conclusions.

with their essential adjuncts:
*Sources, *Citations *Bibliography.  


- and that's what you judge, don't you?  Not just for content, but for balance, depth of insight, original and substantial new contribution to the field, and lack of  personal attachment to any argument.

  The person who made that book, or other form of contribution to a field can be dead for all it matters in judging what they have contributed. 
The value of their work has nothing to do with personality, nor race, colour, religion, place of residence, or interest in kings and things.

The acid test is what they DO.  An expert writes about the manuscript, and only about things directly relevant to others' understanding of it; a hobbyist is just a lobbyist for their pet theory.

D