But glyph 9 is not always an autonomous main glyph in the rongorongo script; it frequently appears as a dependent suprafusion, too. And yet also here, in these cases of fusion, Metoro simply reads rangi and ignores the reading of the subfusion to which glyph 9 is suprafused. The truth is, Metoro cannot be trusted with any reading." (Fischer)

I cannot understand Fischer's words above in any other way than that he tries to erase Metoro from the sources we should use. For certainly he must have seen that Barthel was right. And certainly he must have read what Bishop Jaussen explicitly ordered Metoro to do: not to give any longer explanations but to say only what the glyphs illustrated.

How wrong Fisher is! And worse, how misleading! I have had no difficulty in verifying that there is a close correlation between mostly all the words of Metoro and the glyphs. Therefore, I have endeavoured to document all the four texts he 'read', putting his words side by side with the glyphs so that anybody interested enough will easily see the correlation. Luckily I did not read Fischer until I had (by way of reading Barthel's book already in the summer of year 2000) found this correlation to be most rewarding.

What Fischer writes about 'scientific certainty' is rubbish. I have tried my best to quantify (what usually is meant by being 'scientific') the correlations in the Tahua text and I have arrived at clear quantitative results which affirm those correlations which much easier are seen 'qualitatively'. And - this time without quantifying - I have found the same correlations to be evident in also the three other texts which Metoro 'read' for Bishop Jausson.