Guy accuses Metoro of deliberately deceiving Jaussen, and Barthel of mentioning the evidence only to sweep it under the carpet.

     The evidence he presents is out of Jaussen's notes, reproduced pages 173 to 199 of Barthel's Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift. The argument is in five steps.

1. What we know. The only thing we know for sure is the direction of reading, the same text occurring on three tablets with lines of different lengths (H, P and Q). Reading must start at the bottom left corner, and proceeds to the right. At the end of the line,
   • either you turn the tablet around and continue from left to right
   • or, without turning the tablet, you move to the line above, and read its signs (which are upside-down) from right to left. This way, every line with its signs upside-down must be read from right to left, every line with its signs right side up from left to right; since most signs are anthropomorphic or zoomorphic you can always tell which way and there is no room for error.
2. The reading of Tablet Mamari. Metoro read the second side of Tablet Mamari from the corner diagonally opposite where he should have started. So he read its last line first, finishing with its first line. The error is certain, because it is that side where occurs the only text of known meaning: a lunar calendar.
3. The reading of Tablet Keiti. Metoro read each line of the second side of Tablet Keiti back to front. The error is certain, because Metoro's readings match the signs only that way. It must be deliberate because:
   • Although Metoro did not turn the tablets around, the direction of reading was obvious: left to right when the signs are head up, right to left when head down.
   • Metoro skipped the first six signs of the first line to read them out appended to the end of the second line.
4. Was Jaussen fooled? Jaussen's notes mention how Metoro started reading the second side of Tablet Mamari in terms that show Jaussen's extreme surprise:
   

   	par une exception remarquable aux autres tablettes, Metoro prit cette 15e ligne au bas du verso, au côté opposé au creux, et lit le verso en remontant, comme si l'auteur y traitait un sujet à part		by a remarkable exception to the other tablets, Metoro started this 15th line from the bottom of the verso, from the side opposite the indentation, and read the verso going back up, as if the author dealt there with a separate topic
   	Barthel 1958:193

   
   A note near the beginning of Metoro's reading of Tablet Mamari shows that Jaussen was pointing to each sign in turn as he was writing it down, so that it is impossible that he may not have noticed, there and then, that Metoro's readings no longer described the signs of the second side of Keiti.
   

   	un doigt sur le signe, je tâchais de ne plus écrire de son chant que le mot essentiel		with a finger on the sign, I now strived to write only the main word of his singing
   	Barthel 1958:191

5. Was Barthel fooled? Barthel does not comment on Metoro having read the second side of Tablet Mamari last line first. He comments on Metoro reading back to front every line of the second side of Keiti, but he does not mention the transposition of the first six signs, and sees no reason for suspicion. Guy then accuses Barthel, in barely veiled terms, of having ignored the evidence for the purpose of furthering his attempted decipherment, based on Metoro's testimony.
   

   	Il semble donc bien que Barthel, tout au désir de parvenir à un déchiffrement, a voulu croire que Métoro en avait la clef; et que ce besoin l'a amené à ne voir que ce qui servait ce dessein et à passer sous silence ou à présenter sous un autre jour tout ce qui le desservait.		So it does seem that Barthel, obnubilated by the desire to reach a decipherment, wanted to believe that Metoro had the key; and that the need led him to see only what served his purpose and to hush or to show under a different light all what harmed it.
   	Guy 1999:129