You can certainly allow artistic licence, but still that does not prove that the depiction represents the supernova, nor of course does it disprove that theory. It’s just that there’s no ‘clincher’ piece of evidence, such as an independent clue to when it was painted.
And yes, you can sometimes see the crescent moon in daytime, but ONLY when the Sun is lower down than the Moon; e.g. when the Sun is low down in the West, and the crescent Moon is significantly higher than it. That’s the opposite of what’s depicted here.

Of course that example is not truly scientific but it was a wonder that an unknown individual thought was important enough to be remembered by future people. I think his handprint icon was his signing off on this historic matter. We may see ourselves as the be all and end all of science but I bet the guy who recorded the supernova was also the be all and end all of astronomy of that day. They were feeling their way through the Universe just as we are.

Oh, yes. When I just mouse over it, it does nothing, but when I click it downloads and does the animation. Funny, it’s kind of like the “blink comparator” method used by Clyde Tombaugh in discovering Pluto.

I do think that we have to allow these early observers a bit of leeway in terms of accuracy in depiction. Consider for example the distortion in some of the cave paintings in France and elsewhere. It is artistic expression, not entirely scientific illustration.

Yes, the interpretation is somewhat speculative, but you have to give a little consideration to “artistic interpretation.” Assuming that this does depict the event, it mostly like was drawn from recent memory rather than direct observation at the time it was drawn. Also, as with many artists and artistic interpretations today, it is likely that the image of the Moon is exaggerated, thus making the separation look less than it really was. And I do not know the exact conditions at the time, but under the right conditions, even a crescent moon can be seen in daytime by sharp observers. Although I agree fully that this cannot accurately depict the event in all details, given a little artistic licence, I am certainly willing to allow that it is authentic.

Did you try clicking on the image? The animation is working for other people. If it still doesn’t work, you could try dragging it to your desktop and then put it in Quicktime or view it as an image in your browser.

The “Pillars of Creation” are clouds of gas and dust, and the exact shape and origin are unknown, but most likely the same as the many,many other such clouds in space. One idea for the finger-like shapes is that stars are condensing at the tips of the fingers or pillars, and the shock wave from a nearby supernova has pushed back the gas into the long pillars. This explanation is tentative.

Visually it is just a smudge in a small telescope. It always worries me that people will get excited over something they read or when they see an image from Hubble, then it not being very spectacular through a telescope. You just have to remember that the photos are time exposures with every specialized equipment. In fact you can begin to see detail in them with just the eye, too, but it takes practice and a lot of observing.

Ron, sorry I have not responded but I just realized the comment was here. Yes, the expansion can be seen, but you do have to be pretty careful in matching all the parameters between images taken at different times. Actually I seen only one photo, but I understand what you are saying.