> somehow seem to be defending Samsung voraciously but emptily

The first words I said were that Samsung probably did this

And you're right that I didn't read the dozens of edits which were added after the original post. I was basing my arguments off everything before the "conclusion section", which it seems the author understands was not actually conclusive.

I agree that the later experiments, particularly the "two moons" experiment were decisive.

Also to be clear, I know that Samsung was doing this, because as I said I worked at a competitor. At the time I did my own tests on Samsung devices because I was also working on moon related image quality