My only 'position' is more or less is in total agreement with the third para of your last post. But, from the large number of pictures you have posted on this thread - plus the graphs, you have been giving me the strong impression that you think that there is, in fact, plenty of objective evidence for drawing all sorts of conclusions.
I have made the point that camera processing is probably responsible for many of the differences in perceived sharpness in pictures - hence my opinion about the use of Raw.
I really don't know why you should be wanting to see images of mine to support my ideas. The ones already posted speak volumes. There is a blow up of the sea, with massive 64pixel blocks of random looking patterns which can hardly be bettered as an example of where jpeg clouds the issue. There is a picture of a distant coastline which is blurred, possibly as a result of the long transmission path over the sea and yet the sparkle of the sea just in front of the coastline is apparently very sharp. Having played many times with Photoshop's Unsharp Mask I know that you can produce exactly this effect with selective sharpening. What use are those pictures in proving or demonstrating anything about atmospheric propagation? Any image that I could submit would be just as pointless.
I think the only pictures that would be worth posting on this thread in order to answer the OP questions would have to be taken on a film camera or a lab camera with monochrome sensor. Bunging a huge imponderable into the signal chain would not be 'good Science', would it?
It would be a pity to find out that we had both, in fact, been shouting the same message but not recognising what the other was shouting.