[Windflier]

Not only is it accurate enough to compensate for the tiny aberrations in the optics, but it's so accurate that we don't know how accurate it is because we don't yet have instruments accurate enough to measure the level of its accuracy.

I just have to laugh. That sounds just like some kind of campaign hype from the Obama White House. LOL

[BerryDingle]

It's hard to see something very dim next to something very bright.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Not only is it accurate enough to compensate for the tiny aberrations in the optics, but it's so accurate that we don't know how accurate it is because we don't yet have instruments accurate enough to measure the level of its accuracy.

I agree, it sounds like snake oil. Presumably one could test the optics, not by comparion to some other, better or comparable optics, but by measuring actual performance to theoretical performance achieved using some calibration standard. For instance, image Betelguese, and compare the results to expectations.