rally,
Whilst i would respect your opinions greatly you really need to re-read the comments I have made again, slowly.
I am in fact referring to imaging as well as visual. It is YOU that has missed the point most respectfully.
Your own comments have more than clearly demonstrated my points and given weight to my concerns.
There are far too many variables that not have been addressed or mentioned.
I have raised several questions which still go unanswered by yourself and others and which play such an important part in how the "test results" were arrived at.
I am happy to back any printed test results as long as they are scientifically validated and all I am asking for is this before making decisions.
I am sure others share the same view.
The request for answers would be considered more than reasonable before investing money on someones unsubstantiated hearsay.
For some reason the simple questions I have asked are worrying some people and being ignored or criticised which really surprises me being that we are all astronomers and should not automatically accept claims without scrutiny.
Rather then being on the defensive, just address the questions raised.
I am sure many people would agree that the answers to these unbiased and neutrel questions have a bearing on how much importance is placed on these so called results.
I again ask the following;
1. Have the figures been obtained from gussetted or ungussetted piers?
2. Were the test results based on a pier attached to the ground and with a mount and scope on? or
3. Were the results based on a pier that was free of outside influence; (ie was it tested independently in a machine or device that could scientifically measure any defelecture or was it the backyard method?)
4. How were the measurements taken and determined? By eye, a computer, camera or stanley tape measure or some other method???
5. rally brings up a very good point about seeing. What were the seeing conditions when these tests were done?
Rally himself indicates that this could make a difference.
This whole thread is based on some figures that were published without scientific backing
and without adddressing the above very important facts that without any question DO INFLUENCE THE FIGURES.
Until someone can answer the above questions I think it is silly to place too much importance on figures that have no scientific validation.
In my own practical experience
(yes I do have some like other astronomers) 
I have seen no deflecture in any piers under 1 metre high. Incidently these same piers have gussets and generally have a wall thickness of around 6 mm. I have also seen first hand, multi hour images on the same like piers of many hours duration and there is simply no perceivable defect in the images attributed to any pier deflection.
From my observation the wall thickness means stuff all on piers under a metre high, contrary to unproven claims.
The proof is in the pudding as one would say and I have seen no evidence of any pier deflection in any multi hour images that I have seen. Perhaps someone could provide an image that purports to be pier deflection and with it, details of the mount, scope and pier as well as other details that could play a part in the image making.
Seeing that pier deflection is unproven and so far undetectable in multi hour images, just how far do you want to go and how much do you want to spend to get the NASA standard.
This is just a whole lot of rubbish. Before accepting unvalidated figures quoted as gospel, one really should ask the questions and check the facts before being critical of others. When the simple answers to the questions I have asked have been answered, then we can all have a deep and meanigful discussion
