It seems that your problem here is the term “weird”. Supose EHT and gjm instead used some more scientific term like “lambda coefficient” (entirely made up by me). That of course shouldn’t change your argument, but the crux of your argument seems to be that their use of “weirdness” is unscientific because it’s based on what a person sees. But from what I can see of what gjm is saying, weirdness is a perhaps bad name for a very specific and scientific value that can be extracted from a set of pixels.
It seems that your problem here is the term “weird”. Supose EHT and gjm instead used some more scientific term like “lambda coefficient” (entirely made up by me). That of course shouldn’t change your argument, but the crux of your argument seems to be that their use of “weirdness” is unscientific because it’s based on what a person sees. But from what I can see of what gjm is saying, weirdness is a perhaps bad name for a very specific and scientific value that can be extracted from a set of pixels.