... if David Percy is an accomplished photographer, he would have known something simple as emulsion bleed in the crosshairs.

A very good example. For each photo he presents that looks like the fiducial might have been obscured by a foreground object, I can present ten or fifteen which show it's not correlated to object boundaries but in fact to highlights. Further, I can look at high-resolution versions of his photos and see that the fiducial is only partially obscured.

If Percy found his proof photos by examining a reasonably complete collection, then he would have not been able to avoid seeing the photos which disproved his theories. So either he's lying about what he found, or he's lying about having made a thorough examination.

Percy can sue me all he wants. It's my belief that David Percy is knowingly withholding contrary evidence and selectively presenting other evidence, with the intent of deceiving the public into buying his book and video.