> It's not "directly observed" in any sense other than "something is wrong here and we can't explain why".
That's not disagreeing, that's literally an observation, in this case via photons coming from things we can see possibly interacting with things we can't. That's as direct an observation as you're going to get for most things in the universe.
> That's as direct an observation as you're going to get for most things in the universe.
It is decidedly not. It's a clear sign that points at "Our models don't work well here", but simply noting that we're seeing an unexpected result is FAR different than being able to declare "we have observed dark matter".
Basically - if you're saying that the bullet cluster is good evidence against MOND, welp... we agree.
If you're saying the bullet cluster is direct observation of dark matter... I don't agree at all. It's just proof that both models are broken for the cases where we see galactic collisions. The fact that you can wallpaper over this in models with dark matter is... the point of dark matter in the first place: A handy escape hatch for cases like this.
That's not disagreeing, that's literally an observation, in this case via photons coming from things we can see possibly interacting with things we can't. That's as direct an observation as you're going to get for most things in the universe.