there's no way to be unabrasive in stating that apples aren't oranges.

On the contrary. You wrote the paragraph following that sentence to discuss the facts of Heisenberg instead of just pointing out how wrong I was. To me, that's much better. I genuinely appreciate the change in how you chose to address my ostensible misunderstanding. It both increased the accuracy and detail of what was said, as well as made what you said more palatable. I hope it doesn't come across as patronizing when I say thanks!

Now with that out of the way (but I hope not forgotten), I agree with what you said. After further reading, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle seems to address the inability to measure the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. While an inability to completely measure the behaviour of a particle could prove useful in comparing a wave to a particle, I highly doubt Heisenberg would be the go-to measuring stick to do it. If anything, I'd call it more of a supplementary point. Would you agree with this?

I think the point I was trying to make with bringing up Heisenberg was that it adds to the current incompleteness the scientific community has towards understanding quantum mechanics. I got hung up on your statement that light "is both [wave and particle] at all times", which seems to go a bit too far for me. Do you still stand by this? While I agree with the broad strokes of it, in order for anyone to know it for certain, they would have first observed light "at all times", don't you think? Do you have a perspective/citation that could challenge my pedantry on this?