Areth, perhaps we dissent on the structure of the elusive electron.  And I kinow that we dissent on the use of a telescope to capture that elusive quantum.

Electrons would be very slightly difficult to see directly: we can see their shells with STC technology (Scanning Tunneling Chromoscope) that we used at Sandia until I retired. 

1.  Electrons move at C.  If we fire photons at electrons, we do not get a reflected photon: we get an exotic element we presently call Positronium (Ps).  It is an "exotic" element with a mass just slightly greater than 2.0012 ev.  That counts a photon working its curious mischief between the two leptons.

2. Electrons are vexing little quanta in that they will display themselves as fields or particles, as you like them.  Either way, we have to observe target elements absorbing the electrons through a double-slit apparatus with the slits about .0012 M apart and as long as the wavelength of the radiation we're using.  Simple polarization will not work.

3.  The ONLY way you will see a "free" electron is as part of an e-/e+ pair, that "transitions" back and forth to gamma radiation, again at C.

4.  It would be impossible to DIRECTLY observe quarks because they are far less massive than the quanta that we would have to fire at them to get a good "scatter."  Quarks are part of string theory, which in turn morphed into M-theory (and P-therory). 

If you have current data (or rigorously-tested theory) that will support your conclusions, please send it to me: DrPunster@aol.com