A. With all these objections (with which i don´t agree in some cases, but that´s unimportant) you´re basically agreeing with the fact that driver perfomances change. And to give you another example, which comes spontaneously to my mind: Compare some seasons between Berger-Alesi and see how it differs (e.g. Alesi transformed a 5-12 "Quali-Loss" in 1995 to a 13-3 "Quali-Win" in 1996, how the hell could that happen? )
Simple, they both joined a new team in Benetton. We need to draw a distinction between vary and change. Im not denying there will always be variations in performance, but that is different to a change, the way you suggesting. There was always a variation in the performance between Kimi, and Massa, each year the qualifying and points, and wins totals were different, but overall, they were evenly matched in speed and performance. That is my point. You need to focus on the bigger picture and not try to knitpick a reasonable and logical theory.
B. That´s a great way to score an owngoal. So Massa got better according to your statement, but he can´t possibly become worse?
Read above. Massa slighting improved but they were always very even. Its also much more plausable to improve performance than to just lose it. You could make an argument that Massa improved with experience, but where is the logic in someone losing performance with experience? Makes no sense its illogical.
C. No i´m not, because there are always reasons and i already mentioned one of them (car and tyre characteristics) but there are many others (experience, age, psychological pressure, motivation etc.)
But those reasons are all pure assumptions. Massa did not change team, the regulations barely changed, he had far more experience with Ferrari cars than his new team mate, his motivation was through the roof to beat Alonso. i accept that under some circumstances driver performance can change, like if Massa had gone to Renault, that would have been a possible excuse for a loss in performance, but none of this applies to Massa, he was the driver with every advantage over his team mate Alonso. Instead of trying to think up every possible excuse, why don't you try to find some reasonable factors that could have resulted In Massa's dramatic loss in form?
D. That deduction doesn´t even work with your kind of reasoning. If the specific gaps between MSC-MAS and and ALO-MSC were the same, why should MSC been faster than ALO at that time then?
Your claiming the current Massa is slower than the version that Michael beat, so that means Alonso must be slower than Schumacher 1.0.