[RD]

It seems the extra crosses only appear when shooting into the sun , with plenty of flare ...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6764HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18321HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20411HR.jpg

So consistent with an in-camera phenomenon , rather than post-production fakery.

Unless you can find extra crosses in a flare-free NASA moon image the puzzle is solved.

[Aemilius (OP)]

It seems the extra crosses only appear when shooting into the sun , with plenty of flare ...

Does it really seem that way to you RD? An empirically unfounded speculative assumption. To found it properly, in accordance with the empirical method, you'd have to show at least one other instance of it actually occurring that's similar in appearance to the way it appears in either the Apollo photograph, another photograph, or a convincing replication in order to say with any confidence that the observed effects "only appear when shooting into the sun"

So consistent with an in-camera phenomenon , rather than post-production fakery.

An inherently unreliable conclusive assertion based on an empirically unfounded speculative assumption.
 

Unless you can find extra crosses in a flare-free NASA moon image the puzzle is solved

An unwarranted declaration of resolution.... pending satisfaction of an eroneously extended challenge to produce supporting evidence of phenomena.
 
So.... What do we have really? An eroneously extended challenge to produce supporting evidence of phenomena.... based on an inherently unreliable conclusive assertion.... arrived at by way of an empirically unfounded speculative assumption.... leading to an unwarranted declaration of resolution.... pending satisfaction of the eroneously extended challenge to produce evidence.

If we're going by the empirical method, still, nothing you've posted so far RD (really seems an eternity) has proven anything, refuted anything, backed up anything, provided real evidence of anything or demonstrated anything that either disproves or refutes my empirically verifiable assertion...

....or that supports your impossibly fantastic unproven theory. At this point, as a staunch proponent of the official narrative (and mysteriously the only respondent so far in a Science Forum affiliated with Cambridge University), you're now actually in danger of appearing to match the very profile of the detractors as you've outlined them in the past.

[RD]

It seems the extra crosses only appear when shooting into the sun , with plenty of flare ...

Does it really seem that way to you RD?

Yes it does seem to be the case as the only examples of images with duplicate crosses I've seen are images which have conspicuous flare, (see the NASA links in my reply #20  ).

If you can find a NASA moon image with duplicate crosses which does not have flare it would be evidence the duplicate crosses are not an in-camera phenomenon caused by flare, as I allege.

If the extra crosses are generated in post-production fakery there's no reason they should only occur in images with flare , (which will be a minority of the photographs taken). If you are correct and the extra crosses are an artefact of image manipulation there should be plenty more of them in images without flare. Good luck finding them.

... a Science Forum affiliated with Cambridge University

That this forum is hosted by Cambridge University should not add credibility to the opinions expressed by contributors: Have you not seen the "may contain nuts" disclaimer at the bottom of the page ? ...

"Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large."

[Georgia]

Speaking of moderators... let's keep it friendly please folks!

[Aemilius (OP)]

Yes it does seem to be the case as the only examples of images with duplicate crosses I've seen are images which have conspicuous flare, (see the NASA links in my reply #20 ).

The way things seem is not the empirical method, check these out some time man....
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogical_models

If you can find a NASA moon image with duplicate crosses which does not have flare it would be evidence the duplicate crosses are not an in-camera phenomenon caused by flare, as I allege.

Right, as you allege but can't prove, demonstrate or support in any substantial or compelling way using anything that even remotely resembles the empirical method.

If the extra crosses are generated in post-production fakery there's no reason they should only occur in images with flare , (which will be a minority of the photographs taken). If you are correct and the extra crosses are an artefact of image manipulation there should be plenty
more of them in images without flare. Good luck finding them.

In reality, it wouldn't be evidence, it would be a miracle. Not because of any extraordinary unproven lense flare-like optical effect either, but simply because for an opaque black object (or reticle) to cast a shadow onto a surface (or film) behind it, it must be directly illuminated and be located between the light source and the surface (or film) where its shadow falls....

When the light source is either perpendicular to the optical axis of the camera lense, or behind the camera, there's no direct illumination of the reticle that puts it in between the light source and the surface (or film) where a shadow would fall so no shadow is cast.

So that's the reason you won't find evidence of the effect being seen in images with the sun completely out of frame or behind the camera, not because of any extraordinary unproven lense flare-like optical effect.... it has to be between the light source and the surface (or film) that its shadow falls on.

The upper distorted reticle in my example also indicates that the reticles seen in the photograph couldn't have been etched onto a rigid glass plate either, since, in order to replicate even one of the upper distorted curved reticles making up the formation of four seen in the photograph, it was necessary to introduce a significant bend of the transparency overlay to achieve the same appearance as that seen in the photograph.

When both reticles are flat in appearance (the upper reticle and the shadow it casts) it indicates a flat retical casting a flat shadow....

And when the shadow falls onto a distorted surface (or film) curving away from a flat reticle above, it's the lower shadow of the reticle that would be distorted instead of the upper one....

What's seen however is a distinct curvature of the upper distorted reticle and a flat shadow of it being cast that's symmetrical in appearance....

That configuration only matches one well known provably ordinary mechanism, that of the upper distorted reticle having been printed on a thin flexible transparent material that's casting a shadow in precisely the same way as that employed in my example....

Just based on what I've shown so far, I'd say that pending some other empirically founded interpretation in the form of a precedent setting example or replication that surpasses mine by demonstrating an even stronger one-to-one behavioural correspondence with what's seen in the photograph.... It's a proven fake (and by extension the rest of the photographs in that particular series). 

[RD]

The way things seem is not the empirical method, check these out some time man....
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

Empirical evidence ... is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirically {by observation} the double crosses only occur on images with flare, so consistent with an in-camera phenomenon , rather than a product of image manipulation which would not be specific to images with flare.

Also your illustrations in reply #24 do not show a surface curving in two planes, (similar to a lens) , which is what would be required to create the extra crosses which consist of arcs.  A lens-shaped surface is required somewhere to create the extra crosses which have radial-[pincushion]-distortion , there is such a thing in the camera.

For anyone who's interested here's my final word on the matter ...

The mechanism : the image of the very bright flare spot on the Reseau plate in the camera, (which has black crosses on it) , is reflected by a rear element in the lens, back onto the film creating a second set of black crosses which have radial [pincushion] distortion.

The reflected image of the black crosses is visible because they are dark lines in a patch of bright fog created by the reflected flare spot , (think Bat-Signal).

[ The contrast in the double-cross examples is very low consistent with fogging : the original orthogonal cross is washed-out-grey rather than opaque-black like the typical appearance of these "fiducial" marks].

[Aemilius (OP)]

Empirically {by observation} the double crosses only occur on images with flare, so consistent with an in-camera phenomenon , rather than a product of image manipulation which would not be specific to images with flare.

Refuted.... What you're asserting to be a likely byproduct of your theory playing out is, in reality, a perfectly ordinary optical mechanism playing out, and the proof of that is clearly seen in my photographic example. It simply shows that for an opaque object (or reticle) to cast a detailed shadow onto a surface (or film), it must be located between a light source and whatever the surface is that it's casting a shadow on. A direct light has to be shone on an object to cause a detailed shadow of it to be cast on a surface....

For example, when the light source is either out of frame (below left) or behind the camera (below right), only diffuse light will be entering the camera lense's field of view. If the same NASA photograh had been taken with the light source out of frame or behind the camera, the only incoming light would have been diffuse, so no shadow of the reticle in the image. Diffuse light (as anyone can tell you who's been out on a bright overcast day) won't cast a detailed shadow unless the object is very close to or in contact with the surface....

What's actually seen is a distinct curvature of the darker upper distorted crosshairs and a lighter flat shadow of them that's symmetrical in appearance, and the two images (below) are characteristically indistinguishable from one another....

Also your illustrations in reply #24 do not show a surface curving in two planes, (similar of arcs. A lens-shaped surface is required somewhere to create the extra crosses which have radial-[pincushion]-distortion , there is such a thing in the camera.

Refuted.... What you're asserting, that only a lense shaped surface could have created the effect, can also be accomplished in other ways, and the proof of that is clearly seen in my photographic example that precisely matches in appearence the distorted crosshairs and the shadow they're casting in the NASA photograph.... and my photographic example was provably accomplished with both a surface (a thin flexible transparency overlay) and an optical mechanism (the printed reticle on the transparency overlay) that doesn't appear, behave or operate anything like a lense or mirror, even as it precisely replicates what's seen in the NASA photograph....

So, the real problem I have with your theory is the complete lack of any supporting evidence or proof for anything you're saying about it. No clearly elucidated proposed mechanism (source system) or any precedent setting example (analog model) is given that demonstrates even one unique feature (shared property) identically exhibited by both the NASA photograph (target system) and your proposed mechanism (source system) that backs up your claim/assertion of common characteristics (behavioural correspondences).

The mechanism : the image of the very bright flare spot on the Reseau plate in the camera, (which has black crosses on it) , is reflected by a rear element in the lens, back onto the film creating a second set of black crosses which have radial [pincushion] distortion.

Refuted.... The mechanism you're describing there actually has exclusively to do with a bright light source's ability to overcome the low reflectivity of a camera lense and impose itself visibly in an image, and to do that it has to be glary.... A black opaque object (or reticle) cannot be illuminated brightly enough to partake of the same mechanism that a bright light does in overcoming the low reflectivity of a camera lense. To prove that's incorrect, just post a photograph of a black opaque object being so brilliantly illuminated by the Sun that it's actually glary to look at and I'll take that back.   

The reflected image of the black crosses is visible because they are dark lines in a patch of bright fog created by the reflected flare spot , (think Bat-Signal).

Your latest example proves that, compared to the distorted reticles seen in the photograph of the LEM, the Bat-Signal can periodically be seen from in and around Gotham City. Seriously though, it's a poor analogy because your example consists of a bright light shining up and away from the camera lense into the atmosphere, not shining directly into the camera lense like in the NASA photograph.... apples and oranges really.

   

[ The contrast in the double-cross examples is very low consistent with fogging : the original orthogonal cross is washed-out-grey rather than opaque-black like the typical appearance of these "fiducial" marks].

Speculation.... If that was the case and you recognized it as that, it means you must have seen it before. If you've seen it before, you should've posted an example of something that convincingly mimics the effect seen in the NASA photograph. You didn't, so it's just unsupported speculation, and mere speculation can't displace a verifiable photographic example that precisely matches in appearence what's seen in the detail from the NASA photograph.

To summarize....

....You haven't provided any kind of demonstrably fact based or clearly stated proposed mechanism (source system).
....Without any demonstrably fact based or clearly stated proposed mechanism (source system), you can't produce any verifiable precedent setting example or replication (analog model).
....No verifiable precedent setting example or replication (analog model) means you can't show any unique features (shared properties) identically exihibited by both the NASA photograph (target system) and your proposed mechanism (source system).
....Because you can't show any unique features (shared properties) that both the NASA photograph (target system) and your proposed mechanism (source system) exhibit identically, you're unable to convincingly establish any meaningful connection (behavioural correspondence) between the NASA photograph (target system) and your proposed mechanism (source system).
....All of which tends not to support your theory or proposed mechanism.   

In contrast....

....I did present a demonstrably fact based and clearly stated proposed mechanism (source system).
....With a factually based and clearly stated proposed mechanism (source system) in hand, I was able to produce a verifiable photographic example in the form of a precise photograhic replication (analog model).
....Being able to produce a verifiable photographic example (analog model) meant that I was able to note multiple unique features (shared properties) identically exhibited by both the NASA photograph (target system) and my provenly realistic proposed mechanism (source system).
....Because I was able to note multiple unique features (shared properties) exhibited identically by both the NASA photograph (target system) and my verifiable photographic example (analog model), I can very convincingly assert that a meaningful connection (behavioural correspondence) exists between the NASA photograph detail (target system), my provenly realistic proposed mechanism (source system) and the verifiable photographic example (analog model).
....All of which tends to strongly support my assertion that the photograph's appearance is the result of a transparency overlay lifting up and away from the image surface in the photograph of the LEM purportedly taken on the Moon.

Only a fool would trade a provenly fact based mechanism and analog model with multiple matching unique features/shared properties and a solid one-to-one behavioural correspondence with the photographic evidence for a poorly formulated unproven theory.

Sorry man, but pending the emergence of some other more plausible interpretation of the evidence, the photograph (and by extension the series it's part of) was not taken on the Moon.

[RD]

Maybe you'll get it if I use your diagram , ( but I doubt it ).

A very bright flare spot created by the sun hits the Reseau plate which has the black crosses on it . The image of this very bright spot on the plate with black crosses on it is reflected by the rear element of the lens, back onto the film, which creates extra crosses which have pincushion distortion because they have been created by reflection from a curved (lens) surface ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Aemilius (OP)]

I reproduced the scenario (I notice you reversed the reticles to fit the perspective in your "diagram", nice touch).  I get what you're talking about. You're saying pretty clearly really that in the schematic arrangement below (A), while the light that passed through the lense did cast a normal shadow of the crosshairs on the suface (B), an incident of sun flare also occurred, and that the sun flare is responsible for the image of the crosshairs being relected by the lense back down onto the surface below (C), and also that a fog of glare explains the lightening of the normally dark appearance of the symmetrical lower set of crosshairs, hence consistent with an in-camera phenomonon and not photographic manipulation.... essentially you're saying this completely explains the appearance (D) of the distorted/symmetrical double crosshairs seen in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

Your problem is that you don't have any proof of your theory's viability, there's no real world analog model given that shows any unique features/shared properties with your theory or the NASA photograph and nothing that confirms what you're sayiing reflects real world conditions. I have proof of my theory's viability, a photographic analog model that perfectly reflects real world conditions and precisely replicates the appearance of the detail from the NASA photograph....

And all of it corresponds to a simple ordinary optical mechanism playing out....

You just go on and on explaining but not proving. It's pretty simple man, if you can't produce some kind of analog model that reflects real world conditions and bears out what you're saying.... you're just way out there in left field on this.

[RD]

[ Invalid Attachment ]

Your diagram above has the cross aligned on the optical-axis of the lens.
In that special-case the effect I’ve described would not produce an obvious second cross :
with the cross on the optical-axis, the second cross, via reflection in the lens,
would have the same centre as the first cross and would not suffer any curvature,
( it would just be slightly bigger than the first cross, but would be perfectly aligned on top of it ).

With radial-distortion, like pincusion distortion , the further you go from the optical-axis the worse it becomes.

If you try redrawing the diagram as if the cross was about halfway between the centre of the film and a corner of the frame , (as in AS14-66-9306 ) , maybe you'll see mine is a valid hypothesis ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Such reflections from the Reseau plate , to the rear of the lens , and back through the Reseau plate onto the film, will occur every-time a photo is taken with this camera. Each reflection loses ~99%, so the double-reflection which gets to the film is approx 1/10,000* the original brightness : usually too dim to register on the film, and only becomes visible when that part of the image is very bright, like a flare-spot from the sun which is still visible even after it's brightness has been reduced by a factor of 10,000.

[ * 1/10,000 approximates to reduction of about 13 EV , aka -13 stops ].

[Aemilius (OP)]

Your diagram above has the cross aligned on the optical axis of the lens.
In that special-case the effect I’ve described would not produce an obvious second cross :
with the cross on the optical-axis, the second cross, via reflection in the lens,
would have the same centre as the first cross and would not suffer any curvature,
( it would just be slightly bigger than the first cross, but would be perfectly aligned on top of it ).

Do you expect anyone to buy that? Do you have any proof of anything you said there? Where's an example man? I don't see any of the scientific method in anything you're going on about. You just keep explaining without demonstrating or proving anything.   

With radial-distortion, like pincusion distortion , the further you go from the optical-axis the worse it becomes.

We've already been over the misapplied principals of optics thing a while back.... Don't you remember? You weren't able to verify or demonstrate one single thing that bore any resemblance whatsoever to the NASA photograph.

If you try redrawing the diagram as if the cross was about halfway between the centre of the film and a corner of the frame , (as in AS14-66-9306 ) , maybe you'll see mine is a valid hypothesis ...

It doesn't matter how things are arranged, it won't produce the observed effect. If it could, you would have posted an example by now and we wouldn't be having this conversation. No, all this arrangement will do is cast an ordinary shadow of an object on a surface....

There is no Black-Opaque-Object-Lense-Flare-Like-Mechanism. You seem to be presenting your "explanation" as being factual, but there's nothing there, you haven't provided one shred of solid credible evidence that suggests anything you're saying is true. So, as far as the validity of your hypothesis goes.... What is there to validate?  It would be a far fetched idea even with no other proven theory available, but the fact is that there is a proven theory available that fits like a glove and raises the bar even higher, because  anyone who disagrees will now not only have to just show some example/analog model that vaguely implies the effect seen in the NASA photograph, but also replicate/falsify my precise replication of the target system (the NASA photograph) as well.

The reality is that the odds of your mechanism or whatever it is actually playing out and coincidentally producing a result that's literally indistinguishable from an ordinary shadow of the reticle being cast (my photographic example/analog model) must be astronomical.... Maybe Dr. Calverd could calculate that for us.

You pretty much seem to just dismiss an iron clad anolog model/photographic example that shares multiple obvious unique features with the NASA photograph under real world conditions, even as you continue to make multiple unfounded assertions in support of a vague theory/hypothesis that, in comparison, shares no obvious behavioural correspondence or unique features with the NASA photograph under real world conditions in any way similar to my model that closely matches observations and appears precisely the same as what's seen in the photograph....

Honestly, how could anyone in their right mind looking at that possibly opt instead to pursue and actively promote an unprovable theory/hypothesis involving some magical unknown optical mechanism?

Such reflections from the Reseau plate , to the rear of the lens , and back through the Reseau plate onto the film, will occur every-time a photo is taken with this camera. Each reflection loses ~99%, so the double-reflection which gets to the film is approx 1/10,000* the original brightness : usually too dim to register on the film, and only becomes visible when that part of the image is very bright, like a flare-spot from the sun which is still visible even after it's brightness has been reduced by a factor of 10,000.

More of the same, no proof/verification of anything.... Where's an example? There's nothing of the scientific method in anything you're going on about that demonstrates or proves anything.... That I don't get.

[RD]

It doesn't matter how things are arranged ...

The arrangement does matter : the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.

Reflection of the Reseau plate by the edge of the lens will be deflected more (radially) than reflection from the centre of the lens because the lens is acting as a curved mirror , not a flat one.

... hypothesis involving some magical unknown optical mechanism? ... Where's an example?

That reflection from a curved mirror has pincushion-distortion is known by anyone who has used a shaving (or make-up) mirror which magnifies : the image becomes increasingly stretched towards the edges of the frame. 

As I've mentioned previously, glass always reflects and refracts light hitting it.
So a glass lens always acts as a curved mirror to some degree. The refection is a very small fraction of the light hitting it, but when that light is intense , e.g. an image of the sun, the reflections are bright enough become visible , e.g. flare spots. In this unusual case the flare-spots have dark crosses, which show via the tell-tale radial-distortion that a lens-like curved surface is involved in their creation.

No magic, just optics are required.

It perfectly matches observations and appears precisely the same as what's seen in the photograph....

If you could deform the film into a lens-shaped bulge yes it could cause the crosses to appear with radial-distortion as on the NASA image. However film cannot be deformed to that degree, and even if it could any other images on the bulging film would be distorted too, e.g. the spacecraft's  straight lines would be curved to same degree as the extra crosses.
    So your "transparency overlay" hypothesis does not "perfectly" match the evidence : it cannot explain radial-distortion ( that the extra crosses are all displaced radially outward from the image of the sun).  Whereas a curved mirror can do radial-distortion , and there is a curved mirror present : the rear surface of the lens.


The extra crosses are all displaced radially outward , a lens-shaped curved surface is required to do that.

[ the superimposed images via reflection is somewhat similar to "Pepper's ghost" but with a curved reflecting surface rather than a flat one ].

[Aemilius (OP)]

I think we've pretty thoroughly discussed our respective views of this aspect of the analysis. I'll post again later with a replication of the full formation. It's the logical next action. Maybe that will give you a little time to catch up, it looks like you missed something on "The Scientific Method" list.... 

[Aemilius (OP)]

I think I'll just post a little summary with each new replication.

On completion the first replication of a single set of elevated doubled crosshairs, even though seen from a different angle, a strong behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication) was instantly recogizable....

The second replication of the same single set of elevated doubled crosshairs, really just a refinement of the first, tightened up the behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication) to the point where they actually became characteristically indistinguishable from one another....

This is the third replication in the series, and the first to show an entire formation of four sets of elevated doubled crosshairs. Like the first replication, a strong behavioural corespondence is immediately apparent, and the entire formation of four sets of doubled crosshairs have been elevated to approximate the relative elevations of the doubled crosshairs seen in the NASA photograph by simply lifting the transparency overlay slightly from the upper left corner of the transparency overlay....

In the next replication, I'll address the lighting and the slight curvature of the upper distorted crosshairs, as well as line thickness, to tighten up the behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication).

Just a note to add.... I know there's nothing certain about this. Multiple repetitions of the steps making up the scientific method are often required to arrive at a final outcome, each cycle suggesting the next experiment. Without being overconfident, I'll just say I'm increasingly certain of the final outcome at this point.

[RD]

... a strong behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication) was instantly recogizable ....

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Not a strong enough correspondence : on your re-creation the duplicate (shadow) crosses are all displaced in the same direction, whereas on the photo the extra crosses are displaced radially, ( the curved crosses are all outside the green square I have drawn by joining up the orthogonal crosses ).

A lens-like curved surface is required to produce a radial displacement, (and to produce crosses made of arcs).  If you could bend the transparency into lens-like bulge that would produce a pattern which corresponded with the photo, but film is too rigid to do that, ( and there is already a lens-like surface in the camera : the lens ).

[Aemilius (OP)]

Not a strong enough correspondence....

It's strong, certainly stronger than anything you've got, that's for sure.... and it gets stronger with each replication.     

....on your re-creation the duplicate (shadow) crosses are all displaced in the same direction, whereas on the photo the extra crosses are displaced radially, (the curved crosses are all outside the green square I have drawn by joining up the orthogonal crosses).

Yeah, I noticed that too, that's why I said I'd address the lighting and a couple of other things in the next replication. This (third) replication was carried out primarily to demonstrate how all the relative elevations of the full formation of four sets of doubled crosshairs could be accomplished by simply lifting up one corner of the transparency overlay, and it clearly did that. As we both know, the shadows being cast by the crosshairs are highly variable depending on where above the whole arrangement the light source is situated, and in this last replication they all came out similarly alligned....

But as I said, it's highly variable and I don't foresee any problem (yet) tightening up the resemblance in the next replication....

A lens-like curved surface is required to produce a radial displacement, (and to produce crosses made of arcs). If you could bend the transparency into lens-like bulge that would produce a pattern which corresponded with the photo, but film is too rigid to do that, ( and there is already a lens-like surface in the camera : the lens ).

Here we go again with the "film is too rigid" and "a lense-like curved surface is required" bit. You just make these remarks as if it's all taken for granted that what you're saying is true. It's not true and you've done absolutely nothing to support anything of what you've said, even as you've continued hairsplitting over details of my scientific method driven replications. I've already determined experimentally what the required conformation of the transparency overlay deformity is that will convincingly replicate the effect. A warped, almost teardrop shaped deformation of the surface is actually required, the point of the teardrop being situated in the region of the lower right set of doubled crosshairs closest to the image surface in the complete formation seen in the NASA photograph. It's not lense-like or lense shaped....

Have a nice day.

[RD]

... I don't foresee any problem (yet) tightening up the resemblance in the next replication....

Bear in mind on the photo the extra crosses are curved : they are made of two arcs.
A surface curving in two planes is required perform that distortion.
If the transparency and the surface it is projected onto remain flat,  the shadow crosses will not be curved arcs as in the photo.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Also bear in mind the extra crosses are only visible in one quadrant of the photo: the crosses are not at the corners of the frame like your reconstruction.
Lifting all four corners of your transparency would not be an accurate reconstruction of the photo.

[Aemilius (OP)]

I'll tell you what I'll bear in mind, I'll bear in mind that you haven't successfully completed this process even once and your'e still going on about the so called  "lense flare effect" as if it's fact when it's really just unsupported untested unverifiable fantasy....

[Aemilius (OP)]

If you do ever get around to using the scientific method, it should look something like this....

[RD]

I'll tell you what I'll bear in mind ...

if your reconstruction does not include the properties of the NASA photo I have asked you to "bear in mind", (in reply #36), then you have failed to replicate it accurately and your hypothesis is unproven.

... your still going on about the so called  "lense flare effect" as if it's fact when it's really just unsupported untested unverifiable fantasy...

Refection in lens-shaped curved mirror is what I've been "going on about", which I allege could have pincushion distortion.

Here's an illustration where the curved mirror is only curving in one plane , (cylindrical) ... 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphosis#Practical_uses

With a lens-shaped mirror, (curving in two planes), the reflected image would have pincushion distortion.
All lenses both reflect and refract light : the rear element of a camera lens will act as a curved mirror. If the light it reflects is very bright , like an image of the sun,  the refection will be recorded on the film as a flare spot. In this peculiar case , (because of the Reseau plate), the flare spot has black crosses in it which show the tell-tale pincushion distortion : giving away that they have been created by refection from a curved surface.