[Aemilius (OP)]

RD, you're trying to assert that, because mirrored and unmirrored smooth glass surfaces both reflect light to one degree or another, that they are the same and can do the same things....

But that's a faulty line of reasoning, and here's why. A smooth mirrored glass surface reflects almost all of the light falling upon it, whereas a clear pane of glass (similar to that employed in the Hasselblad camera) reflects very little of the light falling on it. They're polar opposites of the same phenomenon.... reflectivity. A smooth unmirrored glass surface can no more act as a mirror than a blow torch can freeze a glass of water, because hot and cold are also polar opposites of the same phenomenon.... temperature.

Just because two polar opposites of a particular phenomenon partake of the same mechanism, it doesn't automatically mean they can do all the same things or are interchangable. In light of that, when we replace the highly reflective mirrored surface of the cylinder in the example you're holding up to demonstrate the viability of your theory with a cylinder of much less reflective unmirrored glass like that used for camera lenses, your analogy instantly falls apart....

So your theory remains, as it has right from the start.... wholly unsupported.

By the way, mangling the data by reversing the light and dark values of the upper and lower crosshairs and misrepresenting the crosshair's configuration in the lower right corner doesn't accomplish anything. Your theory remains unsupported, therefore I'm under no obligation to create any replication that conforms to it. If you want to change that, all you have to do is complete the form....

[RD]

... a clear pane of glass (similar to that employed in the Hasselblad camera) reflects very little of the light falling on it. ...

Yes "very little" is reflected : window glass ~4% , anti-refection coated camera optics > 1%.
As I mentioned previously (reply #29) a double-refection which reaches the film in the Apollo Hasselblad camera will be approximately 13 stops dimmer than the main image, so generally will not register on film, unless it is very bright , like an image of the sun , ( the black skies also help make such flare more visible).

... A smooth unmirrored glass surface can no more act as a mirror ...

Absolute nonsense : I posted a picture of glass acting as a mirror in reply #3 in this thread, ( although that illustration was unnecessary : everyone who has seen a glass window knows they reflect light ). 

... So your theory remains, as it has right from the start.... wholly unsupported ...

Monsieur Fresnel supports my statement that all glass lenses both reflect and refract, simultaneously, see ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations#Overview

Refection within the elements of the lens and from within the camera (e.g. from the Reseau plate) is what causes flare. If there is flare in the image there must have been unwanted reflection by the glass in the camera. The existence of flare in the image supports my theory that reflection has occurred within the camera's optics.

When light hits glass, some is transmitted, some is reflected, and some is absorbed. All three occur simultaneously in some ratio.

[Aemilius (OP)]

The fact is RD that no amount of "alleging" on your part using "empirical observation" can compensate for not completing each step of the scientific method.

You continue to analgously cite various data in the form of generic informational links to support your conjecture, but for some mysterious reason you're completely unable to use any of that to physically assemble a coherent real world analog model of any kind that satisifies the requirement in the scientific method that a theory actually be tested (or at least be confirmed by the verifiable test results of others) under real world conditions before moving on to analysis of results, let alone any conclusion.   

I think it's obvious by now even to someone with a botched hemispherectomy that you simply can't provide any useful empirically verifiable repeatable data supporting your theory, even as you continue to tout a bizarre unverifiable conclusion arrived at via subjective analysis that predicts a never before seen phenomenon as being a perfectly sound and logical construct.

Each of the three replications that I've carried out so far have fully satisfied every step of the scientific method and collectively they increasingly support my initially intuitive observation, drawn from many years as an artist whose business has been the properties of light, shade and perspective, that what's observed in the NASA photograph is entirely consistent with the casting of a perfectly ordinary shadow, a simple and well known optical mechanism.

No one can analyze their way around that step of the scientific method requiring testing, and by that standard, to date, you've utterly failed to provide any verifiable support for the existence of any other optical mechanism (other than that of an ordinary shadow being cast) that's both consistent with physical principles and is capable of producing the effect seen in the NASA photograph.

[RD]

...  you're completely unable to use any of that to physically assemble a coherent real world analog model ...

Forget analogs, here's a photo of the real thing : a "Hasselblad EDC" where you can see a reflection in the rear-element of the lens of the square aperture at the film-plane , (covered by the Reseau plate) ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-032314b.jpg

[Aemilius (OP)]

That's not the real thing, it's just a disassembled camera seen under studio lighting conditions....

The scientific method is the real thing....