No, it doesn't belong in /x/ they are optimistically retarded there.
This is a
>photography
>optics
subject.

I'm
>not
concerned with proving any validity to any extraordinair claim but
>solely
to grasp how
>if at all
difficult it was
>or would be
to fake the specific type of picture shown.
This was widely available, in various poses, the angles and ranges in the middle seventies.
Please do not divert the subject with your personal bias from either side of the proverbial fence.
>ASSUME IT IS FAKE
>IN THE 70'S
>ONLY THIS EXAMPLE
and tell us, from your experience in optics and/or photography
>please Photoshop crowd STAY AWAY
how, in the name of all that is holy, you would go about faking this.

>on film
>negative available

I am more than just inclined to believe the close ups of said objects were hoaxes, however difficult to produce, and in all probability made by a worldwide effort to dilute true information amidst a relatively easily detectable disinformation campaign which wasn't black and white as commonly imagined, where this is a whole lot of lies and that is all truth but an amalgamated set to be dissected by whoever took the time anywhere anytime.

Immaterial, but just so you know.

If you know about optics etc please have a look.

I know there are presently available computer software that can track light pathways in a given picture or motion picture in order to realistically insert foreign objects into any photo flawlessly but as far as I'm aware nobody used them to process the dozens if not hundreds of pictures, from this one source alone, within the range in quality and distance as well as lightning depicted.

Thanks.