"Look Centrosphere, you should be around long enough before you start correcting people and implying that they don't know what they are saying."
Well, this is a textbook example of "argument from authority". There is no interest to me in knowing your previous wanderings, since you seems to be factually wrong. Iīm not claiming Iīm better than you, but our arguments have at least the same weight here. Please look at this photo:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6803.jpg
It was also taken from an Hasselblad in the Moon. The problem here is that most of the luminous effects in lunar photos have something to do with the interaction between light, the lenses, the iris, and luminous objects into our outside the field of vision. But the ROV photo quite obviously doesnīt have a luminous object outside the field, since the lights are positioned behind the camera. Besides that, I hate to be repetitive but the region I marked in the photo is not a flare of any kind.
And please donīt try to play the victim:
"Really, has conspiracism just become a given fact of modern life?"
Iīm trying to be very cautious in not advancing conspiratory theories. Of course I have a pet theory, at least until someone come with a convincing natural explanation to that subtle anomaly in the picture. It can be news to you, but this is the process by which science advances: one has a theory, other more clever guy disproves it. Go read Popper or some popularizer of science more suitable to you, please.
Proof that the issue isnīt going "to bed" is that we already have a lot of possible explanations beside the manipulation hipothesys: "vanishing shadows", "compression artifact", "dust on the lens", etc.