args.bungie.org

Good analysis, Alstrong. If the lensing effect were to be the explanation, then it would look like the first image below. Like you said, there would be a reflection of the star about the massive object or black hole. I found an actual image of this occuring, which is the first one below (and is a prime example). Clearer examples can be found here:
http://www.jonlomberg.com/oa_gravitational.html

But, if it were reflected, then the stars would appear in the reverse order of the other one. This is the case with the set near the glyph, and thus the black hole would be just to the right of the glyph for everything to be symmetric. Not exactly symmetric, mind you, but close. But, for the other set (the ones to the far right, and shown in the second image below), this cannot be the case. The stars are in the same order, so they cannot be formed by the lense effect.

That's mainly what I was getting at with multiple black holes. If you take a system of normal quartz lenses, you can create virtual images and real images of the original object with some sort of magnification depending on the lens setup. And for certain distances, you won't even get an image because the image becomes focused at infinity.

Say we have two black holes focusing the image. The first black hole produces an inverse image from incoming light of a star, then the second black hole further warps the light once more, reversing the reversed image. i.e. what we would see is an image of the original object with the same orientation, but due to gravitational lensing we see multiple, shifted images.

I'd like to point you all here quickly:

http://206.16.223.76/

Van Helsing wrote:I'd like to point you all here quickly:

http://206.16.223.76/

I don't have the means, but what if we overlay that with the composite of the overlayed star images thus far? the site requires an entry of some sort, perhaps it will be spelled out with the alignment of the stars?