As stated before, it took nearly 100 years before anyone equated the negative field flattener in a telescope eyepiece with Smyth. People like to make associations. Does this make all such associations correct? If so, then I state that Petzval likewise invented the idea (not really).

Per the testimony of someone here who asked him this directly, Al Nagler scoffed at the idea that his negative field group was a "Smyth". With this being the case, does it matter what Rooten and vanRooij thought it was in reference to Al's design?

Rooten and vanRooij likewise equate the Barlow directly with eyepiece field flattening. See page 155. Why do you scoff at the idea that a Barlow can be used in relation to eyepiece field flattening when your very source clearly states that it does?