• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,309
Likes
5,155
Location
Seattle
Eric, most point & click photographers don't know that the moon is an object in the full sunlight. And just like you wouldn't try to take a photo of Mount Rainier at F1.8 @ 1/16 shutter speed in the full sunlight you don't shoot the moon at those settings either. But if you want to see the stars which are not the same brightness as the visible moon, you need F1.8 @ 1/16 shutter speed. A lot of photographers do not know a damn thing about how focal length, exposure time and ASA value all combine to make an effect.
Where's Tom D? He would surely be an acceptable resource on how that shit works. You can only do stars plus moon with a composite photo.

BF
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
When you take pics through your telescope, is it on a tripod? Do you sight it in through an eyepiece? Or do you just point and shoot from your beer chair and guessedimate? When you do this, do you have perfect shutter speed/f stop no matter where you steer your telescope? If so, how often does it work out for you?
It is on a tripod/telescope mount, sometimes I shoot through the telescope optics themselves and other times through a camera lens with the camera piggy-backed on the scope. Keep in mind, this is necessary because of the exposure times required to capture faint detail and stars. In either case, some objects at some times of year can put you into very uncomfortable positions to get everything framed and focused crouching under the whole setup to be able to look through the viewfinder. In the "film days" (and early DSLR days), I would sight it through the viewfinder on the DSLR, which is very dark. My new DSLR (canon T4i) has an articulating screen which makes it a lot easier. No guessedimating but sometimes especially with the old camera I did screw it up and don't get anything useful. In the film days I wouldn't even know until the film was developed. Mainly because my targets are generally very faint objects that you cannot see directly through the viewfinder.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
From my limited research professional photographers are among the least likely to believe men landed on the moon. They simply find way too many problems with the photographic/video evidence.

Among those most easily duped are astronomers, stargazers, super sci-fi fans and those that are really into space concepts...as am I. Much of it seems to be cognitive bias.

Nearly all evidence that men did not land on the moon is waved away almost immediately. "oh we already talked about that" or "who cares if they got busted photochopping a few photos".

Same with video of guys allegedly on the ISS. They're plainly wearing harnesses to simulate low "gravity". It's like a dang cartoon.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Eric, most point & click photographers don't know that the moon is an object in the full sunlight. And just like you wouldn't try to take a photo of Mount Rainier at F1.8 @ 1/16 shutter speed in the full sunlight you don't shoot the moon at those settings either. But if you want to see the stars which are not the same brightness as the visible moon, you need F1.8 @ 1/16 shutter speed. A lot of photographers do not know a damn thing about how focal length, exposure time and ASA value all combine to make an effect.
Where's Tom D? He would surely be an acceptable resource on how that shit works. You can only do stars plus moon with a composite photo.

BF
Indeed. It amazes me how many times I see people make claims that immediately show their lack of understanding when it comes to basic photography/exposure. They think a photograph of a starry sky is taken just by one quick *click*, like a daytime photo. People are often surprised when I tell them I spend several hours photographing one object to try and capture the faintest detail.
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
468
Likes
345
Yet still, Eric, I think you are missing my point. I'm not talking about whether or not stars are visible. I am speaking to the photographs taken by the astronauts as they were bouncing around at half speed "on" the moon.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Right, two different points being discussed here and that particular point was not directed at you. My points to you were more to do with the efforts in taking pictures in difficult environments. What they are said to have done photographically doesn't look quite as difficult as things I have done photographically. When I see an obstacle, I see a challenge and not a show stopper.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
11,876
Likes
19,082
Location
ORYGUN
I will do. My point, that I have made here before with real examples, is if you take a picture with the moon and expose it long enough to show stars the moon will be grossly over exposed. I don't understand why most of the videos like this don't seem to understand that fact.

Edited to add, one example: http://goldismoney2.com/threads/fake-apollo-moon-landing.164095/page-18#post-1300006
Taken from the link: solarion #714
I can assure you that if I were on the moon my #1 priority would be to put an end to the thousands of years of debate about the shape of planet Earth by FILMING IT. Instead these goofballs allegedly assembled a fold up electric dune buggy so they could go for a joy ride collecting petrified wood. Pics of the stars would have been incredibly difficult to fake in 1970 as would passable video of the Earth and those are the two things they never ever provided.

I'd consider it very odd if I'm really the only one that thinks that's odd. One of the alleged missions left a video camera behind to video tape their departure. How long did that take to set up? My god, just point the damn camera at planet Earth.


There are other credible videos that substantiate the folly.
Videos on both sides of the argument have their faults.
As you, I was a believer in the moon landing, but, now there is just too much credible data to still be a believer.

CONVINCE A BELIEVER.jpg
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
A Carl Sagan quote is rather ironic, though it's a beautiful sentiment.

His was a brilliant mind, but I'm fairly certain he was a true believer in space exploration. He & his wife were, after all, responsible for designing the gold record that was allegedly included aboard voyager and is now allegedly one of the few man made objects to ever leave our solar system. Did it happen? Maybe. Perhaps in 20 - 30 years government will come clean about the space program hoaxes.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,220
How far can the human eye see on the ocean?
This is how far the human eye can see on the ocean.

https://researchmaniacs.com/QuestionsAnswers/HowFarCanTheHumanEyeSeeOnTheOcean.html

We see these questions a lot: How far can the human eye see on the ocean?? How far can I see into the horizon? How far can you see at sea level? They are all different ways of asking the same question.



You may be surprised by the answer, because you cannot see very far at sea level. You can see the moon, but you cannot see Europe from the East Coast or Japan from the West Coast. Why, you may ask? The reason you cannot see very far is because the earth is round. To give you a better perspective, look at the picture below. Fred cannot see very far because the curve of the earth is blocking his view.



The higher you are, the further you can see. Furthermore, if there is an object in the sea like a ship or oilrig, you may not be able to see where it meets the water, but you might see the top of it.


If you stand on the beach, your eyes are probably between 5 and 6 feet above the sandy beach (depending on your height). From there you can see about 2.7 miles across the ocean. Now, let's say you go up on a sand dune next to the beach, taking your eyeballs 50 feet into the air. Then, you can see about 8.37 miles across the ocean.

Now, let's say that you are staying in a beachfront hotel on the 20th floor, 250 feet above sea level. Then you can see 18.71 miles across the ocean. If you could move the Eiffel Tower to the beach and look out over the ocean from the top of it, you would be 1050 feet above ground and you could see about 38.34 miles across the ocean.


Now, let's say you have even more magical powers and you can move Mount Everest to the beach and stand on top of it. Then you would be 29,000 feet above sea level and you could see 201.49 miles across the ocean.

You get the point, the higher you are, the greater distance you can see. But the earth's very curvy shape limits you from seeing very far.

The formula for calculating how far you can see across the ocean is s^2 = (r + h)^2 - r^2 where s is how far you can see, r is the radius of earth, and h is how high your eyes are. Just so you don't have to brush up on your math skills, we have calculated it for different heights below.

Eyeball
Height in feet

5
6
10
50
100
250
500
1000
1050
5000
10000
29000
100000
500000
Miles you
can see

2.65
2.9
3.74
8.37
11.83
18.71
26.46
37.42
38.34
83.67
118.32
201.49
374.17
836.66
 
Last edited:

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
Sure about that?


 
Last edited:

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
You'll have to ask her about the state of the tidal conditions. I didn't make the video...just find it interesting that someone's filming a ship @ a range pushing 20 NMs.

BTW your own numbers posted above also appear to be expressed in nautical miles.



The Earth allegedly hurtling through theoretical space/time at 1,880,000 mph and spinning at 1037 mph while the constellations remain unaffected for thousands of years...yeah that's silly.









 
Last edited:

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
as Galileo put it so well "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.". The accepted model seems to add up with my sense and reason.
There's a good reason for that.


this video will examine how NASA themselves have inadvertently admitted that we never went to the moon nor are we still able to go to this day.
Nowhere in there did they say that they never went to the Moon. What they said is that they do not currently have the ability to do so.
....and as I've tried to explain to sol, back then the appetite for risk was much higher than it is today. To a large degree, those astronauts back in the 60's were used as human guinea pigs.

Also, Orion is designed for much longer missions than Apollo was. Duration of exposure matters with radiation.


Even if the tech to survive the radiation belts was available the tech to lift enough weight to survive the radiation belts with a single rocket was not available.
Here we go again with the "they'd need 4' of lead to protect them" crapola. We've already covered the fact that the VAB radiation is not the same kind of radiation lead shielding is would protect you from. Chraged particles are not xrays.
...but feel free to keep thinking they are if that's what it takes to protect your pet theory.


I have taken 100's if not 1,000's of photo's with stars,
Did those pics also include a bright Sun-lit object that didn't come out over exposed in the pic?


if you take a picture with the moon and expose it long enough to show stars the moon will be grossly over exposed. I don't understand why most of the videos like this don't seem to understand that fact.
Apparently facts such as those interfere with believing the Moon landings were faked? Therefor they get ignored?


I have maintained that you can't get a decent photograph with a manual focus camera strapped to your chest wearing hockey gloves and a helmet on.
Believe it or not, but one of the main reasons NASA picked the type of camera they used, was its ease of use.


I even asked why one couldn't simply adjust the exposure and snap a pic of the stars from the moon...or orbit, but I received no response.
Maybe because they had more important things to do during their limited time on the Moon than to try to do things to satisfy your doubts?



My own opinion is that this was not done by any Apollo actor because they couldn't create a convincing fake of the stars from the moon in 1969.
Apparently you've never used a camera before? Do you really think you can take a pic that shows both bright objects and dim objects equally well in the same pic?


It does not match up with what one can observe in the natural world.
Actually it does match up with what one can observe in the World.

For instance, in this pic I and everyone but you apparently, can see these towers appear to curve into the Water. Truth be told, I think that you can see it too but are too stuck on the idea that the Earth is flat to admit it.

A few posts back you got me for assuming that you believe the Earth is flat, but then go right back to making posts that show that you do in fact think it's flat. If not, you wouldn't have posted the "sea level" pic.

Soundly-IMG_4118-2.jpg




Indeed. It amazes me how many times I see people make claims that immediately show their lack of understanding
Yes, amazing isn't it? How anyone could look at the pic above and honestly try to say the surface of Earth isn't curved.


As you, I was a believer in the moon landing, but, now there is just too much credible data to still be a believer.
Evidence like what?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Evidence, like there is no evidence?
I have yet to see anything that conclusively proves it was faked. It's always the same stuff over and over again that on the surface looks promising, but when you dig deep just doesn't hold water.
...and now sol has added flat Earth and "no such thing as gravity" as reasons they couldn't have went to the Moon.


Quick question: Why did China's lander and rover encounter the same Lunar environment as was encountered and documented by Apollo missions nearly 50 years ago?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
I believe everything...as long as it comes from a gubmint. Gubmints never lie...gubmints are our friend. LMAO

https://allgovernmentslie.com/lies

...that's weird. I'm sure those are the only lies though.






Some people seem to learn real slow like.



Ain't perspective a funny thing?
 
Last edited:

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
468
Likes
345
Hey, you forgot Pearl Harbor, the USS Maine, and the crack shot lone wolf Lee Harvey Oswald. The only things I know for sure are what I have witnessed for myself. I know next to nothing compared to what I think I know from a lifetime of indoctrination.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
We could go on and on documenting gumbyment lies. Assuming everything said by gumbymint is a lie until proven otherwise seems to be the prudent course of action.

Here's a really cool video for any fans of electromagnetics.

 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596




Well the Brits are wising up. Pity so many Amerikan sheeple are still snoozing. #getwoke
 
Last edited:

chrisflhtc

Seeker
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
110
Likes
116
...let us not drag thermodynamics into this. I fear some church goer's heads might explode.

People that freely admit they're out of their depth and suck at maths are already showing up to call me willfully ignorant and lacking in common sense. I can't wear a str8 jacket...it would clash with my wardrobe.
I also cannot paint but can still tell if a painting is true to life :piss
 

chrisflhtc

Seeker
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
110
Likes
116
At least the USGS has their head screwed on str8. Like the United Nations they've found uses for the Azimuthal Equidistant map...

https://egsc.usgs.gov/isb//pubs/MapProjections/projections.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

Hey, it's science for a changing world after all.



I always get a kick out of the tides one. Yeah the moon causes the tides. In fact the moon likes tides so much...it decided to produce them twice a day.

I cannot cause even a few drops of water to stick to my spherical apple...allegedly because I'm in Earth's "gravity well". Yet the moon doesn't give Earth's alleged "gravity well" any respect at all. The moon's alleged wimpy "gravity well" is so powerful that it can, twice a day, yank trillions of gallons of salt water toward itself. Meanwhile the Earth's allegedly much moar powerful "gravity well" cannot yank the moon toward itself so that they crash.

...and of course the allegedly much much moar powerful "gravity well" of the sun doesn't yank either the Earth or it's moon enough to crash into it. It's no wonder an astronomical unit is such a historically fluid concept.
Orbital dynamics :ponder:
 

chrisflhtc

Seeker
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
110
Likes
116
Anywhere else I would have to pay to be this amused:2 thumbs up: Im having a great day thanks guys and gals I hope you had a happy New Years Eve. Sorry for the OT comment.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
NASA sucks. Star Wars remains awesome. 'Cept that disney crap.

Happy New Year Fett.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing
I have struggled with this for years, as I worked on the telemetry system, LEM/ORS (Lunar Excursion Module/Orbital Rendezvous System) at Hughes T.E.L. in Tucson AZ. in 1968. Being what I thought was part of the design of the guidance system, this has been difficult for me to swallow. The evidence has become overwhelming. What a sad fucking farce !!!!
A short vid. that is good. (it might have be posted at GIM2 before, but here it is !)
Unlike all of the other proof over the years about the moon landing hoax, this video will examine how NASA themselves have inadvertently admitted that we never went to the moon nor are we still able to go to this day.
ouch I don't think king of joe's can take that.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
K, peeps let us address the stars; first.

the first light to diffuse out is blue and then the rest of it diffuses out. now why there aren't no light/stars poking that film? yha gots me? but I am going with the "If we don't put it there then they wont catch on."
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
We've sorta gone over this a few pages back(18?), but the answer ends up being...reasons/excuses. I've seen tons of Apollo photos and don't recall having seen stars in any of them. Ask me, they were never included on the set because too tough to fake. We'd be having a field day debunking the moon landings using computers to simulate observable star configurations between 69 & 72 just now. It'd be like a fingerprint.

If I follow the NASA dupe (derailed) thought train, then excuses include, but are not limited to, the following...

Hideously bright terrashine, sun glare, camera exposure settings, they're actors astro-nots not photographers, blah blah blah, you just don't know no photography!

That last one of course ignores the professional photographers that publicly call the moon landings a hoax and say the excuses are...well bs excuses.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I've seen tons of Apollo photos and don't recall having seen stars in any of them. Ask me, they were never included on the set because too tough to fake.
Now we're back to the no stars thing? Really?

We've sorta gone over this a few pages back(18?), but the answer ends up being...reasons/excuses.
Apparently you've never used a film camera before? Sure seems that way, because if you had you would know that you can't expect to be able to take pics of dimly lit things in the background while also having bright Sun lit objects in the foreground.

Again, anyone who has used a camera should know that the "no stars" thing doesn't hold water.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Okay went out again tonight in the freezing cold for you guys. ;) This time I used a wider angle to show what it is like trying to shoot a sunlit object (such as the moon) and have stars show up in the same exposure.

3 pictures taken soon after one another of the same area of the sky.

ISO 200 1/200 sec at f/10, proper exposure of the moon. I see no hint of stars.
Moon-2018-01-01-NoStars-Img_8685S.jpg


ISO 200 1/2 sec at f/10, at 1/2 second exposure just starting to barely see a hint of stars.
Moon-2018-01-01-HintOfStars-Img_8692S.jpg


ISO 200 13sec at f/10. At 13 seconds of exposure, now you can see where Orion is. Look how over-exposed the moon is and all the internal reflections being caused by it.
Moon-2018-01-01-Orion-Img_8697S.jpg

Now imagine you also have the sun shining down on you and all the internal reflections it would cause. It would be quite difficult to take a nice looking image of the stars under those conditions.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
Never mind "nice looking", why is there zero evidence of stars in any Apollo photo? ...or are there stars in Apollo photos that you've seen and I've not? Even at flat low trajectories while the photographer is seemingly standing in shadow...no stars.

Is this also your photo?



Obviously lots of people take photos of the moon and stars from Earth at various exposure times. There are thousands and thousands of pictures available online showing both the moon and stars and that's through the Earth's atmosphere. The moon allegedly has none.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Never mind "nice looking", why is there zero evidence of stars in any Apollo photo? ...or are there stars in Apollo photos that you've seen and I've not? Even at flat low trajectories while the photographer is seemingly standing in shadow...no stars.

Is this also your photo?



Obviously lots of people take photos of the moon and stars from Earth at various exposure times. There are thousands and thousands of pictures available online showing both the moon and stars and that's through the Earth's atmosphere. The moon allegedly has none.
Yes that is my photo. Yes, we're looking through the atmosphere. That doesn't detract from how over exposed the lunar surface has to be to even show a hint of stars, let alone show a good number of stars like that shot. The atmosphere is hardly a problem compared to the internal reflections caused by the glare of the moonlight (and the photo here would show that much worse if I did not purposely center the moon to lessen the effects of it). This particular shot was not even a full moon it was close to 1st quarter (about half the surface lit from our view). A full moon would be over twice as bright as that. I have seen many examples of people on the videos showing a picture of the properly exposed moon asking why there are no stars in the background. Clearly you would not see stars in a single properly exposed image of a sunlit object, such as the moon. You would have to grossly over-expose the sunlit object as I have shown.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
Neither of us knows the condition of photography on the moon. We can only speculate.
Thermodynamics? Did someone mention thermodynamics?
I see Murphy's Law of Thermodynamics at work in this thread: Everything get worse under pressure

BF
Blasphemy sir! Thomson is spinning in his grave! lol
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Neither of us knows the condition of photography on the moon. We can only speculate.
So you think that the situation concerning the contrast in brightness between the Moon and that of the stars would diminish the closer to the Moon that we get?

Think about this for a minute sol, if the Moon is bright enough to wash out the visible stars here on Earth, it'd have to be far worse on the Moon. Inverse square law? The closer to a light source, the brighter the light is. I thought everyone knew that?

inverse square law.PNG
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Neither of us knows the condition of photography on the moon. We can only speculate.
I was not speculating when I showed an example of the lighting conditions they would be encountering. Not only that, as Joe pointed out the lunar surface would be brighter on the moon so the effects I am showing would be far worse. Not only that, they also have the sunlit Earth shining down on them which would easily be brighter than the moon as seen from Earth and so it would cause more glare than the glare I showed (even out of view if the light is entering the optical system). Now that still leaves the sun which would be all the worse at these types of effects. These issues wouldn't magically fix themselves just because they are on the moon with no atmosphere. Yes if they had something set up pointing away from all of those light sources, including the lunar surface and any of their equipment, they could have taken a star photo and have it look halfway decent. Otherwise it would be riddled with internal reflections and the such. This is a testable and repeatable fact about how photography works.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
lol It's absurd that you think you could possibly know all this as though it's fact. Neither of us were there and I seriously doubt anyone else ever was either.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
lol It's absurd that you think you could possibly know all this as though it's fact. Neither of us were there and I seriously doubt anyone else ever was either.
What makes you think exposure works differently if you go to a different place?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
Goodness. That's not even close to what I said. Do I really have to quote your post to remind you what you said?
I was not speculating when I showed an example of the lighting conditions they would be encountering. Not only that, as Joe pointed out the lunar surface would be brighter on the moon so the effects I am showing would be far worse. Not only that, they also have the sunlit Earth shining down on them which would easily be brighter than the moon as seen from Earth and so it would cause more glare than the glare I showed (even out of view if the light is entering the optical system). Now that still leaves the sun which would be all the worse at these types of effects. These issues wouldn't magically fix themselves just because they are on the moon with no atmosphere. Yes if they had something set up pointing away from all of those light sources, including the lunar surface and any of their equipment, they could have taken a star photo and have it look halfway decent. Otherwise it would be riddled with internal reflections and the such. This is a testable and repeatable fact about how photography works.