Here's the problems I have with this scenario:
1) Physics. Actually, the artificial-light scenario makes it slightly more plausible that stars would slip through; the brightest film light is something like a magnitude below full sunlight. The scanning stage would not seem to admit it, however. There is no point in comparing motion as against what would actually be seen in surface pictures, or questions how much motion would be seen in surface pictures; these are false trails, red herrings. No stars would be visible in actual surface images, period.
2) Continuity. I find it hard to believe you could get everything set up the same. I also wouldn't want to try. It makes more sense to simply shoot an EVA in one go. You make the same mistake most hoax believers do, in looking at pictures as if they can be taken in isolation. The majority of the surface record is duplicated in master shot via the video and the 16mm DAC, and it can be tracked quite closely to mission records and recorded audio.
The point being that all of these MATCH. It is ridiculous to presume lunar Hasselblad images being produced out of order or otherwise in any ad hoc one-by-one method, when what the same scenes are documented in contiguous video. The only rational way for a fake to have proceeded is to shoot the actual footage in real time on the stage. Anything else is a continuity nightmare beyond the capabilities of the time to master.
3) Stars. Stars are not random. They are not noise, they are not patterns that are either there or not there. ONE STAR moving or changing from one plate to another gave us new planets, nova, and the entire freaking stellar distance ladder that told us we are in one galaxy among a multitude. If there are stars, there are patterns. If there are patterns, there are the familiar constellations. Full stop.
It is not possible in any scenario for more than a handful of stars to show up on an image and not be able to match those to a specific location in the celestial globe. Focusing on whether the same pattern shows up or not is another red herring. The patterns that show up will tell the story. You see Orion? You know where and when the picture was taken.
4) There's more than sky. The vast majority of the lunar surface record shows something beyond foreground objects and dark sky. There are distant features. Your scenario not only fails to include these, but any expansion of how these distant features were included instantly throws the entire "filming outdoors at night" scenario into the dustbin.
In short, you are chasing false problems and sowing confusion.
