First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.
Just a minute...
If the Chinese don't like the US very much, then why would they play along with a US government organization like NASA
at all? Why fake their own missions instead of just proving (much more competently than you could ever hope to) that the US faked the Apollo missions, for far greater geopolitical effect? For that matter, why didn't the
Russians fake a manned landing before we did to score some points? After all, they'd already beaten us to the punch with Sputnik and Gagarin.
How can you ever hope to make a case when you can't even recognize the glaring contradictions in your own arguments?
As for "no stars", that's been explained
ad nauseam here and elsewhere, but because I don't want to work on what I'm supposed to be working on, we'll go over it one more time.
TL/DR; Photographic film and even modern digital sensors cannot capture the sunlit lunar surface and the brightest stars in the same exposure. There is a hard physical limit at play here.
As we're talking Apollo images, we'll talk about film. Most film can capture a dynamic range (pure white to pure black) of about 10 stops, where 1 stop represents a doubling or halving of the amount of light striking the film. 1 stop represents a dynamic range of 2 to 1, 2 stops represents a range of 4 to 1, 3 stops 8 to 1, etc. 10 stops is 1024 to 1 - that is, the brightest highlight in the frame cannot be more than 1000 times brighter than the dimmest shadow detail in order for both to show up for a given exposure. If it is, then either the highlight will be blown out (a detail-free blob of white) or the shadow detail will be lost (a detail-free blob of pure black). This is why you see professional photographers use flashes and reflectors on a sunny day - they're trying to reduce the dynamic range between highlight and shadow so that the shadows won't look so stark in the final image.
Now, assuming I've done the math anywhere close to correct, the dynamic range between the sunlit lunar surface and the brightest stars is on the order of 30,000 to 1 (15 stops). There is simply no way you can capture both in the same exposure with film. If you expose for the stars, the lunar surface becomes a detail-free white blob. If you expose for the lunar surface, the stars simply don't register and you get a field of pure black.
If the sky is clear where you are today, you can go outside and see the quarter moon in the early afternoon, but no stars. It's simply
that much brighter than the stars, bright enough to punch through the daylight sky. This is roughly what photographic film sees when you expose for the lunar surface - the stars are simply not bright enough to register.
If you want to prove this for yourself, grab a camera, go outside on a sunny day, and take a picture of the landscape. You can let the meter pick the exposure, or you can set it manually using the Sunny 16 rule (set the aperture to f/16, set the shutter speed to 1 over the number nearest the ISO rating - for ISO 100, use 1/125, for ISO 400, use 1/500, etc.). On a clear night, go outside and take a picture of the sky using that same setting. Tell me how many stars show up in the final image. Then figure out the settings for capturing the stars; for ISO 100, it will be something like 30 seconds at f5.6. Then the next day, go out and take a picture of the landscape with those settings. Tell me if you get anything but a pure white image.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, "but that doesn't prove
anything, things are
different on the Moon!" Baloney. The physics regarding light and exposure are the
exactly the same on the Moon as they are on Earth. The only difference is that on the Moon you don't have an atmosphere acting as a giant diffuse light source filling in some shadows.
