Re: LOL, and what if it's all a hoax?
Oh dear oh dear!
Photography baby basics Keythong, if that's your real name?
Photographic film has to be exposed correctly to get a good photograph, otherwise the negative shows under (lack of detail in shadows) exposure, or over (highlights burnt out out with no detail) exposure.
If you try and take a photograph of the stars at night-time on earth, what happens? You have to use a long exposure, almost certainly not hand-held, for the minute amount of light from those distant stars to register on the film's light sensitive emulsion.
So, imagine taking a photo in the blinding light of an atmosphere-less moon. Go on, think about it.
Would they make a long, hand-held exposure to record the stars, just in case some doofus in the future needed proof they were actually on the moon? Or would they use their training skills to get well-exposed shots on fairly primitive colour film without the benefit of exposure meters, either hand-held or in the cameras, which were not automatic. Their preferred subjects would probably be the other astronaut, the equipment and the magnificent desolation don't you think?
As a photographer I have my own suspicions about a couple* of the photos that came back, and I suspect they were taken on Earth in case they had to bug-out or some unexpected and unplanned for fate had befallen the cameras or rolls of film, but stars come nowhere near to your laughable theory.
*The shot of Aldrin exiting the hatch to join Armstrong (taken by Armstrong) in particular. The shadows and specular reflections (highlights showing the rough direction the light is coming from) are all over the place.