Well, it probably would be impossible to have stars. The thing is, if an actor (and the camera) starts at 20 meters distance from a wall that has stars painted on it, and moves to within 10 meters of that wall, then the distance between the painted stars would become larger, making it obvious that the painted stars are fairly close.

But on the other hand, the same thing should be true of the mountains. In the videos, the astronauts are seen walking and driving all over the place, but the mountains stay far away. If NASA had a set large enough to fake the mountains, then they should be able to fake stars.

But look at it this way. HBs also claim that the camera couldn't possbly work on the moon. IF you could see stars in apollo photos, then the HBs would find photos of night football games and since those photos don't have stars, they would say that HAVING stars in apollo photos is proof of hoax. No stars = hoax. Stars visible = hoax. That's the way it works in HB land.

You can go around in circles like this forever. A much better question is, if you were going to fake something, why would you give out *so* much data? If I was faking Apollo, there would have been only one landing. I would have made up some excuse to keep from going back. And there would have been perhaps a dozen pictures, and no video better than the Apollo 11 video. The more data you give people, the more likely you'll make a mistake. Where I work, we have legions of people with OCD and yet we still can't seem to produce a requirements/specification document without spelling errors. Yet somehow NASA produced thousands of images, hours of video, miles of documentation, and tones of hardware and the only "mistakes" are issues like the lack of stars and other "mistakes" that are easily explained.