If the question is whether that's a photo that NASA claimed at any time was authentic, the answer is no. Aulis seems most upset that it's obviously a composite and isn't clearly labelled as such in the caption, and that the Great Al Shepard would dare give his imprimetur to any book that didn't contain only 99.44% pure authentic Apollo illustrations.

In other words it's Bennett and Percy trying to stir up [insert name of foul substance] by improperly assuming an expectation of authenticity and reliability, much as they assume the Apollo missions were fake because the movie Apollo 13 ("officially NASA-sanctioned") takes liberties. It's so fun to hear them defend these practices on their web site: "Why, no, we're not grasping at straws. Why do you ask?"