Nice experiment and camera lingo; my wife is a photographer … and believe me, I could care less; I’m neither for or against the argument either way, but your Moon photos analysis isn’t quite the same … the Earth has a thick multi-layered Atmosphere; with light deflections and refractions; the Moon has neither, Zip … so, if we can see stars from Earth, with or without a camera, “unfiltered” starlight” (thus Stars) could, or should be possible to see, at least in some of the lunar pictures … so the “same-same” camera photo theory wouldn’t really apply here is what I’m saying.
The greater camera/photo analysis or experiment should be the 1969 camera and film itself. They had a camera with (non-modern) metals, glass, and plastics; even some “gasketing” I’m sure, and who knows what else … and the film itself is possibly of some “X” Mylar-type coated material.
Now, everything known to science has very different expansion and contraction ratios … and any failure at the camera level, would completely destroy the thin film and its coating … here’s why … the “lit” surface of the Moon if I still remember my school boy literature, is roughly (plus) 250 degrees F or, beyond normal boiling temp of 212 F … the dark side is just the opposite … roughly (minus) 250 degrees F (at super-cooled gases level, like liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen) … with those two extremes, how could any circa 1969 cameras and Mylar-like films withstand these temps-expansion-contraction ratios, if even today’s modern cameras and films can’t hardly withstand the Antarctic extremes of 60 to 80 degrees below zero? Just asking…