One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth’s atmosphere.

The argument here is that NASA would have found it impossible to map out the exact locations of all stars for the hoax without being rumbled, and therefore left them out – intentionally falling back on an excuse that the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually give).

Some photographs are high-quality, however, and yet still no stars are shown. Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in much lower quality and still see them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a part of an article from http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can someone help me finding out the grammar construction of the sentence in red?