Tying up remaining loose ends, for the sake of completeness and pointing out interesting things that might not be obvious.
The astronauts spent extended periods of total blackout while in cislunar space in order to perform low light photography experiments, yet none mentioned the brilliance of the stars
Stars were frequently used for navigational fixes during the Apollo missions, which is apparent in the transcripts. In particular, they use guide stars for fixing their orientation when doing midcourse corrections in cislunar space.
When the astronauts comment on the stars
not being visible, it is because their eyes are not sufficiently dark-adapted to see them. Simply looking at any part of the spacecraft illuminated by the Sun, or even the Earth, is sufficient to ruin your dark adaption for a very long time. Anyone who has been to a star party and had someone drive onto the field with their headlights on will understand this.
Apollo 13 was also notable for the astronauts commenting on not being able to see the stars after the accident. This was due to the amount of debris moving along with the spacecraft (resulting in a confusion of bright specks in addition to the stars). This created a serious problem for navigation later, when they needed to do course corrections to have a proper atmospheric reentry, but could not use the stars to navigate. Instead they
used the terminator of the Earth as a reference point. The Apollo 13 film portrays this moment (visually
very over-dramatized, though in terms of how difficult and nerve wracking it was for the astronauts, pretty accurate).
The images of the solar eclipse (FFT), yes, I would say the light is created from solar radiation interacting with the matter around the Sun
This has a different effect -- it is called the Zodiacal Light:
Photographed by Fireinthehole.
Photographed by me.
It is a very neat thing to see and it is observable from dark sites as a triangular wedge of light along the ecliptic before dawn or after sunset. But the mechanism is scattering by dust grains, with no change in the wavelength.
If this scattering or some other interaction did change the wavelength to produce the visible spectrum from ultraviolet, then this would be easily testable like most of the other claims were. In particular, you'll never obtain a solar spectrum by shooting a UV source through dust. Furthermore, to sufficiently scatter the light to change it to visible, the Sun would be invisible, because all the photons would have been scattered and you'd only see a diffuse cloud of light in place of the Sun. (Same problem as predicting that the sky is opaque with electrons).
And also with the big ugly bright Sun you say was taken on approach to the Moon, the Sun would have been at their backs on approach, the lunar nearside being fully lit, though I am not sure of their exact trajectory, though most graphics show a generally front-on approach.
The problem here is that the figure shown is not to scale. Use one that is, or better yet, try recreating the voyage in Orbiter. You'll see that you must aim for a point well ahead of where the Moon actually is (which
should be obvious, but isn't -- the Moon is moving, and it takes several days to get there, so you can't just aim at where the Moon is.) During the later parts of the approach, it is as if you are hanging in space moving very slowly (you are near apoapsis of a very eccentric orbit with respect to Earth), and the Moon is catching up to you from the side. So the relative angles of Earth and Moon relative to you throughout the trip are not what you might expect.
This will also be familiar to users of Kerbal Space Program.
With the creation of the light on Earth, the electron density needs to be considered, though for forward scattering, which must be in operation to produce a central beam, then I think it is bound electrons that are the more important.
When the electrons are bound in atoms, then the scattering involves the Compton wavelength of the entire atom, which results in a scattering effect orders of magnitude smaller than for free electrons. We also just saw that scattering by free electrons is too weak to cause the claimed effect, and produces hilariously wrong predictions if we assume that it does anyway. So this claim went from wrong to wronger.
As a (maybe) interesting aside, the ISS orbits where it does I think because the electrical 'ground' on the ISS is floating, and will be at the plasma potential of its altitude. Lots of electrons there.
Besides being hilarious, I don't think this one requires comment at this point -- I assume everyone here has at least some knowledge of how orbits work.