If the blurriness of the moon was due to movement, then the solution would be really simple, to tilt or pan the camera to keep the moon focused while taking pictures, which is perfectly within the realm of our capabilities. The entire purpose of that camera is to take pictures of the moon. If we wanted clear crisp pictures of the side of the satellite, we could've just left it on the ground, hired a mildly competent photographer, and saved millions upon millions of dollars. Again, it strains credulity.

I also don't buy that explanation. Even though space travel is fast, the satellite's altitude above the moon would make the moon's apparent movement appear far slower, relatively speaking, and the shutter speed of the camera would be insanely quick, relatively speaking, given the brightness of the moon that close, which means those pictures should barely be blurry, if at all.

This is supported by pictures other satellites have taken of other moons and planets (including earth), which were travelling far faster, and using older cameras. The fastest consumer level digital cameras have shutter speeds of 1/8000th (of a second). According to the photography websites I read, people can use "slower" shutter speeds of 1/200th to produce pictures without blur. If motion blur made the moon that blurry in these images, then satellites orbiting earth wouldn't be able to take clear high res pictures of earth, and yet they can. This is, of course, assuming all the other satellite images are real.