... This is what 15 or 20 minutes exposure under a full moon will look like in that place...
Now, THAT is something I could agree 100% with!*
But it is a quite different statement than:
"This is what the place looked like under a full moon.". To the camera, with sufficient exposure, yes; to humans, no.
Cameras are amazing instruments. They can even vary exposure, would you believe it? They can give more exposure or less exposure. Slap a blue filter and underexpose in broad daylight, and you'll get so-called Hollywood Night effect, i.e., turning day into night. Do the opposite, put a black cat into a tunnel, and give your camera sufficient exposure, and you'll get an albino cat on a sandy beach. Or shoot moonlight scene, give your camera sufficient exposure, and you'll get a daylight effect.
There are perfectly acceptable explanations you could have used to describe your pictures. For instance:
- you wanted to intrigue your viewers and make them wonder what it is that they think they are seeing (or "let them misunderstand," as Isaac put it - nothing wrong with that, btw)
- you like it that way
- you wanted to show us how cameras can see things we can not
- you saw it in your mind's eye that way
- etc.
Instead, you chose to stick with one explanation that is highly unlikely.
* Oh, by the way, I agree with Isaac on this thread 100% too, which in itself is as rare as a human capable of seeing moonlight scenes as you presented them