If I recall the moths were glued to trees for photos. http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth This whole thing was BS, or at least a huge part of it.
You mean the picture was staged... which is a huge difference from saying the "whole thing" or even "a huge part of it". Do you also look at paper models of the solar system and go "Those aren't real planets... must be a bunch of BS"? It seems to me like you either didn't read the article or didn't understand it.
> The staging was an issue, critics argued, because it over-simplified the peppered moth story and made it seem that the camouflage of the moths was a self-evident advantage. However, it wasn't clear that moths rested on tree trunks during the day, as the pictures implied. Some evidence suggested they preferred to remain higher in the tree canopy and beneath branches where their coloration would have been less of an advantage. Also, it wasn't clear that birds were the main predator of moths. Bats also ate moths, and since bats use echolocation to navigate, the coloration of the moths would not have made a difference. Critics also questioned the methodology of Kettlewell's experiments.