This event is no less believable than any other religious claim? It's not like there was a flood, or a garden of Eden, or a parting of the red sea. All religions have stuff like this. They were, after all, from the ancient world when people believed in all sorts of monsters and miracles.
But you see, we know there WERE floods. You can find small sea shells on mountains. There is an explanation for low waters on "the red sea."Such "miracles" can be classified into various sorts. A natural event occurring exactly when it was needed (the red sea). We can't refute that that happened, can we?
The flood - the natural conclusion from finding shells in high places. From which a story, then a myth, is derived.
Letard - fifth century France - said to be able to make it rain when he prayed. Yes his arthritus could have signaled pressure changes and then he went to pray - confusing cause and effect - but we cannot prove or disprove his miracles.
The "Splitting of the Moon" seems to be a unique case, where by way of science and technology we can affirmatively state that it did not happen.
That is why I see it differently than other supposed miracles.
I don't know the history of that area, maybe. But another easy one would be tales of dragons and monsters in various cultures. Probably someone had seen dinosaur footprints in a streambed or somewhere, or fossils. Plausible.
But you see, we have a complete record of eclipses, too. So if the dates of the supposed event were known, or possibly even the seasons, that can be looked at as causative.
. (...and I'd build a freakin' big ziggurat with bitcoin sign shaped layout just to fool the archaeologists 
.) 