New Moon photos , do they really show the Apollo landing gear ?

[utilitarian]

I really ask myself, if Hubble is really so bad in resolution.. ?

Why can it zoom so far into Galaxies, but not show the rovers on the moon ?

Well, is there any trick to photograph the moon with 2 synced digital DSR cameras
placed a few kilometers apart here from earth ?
Could one then use the trick that also radiotelescopes use to receive weak signals
as they are "stacked and interleaved" together ?
Could thus the distance of the 2 cameras help to increase the zoom factor ?

Maybe it could be done this way via hobby equipment to photograph the landing
sites from earth in clear weather conditions on a mountain where the air is already thin ?

The Hubble is not bad in resolution.  It is very good, at least compared to anything else that we have.

The reason the Hubble can photograph a galaxy far away but not the relatively close moon buggy is because the faraway galaxy actually takes up more space in the sky than does the moon buggy.

[triffid]

I think too that time on the hubble is very scarce and sheduled out the wazoo for some time to come.Its a case of first in/first out.Who can use the hubble to look at the moon When there are greater unknowns out there?triffid

[hartiberlin]

So would that trick work with 2 good digital cameras synced here on
earth a few miles apart and interleaving their output to get a better zoom factor
to be able to see the landing sites in detail ?

Also in one video is claimed that the ESA could look with their interleaved telescopes
onto the landing sites and could do this but they seem not to have any interest to do it,
cause we have not seen any pictures from them yet...

So who is going to try it with a hobby budget to interleave enough cameras to have a look
at the landing site here from earth ?

[TechStuf]

The rooster tails kicked up by the rovers are as good a proof as any that men went to the moon. Noboby maintains that they had a massive vacuum chambered studio by which to prevent dust diffusion and resultant cloudy atmosphere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9p444euxE

They went, but exactly how and when humans first began making visitations are certainly open to speculation.

[Doug1]

You would see a lot of tire tracks and they would surely be lots of them nearest to the landing site where they would head out from.
  The pixel like shape of the lander and the not so pixel like shape of everything ells is a bit hard to swallow.No tracks ,no vehicle,suspect image. Can we see the flag blowing in the wind next?lol
Why would Nahassa pull such crap at such a late date? I dont know maybe the director has his eyes on a another piece of realstate or they are concerned that with the state of economy they may lose some funding and have to go out and get real jobs. I will leave the type'ohs so the people at Nasa can read this clearly. rolf If they wanted to get a real pic they could send a drone with a high res camera and use the excuse of gathering intell on how the materials held up to space conditions over the years and people would except that excuse but secretly all want to see the actual proof to put that puppy to rest once and for all. Unless it was bogus.
  The sheep say's "Nahahahaha oot today saw".