To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
You do have an extremely short memory! This very question was answered in some detail on July 25, 2017.
With present technology, it is simply not possible to make an earth-based telescope that could "see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program".
The objects in question are around 5 m across. At 384,000 km that would mean an angular size of
atan(0.005/384000) = 7.5 x 10-7° or 0.0027 seconds of arc.
From the post below, the best resolution from any earth-based telescope is the "
Lucky Camera and low-order adaptive optics with the 5m Palomar telescope, angular resolution 35 milliarcsecond."
In other words, you need a telescope 13 times better than the best available simply to separate 2 dots, 5 m apart. I doubt that you would be convinced that those dots were remnants of any Apollo mission.
You say "Only then will this close".
Mr InFlatEarth it is closed now, except for sceptics like you that will never believe anything that goes against your neo-Flat Earthism Religion,
because to you, it is nothing less than a religion.
You might read this:
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, though nothing would convince you.
Here read that post again!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
At 300 zoom, the math states that we should see images of 35 meters long and thus be able to see the moon landings if they truly went to the moon.
You, Mr InFlatEarth are a total fraud!
An object 35 m across at a distance of 384,400 km
subtends an angle of only 0.0000052°, that is 0.00031 min of arc or 0.019 arcsecs!
If my calculations are correct your magic camera should see a dime at almost 200 km!
I want one for Christmas!
So, Mr InFlatEarth, you are claiming that a ground-based digital camera has a better resolution than the Hubble space telescope which has a theoretical angular resolution of about 0.05 arcseconds.
Here is a bit on some enhancements to the Hale 200" telescope on Mt Palomar: We have used the 5m telescope at the Palomar Observatory in California and a conventional bright-star adaptive optics system, combined with lucky imaging, to demonstrate our technique. Example results from our observations are shown in Figure 2. The images obtained using our adaptation of the lucky imaging technique have significantly better angular resolution than images obtained in the standard manner from the 5m Palomar telescope and from the Hubble Advanced Camera for Surveys. This allows greater detail to be observed for the same regions of the sky. Indeed, the highest resolution image shown in Figure 2 has the highest resolution of any image ever taken at visible or near-IR wavelengths for faint targets.
From: SPIE, High-resolution imaging with large ground-based telescopes
In other words, the best resolution achieved to that date for a ground based telescope was 35 milliarcsecond and YOU claim a digital camera can achieve 19 milliarcsecs.
What a total joke you are!
Now I'll grant you that anyone can make a mistake, but to make a blunder like and not immediately see that it is ridiculous,
means that ou have no idea what you are talking about.
Have a look at
Why can't we see the Apollo lunar landers on the Moon from Earth? Curious Droid
Please, oh please, run away and get some (uncommon) sense before wasting everybody's time with your utter rubbish!
You might also be (not) interested in
Ultra Close Up Views of the Apollo 11 Landing Site - GoneToPlaid, ytmoog