[Brett66]

Now in all these years, haven't we repeatedly been told that the moon is way, way too close and too bright for Hubble to take pictures?

It could, but there are probes that have been launched that can do a better job than Hubble.

Hubble's resolution of the moon would be maybe 20 meters/pixel, why would NASA need an image of an Apollo site when they have videos of that area taken when the astronauts were walking around there? Would a Hubble pic with one pixel slightly shaded convince someone that we landed there when videos of them walking on the surface wouldn't?

[djf]

Well, I’m not a nutter. I know we landed on the moon, believe me, if we didn’t, the Russians would do a whole lot better proving it than the whack jobs who try now.

I just assumed Hubble was the instrument that had the highest resolution of all the things we got. And my real question is still some say we can photograph it, others say no.

So someone is wrong, or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.