That would be the most valid excuse I have heard so far. At least the conspiracy theorists could then have a unified goal.

Look at these reasons though:

July 2008 - http://blogs.discovery.com/cosmic_ray/2008/07/the-top-reasons.html

6. Direct Observational Evidence
The six lunar lander descent stages left on the moon are about 15 feet across. Even the eagle-eyed Hubble Space Telescope can only see down to the width of a football field.

[just a comment from a poster, but still good info] - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4279691.html

"As was mentioned below, you would need a telescope with a 100m mirror just to get 1m resolution on the moon."

The Hubble doesn't have a 100m mirror, and can get greater than 1m resolution? strange.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations#Large_telescopes_and_the_Moon_hoax

Large telescopes and the Moon hoax

Another component of the moon hoax theory is based on the argument that professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.

        * However, to see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based telescope would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on Earth is only about 10 meters across. Furthermore, such a telescope would have to mitigate against the effects of seeing, beyond what is currently possible with adaptive optics. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects on the Moon as small as 60 meters across.[89][90]

So, 60m doesn't quite put the angular resolution of the Hubble quite good enough to capture a planet "3 to 5 times the mass of Jupiter" 26 light years away, does it?

I do like your explanation - but why hasn't it been offered before?

How is it that pictures can be taken of a planet 26 light years away, yet the moon landing site cannot be photographed?

One of the worn out excuses is that the pixel angle is too small to see things that small.

Well, I would like to counter with the argument that seeing a 3m object 250,000 miles away is just as easy, if not easier, than seeing a planet many light years away.

And they did this optically?

Let's see if my math is wrong:

3m/400km = 7.45e-9 radians. This is what "can't" be done

x/26 light years = 7.45e-9 radians: x = 1,840,000 km. That KM, not meters.

So, if the camera can't take a picture of a 3m object on the moon [the size of the rover], it also shouldn't be able to take a picture of anything less than 1.84e9 meters in diameter 26 light years away.

What am I missing?