why since man arrived on the moon have we had no pictures of evidence of landing site and the debris left

there's a bunch of evidence's that makes me think about the moonlanding was a hoax...sad to say this

what's the point?

i have run into people so PIG-HEADED that believe that the Moon landing was a hoax, no matter that each point of 'evidence' they bring up is shot down like one of Dick Cheney's lawyer friends, that I believe if Superman flew them to the Moon to see for themselves that the lander was still there, they would claim Superman was a US lackey and STILL not believe it!

Superman is NOT a US lackey.

The same reason we can't see the debris from the ground - the satellites around Earth are 238,000 miles from the moon.

Besides... why would you trust a fuzzy, grainy picture showing the landing sites from the same company that took the vivid, man-on-the-spot photos 35 years ago...?

Satellites are very expensive and are put into orbit to do a job, not to disprove the mad ramblings of conspiracy theorists. No one in their right mind really cares if they think the moon landings are a hoax, let them go on thinking it if they want to.

A satellite orbits at perhaps 500 miles above the earth. The moon is 250,000 miles away. You might be to see a car parked by the road from a mile away but could you see it from 500 miles away?

we are able to really prepare the Apollo missions about besides as we are able to prepare that global warfare II got here about and the Atlantic Ocean exists. someone can sit down lower back in his chair in Nebraska, look out the window, and say "What ocean? prepare me an ocean. And no, i'm not attracted to at least something from Encyclopedias, information facilities, geography books, maps, academia, own witnesses, authorities resources, actual data, or mountains of photographic data. I wanna see some authentic data!" it really is extremely equivalent to what every person is doing at the same time as they say the data for the Apollo missions is inadequate. As for LRO, those initial images are literally not all that good. The orbiter will be dropping all the way down to a decrease orbit in some weeks and can provide us some particularly high-quality %..

Because the moon is still a big chunk of real estate, and we don't have anything orbiting it to take those kinds of photos. Take a look at this website:

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.html

Besides, why do we need 'evidence'? We all know we went there. Just because you weren't around then doesn't mean we need to justify it to you or anybody else who missed it the first time. Do we need to prove WWII happened as well?

The angle subtendted by a typical 'debris' object on the moon (<5m across, say) from earth orbit is about 1.3x10^-8rad. The max resolution of any telescope (incl Hubble) is given by the Airy disc overlap of the diffraction patterns from two distinct objects. Angle='lambda'/d *where lamda= wavelength of the light used and d =diam of mirror/objective.
For HST this transl8s 2 theta=5x10^-7/2.4=2.08x10^-7 rad..So even the HST (best we have) is incapable of resolving objects <80m size even under ideal conditions (ie assuming perfectly aligned optics and perfect parabaloid config of mirror)
* 4 pract ideal obs purposes scale this up by a factor of 2*pi

the satellites we have on earth are there to benefit the people who live on earth? for what reason would you put one in orbit of the moon? what people would benefit for it?

There is no reason to do this as it would be of no special interest.

they shot it at a studio