A gathering and discussion area for the Hollywood Investigator's (and Weekly Universe's) hugely vast family of readers to gather and discuss the shocking articles in America's favorite family newspapers!!!
The problem then is one of putting such a high-resolution satellite in lunar orbit. As I said, it takes our biggest boosters just to get them into low Earth orbit. How do you propose to put one in lunar orbit? The problem is more than just one of raw thrust, but also of guidance.
It is widely accepted in the aerospace industry that the KH-11 reconnaissance satellite and the Hubble Space Telescope have largely the same optical assemblies and employ many of the same principles of operation. The optical assembly of the HST is about 7 meters long and about 2.5 meters wide. The structure required to implement this assembly is fairly massive.
In short, these are very expensive spacecraft to build and operate. I will concede that if you were to arrange for a KH-11 to be placed in lunar orbit, it would likely be able to see the LM descent stages and the LRVs (but probably not the individual tracks). But the problem simply is that no one has the means or the need to do that.
As for your other two points, which you claim remain "untainted", they simply attempt to stand with no support.
The drogue chute argument has a computable answer. Since you are the claimant, please provide the computations. You claim a drogue parachute under a certain set of conditions would be "ripped to shreds," but that is just your claim and your assumption. You have provided no evidence that it would. If you will be so kind as to compute the example problem above (which a trained engineer can do in about 3 minutes) then I will consider that you may have the requisite expertise to continue the discussion. Otherwise I have no reason to believe you have expended any thought toward your conclusion other than to imagine it.
Regarding the LRV locomotion and deployment, you're simply unaware of how it was done. Your ignorance of easily available facts and common principles does not constitute an argument to which anyone is obligated to respond.