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!!!
I stipulate that newsprint is on the order of 1/10 inch. But the problem with the notion of "reading newsprint" is that your resolving power has to be smaller -- much smaller, usually -- than the feature you wish to see, if you want to recognize it as such. A resolution of 1/10 inch means that each pixel represents that 1/10 inch feature. You have one pixel for the letter B, another pixel for the letter U, one for L -- you get the picture. If you want to recognize a B as a B, you need subfeature resolution. So if you allow for a grid of 6x6 pixels for each letter, you really need 1/60 inch resolution from 300 miles up.
Your problem is the Dawes limit, which you still haven't dealt with. With a 2.4-meter primary, at 550 nm (the middle of the visible spectrum), you can't resolve details as small as 1/60 inch from 300 miles away. You still haven't proved your premise that spy satellites can read newsprint. You're just repeating a rumor. Except in this case it's a testable rumor, and it doesn't pass the test.
Put up or shut up. Compute the angular resolution of a 2.4-meter objective at 550 nm -- the Dawes limit.
"...creates an aspect zoom magnitude ratio (my own terminology)..."
Of course, because you don't know the real terminology. You're just making all this up as you go.
"And the object of interest is a five mile diameter of upturned lunar soil from buggy tire tracks..."
I found a human hair in my brush that's three inches long. Now I can see three-inch features from across the street (135 feet, in my town). So I take the hair across the street and drape it across a bush. Can I see it? No, of course not. It may be three inches *long*, but it's only 0.003 inch *thick*. The smallest dimension is what dictates visibility.
In order to be visible from a distance, a feature has to be sufficiently large in *both* dimensions. Lunar rover tracks are kilometers long (generally trips out and back from base camp), but they're only about two meters wide. And actually, they're two tracks separated by two meters, each track being only about eight *inches* wide.
You'd have a better chance seeing the rover itself, or the descent stages of the lunar modules. But you'll need sub-meter per pixel resolution in order to identify them as such.
"So all the camera clowns who claim cameras are too weak to see tire tracks on the moon need to go back to about grade two or see a shrink."
Oh, you can bluster all you want. But while you're sitting there making up a total line of utter bull exhaust and throwing around made-up measurements like "aspect magnitude zoom ratio", the rest of us who really know about optics and remote imaging are laughing our butts off at you.
2.4 meter primary. 550 nm. 300 mile range. Dawes limit for angular resolution. Prove that your satellites can read newsprint, since that's the basis of the rest of your claim. Put up or shut up.