posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 01:25 PM
Response to the OP's listed points...
1,2, and 4 sound generally correct.
Number 3, you have no proof that aliens brought titanium to the Moon...or built the Moon out of Titanium.
Number 5, is wrong. The Moon does have a magnetic field.
Even if it did not, Moon rocks can still bear Iron and be magnetic.
Number 6 is easily explained by the recent discovery of sinkholes on the Moon.
Number 7 is baseless speculation. Craters all over the Solar System leave mass concentrations. It's a known feature of some large craters. You have
no proof that they are artificial.
Number 8 the Moon is not getting closer to Earth, in fact it is receding at the rate of about 1 to 3 inches a year. Also, the alleged witnessing of
explosions on the Moon don't mean seismic activity is taking place. You don't even know if these observations are correctly made, you have no
grounds to conclude that the cause of them are probably artificial.
Number 9, hollow moon doesn't mean like a Ping Pong ball. It would be more like a sponge or porous rocks.
Number 11, all the unusual samples in the world don't make it alien. It's telling how you "know" that Moon rocks can bear Iron, and yet you still
made the mistake of claiming that Moon rock magnetism requires the Moon to have a magnetic field.
Number 12, just so we are clear Isaac Asimov was a biochemist. His area of expertise was not the Moon or space. Also, just because Asimov said it,
doesn't mean it is true. That is called "appealing to authority", and it does not prove anything. Otherwise, yes...the Moon's origin is still not
Number 13, the Moon's orbit is not stationary...again it is moving away from us at a rate of a handful of inches a year. And again, you have no proof
that the Moon is artificial.
Number 14, that chance alignment only happens now at this point in history. In the past the Moon was closer to Earth and completely covered the Sun
and it's "halo" during eclipses. In the future the Moon will not be able to cover the Sun anymore, due to moving away and getting relatively
visually smaller compared to the Sun. Also, Asimov's statements concerning this prove his lack of expertise on the Moon. I mean no disrespect to
Isaac Asimov, but the facts must be stated. He was a biochemist who wrote science fiction, and no more an expert on the Moon than you or I.
Number 15, No. You have not proven that the Moon is an artificial construct. Your own apparent inconsistency concerning magnetism indicates that you
are just repeating what someone else has said, without really understanding it.
Number 16, yes those are called "transient phenomenon" and they don't prove anything.
Number 17, the Mare Crisium bridge has never been conclusively proven to exist. Other photographs of the area don't show a bridge.
Number 18, the Shard is very mysterious, but there have never been any confirming photographs. Until another photo of it is taken, we can only make
Number 19, the Tower is another mystery that needs a confirming photographs.
Number 20, the obelisks (blair cuspids) aren't really anything unusual. The really long shadows that make them look very tall, are because the Sun is
low in the horizon. It is lighting the objects from their side, making them have long shadows. Any arrangement of three objects in a rough line is
gonna look like the Pyramid complex in Giza or Orion's belt.