> Again, you’re assuming that the moon being where it is cannot
> be natural, and that someone must have ‘put’ it there, without
> offering any evidence that this is true, or any proposed means
> to do such a thing.
Again, not "assuming". It is an alternative hypothesis based on observation of known facts. It is a possibility which may prove wrong, but there are numerous anomalies about the Moon that suggest it is possible regardless of how hard it is to believe. Your main argument is "who" and "how", but in this context these questions are irrelevant whose only point it would appear to illicit an answer of "I don't know" to give the staw-man impression if these two questions cannot be answered the hypothesis must therefore be wrong. This is why it is hard to take you seriously.
But if you do have an interest in the subject you can start of here:[www.disinfo.com] and then go buy this book:[www.amazon.com]. The scientific elements of why the Moon may be artificial is relevant to this discussion, you can make up your own mind about the rest of their book. I have my own thoughts to add and someday when we start an actual thread about this I'll be more than happy to ramble on about it.
This may be of interest to you as well.
Post Edited (28-Jan-13 03:22)