I'm not talking about plausible or probable. I'm only taking the position that the lack of evidence does not support eliminating possibilities. If you move to plausible or probable, things change.
We simply don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids with the technology the scientific community generally agrees they had available at the time. If all those brilliant minds can't figure it out, maybe there's a stone they have yet to turn. My position is leaving that possibility open is preferable to closing the door. No one is hurt by that. No one is mislead by that because no conclusion can reasonably come from that. There are those who fabricate conclusions based on lack of evidence but I see that as meaningless, unless their motive is profit.
Scientists can be a stubborn bunch. It was many years ago that noted paleontologist Robert Bakker said that not a single dinosaur bone has been found in the K-T boundary. I have yet to hear anyone disagree with him. I think the closest they have come has been finding bones dating back around 8,000 years before the impact. There is plenty of scientific evidence indicating dinosaurs were dying off thousands to hundreds of thousands of years before the impact. Yet even today, scientists freely say dinosaurs were wiped out by the same event that created the K-T boundary.
I'm not saying the lack of evidence means no dinosaur was killed as a result of the impact but I am saying that lack of evidence should not have allowed anyone to conclude the impact wiped out the dinosaurs. Arriving at a conclusion with absolutely no evidence makes no sense to me. Then you're just guessing.
As for the moon, if there was green cheese and it was edible, there would be shuttles there and back if they could make a profit selling it here.