I stopped reading right there. Richard Hoagland is a quack and a half.
Besides, when one is dealing with such evidence on the one hand and such blanket incredulity on the other, it's easily prone to fray one's edges.
I walked in on a Hoagland presentation at the University of Washinton around 8 years ago, and this lunar civilization thing was the main topic of discussion. It was a week before the comet - I forgot the name of it - was to smash into Jupiter, and Hoagland predicted (with almost 100% certainty) that the comet was to enter the Jovian atmosphere at some sacred geometrical angle and as a result was going to blow the planet to pieces. I laughed out loud, but everyone else in attendence was taking this ridiculous prognostication with deadly seriousness. Hoagland looked at me like I was the Devil Himself.
Well, as we all know, that comet broke into a dozen or so pieces and created huge (and well photographed) explosions, but Jupiter remained intact.
His case for the moon was similiarly looney, and all the stuctural evidence for civilization he attempted to show in the NASA photos completely escaped my notice (and I have a good eye). However, the ultra-impressionable crowd in attendance "saw" the evidence he presented no problem. The mass gullibility was overwhelming, and scary as hell.