I cant imagine what logical or empirical justification either of you would have for that assertion.
Well everyone knows that the moon only came into earth’s orbit in recent times, after gold was already used as money.
I feel that I shouldn’t need to indicate that I’m joking.
Because you aren’t joking.
They didn’t leave any objects on the moon, that’s at least inductive evidence.
Even we left evidence on the moon. Tons of it. parts of landers. Dune buggy. Flag. Etc.
If it was less than 100,000 years ago, we should be able to see it still I’d think?
Actually the original question was:
The answers to which aren’t as easy and yes or no, because “rarer than gold” misses the point. Goods do not derrive their value based on how rare they are relative to each other, but based on a judgement of how rare they are relative to the use to which individuals want to put them. Comparing the rarity of two goods supposes an objective relationship of value based on some ratio of one to the other. That’s incorrect. The value assigned to them need not even be based on fact, only the perception of rarity relative to demand. So it doesn’t matter in the end why people wanted gold. They may have initially valued it for nothing more than a show of power and wealth; it was hard to find and get, therefore the person with the most was the most bad ass. It doesn’t have to have any function or rational - in the colloquial sense - use. People just have to want it, and asking why misses the point of demonstrated preference and the focus on individual action.
We were talking on the Mises live chat before this thread was made. The initial question I was referring to occurred there, not in this thread.
this also strikes me as an unjustified assumption, unless of course you have been to the moon to look for artifacts.
well what is your source for images? The russian and american space agencies have released photographs of objects that dont look exactly natural. Zond-3 photographed a tower.
theres also reason to suspect that “the ancients” were capable of nuclear war so I would tread lightly when making assumptions about the technology level of peoples we dont know much/anything about.
We [humankind] have, yes. We’ve and imaged mapped the entire surface of the moon. Not to any great resolution tho. I grant it’s not strong inductive evidence, as the mapping isn’t very fine-grained. But we can at least rule out large-scale structures being left-behind 
Yeah, would be worth looking into. As for the agencies imaging, I doubt they’re fudged. Anyway, private spaceflight is a reality now. Wanna go image it for ourselves, we can.
That would require very strong evidence indeed.