The gap between your question and physical reality is probably too broad to bridge. You need to provide us with a peer-reviewed (meaning published in a peer reviewed journal) theory. Unless you can, we can't really take this any further. Some of the problems with your question are: I don't know what you mean by "hollow"; your use of "evidence", "proven" and "true" shows you misunderstand the scientific method, and you invoke myths (ancient astronauts) as if such nonsense should be addressed scientifically!
The mass of the Moon is known (to within a reasonable degree of accuracy). There have been a number of sets of seismometers placed on the Moon, and any model you (or your "experts") provide must be consistent with the data from those. The Moon is a large enough body so that over geological time frames, it has assumed an approximately spherical shape; any model which included a vacuum or gas filled interior would need to describe the materials of the shell which would not flow under the force of gravity and which were strong enough to resist the collapse of such a structure. In addition to gravity, centripetal forces, thermal forces, and impacts from asteroids/comets would also have to be resisted. The currently accepted model which best fits the evidence is that the Moon's core is an iron-rich solid surrounded by liquid/molten material. In Science, it is not the responsibility of the "status quo" to disprove any (hare-brained nonsense or otherwise) idea, it is the responsibility of the author of the proposal to show how it either explains some facts better or explains more facts than what is now "accepted". In general, we don't find it productive to hypothesize that the data is the result of some unnatural process. This can be a problem, especially when the data has been faked or manipulated; but that has been the rare exception. And since the physical world is self-consistent, erroneous data is, if important enough, usually identified as such. In other words, as LaPlace wrote:"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." or as Carl Sagan paraphrased: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What is it you are claiming and what evidence are you using to support it?