Einstein's Cross was an easy example of the falsification of gravitational lensing, not a claim that all gravitational lensing is related to quasars. If you can't support gravitational lensing for Einstein's Cross, how are you going to support it for supposed 'examples' where the 'lensing' object is totally invisible? I notice that you answer none of the objections to Einstein's Cross being a lensed quasar. Do you acknowledge that Einstein's Cross is not a gravitationally-lensed quasar?
"2. I don't have any problem with a universe where 96% of the energy is in a state where localization is insufficient to manifest the strong forces required to form matter - but is still sufficient in some areas to manifest the weak gravitational forces... that are observable as gravitational lensing in "empty" space."
Of course you don't have a problem with a universe where 96% of the matter and energy are invisible by definition. That is a perfect example of the tunnel-vision so common in 'science' that I spoke of earlier. This doesn't even qualify as science, this is a philosophical belief that is exactly what you erroneously accuse me of engaging in. Your tendency to project your own shortcomings onto others is becoming obvious.
And, you misrepresent the issue. 96% of the energy and matter are claimed to be 'dark', meaning that they are invisible to detection, by definition. Dark Matter was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and measurements based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium." IOW, it was made up out of whole cloth because the observations didn't fit the model. Your comment about 'localization being insufficient to manifest the strong forces required to form matter' is just BS intended to make the pink unicorn appear more substantial.
And I notice that Einstein's Cross is one of the examples in the Wikipedia link included in your search results. If you can't even defend that one, why do you include it in your list of references? Just throwing a bunch of crap against the wall in an effort to get 'something' to stick, apparently.