OK. What are you goal posts though? :) Here's my (hopefully charitable) reading of your argument: 1. Alternative theories of history are disingenious (sic) sn

OK. What are you goal posts though? :) Here's my (hopefully charitable) reading of your argument: 1. Alternative theories of history are disingenious (sic) snake oil, because they're based on weak circumstantial evidence. They use flawed reasoning to support strawman interpretations of the data. 2. To support this theory, you mention a video you saw (well, maybe saw…) of one guy X (Däniken) claiming something about Y (vessel batteries?). Don't you find the irony delicious? All theories were "alternative" at some point. Some stood the test of time and evidence; some didn't (Gobekli Tepe embarrassed quite a few "mainstream" scientists in its time); some are in the academic weighing right now (the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis).