The ancient Astronaut is extremely difficult if not impossible to either prove or disprove.
It may help to narrow it down first. I have attempted to do part of that with a web site about ancient civilizations around the world including many
that moved colossal stones well over 100 tons in Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Tyrkey, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, India, Korea, Japan, Mexico,
Boliva and Peru. The biggest stone moved with ancient technology in modern experiments is probably not much more than 10 tons. There are claims that
people have done better but if the debunkers could document them better they would have or at least they should have.
There is definitely an unexplained mystery here.
My site also discusses other wonders like large volumes of statues and colossal sculpture insitu as well as a few things that can be explained by
normal evolution like cave paintings.
This site trys to focus on the hard facts first to help narrow things down.
This isn't enough to explain everything or even close. A closer look at technology like the Orion project and biosphere 2 and much more will help.
All the information would need to be organized in the most effective mannor possible to come closest to the truth. My web site still needs work but in
some ways it is better than what the traditional scholars are presenting to the public.
Another thing that might be worth looking at are the "mystics" and "miracles" that religions have been useing to back up there beliefs. I'm
sceptical about their interpretation of these since if a good God did exist he would start by opening an open line of communication. This hasn't
happened so the "God" or "astronaut" in question isn't putting our best interest first but it is possible that once they acomplish what they want
that the secrecy may no longer be neccissary.
As for the so called sceptics if they start out sceptical at least until they look at the evidence I don't mind that at all in fact I recomend it.
However that isn't the way they behave. The self defined sceptics often decide it isn't true before looking at the evidsence and then they dig in
their heals. When this happens instead of debunking they add bunk or sometimes they replace some bunk with different bunk.
As for the most popular theorists like Sitchen, Von Daniken and Hancock they don't get it right in there entirety but they may get somethings
In Sitchen's case I couldn't even bring myself to read his books they are so bad I only got a few pages into one before giving up. I have found out
that he makes claims that ignore basic laws of gravity and ignores the habitable zone. Von Daniken and Hancock both make some good points but they
also get bogged down in mythology and jump to conclusions to fast. I suspect that Jaques Vallees is closer to the truth. He does a better job
admitting when he is speculating.
This is a good idea to consider as long as you don't jump to conclusions pro or con too fast.