Wouldn't work.
These UFO yahoos repeatedly ignore verifyable physical evidence and come up with 17 convoluted and contrived explanations dismissing such evidence. Instead, they accept eyewitness accounts (but only those that validate their beliefs as they dismiss holy religious eyewitness accounts) as irrefutable proof. You're arguing with reason against a faith based system of belief. If you need several contrived explanations to refute the evidence against a premise, it is most likely untrue. But that's logic (Occam's Razor) and science, not applicable to religious debates.
Secondly, they argue that a vast, perfect (except for its discovery and outing by net nimrods) govt conspiracy supresses all their pro evidence and has phonied up any physical evidence refuting their belief. That's another dead end.
Thirdly, when argued into contradictory explanations they use their nuclear weapon, "Well aliens are alien so their {ludicrous, self-contradictory} behaviour is inexplicable." End of discussion.
And this is the debating tactic of the semi-rational ones like Spliff or whatever pseudonym he/she hides their faithful beliefs behiind. The predominately irrational posters are worse. What's to be gained?
-philw (let MSNBC be the entertainment playground)
Off Topic » in reply to Hubris? hardly.
pigs cannot bo taught to fly