Possibly relevant (Baghdad Battery):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery

>"In March 2012, Professor Elizabeth Stone of Stony Brook University, an expert on Iraqi archaeology, returning from the first archaeological expedition in Iraq after 20 years, stated that she does not know a single archaeologist who believed that these were batteries."

Sounds great!

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).

No. I do not see the irony. I am not posting a researched theory here. Also since this is a forum, anybody can point out the smoking gun/honest interpretation whatever. A little burden of proof is on the alternative theories (and I do not go that far to say 'extraordinary claims need extraodinary evidence', I am fine with normal evidence).