Something irrelevant, because hardcore skeptics and debunkers aren't the kinds of people you should be trying to convince with evidence. Mainstream science has a considerably different standard of proof. Accepted! I want positive evidence of direct alien intervention that DOESN'T take the shape of an inconvenient in scientific/historical/archeological data. A sample of alien technology, for example, or a fossil for a life form that is structurally fundamentally different from anything found on Earth. IOW, I want essentially the same thing that scientists in sci-fi movies want shortly before ACTUALLY MAKING that pinnacle discovery: firsthand evidence, recovered by discovery, NOT by the clever extrapolation of circumstantial evidence. The reason you're getting so much flak from skeptics and debunkers is because everyone knows you don't have THAT kind of evidence, but you continue to behave as if you do, or that the evidence you DO have ought to be as convincing as the solid firsthand evidence the rest of us are thirsting for. Really, it's like you claiming that you bought your house for just $5000 -- no mortgage, no loan, just cash -- and then when pressed for details claiming "Well I didn't actually pay $5000 cash, but when you look at the accounting and the terms of the mortgage and my savings, that's what I'll end up paying." It's a claim that's too good to be true, and it probably is. Actually, I would prefer to see just the aliens (your hairy ass in the middle Times Square is totally optional), especially in preference to the notes and findings that we BOTH know are suggestive at best. Indeed, if you HAD two live aliens to show people as proof -- or better yet, two dead ones we could dissect and run comparative genetic studies -- we would not still be having this debate.