Ancient Astronauts and Contemporary Skepticism

Over the course of the past year, I closely assisted a colleague in writing a series of ten articles covering diverse aspects of my ancient astronaut theory. All ten of those articles circulated widely around the globe and view counters on many sites indicated plentiful readership, but feedback to me, or to her, from anywhere, was non-existent. There was neither criticism nor acclaim from anyone. Just silence. I was starting to think that perhaps no one in world wants to take ancient astronauts seriously.
In an attempt to make some progress, I decided to pay sixty dollars for a review of my ancient astronaut website. Of course, this was to be a review by skeptics; a review by New Age believers would be worthless. Their blog's description was "critical reviews of paranormal claims on the Internet." The intermediary granted them five days to perform their review but that has long since come and gone, and not a word from them. My website presents a vast amount of evidence and, in truth, I could not expect anyone to produce a good critical review in just five days. No one, including myself, would want to see quickly prepared and frivolous arguments, else I would make them look ridiculous in my counter arguments. Moreover, some of my evidence comes from Spanish-language sources and, to start, they would need time to verify that none of it is a hoax. They are welcome to all the time they need.
What to expect from this blog is uncertain. There are skeptics who are as narrow-minded in their thinking as their New Age counterparts, and then again, there are skeptics, like me, who objectively evaluate the evidence to arrive at the truth. Was there a real ancient astronaut? To help the skeptics answer that question, I will give them some ideas on how to refute my theories. Here, solely for space considerations, I will concentrate on the archaeological evidence, leaving aside ideas on how to refute the cryptology and theology evidence for another day.
My website reproduces engravings from the Tiwanaku civilization in Bolivia. One of those engravings depicts the alleged ancient astronaut as an aquatic with a three-pronged tail, with each of the three prongs ending in a pod. How do the skeptics refute that? Easy. They simply need to demonstrate that the shape of those pods resembles some form of animal or plant life to be found in that region. In other words, they need to find a terrestrial source for those engravings, otherwise my extraterrestrial arguments remain unharmed.
The timing of the Tiwanaku sky-god drawings coincides with the timing of the Nazca Lines in Peru, so the ancient astronaut of both places has to be one and the same. For Nazca, the skeptics will find many ready-made arguments, but I consider all of them weak. The mentality of the people of Nazca cannot be assumed to be unique in human history. It has to be demonstrated that people elsewhere also believed that the sun, moon, or sky-spirits had physical eyes that could observe ground drawings. Alternatively, it has to be demonstrated that the people of Nazca worshipped birds, believing them to have cognitive intelligence.
The recorded engravings on the cosmological Sun Disk, alleged alien artifact, may prove to be the biggest challenge for the skeptics. How are we to believe that the Andeans of the early sixteenth century a) knew that the Earth was round, b) knew that it was possible to orbit the Earth, c) knew that sunlight striking the moon could reflect back to strike a spaceship, d) knew that the dark clouds along the Milky Way contained stars within, and e) knew that water formed the basis of plant and animal evolution? Here the skeptics would need to find parallels in the history of western civilization. I look forward to their response.