I can't quite put my finger on why, but somehow these exchanges with fringe theorists strongly remind me of one-sided versions of those "who would win" arguments that people have between Star Trek technology versus Star Wars. The real objective seems to be to show off one's ability to creatively avoid being pinned down by argument from scientific knowledge while affecting that one's own claims are grounded in it.
I'm not sure if you're directing that at me, or the parent comment. But I'm not a fringe theorist, and I don't believe that aliens have been crashing into Earth either. I find the parent comment's argument very unconvincing.
It makes assumptions which don't seem reasonable in the context of the subject matter at hand. If aliens did exist, they could be much more numerous than humans. Their spacecraft could be more dangerous than airplanes to operate. Their method of travel could perhaps result in collisions with Earth even if it wasn't their intended destination.
My overall point is that we should minimize the assumptions we make here. There's no point in assuming various things and then proposing arguments based on those predicates.
