The landing strip theory is about as well-supported as anything else we've got, which is to say, not very. The lines don't actually make good runways - they're too narrow, intersect at weird angles, and the surrounding terrain would be a nightmare for any craft we'd recognise. Erich von Däniken basically built his whole career on a misread of the evidence there.
What I find more compelling is the hydraulic theory, that the lines map underground water sources. That actually fits with what we know about the Nazca culture's obsession with water management in an extremely arid region.
The aerial visibility argument is interesting though. You genuinely can't appreciate the geoglyphs from ground level. So someone, at some point, had to be designing these with a birds-eye perspective in mind. Whether thats a drone, a hot air balloon, or just very sophisticated geometric planning from high ground, im not ready to call it proof of anything.
What does everyone else make of the trapezoids specifically? Those have always struck me as more deliberate than the animal figures.