Been interested in the Nazca question for years and honestly the landing strip theory has always felt like a shortcut to me. Not because ancient aliens is off the table - I don't think it is - but because the lines are too narrow and some of the geoglyph figures are so massive they'd only make sense viewed from altitude, not from something landing on them.
Von Daniken pushed the runway angle hard but Erich himself admitted later it was speculative. What I find more credible is the idea they were used as navigational markers or waypoints, visible from craft at altitude but not necessarily requiring a landing surface.
The spider and hummingbird figures in particular, you can't see those properly from the ground at all. That asymmetry between ground-level uselessness and aerial clarity is the bit that keeps nagging at me.
Anyone here looked at the water ritual theories as a counterpoint? Curious whether people think those two explanations are mutually exclusive or whether both could be true simultaneously.