You don’t need to emphasize it, you just need to make a scientific case based on provable and verifiable facts.
The fact that you can’t and need to resort to non-argument arguments “as the father of a particle physicist” “one does not earn a PhD in Physics”, bringing in unrelated successes to try to bolster the weak argument etc. should demonstrate to you just how weak the assertion is.
If the existence of those particles were verifiable in fact, all you’d need to do is show that. But instead you HAVE to go off in a totally different, fallacy-driven direction, because that argument DOES NOT EXIST.
Now bring this physicist son of yours into the conversation so I can have this discussion with him, instead of you trying to speak on his behalf. (Spoiler alert: he will do no better - I have done all the research and have not come to this conclusion lightly at all.)
“I have done all the research and have not come to this conclusion lightly at all.)”
Really? Make your case!