And if that is the case and we are barely starting to understand OUR rules, what chances do we have to just stumble upon the right rules for some alien species?

Use your superman example. Suppose, early in his career, there were no photographs of him but plenty of "crazy" stories of rescue and daring. Let's now say that the government correctly assumes this is the work of an alien and decides to search the heaven for him. Now then, how would the government have stumbled upon the circumstances for Superman's civilization if it was so different from ours? How would we have known that it's the Red Dwarfs that theses aliens, these "supermen", exist? How could we have known of their crystal technology and how to communicate with it? The answer is we wouldn't. We'd be guessing.

Likewise, nothing about any of the UFO evidence points to ANY biological clues. There is no consistent gas emissions recorded (which would point to an atmosphere differential), there is no specific waveform recorded (which would point to a sun different than ours), nor has there been direct contact with the public (which would point to a different societal outlook towards aliens and first contact).

None of this exists as repeatable facts. Thus none of the current UFO evidence gives us any clue as to where our real "supermen" exist and thus we stick to what we know. This is why until we see a definite example of a different set of rules from somewhere else, we will concentrate on defining and predicting from the rules we have right here.