I do. For the same reason I dismiss the accounts of Winnie the Pooh, and the existence of Allen Grant of Jurassic Park, and Michael Weston. They're fiction.
Unless you have some physical evidence..........? After all, you demand that we satisfy your irrational demands in terms of experimental evidence--why do you get a pass? Why do you get to make bold assertions without so much as a scrap of possitive evidence? (By this I mean, all of the evidence you have--your ENTIRE argument--consists of poking holes in the standard archeological models. This is why you're being compared to Creationists: your arguments are exactly alike.)
So you only have the luxury of complete ignorance in terms of what we know about how things were built back then--ie, the luxury of refusing to read anything that may potentially disagree with you. Sorry, but that makes you a fringie.
You insisted that these stones couldn't be carved via human tools of the time. When it was demonstrated that you could you rejected it as "found techniques", whatever that means. Then you insisted that saws couldn't be used to carve one stone. This is a serious movement of the goalpost, because you went from "period tools" to one specific tool. It's also a starwman, as none of us said that it necessarily had to be a saw that did it (given that all we have is a photograph I'm not entirely convinced that it's from the proper time period; it probably is, but the possibility of this stone being altered later on is real, and without any evidence other than a picture I can't say one way or another).
You also waxed somewhat poetic about the possibility of the researcher being dead, which frankly disturbs me.
. Maybe I should go for the million dollar challenge. 
