Poor Reason of Attributing Sth to Sth More Than Human

Let us say Stonehenge is partly attributed to three stones bouught by the Devil from a woman on Ireland, and partly to some other stones conjured there by Merlin. You may have difficulties in fitting these with some of the evidence, but the difficulties could be gotten around.

But you would have a reason which was at least as solid as "this is an old story, I have not made it up and I don't know of anyone who can certainly be considered as having made it up" (I was cheating, I combined two stories, both of which are in this case, but their combination is made up by me, as a reconstruction reconciling the two stories*).

Or again, Erich von Däniken might provide a list of works suggesting a roughly speaking supernatural - on his personal view that would mean space ships, Ancient Astronauts from Elsewhere - origin for Stonehenge about as tightly as Dan Brown (or actually, behind him, Bagent) connects the Grail Legend to a Dynasty Originating with Jesus' supposed marriage to St Mary Magdalene (and these documents and the interpretation about Stonehenge would have the gigantic advantage over Bagent's interpretations of that other material not to contradict Christian dogma).

But here I come across a very poor reason of attributing sth to sn else than the obvious most probable maker:

Ancient Egyptians DID NOT build THIS...The Osirion & Lost Ancient Technology
Bright Insight | added on 7th Dec. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhZgaBo7ZSc

(Not linking, but you can look it up).

0:14 - 0:23

because - make no mistake - the people living in Egypt a few thousand years ago also known as the Ancient Egyptians could not have constructed this site : in fact there is zero physical or scientific evidence to even suggest that they did ...

Evidence x is standing amid a country formerly inhabited by people y and not attributable to any subsequent inhabitant is evidence it was made by people y, if there is no clear discrepancy in style to other things known to have been made by people y, and especially if there is some kind of religious clear affiliation (as it is, with an Osireion to Egyptians).

Also, narrative trumps physical evidence. It is usually from narratives we know who built what or who wrote what.

And assessing people y could not have constructed x presupposes the one so assessing had been living among the engineers of people y - which Mr "Bright Side" obviously has not in relation to Ancient Egyptians.

I feel tempted to ask "tell me when Mr Bright Side has learned some logic, and I might return to his channel", but I would be making the same fault with him, as he with Ancient Egyptians. I have seen a performance in him which I judge less compatible with good logic; he has seen performances by Ancient Egyptians which he judges incompatible with the technological level required for Osireion. But what if an engineer gave more technical considerations to the Osireion than to his bed and pillow? And what if "Bright Side" woke up on his dark side the morning before making the video?/HGL

PS, it seems one commenter** has even given the method./HGL

* You can find them here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#Folklore
and here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#Arthurian_legend

** The probable method and given as in by the link here:

Cutting granite with bronze or iron tools?
A new method by Franz Löhner
https://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/stone-cutting.html

Now, prove Löhner's method impossible, you start having an argument ...