But I personaly I prefer the hypothesis that suggests humans were responsible rather than 'ancient aliens'. Of course, it is not beyond the bounds of impossibility that ancient aliens were involved
From my perspective, the first requirement of the researcher of ancient studies is to take steps to remove their own wishfulness from the equation. My answer to that requirement is to try to begin each interpretation with an unequivocal statement on the part of the culture being studied. Where possible, I try to confirm that statement by matching it with comparable evidence from other cultures who seem to share the same tradition.
Now, if culture after culture explicitly states the same viewpoint about some aspect of their rituals or symbols, I wouldn't be much of a scientist - nor could I argue to have taken precautions against my own wishfulness - if I then chose some OTHER starting point for my interpretation!
Based on that viewpoint, I ask what scientific basis there is for simply setting aside the corroborated view of these cultures that they had- in some remote period - received advanced scientific knowledge from someone more capable than themselves? Especially in light of the fact that we have little or NO evidence that they evolved that knowledge on their own?