Yes of course I do but you're making a lot of assumptions.
What makes you think that they haven't done this?
You're rejecting the claim based on the nature of the claim itself, not on whether it has scientific merit (as defined by evidence rather that what you believe to be absurd).
It's either something real, a deception or incompetence. You're very quick to assume the latter, or fraud if that's not the case while totally ignoring the possibility of the former without knowing a thing about the detail of the experiment or the evidence (whether valid or not) that it produced.
At best you're saying that you simply don't believe such a thing can be true. That's fair enough but it's just your opinion until you find evidence of deception or find a design flaw in the experiment which you won't do because you don't believe that it's worth your time. That's fair enough too I just hope that other people don't share your revulsion and actually manage to replicate the results because that would be very cool.
Most scientists would still try to deny it because no amount of evidence can convince people who would rather not believe, that's why religion is still around.
I just wasn't born yesterday.
Look, I've made pretty clear what I would need to see, in order to take this seriously: a clear claim, scientifically expressed, and supported by proper rigour in description of the setup and precautions against error. It is no more than what anyone else with a science background would expect. There is nothing unreasonable or dogmatic about it.