I make no claim or pretense that I've come up with anything approaching a "solid" or thorough alternative model for how the natural world works. That's what professional scientists SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING all these decades instead of chasing after aliens, the "origins of life", and the "origins of the universe".
All I can do is *reject* a nonsensical model for the nonsense it is. That goes for the ball earth/spinning ball/Big Bang, that goes for the "official story" on 9/11, and many other things.
I can't tell you exactly who did what on Sept 11, 2001. Some of that information is simply not available -- the bad guys don't have recordings much less videos of their machinations available on the Internet. But what I *can* do is call out the official story as impossible malarkey, which it is.
That also goes for the COVID hoax. I don't know what exactly this new disease "COVID" is or where it came from, but the popular mythology of the Cult of Covid (it's a deadly disease, we're in a Pandemic, we should all be afraid, it's worth shutting down businesses for, it requires that you be vaccinated, masks somehow stop it) I completely reject.
I understand this. My best example is: The existence of pathogenic viruses hasn't been proven, at least not to me, so I assume there aren't any. That doesn't mean that I have an alternative explanation for so called "contaminous" diseases. And I don't subscribe to more or less esoteric ideas of e.g. Dr. Stefan Lanka, who on the one hand has demonstrated that current virologist theories are BS, but on the other hand offers ludicrous alternative explanations. Same thing for Dr. Andrew Kauffman, and Dr. Tom Cowan.
Concerning the topic of this thread, to reject much, most, or all of NASA, ISS, Moon landings, astronomy, etc., some people seem to feel the need to react by defending obscure alternative theories. Based on outlandish folks like Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould de Sodington Blount, Eric Dubay, and others, they defend a theory which is philosophically absurd, just like Heliocentrism, which was condemned as such by the Roman Inquisiton.
I agree with you. To reject what government, science, or whoever presents as truth, as acceptable, as reasonable, one doesn't need to present an alternative theory. And I think one better well watches out, to not fall for the next best offered "alternatives". It's in the well known Protocols. "They" control both sides.