Megan said:
Of course any theory is an assumption not verifiable by fact, since there are no observers, or evidence such as film. All you can deduce is probability.
Correct, but you don't seem to extend that same latitude towards people who disagree with you.
With respect to the "false horizon" theory - it's just one (unqualified) man's idea. Look at Vettes' video. He calls his work "scientific", but there is nothing about his ramblings that are 'scientific" at all - insofar as science requires establishment of validity. He can't even say the word "Antarctica" properly.
Some people have no problem believing this wild theory, yet the suggestion that the crew might not have been VFR for example, while descending from high altitude with cloud all around them and blanketing the area which the flight was to go, is dismissed as wild speculation. It's a curious double standard.
Can you come up with an alternative suggestion/s to the theories propounded by the above gentlemen?
Yes. Not VFR at 2000', the crew descended further to 1500' (why else would they have). At 1500' they found themselves flying in a ping pong ball. There was no clear surface/horizon definition. It was hard to tell the difference between cloud and ice, as Collins himself had predicted. And they flew the aircraft into the ground.