I dunno. Sometimes the alternate-timeline route can be nice, but I don't find it necessary. I have no trouble just accepting something as an alternate interpretation of a work of fiction. There are only some kinds of inconsistency that I feel can plausibly be explained by alternate timelines, mainly slight variations in continuity or events. When you get to the point that major swaths of history, physical laws, alien species' biology, and major things like that are incompatible, that's not just a different timeline but a whole other take on the invented reality. Sure, maybe if you really wanted to you could concoct elaborate rationalizations for how they could fit together, but the more you have to pile on the excuses and handwaves, the more inelegant and unappealing I find it. It doesn't take anything away from the value of a story to accept it as simply a different storyteller's spin on the ideas, so to me it's just not worth the effort to go that far rationalizing things.