Metatheory

[bongyi]

It is an abstract thing and does not result in direct practical benefit.
What is the real problem with theories?

There have been many theories about the case in the last ~60 years. However, our problem is not that we cannot choose from among the many possible theories what is right and what would tell the real thing. Our problem is that we don't really have a single possible theory!
All theories are flawed and can be ruled out. However, the tragedy somehow happened! The events cannot be told logically, because there are facts against every theory and every explanation!
We don't have a problem with theories, we have a problem with facts!

Teddy calls it a “puzzle” about putting these events together and trying to tell it logically. But this puzzle is factory flawed! It cannot be displayed, because the many tiny puzzle pieces do not fit and do not reveal the whole picture in any way. These tiny puzzle pieces are the facts.

The real events have already been described by one of the theories that have arisen so far. We have to assume that! If not exactly, then broadly and essentially, the theory corresponding to real events has already been established. However, the facts contradict this as well.

We must assume that we already know the theory describing the truth, and facts contradicting for this theory are necessarily false, and facts contradicting for other theories are optionally false. But which facts are false and which are true? We don't know that.

Even if we could prove that this or that fact is false, we cannot be sure that one of the theories excluded by the false fact is the truth.

I think it is unnecessary and pointless to try to establish further theories. Instead, I would suggest that we focus on logically proving that this puzzle cannot be laid out! Facts, false and real facts, mark out a framework. So far, we have tried to logically narrate what is happening within this framework. But let's see that this is not possible! It is not possible because the framework is false and constructed. Let's try to prove logically that the Gyatlov incident could not have happened in the framework given by the known facts! If this could be proven logically in some way, then it is indirect proof that the known facts - at least some of them - are necessarily false.

What would that be good for?
I am pessimistic about this. The acting Russian authority should be forced to act and communicate the real facts, because this would be a new development! But they were also not bothered by the fact that the case was closed with an explanation (kind of avalanche-theory) that could be ruled out for several reasons.

[Ziljoe]

Hi, and welcome aboard.

Let's start with baseline, non‑negotiable facts
These are the facts that do not depend on interpretation, theory, or reconstruction. 
They are simply true, and no one disputes them.

- Ten hikers left for a ski‑tourism expedition. 
- Nine hikers died in the northern Urals. 
- They died in winter wilderness conditions. 
- They died outside the tent, not inside it. 
- Their bodies were found over weeks, in two main locations (slope + ravine). 
- The case was investigated by Soviet authorities in 1959. 
- The autopsies were performed by Ivanov’s forensic team. 
- The case was closed with a conclusion of “force of nature” (later interpreted as avalanche). 
- No evidence of other people at the scene was found. 
- No evidence of weapons was found. 
- No evidence of transport (vehicles, aircraft, etc.) was found. 
- No evidence of radioactivity sources was found. 
- No evidence of military activity at the site was found.

These are the “floor facts.” 
They are the starting point for any rational reconstruction.

They are not theory. 
They are not interpretation. 
They are not puzzle pieces. 
They are simply true.( Unless the whole thing is made up).

[Ramsay]

Yes, the accident happened. If all the premises are true, there is a logical explanation
So, you select the facts and organize them to structure the timeline; then, you align the theory with the most objective details, while avoiding the inclusion of extraordinary factors or phenomena as much as possible.