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.

[bongyi]

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.

Several of these points are debatable. And they are opposed to some theories and other facts. With theories that I think are rational. e.g. fallen-tree-theory

I think that if, within the framework set by the facts, it was not possible to create a theory that can logically tell what is happening in ~60 years, then we must rightly suggest that this framework is invalid and constructed!

And the invalidity of this frame must be logically detectable! The essence of my concept is that there is not and cannot be a theory that can logically tell the events within the framework set by the currently known facts. Fortunately, we don't have to try to determine which facts are true and false. We only have to prove that the case cannot be solved within the framework. But proving this is also complicated and I don't know how to start at all.

We have to be able to contrast the facts! In some cases, these may directly contradict each other: for example, the discovery of the bodies on February 27 contradicts what nurse Solter said, or to some extent contradicts the date of February 6 on the case file. In other cases, the contradiction between the facts may arise in a more hidden way.

Do you think a good way would be to start forming a database of facts? Shall we take them in turn? In itself, a thing defined as a fact can represent a complex meaning. It is conceivable that a fact needs to be broken down even further into base statements and recorded. And if we have such a database of facts [base statements], what do we do with it? 

We don't have to solve the case. We just have to prove that it cannot be solved based on the current facts. And to present this to the authorities and wait for them to tell the real facts and solve the case. They have to solve the case, not us!