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!

[bongyi]

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.

But not exist valid explanation! So the premises are not true.

[Ramsay]

They could be valid, partially true, or completely false. A flawed investigation process contributes to this, but there are other factors that may be less significant. Not everything has to make sense. Not every detail needs to be explained with pinpoint precision. Look at my theory: I wrote a coherent theory based purely on logic, and I addressed all the inconsistencies.

[GlennM]

I am channelling Conan Doyle just now. " eliminate the impossible, and what remains must be the,truth". The problem is fundamental. Every fact other that they are dead can be argued. This is because humans have a contrary side. Logic is not truth, it is a tool. Logic is an either or process. In the extreme, either you have a fact, or you don't, if you discount every claim because it's factual basis can be disputed, you end up with nothing.

What the forum has engaged in  during my participation, is the quest for an emergent truth. There is a saying in science that interesting things happen in the interface. Between earth and sky, between sky and water between chemicals and so forth.

It seems to me that our  only recourse is to take facts and see what is revealed in the interfsce. Prints in the snow and path to forest. What is in the interface? Means, motive, opportunity?

Throwing out the baby with the bath is an option. The hope is that we acquire additional facts over time. Hope springs eternal.

[Ziljoe]

The issue isn’t whether any fact can be questioned. 
In a low‑information event, you can question almost everything if you want to. 
The real distinction is between core constraints and peripheral noise.

If you flatten those into one category,
that’s not a useful analytical position, because it removes the minimum structure needed for any reconstruction.

1. Core constraints are not theory‑dependent.

These are a start to the baseline conditions of the event:

- the group existed 
- the expedition happened 
- nine hikers died 
- their bodies were recovered in the open, not inside the tent 
- the tent was found intact enough to inspect 
- the autopsies were performed 
- the case was closed with a “force of nature” conclusion 

These are not “constructed.” 
They are simply the minimum physical facts of the scene.

If we start arguing that even these are optional, then we’re not analysing Dyatlov anymore — we’re rejecting the existence of the dataset.

2. Peripheral facts are debatable — and that’s normal.

Witness recollections, administrative dates, later interviews, and secondary statements often contradict each other. 
That is expected in a wilderness recovery with multiple human sources.

Contradictions at the edges do not invalidate the core.

3. The mistake is trying to prove the entire framework invalid.

If you remove the core constraints, you don’t get clarity — you get a void. 
No theory can exist because you’ve removed the minimum structure required for any timeline.

4. A “database of facts” only works if facts are weighted.

Some facts are foundational. 
Some are weak. 
Some are noise. 
Some are errors.

If you treat them all as equal, you guarantee that no theory can ever be formed.

5. The goal isn’t to prove the case unsolvable.

The goal is to identify which parts of the framework are stable enough to support reconstruction. 
If you discard the floor, you end up with nothing to stand on.

We can narrow it down further to the individuals existed and then they died , but that's all our own stories.

You have already shown a pattern in your own choices that are distinct, a fallen tree, nurse Solter and the February 6th date on the case folder. This all lies in the book 1079 which moves outside the constraints of the main framework.

At this moment I will be honest and say I'm not sure what you are trying to construct , on the surface it sounds reasonable but you are already debating suggest grounded facts . You mention you have observers contradictions but not what they are so it's impossible at this moment to offer how or what you want the baseline facts to be?.

You will have to lead with what facts you are wanting to break down.

In an attempt to give an example of what you might be trying to get at.

Was it an avalanche?

Against: there were no signs reported of an avalanche when the tent was discovered / avalanches can not happen on a slope under 28 degrees = fact

For: the mountain slope is steeper than 28 degrees under the snow gradient/ the gradient angle can build with snow fall and drifts changeling loads/avalanche could have been eroded in three weeks.=fact

We can split these facts down even further and argue the opposite where the assumed fact can't happen under different physical constraints.

Please start with an example of what you deem to be a fact.

[GlennM]

Too, the elephant in the room is facts explain the how of things better than the why of things, which I believe is what we want to know.

[bongyi]

I answer everyone together!

Let's ask ourselves the question! What have we come up with in the past decades in relation to this incident? And can we be satisfied with it?

We don't have a single possible theory! This is not normal! The normal thing would be if there were possible theories, more than one, and we couldn't decide which of them corresponded to reality.
We have to realize that what we have tried so far - that we have tried to set up logical narratives within the framework of known facts - has not led to results! The work so far has not been useless at all.  I am grateful for all the theories, because the contradictions of these theories and 60 years of unsolvedness lead to metatheory.

Of course, the ultimate goal is to explore what happened to the hikers. Their memory obliges us to do so! But the case cannot be solved within the framework of false and constructed facts. It is irrational to try to explain within this framework!
It could have been otherwise! They could have constructed false facts on which one or more possible narratives could be attached without contradiction. For some reason - intentionally or accidentally - it didn't happen that way. No theory can be applied to these false facts without contradiction! That's pretty bizarre, but it's true - I have 60 years of evidence for it!

I recommend that in the following we think of facts as clues, and not as those that should be logically connected in a clever way for the sake of another theory! These facts are false and constructed. We are not in the business of establishing exactly which facts are false and why. This is not necessary! The task is different. It must be proven that the Gyatlov incident could not have happened within the framework of the present facts. But the hikers died a tragic death! This contradiction must be put before the authorities! And confront them with their deception! They are responsible for the unsolved case and the fact that it is not properly closed. It is painful that the relatives did not receive answers either and had to live their lives with this burden and die without knowing what happened to their sons and daughters!

The newer official version is about an avalanche. On a slope where there are no documented avalanche cases at all! I can imagine a hidden connection between the Russian Ruble and the Swiss room scientists who developed the theory of the table avalanche and tried to propagate it in scientific circles! Whose theory is untenable for several reasons. see e.g. Borzenkov analysis where it destroys it on a scientific basis.

Theories have type errors. e.g. All the theories that hikers suffer their injuries in the tent on the snowfield should explain how they got to the place 1.5 km away where their bodies are found with these injuries! There will be no explanation for this!

Or e.g. all conspiracy theories are burdened with the fact that the conspirators cannot know what photos are in the hikers' cameras! The conspirators who carried the tent from the cedar to the snowfield cannot know if there is a photo in the cameras showing the tent at the cedar! But that would bring them down and expose their fraud! The tent must be moved before February 26, and the films of the photographers found in the tent must be developed afterwards. I think the problem and the contradiction are understandable!

I couldn't understand exactly how the cameras are found in the tent. Who calls up the negatives and when? How does the negative get to search engines? How can there be unknown recordings of the tour, e.g. the last two pictures of the alleged tent digging? I would appreciate it if someone could tell me this!

For the sake of metatheory, the facts must of course be evaluated from several points of view! It is quite unlikely that simple weighting would be enough! The relationship of every fact to every other fact must be evaluated! (everything is connected to everything) This requires a very deep analysis! e.g, the development of photo negatives is related to the location of the tent. But there is no need to worry about whether the given fact is false or real. We assume that some of the facts are false, but it doesn't matter what the false facts are. Contradictions between the facts must be revealed and based on this, it must be proven that it is not possible to set up a logical narrative to explain the incident within the framework given by the facts! This proof would also indirectly prove the facts to be false.

[GlennM]

The thought process can follow two patterns. One is approaching the mystery with a preconceived idea.example, UFO aliens interacted with the DP9 . Where did the idea come from? Who knows, but let us see if we can defend the  idea. Oh, animal mutilation, there you are! Lights un the sky? Oh yes, we are on fire now! It is obvious this is bobbing for apples, or the selective use of supporting facts.

The other way is learn what is known about the incident and then deduce ( from many clues, making one conclusion) a plausible explanation or theory. In this situation, the ininitiated reads through the case history, mulls over that is offered and then emerges with an explanation. Later on, that same person comes to realize all the ,material they are using was generated by other people who all had personal points of view. Every fact is an interpretation based on whether the presenter thought it of significance to include it at the risk of their reputation for doing so.

In order for a theory to become widely accepted it must be able to be falsified. For example, can you test the UFO theory to determine if it is true? No you cannot. Little Green Men do not subject themselves to tests, just like God or the gods do not take tests to prove their existence.

A testable theory is done  by using hypothetical situations in the classic if- then- else paradygm. For example. If the tent was discovered on a shallow slop of less than 30 degrees, then a if movement snow happens, then tr will be able to destroy the tent, else the location of the tent is historically inaccurate. This hypothesis can in fact be tested in the real world.  Another example of a hypothesis is , if a person who leaves a trail in the snow carries more than his or her own weight, and if the resulting prints will be measurably deeper, then that person has carried another through snow.

The diffuculty,for armchair sleuths is our inability to test most ideas. We look to expeditions to the Pass, and assess their findings. Immediately, we run into another complication. It is referred to as control. For example, rigging a tent which can and does collapse in a high wind is a demonstration of an idea, but it must have a standard of comparison to be considered experimental. Otherwise it is a show and tell. This is much like a box of detergent soap saying," New and Improved". Compared to what? If I show you a box and tell you it is different it proves nothing,

When people fo to the Pass, they are spending time and money to do so. They are motivated to find something in a scavenger hunt for artifacts. This is a show and tell, not an experiment. This is demonstration.  There is nothing damning about this method, provided that at best it opens the possibility of a " what if"  speculation.

Tje DPI is similar to the Ripper, Voynich, Lindberg Baby, Sodder Children, or similar mysteries.  What it really does, as do all these mysteries is to reinforce the idea that no matter how you understand time, you have to concede it only moves in one direction.

The practical result is any of us can employ methods, tried and true, or imaginative and wishful to achieve an umderstanding that satisfies us individually. If that is not good enough, then you write your book and see who will pay to share your bliss.

[bongyi]

In order for a theory to become widely accepted it must be able to be falsified.

Metatheory lends itself to refutation. If you can present a narrative that logically and without contradiction describes the events within the framework of known facts, then it can be refuted.  But you won't be able to present such a narrative. So the theory is suitable for refutation, but you cannot refute it.  It is in an ideal position.

You are right about the on-site observations.  I would like to know if the campfire burning at the cedar can be seen day and night in winter from the snowfield where the tent was supposed to be?

I would like to know how much fluid hikers can use their body heat to protect from freezing? Would this be enough for the evening and the next morning for hydration? Is it possible to eat without cooking? Everything is frozen at -40 degrees! How could they have had dinner without fire?

[Ramsay]

Regarding hydration and food, I believe these issues need to be separated from the question of whether or not they built a fire (they likely didn't build one inside the tent). At temperatures of -30°c to -40°C, the main problem wouldn't necessarily be food, since frozen food can be eaten without cooking (though doing so would be extremely difficult and unpleasant). The more critical issue is water: the surrounding snow would be frozen solid, so obtaining liquid water would require melting it with a heat source or consuming the snow directly, which is an inefficient way to hydrate and can further lower body temperature. Thus, the amount of usable water they could obtain overnight would be a key limiting factor in any reconstruction of events.

However, I think the timeframe must also be considered. They didn't necessarily need to survive for days in the ravine; the relevant question is whether they could remain functional during the hours that elapsed between leaving the tent and their deaths. In that context, the available water and food would need to be evaluated alongside their physical condition, clothing, activity levels, wind exposure, and the feasibility of consuming snow or uncooked food. These are verifiable physical factors, not assumptions to be made simply based on the presence or absence of a fire. They had plenty of food at Labaz but didn't go there (so were they unconcerned about food?), but in any case, they wouldn't have survived many hours on the slope under those conditions.

[GlennM]

The barest facts are that nine corpses were found in three locations in a forested area. If any progress is to be made explaining the previous sentence, some assumptions must be accepted. These include the circumstantial, eye witness testimony and physical evidence. There is no end of debate about the circumstantial evidence, there were no first person eyewitness records, but abundant after the fact records, there is physical evidence some unrefutable, some arguable.

Zipjoe has taken a practical approach by considering the unassailable truth they were dead. Also unassailable is they suffered a variety of injury. Unassailable too is burns come from fire, frostbite from cold. Unassailable is they all died from lack of oxygen. The how and why of these primitive facts are the meat of the debate. To achieve a breakthrough we look at what happens in the interface of bits of evidence. Yuri K had a burned shin. There was a fire at the cedar. Is there reasonable cause and effect? That is one degree of separation. When you introduce an opinion of the facts, that is two degrees of separation. The more separations made, the validity and reliability of each becomes more tenuous.  Ultimately, it gets down to what makes you content.

A common occurrence on the forum is that contributes are confident in their point of view and suspicious of other points of view. So the whole dynamic of the forum is about those who are sure trying to persuade fence sitters to get off the fence.

[bongyi]

@GlennM:
From the point of view of metatheory, whether there are indisputable facts or not is of no importance. It doesn't matter which fact we think is false or true. It's just that the totality of the facts doesn't allow it to set up a logical narrative that fits the facts. Every narrative will come into conflict with some fact, some or many facts! 
We don't need to determine which facts are true or false.
No need to solve a mystery.
No need to set up a narrative that logically tells what happend.
It is only necessary to prove that the current facts do not allow a valid narrative to be established. Which is equivalent to the fact that the Gyatlov incident could not have happened in any way based on the current facts. But it happened! The contradiction can only be resolved if the facts must be false. It is not known which facts are false. It can only be a couple, it can be all. But we don't have to deal with that anymore! Because from here on, it is up to the authorities to make the real facts public.
The incident somehow happened. The authority hided the real facts and provided constructed facts in their place. And people have been struggling between constructed facts for 60 years and cannot explain the case. And they don't want to realize that they won't get results in this way in the next 60 years either. The conditions are not in place for the truth to come out.
But the truth has already been revealed, we just don't know that it is the truth. Some theory has already found the truth and described what happened to the hikers, but the false facts are against it. But false facts are not only against the theory that finds the truth, but also against incorrect theories.

I understand that there are facts that someone remembers wrongly, before and later they say the same thing differently or even contradictorily, etc. This is also the case with a normal case. But we have to deal with the facts that the authority presented or accepted as valid. When I talk about facts, it primarily means these facts! It may arise that there is a fact that the authority did not take into account, but the fact is important and relevant, then this may also be included!

-----

Stepping out of the metatheory:

In terms of the circumstances in which the hikers' bodies were found, the location and the date, it makes probable and displays the previous multiple separations of the group in 4+[2+3] form. It's just an option and not sure. But I think it's worth dealing with! Igor Tyitov's theory provides an explanation for this that should be considered.

[bongyi]

@Ramsay

Firewood, snow melting, cooking and heating the tent are closely related issues!
Snow can be melted and cooked outside the tent.
It is possible that hikers had drinking water that they had to carry close to their bodies in a bottle so that it would not freeze. It also had to be kept warm in the evening so that there was something to drink in the morning. I believe that a person could not carry more than 2 liters of liquid. And presumably it would have run out in the morning.
This is not about eating or drinking after the escape. But about how you can imagine that they build a fire on the mountainside in the snow field, melt snow and cook. There is a problem with that. It would take a lot of wood.
There is conflicting information about whether they had firewood. If they had firewood, presumably only enough for the tent stove for a few hours - but maybe they didn't have that much, and what they thought was firewood when they found the tent actually served a different purpose. They especially wouldn't have had enough firewood to melt snow and cook!

Hydration and dinner are important to withstand the load the next day. Frozen food cannot be eaten. It needs to be heated.
This is a very problematic question that conveys the irrationality of camping in a snowfield instead of a forest!
It is possible that there are hiking practices that are used in this case. Let's say they keep not only drinking water, but also food for dinner close to their bodies so that it doesn't freeze as if you were taking it out of the freezer!
If there is anyone here who is used to hiking at -40 Celsius degrees, they must know these practices!

[GlennM]

There are a couple of observations I make on your recent post.,First, it your point is. Is that we do not know all the facts, I think there is a general consensus. Secondly it becomes clear to me that your thesis is that the dearth of all the facts is proof that there has been tampering, this making the objective truth unknowable.. This devolves into another conspiracy theory explained and  justified because of deliberate suppression of evidence. Is absence of evidence proof of evidence of absence? Put otherwise, is it that the information needed to resolve the incident missing because it never happened or alternately because it was deliberately suppressed. There is nothing new about this approach. The elephant in the room with all conspiracy theories is that they depend on taking a leap of faith unjustified by the available evidence. Conspiracy proponents do not know all the facts.

[Ramsay]

When I served in the army, there were specific foods ideal for high-altitude trekking:
Canned meat (usually beef or pork) very fatty, which was eaten cold or mixed with other foods; cereal porridge (like barley or buckwheat) pre-mixed with chunks of meat; and Sukhari (hard water crackers or rye rusks). Eating frozen food causes many health issues and gastrointestinal problems, and drinking water at those temperatures requires a portable stove.
I don't know if the Dyatlov group brought a stove down with them, but food wasn't a problem for them. And most of them had full bladders.

[GlennM]

Thank you for your service to your country. Consider this please. Although the DP9 had different amounts of socks and valenki for feet, where are the gloves? Odd, yes? Odd too is that nobody was keen to take even one pair of socks off their feet to protect their hands. Walking a mile on snow and ice, arguably at night and arguably in foul weather would be difficult to balance with both hands stuck in your armpits. Useless hands are going to struggle even stabbing with a knife.

[Ramsay]

Yes, that's true (but maybe they put their hands in their trouser pockets?). Someone had gloves in their pockets (I think it was Thibo).  We know that Krivonischenko suffered these consequences when his hands froze and he fell from the cedar tree.

[bongyi]

There are a couple of observations I make on your recent post.,First, it your point is. Is that we do not know all the facts, I think there is a general consensus. Secondly it becomes clear to me that your thesis is that the dearth of all the facts is proof that there has been tampering, this making the objective truth unknowable.. This devolves into another conspiracy theory explained and  justified because of deliberate suppression of evidence. Is absence of evidence proof of evidence of absence? Put otherwise, is it that the information needed to resolve the incident missing because it never happened or alternately because it was deliberately suppressed. There is nothing new about this approach. The elephant in the room with all conspiracy theories is that they depend on taking a leap of faith unjustified by the available evidence. Conspiracy proponents do not know all the facts.

We have already clarified that the metatheory is formulated in a refutable form. And this objectively precludes you from classifying it as a conspiracy theory.
The authorities not only withheld the facts, but also fabricated false facts.
- editing of autopsy reports;
- organs extracted from the bodies are sent to a lab for further tests, but neither the organs nor the results of the tests are returned;
- developing the films in the cameras. How can photographs that were taken on the tour, but are not included in any inventoried film, be found? for example, the last two pictures of the diigng of the tent site?
- what happened to the notebook found in Zolotaryov's hand?

Ivanov himself insists that the investigation was not carried out properly.

But you're right, there's nothing new about that. The novelty that characterizes the metatheory can be found elsewhere!

[Ramsay]

You are turning Soviet incompetence/disorganization (which was the rule, not the exception, in 1959) into proof of deliberate manipulation. An absence of evidence is not evidence of suppression. To prove it was suppressed on purpose, you need to show "who" suppressed it, when", and "why" Otherwise, you are doing exactly what you criticize: using a lack of data as proof of your thesis. The metatheory would only be falsifiable if you said, "If we find notebook X, my theory falls apart." You don't do that. You say, "If we don't find it, it's because they hid it." That is unfalsifiable—and that is precisely why it becomes a conspiracy theory.

[bongyi]

.... but food wasn't a problem for them.

Can you tell me how their journey would have continued if nothing had happened to them then? They get up the next morning, drink the rest of the cold water? Where will their water come from next? Where does firewood come from? How will they eat?
Because these are very important things on the tour!

[Ramsay]

They left their supplies in Labaz to climb the mountain

[bongyi]

You are turning Soviet incompetence/disorganization (which was the rule, not the exception, in 1959) into proof of deliberate manipulation. An absence of evidence is not evidence of suppression. To prove it was suppressed on purpose, you need to show "who" suppressed it, when", and "why" Otherwise, you are doing exactly what you criticize: using a lack of data as proof of your thesis. The metatheory would only be falsifiable if you said, "If we find notebook X, my theory falls apart." You don't do that. You say, "If we don't find it, it's because they hid it." That is unfalsifiable—and that is precisely why it becomes a conspiracy theory.

I'm sorry you don't read my writings carefully enough! I came back to it several times - not enough, it seems:
Metatheory considers its task to prove that it is not possible to establish a valid narrative about what happened within the framework defined by the available facts.  And this proves that the facts are false.

Logic is a little more complex than you think! But I think it's understandable!

[Ramsay]

An explanation doesn't gain points simply by being possible. It gains points when it explains evidence that other explanations struggle to account for, without needing to introduce new assumptions. Reconstruct the sequence of events using only the available evidence and what is reasonably known about the individuals, the environment, and human capabilities. Show how that mechanism would produce exactly those injuries—on those people, in that position—without producing consequences we don't actually see. Do not introduce a new external event just to resolve a difficulty in the reconstruction. You are reversing the burden of proof. Your thesis is: "I can't create a story consistent with the facts -> therefore, the facts were fabricated." That doesn't prove the facts are false. It only proves that *your* narrative doesn't align with the facts. Incompetence in the 1959 investigation is not proof of falsification. A mess is not a conspiracy. And regarding the water and firewood you mentioned in #22: you already know the answer yourself—Labaz wasn't just about food. The original plan was to descend to the forest on February 2nd, where there is firewood and water (by melting snow on the stove). They camped up high solely because of the wind; it was a tactical error that turned out to be fatal. There is no logistical mystery there. If the metatheory were false, as you claim, tell me: what fact—if it were to appear—would make you admit the metatheory is wrong? If you don't have an answer to that, it remains... unfalsifiable!

[GlennM]

I like the idea of the DP9 keeping to the high ground for speed and efficiency. I contend that they could have made Ortoten and picked up water and wood there. I am not sure they would go to the trouble of packing up the tent yet again just to round Ortoten and come back again along the ridge and set up the tent all over again. I think they made their last camp  and intended to leave it standing. They would round Ortoten, visit the mail box, pack some firewood and be back to their tent the same day. I can only think that the reason they did not deploy the stove is because it was noisy or drafty when not in use.

What I do not like about the woods is that it is a harder slog through deeper snow as well as the loss of the hard won elevation at altitude 880 on 1079. Adding to that, if they were going to take the pass between mt. 1079 and mt 880 (ironically the same elevation as their camp), they would once again have to climb back to their cache, pitch the tent and then pack it up one again for the return trek. That is a whole lot of work to trade of a single nights discomfort.

If the group was so determined to use Dyatlov Pass on their climb up the Auspyra ,. they would have bushwhacked their way through it and likely wound up camping right where they were found near the cedar losing altitude and slogging in snow as their reward.

[bongyi]

Gyatlov wrote in the diary  [jan 31]:  Dinner’s in the tent. Nice and warm. Can’t imagine such comfort on the ridge, with howling wind outside
They stop to build a camp around 4-5 p.m. the day before.
It would also be good to know this: it is completely dark in Hungary at 5 p.m. in February. But that's much further north.  Then it gets dark there even earlier! They stop there because of the dark and do it by plan.

I just understood: On Jan 31, when he wrote about the hot dinner, he actually said that the next dinner would be cold on February 1.