Metatheory

[Ramsay]

There are many good theories that cover all the facts. You just need to use logic. 

[Ramsay]

i I think if you read more about what happened. And thinking about it in a certain way will make you agree with the theories

[GlennM]

Your point of view condenses into a "who do we trust" argument. This point of view contends we can not trust the message( facts) because we can not trust the messenger. The who's who of the DPI is well researched and published on the DyarlovPass.com and in numerous publication, notably Teddy's 1079..There are a lot of names associated with this event.

Of all the many,many contributors, testifiers, administrators etc. who among them (1) has access to the material evidence (2) has a reason to onfuscate the facts (3) the technological wherewithal to do so?

Note that even unrelated photos and useless spoiled camera exposures made it into the case files. They were not culled.

Nobody in the forum would claim that this wintertime tragedy was deftly handled, but it was expensively handled. It was openly and formally reviewed and documented. Adjustments were made from the findings that materially affected individuals.  The DPI was not swept under the carpet then nor now 60 years later.

If we start culling the false facts, who will be the judge of that? Are they going to be replaced with truth? Whose truth? Who among us will do the culling?   

Once again, it gets down to a conspiracy theory. They come in different flavors, but all have a common core of there is something to lose and something to gain. Many who post on the forum, swing their logical bats at the Pinata. They all miss. Maybe that is because it is not a conspiracy, we are not mind readers of dead men and women from long ago.

There are at least two consequences to this line of reasoning, they are that either we do not have all the facts or the facts are false. If you subscribe to the former, you participate in the forum as an investigator. If you subscribe to the other, the DPI is a waste of your heartbeats and you would be better served solving a puzzle that can actually be solved.

Who are we going to trust?

[bongyi]

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!

What your question refers to has already been answered in post 11. Again, I would like to ask you to read more carefully!

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.

[GlennM]

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!

What your question refers to has already been answered in post 11. Again, I would like to ask you to read more carefully!

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.

Am I to understand that an explanation which is consistent with the evidence, or more simply put, is the truth is a prime candidate to be proven false? OK. The sun rises in the East. How do I make this false?I cannot, so by trying to make the truth a lie, I have proven my explanation.  This is a long way of saying that what we hold to be true will remain so until a better answer of found. In the DPI, the argument is that the better answer does not even exist because the case is built on the evidence of lies assumed to be truthful facts. This is just a softboiled conspiracy theory. At some point you have to take a leap of faith and believe that not everyone is trying to deceive you. It reveals more about the skeptic than the issue.

[bongyi]

The Russian authorities did not properly handle the case either in 1959 or now.
The '59 investigation is closed with the famous “explanation” that an unknown compelling force took place.

This is completely absurd. The investigation into the deaths of nine people cannot be completed in this way. Unacceptable. Outrageous! This couldn't happen!
We have to see behind it!
Ivanov puts it this way because he is trying to let us know that he was stopped! From above or on the party line! And all he can do is close the investigation as expected. But he tries to send a message, covertly, subtly, by closing the case with an absurd explanation, and he just hopes that people will understand the underlying meaning of the words.

And the 2019 investigation is concluded with the avalanche theory. According to them, an avalanche took place on a slope in 1959 where not a single documented avalanche had occurred in the last 60 years. To support this idea, a year later, Swiss scientists with suspicious motivation come up with their idea of a slab-avalanche, which they try to spread in scientific circles, but it is actually a blunder, a fraud and can be called crowd manipulation rather than a scientific theory. But regardless, the avalanche theory is ruled out by several facts.

I already raised it in the 20th post about the camera photos, but you left it without an answer! The supposed last 2 pictures of the group, when digging up a tent site in a snowy spot, which inventoried film reel is it on? I know that none of them! How is it possible that photos are found that are not included in the film negatives included in the inventory? This is not okay! This couldn't happen! It cannot validly be said that everything is fine with the photos! Not at all! It's so wrong!

Your statement about the operation of the authorities is incorrect. It is clear that the authorities were not guided in '59 or now by the resolution of the case, but only by being able to close it in some way. And they didn't provide any explanation at all for what happened to the hikers.
If your child died in such circumstances and you experienced such behavior on the part of the authorities, would you still be accepting of their work? Unpleasant question, right? You will have to die never knowing what happened to your child, the authorities won't tell you, even though they probably know what happened and you agree to their work? I don't think you would!

----

3. post

Fortunately, we don't have to try to determine which facts are true and false.

9. post

 We are not in the business of establishing exactly which facts are false and why. This is not necessary!

14. post

 It doesn't matter which fact we think is false or true.

29. post

In the metatheory, we will not answer what happened. We will not dwell on which facts are false, and how are they false.

After that, you wrote:

If we start culling the false facts, who will be the judge of that? Are they going to be replaced with truth? Whose truth? Who among us will do the culling?   

No. We do not starting culling the false facts!
I have described several times before that from the point of view of metatheory, it does not matter which is false and which is real fact.
Only you talk about culling. I don't. You say that and then you criticize what you said. I have nothing to do with this. It's a straw man argument! Why are you doing this?

-----

Once again, it gets down to a conspiracy theory.

Again, no, this is not a conspiracy theory.
On the one hand, you still haven't been able to understand the metatheory, and on the other hand, you're confusing things.
The premise of metatheory is that there are false facts. The question of how or why false facts were created is information worthless from the point of view of theory. The assumption that there are false facts because a conspiracy is likely, according to which the facts were manipulated and constructed, cannot be evaluated in the strict context of metatheory, irrelevant.
The metatheory meets the criterion of falsifiability, and this objectively precludes you from classifying it as a conspiracy theory, I already described this earlier in posts 11 and 20, after which you come up with this again!

Conspiracies exist. The world and history are full of conspiracies. Assuming a conspiracy is completely rational under the circumstances.  This has nothing to do with the concept of conspiracy theory, which exists within the logical framework of cognition, which is a criticism of the form of the theory, but it does not affect the content of the theory to any extent, which can be real, true, correct. But further explanation of this would be off-topic!

-------

1) Inadequate classification of the work of the Russian authorities
2) straw man argument
3) conspiracy theory accusation

You present these.
I consider these to be frivolous and cannot at all evaluate them as a substantive criticism of metatheory.

[Ziljoe]

Bongyi, I completely understand the frustration. I am not even going to pretend to understand this metatheory concept because I don't, I'm not sure if it's the correct model or formula.It can be incredibly exhausting looking at this case because, after more than 60 years of intense scrutiny by some of the smartest people in the world, the pieces still don't perfectly match every bit of the evidence. We all carry that same desire to find an answer to the puzzle.

As Glennm says , we have to take a leap of faith at some point to create a narrative or at least try and join the dots , one of these leaps of faith is to assume or speculate that the case files have been forged , faked or withheld , by the authorities, or even by the gate keepers that received the files .

Real-world wilderness tragedies are inherently chaotic. When you combine an extreme environment, human panic, and a 1959 Soviet investigation, you are naturally going to find contradictions, sloppy notes, and missing information at the edges. For many of us, those gaps aren't a sign of an engineered government deception; they are just the inevitable, messy footprint of real life.

I’ve found it stabilising to research other historical cases of accidents in similar environments globally. In the Soviet Union, there were many deaths handled in unusual ways. Some were accidents involving mass groups dying from drinking liquids that weren't alcohol, fires, suicides with bombs, rafting fatalities, and several group avalanche deaths. There was even a case of people taking a helicopter just to go fishing and crashing it, and a plane crash where the pilot tried to prove he could land using only his instruments. You name it, it has happened.

Many of these deaths ended up in secret files, but the term "secret" was not used because there was something to hide—it was just how they structurally stored files. It is the same today; the public generally cannot get access to active investigations and the processes behind the scenes. I understand that there was only one way to label the original case file because there is only one mechanism after the death of multiple people, and that label is a criminal investigation. "Unknown compelling force" was actually used simply because they didn't know the exact mechanism or cause of death at the time.

You’ve given the forum food for thought about how we structure our arguments and look at these files, even if we don't completely agree on the framework. It's a tough puzzle to crack, but the debate is what keeps the investigation alive. Perhaps the metatheory could be best used to explore the psychology of why people like us choose a theory and then try to bash the evidence to fit it.

There is also the possibility that what we have been given by the authorities is actually the truth, and the real puzzle is simply to continue from where they left off when they couldn't formulate a definitive reason for the incident. There is a ton of examples and real reports of other hikers who tackled the exact same problems that the Dyatlov group did.

Welcome aboard the forum.

[bongyi]

Am I to understand that an explanation which is consistent with the evidence, or more simply put, is the truth is a prime candidate to be proven false? OK. The sun rises in the East. How do I make this false?I cannot, so by trying to make the truth a lie, I have proven my explanation.  This is a long way of saying that what we hold to be true will remain so until a better answer of found. In the DPI, the argument is that the better answer does not even exist because the case is built on the evidence of lies assumed to be truthful facts. This is just a softboiled conspiracy theory. At some point you have to take a leap of faith and believe that not everyone is trying to deceive you. It reveals more about the skeptic than the issue.

I don't understand clearly what you mean!

I consider a 'possible theory' to be one that can tell what is happend without contradiction, in accordance with known facts, and is likely.
Several such possible theories may fit the known facts.
One possible theory will correspond to the truth, to what actually happened. The other possible theories, despite fitting the facts, are not about the truth.

Metatheory can be disproved in the way that a possible theory must be able to be presented. In the case of the Gyatlov incident, no possible theories have emerged in the last 60 years.

[GlennM]

Metatheory invites us to build a house of cards with true and untrue cards called facts. Once built, flick it and see if it holds up.. We have been doing this for ages. The difference is that many of us are more careful of the cards we use and the way we lean them against each other. Much of our exchanges in the forum have to do with whether the card is true and whether the association of cards holds up.  There have been many house of cards about the DPI,  some get published. Why not one definitive house of cards? How is easier to explain than why.

[Ramsay]

So let's go then, apply your method, choose a theory. it can be my theory, the 2019 theory, or any other. What do you do? You already give a conclusion to the case, which can lead you to pick the facts that support your conclusion. I challenge you. The pieces are there, play this game. The investigation was closed in that way in 1959 because it showed how incompetent the authorities' search operations were; a reconstruction of the case wasn’t accurate at the time, and close to the date of the 21st Congress, it was decided to close the case as quickly as possible. "Irresistible force of nature," no more words, no guilty parties, forget the case and let’s move on. Even though I disagree with the 2019 version (precisely for not doing an accurate and adequate reconstruction of the events), the Russian Federation gains absolutely nothing from this case, except for hundreds of curious tourists traveling to that area every year. So apply your method to a theory, choose the cards you're going to play. What are the inconsistencies, what's the criterion for something to be considered false? If everything has the potential to be false, then we can't assert anything. It's either real or it's not. So let's get to the bigger question: why should your method apply to the theory that the main premise about the theory itself is impossible?

[GlennM]

I will try to answer, but I am already sensing that you are suggesting that there was a cover up, which is a conspiracy for the benefit of the reputation of the governing Soviet system at that time.

I mentioned previously that answering the " why" is harder than answering the" how". On the last day of their hike, January 1. 1959, they made less  progress to Ortoten than I would expect. I have no problem with understanding how they could pitch a tent, I have a big problem with why they stopped so short of the way to their goal. So, I question if it was weather, a favorable place to level their tent, injury,illness, conflict or equipment failure that explains the" why" question.

To deduce why they stopped where they did I have to sift through subsequent facts, such as real injuries, the antibiotics on hand, the ruined condition of the tent, the depth of prints in the snow, and so forth. If I elect to choose inclement weather and a patch of ground sufficiently deep to level the tent , then I've excluded the fact that they had antibiotics, they set their tent on ground which had at least a 25 degree slope,, that the footprints leading from the rent did not demonstrate excess weight bearing, foot dragging or the presence of more than 9,sets of foot prints.

As you can see, there are dozens and dozens of facts leading to hundreds of possibilities. This is why I and many others can not get  a solution based only on facts. There must be a glue which cements one fact to another absolutely. The glue or logical reason, depends on subsequent facts aligning with the previous facts. In the forum, the most common glue is also the poorest glue. It is called " speculation" or an educated guess. I can give you an example of very strong glue. Every hiker died for one reason, lack of oxygen.that is the " how" of it, not the " why" of it.

I have no solution for you, I write no book. I have hope that if I can glue two facts together with a strong glue, then the third fact may also glue tightly to the previous one. Until I know more, I am forced to use the weakest glue and see how well it sticks.

[bongyi]

There was an incident (I)
In relation to (I), two facts are known (F1) and (F2)

The probability that for a long time no one can establish a theory for (I) that fits both facts is extremely small. It's getting close to impossible!
However, if this almost impossible situation is what is happening, then we have to assume that there is no valid theory because there is a [hidden] contradiction between (F1) and (F2). If a theory fits (F1), it cannot fit (F2) and vice versa.

Such a contradiction between the facts can arise if one or the other or both facts are false.

I can examine (F1) and (F2) in terms of whether they contradict each other with respect to (I). For this investigation, I don't need to know which is the false fact.

It is important to understand that if the facts were directly contradictory to each other, it would be very easy to notice. However, they can also contradict each other in a hidden way, understanding this requires a very deep analysis.

If the investigation succeeds in finding out how the facts contradict each other and are mutually exclusive, then this proves:

1) The false quality of either or both facts. (we won't know which fact is false - only that one or both are)
2) It is not possible to set up a narrative describing (I) that would fit both facts.

[Ziljoe]

There was an incident (I)
In relation to (I), two facts are known (F1) and (F2)

The probability that for a long time no one can establish a theory for (I) that fits both facts is extremely small. It's getting close to impossible!
However, if this almost impossible situation is what is happening, then we have to assume that there is no valid theory because there is a [hidden] contradiction between (F1) and (F2). If a theory fits (F1), it cannot fit (F2) and vice versa.

Such a contradiction between the facts can arise if one or the other or both facts are false.

I can examine (F1) and (F2) in terms of whether they contradict each other with respect to (I). For this investigation, I don't need to know which is the false fact.

It is important to understand that if the facts were directly contradictory to each other, it would be very easy to notice. However, they can also contradict each other in a hidden way, understanding this requires a very deep analysis.

If the investigation succeeds in finding out how the facts contradict each other and are mutually exclusive, then this proves:

1) The false quality of either or both facts. (we won't know which fact is false - only that one or both are)
2) It is not possible to set up a narrative describing (I) that would fit both facts.

Bongyi, I am challenging your model directly because your algebraic formula assumes a sterile, digital environment that simply does not exist in real-world forensic history.

Your equation states that if two facts, (F1) and (F2), cannot be seamlessly woven into a narrative after 60 years, they must contain a hidden contradiction proving they are fabricated. This is a logical fallacy known as a hidden variable error. A mismatch between fragments of data in a 1959 wilderness tragedy doesn’t mean the data is faked; it simply means we are looking at an incomplete circuit with missing variables.

Real life doesn't operate on clean, binary AND gates. If you want a functional model for this case, look at how the universe actually works—moving from pockets of stability into total entropy.

A high-altitude winter expedition lives tightly on the fringe of this entropic edge. The tent, the dry clothes, the boots, and the supplies represented the group’s stable state—an organized pocket of order engineered to insulate them from a chaotic world.

The moment they were forced outside that tent without their gear, their pocket of stability vanished, and they entered a state of high entropy.

In a high-entropy environment, physical variables compound rapidly. The elements immediately begin tearing down the order of the human body. Heat loss turns into rapid hypothermia, nerves freeze and offline your senses, coordination fails, and desperate, frantic decisions are made in the dark—like digging a quick shelter into a shifting, unstable snowbank in a ravine. Because we weren't there on the mountain, we cannot observe the specific, almost infinite data interactions happening in that state of chaos.

History is full of mysteries that appeared to be impossible paradoxes until the missing variables were found. For decades, the "Sailing Stones" of Death Valley baffled researchers. Heavy, 700-pound boulders were moving across a completely flat, dry desert floor, leaving tracks behind them. Conspiracy proponents claimed the phenomenon was impossible, that the data was faked, or that secret military testing was to blame because the wind was physically incapable of moving that much mass.

The conspiracy only lived because people were looking at an incomplete circuit and could not directly observe the data. Years later, scientists finally caught the missing variables: a rare combination of shallow winter rain, freezing temperatures forming thin, floating ice sheets, and light wind moving the stones across the mud. The data wasn't faked by authorities; the observers were just missing the environmental threshold that tied the facts together.

By using your model, you are reversing the burden of proof. You are arguing: "I can't build a story that fits 100% of the pieces, therefore the pieces are a state deception." That doesn't expose a conspiracy; it just highlights your own narrative limitations. Gaps, missing paperwork, and the chaotic footprint of an extreme environment are standard historical noise. If you treat every unobserved variable as a state-manufactured paradox, you aren't doing analysis—you are just forcing a conspiracy theory to fit your own rigid logic gates.

[GlennM]

I believe we have discussed the mechanics of this thought process enough. who might favor us now with a demonstration of the DPI?  Will we need two explanations which include all the known facts but come to different conclusions? Then applying the rules we will have the indisputable truth

In this demonstration, logic is not truth, rather a process. Truth may be objective or subjective. Objective truth (accepted by many) is preferred. Validity is not reliability.

Good luck. I am still plodding along.

[Ramsay]

Metatheory only holds practical value if it defines a boundary of solid premises. If anything can be false, the method negates itself, as any absurd narrative becomes mathematically equivalent. The method's true utility lies not in questioning the existence of the mountain or the rescue effort, but in applying contradiction analysis to the few physical certainties provided by the terrain and biology (setting up camp, the orderly descent, the death that occurred that night). So, which solid premises do you consider, and at what point does the metatheory apply? With Serov's photographs? The mysterious school? The detention at the train station? Vizhay? Settlement 41? Settlement 55? The Severny 2 forestry camp? The day before the tent was pitched? Or does it apply only to what happened on the night of February 1st—assuming, of course, that the preceding premises are true?

[bongyi]

@Ziljoe

For some reason, your criticism completely ignores the fact that here only the logical scheme was outlined in the simplest possible form, in order to make the logical basis of the metatheory edible for everyone. A day ago you yourself declared that you did not understand the theory. I see that others did not understand the previous explanations either. That's why I tried to explain it differently now than I have done so far. Criticizing the demonstration of a logical scheme made as simple as possible is completely invalid from the point of view of the real world.

The task here and now is merely to understand this scheme. There is no need to think about how to apply this to the specific case in the real world!

Can you agree with the statement that if (F1) and (F2) contradict each other and are mutually exclusive, then this can only happen in such a way that either one or both of them must be false?
Can you agree with the statement that a narrativa fitting on contradictory facts is not possible?
Can you agree with the statement that the examination of the inconsistency of (F1) and (F2) is not affected in any way by which fact is false?

These are simple questions. Accepting them would set the readers of the forum in the right direction!

However, the application of the logical scheme to specific events in the real world will be very complicated! And it will be burdened with a lot of problems. It's natural. But now it is invalid to criticize this from that point of view!

[Ramsay]

Look, in formal logic, all three statements are true. BUT the problem with your model in the real world is not the mathematics of contradiction; it's the criterion for defining what CONSTITUTES a real contradiction versus a simple lack of information.

[GlennM]

In plain terms two wrongs do not make a right. Also, without confirmation of what is right, how can it be known? An end to end explanation of the DPI is the goal, but if facts are disputed and connections between facts are a matter of interpretation then what. Here is a theory which accounts for all the facts. Nine people died in winter because they could not breathe. Here is another nine people died in winter because they were killed by transient escaped convicts. Here is one, invisible alien body snatchers did clever experiments. Another, a completely destroyed missile showered them with radiation and chemicals.  Of these theories which is the indisputable objective truth. Does it make you happy? I think not. We want to know why, not how.

[bongyi]

We buy a puzzle game. But the puzzle is faulty at the factory! Everyone tried to put it out several times, but no one succeeds, the small pieces do not fit and do not reveal the whole picture. We take the puzzle back to the store saying it's wrong and ask for our money back. But the seller refuses. The case will go to court. We have to prove to the court that the puzzle cannot be laid out in any way!
Can we prove the puzzle wrong?
In theory, yes.
Will the proof be simple?
No! It will be very complicated!

The Gyatlov incident is similar.
We is strongly assumed that some of the facts defining the interpretative framework are false.
We cannot prove the falsity of the facts directly!
But we can prove it indirectly! The basis of this indirect proof is the hidden contradiction of facts.
Why do we think that the facts contradict each other in a hidden way?
We have to think this because in the last 60 years no one has been able to tell a single narrative that fits the facts and is uncontroversial, and even likely!
There is not a single such narrative!
The probable reason for this is that the facts contradict each other in a hidden way. However, any theory can only fit a part of the facts, but not facts that are contrary to them.
The hidden contradiction of the facts is in itself proof that we are dealing with false (wrong, manipulated, created) facts. But if this occurs en masse in the range of facts that determine the interpretative framework, then the situation is quite clear!

Several of you have assumed that it is not about the false quality of the facts, but about their absence!
Not true!
If the problem with the Gyatlov incident were that only a few facts were available, then the situation would be quite different! Possible theories can be easily fitted to the few facts, since they have to fit at fewer points. Such narratives could be set up more easily. Then we would be faced with the problem that there would be many possible narratives that fit the facts, but we cannot decide which of them corresponds to reality? This is a completely different situation than what we have with the Gyatlov incident. There is not a single possible theory here. That is why there is no question of a lack of facts! We have to talk about the falsity of the facts!

[Ramsay]

You used the metaphor of the jigsaw puzzle. But we know the essence of the jigsaw puzzle, we know how it works and how to play it. But the Dyatlov case doesn't have that: to unravel the mystery, you have to obey certain premises, otherwise you will never solve the case. It's the same as a salesperson telling you: "The pieces aren't defective, you're just not playing the puzzle the right way." You say that "no one has managed to present a single narrative that fits the facts and is irrefutable, or even plausible!" - that's not true. You yourself can construct your own theory and answer this. Human beings are unpredictable, and the fact that there are countless possibilities is precisely what shows that the case itself is not unanswerable. I challenge you to try to refute some theory, or a part of it, using your method. Or create your own theory. If you can't, your method doesn't work in the Dyatlov case because not even the premises that will be analyzed have guaranteed validation. If you said you have a defective puzzle, you can at least complete a part of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work!

[Ramsay]

Bongyi, see how your method behaves when applied to a concrete premise:

"Zolotarev had a notebook/personal diary, and this notebook was seized by the authorities during the searches."

Fact 1: The official inventory does not record any notebook belonging to Zolotarev.

Fact 2: There are records and evidence that he kept notes and that his belongings were retained.

Your Metatheory successfully proves that F1 and F2 generate a hidden contradiction, which demonstrates that the official inventory is an omitted/false document. The method works to diagnose document fraud.

But the question remains: what now? The method proves that the paper lied, but it doesn't tell us if Zolotarev died because of what he wrote or if the notebook simply deteriorated in the ravine water. That's why we need solid physical premises to take the next step!

[bongyi]

@Ramsay

A simplified illustrative example is provided in post 41. I tried to formulate this example in such a way as to make it as simple as possible. I did this to make the metatheory easier to understand. That is why it contains only two facts in total (F1;F2). But in the Dyatlov case, there are not 2, but 10,000,000 facts - I don't know exactly. Please don't want to apply an abstract and illustrative example directly to specific events in the real world! That's not what it's for! It's just a help to understand logic!

[GlennM]

In the puzzle game example, it is obvious which physical and tangible pieces (the facts) do not fit the puzzle. In the DPI, facts not fitting the narrative are not obvious. Additionally, every fact is actually a description filtered by the author's perception and point of view, photographs included.

In Ramsay's example, the fact that Zolo had a notebook with nothing in it is not first hand information. The colonel who retrieved the notebook did not testify to it. This was in fact an observation and assumption by someone else who additionally fails to account for the disposition of the alleged notebook. The testimony can be considered a fact because we can read it, the existence of the notebook and its whereabouts can not be considered a fact. It is an assumption.

My point is that in deductive logical exercises we have a powerful tool. We must also deal with trust, accuracy, validity and reliability before even the first analysis takes place.  Here is a problem. It does not take much imagination to think that there are many who distrust authority, embrace laziness, or prioritize convenience over diligence.

Remind yourself that the DPI is only a single alpine tragedy among many internationally.

I will offer this razor to help anyone who wishes to falsify the facts in the case. Follow the money!

[bongyi]

But why?

Along the Lozva River. From the 41 District  to Northen 2

in 1959 January



and in 2026 January:

https://youtu.be/M9pSyeXHPXI?t=309  (~2 minutes, timed)

This contrast is quite moving! There is the landscape, the river, the rocks, everything is the same - constant! But more than 60 years have passed and they are dead by a mystery - and others are following in their footsteps and thinking of them!

[bongyi]

I will offer this razor to help anyone who wishes to falsify the facts in the case. Follow the money!

I think I understand what you mean!  But I thought further earlier when I mentioned the strange motivation of the Swiss room scientists who make up the slab-avalanche theory.
1959, 2019, 2021 same circles, but not because of money!

[Ramsay]

This doesn't mean the Swiss tests are wrong. It could be that they coincide with the truth, or their interpretation is incorrect.

[bongyi]

This doesn't mean the Swiss tests are wrong. It could be that they coincide with the truth, or their interpretation is incorrect.

There was no avalanche of any kind. 
Their idea does not fit with the Gyatlov case.  Most comically, the authors of the theory themselves realize this in their theory.
Must read!
Then Borzenkov's analysis too!

[Ramsay]

Of course. I don't believe that theory; it has many holes and is incomplete. But tons of snow can crush people's chests.

[GlennM]

Saying there was no avalanche is an opinion, then and now, not a fact. What is accepted as a fact is when people in a tent are caught and buried under a movement of snow that cutting their way free is an effective escape method. It is also a fact that if an unstable mass of snow is disturbed enough to produce a slide. A slide will happen. What is not a demonstrable fact is whether all the DP9 were in the tent and that snow collapsed on them all. The knife cuts from the inside attest that at least one person chose to leave the tent this way. Experience tells us that unless it was a dire situation, cutting up a perfectly serviceable tent to exit instead of using the front flap like everyone else is bad manners.

[Ramsay]

Even worse is being able to walk a kilometer and a half with your chest destroyed and half-naked, Under freezing temperatures and winds 👍 And also to those who believe that Slobodin went down the slope with his head bouncing off the rocks