>There are facts. You said yourself "The fact that two dead bodies discovered may not be under dispute." That's the fact. Everything else you said isn't a fact, it's a hypothesis. Just because people don't know the difference between a fact and a hypothesis/conclusion doesn't mean there are no facts;
The distinction between fact and hypothesis is a red herring.
First, unless one has verified something themselves, with their own eyes or carefully checked primary sources, there are no facts, just reporting of things claimed to be facts.
In other words, there are no "two bodies in front of you" and you're not being denied by some fellow you discuss with while you're both looking at them. Just reporting that such two bodies exist somewhere, that one believes and the other doesn't. And more often than not, the reporting is of even more abstract things, like statistics (collected with who knows what methodology, and presented and baked to prove who knows what point, using all the tricks one can use to lie with statistics).
Second, supposedly physical-domain facts can be fake as well. "This man was shot by person X" (leaving no room to hypothesis) while X might not have done it, or might have been framed - even if there were witnesses attesting that X did it and even a court found it so (many people have been later found innocent e.g. by DNA or further research decades after the fact, victims of over-jealous prosecutors, false testimony, setups, facial similarities, racist bias, and so on). Despite their guilt being not a hypothesis but a fact with "evidence", it was still bogus.
Second, pure hypothesis is often presented as fact, and people are called out for not believing it, all the time.
The distinction between fact and hypothesis is a red herring.
First, unless one has verified something themselves, with their own eyes or carefully checked primary sources, there are no facts, just reporting of things claimed to be facts.
In other words, there are no "two bodies in front of you" and you're not being denied by some fellow you discuss with while you're both looking at them. Just reporting that such two bodies exist somewhere, that one believes and the other doesn't. And more often than not, the reporting is of even more abstract things, like statistics (collected with who knows what methodology, and presented and baked to prove who knows what point, using all the tricks one can use to lie with statistics).
Second, supposedly physical-domain facts can be fake as well. "This man was shot by person X" (leaving no room to hypothesis) while X might not have done it, or might have been framed - even if there were witnesses attesting that X did it and even a court found it so (many people have been later found innocent e.g. by DNA or further research decades after the fact, victims of over-jealous prosecutors, false testimony, setups, facial similarities, racist bias, and so on). Despite their guilt being not a hypothesis but a fact with "evidence", it was still bogus.
Second, pure hypothesis is often presented as fact, and people are called out for not believing it, all the time.