I decided to comment on the footprints found down the slope from the tent. Which broke off then and did not appear again.
I read the interrogations of those people who first saw the tracks. And I was a little surprised that they, in principle, did not claim that, judging by the footprints here, someone walked in socks.
For example, here is what Slobtsov, the first to discover the tent, claims:
Here the phrase "a man without shoes in a felt boot" is somehow surprising. How to understand this expression? So without shoes or in felt boots?
A strange slip of the tongue or mistake of the person who wrote the interrogation protocol. But that's okay. Slobtsov does not say that he saw prints of footprints of people walking in socks.
Maybe someone from his search engine team says this? We read the testimony of Brusnitsin:
Again, there is nothing concrete about the tracks.
Interrogation of Maslennikov:
Promotional video:
Nothing is said about the fact that people ran in socks.
Perhaps this was indicated by Tempalov? Let's read his testimony:
Again there is nothing about traces of bare feet. It can be concluded that the tracks were seen, but no one could say for sure that these were prints from walking in the same socks. Where, then, are we talking about footprints without shoes all the time?
If you look at the date of the interrogations, it is easy to see that they took place in mid-April. That is, by that time, five dead members of the Dyatlov group had already been found. Only one of them had a felt boot on his leg.
It is clear that the witnesses spoke of footprints without shoes, as they saw naked corpses. It was already impossible to understand anything by the tracks themselves, as the Prosecutor Tempalov noted. I am inclined to believe his statement that "the tracks were badly deformed."
From a single photograph it is really very difficult to understand people wearing shoes or not.
What do I think about footprints?
I believe that on February 1, the group moved out of the parking lot, where the storage shed was found, and went along the slope. Then it was decided to go downstairs. They took off the skis and went on foot, because, having rolled down on skis, one could get on the stones.
Judging by the state of the prints, the traces were left on fairly wet snow. At about minus 5 degrees and sunny weather. Why do I think so? Because in colder weather, the snow becomes dry and does not condense under the weight of a person. In order for the traces to turn out in the form of such bumps, they must be left in the snow, which can be blinded into snow. Under the weight of a man, the snow was compressed and froze at night. Then a strong wind blew up the snow around the track and these "hemp" remained.
But you can still see that the traces of an uneven shape, as, for example, should be from felt boots. This is also easy to explain. In the photographs, we see that the guys used shoe covers.
Which is quite logical, since in this way the boots are protected from dampness.
It turns out that they could easily have passed here in such felt boots and the traces naturally remained as if someone had passed not in felt boots, but in something similar to woolen socks.
From here again comes the confirmation of my version that they did not put up a tent on the slope, but went down to the forest. True, the question is: did they put up a tent there or just walked on? But I will consider this option another time.
