Factual Information > Photography
Footprint photographs misinterpreted?
Manti:
The photos of footprints have been bothering me for a while and I've posted in threads about this before.
I thought a discussion about this might be worth its own thread.
--- Quote ---Photo from Feb 28. The photo was included in the case files vol.2 sheet 114. It's possible that this could be a trace from a sled runner.
--- End quote ---
In the center there is a footprint (or more precisely, a valenki- or sockprint).The person who took this photo might not have known that the hikers perished about 4 weeks before. However, this print is not older than a few days. It has not been snowed on at all while the bodies found all were. With time, marks in the snow smooth out as you can see with the other features in the photo. The photo was included in the case files though, and Ivanov had a pretty clear idea about time of death:
* Perhaps the subject of this photo is not the footprint, but the elongated mark next to it, which is older, as the footprint is most likely from the searchers themselves
* Alternatively, I considered that this is an "accidental shot" with a camera. But then it wouldn't be included in the case files, would it?
* I cannot see the investigator including this as a photo of a 4 week old footprint. Did he have some other scenario in mind, with someone else at the ridge around the end of February?
--- Quote ---Photo from Feb 28. Is this a footprint with a heel?
--- End quote ---
This one was apparently not included in the case files. The print (bootprint?) itself is similarly fresh, at most a few days old. It has also not been snowed on unlike the bodies. This is either the print of a heel or an object with straight edges like a ski.
* None of the bodies were found with boots. Again when the photo was taken, this wasn't known. But this can't be the print of the hikers
* This could also be an accidental shot or the subject could be instead the surface of the snow in the right half of the photograph, which looks like something has been dragged on it recently.
However there are other marks on the snow, these are also recent and couldn't be from the time of the incident, but I thought it's worth comparing these to some common patterns:
Wolf:
For size comparison:
So, it's not a wolf print. Fox and dog prints are similar.
Moose:
For size:
So, also not a moose print. Elk, deer are similar.
If the small marks in the photos are animal tracks, it looks most likely to be from rabbits. I've found this very useful: https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/animal-tracks-identification-guide
One thing is that bear tracks can look similar to human barefoot footprints with toes:
Can be similar in size to human footprints:
Not suggesting anything by the way nea1
KFinn:
The second picture with the boot heel. To me, I'm almost seeing two prints; the boot heel, and what looks like a barefoot print sort of diagonally across right in front of the boot heel. But the heel looks more fresh so how could the barefoot be on top? Could it be a ski that traversed *over* the barefoot like print, so that the very back edge made the heel impression but the ski didn't mess with the other print? Its really weird looking, lol!! I've seen this one before but never really noticed the other print (and admittedly, it could just be a shadow effect or snow indents from that tuft of weeds.)
sarapuk:
GKM started a post last December on footprints which is worth looking at if you havnt already done so. The Footprints issue crops up a lot in this Forum. The expert-criminalist Churkina who inspected the Tent also inspected the Footprints. Many Photographs were taken but it looks like many have also gone missing.
Manti:
--- Quote from: sarapuk on February 26, 2021, 05:30:21 PM ---GKM started a post last December on footprints which is worth looking at if you havnt already done so. The Footprints issue crops up a lot in this Forum. The expert-criminalist Churkina who inspected the Tent also inspected the Footprints. Many Photographs were taken but it looks like many have also gone missing.
--- End quote ---
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=749.0
Yes I've seen this one. There is discussion about topics ranging from terror attack to ball lightning grin1 , love this forum.
But I wanted to make a point specifically about the footprints. Footprints described and photographed by the searchers could not be the Dyatlov group's. And I don't see why searchers would photograph their own footprints except accidentally.
But contrary to the conclusion that because only the hikers' footprints were found, there was nobody else on the ridge, the very fact that footprints were found hints at others being there. Because the Dyatlov group's footprints wouldn't have lasted 4 weeks. Not in the condition seen in the photos.
sarapuk:
Raised Footprints and animal tracks in snow have been fairly well documented. Given that the area where the Dyatlov Group met their demise had freezing temperatures for several months after the Incident I would have thought that Footprints and any other types of prints would have been likely to have been well preserved.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version