The clues in the snow

[bongyi]

There are several aspects:

One is that when hikers come up from Auspiya to the pass and then to the mountainside, do they come all the way on skis?
When they talk about clues, it's almost always just the clues between the tent and the forest strip! What about the clues they had to leave when the hikers came up? Hm? Why are these never discussed? Why don't anyone miss them?
So it is questionable whether they could come all the way on skis? If there are stone roller lanes there, as they are towards the forest, then it is not certain that they could cross them with the skis. Maybe they had to take off their skis there and walk! If they came all the way on the skis, who can say that 9 or, say, 15 people were walking in the ski trail? Why isn't this ski trail preserved? Why doesn't it stand out like the footprints between the forest and the tent? What rules out that from that direction, following the hikers, strangers could come up to the tent on skis on these tracks? Or from any direction? Because if these traces of hikers had disappeared, then the traces of possible strangers would have disappeared too!

The other may be better explained, but it's also strange! Why don't the snow blocks of the slab-avalanche, which, due to their mass and kinetic energy, break ribs according to some assumptions, leave prominent traces like the footprints of hikers? If they can break ribs, then maybe they can compress the snow enough to leave a prominent trace of it!

[GlennM]

It is one thing to find some small portion of the case files and play what if games. This can be done with everything. John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln, Well what if he was not the only one and what if the gun he used was borrowed at the last minute etc.etc. At some point you have to accept things as they are, else you are going to burn out.

[amashilu]

There are several aspects:

One is that when hikers come up from Auspiya to the pass and then to the mountainside, do they come all the way on skis?
When they talk about clues, it's almost always just the clues between the tent and the forest strip! What about the clues they had to leave when the hikers came up? Hm? Why are these never discussed? Why don't anyone miss them?
So it is questionable whether they could come all the way on skis? If there are stone roller lanes there, as they are towards the forest, then it is not certain that they could cross them with the skis. Maybe they had to take off their skis there and walk! If they came all the way on the skis, who can say that 9 or, say, 15 people were walking in the ski trail? Why isn't this ski trail preserved? Why doesn't it stand out like the footprints between the forest and the tent? What rules out that from that direction, following the hikers, strangers could come up to the tent on skis on these tracks? Or from any direction? Because if these traces of hikers had disappeared, then the traces of possible strangers would have disappeared too!

The other may be better explained, but it's also strange! Why don't the snow blocks of the slab-avalanche, which, due to their mass and kinetic energy, break ribs according to some assumptions, leave prominent traces like the footprints of hikers? If they can break ribs, then maybe they can compress the snow enough to leave a prominent trace of it!

I think these are good questions, bongyi

[GlennM]

Hikers did not leave clues. A clue implies it is meant to be followed. The hikers were not followed. Your example points this out. Assasin tracks within the DP9 tracks are non existant tracks. It is all smoke and mirrors. Assasins do not work for free. Follow the money. If there is no money,  there are no assasins.

[bongyi]

Hikers did not leave clues.

I think they should have left clues:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/1_32.jpg

And they were supposed to survive in such a way:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Ski-tracks-02.jpg

As are the footprints!