I know of some people who deliberately choose not to wear shoes or even sandals.
I used to do that. Raised on sand beaches, my feet were calloused so I could walk across almost anything. I even went barefoot in both Chicago and Manhattan, and trained myself so that, when I took a step and felt something sharp, I wouldn't put pressure on that foot. As a result, I could walk across broken glass without injury.
However, that ended when, for reasons I never understood, the homeless in Manhattan suddenly started screaming at me about not wearing shoes. I have no clue what triggered that response, as one day they were fine, and the next there were three or four regular homeless who would trail me, screaming at the top of their lungs about my lack of shoes.
After that, not wanting awkward encounters, I started wearing shoes again (I always wore them at work, but always took them off when I was on off), and my feet have never again been conditioned enough to walk anywhere without shoes again.
I've got another 'friend' who walks barefoot to church. If it snows, he'll wear sandals--possibly with socks. It freaks quite a few of the church members out--but I suspect that's more because they're germaphobes than they fear they'll 'catch something', since no one else walks barefoot in the sanctuary.
My assertion comes from the notion that if time travel is developed in the future then travel to our now or nearish past could be undertaken from a near infinite number of time points from then on, and we would not be discussing one or two pieces of evidence, but in fact would be drowning in evidence.
The time involved to fossilize remains, especially footprints, as not just remote, but astronomical. It literally takes hundreds of millions of years to fossilize sand or mud into rock, after which it's buried under tons of rock and stone, with most footprints simply disappearing.
We have a small handful of dinosaur footprints, and that's left over from the dominate life on the planet for hundreds of millions of years. The odds of a few hundred time travels could easily slip by unnoticed.
However, I take a similar attitude about aliens. Many look at the total number of stars, and theorize that there must be other life forms capable of space travel. I look at the same numbers, and factor in the billions of years we've had life on the planet, and consider we've only had space travel for 50 years, and figure a space faring life form wouldn't be likely to survive long enough to make much of an impact.
This is my favored option, although to be scientific from that point on either a lot of energy would be involved(you're basically creating a new universe), or you're transitioning to a universe that just somehow magically coincides with your specified time frame that already existed, or some other advanced and unknown quantum mechanics are involved.
Personally, I find the 'alternate universe' every time someone does anything to be completely unrealistic. Essentially, you'd create a new universe every time you paused between breaths, because that's another possible event which might vary the timeline. It's simply implausible. I can agree that alternate universes might be created when black holes form (though there's no real convincing mathematical evidence it would), I can't fathom a single traveling human could generate the phenomenal energy required to create a million separate universes, each housing billions of other living creatures, each of whom would be generating their own alternate universes. There's simply not that much energy in the multiverse!