I saw this as well. If they wanted to be taken seriously they should have at least traveled to the area and conducted research at the site. At the very least, try and trigger an avalanche at the location.
It seems the avalanche expert doesn't have that much knowledge of the case other than stuff relevant to building a case around avalanche. It's also amusing that he states several times: "now, this normally wouldn't happen but..." He even gets wrong the timing of when the rib and head injuries occurred (which wasn't at the tent) and the fact that most, if not all, of the hikers were awake just before leaving the tent.
There are many many reasons why it most likely wasn't an avalanche:
1. There was hardly any snow on the tent. Most of the searchers stated that there was only 10cm of hard, wind-blown snow on top of the tent which they broke apart with an axe. There was so little snow that you can clearly see one of the ends and two skis are still standing.
M. Sharavin stated that when the tent was found the cuts were made to the leeward side of the tent with the windward side falling over on top of the "holes" (The cut was on the leeward side, and so it fell, as it were, on the holes...). If it were an avalanche, the force of the snow would have pushed the windward side of the tent over on top of leeward side. It makes no sense that if they were inside a tent with a layer of snow on top that the hiker who made the cuts would turn over and make cuts into the ground. Or, in the case that the leeward side was facing up (which isn't probable), that the cuts would be made and the hikers would later turn the windward side over on top of the cuts. Neither of these scenarios makes any sense. Also, it doesn't make sense that long cuts would be made to a collapsed tent. More likely, if the tent had collapsed on top of the hikers, a puncture would have been made and the hikers would have torn the canvas rather than make a long, drawn-out cut since it would be difficult to make a cut to non-rigid material. The only scenario that makes sense is that the tent was cut while the tent was upright and tight. This alone would immediately rule out avalanche.
2. The avalanche expert is inconsistent with the amount of snow that slid on top of the tent. In one part of the video he explains that there could have been several hundred kilograms on top of the tent but then later suggests that the amount of snow was so small that it would have only filled in the area that they dug out which, from examining the final two photos, it appears that the area they dug out was only done so to level out the ground and there wouldn't have been an overly large amount of snow required to "fill in" the hole cut by the hikers. So, which is it? There was an enormous amount of snow that crushed skulls and fractured ribs, depositing tons of weight on top which would have resulted in none of the hikers escaping (sorry, no one is digging their way out of hundreds of kilograms of snow)? Or, There was just a small amount of snow that caused the hikers to cut the tent and then proceed to walk 1500 meters down a cold, completely dark, wind-blown slope leaving nearly everything besides the clothes on their backs? Neither of these scenarios makes any sense.
There is also no way of knowing how much snow accumulated during the few hours that they were in the tent. By all accounts it wasn't much as the three found returning to the tent were barely covered with snow. In the photos of Zina, Igor, and Rustem (who were found closest to the tent) it appears there be between 6 inches and a foot of snow which, after 2 weeks, is not much. In any case there is no way of know just how much snow accumulated behind the tent and on top of the hole they cut. But, in order to make a case for avalanche, the video will conclude that there was a lot of snow.
3. Other than the actual canvas tent, nothing found inside was overly disturbed. Many of the searchers testified that nothing inside the tent looked out of place or overly disturbed. Several stated that it was almost as if they all just got up and left. Most of their footwear was found in a corner of the tent. Does it seem logical that several hundred kilograms of snow slid on top of the hikers where by they cut and then dug their way out, barely escaping with their lives, and absolutely nothing inside the tent was found that would give searchers or investigators a clue that it might have been an avalanche?
4. Why, after walking 1500 meters to the cedar, did Zina, Igor, and Rustem finally decide to try and return to the tent. If it had been an avalanche, what were they hoping had changed at the site of the tent? What was there that would have been of aid to the hikers that wasn't there moments after they left? If it was an avalanche - nothing. They would have returned only to find the exact same scenario they left earlier. Was it necessary to walk 1500 meters to realize that they needed their valenki, coat, gloves, etc.?
5. Finally, there has never been a recorded avalanche on Kholat Syakhl (as far as I know). Hundreds of people have been to the area. As we have seen in videos already posted, many have spent the night. Hikers walk up and down the slope with little to no fear of avalanche. To make a case for avalanche, it would almost certainly require traveling to the area and triggering an avalanche in the area above the tent. But as far as I know, has not happened.
A final note: when I was younger I was in a tent that collapsed during a cold windy night due to snow accumulation. The tent was large and made of nylon and collapsed with around a foot or so of snow on top. I was in a part of the tent that only partially collapsed. I was lazy and remember not wanting to get out to shovel off snow. Eventually I got out and we cleared off the snow, set the tent back up, got back in and went to sleep.