And I can't argue that those aren't rational thoughts either. They are. Why complicate something that's not complicated? Is that what we've done ultimately? Have we blown the evidence way out of proportion when the simplest and most obvious answers are in fact THE answers?
The problem is that the evidence doesn't seem to fit. If they were fleeing an avalanche, why go downhill? It would have taken them some time in those conditions to get to the tree-line. Why wouldn't they reconsider returning to the tent when the avalanche didn't occur?
If they were buried by an avalanche first, then why didn't they dig their shoes and clothing out? The tent wasn't totally buried or swept down the mountain, so it could only have been a smaller one. I don't understand abandoning their only means of survival if it was a smaller avalanche. And if several of them had been seriously hurt, it makes even less sense to walk a mile to the trees.
As for paradoxical undressing, why would that have caused them to leave the tent? There were 9 warm bodies inside a 3 layered tent with a stove, sleeping bags and plenty of clothing. I'm not sure how they could have gotten so cold as to paradoxically cut their way out and flee the area. Before that ever happened, wouldn't you put clothes back on, get in your sleeping bag or fire up the stove once you started feeling cold?
Anyway, most of the people who have been to the mountain in winter, including recent authors, have concluded that there couldn't have been an avalanche in that terrain, and my understanding is there never has been a recorded avalanche on that mountain. It's such an obvious explanation, yet the initial investigator never even considered it as a possibility. Seems like it was ruled out right after finding that the tent only had atmospheric snow on it. Instead, it was high wind, then Mansi, then lights in the sky, and then the unknown compelling force.