Podcast interview with Dr. Purzin and Dr. Gaume on their snow slab theory

[Marchesk]

A Fine Vintage is a history podcast. In their April 12th, 2023 podcast, the two hosts discussed the overall details of the incident without going too much into theories (one of the hosts did mention this website as a good resource). Then for their next podcast on April 26th, they had Dr. Alexander Puzrin and Dr. Johan Gaume as guests to primarily discuss the their delayed snow slab theory as published in various scientific journals. They do a good job summarizing their research for a general podcast audience, but when it comes to other theories, they were mostly dismissive. I understand Dr. Puzrin and Dr. Gaume became convinced by their own research, but what they did was to show it was possible there was a snow slab that could have caused the nine hikers to abandon the tent. What they didn't do is disprove the other theories.

It's unfortunate because all the press their paper has received in the past couple years has convinced many people that the case is essentially solved and no mystery remains. After all, two scientists produced a scientifically valid explanation! On the podcast, they describe their critics as mostly Russian conspiracy theorists, and give psychological reasons for holding on to theories involving coverups. One of them made it sound absurd that the tent could have been moved without giving any good reasons. As for other scientific explanations such as Katabatic wind or Karman Vortex Street, they more or less dismissed those as lacking proper scientific treatment in this case.

To be fair, it was a podcast format with limited time and limited questions. But what bothers me as how the hosts just accepte the explanation as does the general public with so little critical thinking. As someone who has been interested in this incident for a few years now, I don't find it convincing. Not any more so than any other explanation. As with all other theories, questions remain. Why wasn't the tent flattened by the slab or snow chunks? Why didn't the nine hikers dig out their equipment? Surely that would have been a better option than hiking below to try and survive the night in the woods poorly dressed. They had an ice axe and weren't suffering hypothermia yet. We know the tent was found only partially collapsed and it was possible to go inside and look around. Why didn't the tourists just wait a few minutes to make sure it was safe, and then go back inside to retrieve their stuff? Still less time than it would take to hike down the mountain.

I don't think it's very likely the Ravine 4 injuries happened at the tent. I really don't think three of them would try to return to the tent later if it was buried under tons of snow ice, at least not before it had time to warm up and blow away in the sun. If it was going to blow away shortly after because of the wind that night, then it doesn't make sense for them to hang out in the woods.

I put this in general because of the media impact in the English speaking part of the world. I don't have any particular theory I'm convinced of. It could have been a lot of things. But avalanche (of the smaller kind) has never seemed that convincing to me given the details of this particular case. Otherwise, it wouldn't have remained such a mystery for so long. Avalanches are obvious explanations in winter on snowy mountain sides. It's the first thing that comes to everyone's mind. Did they not know about snow slabs or slides in 1959? The Generation Why podcast covered DPI several years ago, prior to this paper, and one of the hosts dismissively said it was obviously an avalanche, and he did not think it was much of a mystery. I think people who make that claim lack an in depth knowledge of the case. This isn't a normal case that can be so easily explained.

[WinterLeia]

I haven’t seen their podcast yet. So I can’t really comment about it. I don’t believe that the injuries happened at the tent either. The  problem for me is that is the one advantage I think the theory has over other ones, because it explains how the hikers could have gotten such horrific internal injuries with relatively little external injuries in comparison, as well as the symmetrical nature of Semyon and Luda’s wounds. Without that, it’s just one more theory among many to me. They could have just as miraculously avoided the flailing hooves of a trampling reindeer or a single broken bone after being thrown twenty feet by a katabatic wind as all nine people avoiding being crushed by a snow shelf falling directly on them. Okay, so I’m being somewhat facetious about the reindeer attack. An avalanche does sound a bit more likely. But having dinner with Big Foot or being beamed up by the mother ship? Well, now I think I definitely hear the roar of an avalanche!

[eurocentric]

Had there been a slab-slip, what was stopping them digging out the tent? It's presented as an impossible task, but they had already dug out a trench using ski poles and hands, 2 tonnes of frozen snow, and apparently had access to some of these tools, and flashlights and lanterns to see in the dark.

Once a certain amount of snow had been lifted away some of the hikers could get underneath the canvas through the tent flap and heave with their legs and sides to make the rest slide away.

And it must, at that time, have been a still night, possibly the calm before the storm, because they were sat inside eating and the tent had no centre ridge support, which you just wouldn't get away with up a mountain in high winds, you'd attend to that first.

What's easier to do - remain on site and recover the tent, or walk down a mountain half-dressed and unprepared and start digging a den and climbing trees to sustain fires? Which survival plan requires most effort and which produces the greatest chance of survival?

So it isn't just about the scientific sense of a potential slab-slip, it's as much about the common sense of how you address the aftermath.

[Marchesk]

So it isn't just about the scientific sense of a potential slab-slip, it's as much about the common sense of how you address the aftermath.

Right. I recall the author of Mountain of the Dead in a YT video estimating it would take an hour for the tourists to hike down to the forest at night, without shoes and skiism with the varying depth of snow and rocky terrain. One hour of being exposed. They must have known it would take some time to make it to tree cover, start a fire and dig a den or whatever. Would injuries to the group be more or less motivation to head down the mountain?

If they did make a choice to go down instead of trying to remedy the situation at the tent, it was a bad judgement call. The tent remained intact and somewhat standing.

[WinterLeia]

They basically took research that people had done in the interests of public safety about how human intervention can cause avalanches in places where the the slope might not otherwise be steep enough or the snow accumulation be deep enough for an avalanche to occur naturally and applied it to the Dyatlov Pass incident just based on that data. The research is sound, so it looks like a good fit at first, until you really start focusing on the specifics.

[Marchesk]

They basically took research that people had done in the interests of public safety about how human intervention can cause avalanches in places where the the slope might not otherwise be steep enough or the snow accumulation be deep enough for an avalanche to occur naturally and applied it to the Dyatlov Pass incident just based on that data. The research is sound, so it looks like a good fit at first, until you really start focusing on the specifics.

Yeah, I'm not doubting their research or expertise. I just don't like how it's the defacto solution to the case in public consciousness. It does make me wonder about all those podcasts I've listened to on other cases and to what extent I'm missing out on important detail.

[eurocentric]

They basically took research that people had done in the interests of public safety about how human intervention can cause avalanches in places where the the slope might not otherwise be steep enough or the snow accumulation be deep enough for an avalanche to occur naturally and applied it to the Dyatlov Pass incident just based on that data. The research is sound, so it looks like a good fit at first, until you really start focusing on the specifics.

Yeah, I'm not doubting their research or expertise. I just don't like how it's the defacto solution to the case in public consciousness. It does make me wonder about all those podcasts I've listened to on other cases and to what extent I'm missing out on important detail.

It seems to have caught the attention of the media, gaining traction and going viral, mainly because they could link it to the movie Frozen.

What is needed are movie links to the other theories.

[Axelrod]

The theory of these 2 people repeats the theory of my relative (Axelrod Moses Abramovich, friend of Igor Dyatlov), which Moses developed in the 1990th. And then, after his death - developed by Evgeny Buyanov.

During the previous years of my life, I was busy with other problems, e.g. computer proramming, but this years I paid more attention to this incident. And in conclusion, I do not agree with the conclusions of my relative.

But the hardest part was identifying a theory that explains the incident well. Because there are honest theories, there are dozens of versions, but they explain the incident even worse than an avalanche or a hurricane, or they raise doubts.

[Manti]

Dr. Gaume and Dr. Puzrin make a mockery out of themselves by trying to apply their avalanche research to the DPI. Their research itself may be fine and even useful. But the DPI will not be solved by science. If it will ever be solved, that will be the result of investigative efforts: uncovering documents that haven't been seen before, artifacts at the incident site, perhaps new toxicological studies of the bones, and gaining more robust understanding of the specific conditions on Kholat Syakhl by conducting experiments on site and in weather conditions similar to the ones in February of 1959.

Their research simply doesn't apply to the DPI and they appear to lack basic understanding of it, such as the condition in which the tent was found, the time that elapsed between the hikers death and their last meal, lack of blood found in the tent which should have been present if Thibo sustained his head injury there as a result of a slab avalanche, and so on...

[KathleenDSmith1]

Everyone:

If a snow slab and all 9 hikers cut their way out of the tent, wouldn't think, the cuts on the tent are so large all or some of the hikers would have grabbed some of their backpacks, blankets, and boots...all 9 hikers made it out of the tent, could have search what was needed????
If all 9 Hikers could walk approximately one mile, all 9 hikers had the "Strength" to stay at the tent and look for needed items to walk...

Remember the "HUGH" question is..."Why did all 9 Hikers leave the scene/tent area"





Thanks
Kathleen Dee Smith

[Manti]

Everyone:

If a snow slab and all 9 hikers cut their way out of the tent, wouldn't think, the cuts on the tent are so large all or some of the hikers would have grabbed some of their backpacks, blankets, and boots...all 9 hikers made it out of the tent, could have search what was needed????
If all 9 Hikers could walk approximately one mile, all 9 hikers had the "Strength" to stay at the tent and look for needed items to walk...

Remember the "HUGH" question is..."Why did all 9 Hikers leave the scene/tent area"


Thanks
Kathleen Dee Smith

I agree and in my interpretation this is what the "unknown compelling force" from the case files also refers to: they were "compelled" from the tent by something or someone.

We don't know what it was but we know they had to leave very quickly. At the same time it didn't destroy the tent or damage it in any significant way. Their decision to leave the tent might not have been rational. I would argue that even setting it up there on the slope in the first place and perhaps even camping the previous night in the upper Auspiya weren't rational decisions.

Some "compelling forces" can be ruled out:

• carnivores: would have eaten the loin left in the tent
• cold weather / strong wind: not as urgent as to not let them put on warmer clothes
• avalanche: move away in a perpendicular or lateral direction, not downhill
• infrasound: while it might be annoying, I can't imagine it being that bad that you run away into the dark winter night without your coat on

[Ziljoe]

Everyone:

If a snow slab and all 9 hikers cut their way out of the tent, wouldn't think, the cuts on the tent are so large all or some of the hikers would have grabbed some of their backpacks, blankets, and boots...all 9 hikers made it out of the tent, could have search what was needed????
If all 9 Hikers could walk approximately one mile, all 9 hikers had the "Strength" to stay at the tent and look for needed items to walk...

Remember the "HUGH" question is..."Why did all 9 Hikers leave the scene/tent area"


Thanks
Kathleen Dee Smith

I agree and in my interpretation this is what the "unknown compelling force" from the case files also refers to: they were "compelled" from the tent by something or someone.

We don't know what it was but we know they had to leave very quickly. At the same time it didn't destroy the tent or damage it in any significant way. Their decision to leave the tent might not have been rational. I would argue that even setting it up there on the slope in the first place and perhaps even camping the previous night in the upper Auspiya weren't rational decisions.

Some "compelling forces" can be ruled out:

• carnivores: would have eaten the loin left in the tent
• cold weather / strong wind: not as urgent as to not let them put on warmer clothes
• avalanche: move away in a perpendicular or lateral direction, not downhill
• infrasound: while it might be annoying, I can't imagine it being that bad that you run away into the dark winter night without your coat on

I'm going to agree and disagree on a couple of thing manti. Only my thoughts.

The carnivores may have taken more meat than was left behind? I don't know how the meat would carried but maybe they had a chunk and left. Only a thought.

I agree about the wind scenario, grab what you can, an axe, a blanket etc. They didn't.

The avalanche, well it already may have happened, that's maybe the reason for leaving the tent. Going down a gentle slope after the main occurrence of an small avalanche might be be the better option . I think the argument for moving in a lateral direction is if you are skiing or mobile? In my imagination, the snow slip or slide , avalanche is the trigger to cut out of the tent. The concern that there may be more snow to follow. ( They don't know where they are exactly relavent to the steeper parts of the hill).?

I agree that infrasound would not be enough.

[GlennM]

However, if the slab slip happened in stormy conditions and if the storm did not abate, and if the blowing drift snow keeps backfilling the area at night, there could simply be no good reason to stay at the tent. It would be better to go down to the woods, warm up and wait out the winds and then re acquire the tent in better conditions. The fatal mistakes were they may have spent too much time trying to clear the tent and they underestimated the distance to the woods. Once there, they were too compromised in strength and too limited in creating a true roaring fire.

[Axelrod]

For GlennM
when I started thinking about this last year, when I saw the photo of the hill with tent (on Wikipedia), I immediately doubted  that there could be an avalanche. And I gave myself the mood(?) that it was anything except an avalanche.
The idea is that I need to look for another reason, I should listen to who says what and what can it be.

[eurocentric]

It cannot have been a windy night because they had apparently been sat inside the tent eating without first supporting the tent's centre ridge.

Here's example of what was involved on Igor's January 1958 hike, the same tent in perfect hiking conditions at altitude, no forest trees to lazily hitch to, and on a level.








So if this slab-slip occurs and bad weather and wind chill prevents them recovering the situation then this weather front must have arrived afterwards in freak combination with a slap-slip, the unlucky coincidence of which lowers the probability.

What could instead be a factor in this scenario is exhaustion, they have ascended a mountain and then the younger males do the donkey work of digging out 2 tonnes of snow crust with ski poles and their hands. Each man would need to excavate around 6 or 7 times his own body weight. I should imagine that apart from the weight involved breaking the snow up would be quite challenging and might explain a snapped ski pole.

So let's assume they emerged from under the slippage, the escape expending a lot more energy, and the group stood there taking in the scene, it isn't particularly windy but the night temperatures continue to plummet and they realise they just cannot physically dig out the tent, they are sweated out, clothing was removed to air off, and their energies are 95% spent, they had only half eaten, some not at all, or drank and nobody is rested, the slab-slip occurred almost as soon as they sat down to recover, the snow cap that unstable.

This fits the theory better, but I still have a logic issue squaring how they had torches etc but could not retrieve some other things vital for survival, mainly a wood axe if heading to the forest to sustain a fire. There were 3 or 4. Take one and your survival odds increase dramatically, regardless of inadequate clothing or footwear on a still night.

I can't believe no effort would be made among 9 people to locate these things, especially those who had not been involved in the first dig, and after a Lucky Dip in the snow fortuitously located some torches they instead elected to walk off to their ill-equipped deaths elsewhere.

[GlennM]

I do not know how fast a catabatic wind or vortex street takes to generate. I do think that if wind did develop it would add to the diffuculty of excavating a crush of snow from the collapsed slab. I think that tools and lights outside the tent might have been there for sanitary purposes, but I can not reconcile them being there on the heels of a mass of snow slippage. The idea of expending too much energy to get back into the tent speaks to me as reason enough to wait until morning someplace safe. The problem is that if they made for boot rock, there would be no fire. The labaz would be too hard to find at night. The treeline is down slope from the tent, so it can't be missed, but it was too far a walk on uneven ground. Once there, there were only two major activities. They were (1) to get warm, including making a snow den and (2) attempting to regain the tent. I believe (1) happened at night and (2) happened the following morning. Neither worked.

[Ziljoe]

The photos of the tent from Igor's 1958 hike are fascinating. The amount of cord needed is substantial. From what I can understand, it looks like the skis and cord are to support the stove. The problem or question I have is, what did they use to support the ridge if the skis were not used to support the middle of the tent with cord.

The tent would sag or at least need another pole in the middle to support the ridge. If they were experiencing snow fall and potentially expecting any kind of wind , or they pitched during a snow storm , then I can only conclude that they hadn't finished the complete and correct pitching of the tent , or they had perhaps started to dismantle the tent and were in the process of starting to get ready to start the day.

I would suspect it would be possible for one of them to have a torch in their pocket , the other torch quite easily being left at the entrance or dropped in a rushed exit of the tent.

I do not understand why they wouldn't take a ski with them to the trees, it is still a useful tool , to be used as a make shift shovel for example. My only other thought is that they left the skis as a marker for the tent when intented to return.

It is difficult to come up with a complete theory to all the variables on some kind of snow slide and/or strong wind but it's all we seem to have.

As others have said and questioned, the front of the tent is still standing and there were 2 skis. Was that part of the tent covered with light powdery snow and the rest of the tent with a hard slab?.

Looking at the 1958 photos of the tent, if snow was drifting and there was wind , the Dyatlov tent would need more support like 1958 otherwise it would gather snow and the canvas sag on their bodies or just collapse?

I know it's reported that the tent was pitched to the correct standards and I might be missing something, but I would say the tent wasn't completed to a standard that would withstand potential strong winds or snow for a whole night of unpredictable weather.

If the skis were moved after the exit of the tent it means they could have taken other equipment, if there was an animal , take a ski or ski pole as a make shift weapon. Even take a couple of ski poles as a walking sticks or self rescue into the trees where there's deep snow.

I'm totally stuck .

[Axelrod]

I'm totally stuck .

I pay personal attention to this and another forums last week, but these attempts to discuss this problem are maybe repeating and repeating from day to day, from week to week... Because new people are still appearing on forum... There is nothing extraordinary in this information, maybe you can observe such themes and discussions almost each day/week/month last 10-20-30 years.

[Ziljoe]

I'm totally stuck .

I pay personal attention to this and another forums last week, but these attempts to discuss this problem are maybe repeating and repeating from day to day, from week to week... Because new people are still appearing on forum... There is nothing extraordinary in this information, maybe you can observe such themes and discussions almost each day/week/month last 10-20-30 years.

Thank you.

I read other forums and the discussion and theories are much the same. Many claim to have solved the mystery , all solutions seem to make leaps of faith at some point.

My gut instinct is that it was something simple that made them leave the tent , the rest happened in the forest area.

[GlennM]

Given that the tent was found with two skis holding up the ends, it is obvious that if they wanted to get IN the tent, they would do it from the ends, not the middle.

[Ziljoe]

Given that the tent was found with two skis holding up the ends, it is obvious that if they wanted to get in the tent, they would do it from the ends, not the middle. There may not be any real obstacle preventing them from getting at least something from the tent. Nothing except altered perception or altered environment in the tent. Could a poison gas cause them to cut their way through the canvas?

I don't think I explained myself well. To try and focus on the tent and the potential of a snow slide/ small avalanche/ snow slab ,we do have some evidence that suggests something like this took place.

As I understand it, the tent was found with the two skis towards the front of the tent, they were not being used to stretch the tent. . The entrance is the exit also . I'm not suggesting the skis were blocking anything but rather they should have been used to support the middle of the tent ridge.  I don't think the skis were found holding up the two ends of the tent?

Having two skis left standing , not attached to anything and serving no purpose is confusing on several points. The skis would indicate if there had been a snow slab if they were supporting the ridge of the tent but they weren't in that area . The skis were reported to be in front of the entrance to the tent which also stood erect and was supported on a ski pole. The canvas at the entrance is reported to go down vertically and the rest of the tent was covered by approximately 200 mm of hard snow. It would seem that the front area of the tent was not involved in any strong snow force.

I believe the skis were yet to be put in position to support the ridge/stove for the night but for some reason this never happened. There has to be a reason that two skis were not used in the flooring but kept outside the tent. The only reason I can think of ,is to be used as shovels for any snow that built up on the tent, but again they should primarily be used to support the ridge. The last thing you would want to risk , is sleeping the night without making the tent secure as possible in case the weather changes. (They experienced strong winds the day before.) Trying to secure a tent in a storm, at night, because one is lazy is not a risk that Dyatlov would take. ( I did that once, never again).

We also have the issue of the torch being found on top of 150 mm of snow that is on the tent. That does suggest that there was, at the very least ,150 mm of snow on top of the canvas at the time of the event.

If snow had been falling or drifting on the tent whilst they were inside ,at what point does the canvas sag under the weight of snow without the support of the skis connected to the ridge line .  They would need to secure the tent as much as possible before they even thought of going to sleep and they would also need a person on duty to make sure that the tent was not drifted with snow through the night incase of suffocation.

I have and give respect to those forum members that have visited the area  in winter. Many say that it is not possible for any kind of avalanche, others say it is possible . This alone leaves me perplexed ,as I trust other people's expertise in the matter.

However , we have a number of facts, how we
Interpretate them is a different matter.

1)We have the torch on top of snow, the snow is on top of the tent.

2)We have the alleged cuts from the inside of the tent.

3)We have a broken stick/ pole in the middle area of the tent.

4)We have foot raised foot prints leaving the tent in the same direction.




I still struggle to get a good angle of the gradient of the slope from photos etc. Some make it look flat in areas and others it seems to be quite steep. In basic observation, it looks like snow drove them out. Quite how , I do not know.

[Partorg]

I still struggle to get a good angle of the gradient of the slope from photos etc. Some make it look flat in areas and others it seems to be quite steep.

This is a slope in summer (without snow) up and down from the tent. A - beginning. B - continuation (A and B - where the lines connect) Angle of inclination measured in increments of 2.5 m.   (2 squares = 2,5 metres)


The two tents demonstrate two different points of view on its true location, developed by two different dyatloveds coalitions.  The photo of preparing the site for the tent obviously indicates the truth of its left (bottom) location.
But supporters of the right (upper) disposition do not bend under the weight of the obvious and confidently assert that the Dyatlovites abandoned the idea of ​​​​putting a tent in an already dug and photographed hole and put it to the right - on the shelf of the terrace. The reason – a scattering of stones that ended up in the place where the tent floor was supposed to be located.

[Ziljoe]

I still struggle to get a good angle of the gradient of the slope from photos etc. Some make it look flat in areas and others it seems to be quite steep.

This is a slope in summer (without snow) up and down from the tent. A - beginning. B - continuation (A and B - where the lines connect) Angle of inclination measured in increments of 2.5 m.   (2 squares = 2,5 metres)


The two tents demonstrate two different points of view on its true location, developed by two different dyatloveds coalitions.  The photo of preparing the site for the tent obviously indicates the truth of its left (bottom) location.
But supporters of the right (upper) disposition do not bend under the weight of the obvious and confidently assert that the Dyatlovites abandoned the idea of ​​​​putting a tent in an already dug and photographed hole and put it to the right - on the shelf of the terrace. The reason – a scattering of stones that ended up in the place where the tent floor was supposed to be located.

Many thanks Partorg.

I have not read a discussion about the proposal that the last photo was not the actual camp site and they moved the tent location because of a scattering of stones. ( If I understand correctly) .

The lower tent site looks like a small snow slide could occur if the weight above was enough after they dug the platform/trench.

I also did not think the slope extended that far above the tent. ( To the right) 

What are your thoughts ? A potential for a snow slab ? Or not possible? .

It is an interesting concept, that having dug a trench that they could not find an area that was long enough to accommodate the full floor area of the tent and ski flooring.

Given the depth of the trench though , I would think they could have raised the snow platform with snow to make it level without starting a new tent location.

[Partorg]

they could have raised the snow platform with snow to make it level without starting a new tent location.

I also don't think they abandoned the almost finished pit and moved 3-4 metres to the right.
The stones are the explanation of the reason for the relocation.  But was born  this "concept" from the fact that the photo of the found tent does not show such a deepening of its western side into the slope, which can be seen in the photo of the site preparation for it. For some Intimate reasons, the authors of the concept did not want to explain this difference by the sliding of the snow layer from the short but steep (min. 30°across the snow) slope the terrace

What are your thoughts ? A potential for a snow slab ? Or not possible?

In the presence of an underlying layer consisting of deep (or buried surface) frost, slabs and sluffs move along even 15° slopes. No problem.
But it wasn't necessarily a slab. It could have been a landslide of loose ice crumbs of destroyed surface frost. On 31. 01. reaching the pass, they noted a strong warm westerly wind. If by night it weakened to ≤ 8 kt and remained warm and blew the slope for several hours, 2-3 inches of surface frost could be formed on the snow cover surface, which in the morning was blown away by the increasing wind on the convex parts of the slope, and stayed in the concave ones waiting for the arrival of tourists who cut it.

[Ziljoe]

they could have raised the snow platform with snow to make it level without starting a new tent location.

I also don't think they abandoned the almost finished pit and moved 3-4 metres to the right.
The stones are the explanation of the reason for the relocation.  But was born  this "concept" from the fact that the photo of the found tent does not show such a deepening of its western side into the slope, which can be seen in the photo of the site preparation for it. For some Intimate reasons, the authors of the concept did not want to explain this difference by the sliding of the snow layer from the short but steep (min. 30°across the snow) slope the terrace

What are your thoughts ? A potential for a snow slab ? Or not possible?

In the presence of an underlying layer consisting of deep (or buried surface) frost, slabs and sluffs move along even 15° slopes. No problem.
But it wasn't necessarily a slab. It could have been a landslide of loose ice crumbs of destroyed surface frost. On 31. 01. reaching the pass, they noted a strong warm westerly wind. If by night it weakened to ≤ 8 kt and remained warm and blew the slope for several hours, 2-3 inches of surface frost could be formed on the snow cover surface, which in the morning was blown away by the increasing wind on the convex parts of the slope, and stayed in the concave ones waiting for the arrival of tourists who cut it.

I agree that snow slab is not the perfect word or phrase . If it is possible for the snow to shift under load ,then it's the most likely reason for them to leave the tent.

If they pitched the tent in low visibility, they may not know their exact location on 1019, meaning , they did not know that there was no real danger above them but may have suspected they were in a more serious situation and decided to leave for the forest. There could have a significant slide of loose snow also.

The ski poles may have been supporting the ridge of the tent but repositioned as a marker so the tent could be found the next day. 

The raised footprints would suggest there was a warm front , especially the reports of the detail within the footprints ,like seeing it was bare feet or indavidual toes could be seen.

It would seem that most of the time the snow is solid or a hard crust on the slope . Yet , within a short period of time there are the conditions that leave detailed raised prints. If these snow / warm front conditions existed before they pitched their tent , would we not also be left with raised ski tracks over the pass to the tent location?

[Partorg]

The raised footprints would suggest there was a warm front

If you mean warming, then yes, but the front that brought it was called a winter cold front of the 2nd kind. This phenomenon is characterized by the fact that in the most active area, a mass of cold air drives a wave of warm air in front of it.  It looks like this. After the usual -15 - 25°C, it suddenly gets warmer (sometimes almost to 0°). A low, heavy, lead-colored cloud with a snow storm underneath comes from the west, and a severe general snowstorm continues for 2 hours, after which the wind subsides, the sky clears and the temperature begins to sharply fall by 10 - 15° or more in 40 - 50 minutes
The width of such areas can be > 200 km, but
may and  40 km. Therefore, the storm could pass by the rare weather stations in those places - Troitsk-Pechorsk (200 km to the NW from the Pass), Nyaksimvol (110 NE) Burmantovo (78 SE). In Burmantovo it is not exactly recorded, but a clockwise rotation of the wind followed by a subsequent cold snap is recorded there, which is typical for the passage of a cold front.

It would seem that most of the time the snow is solid or a hard crust on the slope . Yet , within a short period of time there are the conditions that leave detailed raised prints. If these snow / warm front conditions existed before they pitched their tent , would we not also be left with raised ski tracks over the pass to the tent location?

Any traces on the slopes remain only in snow that was recently brought and has not yet had time to harden. In convex areas from which snow is blown away - in the form of columns, and in depressions where it lingers and hardens over time - in the form of pits. If this happens when the snow temperature is –6°C or lower, the “columns” turn out to be fragile and are blown by the wind within 3 - 4 days.
«Columns» formed at a snow temperature of –1 to –5°C and humidity ≥ 5% can last until May and be the last snow to melt, surrounded by the first grass.
This also applies to marks from narrow skis. One of the search participants, Bartolomei, recalled about 3-4 years ago that at the end of March he saw the “rails” of the Dyatlov group’s ski tracks on certain sections of the slope between the Pass and the tent. But they, unlike the pillar paths, appeared not as a result of the action of the wind, but as a result of the fact that the snow around them melted under the sun. Throughout February and, apparently, March, they were covered with snow and therefore no one remembers about them. Thawing doesn't just happen on slopes. Even in my relatively flat Western Siberia, at the second half of April you can see clearings already cleared of snow, crossed by such “rails”.

meaning , they did not know that there was no real danger above them but may have suspected they were in a more serious situation and decided to leave for the forest

Seems that the reason that forced their to cut the tent, and then throw it and go into the forest without outer clothing, could be not the PROBABILITY of the occurrence of any unfavorable for life and health, circumstances  but themselves these circumstances in all their fullness and nakedness. In both cases.

If it is possible for the snow to shift under load ,then it's the most likely reason for them to leave the tent.

Yes. The nature of the cut - horizontal (longitudinal) and not obtained on the first attempt - also suggests that the cut was made while lying under a flattened and compressed layer of snow the roof.
A standing tent would be cut vertically - from the ridge to the eaves or vice versa. From a sitting position on the fifth point (or on your knees), it will vertically be more natural and convenient to cut.
In an experiment by Semyashkin’s group in February 2010, the tent was cut exactly like this. And they left her standing.
This is what she looked like after 26 days:

[Ziljoe]

Thank you Partorg.

It sounds logical. It will be interesting to hear what others think.

[GlennM]