@@filonin2 Do you have proof that it is made up? [Sources, etc. … don’t expect a thesis here, but that is a claim I haven’t heard before and that I don’t see anymore substantiated than the alternative. That it is “made up” may as well be “made up” as far as I can tell.]
“Oh, they never lie. They dissemble, evade, prevaricate, confound, confuse, distract, obscure, subtly misrepresent and willfully misunderstand." - Ian Banks
Interesting, but the idea of fires on a continent-wide scale by anthropocentric means is ludicrous to me. Even if the sparse human settlements collectively decided to burn everything at once, I dont think that would be cause for the mass extinction of all megafauna.
It's ludicrous to me too. The attitude of mainstream science is that if something doesn't fit with the prevailing theory, they'll either ignore it or pull something dumb out of their ass to explain it. And if the contrary evidence becomes too overwhelming to ignore, then (and ONLY then) will they abandon the prevailing theory (and begrudgingly at that).
Agreed The erosion evidence couldn't be more conclusive. Impact or not. It's only the trigger that is in question. The crater in Greenland was only recently discovered. As far as it being the cause, was just a flash in the pan. It doesn't change anything.
They never said it was continent wide fires. That's the Firestone paper claim and that has been debunked time and time again. There were no continental wide fires.
I dont get the idea that humans cant cause massive impacts on the world around us? Mao caused famines that killed millions by killing off sparrows, we move mountains regularly and ancient people did too, weve caused the rotation of the planet to change by building large enough dams in one place and weve turned entire tracts of land into horrifically toxic dust bowls, ancient peoples would regularly divert rivers and cause massive ecological damage impacting people down stream. One of the oldest irrigation tactics still used in places like the amazon and east asia is to cause forest fires in order to get crop plants to grow back in the area. If the Clovis really did burn down all the forests and kill off all the large animals, they didnt kill themselves off out of guilt, they starved trying to get more food just like the CCP, accidentally destroying what caused their food abundance.
@@sookendestroy1 I guess we should be grateful the genocidal maniacs the Clovis were disappeared. Considering what they did to a whole pretty wet continent while being hunter gatherers, no agriculture, and probably never more than a few tens of thousands scattered across the land I can’t imagine what they did if they had lighters or swords.
The idea that something hit a ton of ice or you had an air burst, causing a bunch of melt water to screw up currents always made the most sense to me. It does seem to explain all of the things at once (cooling from the impact fall out and also altered currents) and a body hitting a glacier or never hitting the ground resulting in no/less/covered up crater wasn't outlandish. It seems like a lot of these papers that prove/disprove things are pretty quickly proven/disproven themselves, so it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
No, no. Don't you know that the earth is in perpetual stasis and humans literally control the climate no matter what resources, technology, or numbers we have? Naughty humans at it again!
We don't judge theories based on what meets our intuition, but on predictive power. This theory has none. Even the argument that somehow ice will prevent a crater from forming from an impact so powerful itd melt ice caps is... besides ridiculous, simply an attempt to rationalize one's way around a failed prediction, one of the more important predictions of this theory, I might add.
@@peppermintgal4302 The Tunguska event was an impact that never hit the ground, if that happened so recently in the modern Era than such craterless impactors must have been pretty common. Unless of course you want to ascribe Tunguska to being a hyper-rare event that humans just so happen to have been around to watch and record. The mediocrity principle says that if we observe it once, it's probably happened a lot of times in the past. I think it's far more likely that you hold a bias against the Graham Handcock people and instead of maintaining neutrality and keeping biases out of science, you let your emotions about some silly Netflix show taint your assessment about actual scientific work that's been done by thousands of scientists. Being Biased AGINST a theory is just as destructive to the scientific process as being bias for a theory. Make sure you're checking YOUR biases. Right now the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the Impact event having actually happened.
@Lusa_Iceheart But did Tunguska cause a global ice age? No. I don’t think airburst meteors cause any kind of global climate change. There’s an upper limit to the size of meteor that would disintegrate before hitting the ground.
The way I heard it described they never talked about a single large impact, the entire idea is that we got hit by the tail of a comet trail and would have faced a number of small impacts worldwide
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic This channel has become more and more supportive of the humans are the problem, nature didn't do nothing wrong narrative being pushed on us all. If you look into the subject a little further you'll find they have found evidence of impacts that could support the theory (just not this crater), but the most likely cause is a meteor shower that created an enormous burning event.
i heard of it the same as well, plus glacial melt. and that was from randal carlson himself. the only thing i recall him talking about was the black mat layer and spherals.
@@A_Stereotypical_HereticYou could read the paper, you know. Anton isn't the author, but merely tries to communicate the science in a very limited way.
You kept referring to "an" impact (as singular). If that is what the paper only considered, it totally ignores the hypothesis that a "shot gun" impact of several smaller pieces hitting a 2 mile deep ice shelf in N. America (not necessarily leaving one big impact to look for)... I wonder, if you had a bunch of Tunguska type events over an ice shelve, what would happen? Lots of energy released but you would not have an crater/impact. Still love your work :)
@@willchoice7681 If you think about the current technological advance and the time it has took us to get to our actual tech advance. The hypothesis of a previous technological human civilization wiped by a cataclysmic unfortunate event is not so crazy.
So if there are a bunch of smaller impacts hitting ice there is no evidence for them. What evidence is there of these smaller impacts (enough to cause this)?
A great flood of some kind was spoken of by Plato and forms the basis of most ancient religions and texts throughout humanity. The Younger Dryas was a real thing. There is no way that civilisations across the globe were all lying about it at the same time.
@@dingickso4098many religions have flood myths, true, but there's evidence that there have been many large floods throughout human history, often in the areas that said religions sprung up in, which are likely the cause for the flood mythologies, rather than one global event.
@@americaisdyingslowly You are likewise assuming that epistemology is more important than ontology. But what we can know does not appreciably extend beyond what we are, in my view. The entire conversation, like most scicom vids, falsely assumes that the publications of studies are not themselves fraudulent to begin with. Being a conscientious scientist these days must be something like being a faithful priest: not a lot of company or professional support lol
@@haniamritdas4725Hmmm. Probably better though than assuming that the laws of nature can be suspended suddenly at unspecified, unpredictable and unvalidated times in order to support an entirely unsupportable belief.
Most megafauna in NA was gone or in a heavy decline before the YD, while some of it (notably horses and mammoths in NA, Megaloceras and mammoths again in Europe and some sloths and pampatheres in SA) survived it.
@@miquelescribanoivars5049Not only were they already in decline, as the paper notes, many genera continued existing. From the paper's summary, "f) Megafauna extinctions began immediately following the impact (although extinctions are also claimed by some YDIH proponents to have occurred from multiple impacts over tens-of-thousands of years). Many genera have last appearance ages that predate the YDC by millennia, and others survived to the end of the YDC or into the Holocene (Section 3.2)."
In the 1970's studies were done on forest fires and population regrowth dynamics. Counter-intuitively fire actually improves fauna and flora populations. I happened to be involved with one such study performed in the Vermillion Pass area in Kootenay National Park. I was part of the survey team for 2 years of that study. The Vermillion Pass Burn occurred in 1968 and was a full valley width burn obliterating the forest from treeline to valley bottom creating essentially a dead zone. Within a year flora began regrowing inside the dead zone prompting studies to be suggested. In 1970 the first study season began. My involvement was in the years 1975 and 1976. I believe the study continued through to 1978. Previous studies of the same type had been done in other regions although I only remember seeing one from Yellowstone Park that had concluded in the 1960's. Again I was merely a survey student gathering raw data about flora and fauna populations and as such was not required to read up on all the research in the field. Three primary conclusions were made as a result of the VPB study: -The study was directly comparable to similar studies undertaken in other locations (Canada, America, Europe, Soviet Union). -Most plant and animal species within the montane ecoregion have adaptations to fire, and several species need fires to propagate (indeed several species only occur in abundance immediately following fire and are sequestered as seed or spores until after carbonization of an environment). -The habitats formed in the several years following fire are richer in species diversity and density than comparable regions adjacent to the burned regions. This is termed edge habitat phenomenon. While it is a common impression that forest fires are destructive, the fact is fire is a natural and necessary part of almost every terrestrial ecosystem (and quite a few non-terrestrial ecosystems too). Without fire many ecosystems stagnate and weaken. There are many hundred books on fire and ecosystems. I have, since my early introduction to the study, spent many years following up on what is a fascinating aspect of life's hold on the planet: three years on fire towers with Alberta Forestry, and then a prolonged ongoing study (since 1995) of fire as a whole in my main interest area of man's cultural and technological development.
I’ve been told by some people, including forestry firefighters, that the lack of controlled burns and clearing has contributed to the spread of wildfires lately. Do you know if that’s true? And if so, how much has it contributed?
@@rfichokeofdestinyit has in australia, australia, like my home country of zimbabwe, is very dry, but when it gets a bit of water, everything just goes green, now in australia like my home, this meand that burnable material builds up, and if you do not burn it beforehand it can all go up at once, so when australia banned controlled burns for climate change politics, it meant the recent fires that made the news, resulted
Very interesting, but perhaps you're using conclusions from today to apply to a very different situation in the past. Perhaps it applied to smaller fauna, but the stress, aggravated by humans was too much for the mega fauna?
I believe this is well known but why it hasn't resulted in allowing prescribed routine burns is puzzling, especially when we've all seen what happens with destructive wildfires after decades of litter and dead wood accumulation in forests adapted to burning.
I would argue that an impactor hitting ice 15k feet thick wouldn't leave a crater and would explain the epic floods from that exact time period. This didn't debunk the theory in my opinion
@@MikeJones-mf2fw I completely agree with you. I'm not anti-science, I'm anti-scientism. I reject both "only my book has all the answers" religion AND "it's not real if we can't perceive it and replicate it in laboratories and have repeatability on demand" science equally, for both are based on fundamentally false premises. The thing is this, you ask people "How do you know X?" and they'll probably reply by saying something like "Well, because it's in my science books." or "Well, because it's been peer-reviewed." or "Well, because it's been agreed upon by a majority of scientists.", but these are flimsy defences, because unless YOU can verify for yourself whether something is true or not either by OBSERVATION or by doing an experiment about it BY YOURSELF, you are relying essentially on external sources for your information and it is naïve to think that those sources don't have agendas. What the average person calls 'science' (which is actually just mainstream science) has been hijacked by politics, religion and corporations. So-called 'peer review' these days is usually nothing more than a circle-jerk. Just as people support the separation of church and state (and RIGHTFULLY so), I support the separation of SCIENCE and state. We owe it to our innate intelligence to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that includes EVERYTHING that I tell you! The 'science' that is telling you the covid vaccine is safe is the same 'science' that is telling you that men can be women. Remember that. If you politicise science, you kill the spirit of science (which is to question things). Most so-called 'scientists' today don't know their ass from their elbow and just unquestioningly repeat what their textbooks tell them to repeat.
I thought the most prevalent theory was that the impact was in the center of the Laurentide ice sheet. Thereby being prevented from producing a large crater, and directly causing the melting and flooding of the Pacific northwest.
It is. IDK what he's talking about. Graham Hancock and Robert carlson have hours of debate about this. It was at least 2 impacts. One in the ocean and one hit the ice sheet around northern Montana/Canada.
If it was small enough that it didn't make a crater because of a mere 3 kilometers of ice, then it was a tiny meteor strike. A three kilometre momentary (during impact event) deepth in ice correspond to a ~1km momentary cater depth in continental rock. That crater would be less than 5km (~3miles) in diameter. As far as craters go, that's tiny.
Don’t know if there was an impact or not but when I read the title I was expecting a comprehensive alternate theory for the evidence. Instead what I got from this is a bunch of scientists combed through the evidence, found a mushroom and some problems with the way the science was done and have wrote the whole thing off. Oh and a very curious idea that humans caused the mass extinction of half the mega fauna by either intentionally or accidentally causing forest fires….. man those must have been some damn big forest fires. I dunno, that one sounds pretty fantastical to me. As someone else in the comments said. Time will tell if this paper Anton is using is valid or not. It’s a lot easier to argue a negative because you don’t need evidence, you just need to cast doubt on the evidence of your opponent.
Right, this is scientific method, look deeper to find out WHY science proposes theories and then refutes them instead of only refuting theories that you have a replacement for. That would not be an effective form of scientific method, if you studied scientific method and its history you might understand why.
There's a lot of credibility to that argument especially when talking about a similar event in Australian History. Certain trees have sap that are incredibly flammable (Imported Eucalyptus set a good portion of California on fire). It might've even been used as a hunting strategy, Australia was pretty dense with a harsh environment, it might've been pretty easy to just burn the forest down and force mega fauna out hunt them. Like how bison were forced off cliffs
as a person who isn't a subject matter expert on these things, the only things suspect about this research paper is the fact that it came out only to refute the other claims. If they really cared about the questions and answers behind this, it would have been done before this. I don't trust things like this as it wasn't done as genuine research that happen to realize things unintentionally but rather only came out to refute. The intended conclusion was stated from the get go. And one thing the paper doesn't show is what they weren't able to figure out or what mysteries remain.
Agreed. This paper was purpose built to assault the YDIH, which is fair, but as it offers no theory of it's own to account for YD climate phenomenon, it is not clear what model should supplant the YDIH, and as far as I am aware there is no other model that better accounts for YD events.
@@timcarmichaelthere are many explanation models such as Volcanic, Supernova Shell Encounter, and Disruption to Ocean Currents. All of which have more evidence than Impact.
Its like when bad theories are being rampantly spread around scientists, who are constantly being asked by bad theory spreaders to look at bad theories... DID WHAT YOU ASKED AND LOOKED AT THEM, and guess what THEY USED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND REFUTED A BAD THEORY, WHICH IS PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHODS APPROACH TO SOLVING THINGS, PROPOSE THEORIES, REFUTE THEM, REFINE THOSE THAT SURVIVE. So please stop being surprised scientists following the scientific method and learn it for yourself.
@@peppermintgal4302 No but observations and comparison ARE scientific tools. When you compare the rapid drop in temperature in the Younger Dryas it's FAR more extreme than the rapid increase in temperature created in the last 100 years by human industrialization. This forest fire theory is claiming that the sum total of all climate change caused by humans in the last century is merely minor compared to the climate change humans supposedly caused with *camp fires*? We've had fires for well over 60,000 years and evidence of MUCH older campsites, why was it suddenly just campfires 13kya that were so much more destructive? So yes, looking at the graph and using a bit of intuition is helpful Because what is being suggested is that it's not micro plastics or carbon emissions or even nuclear waste that is humanities biggest ecological scandal, it's campfires.
@@gravitonthongs1363 Yeah, I don't buy it. Between the excessive energy requirements, the geology, the sudden reversal of glaciation and the Carolina bay/Formations, I'm still betting on sizeable impacts. Sure, the Hiawatha crater isn't it but to me, the evidence is too compelling to attribute it to a climatic change driven event instead of an event driving climate change.
Anton, good video, but as a scientist myself, I must take issue with your continued reference to the number of scientists who support this hypothesis is "small" and that this implies it is wrong or that it shouldn't be taken seriously. This is what is called the "appeal to consensus" fallacy and it is not really relevant to the argument. So if you want to argue that these scientists are wrong on the merits, that's perfectly fine and I'm happy to see that the rest of the video was focused on THESE arguments. After all, I'm not saying they are right. But if your goal is to raise scientific thinking, let's stick to the relevant facts and arguments. Because it's always important to remember that pretty much every major theory we now treat as scientific fact started out as a hypothesis amongst a "small number of scientists" (and many of these hypotheses-come-theories had problems early on which were addressed in subsequent work ... consensus generally grows over time). That's how science works. If you'd like to learn more, there is a massive body of literature on the problems with leaning on the appeal to consensus fallacy in scientific reporting and in scientific arguments. Consensus does have its place (such as when making policy, etc) but today's consensus could very well be tomorrow's aether.
it's funny how there's a large organized group of scientists who are always in a desperate rush to declare matters on certain subjects "settled" and the debates ended (always in their favor, of course.)
@@gravitonthongs1363 yeah it's "irrational" to notice a bunch of like minded individuals covering for each other and gatekeeping people who dont toe the line out of the big journals.
@@deathsheadknight2137 sure, it is obviously because of an unethical secret hidden agenda to manipulate non-scientists because the fate of the world rests on the shoulders of YDIH denial. The only thing like minded about scientists is respect for the scientific method. Maybe introduce a little bit of rational thought process into your unrealistic conspiracy theory.
Younger Dryas was very likely a meteor do to the detection of iridium, nanodiamonds & He3, in deposits around the Younger Dryas period. Just because a specific crater was found to be too old, does mean that a meteor strike didn't cause Younger Dryas event.
@@gravitonthongs1363 the iridium layer was found in Minnesota and as far as Arizona. Not just in Greenland. Very unlikely ocean currents caused YD event. The ocean current theory is likely BS promoted by climatologist that get paid to publish, in order to make every connected to climate change, in order to promote a political agenda.
There is a problem though... look up the PNAS paper titled Accumulation of impact markers in desert wetlands and implications for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. In short: In this study, we investigated black mats ranging in age from approximately 6 to more than 40 ka in the southwestern United States and the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. At 10 of 13 sites, we found elevated concentrations of iridium in bulk and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules, and/or titanomagnetite grains within or at the base of black mats, regardless of their age or location, suggesting that elevated concentrations of these markers arise from processes common to wetland systems, and not a catastrophic extraterrestrial impact event.
This used to be one of my favorite subjects until so many people took sticking to specific theories personally instead of potential origins and then I stayed away for YEARS. This was actually enjoyable and makes me want to ponder more ^_^
Like politics. Supposed to be about different parties trying to come up with the best ideas for improvements to move civilization forwards. Rather than divisive left and right politics fighting about who's always right.
I have read peer reviewed papers that made it quite clear that there were much higher than background levels of IRRIDIUM found in multiple sites globally wirhin the YD boundary layer. Also, should we expect to find anything resembling an impact crater if, hypothetically there were multiple carbon condroit air bursts or even direct impact/s from a comet or metallic asteroid when they would be impacting such a thick layer of ice , such as what was present approaching the YD boundary..
I mean, is it a common thing around the globe that early humans were really sloppy with their fire places and accidentally burned down huge areas? I have not heard of this before and if it is true, Clovis culture must have been brain dead. My impression has mostly been that (sober) humans are careful around their fires. A forest fire kills their game and their food places. Surely clovis knew this as well. And one turn of the wind, bye bye camp, children, wives... not just mega fauna. Sure even Clovis understood this? I might be wrong here, I am no scientist, but this sounds absolutely ridiculous
And there are peer reviewed papers that debunk it. black mats ranging in age from approximately 6 to more than 40 ka in the southwestern United States and the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. At 10 of 13 sites, we found elevated concentrations of iridium in bulk and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules, and/or titanomagnetite grains within or at the base of black mats, regardless of their age or location, suggesting that elevated concentrations of these markers arise from processes common to wetland systems, and not a catastrophic extraterrestrial impact event. The title of the paper is Accumulation of impact markers in desert wetlands and implications for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis It's a PNAS reviewed paper which is highly regarded. People need to remember that just because something is peer reviewed in a journal doesn't mean the journal that peer reviewed it isn't crap.
@@swirvinbirds1971no paper that debunked the yd impact hypothesis has held so far. All have been debunked themselves so your point kind of hurts itself more than it helps lmao
@@swirvinbirds1971their whole argument is that there must be a natural process for them just because of the location they were found with literally no evidence or reason to believe so. They just looked at it and said "yeah, that must be natural let's go home now"
When I was a young college student in 1980, I did my freshman English term paper on a novel yet, at the time, widely refuted, theory that an asteroid impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. I still remember the comment Professor Robbie Robinson wrote on the concluding page of my paper: Interesting theory! A-
I strongly disagree with certain aspects of this one but you still get a Like from me! Your content is so good and the viewpoint you share is a necessary one. One day we may find the truth, but we are only going to get it one way. Together... Good work Anton
The only part i dont like was when Anton mentioned that he had been lookjng for a paper thst confirmed his doubts. I dont mind hearing all opinions, but I try to avoid blatant confirmation bias
Science tends not to handle complex multi-disciplinary theories well. The YDIH is such a topic, and has a long history of polarised opinions. The "refutation" article appears to come from one side of the argument putting forward their preferred subjective interpretations to refute a broad range of physical evidence. The other side of the argument could (and should) easily counter each dismissal of the evidence. Biases and political agendas exist on both sides.
This isn’t really dispositive at all - the impact claim is a hypothesis that was only recently, not initially, married to this crater. The fire hypothesis seems very thin and even counterintuitive. The ideas surrounding what’s now colloquial understood as the younger dryas impact hypothesis includes so more than the impact, that’s less a concrete claim and more of a collection of evidence questioning the broad “scientific consensus” historiography of that period. To the strong institutionalist like Anton, this isn’t the takedown you think it is. But I applaud you for covering these studies.
It is, because this recent impact claim married to this crater was the only evidence that strongly supports the YDIT, with it gone the YDIT cannot stand.
The problem is that the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis never had very good evidence in the first place. The only reason why it's being kept alive is that it sounds interesting. That's it.
@@guyman1570 This is the subtext of most comments here, as in, this topic sounds interesting enough for certain pseudo archeologists to sell books to feed peoples delusions. Thus we have the marketing teams and their dupes.
@@guyman1570 indeed, most hypotheses never meet sufficiency for legitimate theory. But many of the most accepted theories today were once considered “thin” or “more elegant than empirical”, until they weren’t, until they were well accepted by though further study. Moreover, the “scientific community” pushed numerous “theories” that hardly met the standards of hypothesis. Out textbooks growing up were filled with them, including the “narrative” time line of Hunter-gatherers and monolithic structures. And the very gatekeepers of this “story” are those admonishing YDIT with unparalleled vitriol. Often the scientific community itself, due to myopia, special interest, gatekeeper syndrome, or simply the catty envy or hypersensitive disgust reaction of nerdy academics, can act as the ministry of truth with unscientific, arbitrary and capricious justifications - just like the Church did. Just ask Galileo when he was shown the tools of torture. The elites of the scientific community bring much of the controversy upon themselves by justifying ethical lapses and shortcuts, only to self-righteously impose stricter standards and “pieties” on those: they personally dislike, lacking the preferred credentials/references, refusing or failing to play politics. YDIT requires more evidence, but more than empirical theory it exposes the flaws, failings, and incestuous bureaucracy that conspired to indoctrinate the multitudes with scientism, narrative, and the explanations most convenient to the interests of scientific gatekeeper. This is a large part of the elegance of the YDIT, as well as providing type of narrative heuristic for all the disproven claims, evidence-free declarations, and fanciful conclusions that were passed off as science by the same people/institutions disparaging the YDIT; and therein remains compelling empirical evidence.
So we're saying our ancestors were such incredible pyromaniacs that 12k years ago a million of us, specifically a few thousand of us in NA, wiped out many species across whole continents? Interesting.
Instead, it is far more likely that an asteroid hit the Earth, killing most continental based megafauna without affecting smaller species, while leaving fauna from adjacent islands COMPLETELY UNSCATHED and having no measurable effect on marine biodiversity, in spite of previous confirmed impacts hitting the oceans as bad as the land masses. 🤡 Did an impact kill off the interglaciar European megafauna and Sahul fauna 30,000 years earlier, too? While, again, leaving South Asia and Africa completly untouched?
@@fuzzybojangles1141Could be. Doesn’t take more than one to burn a whole forest and look what we’re doing now. Look how the natives use fire to clear land.
Maybe Al Gore should borrow a time machine & go back there, to prevent that global warming. He might have better luck at convincing the Clovis, they are about to become extinct 🤭 Besides, it doesn't answer to the facts surrounding the quick-dry freezing, of many mammals, in Siberia & Alaska.
It's a concerning trend when the alternative history community always seems to be able to make increasingly extraordinary claims that never leave behind any physical evidence. It's like they are always trying to retroactively frame their conclusions in a way that explains away why there is no evidence left behind. I mean that's bound to happen every once in a while, but it just seems to happen a lot with the alternative history community.
@@jellyrollthunder3625ikr? goddam "aldernatife h'strie kommuniti" trying to fine tune history with increasing observations and evidence that keeps getting blinded by us, the true history scientific history bluffs that have only been able to make conclusions from a fraction of samples and drawn them as eternal gospel... pfft
I came here after seeing all the hypothesis for the cooling of the Younger Dryas and I believe you are a true scientist compare to all others. I know I can trust you. Thanks for your professionalism and truthfulness.
10:20 WAIT... You are telling us that thousands of scientists couldn't tell the difference between a micro-ferrule and a mushroom spore? ... and that this small group of scientists did? This has an odor to it, and it's not good.
I just gone through the article. Its fantastic, answered a lot of my questions. A must read. Initially, when i was looking at the graphs myself and asking what do i see without prejudice; what do i see? Immediately, it stands out that all the claims that YDIH proposes do not make sense. The timeline, definitions, the total disregards from previous periods, the fact no one was asking or talking about the Bolling Allerod interstadial, the impact craters, the non-catastrophic pulse water events 1A B C etc etc. Just look at the graphs yourself, the temperature, the sea level, the broader picture and come to your own conclusions. Thanks Anton, you are the only one who asked and demanded the same answers to the simple questions that i had.
Anton set the comments off today. Personally, after watching the video I don’t think it’s disproven, but disproved some evidence. I think we still have a viable, if just unproven, hypothesis.
We don’t know. It is all speculation until we can time travel. Catastrophes do happen and have caused rapid climate change and mass extinctions. The debate of this and many science issues is a good thing.
Geologist 1: I have new evidence that the Younger Dryas Impact theory is wrong. Turns out it wasn't a meteor Geologyst 2: Oh really, so what do you think happened? Geo 1: Turns out it was just yo mama fallin' out of the bed. Geo 2: That's cold dude...Permafrost cold
If that's true then explain the largest meteorite in the US being found in the Willamette Valley with no impact crater because it landed ontop of the ice caps over canada and was carried down to Oregon by the torrent of water and glaciars. Hard to find impact craters when the ice was 2 miles deep in some areas on the Northern Hemisphere. You need better evidence to just attempt to generally dismiss a complex theory.
@@ShimaKiyoshi leading theory is disruption to ocean currents due to meltwater influx. With possible contributions from volcanism, decreased solar activity, and maybe even human forest burning. There is no significant evidence for impact yet.
Cave man: I want to eat that giant creature but my little stick with a stone on it won't help. Another cave man : If we set everything on fire it will kill them and cook them. Both cave men: High five! But seriously, we have to remember that correlation is not causation.
The task is to explain the energy that melted the continent glaciers. There is no mainstream explanation so introducing a catalyst was most likely. So the paper may refute but they must explain the energy required to melt glaciers and the blackened burnt forest layers of ground. To the authors, come to Washington state and explain the territory geography to me. They won’t. Randall does attempt to explain it. He’s doing science and making observations, they are not, just holding us back.
Obviously a rise in global temperature due to Milankovitch cycles far surpasses the energy of a space rock that isn’t even large enough to leave a crater. Randall does bias pseudoscience (not science).
Great work Anton. I've been looking into the fire problems in the US and Canada 🇨🇦. In many cases it has turned out to be arson. Also in California the environmentalists forced the state to stop doing controlled burns and other methods to keep to much deadwood from accumulating. That was about mid to late 70's. Saner heads tried to reinstate the forestry., but were unsuccessful. Thus every other drought or so and there's a deadly fire. But a lot of the fires in US, Canada and Australia have been deemed to be arson.
If you dont want these huge fires then just manage the forests better every year by clearing the dry leaves and create areas of separation between the trees.
Iridium, not Platinum. Around that crater a higher concentration of Iridium was found. The level of iridium that was found was much higher than what is found on Earth which is indicative of a cosmic impact. That is the most likely explanation for the higher concentration of Iridium. Same with shock quartz- also found at a higher concentrations around the crater. The only process that can cause shock quartz is either a cosmic impact or nuclear detonation.
One thing we have to take into account that the YD cooling took place over hundreds of years and happened at different times in different places to varying degrees. That is not indicitive of any single event. Look at the K2 layer it is damn near an inch thick. The presence of iridium is not the same as a layer of it.
Wouldn't ocean currents changing or even stopping from the massive melting of glaciers and polar ice caps take decades or even centuries to correct itself? That amount of water being introduced to the oceans probably wouldn't fix the ocean currents and jets streams in a year or two? Or so I would think?
Idk why it’s so impossible to understand if a asteroid hit a 2 mile thick ice sheet, there won’t be a crater . And how does a 6 ton mammoth get frozen with flowering plant material in its stomach ?
Then why were they calling the Hiawatha Crater the smoking gun if it wouldn't leave one? Oh and no such mammoth exists. It was the seeds of Buttercups stuck in it's teeth. This story has been so blown out of proportion by the pseudoscience channels.
Idk why it’s impossible for you to understand that a couple of square miles of ice melting can’t explain the drop in temperature. And how do you not understand catastrophic glacial dam release during warming phases?
@@gravitonthongs1363 it's kinda funny people accept the earth going in and out of ice ages but then also state only an impact can melt all the ice. 🤔They are also of the misinformed opinion that all the ice sheets melted in an instant.
@@gravitonthongs1363 the point I’m making is that it’s at least possible that something impacted the ice sheet and didn’t leave a mark. There we’re probably multiple events. Impacts can cause earth quakes . Earth quakes can cause volcanoes to go off. The only reason I bring up the mammoth is because imo in order for that to happen the temperature drop had to be instant . -140 for ten hours at least. What explains that ? Heavenly body impact or what ?
Wait so your telling me the Clovis culture, a loose generalization of ancient native American cultures that only shared A SINGLE technological advancement between them. The Clovis arrowhead. Just burned down their own local environment? They just started burning forests down? the YDIH doesn't say a single impact made the megafauna go extinct it says multiple impacts created melt ice on mass which was responsible for the mass graves of megafauna we find in the paleontological record. And again the hypothesis doesn't say the younger dryas was a unique event it says meltwater pulse 1a and 1b were unexplainable catastrophic events unique to the younger dryas. Billions of tons of meltwater surging into the oceans is not found anywhere else. This refuting of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis adds nothing new, gives us no new insight, it just attacks the work being attempted so we are now just as clueless as we were 20 fucking years ago. That's not science. Science suffers from this, how science is supposed to work is a multitude of hypotheses are given about a phenomenon and science determines the best match for the phenomenon. I'm sorry but saying cavemen who we can't even characterize culturally just all decide to start burning forests down is complete insanity. The Clovis weren't a unified force or culturally connected at all, they were many if not hundreds of migratory tribes across North America that waged war, made peace, lived off the land, and most importantly they worshiped the land. They were a diverse people as North America is a massive continent. They had no means of quick communications there's zero chance forest fires associated with the younger dryas were all man made. Those were NATRUAL disaster caused by natural means. The Clovis were not forming hunting parties thousands of people strong and just mass hunting all the mega fauna for food the meat goes bad within days, corpses are rotting within hours, the mass graves of megafauna we find were caused by a natural disaster. Pinning an 800 year long period characterized by floods, forest fires, volcanism, and the mass melting of the ice caps as HUMAN CAUSES? You don't need to believe the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis but please provide better science to explain the phenomenon we see. The YDIH was never about one magical impact on Greenland the hypothesis has always been about how many meteor impacts associated with the Torrid meteor stream and Comet Enke impacted earth over the course of 800-1200 years. If you want to refute and disprove I'd start with that not saying the Clovis culture caused their own collapse by hunting all the megafauna and burning down the land they worshipped.
Good job, Anton! Love your channel; you seem like a sincere, good-natured fellow with a genuine love for humanity as well as the sciences. Great sense of humor as well! I was gutted when I read about your loss. It's been 25 years since our precocious 8 year old son died, totally unexpectedly, of an extremely rare congenital heart defect (at that time, only 50 cases were known, all found post-mortem). I still think about it every day, but at this point our memories of him really bring us more smiles than sadness. As they say, it's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved. This may sound strange, but one thing that kept me going in the difficult early days was knowing that death in infancy and childhood has always been the rule, not an exception, throughout human history. If our forebears could pick up the pieces and keep living, I thought, so could I. You obviously work hard and keep busy, but be sure to set aside at least a few minutes every day to simply contemplate and process your loss. I found this to be essential. I wish you all the best.
I've also pondered about this for months after our son passed away. At first it helped me to go through historical literature and read some random letters from 1800s of parents writing to their friends recounting their experience. And though it seemed to be very common it also seemed to have dramatically transformed all of them probably in the same way that it transformed you and I. We are not the same people after losing a child and we will probably never see the world the same way. I hope one day we both find some closure and find happiness. Or at least make this place a bit better for everyone else. At least that's my goal for now Thank for the kind message
Aren't you mischaracterizing what proponents of younger dryas are saying? I thought they were saying it wasn't one giant impact but, thousands of smaller impacts. I've always wondered why there's been such savage resistance to the younger dyras theory? Synchronous attacks makes me pull my tin foil hat down a little tighter.😬
Well of course they would try to refute that, too many questions get raised. Too many concerns. Nothing about the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis should be controversial if truth was valued over thought control.
Impacts are not exactly extra-ordinary. They're pretty ordinary. Finding other possible explanations doesn't disprove anything. I'm not saying its true. But I see no reason to think it couldn't happen. Let's wait with the conclusion to when we actually pretty much know what happened. And we're not there yet.
@@diggysoze2897 not to the end, but Anton said many times that there are other explanations for multiple different things, and that they are not extra ordinary, which in turn means they are more plausible. Maybe, maybe not. That is what I reacted to. Its a logical fallacy that is not in tune with analytical method. It's a philosophy. Why can't we just say we don't know what happened yet, but here is some evidence that directly contradicts the hypothesis... No such evidence was presented, at least in the part I was reacting to. Also he didn't get the hypothesis (or more of a tree of hypotheses) right. And didn't exactly describe which form of it is this responding to. It's a complex subject that can't be covered well in 26 minute video.
Yeah, I feel like Anton is jumping to conclusions with this one paper. It's one paper with honestly some sorta weird ways it refutes evidence, (mushroom, really?) versus the decades of work, thousands of papers and thousands of scientists who've all come to consensus that the Younger Dryas was probably the result of an Impact Event. I doubt anyone would be this eager to refute the work done by legit scientists this hard if it wasn't for that Netflix show. I feel like this is all actually about that show and not the science... which makes for bad science. Biases for an against a theory need to stay out of science, it just taints the work and cast doubt on everything.
@@YellowKing1986 The relevant question is not "what evidence contradicts the hypothesis" (what evidence can? Can you give me evidence that disproves the idea theres a magic teapot in orbit around the earth?) but instead, "what predictive power does the hypothesis have"? YDI model is always repeatedly failing to provide an impact crater, thats an important prediction. It doesn't necessarily need to succeed there if it provides other successful predictions, but I've seen none forthcoming.
@@Lusa_Iceheart The paper sums up a bunch of other papers that themselves represent... decades of work. In any event, failing predictions is very important. Take the spore, for example. Using the YDI hypotheses, we would predict that this object would have the properties of ejecta, but... it doesn't. It has the properties of a spore. If a hypothesis or hypotheses cannot provide successful predictions, they are simply a waste of time, money, and energy. That the show may or may not have directed the attention of many scientists towards this theory is irrelevant. But I think you're using this fact to semantically spin the negative attention YDI is getting as proof it has credibility, which is a very bad faith way of operating. And if the scientists whose work has heen refuted are intellectually rigorous, they'll welcome the refutation, rather than acting like their whiny fanboys are acting here in these comments. You're not doing a good job representing the interests of those scientists by defending their work.
_and we started a lot of forest fires._ A lot of the recent wildfires have been the result of arson. But, weirdly, the "news" media doesn't report on that aspect.
@@primmakinsofis614 I thought the forest fires were paid actors? That's what some random was rambling about for 20 minutes in front of me at the grocery store before storming out
A cultural change could not have been responsible for the total disappearance of Clovis point technology which existed in all cultures throughout North America and was the most advanced at the time. Technology progresses it does not just disappear unless there's a significant disastrous cause
It did not disappear, it changed. Learn from reputable sources to correct the misinformation you have unethically acquired from sources of low reputation.
I would def like to read that paper. Seems grounded. Whatever caused the demise of the megafauna, likely contributed to the demise of the Clovis. Hope we figure it out, one day. Whatever the cause, the Americas were having some apocalyptic extinction events. Must have been a terrible time between the fires and the massive flooding.
The paper sounds more like someone was salty about the Netflix show. Ignoring all the Graham Handcock stuff, I just want to point out that the Comet Research Project has hundreds of scientists and researchers, all publishing peer reviewed work. The Younger Dryas impact event is accepted as the likely explanation not because scientists "bought it", but because there was science done that backed up the theory. Thousands of papers and hundreds scientists is legit science, one paper is just a guy who was butthurt about a netflix show.
Clovis didn't become extinct, there's no genetic bottleneck and archeological sites actually become MORE ABUNDANT after the onset of the Younger Dryas. They simply diversified into multiple cultures likely as a result of climate and the loss of much of the megafauna.
Yes, The Younger Dryas does not fit the mainstream narrative, so it is definitely an attack on Handcock's work - even a blind man can see that.@@Lusa_Iceheart
It's typically attributed to the development of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) as the last ice age began to end, which would have allowed warmer equatorial water to push further north and warm the region. It's the same circulatory process that we have today.
I never really bought the impact theory, but I also have a hard time believing this. I'm more inclined to believe in some volcanic event, or something else. Keep digging.
Single major events can have a large effect on the living creatures but, for catastrophic effects you need 2 or more events that overlap each other. For example a large impact that triggers seismic events causing multiple eruptions around the planet. There may be a new type of bacteria blooms caused by ecological changes due to super eruptions or invasive animals introduced by land bridges, currents and storms carrying microbes to areas that have no resistances. Point being large multiple extinctions are the result of multiple events overlapping in some which are related and others that are completely independent of each other. Depending on the size and type of said events wind currents or shear distance from the epicenter could determine the effects in other hemispheres if any.
There was once a paper about very specific and theoretical conditions that are needed to make an asteroid impact cause volcanic eruptions. Also there is no proof that this ever happend.
There's a RUclipsr named Antonio Zamora who thinks the onset of the Younger Dryas coincided with an impactor striking the Laurentide Ice Sheet somewhere near Saginaw Bay, Michigan. According to him, huge ice bolders were blown sky high. When they returned to earth, they formed large elliptical craters now known as the Carolina Bays. These secondary impacts would have been a catastrophy for any megafauna nearby. Yet the effect of the secondary ice bolder bombardment may have only been continent-wide and not global. That might explain why the Clovis people of North America went extinct, while other people in other parts of the world did not. May I humbly suggest that, in addition to looking for evidence to blame big impact craters like Hiawatha as the cause of the Younger Dryas, scientists should also look for evidence to accurately date known secondary craters like the Carolina Bays or the similar Nebraska Rainwater Basins, to see if their formation really did coincide with the Younger Dryas.
Anton, the Carolina Bays are irrefutable. Splash pattern craters from the correct timeframe, the only thing debunked here is maybe the Hiawatha crater. If the main impact was on a 2 mile sheet of ice, there would be no crater
Im happy to see hypothesis's tested using the scientific process. In that spirit, i find the human induced fires hypothesis very weak, if i were a reveiwer for that paper i would have many, many questions.
The Clovis "oops, I did it again (arsonist version)" was so weak my jaw dropped. They accidentally burned down the whole continent... right. So this must have happened in many places to draw such a conclusion? I cannot believe Anton actually said it with a straight face
No geologist supports that unreasonable pseudoscience. The ice sheet was thousands of km away so the largest impact in billions of years would be required and there is no evidence for it.
Science marches on. Theories are promulgated, examined, sometimes modified, sometimes disproven. That is the only way it works. Going to one's deathbed clinging to a disproven theory because one wants it to be true is rather sad. Thanks for this one, Anton!
Yeah but in reality, this hasn't disproven anything. This article is agenda driven, which means it's bad on it's face. It might be right, maybe they have correct assessments, but the overall construct is really, really bad. Things like this need to be approached without a conclusion in mind. "Disprove THAT guy" isn't a hypothesis.
There have been many diff. theories that have come and gone put forth for the mega fauna deaths Everything from comet strikes near Mexico To the volcanoes were popular for awhile. The time spans are long. The Pleistocene epoch spans 2.5 mill of years with the Younger Dryas noted for the change Yet researchers found an older Dryas that happened before this one. perhaps we just don't know.
I wrote a report about 15 years ago. I detailed a 7 stage chain reaction that caused the Younger Dryas Extinction Event. The impact link (2nd link) in the chain reaction evolves Dr. Allan West's work in a large amount of Clovis Sites. He unquestionably recovered Buckyballs, Sphereoles, and Nanodiamonds from all over. He even did it on camera in one location. Once in a while, I review my work with current understanding and knowledge. My report always survives this scrutiny. It seems like it's time to do it again to see if my work still holds up.
@@OneSaltyBiscuit This is how well thought out science works. Ideas surviving the scrutiny of others.. and yourself. Most scientists I hope are seeking truth; and not just heading down the path of conformation bias. I do get your knee jerk reaction though. The term 'Science' has as of late carried some dark ass baggage. You can thank Dr. Fauci for his part in the erosion of the publics opinion on science given as gospel.
@@whatdamathWhy should he bother? You probably won't read it, or really understand what it says if you do. Your long habit of misquoting, or outright ignoring, data from the pro side shows you bias all too clearly.
I love the channel anton. Will always be a fan. I still think something happened at that time. I would love to hear your thoughts or a deep dive video on the Carolina Bays evidence.
In other words, be careful following the science. I think a lot of the fires and their severity are a result of homogenous planted forests.....seeded and seedling. Being homogenous they do not have deciduous trees interspersed in natural bands. These trees have much less terpenes and also tend to cover the ground with thick layers of decaying leaves that trap moisture. Also, being homogenous makes them a prime target for insects such as the pine beetle, gypsy moth, and other rapidly spreading bugs. They can wipe out a forest so fast it is mind-boggling. Colorado has entire mountainsides that are dead from these beetles. One lightning strike or one careless campfire and it goes up like a powder keg. Compound that with drought a tree is unable to combat the invasive bug by flooding the cambium with sap and fluid. This is by no means the cause but rather an exacerbation of the climate problem.
Your explanation lacks sensationalism that can be blamed on humans burning fossil fuels, therefore it is too heretical to consider given modern sensitivities.
Greetings Anton; and thanks for the good content. Hasn't the comet impact group moved on from the Greenland crater in favor of an impact or airburst over the NA ice sheet, perhaps near the great lakes? Not sure why that wasn't discussed by the papers you brought up
@@gravitonthongs1363 damn dude, you are saying multiple impacts even airburst would leave a lot more evidence? Thats going to seem really wild most likely to @ArthursAtman who is likely just politely trying to sell bullshit books.
That in fact was the only impact evidence that I’ve heard about. Supposedly evidenced by a large array of smaller ovoid divots in the landscape of the eastern US and assumed to have impacted the ice sheet as well.
Thanks for the video Anton. As always very interesting. I have a question for you. Some years ago I was browsing Google Earth thinking that any major impact site would likely be easier to spot in coastal areas where one might see partially circular bays. I did in fact find several such possible features. Including two on the East coast of Patagonia and one in particular on the Eastern side of Hudson Bay. The latter looking very much like a massive partial impact crater that is close to being the perfect arc of a circle. Also, Belcher Islands within the arc have an unusual shape, perhaps where the Earths crust has been folded? I have never heard of any theory regarding this. Perhaps you have, or maybe you have some other explanation of how these features may have occurred.
There are possible meteor impact craters on The coast of North Carolina called the Carolina bays and supposedly their origins haven't been identified yet.
The theory is not fixed on a meteor impact but something did cause massive floods most likely a very fast melting of the North america glacier sun flares is another possibility. It's all a theory but there's a lot of facts around the younger dryas that it's pretty hard to disprove it. In truth I'm going off others info and really only know very little on my own. Always great to hear your thoughts. Thank you very much Anton
One large impact needs a crater to make the theory work. However Multiple small impacts that impact ice sheets or explode before impact leaving no crater could still support the theory.
The alternative history community always has a very strange coincidence of using unfalsifiable premises to try to shield their theories from scrutiny. That way they can make as many extraordinary claims as they like, but they frame them in a way that basically absolves them from actually having to produce evidence. Same thing with the mysteriously selective cataclysm that conveniently only vaporizes the physcial evidence needed to prove their highly advanced, global ice age civilization, but somehow preserved intact all the numerous, less durable hunter-gatherer sites and artifacts that we continue to find from that exact same era of archaeological strata, which also confirms all the genetic evidence that shows no genetic mixing in the ice age human genome as well as the fact that agriculture had yet to be domesticated during the last ice age which would make an advanced civilization pretty much impossible. But the Graham Hancocks of the world still think their lost civilization is unfalsifable because they don't actually realize that there are numerous other types of evidence that could surely prove or disprove such extraordinary claims
@@timvyfvinkel4542 If these impacts are strong enough to cause the purported effects, even the explosion above the ground will leave some local scars of some kind. (The Tunguska impact, for example, exploded midair, but it knocked down all the trees in the region.) From this, we should be able to make predictions based on this variant of the hypothesis, as well, rather than simply speaking up to say "ah well this explains this or that fact of 13k years ago that we _didn't_ predict with YDI!" Predictions are the currency of science, not explanations. So, wheres the predictions? How many have proven true? Does this theory have a higher prediction rate than alternatives? Look asI might, I never see any YDI models ever predict anything. Whats their use, then? Why devote funding to the idea?
@@mkaz3997 More just the people who make their entire personality a defense of a fringe hypothesis that's meant to explain "unexplained" things that a 5 year-old with a learning disability could piece together, and that also needs to be revised every few years just to fit a narrative that hasn't changed since its conception. Same people who might also send you a few death threats for disagreeing with them online. But you right, arrogant might be a better umbrella term for all that.
Randall is not going to like this ...
Doesn't explain flash frozen mammoths that frozen solid in seconds.
@@chrisprysok7634Don't have to. That's made up.
@@chrisprysok7634when nothing was flash frozen there is nothing to explain.
Thought this was a pure myth?
No, there's supporting evidence Something happened. Whether it was an asteroid impact or something else, something occured at that time.
@@filonin2 Do you have proof that it is made up? [Sources, etc. … don’t expect a thesis here, but that is a claim I haven’t heard before and that I don’t see anymore substantiated than the alternative. That it is “made up” may as well be “made up” as far as I can tell.]
“Oh, they never lie. They dissemble, evade, prevaricate, confound, confuse, distract, obscure, subtly misrepresent and willfully misunderstand." - Ian Banks
Interesting, but the idea of fires on a continent-wide scale by anthropocentric means is ludicrous to me. Even if the sparse human settlements collectively decided to burn everything at once, I dont think that would be cause for the mass extinction of all megafauna.
It's ludicrous to me too. The attitude of mainstream science is that if something doesn't fit with the prevailing theory, they'll either ignore it or pull something dumb out of their ass to explain it. And if the contrary evidence becomes too overwhelming to ignore, then (and ONLY then) will they abandon the prevailing theory (and begrudgingly at that).
Agreed
The erosion evidence couldn't be more conclusive. Impact or not.
It's only the trigger that is in question. The crater in Greenland was only recently discovered. As far as it being the cause, was just a flash in the pan. It doesn't change anything.
@@JoeSmith-cy9wjHiawatha crater has been dated to over 50 million years old.
@@gravitonthongs1363 Ok. So.... not the cause of YD event, right
They never said it was continent wide fires. That's the Firestone paper claim and that has been debunked time and time again. There were no continental wide fires.
Clovis men burned down all the trees, killed all the fauna and then, overcome with remorse, disappeared themselves.
In their SUVs.
I dont get the idea that humans cant cause massive impacts on the world around us? Mao caused famines that killed millions by killing off sparrows, we move mountains regularly and ancient people did too, weve caused the rotation of the planet to change by building large enough dams in one place and weve turned entire tracts of land into horrifically toxic dust bowls, ancient peoples would regularly divert rivers and cause massive ecological damage impacting people down stream. One of the oldest irrigation tactics still used in places like the amazon and east asia is to cause forest fires in order to get crop plants to grow back in the area.
If the Clovis really did burn down all the forests and kill off all the large animals, they didnt kill themselves off out of guilt, they starved trying to get more food just like the CCP, accidentally destroying what caused their food abundance.
@@alangknowles Towards their bunkers.
@@sookendestroy1 I guess we should be grateful the genocidal maniacs the Clovis were disappeared. Considering what they did to a whole pretty wet continent while being hunter gatherers, no agriculture, and probably never more than a few tens of thousands scattered across the land I can’t imagine what they did if they had lighters or swords.
The idea that something hit a ton of ice or you had an air burst, causing a bunch of melt water to screw up currents always made the most sense to me. It does seem to explain all of the things at once (cooling from the impact fall out and also altered currents) and a body hitting a glacier or never hitting the ground resulting in no/less/covered up crater wasn't outlandish.
It seems like a lot of these papers that prove/disprove things are pretty quickly proven/disproven themselves, so it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
No, no. Don't you know that the earth is in perpetual stasis and humans literally control the climate no matter what resources, technology, or numbers we have? Naughty humans at it again!
We don't judge theories based on what meets our intuition, but on predictive power.
This theory has none. Even the argument that somehow ice will prevent a crater from forming from an impact so powerful itd melt ice caps is... besides ridiculous, simply an attempt to rationalize one's way around a failed prediction, one of the more important predictions of this theory, I might add.
@@peppermintgal4302 The Tunguska event was an impact that never hit the ground, if that happened so recently in the modern Era than such craterless impactors must have been pretty common. Unless of course you want to ascribe Tunguska to being a hyper-rare event that humans just so happen to have been around to watch and record. The mediocrity principle says that if we observe it once, it's probably happened a lot of times in the past. I think it's far more likely that you hold a bias against the Graham Handcock people and instead of maintaining neutrality and keeping biases out of science, you let your emotions about some silly Netflix show taint your assessment about actual scientific work that's been done by thousands of scientists. Being Biased AGINST a theory is just as destructive to the scientific process as being bias for a theory. Make sure you're checking YOUR biases. Right now the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the Impact event having actually happened.
@Lusa_Iceheart But did Tunguska cause a global ice age? No. I don’t think airburst meteors cause any kind of global climate change. There’s an upper limit to the size of meteor that would disintegrate before hitting the ground.
@@Sniperboy5551What's that limit, or is that just a baseless conjecture?
The author admitted fudging evidence to get the grant.
The way I heard it described they never talked about a single large impact, the entire idea is that we got hit by the tail of a comet trail and would have faced a number of small impacts worldwide
And for some, that theory is less plausible than humans simply torching their habitat all over the planet at the same time
Anton totally misrepresented the theory. He's so disingenuous.
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic This channel has become more and more supportive of the humans are the problem, nature didn't do nothing wrong narrative being pushed on us all.
If you look into the subject a little further you'll find they have found evidence of impacts that could support the theory (just not this crater), but the most likely cause is a meteor shower that created an enormous burning event.
i heard of it the same as well, plus glacial melt. and that was from randal carlson himself. the only thing i recall him talking about was the black mat layer and spherals.
@@A_Stereotypical_HereticYou could read the paper, you know. Anton isn't the author, but merely tries to communicate the science in a very limited way.
You kept referring to "an" impact (as singular). If that is what the paper only considered, it totally ignores the hypothesis that a "shot gun" impact of several smaller pieces hitting a 2 mile deep ice shelf in N. America (not necessarily leaving one big impact to look for)... I wonder, if you had a bunch of Tunguska type events over an ice shelve, what would happen? Lots of energy released but you would not have an crater/impact. Still love your work :)
😮 graham hancock entered the chat
Anton speaks in absolutes regardless of proof.
@@willchoice7681 If you think about the current technological advance and the time it has took us to get to our actual tech advance. The hypothesis of a previous technological human civilization wiped by a cataclysmic unfortunate event is not so crazy.
Anton doesn't care anymore about facts! :-/
So if there are a bunch of smaller impacts hitting ice there is no evidence for them. What evidence is there of these smaller impacts (enough to cause this)?
The Younger Dryas cold period definitely happened; the fact that this crater is not from that era has been known for some time.
A great flood of some kind was spoken of by Plato and forms the basis of most ancient religions and texts throughout humanity. The Younger Dryas was a real thing. There is no way that civilisations across the globe were all lying about it at the same time.
@@dingickso4098many religions have flood myths, true, but there's evidence that there have been many large floods throughout human history, often in the areas that said religions sprung up in, which are likely the cause for the flood mythologies, rather than one global event.
You're assuming carbon dating is correct though. NOTHING has really been know for a long time.
@@americaisdyingslowly You are likewise assuming that epistemology is more important than ontology. But what we can know does not appreciably extend beyond what we are, in my view.
The entire conversation, like most scicom vids, falsely assumes that the publications of studies are not themselves fraudulent to begin with. Being a conscientious scientist these days must be something like being a faithful priest: not a lot of company or professional support lol
@@haniamritdas4725Hmmm. Probably better though than assuming that the laws of nature can be suspended suddenly at unspecified, unpredictable and unvalidated times in order to support an entirely unsupportable belief.
I don't really buy the Hiawatha Impact Hypothesis but to suggest there was nothing unremarkable about the YD boundary is quite a statement.
Most megafauna in NA was gone or in a heavy decline before the YD, while some of it (notably horses and mammoths in NA, Megaloceras and mammoths again in Europe and some sloths and pampatheres in SA) survived it.
@@miquelescribanoivars5049Not only were they already in decline, as the paper notes, many genera continued existing. From the paper's summary,
"f) Megafauna extinctions began immediately following the impact (although extinctions are also claimed by some YDIH proponents to have occurred from multiple impacts over tens-of-thousands of years). Many genera have last appearance ages that predate the YDC by millennia, and others survived to the end of the YDC or into the Holocene (Section 3.2)."
@@AnthropomorphicTrilobite That's exactly what I was saying.
quite an ACCURATE statement?
@@theendoftheline No, hence the OP.
In the 1970's studies were done on forest fires and population regrowth dynamics. Counter-intuitively fire actually improves fauna and flora populations. I happened to be involved with one such study performed in the Vermillion Pass area in Kootenay National Park. I was part of the survey team for 2 years of that study. The Vermillion Pass Burn occurred in 1968 and was a full valley width burn obliterating the forest from treeline to valley bottom creating essentially a dead zone. Within a year flora began regrowing inside the dead zone prompting studies to be suggested. In 1970 the first study season began. My involvement was in the years 1975 and 1976. I believe the study continued through to 1978. Previous studies of the same type had been done in other regions although I only remember seeing one from Yellowstone Park that had concluded in the 1960's. Again I was merely a survey student gathering raw data about flora and fauna populations and as such was not required to read up on all the research in the field.
Three primary conclusions were made as a result of the VPB study:
-The study was directly comparable to similar studies undertaken in other locations (Canada, America, Europe, Soviet Union).
-Most plant and animal species within the montane ecoregion have adaptations to fire, and several species need fires to propagate (indeed several species only occur in abundance immediately following fire and are sequestered as seed or spores until after carbonization of an environment).
-The habitats formed in the several years following fire are richer in species diversity and density than comparable regions adjacent to the burned regions. This is termed edge habitat phenomenon.
While it is a common impression that forest fires are destructive, the fact is fire is a natural and necessary part of almost every terrestrial ecosystem (and quite a few non-terrestrial ecosystems too). Without fire many ecosystems stagnate and weaken.
There are many hundred books on fire and ecosystems. I have, since my early introduction to the study, spent many years following up on what is a fascinating aspect of life's hold on the planet: three years on fire towers with Alberta Forestry, and then a prolonged ongoing study (since 1995) of fire as a whole in my main interest area of man's cultural and technological development.
Go tell that to Governor Newsom - he thinks forest fires are a result of climate change.
I’ve been told by some people, including forestry firefighters, that the lack of controlled burns and clearing has contributed to the spread of wildfires lately. Do you know if that’s true? And if so, how much has it contributed?
@@rfichokeofdestinyit has in australia, australia, like my home country of zimbabwe, is very dry, but when it gets a bit of water, everything just goes green, now in australia like my home, this meand that burnable material builds up, and if you do not burn it beforehand it can all go up at once, so when australia banned controlled burns for climate change politics, it meant the recent fires that made the news, resulted
Very interesting, but perhaps you're using conclusions from today to apply to a very different situation in the past. Perhaps it applied to smaller fauna, but the stress, aggravated by humans was too much for the mega fauna?
I believe this is well known but why it hasn't resulted in allowing prescribed routine burns is puzzling, especially when we've all seen what happens with destructive wildfires after decades of litter and dead wood accumulation in forests adapted to burning.
I would argue that an impactor hitting ice 15k feet thick wouldn't leave a crater and would explain the epic floods from that exact time period. This didn't debunk the theory in my opinion
You are correct and I completely agree with you.
@Rishi123456789 It is a shame the scientific community is so diluted with same think and not as adventurous.
@@MikeJones-mf2fw I completely agree with you. I'm not anti-science, I'm anti-scientism. I reject both "only my book has all the answers" religion AND "it's not real if we can't perceive it and replicate it in laboratories and have repeatability on demand" science equally, for both are based on fundamentally false premises.
The thing is this, you ask people "How do you know X?" and they'll probably reply by saying something like "Well, because it's in my science books." or "Well, because it's been peer-reviewed." or "Well, because it's been agreed upon by a majority of scientists.", but these are flimsy defences, because unless YOU can verify for yourself whether something is true or not either by OBSERVATION or by doing an experiment about it BY YOURSELF, you are relying essentially on external sources for your information and it is naïve to think that those sources don't have agendas.
What the average person calls 'science' (which is actually just mainstream science) has been hijacked by politics, religion and corporations. So-called 'peer review' these days is usually nothing more than a circle-jerk. Just as people support the separation of church and state (and RIGHTFULLY so), I support the separation of SCIENCE and state. We owe it to our innate intelligence to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that includes EVERYTHING that I tell you!
The 'science' that is telling you the covid vaccine is safe is the same 'science' that is telling you that men can be women.
Remember that. If you politicise science, you kill the spirit of science (which is to question things).
Most so-called 'scientists' today don't know their ass from their elbow and just unquestioningly repeat what their textbooks tell them to repeat.
Haha. Stick to the JRE if you find real science and history boring.
@user-wb7nv9ht1g You have no argument as to why I am wrong about my opinions.
I thought the most prevalent theory was that the impact was in the center of the Laurentide ice sheet. Thereby being prevented from producing a large crater, and directly causing the melting and flooding of the Pacific northwest.
May’ve been a burst impact in the atmosphere
It is. IDK what he's talking about. Graham Hancock and Robert carlson have hours of debate about this. It was at least 2 impacts. One in the ocean and one hit the ice sheet around northern Montana/Canada.
But finding proof of this is difficult. Note the language he used in this video. Mainstream won’t budge until the proof is worked out…
If it was small enough that it didn't make a crater because of a mere 3 kilometers of ice, then it was a tiny meteor strike. A three kilometre momentary (during impact event) deepth in ice correspond to a ~1km momentary cater depth in continental rock. That crater would be less than 5km (~3miles) in diameter. As far as craters go, that's tiny.
@@TheFoxSaid not gonna lie, I love Randall’s work
Don’t know if there was an impact or not but when I read the title I was expecting a comprehensive alternate theory for the evidence. Instead what I got from this is a bunch of scientists combed through the evidence, found a mushroom and some problems with the way the science was done and have wrote the whole thing off.
Oh and a very curious idea that humans caused the mass extinction of half the mega fauna by either intentionally or accidentally causing forest fires….. man those must have been some damn big forest fires. I dunno, that one sounds pretty fantastical to me.
As someone else in the comments said. Time will tell if this paper Anton is using is valid or not. It’s a lot easier to argue a negative because you don’t need evidence, you just need to cast doubt on the evidence of your opponent.
Right, this is scientific method, look deeper to find out WHY science proposes theories and then refutes them instead of only refuting theories that you have a replacement for. That would not be an effective form of scientific method, if you studied scientific method and its history you might understand why.
He's a paid pawn. Or he's crazy. Never watched such rubbish in my life
I'm wondering how the people living during that period managed to burn down the forests when everything was under ice?
The idea of human fires causing extinction of megafauna is beyond ridiculous 😂
There's a lot of credibility to that argument especially when talking about a similar event in Australian History.
Certain trees have sap that are incredibly flammable (Imported Eucalyptus set a good portion of California on fire).
It might've even been used as a hunting strategy, Australia was pretty dense with a harsh environment, it might've been pretty easy to just burn the forest down and force mega fauna out hunt them. Like how bison were forced off cliffs
@@whaletime69
@@whaletime69there really isn't haha. Love your channel tho 🙄🤣
No sounds like crap theory, Aliens sound more likely than this.
Explain.
Is just one study enough to refute the hypothesis? Honest question
Exactly
it’s not just one study though. it’s just a comprehensive review that was recently released which draws from other studies
No. Anton is a mainstream guy through and through. His Visa depends on it.
A hypothesis is just an idea. Evidence refuting it is all you need. Why would you need more than one study if such study refutes the hypothesis?
Anyone can refute anything. Doesn’t disprove the hypothesis, no.
as a person who isn't a subject matter expert on these things, the only things suspect about this research paper is the fact that it came out only to refute the other claims. If they really cared about the questions and answers behind this, it would have been done before this. I don't trust things like this as it wasn't done as genuine research that happen to realize things unintentionally but rather only came out to refute. The intended conclusion was stated from the get go. And one thing the paper doesn't show is what they weren't able to figure out or what mysteries remain.
Check out Anthony Zamora's work on the YD impact. Numerous youtub videos on the subject.
yeah fishy as hell if you ask me
Agreed. This paper was purpose built to assault the YDIH, which is fair, but as it offers no theory of it's own to account for YD climate phenomenon, it is not clear what model should supplant the YDIH, and as far as I am aware there is no other model that better accounts for YD events.
@@timcarmichaelthere are many explanation models such as Volcanic, Supernova Shell Encounter, and Disruption to Ocean Currents. All of which have more evidence than Impact.
Its like when bad theories are being rampantly spread around scientists, who are constantly being asked by bad theory spreaders to look at bad theories... DID WHAT YOU ASKED AND LOOKED AT THEM, and guess what THEY USED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND REFUTED A BAD THEORY, WHICH IS PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHODS APPROACH TO SOLVING THINGS, PROPOSE THEORIES, REFUTE THEM, REFINE THOSE THAT SURVIVE. So please stop being surprised scientists following the scientific method and learn it for yourself.
I liked the sarcastic humor blended with the amazingly detailed information. Keep them both coming. 👍
The change on the graph seems much more extreme than human induced fires
Intuition is not a scienctific tool.
@peppermintgal4302 yes but there has to be an input of energy large enough to cause THAT much ice melting in such a short amout of time...
@@peppermintgal4302 No but observations and comparison ARE scientific tools. When you compare the rapid drop in temperature in the Younger Dryas it's FAR more extreme than the rapid increase in temperature created in the last 100 years by human industrialization. This forest fire theory is claiming that the sum total of all climate change caused by humans in the last century is merely minor compared to the climate change humans supposedly caused with *camp fires*? We've had fires for well over 60,000 years and evidence of MUCH older campsites, why was it suddenly just campfires 13kya that were so much more destructive? So yes, looking at the graph and using a bit of intuition is helpful Because what is being suggested is that it's not micro plastics or carbon emissions or even nuclear waste that is humanities biggest ecological scandal, it's campfires.
@@the_astrokhanlike warning to the Holocene from the Milankovitch cycles?
@@gravitonthongs1363 Yeah, I don't buy it. Between the excessive energy requirements, the geology, the sudden reversal of glaciation and the Carolina bay/Formations, I'm still betting on sizeable impacts. Sure, the Hiawatha crater isn't it but to me, the evidence is too compelling to attribute it to a climatic change driven event instead of an event driving climate change.
Anton, good video, but as a scientist myself, I must take issue with your continued reference to the number of scientists who support this hypothesis is "small" and that this implies it is wrong or that it shouldn't be taken seriously. This is what is called the "appeal to consensus" fallacy and it is not really relevant to the argument. So if you want to argue that these scientists are wrong on the merits, that's perfectly fine and I'm happy to see that the rest of the video was focused on THESE arguments. After all, I'm not saying they are right. But if your goal is to raise scientific thinking, let's stick to the relevant facts and arguments. Because it's always important to remember that pretty much every major theory we now treat as scientific fact started out as a hypothesis amongst a "small number of scientists" (and many of these hypotheses-come-theories had problems early on which were addressed in subsequent work ... consensus generally grows over time). That's how science works. If you'd like to learn more, there is a massive body of literature on the problems with leaning on the appeal to consensus fallacy in scientific reporting and in scientific arguments. Consensus does have its place (such as when making policy, etc) but today's consensus could very well be tomorrow's aether.
great point
it's funny how there's a large organized group of scientists who are always in a desperate rush to declare matters on certain subjects "settled" and the debates ended (always in their favor, of course.)
@@deathsheadknight2137nothing like a good bit of irrational conspiracy theory to spoil a well composed post.
@@gravitonthongs1363 yeah it's "irrational" to notice a bunch of like minded individuals covering for each other and gatekeeping people who dont toe the line out of the big journals.
@@deathsheadknight2137 sure, it is obviously because of an unethical secret hidden agenda to manipulate non-scientists because the fate of the world rests on the shoulders of YDIH denial.
The only thing like minded about scientists is respect for the scientific method.
Maybe introduce a little bit of rational thought process into your unrealistic conspiracy theory.
Younger Dryas was very likely a meteor do to the detection of iridium, nanodiamonds & He3, in deposits around the Younger Dryas period. Just because a specific crater was found to be too old, does mean that a meteor strike didn't cause Younger Dryas event.
Sure thing Graham Hancock, it is a conspiracy to bury it okay. LOL
The detection of iridium is localised to Greenland and explained easily by a
Exactly
@@gravitonthongs1363 the iridium layer was found in Minnesota and as far as Arizona. Not just in Greenland.
Very unlikely ocean currents caused YD event. The ocean current theory is likely BS promoted by climatologist that get paid to publish, in order to make every connected to climate change, in order to promote a political agenda.
There is a problem though... look up the PNAS paper titled Accumulation of impact markers in desert wetlands and implications for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.
In short: In this study, we investigated black mats ranging in age from approximately 6 to more than 40 ka in the southwestern United States and the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. At 10 of 13 sites, we found elevated concentrations of iridium in bulk and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules, and/or titanomagnetite grains within or at the base of black mats, regardless of their age or location, suggesting that elevated concentrations of these markers arise from processes common to wetland systems, and not a catastrophic extraterrestrial impact event.
The Younger Dryas ... ABSOLUTELY happened.
This used to be one of my favorite subjects until so many people took sticking to specific theories personally instead of potential origins and then I stayed away for YEARS. This was actually enjoyable and makes me want to ponder more ^_^
Ponder away, young man. You have my full support
c@@louithrottler
ab@@louithrottler
911 SOS@@louithrottler
Like politics. Supposed to be about different parties trying to come up with the best ideas for improvements to move civilization forwards. Rather than divisive left and right politics fighting about who's always right.
One crater not fitting the bill doesn’t mean much.
I have read peer reviewed papers that made it quite clear that there were much higher than background levels of IRRIDIUM found in multiple sites globally wirhin the YD boundary layer. Also, should we expect to find anything resembling an impact crater if, hypothetically there were multiple carbon condroit air bursts or even direct impact/s from a comet or metallic asteroid when they would be impacting such a thick layer of ice , such as what was present approaching the YD boundary..
I mean, is it a common thing around the globe that early humans were really sloppy with their fire places and accidentally burned down huge areas? I have not heard of this before and if it is true, Clovis culture must have been brain dead. My impression has mostly been that (sober) humans are careful around their fires. A forest fire kills their game and their food places. Surely clovis knew this as well. And one turn of the wind, bye bye camp, children, wives... not just mega fauna. Sure even Clovis understood this? I might be wrong here, I am no scientist, but this sounds absolutely ridiculous
And there are peer reviewed papers that debunk it.
black mats ranging in age from approximately 6 to more than 40 ka in the southwestern United States and the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. At 10 of 13 sites, we found elevated concentrations of iridium in bulk and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules, and/or titanomagnetite grains within or at the base of black mats, regardless of their age or location, suggesting that elevated concentrations of these markers arise from processes common to wetland systems, and not a catastrophic extraterrestrial impact event.
The title of the paper is Accumulation of impact markers in desert wetlands and implications for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis
It's a PNAS reviewed paper which is highly regarded. People need to remember that just because something is peer reviewed in a journal doesn't mean the journal that peer reviewed it isn't crap.
Airbursts and ice impacts can’t explain the change in temperature.
@@swirvinbirds1971no paper that debunked the yd impact hypothesis has held so far. All have been debunked themselves so your point kind of hurts itself more than it helps lmao
@@swirvinbirds1971their whole argument is that there must be a natural process for them just because of the location they were found with literally no evidence or reason to believe so. They just looked at it and said "yeah, that must be natural let's go home now"
When I was a young college student in 1980, I did my freshman English term paper on a novel yet, at the time, widely refuted, theory that an asteroid impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. I still remember the comment Professor Robbie Robinson wrote on the concluding page of my paper: Interesting theory! A-
Louis Alvarez took a lot of heat, almost stripped of all his credentials for such a preposterous claim.
Although that had a lot more evidence behind it than the YDIH does. Evidence for it is extremely weak.
I just recently did my term paper on a different theory of what causes gravity.
Fascinating! @@al1383
@@al1383 I recently wondered if God could make a rock big enough that even He can’t lift it.
I strongly disagree with certain aspects of this one but you still get a Like from me! Your content is so good and the viewpoint you share is a necessary one. One day we may find the truth, but we are only going to get it one way. Together... Good work Anton
The only part i dont like was when Anton mentioned that he had been lookjng for a paper thst confirmed his doubts. I dont mind hearing all opinions, but I try to avoid blatant confirmation bias
Science tends not to handle complex multi-disciplinary theories well. The YDIH is such a topic, and has a long history of polarised opinions. The "refutation" article appears to come from one side of the argument putting forward their preferred subjective interpretations to refute a broad range of physical evidence. The other side of the argument could (and should) easily counter each dismissal of the evidence. Biases and political agendas exist on both sides.
Anton, I just love your content. Thank you for keeping this going! Great video.
This isn’t really dispositive at all - the impact claim is a hypothesis that was only recently, not initially, married to this crater. The fire hypothesis seems very thin and even counterintuitive. The ideas surrounding what’s now colloquial understood as the younger dryas impact hypothesis includes so more than the impact, that’s less a concrete claim and more of a collection of evidence questioning the broad “scientific consensus” historiography of that period. To the strong institutionalist like Anton, this isn’t the takedown you think it is. But I applaud you for covering these studies.
It is, because this recent impact claim married to this crater was the only evidence that strongly supports the YDIT, with it gone the YDIT cannot stand.
The problem is that the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis never had very good evidence in the first place. The only reason why it's being kept alive is that it sounds interesting. That's it.
@@guyman1570 This is the subtext of most comments here, as in, this topic sounds interesting enough for certain pseudo archeologists to sell books to feed peoples delusions. Thus we have the marketing teams and their dupes.
@@guyman1570 indeed, most hypotheses never meet sufficiency for legitimate theory. But many of the most accepted theories today were once considered “thin” or “more elegant than empirical”, until they weren’t, until they were well accepted by though further study. Moreover, the “scientific community” pushed numerous “theories” that hardly met the standards of hypothesis. Out textbooks growing up were filled with them, including the “narrative” time line of Hunter-gatherers and monolithic structures. And the very gatekeepers of this “story” are those admonishing YDIT with unparalleled vitriol. Often the scientific community itself, due to myopia, special interest, gatekeeper syndrome, or simply the catty envy or hypersensitive disgust reaction of nerdy academics, can act as the ministry of truth with unscientific, arbitrary and capricious justifications - just like the Church did. Just ask Galileo when he was shown the tools of torture. The elites of the scientific community bring much of the controversy upon themselves by justifying ethical lapses and shortcuts, only to self-righteously impose stricter standards and “pieties” on those: they personally dislike, lacking the preferred credentials/references, refusing or failing to play politics. YDIT requires more evidence, but more than empirical theory it exposes the flaws, failings, and incestuous bureaucracy that conspired to indoctrinate the multitudes with scientism, narrative, and the explanations most convenient to the interests of scientific gatekeeper. This is a large part of the elegance of the YDIT, as well as providing type of narrative heuristic for all the disproven claims, evidence-free declarations, and fanciful conclusions that were passed off as science by the same people/institutions disparaging the YDIT; and therein remains compelling empirical evidence.
So we're saying our ancestors were such incredible pyromaniacs that 12k years ago a million of us, specifically a few thousand of us in NA, wiped out many species across whole continents? Interesting.
Yeah I don't buy it. These people counted on migration patterns and absolute conservation to survive, to blame them seems totally wrong.
🤣
Instead, it is far more likely that an asteroid hit the Earth, killing most continental based megafauna without affecting smaller species, while leaving fauna from adjacent islands COMPLETELY UNSCATHED and having no measurable effect on marine biodiversity, in spite of previous confirmed impacts hitting the oceans as bad as the land masses. 🤡
Did an impact kill off the interglaciar European megafauna and Sahul fauna 30,000 years earlier, too? While, again, leaving South Asia and Africa completly untouched?
@@fuzzybojangles1141Could be. Doesn’t take more than one to burn a whole forest and look what we’re doing now. Look how the natives use fire to clear land.
Maybe Al Gore should borrow a time machine & go back there, to prevent that global warming. He might have better luck at convincing the Clovis, they are about to become extinct 🤭
Besides, it doesn't answer to the facts surrounding the quick-dry freezing, of many mammals, in Siberia & Alaska.
Love the ending Anton. You are a wonderful person. Thank you.
Anton, you are completely captured by the cathedral.
he has been for years
You think the cathedral promotes YDIH?
How much crater would you get hitting a mile of ice?
It's a concerning trend when the alternative history community always seems to be able to make increasingly extraordinary claims that never leave behind any physical evidence. It's like they are always trying to retroactively frame their conclusions in a way that explains away why there is no evidence left behind. I mean that's bound to happen every once in a while, but it just seems to happen a lot with the alternative history community.
I mean, the one that killed the Dinosaurs is over 50 km deep under all the sediments.
@@jellyrollthunder3625 Okay but how much crater would you get with a mile of ice?
Depends what's hitting it, and how big it is.
@@jellyrollthunder3625ikr? goddam "aldernatife h'strie kommuniti" trying to fine tune history with increasing observations and evidence that keeps getting blinded by us, the true history scientific history bluffs that have only been able to make conclusions from a fraction of samples and drawn them as eternal gospel... pfft
I came here after seeing all the hypothesis for the cooling of the Younger Dryas and I believe you are a true scientist compare to all others. I know I can trust you. Thanks for your professionalism and truthfulness.
The idea that mainstream media promotes the younger dryas hypothesis is absurd. It is the complete opposite,
10:20 WAIT... You are telling us that thousands of scientists couldn't tell the difference between a micro-ferrule and a mushroom spore? ... and that this small group of scientists did?
This has an odor to it, and it's not good.
I just gone through the article. Its fantastic, answered a lot of my questions. A must read. Initially, when i was looking at the graphs myself and asking what do i see without prejudice; what do i see? Immediately, it stands out that all the claims that YDIH proposes do not make sense. The timeline, definitions, the total disregards from previous periods, the fact no one was asking or talking about the Bolling Allerod interstadial, the impact craters, the non-catastrophic pulse water events 1A B C etc etc. Just look at the graphs yourself, the temperature, the sea level, the broader picture and come to your own conclusions. Thanks Anton, you are the only one who asked and demanded the same answers to the simple questions that i had.
Anton set the comments off today. Personally, after watching the video I don’t think it’s disproven, but disproved some evidence. I think we still have a viable, if just unproven, hypothesis.
Fires caused by people?! 👌 I'm going to create my own data sheet.
We don’t know. It is all speculation until we can time travel. Catastrophes do happen and have caused rapid climate change and mass extinctions. The debate of this and many science issues is a good thing.
Geologist 1: I have new evidence that the Younger Dryas Impact theory is wrong. Turns out it wasn't a meteor
Geologyst 2: Oh really, so what do you think happened?
Geo 1: Turns out it was just yo mama fallin' out of the bed.
Geo 2: That's cold dude...Permafrost cold
Best comment on the thread.
@@slartibartfast7921great username :P
If that's true then explain the largest meteorite in the US being found in the Willamette Valley with no impact crater because it landed ontop of the ice caps over canada and was carried down to Oregon by the torrent of water and glaciars. Hard to find impact craters when the ice was 2 miles deep in some areas on the Northern Hemisphere.
You need better evidence to just attempt to generally dismiss a complex theory.
Ice sheet impacts don’t cause climate cooling.
@@gravitonthongs1363 - Then what did, in this case?
@@ShimaKiyoshi leading theory is disruption to ocean currents due to meltwater influx. With possible contributions from volcanism, decreased solar activity, and maybe even human forest burning.
There is no significant evidence for impact yet.
Funny how people are disliking the video just because it goes against what they want to be true.
Many people find the truth to be inconvenient.
More likely they aren't appreciative of the shoddy logic and scientific illiteracy of the "debunkers".
I love the account... even though it's quite wrong.
Cave man: I want to eat that giant creature but my little stick with a stone on it won't help. Another cave man : If we set everything on fire it will kill them and cook them. Both cave men: High five!
But seriously, we have to remember that correlation is not causation.
There aren't any craters, because back then the ice was kilometers thick you silly boy.
Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you.
The task is to explain the energy that melted the continent glaciers. There is no mainstream explanation so introducing a catalyst was most likely. So the paper may refute but they must explain the energy required to melt glaciers and the blackened burnt forest layers of ground. To the authors, come to Washington state and explain the territory geography to me. They won’t. Randall does attempt to explain it. He’s doing science and making observations, they are not, just holding us back.
Obviously a rise in global temperature due to Milankovitch cycles far surpasses the energy of a space rock that isn’t even large enough to leave a crater.
Randall does bias pseudoscience (not science).
Great work Anton. I've been looking into the fire problems in the US and Canada 🇨🇦. In many cases it has turned out to be arson. Also in California the environmentalists forced the state to stop doing controlled burns and other methods to keep to much deadwood from accumulating. That was about mid to late 70's. Saner heads tried to reinstate the forestry., but were unsuccessful. Thus every other drought or so and there's a deadly fire. But a lot of the fires in US, Canada and Australia have been deemed to be arson.
Satellite photos show these fires being lit sequentially from above somehow? Laser maybe!
Its effing nature. Christ with the novel
If you dont want these huge fires then just manage the forests better every year by clearing the dry leaves and create areas of separation between the trees.
Just remember folks, historically science has always been wrong.
Iridium, not Platinum. Around that crater a higher concentration of Iridium was found. The level of iridium that was found was much higher than what is found on Earth which is indicative of a cosmic impact. That is the most likely explanation for the higher concentration of Iridium. Same with shock quartz- also found at a higher concentrations around the crater. The only process that can cause shock quartz is either a cosmic impact or nuclear detonation.
The 50 million year old crater?
The iridium deposit was likely a minor local event.
One thing we have to take into account that the YD cooling took place over hundreds of years and happened at different times in different places to varying degrees. That is not indicitive of any single event. Look at the K2 layer it is damn near an inch thick. The presence of iridium is not the same as a layer of it.
Wouldn't ocean currents changing or even stopping from the massive melting of glaciers and polar ice caps take decades or even centuries to correct itself? That amount of water being introduced to the oceans probably wouldn't fix the ocean currents and jets streams in a year or two? Or so I would think?
Idk why it’s so impossible to understand if a asteroid hit a 2 mile thick ice sheet, there won’t be a crater .
And how does a 6 ton mammoth get frozen with flowering plant material in its stomach ?
Then why were they calling the Hiawatha Crater the smoking gun if it wouldn't leave one?
Oh and no such mammoth exists. It was the seeds of Buttercups stuck in it's teeth. This story has been so blown out of proportion by the pseudoscience channels.
Idk why it’s impossible for you to understand that a couple of square miles of ice melting can’t explain the drop in temperature.
And how do you not understand catastrophic glacial dam release during warming phases?
@@gravitonthongs1363 it's kinda funny people accept the earth going in and out of ice ages but then also state only an impact can melt all the ice. 🤔They are also of the misinformed opinion that all the ice sheets melted in an instant.
@@swirvinbirds1971 gave you a sub because reasonable comments like yours are too rare in this day of pro fantasy and pro conspiracy. Cheers
@@gravitonthongs1363 the point I’m making is that it’s at least possible that something impacted the ice sheet and didn’t leave a mark. There we’re probably multiple events. Impacts can cause earth quakes . Earth quakes can cause volcanoes to go off.
The only reason I bring up the mammoth is because imo in order for that to happen the temperature drop had to be instant . -140 for ten hours at least. What explains that ? Heavenly body impact or what ?
Wait so your telling me the Clovis culture, a loose generalization of ancient native American cultures that only shared A SINGLE technological advancement between them. The Clovis arrowhead. Just burned down their own local environment? They just started burning forests down? the YDIH doesn't say a single impact made the megafauna go extinct it says multiple impacts created melt ice on mass which was responsible for the mass graves of megafauna we find in the paleontological record. And again the hypothesis doesn't say the younger dryas was a unique event it says meltwater pulse 1a and 1b were unexplainable catastrophic events unique to the younger dryas. Billions of tons of meltwater surging into the oceans is not found anywhere else.
This refuting of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis adds nothing new, gives us no new insight, it just attacks the work being attempted so we are now just as clueless as we were 20 fucking years ago. That's not science. Science suffers from this, how science is supposed to work is a multitude of hypotheses are given about a phenomenon and science determines the best match for the phenomenon. I'm sorry but saying cavemen who we can't even characterize culturally just all decide to start burning forests down is complete insanity.
The Clovis weren't a unified force or culturally connected at all, they were many if not hundreds of migratory tribes across North America that waged war, made peace, lived off the land, and most importantly they worshiped the land. They were a diverse people as North America is a massive continent. They had no means of quick communications there's zero chance forest fires associated with the younger dryas were all man made. Those were NATRUAL disaster caused by natural means. The Clovis were not forming hunting parties thousands of people strong and just mass hunting all the mega fauna for food the meat goes bad within days, corpses are rotting within hours, the mass graves of megafauna we find were caused by a natural disaster. Pinning an 800 year long period characterized by floods, forest fires, volcanism, and the mass melting of the ice caps as HUMAN CAUSES? You don't need to believe the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis but please provide better science to explain the phenomenon we see.
The YDIH was never about one magical impact on Greenland the hypothesis has always been about how many meteor impacts associated with the Torrid meteor stream and Comet Enke impacted earth over the course of 800-1200 years. If you want to refute and disprove I'd start with that not saying the Clovis culture caused their own collapse by hunting all the megafauna and burning down the land they worshipped.
You said it for me. I couldn't of said it better. What a fucking joke.
Actually, the events were so traumatic that humanity recorded the period in stela... yes, in stone.
Which artwork blows up the counter YDIE logic.
Shush…can you hear that? It’s the sound of Graham Hancock weeping…
Good job, Anton! Love your channel; you seem like a sincere, good-natured fellow with a genuine love for humanity as well as the sciences. Great sense of humor as well!
I was gutted when I read about your loss. It's been 25 years since our precocious 8 year old son died, totally unexpectedly, of an extremely rare congenital heart defect (at that time, only 50 cases were known, all found post-mortem). I still think about it every day, but at this point our memories of him really bring us more smiles than sadness. As they say, it's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved.
This may sound strange, but one thing that kept me going in the difficult early days was knowing that death in infancy and childhood has always been the rule, not an exception, throughout human history. If our forebears could pick up the pieces and keep living, I thought, so could I.
You obviously work hard and keep busy, but be sure to set aside at least a few minutes every day to simply contemplate and process your loss. I found this to be essential. I wish you all the best.
I've also pondered about this for months after our son passed away. At first it helped me to go through historical literature and read some random letters from 1800s of parents writing to their friends recounting their experience. And though it seemed to be very common it also seemed to have dramatically transformed all of them probably in the same way that it transformed you and I. We are not the same people after losing a child and we will probably never see the world the same way.
I hope one day we both find some closure and find happiness. Or at least make this place a bit better for everyone else. At least that's my goal for now
Thank for the kind message
Aw what a sweet heartfelt post ❤
Aren't you mischaracterizing what proponents of younger dryas are saying? I thought they were saying it wasn't one giant impact but, thousands of smaller impacts.
I've always wondered why there's been such savage resistance to the younger dyras theory? Synchronous attacks makes me pull my tin foil hat down a little tighter.😬
whenever someone makes comedy out of someone's research I am immediately suspicious.
Well of course they would try to refute that, too many questions get raised. Too many concerns. Nothing about the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis should be controversial if truth was valued over thought control.
Impacts are not exactly extra-ordinary. They're pretty ordinary. Finding other possible explanations doesn't disprove anything. I'm not saying its true. But I see no reason to think it couldn't happen. Let's wait with the conclusion to when we actually pretty much know what happened. And we're not there yet.
You clearly didn’t watch the video before posting this comment.
@@diggysoze2897 not to the end, but Anton said many times that there are other explanations for multiple different things, and that they are not extra ordinary, which in turn means they are more plausible. Maybe, maybe not. That is what I reacted to. Its a logical fallacy that is not in tune with analytical method. It's a philosophy. Why can't we just say we don't know what happened yet, but here is some evidence that directly contradicts the hypothesis... No such evidence was presented, at least in the part I was reacting to. Also he didn't get the hypothesis (or more of a tree of hypotheses) right. And didn't exactly describe which form of it is this responding to. It's a complex subject that can't be covered well in 26 minute video.
Yeah, I feel like Anton is jumping to conclusions with this one paper. It's one paper with honestly some sorta weird ways it refutes evidence, (mushroom, really?) versus the decades of work, thousands of papers and thousands of scientists who've all come to consensus that the Younger Dryas was probably the result of an Impact Event. I doubt anyone would be this eager to refute the work done by legit scientists this hard if it wasn't for that Netflix show. I feel like this is all actually about that show and not the science... which makes for bad science. Biases for an against a theory need to stay out of science, it just taints the work and cast doubt on everything.
@@YellowKing1986 The relevant question is not "what evidence contradicts the hypothesis" (what evidence can? Can you give me evidence that disproves the idea theres a magic teapot in orbit around the earth?) but instead, "what predictive power does the hypothesis have"? YDI model is always repeatedly failing to provide an impact crater, thats an important prediction. It doesn't necessarily need to succeed there if it provides other successful predictions, but I've seen none forthcoming.
@@Lusa_Iceheart The paper sums up a bunch of other papers that themselves represent... decades of work.
In any event, failing predictions is very important. Take the spore, for example. Using the YDI hypotheses, we would predict that this object would have the properties of ejecta, but... it doesn't. It has the properties of a spore.
If a hypothesis or hypotheses cannot provide successful predictions, they are simply a waste of time, money, and energy.
That the show may or may not have directed the attention of many scientists towards this theory is irrelevant. But I think you're using this fact to semantically spin the negative attention YDI is getting as proof it has credibility, which is a very bad faith way of operating. And if the scientists whose work has heen refuted are intellectually rigorous, they'll welcome the refutation, rather than acting like their whiny fanboys are acting here in these comments. You're not doing a good job representing the interests of those scientists by defending their work.
Great work!
So in the Younger Dryas Smokey the Bear wasn't around to remind us that only we can prevent forest fires...and we started a lot of forest fires.
Mandela Effect: Smokey Bear
_and we started a lot of forest fires._
A lot of the recent wildfires have been the result of arson. But, weirdly, the "news" media doesn't report on that aspect.
Lmao 😂😂
@@primmakinsofis614 I thought the forest fires were paid actors? That's what some random was rambling about for 20 minutes in front of me at the grocery store before storming out
@@primmakinsofis614 how did you find out if no one is reporting it?
Thank you Anton. I always enjoy your content :)
A cultural change could not have been responsible for the total disappearance of Clovis point technology which existed in all cultures throughout North America and was the most advanced at the time. Technology progresses it does not just disappear unless there's a significant disastrous cause
It did not disappear, it changed. Learn from reputable sources to correct the misinformation you have unethically acquired from sources of low reputation.
Never really gave it much thought but it's interesting to know that the crater is actually much older.
That's not news... Go to Comet Research Group for latest thinking on all things bashing the earth!
I love confirmation bias😊
You're going to make all the Atlantis nerds angry.
I would def like to read that paper. Seems grounded.
Whatever caused the demise of the megafauna, likely contributed to the demise of the Clovis.
Hope we figure it out, one day. Whatever the cause, the Americas were having some apocalyptic extinction events. Must have been a terrible time between the fires and the massive flooding.
The paper sounds more like someone was salty about the Netflix show. Ignoring all the Graham Handcock stuff, I just want to point out that the Comet Research Project has hundreds of scientists and researchers, all publishing peer reviewed work. The Younger Dryas impact event is accepted as the likely explanation not because scientists "bought it", but because there was science done that backed up the theory. Thousands of papers and hundreds scientists is legit science, one paper is just a guy who was butthurt about a netflix show.
@@Lusa_IceheartIs not one paper, bud, there's probably as many paper against it than for it.
Clovis didn't become extinct, there's no genetic bottleneck and archeological sites actually become MORE ABUNDANT after the onset of the Younger Dryas. They simply diversified into multiple cultures likely as a result of climate and the loss of much of the megafauna.
Yes, The Younger Dryas does not fit the mainstream narrative, so it is definitely an attack on Handcock's work - even a blind man can see that.@@Lusa_Iceheart
I think the Clovis disappearance was helped along by several unfortunate events. their #'s were not great at best
I think the Bølling-Allerød spike is more interesting. What caused that sudden warming event.
It's typically attributed to the development of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) as the last ice age began to end, which would have allowed warmer equatorial water to push further north and warm the region. It's the same circulatory process that we have today.
Are you suggesting all interglacial transitions were caused by asteroids, all +20 of them? At a roughly regular cycle? 😂
Not at all I just think the sudden warming in that period is interesting. It is a very large spike in a very short period of time.
@@TJTAS No reason to think it was any different to prior interglaciar onsets, the one during the beggining of the Eemian was also very intense.
the most boring answer is usually the correct one? that's highly disputable
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 😁🙏
I never really bought the impact theory, but I also have a hard time believing this. I'm more inclined to believe in some volcanic event, or something else. Keep digging.
Luckily scientific method doesnt involve double checking @davis4555 interest in science.
Hello wonderful Anton.
Single major events can have a large effect on the living creatures but, for catastrophic effects you need 2 or more events that overlap each other. For example a large impact that triggers seismic events causing multiple eruptions around the planet. There may be a new type of bacteria blooms caused by ecological changes due to super eruptions or invasive animals introduced by land bridges, currents and storms carrying microbes to areas that have no resistances. Point being large multiple extinctions are the result of multiple events overlapping in some which are related and others that are completely independent of each other. Depending on the size and type of said events wind currents or shear distance from the epicenter could determine the effects in other hemispheres if any.
There was once a paper about very specific and theoretical conditions that are needed to make an asteroid impact cause volcanic eruptions. Also there is no proof that this ever happend.
It was my understanding the Younger Dryas was the result of volcanic activity, not an impact.
There's a RUclipsr named Antonio Zamora who thinks the onset of the Younger Dryas coincided with an impactor striking the Laurentide Ice Sheet somewhere near Saginaw Bay, Michigan. According to him, huge ice bolders were blown sky high. When they returned to earth, they formed large elliptical craters now known as the Carolina Bays.
These secondary impacts would have been a catastrophy for any megafauna nearby. Yet the effect of the secondary ice bolder bombardment may have only been continent-wide and not global. That might explain why the Clovis people of North America went extinct, while other people in other parts of the world did not.
May I humbly suggest that, in addition to looking for evidence to blame big impact craters like Hiawatha as the cause of the Younger Dryas, scientists should also look for evidence to accurately date known secondary craters like the Carolina Bays or the similar Nebraska Rainwater Basins, to see if their formation really did coincide with the Younger Dryas.
I would have thought lightning induced fire be more likely then human induced fires in forest cycles. Intesting Anton, thank you.
Anton, the Carolina Bays are irrefutable. Splash pattern craters from the correct timeframe, the only thing debunked here is maybe the Hiawatha crater. If the main impact was on a 2 mile sheet of ice, there would be no crater
Im happy to see hypothesis's tested using the scientific process. In that spirit, i find the human induced fires hypothesis very weak, if i were a reveiwer for that paper i would have many, many questions.
The Clovis "oops, I did it again (arsonist version)" was so weak my jaw dropped. They accidentally burned down the whole continent... right. So this must have happened in many places to draw such a conclusion? I cannot believe Anton actually said it with a straight face
if you were a reviewer for that paper you would be paid to allow it to be published.
@@deathsheadknight2137 no one has managed that with me so far
I would rejected it from publication -- on that basis alone.
Millions of Carolina bays = The object hit the ice sheet
No geologist supports that unreasonable pseudoscience. The ice sheet was thousands of km away so the largest impact in billions of years would be required and there is no evidence for it.
Science marches on. Theories are promulgated, examined, sometimes modified, sometimes disproven. That is the only way it works.
Going to one's deathbed clinging to a disproven theory because one wants it to be true is rather sad.
Thanks for this one, Anton!
Yeah but in reality, this hasn't disproven anything. This article is agenda driven, which means it's bad on it's face. It might be right, maybe they have correct assessments, but the overall construct is really, really bad. Things like this need to be approached without a conclusion in mind. "Disprove THAT guy" isn't a hypothesis.
There have been many diff. theories that have come and gone put forth for the mega fauna deaths Everything from comet strikes near Mexico To the volcanoes were popular for awhile. The time spans are long. The Pleistocene epoch spans 2.5 mill of years with the Younger Dryas noted for the change Yet researchers found an older Dryas that happened before this one. perhaps we just don't know.
Thsnk you for this one in particular!!
I wrote a report about 15 years ago. I detailed a 7 stage chain reaction that caused the Younger Dryas Extinction Event. The impact link (2nd link) in the chain reaction evolves Dr. Allan West's work in a large amount of Clovis Sites. He unquestionably recovered Buckyballs, Sphereoles, and Nanodiamonds from all over. He even did it on camera in one location. Once in a while, I review my work with current understanding and knowledge. My report always survives this scrutiny. It seems like it's time to do it again to see if my work still holds up.
please post the link below
Maybe you'll be able to relive defending your thesis? I am also interested in a link.
Your report survived your own scrutiny? Bruh
@@OneSaltyBiscuit This is how well thought out science works. Ideas surviving the scrutiny of others.. and yourself. Most scientists I hope are seeking truth; and not just heading down the path of conformation bias. I do get your knee jerk reaction though. The term 'Science' has as of late carried some dark ass baggage. You can thank Dr. Fauci for his part in the erosion of the publics opinion on science given as gospel.
@@whatdamathWhy should he bother? You probably won't read it, or really understand what it says if you do. Your long habit of misquoting, or outright ignoring, data from the pro side shows you bias all too clearly.
I love the channel anton. Will always be a fan. I still think something happened at that time. I would love to hear your thoughts or a deep dive video on the Carolina Bays evidence.
Thermokarst lake fields are found on most continents. They are obviously not impact evidence, and they are over 90k years old.
@@gravitonthongs1363elongated in the same oruentation in a continental wide radial direction all pointing toward the center of a circle? Sweet.
@@calvinhosworld orientated towards the coastline / away from the centre of the continent, yes.
@@gravitonthongs1363 in a radial arc?
@@calvinhosworld it’s not very radial in comparison to it’s orientation towards the coastline.
It seems the little Clovis guys liked their mammoth well done.
I recognize some of the scientists who published this article, and I'm really disappointed you're buying their propaganda, Anton.
In other words, be careful following the science. I think a lot of the fires and their severity are a result of homogenous planted forests.....seeded and seedling. Being homogenous they do not have deciduous trees interspersed in natural bands. These trees have much less terpenes and also tend to cover the ground with thick layers of decaying leaves that trap moisture. Also, being homogenous makes them a prime target for insects such as the pine beetle, gypsy moth, and other rapidly spreading bugs. They can wipe out a forest so fast it is mind-boggling. Colorado has entire mountainsides that are dead from these beetles. One lightning strike or one careless campfire and it goes up like a powder keg. Compound that with drought a tree is unable to combat the invasive bug by flooding the cambium with sap and fluid. This is by no means the cause but rather an exacerbation of the climate problem.
Your explanation lacks sensationalism that can be blamed on humans burning fossil fuels, therefore it is too heretical to consider given modern sensitivities.
@@kazwalker764 Ha ha.... true
North Americans and gender reveal parties, some things never change.
Greetings Anton; and thanks for the good content. Hasn't the comet impact group moved on from the Greenland crater in favor of an impact or airburst over the NA ice sheet, perhaps near the great lakes? Not sure why that wasn't discussed by the papers you brought up
Because lots of impacts leave even more evidence while being unable to provide explanation of how it led to cooling.
@@gravitonthongs1363because impacts do lead to cooling in general.
@@gravitonthongs1363 damn dude, you are saying multiple impacts even airburst would leave a lot more evidence? Thats going to seem really wild most likely to @ArthursAtman who is likely just politely trying to sell bullshit books.
That in fact was the only impact evidence that I’ve heard about.
Supposedly evidenced by a large array of smaller ovoid divots in the landscape of the eastern US and assumed to have impacted the ice sheet as well.
@@stanweaver6116 supposed evidence thats assumed? could that be any farther from evidence?
Thanks for the video Anton. As always very interesting. I have a question for you. Some years ago I was browsing Google Earth thinking that any major impact site would likely be easier to spot in coastal areas where one might see partially circular bays. I did in fact find several such possible features. Including two on the East coast of Patagonia and one in particular on the Eastern side of Hudson Bay. The latter looking very much like a massive partial impact crater that is close to being the perfect arc of a circle. Also, Belcher Islands within the arc have an unusual shape, perhaps where the Earths crust has been folded? I have never heard of any theory regarding this. Perhaps you have, or maybe you have some other explanation of how these features may have occurred.
There are possible meteor impact craters on The coast of North Carolina called the Carolina bays and supposedly their origins haven't been identified yet.
There were footprints found dating back to 22,000 year ago in New Mexico. I think people were in America for a long time before 16,000 years ago.
The theory is not fixed on a meteor impact but something did cause massive floods most likely a very fast melting of the North america glacier sun flares is another possibility. It's all a theory but there's a lot of facts around the younger dryas that it's pretty hard to disprove it. In truth I'm going off others info and really only know very little on my own. Always great to hear your thoughts.
Thank you very much Anton
Regardless of the outcome of the study, Its nice to see the scientific community approach it professionally!
"But yah it's not looking very good huh" I need to get a t-shirt with that.
One large impact needs a crater to make the theory work. However Multiple small impacts that impact ice sheets or explode before impact leaving no crater could still support the theory.
The alternative history community always has a very strange coincidence of using unfalsifiable premises to try to shield their theories from scrutiny. That way they can make as many extraordinary claims as they like, but they frame them in a way that basically absolves them from actually having to produce evidence. Same thing with the mysteriously selective cataclysm that conveniently only vaporizes the physcial evidence needed to prove their highly advanced, global ice age civilization, but somehow preserved intact all the numerous, less durable hunter-gatherer sites and artifacts that we continue to find from that exact same era of archaeological strata, which also confirms all the genetic evidence that shows no genetic mixing in the ice age human genome as well as the fact that agriculture had yet to be domesticated during the last ice age which would make an advanced civilization pretty much impossible. But the Graham Hancocks of the world still think their lost civilization is unfalsifable because they don't actually realize that there are numerous other types of evidence that could surely prove or disprove such extraordinary claims
No they don't
@@Vulcano7965 and your proof? Opinion means shyte to me
@@timvyfvinkel4542 didn't you hear him? He clearly laid out a hearty "nuh-uh" defense. That's powerful stuff right there.
@@timvyfvinkel4542 If these impacts are strong enough to cause the purported effects, even the explosion above the ground will leave some local scars of some kind. (The Tunguska impact, for example, exploded midair, but it knocked down all the trees in the region.)
From this, we should be able to make predictions based on this variant of the hypothesis, as well, rather than simply speaking up to say "ah well this explains this or that fact of 13k years ago that we _didn't_ predict with YDI!" Predictions are the currency of science, not explanations. So, wheres the predictions? How many have proven true? Does this theory have a higher prediction rate than alternatives? Look asI might, I never see any YDI models ever predict anything. Whats their use, then? Why devote funding to the idea?
You really brought all the crazy people out with this one lmao. Keep doing what you do man.
Do you mean the people who are arrogant enough to refute the latest 'peer reviewed consensus science'?🙂
@@mkaz3997 More just the people who make their entire personality a defense of a fringe hypothesis that's meant to explain "unexplained" things that a 5 year-old with a learning disability could piece together, and that also needs to be revised every few years just to fit a narrative that hasn't changed since its conception. Same people who might also send you a few death threats for disagreeing with them online. But you right, arrogant might be a better umbrella term for all that.
So we are back to humans did it, super-mega floods from retreating glaciers, or an impact in an ice-covered deep ocean area.
That's not better.
Who paid for the studies?