Study Completely Refutes Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Video quality	The size	Download

Information Study Completely Refutes Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Title	:	Study Completely Refutes Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis
Lasting	:	19.14
Date of publication	:
Views	:	75 rb

Sadly for the detractors of Younger Dryas, this analysis appears wrong on so many levels I just can’t buy it
Comment from : FM59

Anton you’re such a coward The studies are extensive and the proof has been more or less established brHow many episodes have you spend investigating the hundreds of papers that offer page after page of proof?brAdios professor
Comment from : Richard Bay

I disagree with you and the Geologist who deny the Younger Dryas concept Older scientists have problems in many fields changing their paradigm because this new data did not exist during their time as students I also have several degrees and though more of a clinician, I accept new theories when backed by data To me the Younger Dryas makes more sense than these old Geologists can accept All scientists need to be able to change their paradigm when confronted with new data
Comment from : Marcus Russell

Yeah, the Anthropocene started way before most scientists believe The distinction between "Quaternary" and "Holocene" Extinction events doesn't make sense to me It's clear that it was all caused by humans
Comment from : vico

bro really said that human fires caused mega fauna extinction lmao
Comment from : Coding Monkey

If the mega fauna disappeared because of fires, why are there so many mammoth tusks being found in the last 500 years?brIf they went extinct because of fire, the tusks would have also burnt or at least damaged by the firesbrHumans are an idiot species ;-)
Comment from : SDaniel

many people are calling these findings rubbishbrmore needs to be done to establish the facts
Comment from : not today

It's all our fault, now We must have caused the Bolling-Allerod cooling before that, too Lmfao! I'm not saying I believe the YDIH or not, but EVERYTHING is blamed on humans now Must be all the guilt 🤣🤣🤣
Comment from : Butt Hole

What I don't understand, is why there's a "wikipedia climate change" link on this video, when no one is talking about the kind of climate change in the link Lmfao!
Comment from : Butt Hole

Anton, you are making the world a better place by your videos I know life has brought you some tragedy And still you make a difference Besides your great videos, you are an inspiration It is these kinds of actions that will determine how well humanity copes with coming challenges Thank you!
Comment from : Deborah Ferguson

Its-42 below zero actual air temperatures with-70s below windchills BS it's warming up in northwest Minnesota
Comment from : Joey Holthusen

While I agree in this case, that a big space rock did not cause the Dryas, the one thing that is annoying about anything space or geological is the adding of zeros to explain things, or smashing thing into each other to explain thingsbrbrIt is as low IQ as the big bang theory
Comment from : Roland James

I have to be honest This is most unscientific stuff You can't rule out the multiple airburst theory, or even the impact one, just because the crater doesn't fit, or trying to justify the presence of micro spherules to some natural model, or the most insane one, that somehow humans ahahaahah burned a whole continent The worst is that this study was intentionally made with a political intention Nowadays you can find peer reviewed studies published by reputable sources that are complete crap (covid studies, gender studies, as examples) The concentration of spherules is pretty much the same as the dinosaur impact, the thickness of the layer differs greatly, so it DOES SUGGEST an impact model, only of a lesser extent, and don't even get me started on how debated this is, because every camp does it's own research with different results This is a hit piece, not science, it doesn't debunk absolutely anything We still truly don't have better model for the all the factors included in the YD, than the airburst/impact one I am truly sorry for everyone that takes Anton as a model of honesty and science He is clearly biased against the Graham Hancock people, instead of actually being objective
Comment from : Fola Raul Gabriel

A very large crater would not be expected as you state Anton, and if you've been following this like you say, you'd know that If fragments hit 1 to 2 miles thickness of glacier ice, you wouldn't see a giant impact crater You might not see anything, you might see large depressions like that of the area Prince George, Canada But again, you'd know this already if you really looked a map or the research I've lost a faith in your objectivity in one quick video
Comment from : Nathan Smith

Yellowstone caldera erupted under 3km of ice, melted all of it and flooded the world, taking all the volcanic material with it out to sea There Now you know
Comment from : TraderTrilogy X

Thsnk you for this one in particular!!
Comment from : D Shepherd

Fire bad
Comment from : Michael Bindner

War? Biological? World culture that practiced cremation?
Comment from : Michael Bindner

Michigan area is another candidate
Comment from : Michael Bindner

You have zero understanding of the impact hypothesis It wasn’t an asteroid It was multiple impacts over several thousand years by fragments of disintegrating comet Encke Comets are have much lower density than asteroids and travel through space at a much higher speed Those fragments wouldn’t create a crater They would explode in the atmosphere
Comment from : Jason Holt

So if it wasn't a comet, micronova something caused it
Comment from : Kev Grant

For a 'complete refutation' there are an awful lot of 'maybes' and guesswork
Comment from : Ricardo Moonbeam

Now that's what I call junk science Even the most superficial analysis by a layperson can see massive holes in the "reasoning" of the paper Just to start, lack of a crater means nothing Tunguska didn't leave a crater So saying that one particular crater isn't the smoking gun does nothing to negate the impact theorybrBut the major flaw is that we do have real, tangible evidence of an impact at the right time-- the Carolina bays Analysis of these secondary impact structures shows they resulted from an initial impact in the Saginaw Bay area Even though the Laurentide Ice Sheet prevented the formation of a proper crater, there is still evidence of an impact in that areabrThe paper doesn't refute anything It's a red herring
Comment from : John Terpack

Oh my gosh so let me get this straight Supposedly primitive humans set fire to the entire world and caused the end of the ice age Rather than the highly logical possibility of impacts to the ice sheets?
Comment from : greeneyeddevil1

Dang Anton, my first question was about the spiroles on fauna and the fires as America burned Wrote a but on that fact asking questions, but you answered them in the video
Comment from : Lestats Games

This crater was discovered in 2015 They new is was way older than the Younger Dryas about a year later This is old news When someone figures out how some of the Mega Fauna were flash frozen Fast enough to leave flowers in their mouths and stomach's Until you come up with a scientific reason that A Woolly Mammoth could be completely froze solid in about 8 hours or less This theory is just that a theory One thing for sure it was hell on Earth And roving bands of Clovis or any people could wipeout all kinds of large animals is completely ludicrous
Comment from : Brian B

It happened there's all kinds of other evidence
Comment from : Azriel

Flat Earth CONFIRMED
Comment from : Blatherskite

Stop the googleorama! There are no space aliens There is no evolution There are only people who think they can bioengineer "gain-of-function" or jerri-rig elections from offshore handling centers
Comment from : Allen Bartlett

This is buried by more than a decade of high quality research supporting a YDB impact and multiple impactors on the ice sheet matches the Carolina bays very well
Comment from : frogmtndoc

I liked the sarcastic humor blended with the amazingly detailed information Keep them both coming 👍
Comment from : DrFireChief

I'm taught the youngerdres was the result of earth's atmosphere stripped by a solar micronova impact around the pole flip brExplaining both biblical and scientific research on the subject to constantly collide in a battle of lifebrAm I mistaken?br Is not the exact same thing is happening now?brI'm confused
Comment from : KingJames

The forest fire issue now, is lack of management and arson You might note that after a forest fire, the trees are still there, the trees were not for the most part dry enough to burn up The dry underbrush and dead trees are the issue, but the climate people prevent the clearing of the underbrush and that is what makes forest fires so bad now Way back, there would be no management and a campfire, or a lightning strike could set off a fire Also, how do pine tree seeds get planted :)
Comment from : Eldor Luedtke

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
Comment from : Pat Albor

This refutation does not address Airburst impacts Which CAN cause massive widespread fires though 🔥 The debate here is healthy and needed We all need to remember none of has the answers and not to get encamped on incomplete data either way
Comment from : Pat Albor

Summary: Man is guilty, of terrible crimes, we will let nothing change that verdict
Comment from : Robert Flores

How did you mess up this bad, Anton?
Comment from : Tommy Lacey

No bueno
Comment from : Daniel Roberts

Why does everything get blamed on human activity? There are so many other factors in play Do more research
Comment from : Manny Rodrigues

This doesn’t have anything to do with YDE though The theory was multiple impactors on the North American ice sheet
Comment from : Helcatt

Get ready to be yelled at by a heavy Minnesota accent 😂
Comment from : Im Old Greg

This does not prove the younger dryas never happend
Comment from : nuggets

Lol
Comment from : Imploding Llama

Hmmm, too much evidence One study can't refute this in my mind
Comment from : Daniel Ray

The Greenland crater was never credited to the younger dryas event The younger dryas even was attributed to numerous airburst detonations of many small meteors over the ice sheet over North america
Comment from : william nicholson

Anton That crater you keep talking about That isn’t part of the original younger dryas impact hypothesis It’s just an impact crater that was found quite recently is all
Comment from : mab m

Coverup of the Phoenix Event
Comment from : Fuck You

Bro your lame
Comment from : Corey Williams

It could be even more boring/normal to explain A huge amount of water vapor entered the atmosphere during the recession of the glaciers That water could have created a second cooling wave A wave which may happen each time glaciers recede That moisture as climate warmed may have generated some very powerful storms There could have been million of lightning strikes on vegetation that grew up during this time in different areas at different moments We do not know what a mile of ice partially sublimating into the atmosphere could bring May be very normal after each glaciation
Comment from : Darryl Landry

roger Spurr called it all
Comment from : Dr Fever

Joe will be sad
Comment from : J H

Ho hum Expanding forest fires and the next great animal and fauna extinction that might actually be good for Sapiens who, it seems, precipitated (pun intended) the fires in the first place provided, of course, that we don't war ourselves into oblivion
Comment from : Rudy Haugeneder

Would there be an impact crater if the meteor hit 2 miles thick ice on the north american continent 12,900 years ago? Instant melting of ice and flooding and mass extinction event Watch some Randall Carlson Theres much more evidence than is addressed here
Comment from : nfineon

One study doesn't refute all the other evidence but must be weighed in light of it Apply occams razor, impact makes the most sense, what other source is going to generate the energy necessary to affect planetwide environment for centuries? Scientists can't even agree on iclimate change/i today, same competing scientists with agendas
Comment from : nfineon

Lmao
Comment from : John Frank455

Anton, you're putting all the dots in front of you, but possibly coming to the wrong assumption about the fires The fires in Canada are man made There's enough proof of people lighting these fires, and the fact that it stops at the border shows it's a cultural thing
Comment from : Lance Ryan

When they add a context box you know you're being bs'ed
Comment from : Como assim?

Ah Some low level scientists have gone on a witch-hunt again😂 That crater has bothing to do with the younger dryas and that's something we already knew a long time ago Let's see how long this one will hold You dissapoint me in this one Anton Not that you report on this, but the word "definitively" coming from you kind of categorizes you as a bit of a gullible tool imho The younger dryas impact-theory has much evolved over the last couple of years and none of the statements made in this socalled paper are anything new and don't debunk anything whatsoever Funny that they even try to chuck in the arrival of cavemen as an explanation for large fires all over the place😂 Talking about desperatebrbrPS: I live in Belgium, which happens to be one of the few places that still has a very clear sedimentationline proving an impact-event A thin dark line filled with berilium and scorched earth The thing with the younger dryas impact is that the delayed floods washed away or severely diluted most of the evidence
Comment from : Bert Demeulemeester

So the period when humans started to use fire and burned down a hole lot of forests is called the dry-ass period? Got it
Comment from : Valter Eriksen

Graham Hancock on suicide watch rn
Comment from : Dino Van Hammer

disappointed in this one bud all you've done is show b roll and 1 paper debate Randall Carlson and let's see who has more proof
Comment from : Turn Racing

The fact that Wikipedia is bought and paid for and discredits certain "political leaning" scientists tells you NOT to trust or ever use them
Comment from : buryitdeep

I usually like you videos, but you are wrong on this one
Comment from : Rob Yury

I see many comments about an impact on an ice sheet So, I will add another layer of complexity to the mix The impact could've been in the ocean, but I will focus on a coastal region for this argument brFor example, we know the sea level rose and that we do not have much of the ocean mapped Also, when the ice sheets melted, this caused isostatic rebound which caused the continental land mass to gain elevation So, we know the ice sheets melted, the continental crust gained elevation, and the sea level rose from the influx of water from ice sheets melting It is very plausible in the case of a coastal impact for the crater to be covered up from the increased sedimentation brIn order to disprove everything, the study needs to be exhaustive to the point where it proves a negative I do not like seeing scientific papers that try to disprove multiple scientific papers They should've done multiple scientific papers to discredit each point This reeks of an ulterior motive and an overall lack of science
Comment from : mrush812

Why is it always mans fault I've seen many fires start by lightningbr So the ice did not melt rapidly ? I think we can prove it did and I thought putting in that much fresh water into the ocean would change the climate on it's own?brAlso the sun had nothing to do with any of this? not gonna buy it maybe I'm getting old
Comment from : Chris Tabb

It's good but it doesn't definitively prove it wrong I don't understand why the scientific community is so dead set against it Just don't get it
Comment from : AllYourBaseAre BelongToUs

Stay wonderfulbrbr- a person
Comment from : Exar

Show photos of the landscape all over north America,brPictures not imagianry imagined in the imagination words
Comment from : Kevin Mannix

Micronova explains everything Look into and you'll find the truth
Comment from : Nous

Pole reversal (N/S to W/E) and loss of magnetosphere would explain things better than an Impact
Comment from : EL XABER

10:40 if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a Younger-Dryas impactor
Comment from : Uncle Elias

Anton, I am a fan of your work, but I have to disagree with you on this one brWell, let me be clear: I am not saying that I believe it WAS an asteroid that caused the younger Dryas In fact, based on all of the evidence that I have personally looked into, I would argue that what had caused the Younger Dryas was the opposite of something falling from the sky brThere is more evidence that this was caused by the magnetic poles shifting (which we do know does happen every so often and as you pointed out yourself, this sort of event HAS happened in the past before the younger dryas) but magnetic poles won't chill the earth on its own (Presumably) However, it sure can be the catalyst to events such as massive tectonic plates shifting resulting in a series of super volcanos erupting And we do have data that supports this sort of theory as in we have seen volcanic ash change temperatures of areas, however only on a smaller scale But, we have also never witnessed "Super volcanos" which are orders of magnitude more intensebrI appreciate what conclusions you have come to as well though even if they differ from mine Any REAL scientist just wants the answer to the question and doesn't care about the narrative that the truth might result in And I for sure think you are in the "REAL Scientist" camp!brkeep up the good work!brCheers!
Comment from : Daniel Hierholzer

That study was debunked
Comment from : Truman Johnson

It was caused by a pole shift event, and it will happen again soon 😢
Comment from : Raj Reko

I've always been a little suspicious of some of these ice core interpretations It is a very interesting source of data, but difficult to use
Comment from : gfarrell80

Really disappointed, I would say Randall Carlson and graham handcock recently popularized the 1904 theory None of the arguments argued against here are part of their theory excluding the residue from fires and maybe you can argue 1-2 other things, but loosely and not as they are presented here They never claim a large impact, they certainly never claim to know the crater, they claim earth passed through the torrid meteor stream, which it still does 2x per year to this day The main proponents of the theory has to do with the similarities in different cultures around the world backed up by scant physical evidence, like only two of the things mentioned in the video are actually part of the theory
Comment from : Mccoyj189

But does it disprove extraterrestrial space lasers
Comment from : Bagel Machine

This information is not even remotely new and in no way DEBOONKED the Younger Dryas Impact Theory I really don't get why, but your content has become increasingly terrible over the past few years as you focus more and more on "trusting the science" instead of trusting the hard data and observations Maybe the impact theory IS wrong, but this paper doesn't "prove" it and it's incredibly disappointing to watch you try to frame it that way I'm sick of the way you've been discussing science for some time now especially when it comes to particular topics like this that have actual credibility when looking at the evidence, but don't have the express backing of mainstream "leaders" in the field It's like you're more concerned that you're seen as siding with the mainstream "consensus" than you are about reporting on the actual facts and keeping your mind open to alternatives, even if those alternative have substantial evidence behind them like the YDI theory does Unsubbed
Comment from : n0pe

Anton i like you but dont have this tone You should be open for new stuff or we not gonna know anything new It paints you to someone i really not like All people ate all big animals sure
Comment from : jimmy k

Ancient Gender Reveal parties
Comment from : Bocchi the Box

Now I am picturing Clovis era insurance companies investigating massive arson cases
Comment from : todgor

I’m not giving up on the impact theory just yet this is just more evidence to consider However the question I am left with is what caused this 50 million year old crater?
Comment from : Hyper RetroActive

Anton, everything you said is maybe with science
Comment from : Kenneth Emery

It wasn't a comet, it was an intense solar storm from the Sun & it happens in specific intervals throughout the ages Has happened many times, and will keep happening, cyclicallybrbrThey happen in roughly 12,000 year cycles The end of the last ice age / younger dryas was about 12,000 years ago The Epoch we live in (the holocene) began about 12,000 years ago And it is currently the year 12,023 in the holocene brbrThe last scary event from the Sun was Maunder Minimum about 400 years ago, which is also a recurring event The next one is supposed to happen in 2045 brbrSome people say the singularity is in the 2040s Some say a Micronova in the 2040s Some say a 60+ reduction in solar activity for 8 to 15 years beginning in the next solar cycle 26brbrI dont know the exact answer as to what's going to happen, but it's happening and people need to know Especially when the crust unlocks and continents start floating to different parts of the globe
Comment from : ÆtherSpawn

IMHO the most significant evidence against the impact hypothesis is that these cyclea with similar dynamic happen repeatedly on longer timescales So this was just another iteration There could have been an impact, but just as an extra factor to something that would happen anyway
Comment from : Bohumír Zámečník

Hm Clever Appeal
Comment from : AlessioAndres

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh
Comment from : TallahassZ Remington

I don't think anyone suggested the new crater in Greenland was linked to the YD, apart from people in the media The YD impact was very likely centred on the Laurentide Ice Sheet, where the Great Lakes are today See Antonio Zamora's work on this and thousands of secondary impacts which created the Craolina Bays on the east coast, and in Nebraska Also 1 or 2 in Texas
Comment from : McNab

4:50 UNFAIR CONCLUSION! Look at the work of Antonio Zamora on The Carolina Bays which point towards an Impact on the North American Ice Sheet This shows the possibility of Impacts which leave no obvious crater In this case The Bays are 'proxy' evidence for an impact 10:40 This seems to be a compendium of 'alternatives' and as trust worthy as any collection of hearsay chosen randomly to support an unproven hypothesis such as that 'An Impact Did Not Cause The Younger Dryas' 13:40 ' You seem to imply that The Clovis People were in some way gratuitous arsonists There is 'absolutely' no evidence for such deranged behaviour I do agree with your hope for the future however :-)
Comment from : Brian Meyrick

Joe Rogan and the ice age civilization kooks and snake oil salesmen aren’t gonna like this
Comment from : gabo1841997

Looks like Billy Joel was wrong
Comment from : W Young

0:00: 🌍 Approximately four years ago, a major discovery of a large impact crater in Greenland brought back the controversial hypothesis of the Younger Dryas impact br4:22: 📄 A comprehensive refutation of the younger dryas impact hypothesis and an alternative explanation for the extinction of megafauna around that time br7:00: 📺 The video discusses the cultural and technological changes in human life and the extinction of megafauna before and after the impact event br10:34: 🔍 Scientists misinterpret evidence and fail to find a crater, casting doubt on the theory of an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago br14:59: 🔥 Fires 13,500 years ago likely caused a decline in population and extinction of fauna in the region brRecap by Tammy AI
Comment from : Alex

Im more on the side of solar flare than an impact for that time period
Comment from : Nosfe Ratu

Not covering the Carolina Bays hypothesis leaves a big hole in this analysis It is a stretch to think forest fires caused the Younger Dryas
Comment from : Biff BSUCat