Younger Dryas Hypothesis - The whole picture

[apollobeatz]

Hi to everyone! My name is Anatoly, from Russia.
I think the most here heard at least one time about the Younger Dryas Hypothesis and the comet impact that happened 12,800 years ago!
Some saw may be Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson talking about these events, while the academic science already tries to refute this hypothesis.
Well, at least none argues about the existence of the Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) that dates back to 12+ thousand years.
So the facts are there that something big happened to our planet back then, and not that far ago, in planetary scale!

We already know some more facts that can be dated roughly at the same time: extinction of mammoths, end of the ice age, rapid climb in temperature by about +10 celsius in Greenland, and the flooding of the mythical Atlantis... Are they somehow related to eachother?
The answer is YES! And that is only a small part of the whole picture!

You see, we in Russia got many respected researchers that go their own way, not known to the west and western public in general.
And if you combine their knowledge together with western Younger Dryas Hypothesis you can get the whole picture of what had happened there.
I added to the whole picture my own discovery and research and best possible precision. And believe me, I know something about precision,
as I lived and grew up in Germany for 15 years. Furthermore I will bring up new theories, and cast doubt on existing ones, with what I will face heavy resistance in the west, and in Russia aswell, as the official academic science is mostly the same here and there, and that community won't agree that it made some mistakes in the past, and continues to do so.
But if you want to look on the whole and clear picture of the events that were caused all together by one sudden strike, I made a whole one hour long video,
I worked on for 2 years.

I gotta say sorry for not having a proper english version of it, as my spoken english is way to bad to make it by myself, but I did my best with the proper subs.
So you can watch the video with translated subs into your language, that will be up to 90% accurate.

If someone will want to voice over it in english or any other language, you can contact me for a clean version without my russian voice over.

Have phun watching! -

PS: I know that I will see many comments like : Pseudoscience and so on! But I will stay with all I say in that video! And moreover, I am pretty sure it will be confirmed very soon, in near future for sure. There is not much left to prove it!

 

[billvon]

Since most of us do not have time to watch a 1+ hour video, could you perhaps summarize it for us?

 

[apollobeatz]

Since most of us do not have time to watch a 1+ hour video, could you perhaps summarize it for us?

Well, okay, in just a few words that will be simple as that - The reason all these events happened is a pole shift, or to be more precise, earth's crust shift, that was caused by a massive impact 12 thousand years ago. And everything is there, the evidence for the catastrophic pole shift, and the massive impact crater that could cause all that, and even better, it is just in plain sight! But the (not entirely) wrong theory of Alfred Wegener with his continental drift and explanation of the origin of the Himalayas are in the way to see and explain the real thing that happened there.

 

[C C]

[...] PS: I know that I will see many comments like : Pseudoscience and so on! But I will stay with all I say in that video! And moreover, I am pretty sure it will be confirmed very soon, in near future for sure. There is not much left to prove it!

Well, given that it is such a treasure to whatever this shared community identity is that seems to span the whole globe, one might accordingly hope instead that the mainstream never gets to steal it away via such a confirmation.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

YDIH (excerpt): The idea that a comet struck North America at the end of the last ice age was first proposed as a speculative premise by the American congressman and pseudohistorian Ignatius Donnelly in 1883 [...] In 2001, Richard Firestone and William Topping published their first version of the YDIH. [...] In May 2007, at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Acapulco, Firestone, West, and around twenty other scientists made their first formal presentation of the hypothesis...

Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223001915?via%3Dihub

EXCERPT: 17. Conclusions

The YDIH evolved directly from pseudoscience. As such, the initial publication in scientific literature was seriously plagued by poorly documented interpretations and baseless assertions. As outlined in this paper and in other publications, a broad array of serious flaws persists in the YDIH...

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The Comet Strike Theory That Just Won't Die (originally in the New York Times Mar 5, 2024)

https://www.sott.net/article/489680-The-comet-strike-theory-that-just-wont-die

EXCERPTS: The widespread interest in the impact hypothesis outside academia can appear difficult to understand, says Tristan Sturm, a geographer at Queen's University Belfast, who studies apocalyptic narratives and conspiracy theories. "Archaeology is not a superpopular topic," he points out. Nor does grasping the truth about the impact hypothesis have obvious importance for the average person.

But he says that it has a clear resonance with multiple cultural strains. Notably, it echoes and affirms Christian apocalyptic narratives, including that of Noah's flood. "People are always looking for justification for their beliefs," he says. "If they can find archaeological evidence for something that happens in Genesis, brilliant."

More broadly, the hypothesis' fringe status appeals to those who are experiencing what Sturm calls "conspiracism," the reflexive distrust of authority figures, including politicians, journalists and, increasingly, scientists. A tendency toward conspiracism does not necessarily mean someone subscribes to actual conspiracy theories, Sturm says; rather, it is a gap in the epistemological immune system through which conspiracy theories enter.

[...] There are now many dozens of videos about the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis on YouTube. Some YouTubers doubt the hypothesis or even try to debunk it, but many more treat it as true. In their retellings, the hypothesis takes on the sheen of legend, with new embellishments, new twists, new conclusions.

Some YouTubers use the impact and its supposed connection to rapid climatic cooling to challenge the importance of modern anthropogenic contributions to climate change. Others tie the impact to biblical events. Skeptics of the hypothesis, meanwhile, swell into villains — members of the "scientific cabal," as one YouTuber describes them, or victims of groupthink.

[...] In a sense, what West and his collaborators think now hardly matters. The hypothesis has already penetrated deeply, and perhaps indelibly, into the public imagination, seemingly on its way to becoming less a matter of truth than a matter of personal and group identity. Nobody I spoke with seemed to think it would go away soon, if ever.
_

 

[billvon]

Well, okay, in just a few words that will be simple as that - The reason all these events happened is a pole shift, or to be more precise, earth's crust shift, that was caused by a massive impact 12 thousand years ago.

Well, there almost certainly was a magnetic pole shift about 40,000 years ago. But it wasn't caused by an impact; they happen periodically.

And it CANNOT be caused by an impact, since what causes the magnetic fields are the currents in the outer core - which is 2000 miles deep. Any impact that got that deep would completely destroy the Earth and all life on it.

Re the Noah's Ark thing - there is some evidence that that was real and it was caused by massive flooding; from the perspective of one farmer who saved his family and a few animals on a raft, it may have looked like the whole Earth had flooded. But the events that could cause that (like the Black Sea deluge) were local, not global.

 

[apollobeatz]

Well, given that it is such a treasure to whatever this shared community identity is that seems to span the whole globe, one might accordingly hope instead that the mainstream never gets to steal it away via such a confirmation.

Thank you for all these links! That is even more valuable then you might think!

About one link, that with the "Comprehensive refutation of the YD-Hypothesis" I was already aware of! Well, I think they bring up even more nonsense to the table in an attempt to refute this hypothesis! People are not that dumb, and will soon know that 12 thousand years ago there were civilisations that built Atlantis and Mayan Pyramids! Yes, that's right. Mayan Pyramids are older then Egypt's! And this I tell in my video! But that group of kind of official academics, or something, try to paint a picture that we humans knew only how to make fire and some few tools out of stone... and these cave people decided all at one moment, on different continents, to use new hunting tactics, with burning forests.... Ah, come on, that is so hilarious, or dumb, kindergarten-science, call that what you want... but that's clearly not a refutation of the YD impact hypothesis!

The academics just try to paint a clean picture of Darwin's slow evolution for us, but that doesn't work, and you can't ignore that much, or in that childish manner, the evidences that are there that we had more civilisations back then... Come on, we still even don't know how they built the pyramids, with such huge and heavy blocks and without compass that couldn't even realise that precision they achieved back then!

 

[apollobeatz]

The Comet Strike Theory That Just Won't Die (originally in the New York Times Mar 5, 2024)

https://www.sott.net/article/489680-The-comet-strike-theory-that-just-wont-die

To this article I can say many things! I grew up in the west, in the heart of Europe, in Germany, and had been to many places like Paris, London, Oxford, Barcelona... I know that kind of propaganda that exists in the west with such articles that refute nothing at all, but just try to say, like from a perspective of a wise old man, that these people that trust this and that, even scientific evidence and facts, that don't fit into some mainstream theory like Darwin's, are just mentally ill or just naive, or too much religious or something, or are just some dumb conspiracy theorists! I have seen a lot of these kind of articles, that refute nothing! They give not one single argument against, to disapprove the facts that are there, but just tell that these people are kind of dumb, naive and so on... So these kind of articles got nothing to do with science!

They say about the cooling in the YD period, and that is what Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson say, so far I know, but I got my own and more advanced view on all of that! I just talk about the time and date of 12 thousand years, and there was no cooling but heating, by about +10 degrees Celsius!!! At least in Greenland... some parts of the planet got warmer, some colder, due to the earth's crust shift! So the western YD impact theory wasn't at any time perfect and complete!!! That I do with my video, and bring it to an almost complete picture and a proved status! But almost... It will need a few years, may be, to be confirmed! Well, if there will be actions done, else it will take decades as usual

 

[apollobeatz]

Well, there almost certainly was a magnetic pole shift about 40,000 years ago. But it wasn't caused by an impact; they happen periodically.

And it CANNOT be caused by an impact, since what causes the magnetic fields are the currents in the outer core - which is 2000 miles deep. Any impact that got that deep would completely destroy the Earth and all life on it.

Re the Noah's Ark thing - there is some evidence that that was real and it was caused by massive flooding; from the perspective of one farmer who saved his family and a few animals on a raft, it may have looked like the whole Earth had flooded. But the events that could cause that (like the Black Sea deluge) were local, not global.

Bro, I know it's hard to follow to the exact words I say, as there was nothing like that in the west, what I am telling about right now. But I do not talk about the magnetic pole shift, but a geographical earth's crust (and pole) shift by only 15 degrees! That is a bit hard to imagine at a first sight, when you never heard and talked about it (the same was for me) but that is a realistic scenario that happened there! I did my research for years on the topic of the earth's axis shift caused by an impact, but the resulting conclusion of it is that the earth's axis is really hard to be disturbed by an asteroid strike, even large one. But what remains realistic is the earth's crust shift by an large asteroid or comet strike.

The caused floodings after that strike and the earth's crust shift I do not relate to the biblical flood, not at all!
But yea, the Bibel gives us at least the same knowledge that we had civilisations on Earth that disappeared at one moment, and we humans started almost from scratch, and that is accurate view of the thing we see on our planet. But the Darwin's followers will try to make look us like idiots. But in the end they themselves will look like that, by ignoring the scientific evidences all over the planet, and all over the place

 

[exchemist]

Well, okay, in just a few words that will be simple as that - The reason all these events happened is a pole shift, or to be more precise, earth's crust shift, that was caused by a massive impact 12 thousand years ago. And everything is there, the evidence for the catastrophic pole shift, and the massive impact crater that could cause all that, and even better, it is just in plain sight! But the (not entirely) wrong theory of Alfred Wegener with his continental drift and explanation of the origin of the Himalayas are in the way to see and explain the real thing that happened there.

I don’t understand this. The Himalayas are millions of years old, surely. How can they be relevant to a climate change event only 12,000 yrs ago?

Are you claiming the Himalayas are only 12,000yrs old?

 

[apollobeatz]

I don’t understand this. The Himalayas are millions of years old, surely. How can they be relevant to a climate change event only 12,000 yrs ago?

Are you claiming the Himalayas are only 12,000yrs old?

Yes, you're right! You got straight understanding and logic!

But, all the datings of the Himalayas done till today are based on the Alfred Wegener's wrong theory of continental drift and India crushing into Eurasia, to form the Himalayas! That is just wrong, and the datings received from this theory are also all wrong! It just doesn't add up at the end of the day! The Himalayas look like the freshest mountains on the planet, and some are extremely sharp, especially the mountains in the Karakorum system! Justy look at them! How can they be 50+ millions of years old?

The official science tells us, that these mountains are weathering by 1 cm a year! Now try to make a model by yourself of over 50+ millions of years! You'll be amused, I think! And you will see that it doesn't make sense, or add up!

The official science didn't give us models of the weathering of the mountains so far, so they rely on wrong Alferd Wegerner's theory till today about the formation of the Himalayas!


These are 50+ millions of years old????? You tell me that for sure?

 

[exchemist]

Yes, you're right! You got straight understanding and logic!

But, all the datings of the Himalayas done till today are based on the Alfred Wegener's wrong theory of continental drift and India crushing into Eurasia, to form the Himalayas! That is just wrong, and the datings received from this theory are also all wrong! It just doesn't add up at the end of the day! The Himalayas look like the freshest mountains on the planet, and some are extremely sharp, especially the mountains in the Karakorum system! Justy look at them! How can they be 50+ millions of years old?

The official science tells us, that these mountains are weathering by 1 cm a year! Now try to make a model by yourself of over 50+ millions of years! You'll be amused, I think! And you will see that it doesn't make sense, or add up!

The official science didn't give us models of the weathering of the mountains so far, so they rely on wrong Alferd Wegerner's theory till today about the formation of the Himalayas!


These are 50+ millions of years old????? You tell me that for sure?

The Himalayas are still rising, at a rate of 1cm/year, in spite of erosion. They are the "freshest on the planet", but that's just the because the others are older. (The Alps, which also look "fresh", are not much older, though.)

The datings are based on fossil evidence and radiometric dating, and are thus independent of the theory of continental drift.

 

[apollobeatz]

The Himalayas are still rising, at a rate of 1cm/year, in spite of erosion.

The datings are based on fossil evidence and radiometric dating, and are thus independent of the theory of continental drift.

Well you're wrong that they are independent of the theory by Wegener, most of them are, if not all! Yea, there are some other ways included, like "radiometric dating", which will show nothing at all! Yes. it deffinatly show something but not the age of the formation of the mountains! It's just not possible. Age of the stone isn't equal to the age of the mountain! But okay, they can date some fossils there... That will tell something, but not the age of the mountain again... so or so, they rely on Alfred's theory... without it, it would be not possible at all to date mountains on our planet! The official science didn't gave us working models of the weathering of the mountains. I tell once more. Basically, we can't date the mountains! That would be a sincere statement of the officials, but they gone already to far to say things like that

 

[exchemist]

Well you're wrong that they are independent of the theory by Wegener, most of them are, if not all! Yea, there are some other ways included, like "radiometric dating", which will show nothing at all! Yes. it deffinatly show something but not the age of the formation of the mountains! It's just not possible. Age of the stone isn't equal to the age of the mountain! But okay, they can date some fossils there... That will tell something, but not the age of the mountain again... so or so, they rely on Alfred's theory... without it, it would be not possible at all to date mountains on our planet! The official science didn't gave us working models of the weathering of the mountains. I tell once more. Basically, we can't date the mountains! That would be a sincere statement of the officials, but they gone already to far to say things like that

The theory of plate tectonics, of which continental drift is part, became established only in the 1960s. The methods of fossil dating were established long before then.

Radiometric dating of igneous rocks depends solely on the physics of radioactive decay and the "closure temperature" for the mineral in question. Neither of these has anything to do with any theory of continental drift.

 

[apollobeatz]

The Himalayas are still rising, at a rate of 1cm/year, in spite of erosion.

Make a model by your own, it will take only max an hour! 1 cm per year over 50+ millions of years! That is the rising of the Tibetan Plateau btw! Does it add up for you???? And yea, then there is kind of the same number of 1 cm per year of weathering of the mountains standing on top on the plateau..... Come on, I want you to make some models of the Himalayas by yourself with that numbers! Good luck! with that!

 

[apollobeatz]

The theory of plate tectonics, of which continental drift is part, became established only in the 1960s. The methods of fossil dating were established long before then.

Radiometric dating of igneous rocks depends solely on the physics of radioactive decay and the "closure temperature" for the mineral in question. Neither of these has anything to do with any theory of continental drift.

I think you still don't get it. The age of the rock has nothing to do with the formation of the mountain it may be in! Earth's crust is millions and billions of years old, but there might be an event that will cause today or tomorrow a new mountain range! And radiometric analysis will show us the age of billions of years of a fresh happened event.

 

[exchemist]

Make a model by your own, it will take only max an hour! 1 cm per year over 50+ millions of years! That is the rising of the Tibetan Plateau btw! Does it add up for you???? And yea, then there is kind of the same number of 1 cm per year of weathering of the mountains standing on top on the plateau..... Come on, I want you to make some models of the Himalayas by yourself with that numbers! Good luck! with that!

Nobody alleges the current rate of rise has been constant over time. But a few moments ago you were arguing the Himalayas can't be old because they are eroding at 1cm/yr. So are you saying they are getting higher or getting lower?

And if they are getting higher, how do you account for that, given your cometary impact was 12,000 years ago?

 

[exchemist]

I think you still don't get it. The age of the rock has nothing to do with the formation of the mountain it may be in! Earth's crust is millions and billions of years old, but there might be an event that will cause today or tomorrow a new mountain range! And radiometric analysis will show us the age of billions of years of a fresh happened event.

Well OK, but the ages of the igneous rocks do point to activity around the time the Himalayas are thought to have started to rise:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136791202300161X

 

[apollobeatz]

Nobody alleges the current rate of rise has been constant over time. But a few moments ago you are arguing the Himalayas can't be old because they are eroding at 1cm/yr. So are you saying they are getting higher or getting lower?

And if they are getting higher, how do you account for that, given your cometary impact was 12,000 years ago?

I didn't say anything about their rising or anything, just the fact that they are looking like the freshest mountains on Earth to me... I do not believe in Wegener's subduction theory, so i think that they are slowly weathering and getting lower...

Do you know about the theory that the mountains on our planet Earth can get to a max height of 10 km??? Above this threshold they will crack and fall apart under it's own weight. That rule goes for mountains out of granite I think. So can you show me how the Himalayas looked back 50 million years ago after their formation? Please, I want to see a nice model which includes the rising and weathering of the Himalayas over the past 50 million years! Can you may be do it, or any official academic, please? So I will then consider myself as a conspiracy theorist!

 

[exchemist]

I didn't say anything about their rising or anything, just the fact that they are looking like the freshest mountains on Earth to me... I do not believe in Wegener's subduction theory, so i think that they are slowly weathering and getting lower...

Do you know about the theory that the mountains on our planet Earth can get to a max height of 10 km??? Above this threshold they will crack and fall apart under it's own weight. That rule goes for mountains out of granite I think. So can you show me how the Himalayas looked back 50 million years ago after their formation? Please, I want to see a nice model which includes the rising and weathering of the Himalayas over the past 50 million years! Can you may be do it, or any official academic, please? So I will then recognise myself as a conspiracy theorist!

This is the conventional explanation: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

As for conspiracy theories, yes I imagine you must be a conspiracy theorist. Why else would you think all the geologists are wrong? It must be conspiracy, surely?

 

[apollobeatz]

Well OK, but the ages of the igneous rocks do point to activity around the time the Himalayas are thought to have started to rise:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136791202300161X

Okay, that IS a first argument you brought in that discussion for your point of view! All other were just nonsense.

I will spend some time to read it carefully, but can respond to it right now with some uncertain at the moment arguments.
I made a discovery back in 2016 of which I am telling about in my first video that was released 2 years ago. And there I explain all the movements of earth masses that formed the Tibetan Plateau. And there can happen anything, including the ancient fossils that were brought up on the mountains of the Himalayas. But in my theory they were not from the ancient ocean Tethys, between India and Eurasia.


For now I just tell one thing, that I got an alternative to the known theory of the formation of the Himalayas, that is even more precise and logical to the Wegerner's one that is official.


Got to go to sleep, but will respond tomorrow