3 ms·

This guy (https://www.youtube.com/@Antonio_Zamora https://www.youtube.com/@Antonio_Zamora) makes a very solid argument that in the Younger Dryas a meteorite imp

This guy (https://www.youtube.com/@Antonio_Zamora https://www.youtube.com/@Antonio_Zamora) makes a very solid argument that in the Younger Dryas a meteorite impactor hit the ice sheet over the Great Lakes, sending huge ice chunks flying that created elliptical craters that then quickly refilled that are called the Carolina Bays, and which are ubiquitous in the South East, and which point back at the impact point(s) (I think he says there were two impact points) in Michigan. The amount of energy delivered by all those ice chunks seems to have been several megatons (of TNT) per square mile. Enough chunks were ejected, and carolina bays formed, to have likely caused an extinction event.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
There's a real danger in getting misinformation from YouTube channels. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis has been extensively refuted multiple times. The latest such paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502) is pretty exhaustive in exploring the history of these ideas and how they fall short.
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  YouTube is like the anti-Wikipedia. It’s easy to create videos and the only check are comments buried 200 comments down
- hnfong 2y ago
  In your link, the first words of the abstract is: "A series of publications purport to provide evidence that..." So even published papers contain such "misinformation", it isn't specific to Youtube. I have no training in the areas of archaeological evidence, so I don't know what to make of the paper, but it looks like people are just arguing about evidence of whether there was an asteroid impact. It's interesting though that the title of the paper is called "Complete Refutation" of the hypothesis and not of the evidence. If you're nit-picky enough you'd notice that the YDIH isn't a "scientific" hypothesis per se since hypotheses about what happened in the past doesn't really give testable predictions, and actually what they did in the paper was to refute all the evidence of the hypothesis -- but it seems to me it's still theoretically possible for new evidence to come up that definitely supports YDIH. Also, AFAICT this only rules out the asteroid impact. It still doesn't rule out the possibility that the abrupt climate changes during the Younger Dryas causing stress to the megafauna population, which presumably is another thing.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    My comment was responding specifically to the parent comment about the impact hypothesis, not the overkill hypothesis in TFA. The title is a bit sensationalist, but I get the impulse for gimmicky titles.
  - Nursie 2y ago
    My reading of the paper was that it attacks even the need for there to be any special explanation for events around that time period as the 'evidence' for something major happening, from impacts to global wildfire, is simply missing.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  You clearly didn't even take a look. Zamora is not a run of the mill YouTube loony but a published academic. I'll look at the paper you linked, but you should look at Zamora's papers too.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    I only see one paper linked on the channel, which is a substandard paper in a low impact journal. Beyond that, his website documenting his independent research also includes sections on the occult and psychic phenomena. What did I miss?

AlotOfReading 2y ago

There's a real danger in getting misinformation from YouTube channels. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis has been extensively refuted multiple times. The latest such paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502) is pretty exhaustive in exploring the history of these ideas and how they fall short.

alfiedotwtf 2y ago
YouTube is like the anti-Wikipedia. It’s easy to create videos and the only check are comments buried 200 comments down
hnfong 2y ago
In your link, the first words of the abstract is: "A series of publications purport to provide evidence that..." So even published papers contain such "misinformation", it isn't specific to Youtube. I have no training in the areas of archaeological evidence, so I don't know what to make of the paper, but it looks like people are just arguing about evidence of whether there was an asteroid impact. It's interesting though that the title of the paper is called "Complete Refutation" of the hypothesis and not of the evidence. If you're nit-picky enough you'd notice that the YDIH isn't a "scientific" hypothesis per se since hypotheses about what happened in the past doesn't really give testable predictions, and actually what they did in the paper was to refute all the evidence of the hypothesis -- but it seems to me it's still theoretically possible for new evidence to come up that definitely supports YDIH. Also, AFAICT this only rules out the asteroid impact. It still doesn't rule out the possibility that the abrupt climate changes during the Younger Dryas causing stress to the megafauna population, which presumably is another thing.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  My comment was responding specifically to the parent comment about the impact hypothesis, not the overkill hypothesis in TFA. The title is a bit sensationalist, but I get the impulse for gimmicky titles.
- Nursie 2y ago
  My reading of the paper was that it attacks even the need for there to be any special explanation for events around that time period as the 'evidence' for something major happening, from impacts to global wildfire, is simply missing.
cryptonector 2y ago
You clearly didn't even take a look. Zamora is not a run of the mill YouTube loony but a published academic. I'll look at the paper you linked, but you should look at Zamora's papers too.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  I only see one paper linked on the channel, which is a substandard paper in a low impact journal. Beyond that, his website documenting his independent research also includes sections on the occult and psychic phenomena. What did I miss?