Re Clovis people's. This somewhat vindicates some of Hancock's comments in the earlier video.
From Wiki...
The "Clovis first theory" refers to the 1950s hypothesis that the Clovis culture represents the earliest human presence in the Americas, beginning about 13,000 years ago; evidence of pre-Clovis cultures has accumulated since 2000, pushing back the possible date of the first peopling of the Americas to about 13,200–15,500 years ago.
Alex
The hypothesis re comet impact is that the sudden disappearance of the Clovis people was a direct result of the comet impact referred to throughout this thread.
Alex
Here is a short video supportive of Hancocks claims that
mainstream is/was wrong about the earliest humans in America.
I took the time to look at the video again, the one that David paralleled to a Moon hoax status...I can only think David was being sarcastic as there is nothing in that video to put it in the Moon hoax class and perhaps David saying he did not bother to look at all of it was the ultimate sarcasm directed at folk who have a view point that they protect be refusing to look at any evidence that may threaten their position of belief.
If it was sarcasm I say brilliant ...if not perhaps others who actually watch the video may care to comment upon it...not this one but the one on the first page where David said it was no better than Moon hoax stuff. This one here is one that is interesting from the point of view that much work is being done which just keeps pushing the dates back.
https://youtu.be/y_7JJ0YP9Es
I have been looking to find what work is being done to establish the age of the suspected impact crator in Greenland...so far it seems no one is drilling thru the ice to date this thing...also I am on the track of yet another "young" crator site I think about 100 miles from the first one...multiple crators would be good to determine if there is more to the story...some folk into this have predicted multiple crators so it will be interesting if these folk deemed ratbags will be proved right
Alex
And for some balance from Climate.org
Among our reasons for skepticism (again, see our earlier post on this) there is a basic statistical problem. The problem is — and this context is missing from most if not all of the articles we’ve seen on this — that explaining the Younger Dryas in terms of an impact leaves all the other rapid climate change events (the so-called “Dansgaard-Oeschger events”) of the last glacial period unexplained.* One would have to either accept the conventional ideas for the causes of these events, or, alternatively, one would have to propose that there was an impact not only before the Younger Dryas, but before each of the earlier events....end of selected section of article.
The above raises an interesting point which is the prospect that impacts are relatively common.
If you look at the graphs you will see the fluctuations of the Younger Dead are really the same as many before it...certainly the question arises that must be ...why..
Alex
https://youtu.be/1MKyJyNIklg
Another bid re pre Clovis and a guy actually saying he did not look past a certain level because he believed he would find nothing.
And I sense the general refusal of folk to take the prospect of a comet impact seriously or to even look at the evidence, and there is considerable evidence other than the new possible impact site found in a strata with stuff associated with something no terrestrial.
If you are interested you may care to look but clearly there are those who don't care, and those who perhaps don't want a different version of history.
I find it all most interesting of course.
And I get the feeling that world shattering impacts may be somewhat the norm.
I guess our managers don't want us to be concerned with the prospect of destruction ... But one only has to look at various events which suggest there is probably more stuff still flying about than we would like to admit.
Thank goodness NASA has increased its budget to list the objects that may pose a threat...also maybe our managers want us to fear other things that they claim they can manage...and certainly folk may not be so happy if the prospect of possible hits were shown to be somewhat inevitable.
Anyways I hope those who have followed this thread have been entertained and hopefully informed.
Alex