Destiny: Marc Young, Catastrophe on Earth

Marc Young is an Australian geoarchaeologist and member of the CRG and is renowned for his extensive research into the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis.

Marc Young’s academic journey began with a profound interest in archaeology, inspired by early exposure to documentaries on Ancient Egypt. In 2016, after a Joe Rogan episode featuring Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock, he was inspired to pursue a Bachelor of Archaeology and a Bachelor of Science, which he completed in 2021. During his undergraduate studies, Marc was awarded the University Medal for his dissertation relating to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. His dedication to this field culminated in an Honours research project that experimentally evaluated protocols for separating magnetic microspherules, contributing valuable insights to the methodologies used in geoarchaeological research.

An active researcher with the Comet Research Group, Marc collaborates on various projects related to cosmic impacts and their effects on Earth’s history and also compiled together the YDIH Bibliography.As an invaluable contributor to the Comet Research Group, Marc is an asset to the Cosmic Summit. His in-depth knowledge and expertise on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and catastrophism further our understanding of the potential influences cosmic phenomena have had on our cultural development. Returning to Cosmic Summit, Marc Young’s dedication to uncovering the connections between cosmic events and archaeological records positions him as a leading figure in the emerging field of geocosmic archaeology. His work not only broadens our comprehension of historical events but also inspires a multidisciplinary approach to studying the past. Attendees will look forward to his unique insights and interesting perspectives.

https://x.com/marc_young_90?lang=en

https://cosmictusk.com/the-younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-a-guide-for-the-perplexed-marc-young-provides-a-six-part-counter-gallop/

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/earth-ancients--2790919/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:12):
Welcome to Destiny. Now here's your host, Cliff Dunning.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Thank you, thank you very much, thank you, thank you
for joining us today. This is Cliff your host of
Destiny and today we're finishing up on our conference series.
This is a speaker that was in the Cosmic Summit
and we wanted to play the entire interview with this individual.

(00:46):
His name is Mark Young. He is an Australian geo
archaeologist who specializes in the Younger Driest hypothesis. And we're
going to talk today about the impact of these asteroids
on Earth over nine five hundred BC, over close to

(01:06):
twelve thousand years ago. And what makes it an interesting
interview is that there is a great deal of research
that is not being publicized on just how devastating this
impact was. And today we're going to learn not only
what happened to the North American East Coast and the

(01:30):
devastation there, but also what likely happened to the human
population on the planet during that time. Factor we don't
really know because there's no evidence of human remains, there's
no grave sites. If you remember, Randall Carlson was very
specific in saying that the tsunamis that were generated during

(01:56):
that devastation, during that catastrophe, whereas is you know, half
a mile or a mile in height, and if you
can imagine the energy behind a tsunami, that would wipe
clean any surface features on the planet. And I have

(02:19):
studied tsunamis in Mexico and there are are evidence of
monstrosities of tsunamis hitting places like the Yucatan, coming in
as many as four to five miles from the coast
and just devastating who whoever was on the planet at

(02:42):
that time, whoever was living in those locations. And one
of the most amazing features that I've seen is is
the ruins of Yukatan. This is one of the areas
that are very specific in showing the destruction of wave
and water damage and chicha Ushmol, the Puk Trail, which

(03:08):
is on the Gulf coast of Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico,
all were devastated by monstrosities giant giant wave inlet tsunami inlets.
In other words, they came in, came into and devastated
the landforms. We don't know if these are the biblical

(03:32):
tsunamis who arrived nine thousand, five hundred years ago, but
what scientists have now determined is that those areas are
regularly hit hundreds of thousands of years ago with tsunamis now.
In the case of a smaller city, Mayan city called Siel,

(03:55):
that city is buried except for a couple of unique
buildings and pyramids. In the case of chichen Itza, when
we look at the archaeological record and we see when
the universities of the American universities started coming in there

(04:16):
and excavating, what they found were pyramids and temples that
were stripped of their outer casing, stones that were covered
in sand and the sediment from the receding water. There's
even evidence in chichen Itza of lakes, large lakes that

(04:40):
were formed in the civic area. The ball court, the largest,
one of the largest ball courts in the world, is
located at to Genitsa, and the water receded from those
central buildings that make up the ball court. The pyramid
was devastated. Temple of the Warrior, which is right next

(05:00):
to the El Castillo, which is the main central pyramid,
is just pushed all over the place. It's it's just amazing,
and nobody talks about this, and it's fascinating and and
I bring this up in my book The Maya Controversy,
The Maya Controversy, and it's there's great evidence for tremendous damage.

(05:26):
So we do have some evidence. What we don't have
is the skeletal remains of any human beings from that
far back, and it remains to be seen if we
ever will have evidence of human remains. We do have

(05:46):
bone yards of mastodon, saber toothed tiger and other big
land animals, ice age animals, plesticcene animals that are pushed
into Canada and to Alaska. So as the water was receding,
you have these huge, huge boneyards of animals who were

(06:10):
carried by this water. So we're gonna learn all about
this today in our program and you'll get a sense
of just what happened. So today's program is Catastrophe on Earth,
and my guest is Mark Young. Earth Asians is a

(07:04):
sponsor of the twenty twenty five Cosmic Summit that's going
to be June twentieth and twenty three. I really enjoy
that conference. And one of the speakers is our guest today.
His name is Mark Young, and he is coming to
us from Australia. He is a geo archaeologist. I'm going

(07:26):
to ask him in a minute exactly what that means,
because I haven't heard that definition. But he's also an
expert in the Younger Driest Impact hypothesis, cosmic impact events,
and lost civilizations. So he's right in the middle of
the Earth Ancients format and I'm looking forward to speaking

(07:48):
with him. But also I want to remind you if
you get a chance to get out to North Carolina
to see this Cosmic Summit, you should check it out.
If you can't, go to the Cosmicsummit dot and go
to their streaming platform. It's very very very reasonable for
the full program and sign up because you'll hear people

(08:09):
like Mark. You'll hear people like Randall Carlson and a
whole group of other experts talking about ancient civilizations and
other events in the past. So don't miss it. Mark,
Welcome to Earth Ancient. It's great to have you on
the program.

Speaker 1 (08:26):
Thanks, Quiff, it's great to be here.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
What is the younger Driest impact hypothesis. I mean, we
hear about this asteroid hit, we hear about the devastation,
but what specifically is unique to you about the younger
Driest impact hypothesis.

Speaker 1 (08:49):
Well, where do I start.

Speaker 3 (08:50):
So one unique thing is obviously the scale in relation
to how recently it happened. Certainly it's the largest impact
within I mean, if we're talking extinctions wise since the dinosaurs,
but also Beckism is quite unique. So rather than one

(09:11):
big asteroid that came in and destroyed everything, the more
likely scenario for the younger dryas is a shower or
a shotgun blast of multiple smaller objects all over the world.
And so it may even have been periodically over a
decade or so, as we passed through a media shower.

(09:35):
These things come in twice a year if we're talking
about the tours, for example, twice a year there would
be bombardment episodes. So one year could have been in
North America, the next year South America, or even five
years apart or whatever. So yeah, there's a lot of
unique aspects of the younger drys compared to other ones.

Speaker 2 (09:57):
What's the general timeline mark, Well, what would we say.
It's not a it wasn't one day, it wasn't one week.
It was over a period of years, wasn't it.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Yeah, So.

Speaker 3 (10:12):
Assuming that the platinum stry signature is related to the impact.
It could have occurred over as maybe as fourteen years.
That's how long the platinum took to settle out of
the atmosphere. It could have it could also have been
one day, and it's just a lot of custom debris
flying around. So yeah, and it started about twelve eight

(10:38):
hundred and seventy or something years ago. That's what we've
nailed it down to. With the radiocommod dating, there's an
uncertainty of a couple of dozen years or two.

Speaker 1 (10:49):
And the date.

Speaker 3 (10:51):
Look, this is one of the angles that the critics
attack is the dating in different parts of the world
is slightly off by maybe a decade here and there,
but that's within the uncertainty of radio common dating. Anyway,
you're not going to get much more precise than that.
So I think the official time to spend the common

(11:11):
research Group proposers is about eight hundred and seventy to
twelve seven hundred and thirty or something, so within that area.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
Okay, I should mention that you are part of the
Cosmic Comment Research Project correct, and that is formed by
George Howard has a group of people. You you basically
discovered Georgia and the Cosmic Summit Group through what the

(11:43):
papers that he was publishing.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
So I actually.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
So I saw the Joe Rogan podcast for Graham Hancock
and Ranald Carlson back in twenty seventeen, and that's what
actually inspired me to enroll at university to study this stuff.

Speaker 1 (12:00):
So I actually reached out to George in late twenty eighteen.

Speaker 3 (12:07):
Because I'd noticed that some of the papers on his
website were out of date. He didn't have all the
new ones on there. So that's that was the start
of our professional relationship. And after my after I graduated
with my bachelor's degrees in twenty twenty one, I think
it was that's when I joined the Comment Research Group officially.

Speaker 2 (12:31):
Now you were granted is it we granted a geo
archaeology degree under a degree? Or I mean, what is
a geo archaeologist? And I know the geo does the geology,
but how does geology and archaeology fit together? And what

(12:51):
is it? What is it that you're studying because it's
kind of a unique title. I love it.

Speaker 3 (12:57):
Yeah, So, Jay, archaeologists approach archaeology using geo methods. So geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, geophysics,
all that kind of thing, so ground penetrating, radar, electrical resistivity, tomography,

(13:18):
geochemistry like icpms and stuff like that. So it's basically
as a hard science discipline within archaeology. As we know,
archaeology isn't necessarily a science, per say, there's a reason
it's in the humanities under the umbrella of the humanities.

Speaker 2 (13:35):
So right, excellent, here's one that I'd love to get
clarification on. Some people say that the impact was in
the Atlantic, with sporadic impacts into the North American and
parts of South American region, but up to date data

(13:57):
has changed. Where would you say the spread of the
asteroid field hit on Earth?

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Yep, So.

Speaker 3 (14:11):
We have about four sites e'spanning the east coast of
the west coast of South America. There's a whole bunch,
there's one in Syria, there's a whole bunch throughout Europe.
There's a couple in Greenland where we've found the platinum
A normalis up there, and we've also been studying ocean
cores up there, and there's a few in Canada, but

(14:33):
the main concentrations of in North America.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
Okay, it's speculated that the Carolina Bays were formed by
this impact? Is that what your belief is or what
would you say to that?

Speaker 3 (14:49):
So when I started out in this, I believe that
it was pretty probable that they were related to the
younger drivers. But I mean, they're certainly caused by an
impact event, there's no question about that. But I have
my doubts now as to whether it was tied to
the younger drives or not. There are other groups who

(15:11):
tied to the seven and eight thousand year event that
created the Australasian tech type field. Yeah, I think that
one's more likely than the younger dryas And originally a
lot of the Carolina Bay people were on board with
the younger drives timing for it. But basically it's just
Antionios the moor now who's an advocate of that.

Speaker 2 (15:33):
So okay, But Mark, is there a ground zero placement
for perhaps the biggest portion of this impact, perhaps an
impact crater of significant size.

Speaker 3 (15:54):
For the Carolina besier for the younger drives, just for
the younger dryers. So when the Hiawatha crat came out
in twenty eighteen, that was very exciting for us. And
while subsequent studies have dated the impact a much earlier.

(16:16):
I think there's still a possibility that it was related
to the younger dry ice. Like at the start, it
probably wasn't one big impact, and if it was, it
probably occurred into the ice sheet rather than into the ground.
So I know Ranald Carlson has identified Lake Nipigon as

(16:38):
a potential site for the young dryas one. I certainly
think there's something to be said about that. If you
had an impact into the ice, you wouldn't expect a
traditional crater on the ground because it would act like
a cushion basically. And Lake Nippogon is very into staying

(17:00):
in terms of its morphology, So if I had to
put money on it, I'd say Late Nippergon's pretty good.
But obviously no STUDI has actually been done there, so
we have no idea. There's a couple of smaller creators
around the place that have been tentatively identified as being
younger derice but potentially related to the younger drice. But

(17:25):
as I said, if we the air burst rain theory
makes most sense for the proxies that we see, so
when these things detonate in the atmosphere, they don't really
leave traditional creators at all.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
The only thing.

Speaker 3 (17:41):
They the only traces they leave are the microscopic evidence
that you find in the soil.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
So, oh yeah, I see.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
What do you believe was the effect over this period
of time on the animal life on the play? Randall
Carlson likes to say approximately eighty percent of the MegaFon
of the big land animals perished, And we don't really

(18:10):
know how much of the human population was affected because
there's no documents. There's very rudimentary signatures of a human
race on the planet. But what is your feeling on
those two subjects.

Speaker 3 (18:28):
Yeah, so, certainly the megafauna disappearance is closely tied with
the young and ris. There have been critics over the
years they said, oh, well they actually survived a few
hundred years after the younger rise onset in these particular areas.
I'm sure that's likely. It's not like the dinosaurs. It's
not a one and done thing like if you have

(18:49):
one impact in this region and then a couple of
years later you've got another impact in this ragion, it
creates Well, there's obviously wildfire associated with those impacts, and
that will cause low sanctions in that era, but that
doesn't that's not going to wipe them off the face
of the planet. And it's possible that the Clovis people

(19:16):
also played a part in their extinction, like that's been
the the doctrine for decades now, and if there was
only a few leftover after the impact events, then it
makes sense that the clothes would hunt them because.

Speaker 1 (19:30):
They're also clinging on to their existence.

Speaker 3 (19:36):
Regarding the human populations, there's quite a bit of evidence
well over the last few decades actually, but the first
genetic evidence came out in twenty twenty two to show
that there was a South American civilization up to nineteen
twenty thousand years old in South America that disappeared at

(19:58):
the Younger Drice onset. And there's a lot of archaeological
sites throughout South America that I have thought to have
been dated to the price scene and have been I guess,
heavily criticized and denied, no doubt because of the in

(20:23):
part at least because of the Clovis first doctrine. But
I've got a short list of them here, if you'd
let me read them, give us the names. So there's
a there's one called Boucarial dead Pedro Ferrada in Brazil

(20:44):
and the occupation there's thought to date between twenty and
forty five thousand years ago.

Speaker 2 (20:49):
And how sophisticated are the Are these considered hundreds and
gatherers or are these a little more.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
The thing is with these sites is that the lithics
there aren't anywhere nearest sophisticated as the Clovis relics, which
is part of the reason why they're denied by the critics.
One recent study even claims that the lithics there were
made by Capucin monkeys, but I mean the latest genetic

(21:22):
evidence from the region says that they weren't. So then
we have Toka de Tierra Paya in Brazil with evidence
of occupation at least twenty seven thousand years old, Toko
Decitio de Mayo site in Brazil thirty five thousand years old,

(21:43):
the Arroyo delf Vizcaino in Uruguay over thirty thousand years,
Santa Elena in Brazil twenty thousand years and this next
site was published in twenty twenty. Chick Wihat Cave in
Mexico with occupation twenty six thousand years and as early

(22:07):
as thirty three, and this made worldwide headlines because one,
the teams that were doing it were quite well respected,
and two, well, it's obviously quite groundbreaking in its age.
And initially the Monteverde site in Chile was dated to
about eighteen thousand and five hundred, but that was revised

(22:29):
down after years of criticism. And obviously now in North
America we have the White Sands footprints which are twenty
four thousand years old, and that's beyond any.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
Doubt.

Speaker 3 (22:46):
Now they've gone back and tested. So originally they had
issues with the dating method, but they've gone back and
used like three different methods now and they've all come
out at twenty four thousand, so we know that people
were there twenty four thousand years ago.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Are any of these people building temples? Are we looking
at foundations or are we discovering them with simple pictroglyphs
on cave walls and rudimentary tools.

Speaker 3 (23:20):
So the sites are listed, there's no real structures associated
with them. They're more likely just campsites. Most of the
evidence is, let's see, not particularly strong. So we've got

(23:41):
hearths or campsite campfires, we've got rudimentary lithics, we've got
like animal remains mixed in and stuff like that. So,
and this is why they're not very well accepted, because

(24:02):
where's the structures, where's the unambiguous close points for example?
And yeah, so the civilization there was probably quite rudimentary.
But I mean that doesn't mean anything, right because if

(24:23):
they were advanced, like in a Graham Handcock Atlantis sense,
then wouldn't it make sense that subsequent people have come
in there and salvaged and and scavenged all the like
the metals there for example. Yeah, I mean most measure

(24:46):
from the wrong period and the Greek period has been
salvaged and reforged over time to make weapons for war
and things like this, Like any sort of valuable material
is always picked up by sus and occupations.

Speaker 2 (25:03):
I stopped you as you were completing that list. Did
you finish?

Speaker 1 (25:11):
I think so? Yeah, okay.

Speaker 2 (25:14):
I recently was speaking to doctor Richard Hansen, who's excavating
El Miodor. He's one of the foremost Mayanists in the world,
and he recently mentioned that there were two phases to
the Maya. There was a very early phase that stopped
approximately two thousand years ago, but they don't really know

(25:36):
when the inception date is. And the curious thing about this, though,
is that their pyramids in Guatemala are the largest in
the Americas and the most sophisticated. So this very very
early people was building and engineering monstrosities in since rule

(26:00):
in South America. And I'm curious, is it possible that
we've got our dates wrong and that these earlier Maya
that were wiped out may have been part of this
younger driest impact hypothesis.

Speaker 3 (26:19):
Personally, I wouldn't really point to the Maya as dating
back that far. But you really don't need the Maya
because the Maya, their structures and their architecture is completely
different to what Graham Hancock and others have said have
pointed to. I think it's called Han and Patcha or

(26:43):
the Cyclopean architecture at sucks Aquaman and other sites like that.
There's clearly two stages of industry there. And if I mean,
for argument's sake, all those sites that I listed off,
maybe those people were the builders of these sites, and

(27:05):
maybe they were part of.

Speaker 1 (27:06):
The global civilization that Graham Hancock advocates for.

Speaker 3 (27:10):
And I mean because the Cyclopean architecture is found all
over the world, Easter Island, Europe, South.

Speaker 1 (27:18):
America, and so if this, if these sites and these people.

Speaker 3 (27:27):
A coincident with those constructions, and let's face more than
likely pretty younger Driers, those Cyclopian architecture, because they've there's
been no other catastrophe since the Younger Driers that would

(27:48):
be capable of wiping them out, especially on a world
wide level.

Speaker 2 (27:52):
So yeah, we're going to take a short commercial break
to allow our sponsors to identify themselves, and we will
return shortly with my guest today, Mark Young, describing the
Younger Driest hypothesis and what actually happened to Earth over

(28:13):
nine thousand years ago. Will be right back. My guest

(29:02):
today is Australian geo archaeologist Mark Young. He's coming to
us from Australia and we're learning just what happened to
the Earth during the cataclysmic period of nine five hundred,
the end of the Ice Age. So what would you

(29:25):
say to those who advocate for Atlantis being destroyed around
this period of time. I mean we're talking Hancock and
perhaps John Anthony West and a number of authors and
researchers who have come before.

Speaker 3 (29:46):
Yes, sir, the Plato's timing for Atlanta has coincided directly
with the end of the Young Andreas and there was
a serious rise in same levels around that time. So
from a science perspective, there's certain summer suggestion of validity
that obviously the archaeologists will say, show me the butt

(30:09):
shows and stuff like that. But we're talking about a cataclysm,
and we're talking about a sea level as like ninety
percent of the what global population lives within a few
kilometers of the coastline right or along rivers, and so
level rise of one hundred and fifty feet one hundred

(30:29):
and fifty meters or four hundred feet that's going to
erase almost all evidence of any civilization I was living there.
So and people say, oh, well, we've done archaeology on
the coastal shelves and it's like, you can't dive to
four hundred feet very easily, Like it's very difficult to
dive that far.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
And yeah, it's I don't find it convincing.

Speaker 3 (30:53):
I think there's certainly room for an Atlantis, And people
like Flint Debil who claim there's there's no evidence at
all for Atlantis, they're just lying because there's a lot. Yeah.
I like that, it's just not the kind of evidence
that archaeologists tend to deal in. Why why is there

(31:16):
evidence tangential evidence?

Speaker 1 (31:17):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (31:18):
What why is there so much resistance to younger driest
It seems like there's a certain body of scientists that
are actually uh evaluating the possibilities and finding solid evidence
for an impact event, and then there's a whole bunch
that are trying to write it off. Why Why do
you think that's the way it is?

Speaker 3 (31:40):
That could be any number of reasons. Really, one thing
would be that they don't want it to be true,
because that would mean them have been wrong our lives.
One one thing that I kind of via awards is

(32:01):
that they've actually found Atlantis and they don't want to know.
They want to hold the secrets for themselves. And there
could be any number of reasons for that.

Speaker 1 (32:13):
I mean.

Speaker 3 (32:15):
Zahi Juas and Edgar Casey zahij PhD was funded by
the Casey Foundation, and there if they did find the
Hall of Records, they wouldn't share it with everyone because
what if it if what if the Hall of Records
told us about an impending younger drives to Bueno in
our near future? They wouldn't They wouldn't reveal that because

(32:39):
that would cause global panic hm HM and.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
Yeah. I mean there could be any number of reasons.

Speaker 3 (32:47):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
Yeah. Uh.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
I find it interesting that you say that. You know,
it's when I when I discovered the toward meteor stream,
I was perplexed that we hadn't known that much about
it before. But apparently our cosmos, Earth specifically goes through
it every two.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
Years and twice a year every year.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
Is it twice a year? Oh my god?

Speaker 3 (33:20):
Okay, light journ and early light October early November.

Speaker 2 (33:26):
And is there a speculation among cosmologists that Earth has
been impacted in previous times during these yeah pass throughs,
or is it unique to just this younger driest event.

Speaker 3 (33:46):
So if the tord theory is correct, then it stands
to raise them that it has happened in the past.
And who knows the severity of those kind of things.
There are specs of evidence here and there. The car
Research Group has published a paper on a few impacts
that happened between thirty and fifty thousand years ago. So

(34:11):
have you heard about John Reeves and the boneyard in
Alaska and the Siberian.

Speaker 1 (34:15):
Yeah, So.

Speaker 3 (34:19):
The current research group studied a boneyard deposit in Siberia
and they were finding impact sperials within the skulls of
these animals. And I don't know if you know the
story of how George Howard became the cosmic.

Speaker 2 (34:34):
Task, no targ about it.

Speaker 3 (34:36):
They were finding tasks, mammoth tasks that had meteoric material
embedded in them. So if you imagine this air burst explosion,
it's like a shotgun blast of meteoric material that affected
these mammoths directly.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (34:54):
And so the CRG in that paper twenty seventeen, I
think it was Hag's and the Biblio.

Speaker 1 (35:03):
They theorized that these these.

Speaker 3 (35:05):
Animals were all in placed catastrophically by by impact events.
And it makes sense, right, because some of these animals
are flash frozen, like you've got entire mammoths fresh flash
frozen still with still with their daisies in their mouth
and there in the stomach like these things, and that

(35:27):
the bottom the the their legs are broken, and they
were some of them had erections which means they were asphyxiated,
but they were buried alive. And so there's unquestionably been
catastrophic events. And by the very nature of or media

(35:47):
austream and how how it functions early on in its
us to the large objects, right, and over time, those
large objects just integrating into smaller and smaller hierarchically. And
so the idea is that it entered the Solar System
about twenty thirty years ago, so about twelve years ago,

(36:09):
it's about halfway through it's disintegration compared to today.

Speaker 2 (36:14):
Why do you think that we're not getting more information
about this tored meteor stream. It seems like if the
powers would be new that a period of time we've
had terminating events or near terminating events, they would want
to set up some kind of a system, you know,
perhaps aiming rockets to deflect meteors and other large obstacles

(36:39):
that would impact the planet.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (36:44):
Well recently we had the NASA DOT mission right where
they intercepted on an asteroid and nod sho it off course.
And so maybe the reason they're doing that is because
they know something's coming, or maybe that is doing it
because I can.

Speaker 2 (36:57):
M funny, Hey, I'm curious. I just discovered about a
year ago the black mat this ash layer that's located
in different parts of the planet. Talk about that and
why it's so important in understanding this impact event.

Speaker 3 (37:20):
Yeah, so just to clarify, the black matt isn't really
an ash layer. There are some sites with a high
concentration of ash, but it's mainly decomposed vegetation material. So
if you picture this impact event comes in, it decimates

(37:41):
the landscape. The black matter is representing the off of
that where it's coal and damp and swampy everywhere.

Speaker 1 (37:51):
And the impact.

Speaker 3 (37:56):
Proxy is are found in direct contact with the bottom
of the black mat not within it really, And so
we've got this lapjector followed by the black mat and
the black matte contains the last rece of the megafauna.

(38:17):
Megafauna has never been found above the black matt, only
within it or below it.

Speaker 2 (38:22):
So hmm, And where do we find the most evidence
of black mat? Is it through North America? Europe?

Speaker 1 (38:34):
Where are they?

Speaker 2 (38:35):
Where is it most prominent? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (38:38):
So North America?

Speaker 3 (38:40):
North America's North America is the main continent where it's found.
There's more than sixty sites across North America where it manifests.
In Europe there's a similar black mate it's called the
Oscelo Horizon. Critics of day it to like fourteen thousand

(39:01):
years ago, but there's some good evidence that it actually
correlates with the younger drys boundary. So obviously at one
side it contains nanodiamonds, right, So, and nanodiamonds have only
been found in the younger drice boundary layer, no other

(39:23):
layers above or below, And so there's reason to believe
that whatever the site formation conditions are over there, for
whatever reason, it gives off.

Speaker 1 (39:36):
A different date.

Speaker 3 (39:37):
And I mean in some cases it is directly dated
to the and drives, but in other places it's a
little bit off.

Speaker 2 (39:43):
So, and you mentioned nanodamonds, that comes up a lot
when it comes to these comet hits. Describe a nanodama. Basically,
it's an exploded hunk of very hard rock, right.

Speaker 3 (40:02):
So it's a piece of carbon carbon materials that have
been found in Okay, So earlier on critics claimed that
the carbon dispherials that nanodims were being found in would
just bug poop, right, And so obviously bugs don't poop nanodiamonds.

(40:25):
But even if they did, that just means that even
if it was bug poop, I mean, that just means
that the bob prope was on a surface when the
impact affected it and created diamonds within it. So the
Nanodiamonds are mainly found in carbon s ferials. They're also
found in the glass like carbon proxies that we find,

(40:50):
and they.

Speaker 1 (40:51):
Occur during high temperature, high pressure events mainly.

Speaker 3 (40:57):
There's also another method called chemical vapor position. So if
we imagine that the impact event vaporized this carbon material
as it calls its, it condenses and settles on an object.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
And they can be produced that way. Hmm. So there's
a there's a couple of different methods to produce them.

Speaker 3 (41:22):
Some critics have claimed they form in wildfires, but there's
no wildfire ever recorded that produces temperatures high enough to
make that, and there's no nanodiamonds found in any other layers. Like,
there's been tests all the way from before the Younger
Drives through to modern times and there's no nanodiamonds anywhere else.

(41:43):
It's only the Younger Drives boundary until you get to
about two hundred years ago. Because obviously modern processes can
manufacture these things. You can make him in a lab
for example, and they're they kept. They're often used for
polishing and stuff like because obviously their diamonds are very hard.

(42:05):
So if you make a diamond paste, there's going to
be nanodiamonds in there, and so in modern sections they
are there, but once you get older than a few
hundred years, there's nothing until the younger dryers.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
So then, okay, are they found in ice corey at all?

Speaker 1 (42:31):
So this is difficult. So in twenty two thousand and nine.

Speaker 3 (42:38):
There was a PPS Nova documentary about finding nanodiamonds in
the Greenland ice and so they sent out this team.
They recovered ice from the younger dryers layer and they
looked in there for nanodiamonds and they they found them
in high concentrations. However, that data critics have recently been

(43:06):
attacking this thing, and even back in the day, shortly
after the documentary came out, predicts were writing to BBS saying,
this is fraud.

Speaker 1 (43:14):
You need to take it off the air.

Speaker 3 (43:16):
And actually the executives caved and they took the documentary
off the air. It's called Magabe's Sudden Death. You can
still be viewed on YouTube, but you can't view on
BBS anymore. And so, assuming that it wasn't fraud, which
it certainly wasn't, there have been no time is found

(43:38):
in the ice sheet. But it's not something that I
would use as unequivocal evidence, because I mean, it's TV, right,
so who knows what happened behind the scenes. I certainly
would never accuse anyone in the comment research group of
fabricating this stuff, but there are questions at it.

Speaker 1 (44:00):
That's all I'll say on that.

Speaker 2 (44:02):
What was the name again, Mark?

Speaker 1 (44:04):
You can find it on YouTube, Mega based Sudden Death.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
Megabass Sudden Death. Yeah, okay, thank you for that. That
goes gets into my next question, which is the melting
of the ice caps and the glacier snow during this impact.
The big thought is that there was a massive flood,

(44:30):
but you say otherwise, You say there was not a
massive flood, You say there were perhaps a regional flooding.
Talk about that a little bit.

Speaker 3 (44:40):
So when people like Graham Hancock and Ranald Carlson have
talked about this on podcasts, they they often declaim that,
not directly, but they imply that the four hundred feate
rise and say level happened or not, And that's not
the case at all. It happened over a few thousand
years off at the end of the ice side. However,

(45:01):
at the Younger drives onset, there is a global sea
level rise about five meters.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
And that is very.

Speaker 3 (45:08):
Significant volumes of water entering the oceans in a very
short time. And so, and there's obviously Lake Agacy. For decades,
there's been an arguments over when Lake Agacy drained and
the route that it drained. So there's they've identified three

(45:30):
different routes that it could have drained from, and the
most recent studies that it drained at the start of
the Younger drives, but all of them disagree as to
which route it was at which time, right, But I
think the more likely explanation for that is that there

(45:53):
was an impact into the ice sheet and that released
a crap ton of melt water flowed off of the
ice sheet into La Gagacity, and it drained through all
three of those routes at the same time.

Speaker 2 (46:06):
HM.

Speaker 3 (46:07):
And obviously there's a significant Heinrich event at the time
of the andres, which means that there was lots of
ice bergs and chunks of the ice sheet that flowed
off of the ice sheet and dropped debris out in
the ocean.

Speaker 2 (46:26):
And so.

Speaker 3 (46:29):
I mean the most likely scenario, I mean, obviously, if
an impact occurd into the ice sheet is going to
throw throw off a lot of meltwater, and it'll break
up large portions of it, right, And yeah, there's not.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
A whole lot of.

Speaker 3 (46:57):
Incontrovertial evidence for the but yeah, I think that's quite likely.

Speaker 2 (47:05):
So there's no areas that you or any other scientists
have discovered where there were some of these meteors were
impacting the ocean and causing tsunami like events, covering land
formed miles inland.

Speaker 3 (47:26):
It's difficult because obviously, if it impacts in the ocean,
the crater's on the bottom of the ocean, so it's
very difficult to find. There have been various claims of
megazinan armies, but there's not much evidence to support it,
at least on the land. But we have to remember

(47:49):
says were one hundred and fiftys or four hundred feet
lower then, so if that wasn't megazoon army, the gurins
or the chevrons that are produced are underwater now, right.
And even harder than finding a crater on the bottom
of the ocean is dating that crater.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
Right.

Speaker 2 (48:11):
Yeah, you can.

Speaker 3 (48:12):
You can find all the creatives you want, but you're
going to date them, you need you need to drill
them specifically and look for evidence within them.

Speaker 2 (48:27):
We're gonna take a short commercial break to allow our
sponsors to identify themselves, and we will return shortly with
my guest today, Mark Young, discussing the Younger Driest impact.
Will be right back. H m m m. My guest

(49:28):
today is Australian geo archaeologist Mark Young. He is describing
what we know about this devastating event that happened nine
five hundred BC, approximately twelve thousand years ago, and the
destruction throughout the Earth. Talk about the changes in vegetation

(49:55):
before and after the Younger drives. It kind of indicates
this world white event.

Speaker 3 (50:04):
Yeah, so if you look at the Greenland temperature data,
it shows lots of spikes up and down, but overall
there's a big trend of ice age and then slowly
rising into the whole scene. But the Younger dryers interrupts

(50:24):
this gradual curve, right, So rather than a nice smooth
curve like that, it goes like this.

Speaker 1 (50:32):
Up and down, and that.

Speaker 3 (50:36):
Is one of the indications that something catastrophic happened there,
right Because obviously you've got all these oscillations further down
the line during the ice age, but they're nowhere near
comparable to what happened at the Younger Dryers, and so
obviously before the younger drys you've got fifty different genera
megafauna roaming the earth that aren't there.

Speaker 1 (50:58):
Afterwards, you've got.

Speaker 3 (51:04):
And interestingly, right, so if you look at the temperature
data for previous integrationis like what we're in now. They
don't look anything like the whole scene. The whole scene
is very staable. It's only tiny little oscillations in temperature
all throughout, and that's not what happened in the previous ones.

(51:28):
Like the previous ones are still interrupted by major spikes
in oscillations. So I mean there's a number of unique
components that I talked about in that twenty twenty three
lecture at the Cosmic Summit, like the methane concentrations.

Speaker 1 (51:48):
And stuff like that.

Speaker 3 (51:49):
So not only that vegetation patterns were very different before
the young Arson. Afterwards I showed him presentation the dynamics
between grasslands and woodlands and pine forests and stuff like that.
They've changed dramatically, very quickly, and that's not something you

(52:15):
see in previous events either.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
Are the geologists commenting on this change when they look
back historically to various activities that are coming from outer
space and impacting the Earth. Do they even comment on
that or do they not comment on it?

Speaker 3 (52:39):
So, actually geologists are often the most accepting of the
young and dress impact geochemical proxies, and they say, well,
that's obviously an impact. It's mainly most of the pushback
comes from archaeologists. Did that come through clearly?

Speaker 1 (53:08):
I was having you went off for a minute.

Speaker 2 (53:11):
Can you repeat what you just said?

Speaker 3 (53:15):
So geologists are actually the most accepting of the young
dry stuff. It's mainly archaeologists that have a problem with it.
And like a geologist can look at these impact proxies
and say, yeah, like they can't have been caused by
anything else unless you're saying that those that I mean.
So this is a catch twenty two. Right, So these

(53:36):
proxies been produced by a high technology civilization, but the
assumption of archaeologists is that there was no such civilization then.
So assuming there was no such civilization, then they can
only have been caused by an impact event.

Speaker 2 (53:54):
M funny.

Speaker 3 (53:59):
I mean, we've got melting temperatures that are not up
for debate, Like melted quartz needs two one hundred degrees
to melt it and volcanoes can't do that. The only
thing that can do that is modern technology and an
impact event, which is part of why some of the

(54:20):
critics course or frauds, like they claim that everything that
we show us fraud and that we sprinkle it in
the sample ourselves, and it's like, no, that's not possible.
Maybe in the first coup of years when only a
handful of scientists had looked at this stuff, but there's
dozens of papers with samples that have never passed through

(54:42):
the hands of any common research group member. And so
what they're suggesting in that case is that there's a
global conspiracy between well respected scientists to manufacture this evidence,
and that's not happening.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
It's simply not.

Speaker 2 (55:00):
So this worldwide that conspiracy is. Uh. Is this the
excuse for not acknowledging your work.

Speaker 1 (55:11):
More or less?

Speaker 3 (55:12):
A lot of the critics, like Mopov's little and stuff
like that, they just say, oh, that's a fraudulent don't.

Speaker 1 (55:17):
Worry about that. But it's just not as simple as that.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
I want to ask you about in our time that
we have remaining, when we look at places like go Beckley, Teppee,
Carahan Teppe, perhaps some of these underground seats like Darren
Kuru and Turkey. It looks like they're reboot centers where

(55:45):
someone's trying to show people how to farm or animal
husbandry or begin looking at the cosmological cycles. What would
you say about that? Would you believe? Would you? Would
you have a feeling that they are recovery outlets for

(56:05):
people that have survived these impact events.

Speaker 3 (56:10):
See this always makes me laugh because the archaeologists say, oh,
there's no evidence of a lot of civilization anywhere, but
they've just they've discovered all these sites dating to exactly
when they're supposed to be dated. Right, So twenty years
ago they didn't know and they would have said these
things don't exist, but now they do. And there's good

(56:31):
evidence that Go Back to Tape is much older than
they've dated it too, right, Yeah, not only because some
of the pillars are inserted into walls, Like there's walls
built up around them that cover up the carvings, and
so that t pillar was taken from somewhere else and

(56:51):
reused in the construction of Go Back to Tape.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
And regarding the specific question about.

Speaker 3 (57:01):
Sort of re civilization, potentially, I don't know if there's
good evidence to suggest that, but there's certainly not good
evidence to deny it. And I mean, like I just said,
those pillars have been reused from somewhere. Maybe the original

(57:22):
site that they were reused from was older, and they've
come in after the cataclysm.

Speaker 1 (57:28):
They've rebuilt these sites and they've restarted who knows. Ochaeoltists
don't know. They can't say that, they can't say that
it wasn't that.

Speaker 2 (57:40):
Yeah, it's still a huge mystery as to the function.
But it looks like, given not only the date but
just what they have found so far, that they were
educational centers of some kind. Are there other hints and
some similar sites that you've discovered in any other parts

(58:04):
of the world, Not that.

Speaker 1 (58:07):
I'm particularly aware of, m not that come to mind.
At least I'm sure there are some.

Speaker 3 (58:13):
I mean, we talked about earlier about the Cyclopean architecture,
so obviously sites with the Cyclopean architecture below and more
modern architecture above, they will have been repurposed, We'll reoccupied
over time.

Speaker 1 (58:35):
Yeah, I can't really think of anther than that.

Speaker 2 (58:39):
We opened the show with you talking about a number
of civilizations that have been found up and down the Americas.
Do you believe or have any sense of a sophisticated hierarchy,
a civilization like an Atlantis, like a Moria, uh, existing

(59:03):
in other parts of the of the planet, And where
would they be?

Speaker 3 (59:13):
I mean, obviously in Europe, I mean the Middle East.
We've got go We've got the tapes, right, there's a
few of them. Now. Obviously on Easter Island you've got
Cyclopean architecture there. I don't I haven't really looked into
Malta too much, but you've got similar architecture on Malta.

(59:37):
There's there's at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. There's
actually standing stones there with hole drilled in them. So,
I mean, unless they fell off a boat and landed
up right in the in the grounds, they were certainly
there before the mad Sea flooded, right. So, and there's

(59:58):
been stone circles found in the bottom of Lake Michigan
as well, I believe. I mean, there's all sorts of
potential locations, but obviously it's all very thin evidence, like
there's no archaeological evidence other than the structures itself. And

(01:00:18):
I mean I I mean, we've got Gunang Padang in
Indonesia as well, which I am convinced, despite the pushbacks
from archaeologists, I'm convinced that there was humans living there
twenty five thousand years ago and the site was built

(01:00:38):
as a megalithic site. You can argue over whether it's
a pyramid or not, but it's certainly pyramidal. And at
the lowest level that's been dated about twenty six thousand
years ago is whether the artifacts have been found, the
Kujang Stone among chief among them.

Speaker 2 (01:00:55):
And that's the big problem with Canon Penang is the
fact that it's been carbon did it? It's such an
ancient period, a very old time. Why do archaeologists have
such a problem with that, I mean because they just
are all over Danny Hillman about that, the geologists who
found and excavated that site.

Speaker 3 (01:01:17):
Just because it's a bold client really and the dating
isn't direct dating of archaeological material. They've they've drilled core
samples and the core samples and they've dated that material.
You know, I'm just arguing, well, that's not enough to
say that this was occupied back then. But there's a
lot of archaeology that's been done on the exact same

(01:01:40):
type of dating, and the fact that that Tedding was
done on core samples rather than archaeological material, is almost
the entire basis for its retraction, and so if they
want to retract articles for that, then they're going to
have to attract hundreds more.

Speaker 1 (01:01:57):
It's just dumb.

Speaker 3 (01:01:59):
And if you look at the Kujang stone that's taken
from the interface between the two lowers layers, it's very
clearly an artifacts that is not natural.

Speaker 1 (01:02:09):
You can't if any archaeologist looks.

Speaker 3 (01:02:11):
At that and tells you it's natural, never believe anything
they say because they're not interested in the truth.

Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
Wow. Hey, Mark, has been fun talking with you. You're
going to be physically at the Cosmic Summit in June.
Are you be flying to North Carolina?

Speaker 1 (01:02:30):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
It was the title of your talk.

Speaker 3 (01:02:35):
That's to be determined. I still haven't fully several on
what I'm going to represent him, but it'll be interesting.
It'll be Younger drivest related. It might be a hybrid
of the latest research in combination with a bunch of
stuff about the critics, because since the Handcock dibbled about,
the critics have really stepped it up a notch. And

(01:02:59):
obviously I might present some of that scientific fraud that
I discovered published a discredit the Younger Dry. So i'll
talk about that.

Speaker 2 (01:03:06):
Talk a little bit about what you have determined and
called scientific friued.

Speaker 3 (01:03:13):
What does that mean?

Speaker 2 (01:03:14):
Specifically, give us some examples.

Speaker 3 (01:03:18):
Right, So, a bunch of critics published a paper from
Hall's Cave and they stated in the paper that the
geochemical evidence from the Young Dry's boundary was caused by volcanism.
But what they did is they collected all this data,
they used very shoddy methods, but that's neither here nor there.

(01:03:41):
And what they did is when they found that one
of the samples came back with a major platinum normally
like the rest of the young Dry sites, they said, oh,
we better not include that in our paper. We better
delete that sample because we want to say the younger
drives occurs above that m So, their younger driss occurs

(01:04:06):
at one fifty one centimeters in the in the in
the strata, but the sample directly below that, at one
fifty three centimeters has the platinum spike at the young
dryas So in order to claim that their samples up
here are the younger drives, they had to delete this
sample because they couldn't claim that if they hadn't deleted this,
and so a co author who was originally on the

(01:04:29):
paper but pulled his name off after they submitted it,
he sent me the original data that they had in
the paper, and that's how we know they deleted it,
because the paper that's published doesn't have that sample in
it anyway, there's no mention of it. But that sample
single handedly disproves their entire conclusions. They can't claim anything

(01:04:53):
they claim unless they delete that sample.

Speaker 2 (01:04:56):
Oh my god, So are you going to be the
one that outs them?

Speaker 3 (01:05:02):
Yeah, I've been on a couple of costs talking about
it in depth. I'm gonna present in depth at the
Cosmic Summit.

Speaker 2 (01:05:09):
Oh okay, So those of you listening either get yourself
out to North Carolina or listen to Mark on the
streaming program. By the way, it's seventy five dollars for
the entire program Saturday Sunday, and I think there's some
other programs on Monday the twentieth through the twenty second

(01:05:31):
and twenty third. I think Randall Carlson is doing a
special presentation on Monday and a couple of other people.
So the streaming price seventy five bucks for the whole
weekend is very very reasonable. And by the way, if
you do not make those specific presentations, they're catalogued and

(01:05:52):
stored for you to look at at your leisure, which
is a very very fun and great benefit because we
all live in different parts of the world and we
can't be up at the actual time with the presentation.
So consider that cosmic sentiment dot com. Go to the

(01:06:12):
button on top and look for streaming and check it
out and make sure to see Mark Young his presentation.
What dare you speaking, Mark, Saturday, Sunday or Monday.

Speaker 1 (01:06:23):
It's on the Saturday, I believe in the morning before lunch.

Speaker 2 (01:06:28):
So okay, excellent, so wonderful, Mark Young, geo Archaeologists. Thanks
for joining me. A real pleasure, and I expect at
some point, when you recover from all your discoveries that
you produce a book. Fella.

Speaker 1 (01:06:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
So I've written basically a thesis length article on Graham
Hancock flipsode, but it's about fifty sixty thousand loads going
out of all the different aspects of the.

Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
So I might adapt that and publish it. Is there
any number of things I could write about? So yeah,
writing technically on the college at some point.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
Yeah, it takes time and energy. So hey, I really
appreciate you joining us, and I hope your show is
filled with people, and uh, let's have you back again.

Speaker 1 (01:07:24):
Sounds good, Cliff looking forward to it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:31):
I wanted to mention that you can still see and
hear the speakers from the Cosmic Summit by going to
Cosmic Summing Summit dot com and you can download Mark's presentation.
You can also download Randall, Carlson, Ben Van Kirkwick, Bob Shock,
Robert Shock and all the presentations there and again them

(01:07:55):
and I think that they're only charging fifty bucks for
the whole package, and it's a good deal. We want
to support the conferences like con like Cosmic Summit because
you know, they are offering us a good idea about
what's going on in the world of geology, archaeology, anthropology
and so on. So good to have Mark on the program. Yeah.

(01:08:20):
I want to mention Earth Ancients does tours. Our tours
are half the typical price of twelve to twenty day program.
For all the details, go to Earth Ancients dot com
forward slash tours. We have a Guatamalitur in December first
of the twelfth with archaeologists with Shaman and The beauty
of that tour is we get to actually interact, climb,

(01:08:44):
touch and hang out on pyramids, on temples with shaman
and we're learning how to connect with these ancient buildings.
And for all the details go to Earth Agents dot com,
Forward slash Tours t O U R s and check
that out. That one is about half full. We have

(01:09:08):
another tour coming up April twenty eighth through May tenth.
That's our Grand Egyptian Tour number ten. That's the Megalithic Tour,
and that's an amazing tour. We're gonna go to some
of the most remote areas of Egypt and see the
evidence of pre dynastic builders. These are guys that built

(01:09:29):
on a megalithic scale and they are amazing. For all
the details go to earth Agents dot com Forward slash Tours. Okay,
that's it for this program. I want to think my
guest today, Mark Young, coming to us from Australia. As always,
the team of Gail Tour, Mark Foster and Faya are

(01:09:50):
Pakistani video expert. You guys rock, you really do all right.
Take care of you well and we will talk to
you next time.