Speaker 1: Welcome to Destiny. Now here's your host, Cliff Dunning.
Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you very much, thank you, thank you
Speaker 2: for joining us today. This is Cliff your host of
Speaker 2: Destiny and today we're finishing up on our conference series.
Speaker 2: This is a speaker that was in the Cosmic Summit
Speaker 2: and we wanted to play the entire interview with this individual.
Speaker 2: His name is Mark Young. He is an Australian geo
Speaker 2: archaeologist who specializes in the Younger Driest hypothesis. And we're
Speaker 2: going to talk today about the impact of these asteroids
Speaker 2: on Earth over nine five hundred BC, over close to
Speaker 2: twelve thousand years ago. And what makes it an interesting
Speaker 2: interview is that there is a great deal of research
Speaker 2: that is not being publicized on just how devastating this
Speaker 2: impact was. And today we're going to learn not only
Speaker 2: what happened to the North American East Coast and the
Speaker 2: devastation there, but also what likely happened to the human
Speaker 2: population on the planet during that time. Factor we don't
Speaker 2: really know because there's no evidence of human remains, there's
Speaker 2: no grave sites. If you remember, Randall Carlson was very
Speaker 2: specific in saying that the tsunamis that were generated during
Speaker 2: that devastation, during that catastrophe, whereas is you know, half
Speaker 2: a mile or a mile in height, and if you
Speaker 2: can imagine the energy behind a tsunami, that would wipe
Speaker 2: clean any surface features on the planet. And I have
Speaker 2: studied tsunamis in Mexico and there are are evidence of
Speaker 2: monstrosities of tsunamis hitting places like the Yucatan, coming in
Speaker 2: as many as four to five miles from the coast
Speaker 2: and just devastating who whoever was on the planet at
Speaker 2: that time, whoever was living in those locations. And one
Speaker 2: of the most amazing features that I've seen is is
Speaker 2: the ruins of Yukatan. This is one of the areas
Speaker 2: that are very specific in showing the destruction of wave
Speaker 2: and water damage and chicha Ushmol, the Puk Trail, which
Speaker 2: is on the Gulf coast of Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico,
Speaker 2: all were devastated by monstrosities giant giant wave inlet tsunami inlets.
Speaker 2: In other words, they came in, came into and devastated
Speaker 2: the landforms. We don't know if these are the biblical
Speaker 2: tsunamis who arrived nine thousand, five hundred years ago, but
Speaker 2: what scientists have now determined is that those areas are
Speaker 2: regularly hit hundreds of thousands of years ago with tsunamis now.
Speaker 2: In the case of a smaller city, Mayan city called Siel,
Speaker 2: that city is buried except for a couple of unique
Speaker 2: buildings and pyramids. In the case of chichen Itza, when
Speaker 2: we look at the archaeological record and we see when
Speaker 2: the universities of the American universities started coming in there
Speaker 2: and excavating, what they found were pyramids and temples that
Speaker 2: were stripped of their outer casing, stones that were covered
Speaker 2: in sand and the sediment from the receding water. There's
Speaker 2: even evidence in chichen Itza of lakes, large lakes that
Speaker 2: were formed in the civic area. The ball court, the largest,
Speaker 2: one of the largest ball courts in the world, is
Speaker 2: located at to Genitsa, and the water receded from those
Speaker 2: central buildings that make up the ball court. The pyramid
Speaker 2: was devastated. Temple of the Warrior, which is right next
Speaker 2: to the El Castillo, which is the main central pyramid,
Speaker 2: is just pushed all over the place. It's it's just amazing,
Speaker 2: and nobody talks about this, and it's fascinating and and
Speaker 2: I bring this up in my book The Maya Controversy,
Speaker 2: The Maya Controversy, and it's there's great evidence for tremendous damage.
Speaker 2: So we do have some evidence. What we don't have
Speaker 2: is the skeletal remains of any human beings from that
Speaker 2: far back, and it remains to be seen if we
Speaker 2: ever will have evidence of human remains. We do have
Speaker 2: bone yards of mastodon, saber toothed tiger and other big
Speaker 2: land animals, ice age animals, plesticcene animals that are pushed
Speaker 2: into Canada and to Alaska. So as the water was receding,
Speaker 2: you have these huge, huge boneyards of animals who were
Speaker 2: carried by this water. So we're gonna learn all about
Speaker 2: this today in our program and you'll get a sense
Speaker 2: of just what happened. So today's program is Catastrophe on Earth,
Speaker 2: and my guest is Mark Young. Earth Asians is a
Speaker 2: sponsor of the twenty twenty five Cosmic Summit that's going
Speaker 2: to be June twentieth and twenty three. I really enjoy
Speaker 2: that conference. And one of the speakers is our guest today.
Speaker 2: His name is Mark Young, and he is coming to
Speaker 2: us from Australia. He is a geo archaeologist. I'm going
Speaker 2: to ask him in a minute exactly what that means,
Speaker 2: because I haven't heard that definition. But he's also an
Speaker 2: expert in the Younger Driest Impact hypothesis, cosmic impact events,
Speaker 2: and lost civilizations. So he's right in the middle of
Speaker 2: the Earth Ancients format and I'm looking forward to speaking
Speaker 2: with him. But also I want to remind you if
Speaker 2: you get a chance to get out to North Carolina
Speaker 2: to see this Cosmic Summit, you should check it out.
Speaker 2: If you can't, go to the Cosmicsummit dot and go
Speaker 2: to their streaming platform. It's very very very reasonable for
Speaker 2: the full program and sign up because you'll hear people
Speaker 2: like Mark. You'll hear people like Randall Carlson and a
Speaker 2: whole group of other experts talking about ancient civilizations and
Speaker 2: other events in the past. So don't miss it. Mark,
Speaker 2: Welcome to Earth Ancient. It's great to have you on
Speaker 2: the program.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Quiff, it's great to be here.
Speaker 2: What is the younger Driest impact hypothesis. I mean, we
Speaker 2: hear about this asteroid hit, we hear about the devastation,
Speaker 2: but what specifically is unique to you about the younger
Speaker 2: Driest impact hypothesis.
Speaker 1: Well, where do I start.
Speaker 3: So one unique thing is obviously the scale in relation
Speaker 3: to how recently it happened. Certainly it's the largest impact
Speaker 3: within I mean, if we're talking extinctions wise since the dinosaurs,
Speaker 3: but also Beckism is quite unique. So rather than one
Speaker 3: big asteroid that came in and destroyed everything, the more
Speaker 3: likely scenario for the younger dryas is a shower or
Speaker 3: a shotgun blast of multiple smaller objects all over the world.
Speaker 3: And so it may even have been periodically over a
Speaker 3: decade or so, as we passed through a media shower.
Speaker 3: These things come in twice a year if we're talking
Speaker 3: about the tours, for example, twice a year there would
Speaker 3: be bombardment episodes. So one year could have been in
Speaker 3: North America, the next year South America, or even five
Speaker 3: years apart or whatever. So yeah, there's a lot of
Speaker 3: unique aspects of the younger drys compared to other ones.
Speaker 2: What's the general timeline mark, Well, what would we say.
Speaker 2: It's not a it wasn't one day, it wasn't one week.
Speaker 2: It was over a period of years, wasn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So.
Speaker 3: Assuming that the platinum stry signature is related to the impact.
Speaker 3: It could have occurred over as maybe as fourteen years.
Speaker 3: That's how long the platinum took to settle out of
Speaker 3: the atmosphere. It could have it could also have been
Speaker 3: one day, and it's just a lot of custom debris
Speaker 3: flying around. So yeah, and it started about twelve eight
Speaker 3: hundred and seventy or something years ago. That's what we've
Speaker 3: nailed it down to. With the radiocommod dating, there's an
Speaker 3: uncertainty of a couple of dozen years or two.
Speaker 1: And the date.
Speaker 3: Look, this is one of the angles that the critics
Speaker 3: attack is the dating in different parts of the world
Speaker 3: is slightly off by maybe a decade here and there,
Speaker 3: but that's within the uncertainty of radio common dating. Anyway,
Speaker 3: you're not going to get much more precise than that.
Speaker 3: So I think the official time to spend the common
Speaker 3: research Group proposers is about eight hundred and seventy to
Speaker 3: twelve seven hundred and thirty or something, so within that area.
Speaker 2: Okay, I should mention that you are part of the
Speaker 2: Cosmic Comment Research Project correct, and that is formed by
Speaker 2: George Howard has a group of people. You you basically
Speaker 2: discovered Georgia and the Cosmic Summit Group through what the
Speaker 2: papers that he was publishing.
Speaker 1: So I actually.
Speaker 3: So I saw the Joe Rogan podcast for Graham Hancock
Speaker 3: and Ranald Carlson back in twenty seventeen, and that's what
Speaker 3: actually inspired me to enroll at university to study this stuff.
Speaker 1: So I actually reached out to George in late twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: Because I'd noticed that some of the papers on his
Speaker 3: website were out of date. He didn't have all the
Speaker 3: new ones on there. So that's that was the start
Speaker 3: of our professional relationship. And after my after I graduated
Speaker 3: with my bachelor's degrees in twenty twenty one, I think
Speaker 3: it was that's when I joined the Comment Research Group officially.
Speaker 2: Now you were granted is it we granted a geo
Speaker 2: archaeology degree under a degree? Or I mean, what is
Speaker 2: a geo archaeologist? And I know the geo does the geology,
Speaker 2: but how does geology and archaeology fit together? And what
Speaker 2: is it? What is it that you're studying because it's
Speaker 2: kind of a unique title. I love it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, Jay, archaeologists approach archaeology using geo methods. So geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, geophysics,
Speaker 3: all that kind of thing, so ground penetrating, radar, electrical resistivity, tomography,
Speaker 3: geochemistry like icpms and stuff like that. So it's basically
Speaker 3: as a hard science discipline within archaeology. As we know,
Speaker 3: archaeology isn't necessarily a science, per say, there's a reason
Speaker 3: it's in the humanities under the umbrella of the humanities.
Speaker 2: So right, excellent, here's one that I'd love to get
Speaker 2: clarification on. Some people say that the impact was in
Speaker 2: the Atlantic, with sporadic impacts into the North American and
Speaker 2: parts of South American region, but up to date data
Speaker 2: has changed. Where would you say the spread of the
Speaker 2: asteroid field hit on Earth?
Speaker 1: Yep, So.
Speaker 3: We have about four sites e'spanning the east coast of
Speaker 3: the west coast of South America. There's a whole bunch,
Speaker 3: there's one in Syria, there's a whole bunch throughout Europe.
Speaker 3: There's a couple in Greenland where we've found the platinum
Speaker 3: A normalis up there, and we've also been studying ocean
Speaker 3: cores up there, and there's a few in Canada, but
Speaker 3: the main concentrations of in North America.
Speaker 2: Okay, it's speculated that the Carolina Bays were formed by
Speaker 2: this impact? Is that what your belief is or what
Speaker 2: would you say to that?
Speaker 3: So when I started out in this, I believe that
Speaker 3: it was pretty probable that they were related to the
Speaker 3: younger drivers. But I mean, they're certainly caused by an
Speaker 3: impact event, there's no question about that. But I have
Speaker 3: my doubts now as to whether it was tied to
Speaker 3: the younger drives or not. There are other groups who
Speaker 3: tied to the seven and eight thousand year event that
Speaker 3: created the Australasian tech type field. Yeah, I think that
Speaker 3: one's more likely than the younger dryas And originally a
Speaker 3: lot of the Carolina Bay people were on board with
Speaker 3: the younger drives timing for it. But basically it's just
Speaker 3: Antionios the moor now who's an advocate of that.
Speaker 2: So okay, But Mark, is there a ground zero placement
Speaker 2: for perhaps the biggest portion of this impact, perhaps an
Speaker 2: impact crater of significant size.
Speaker 3: For the Carolina besier for the younger drives, just for
Speaker 3: the younger dryers. So when the Hiawatha crat came out
Speaker 3: in twenty eighteen, that was very exciting for us. And
Speaker 3: while subsequent studies have dated the impact a much earlier.
Speaker 3: I think there's still a possibility that it was related
Speaker 3: to the younger dry ice. Like at the start, it
Speaker 3: probably wasn't one big impact, and if it was, it
Speaker 3: probably occurred into the ice sheet rather than into the ground.
Speaker 3: So I know Ranald Carlson has identified Lake Nipigon as
Speaker 3: a potential site for the young dryas one. I certainly
Speaker 3: think there's something to be said about that. If you
Speaker 3: had an impact into the ice, you wouldn't expect a
Speaker 3: traditional crater on the ground because it would act like
Speaker 3: a cushion basically. And Lake Nippogon is very into staying
Speaker 3: in terms of its morphology, So if I had to
Speaker 3: put money on it, I'd say Late Nippergon's pretty good.
Speaker 3: But obviously no STUDI has actually been done there, so
Speaker 3: we have no idea. There's a couple of smaller creators
Speaker 3: around the place that have been tentatively identified as being
Speaker 3: younger derice but potentially related to the younger drice. But
Speaker 3: as I said, if we the air burst rain theory
Speaker 3: makes most sense for the proxies that we see, so
Speaker 3: when these things detonate in the atmosphere, they don't really
Speaker 3: leave traditional creators at all.
Speaker 1: The only thing.
Speaker 3: They the only traces they leave are the microscopic evidence
Speaker 3: that you find in the soil.
Speaker 1: So, oh yeah, I see.
Speaker 2: What do you believe was the effect over this period
Speaker 2: of time on the animal life on the play? Randall
Speaker 2: Carlson likes to say approximately eighty percent of the MegaFon
Speaker 2: of the big land animals perished, And we don't really
Speaker 2: know how much of the human population was affected because
Speaker 2: there's no documents. There's very rudimentary signatures of a human
Speaker 2: race on the planet. But what is your feeling on
Speaker 2: those two subjects.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, certainly the megafauna disappearance is closely tied with
Speaker 3: the young and ris. There have been critics over the
Speaker 3: years they said, oh, well they actually survived a few
Speaker 3: hundred years after the younger rise onset in these particular areas.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that's likely. It's not like the dinosaurs. It's
Speaker 3: not a one and done thing like if you have
Speaker 3: one impact in this region and then a couple of
Speaker 3: years later you've got another impact in this ragion, it
Speaker 3: creates Well, there's obviously wildfire associated with those impacts, and
Speaker 3: that will cause low sanctions in that era, but that
Speaker 3: doesn't that's not going to wipe them off the face
Speaker 3: of the planet. And it's possible that the Clovis people
Speaker 3: also played a part in their extinction, like that's been
Speaker 3: the the doctrine for decades now, and if there was
Speaker 3: only a few leftover after the impact events, then it
Speaker 3: makes sense that the clothes would hunt them because.
Speaker 1: They're also clinging on to their existence.
Speaker 3: Regarding the human populations, there's quite a bit of evidence
Speaker 3: well over the last few decades actually, but the first
Speaker 3: genetic evidence came out in twenty twenty two to show
Speaker 3: that there was a South American civilization up to nineteen
Speaker 3: twenty thousand years old in South America that disappeared at
Speaker 3: the Younger Drice onset. And there's a lot of archaeological
Speaker 3: sites throughout South America that I have thought to have
Speaker 3: been dated to the price scene and have been I guess,
Speaker 3: heavily criticized and denied, no doubt because of the in
Speaker 3: part at least because of the Clovis first doctrine. But
Speaker 3: I've got a short list of them here, if you'd
Speaker 3: let me read them, give us the names. So there's
Speaker 3: a there's one called Boucarial dead Pedro Ferrada in Brazil
Speaker 3: and the occupation there's thought to date between twenty and
Speaker 3: forty five thousand years ago.
Speaker 2: And how sophisticated are the Are these considered hundreds and
Speaker 2: gatherers or are these a little more.
Speaker 3: The thing is with these sites is that the lithics
Speaker 3: there aren't anywhere nearest sophisticated as the Clovis relics, which
Speaker 3: is part of the reason why they're denied by the critics.
Speaker 3: One recent study even claims that the lithics there were
Speaker 3: made by Capucin monkeys, but I mean the latest genetic
Speaker 3: evidence from the region says that they weren't. So then
Speaker 3: we have Toka de Tierra Paya in Brazil with evidence
Speaker 3: of occupation at least twenty seven thousand years old, Toko
Speaker 3: Decitio de Mayo site in Brazil thirty five thousand years old,
Speaker 3: the Arroyo delf Vizcaino in Uruguay over thirty thousand years,
Speaker 3: Santa Elena in Brazil twenty thousand years and this next
Speaker 3: site was published in twenty twenty. Chick Wihat Cave in
Speaker 3: Mexico with occupation twenty six thousand years and as early
Speaker 3: as thirty three, and this made worldwide headlines because one,
Speaker 3: the teams that were doing it were quite well respected,
Speaker 3: and two, well, it's obviously quite groundbreaking in its age.
Speaker 3: And initially the Monteverde site in Chile was dated to
Speaker 3: about eighteen thousand and five hundred, but that was revised
Speaker 3: down after years of criticism. And obviously now in North
Speaker 3: America we have the White Sands footprints which are twenty
Speaker 3: four thousand years old, and that's beyond any.
Speaker 1: Doubt.
Speaker 3: Now they've gone back and tested. So originally they had
Speaker 3: issues with the dating method, but they've gone back and
Speaker 3: used like three different methods now and they've all come
Speaker 3: out at twenty four thousand, so we know that people
Speaker 3: were there twenty four thousand years ago.
Speaker 2: Are any of these people building temples? Are we looking
Speaker 2: at foundations or are we discovering them with simple pictroglyphs
Speaker 2: on cave walls and rudimentary tools.
Speaker 3: So the sites are listed, there's no real structures associated
Speaker 3: with them. They're more likely just campsites. Most of the
Speaker 3: evidence is, let's see, not particularly strong. So we've got
Speaker 3: hearths or campsite campfires, we've got rudimentary lithics, we've got
Speaker 3: like animal remains mixed in and stuff like that. So,
Speaker 3: and this is why they're not very well accepted, because
Speaker 3: where's the structures, where's the unambiguous close points for example?
Speaker 3: And yeah, so the civilization there was probably quite rudimentary.
Speaker 3: But I mean that doesn't mean anything, right because if
Speaker 3: they were advanced, like in a Graham Handcock Atlantis sense,
Speaker 3: then wouldn't it make sense that subsequent people have come
Speaker 3: in there and salvaged and and scavenged all the like
Speaker 3: the metals there for example. Yeah, I mean most measure
Speaker 3: from the wrong period and the Greek period has been
Speaker 3: salvaged and reforged over time to make weapons for war
Speaker 3: and things like this, Like any sort of valuable material
Speaker 3: is always picked up by sus and occupations.
Speaker 2: I stopped you as you were completing that list. Did
Speaker 2: you finish?
Speaker 1: I think so? Yeah, okay.
Speaker 2: I recently was speaking to doctor Richard Hansen, who's excavating
Speaker 2: El Miodor. He's one of the foremost Mayanists in the world,
Speaker 2: and he recently mentioned that there were two phases to
Speaker 2: the Maya. There was a very early phase that stopped
Speaker 2: approximately two thousand years ago, but they don't really know
Speaker 2: when the inception date is. And the curious thing about this, though,
Speaker 2: is that their pyramids in Guatemala are the largest in
Speaker 2: the Americas and the most sophisticated. So this very very
Speaker 2: early people was building and engineering monstrosities in since rule
Speaker 2: in South America. And I'm curious, is it possible that
Speaker 2: we've got our dates wrong and that these earlier Maya
Speaker 2: that were wiped out may have been part of this
Speaker 2: younger driest impact hypothesis.
Speaker 3: Personally, I wouldn't really point to the Maya as dating
Speaker 3: back that far. But you really don't need the Maya
Speaker 3: because the Maya, their structures and their architecture is completely
Speaker 3: different to what Graham Hancock and others have said have
Speaker 3: pointed to. I think it's called Han and Patcha or
Speaker 3: the Cyclopean architecture at sucks Aquaman and other sites like that.
Speaker 3: There's clearly two stages of industry there. And if I mean,
Speaker 3: for argument's sake, all those sites that I listed off,
Speaker 3: maybe those people were the builders of these sites, and
Speaker 3: maybe they were part of.
Speaker 1: The global civilization that Graham Hancock advocates for.
Speaker 3: And I mean because the Cyclopean architecture is found all
Speaker 3: over the world, Easter Island, Europe, South.
Speaker 1: America, and so if this, if these sites and these people.
Speaker 3: A coincident with those constructions, and let's face more than
Speaker 3: likely pretty younger Driers, those Cyclopian architecture, because they've there's
Speaker 3: been no other catastrophe since the Younger Driers that would
Speaker 3: be capable of wiping them out, especially on a world
Speaker 3: wide level.
Speaker 2: So yeah, we're going to take a short commercial break
Speaker 2: to allow our sponsors to identify themselves, and we will
Speaker 2: return shortly with my guest today, Mark Young, describing the
Speaker 2: Younger Driest hypothesis and what actually happened to Earth over
Speaker 2: nine thousand years ago. Will be right back. My guest
Speaker 2: today is Australian geo archaeologist Mark Young. He's coming to
Speaker 2: us from Australia and we're learning just what happened to
Speaker 2: the Earth during the cataclysmic period of nine five hundred,
Speaker 2: the end of the Ice Age. So what would you
Speaker 2: say to those who advocate for Atlantis being destroyed around
Speaker 2: this period of time. I mean we're talking Hancock and
Speaker 2: perhaps John Anthony West and a number of authors and
Speaker 2: researchers who have come before.
Speaker 3: Yes, sir, the Plato's timing for Atlanta has coincided directly
Speaker 3: with the end of the Young Andreas and there was
Speaker 3: a serious rise in same levels around that time. So
Speaker 3: from a science perspective, there's certain summer suggestion of validity
Speaker 3: that obviously the archaeologists will say, show me the butt
Speaker 3: shows and stuff like that. But we're talking about a cataclysm,
Speaker 3: and we're talking about a sea level as like ninety
Speaker 3: percent of the what global population lives within a few
Speaker 3: kilometers of the coastline right or along rivers, and so
Speaker 3: level rise of one hundred and fifty feet one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty meters or four hundred feet that's going to
Speaker 3: erase almost all evidence of any civilization I was living there.
Speaker 3: So and people say, oh, well, we've done archaeology on
Speaker 3: the coastal shelves and it's like, you can't dive to
Speaker 3: four hundred feet very easily, Like it's very difficult to
Speaker 3: dive that far.
Speaker 1: And yeah, it's I don't find it convincing.
Speaker 3: I think there's certainly room for an Atlantis, And people
Speaker 3: like Flint Debil who claim there's there's no evidence at
Speaker 3: all for Atlantis, they're just lying because there's a lot. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I like that, it's just not the kind of evidence
Speaker 3: that archaeologists tend to deal in. Why why is there
Speaker 3: evidence tangential evidence?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: What why is there so much resistance to younger driest
Speaker 2: It seems like there's a certain body of scientists that
Speaker 2: are actually uh evaluating the possibilities and finding solid evidence
Speaker 2: for an impact event, and then there's a whole bunch
Speaker 2: that are trying to write it off. Why Why do
Speaker 2: you think that's the way it is?
Speaker 3: That could be any number of reasons. Really, one thing
Speaker 3: would be that they don't want it to be true,
Speaker 3: because that would mean them have been wrong our lives.
Speaker 3: One one thing that I kind of via awards is
Speaker 3: that they've actually found Atlantis and they don't want to know.
Speaker 3: They want to hold the secrets for themselves. And there
Speaker 3: could be any number of reasons for that.
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 3: Zahi Juas and Edgar Casey zahij PhD was funded by
Speaker 3: the Casey Foundation, and there if they did find the
Speaker 3: Hall of Records, they wouldn't share it with everyone because
Speaker 3: what if it if what if the Hall of Records
Speaker 3: told us about an impending younger drives to Bueno in
Speaker 3: our near future? They wouldn't They wouldn't reveal that because
Speaker 3: that would cause global panic hm HM and.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean there could be any number of reasons.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Uh.
Speaker 2: I find it interesting that you say that. You know,
Speaker 2: it's when I when I discovered the toward meteor stream,
Speaker 2: I was perplexed that we hadn't known that much about
Speaker 2: it before. But apparently our cosmos, Earth specifically goes through
Speaker 2: it every two.
Speaker 1: Years and twice a year every year.
Speaker 2: Is it twice a year? Oh my god?
Speaker 3: Okay, light journ and early light October early November.
Speaker 2: And is there a speculation among cosmologists that Earth has
Speaker 2: been impacted in previous times during these yeah pass throughs,
Speaker 2: or is it unique to just this younger driest event.
Speaker 3: So if the tord theory is correct, then it stands
Speaker 3: to raise them that it has happened in the past.
Speaker 3: And who knows the severity of those kind of things.
Speaker 3: There are specs of evidence here and there. The car
Speaker 3: Research Group has published a paper on a few impacts
Speaker 3: that happened between thirty and fifty thousand years ago. So
Speaker 3: have you heard about John Reeves and the boneyard in
Speaker 3: Alaska and the Siberian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So.
Speaker 3: The current research group studied a boneyard deposit in Siberia
Speaker 3: and they were finding impact sperials within the skulls of
Speaker 3: these animals. And I don't know if you know the
Speaker 3: story of how George Howard became the cosmic.
Speaker 2: Task, no targ about it.
Speaker 3: They were finding tasks, mammoth tasks that had meteoric material
Speaker 3: embedded in them. So if you imagine this air burst explosion,
Speaker 3: it's like a shotgun blast of meteoric material that affected
Speaker 3: these mammoths directly.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: And so the CRG in that paper twenty seventeen, I
Speaker 3: think it was Hag's and the Biblio.
Speaker 1: They theorized that these these.
Speaker 3: Animals were all in placed catastrophically by by impact events.
Speaker 3: And it makes sense, right, because some of these animals
Speaker 3: are flash frozen, like you've got entire mammoths fresh flash
Speaker 3: frozen still with still with their daisies in their mouth
Speaker 3: and there in the stomach like these things, and that
Speaker 3: the bottom the the their legs are broken, and they
Speaker 3: were some of them had erections which means they were asphyxiated,
Speaker 3: but they were buried alive. And so there's unquestionably been
Speaker 3: catastrophic events. And by the very nature of or media
Speaker 3: austream and how how it functions early on in its
Speaker 3: us to the large objects, right, and over time, those
Speaker 3: large objects just integrating into smaller and smaller hierarchically. And
Speaker 3: so the idea is that it entered the Solar System
Speaker 3: about twenty thirty years ago, so about twelve years ago,
Speaker 3: it's about halfway through it's disintegration compared to today.
Speaker 2: Why do you think that we're not getting more information
Speaker 2: about this tored meteor stream. It seems like if the
Speaker 2: powers would be new that a period of time we've
Speaker 2: had terminating events or near terminating events, they would want
Speaker 2: to set up some kind of a system, you know,
Speaker 2: perhaps aiming rockets to deflect meteors and other large obstacles
Speaker 2: that would impact the planet.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well recently we had the NASA DOT mission right where
Speaker 3: they intercepted on an asteroid and nod sho it off course.
Speaker 3: And so maybe the reason they're doing that is because
Speaker 3: they know something's coming, or maybe that is doing it
Speaker 3: because I can.
Speaker 2: M funny, Hey, I'm curious. I just discovered about a
Speaker 2: year ago the black mat this ash layer that's located
Speaker 2: in different parts of the planet. Talk about that and
Speaker 2: why it's so important in understanding this impact event.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so just to clarify, the black matt isn't really
Speaker 3: an ash layer. There are some sites with a high
Speaker 3: concentration of ash, but it's mainly decomposed vegetation material. So
Speaker 3: if you picture this impact event comes in, it decimates
Speaker 3: the landscape. The black matter is representing the off of
Speaker 3: that where it's coal and damp and swampy everywhere.
Speaker 1: And the impact.
Speaker 3: Proxy is are found in direct contact with the bottom
Speaker 3: of the black mat not within it really, And so
Speaker 3: we've got this lapjector followed by the black mat and
Speaker 3: the black matte contains the last rece of the megafauna.
Speaker 3: Megafauna has never been found above the black matt, only
Speaker 3: within it or below it.
Speaker 2: So hmm, And where do we find the most evidence
Speaker 2: of black mat? Is it through North America? Europe?
Speaker 1: Where are they?
Speaker 2: Where is it most prominent? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So North America?
Speaker 3: North America's North America is the main continent where it's found.
Speaker 3: There's more than sixty sites across North America where it manifests.
Speaker 3: In Europe there's a similar black mate it's called the
Speaker 3: Oscelo Horizon. Critics of day it to like fourteen thousand
Speaker 3: years ago, but there's some good evidence that it actually
Speaker 3: correlates with the younger drys boundary. So obviously at one
Speaker 3: side it contains nanodiamonds, right, So, and nanodiamonds have only
Speaker 3: been found in the younger drice boundary layer, no other
Speaker 3: layers above or below, And so there's reason to believe
Speaker 3: that whatever the site formation conditions are over there, for
Speaker 3: whatever reason, it gives off.
Speaker 1: A different date.
Speaker 3: And I mean in some cases it is directly dated
Speaker 3: to the and drives, but in other places it's a
Speaker 3: little bit off.
Speaker 2: So, and you mentioned nanodamonds, that comes up a lot
Speaker 2: when it comes to these comet hits. Describe a nanodama. Basically,
Speaker 2: it's an exploded hunk of very hard rock, right.
Speaker 3: So it's a piece of carbon carbon materials that have
Speaker 3: been found in Okay, So earlier on critics claimed that
Speaker 3: the carbon dispherials that nanodims were being found in would
Speaker 3: just bug poop, right, And so obviously bugs don't poop nanodiamonds.
Speaker 3: But even if they did, that just means that even
Speaker 3: if it was bug poop, I mean, that just means
Speaker 3: that the bob prope was on a surface when the
Speaker 3: impact affected it and created diamonds within it. So the
Speaker 3: Nanodiamonds are mainly found in carbon s ferials. They're also
Speaker 3: found in the glass like carbon proxies that we find,
Speaker 3: and they.
Speaker 1: Occur during high temperature, high pressure events mainly.
Speaker 3: There's also another method called chemical vapor position. So if
Speaker 3: we imagine that the impact event vaporized this carbon material
Speaker 3: as it calls its, it condenses and settles on an object.
Speaker 1: And they can be produced that way. Hmm. So there's
Speaker 1: a there's a couple of different methods to produce them.
Speaker 3: Some critics have claimed they form in wildfires, but there's
Speaker 3: no wildfire ever recorded that produces temperatures high enough to
Speaker 3: make that, and there's no nanodiamonds found in any other layers. Like,
Speaker 3: there's been tests all the way from before the Younger
Speaker 3: Drives through to modern times and there's no nanodiamonds anywhere else.
Speaker 3: It's only the Younger Drives boundary until you get to
Speaker 3: about two hundred years ago. Because obviously modern processes can
Speaker 3: manufacture these things. You can make him in a lab
Speaker 3: for example, and they're they kept. They're often used for
Speaker 3: polishing and stuff like because obviously their diamonds are very hard.
Speaker 3: So if you make a diamond paste, there's going to
Speaker 3: be nanodiamonds in there, and so in modern sections they
Speaker 3: are there, but once you get older than a few
Speaker 3: hundred years, there's nothing until the younger dryers.
Speaker 2: So then, okay, are they found in ice corey at all?
Speaker 1: So this is difficult. So in twenty two thousand and nine.
Speaker 3: There was a PPS Nova documentary about finding nanodiamonds in
Speaker 3: the Greenland ice and so they sent out this team.
Speaker 3: They recovered ice from the younger dryers layer and they
Speaker 3: looked in there for nanodiamonds and they they found them
Speaker 3: in high concentrations. However, that data critics have recently been
Speaker 3: attacking this thing, and even back in the day, shortly
Speaker 3: after the documentary came out, predicts were writing to BBS saying,
Speaker 3: this is fraud.
Speaker 1: You need to take it off the air.
Speaker 3: And actually the executives caved and they took the documentary
Speaker 3: off the air. It's called Magabe's Sudden Death. You can
Speaker 3: still be viewed on YouTube, but you can't view on
Speaker 3: BBS anymore. And so, assuming that it wasn't fraud, which
Speaker 3: it certainly wasn't, there have been no time is found
Speaker 3: in the ice sheet. But it's not something that I
Speaker 3: would use as unequivocal evidence, because I mean, it's TV, right,
Speaker 3: so who knows what happened behind the scenes. I certainly
Speaker 3: would never accuse anyone in the comment research group of
Speaker 3: fabricating this stuff, but there are questions at it.
Speaker 1: That's all I'll say on that.
Speaker 2: What was the name again, Mark?
Speaker 1: You can find it on YouTube, Mega based Sudden Death.
Speaker 2: Megabass Sudden Death. Yeah, okay, thank you for that. That
Speaker 2: goes gets into my next question, which is the melting
Speaker 2: of the ice caps and the glacier snow during this impact.
Speaker 2: The big thought is that there was a massive flood,
Speaker 2: but you say otherwise, You say there was not a
Speaker 2: massive flood, You say there were perhaps a regional flooding.
Speaker 2: Talk about that a little bit.
Speaker 3: So when people like Graham Hancock and Ranald Carlson have
Speaker 3: talked about this on podcasts, they they often declaim that,
Speaker 3: not directly, but they imply that the four hundred feate
Speaker 3: rise and say level happened or not, And that's not
Speaker 3: the case at all. It happened over a few thousand
Speaker 3: years off at the end of the ice side. However,
Speaker 3: at the Younger drives onset, there is a global sea
Speaker 3: level rise about five meters.
Speaker 1: And that is very.
Speaker 3: Significant volumes of water entering the oceans in a very
Speaker 3: short time. And so, and there's obviously Lake Agacy. For decades,
Speaker 3: there's been an arguments over when Lake Agacy drained and
Speaker 3: the route that it drained. So there's they've identified three
Speaker 3: different routes that it could have drained from, and the
Speaker 3: most recent studies that it drained at the start of
Speaker 3: the Younger drives, but all of them disagree as to
Speaker 3: which route it was at which time, right, But I
Speaker 3: think the more likely explanation for that is that there
Speaker 3: was an impact into the ice sheet and that released
Speaker 3: a crap ton of melt water flowed off of the
Speaker 3: ice sheet into La Gagacity, and it drained through all
Speaker 3: three of those routes at the same time.
Speaker 2: HM.
Speaker 3: And obviously there's a significant Heinrich event at the time
Speaker 3: of the andres, which means that there was lots of
Speaker 3: ice bergs and chunks of the ice sheet that flowed
Speaker 3: off of the ice sheet and dropped debris out in
Speaker 3: the ocean.
Speaker 2: And so.
Speaker 3: I mean the most likely scenario, I mean, obviously, if
Speaker 3: an impact occurd into the ice sheet is going to
Speaker 3: throw throw off a lot of meltwater, and it'll break
Speaker 3: up large portions of it, right, And yeah, there's not.
Speaker 1: A whole lot of.
Speaker 3: Incontrovertial evidence for the but yeah, I think that's quite likely.
Speaker 2: So there's no areas that you or any other scientists
Speaker 2: have discovered where there were some of these meteors were
Speaker 2: impacting the ocean and causing tsunami like events, covering land
Speaker 2: formed miles inland.
Speaker 3: It's difficult because obviously, if it impacts in the ocean,
Speaker 3: the crater's on the bottom of the ocean, so it's
Speaker 3: very difficult to find. There have been various claims of
Speaker 3: megazinan armies, but there's not much evidence to support it,
Speaker 3: at least on the land. But we have to remember
Speaker 3: says were one hundred and fiftys or four hundred feet
Speaker 3: lower then, so if that wasn't megazoon army, the gurins
Speaker 3: or the chevrons that are produced are underwater now, right.
Speaker 3: And even harder than finding a crater on the bottom
Speaker 3: of the ocean is dating that crater.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can.
Speaker 3: You can find all the creatives you want, but you're
Speaker 3: going to date them, you need you need to drill
Speaker 3: them specifically and look for evidence within them.
Speaker 2: We're gonna take a short commercial break to allow our
Speaker 2: sponsors to identify themselves, and we will return shortly with
Speaker 2: my guest today, Mark Young, discussing the Younger Driest impact.
Speaker 2: Will be right back. H m m m. My guest
Speaker 2: today is Australian geo archaeologist Mark Young. He is describing
Speaker 2: what we know about this devastating event that happened nine
Speaker 2: five hundred BC, approximately twelve thousand years ago, and the
Speaker 2: destruction throughout the Earth. Talk about the changes in vegetation
Speaker 2: before and after the Younger drives. It kind of indicates
Speaker 2: this world white event.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so if you look at the Greenland temperature data,
Speaker 3: it shows lots of spikes up and down, but overall
Speaker 3: there's a big trend of ice age and then slowly
Speaker 3: rising into the whole scene. But the Younger dryers interrupts
Speaker 3: this gradual curve, right, So rather than a nice smooth
Speaker 3: curve like that, it goes like this.
Speaker 1: Up and down, and that.
Speaker 3: Is one of the indications that something catastrophic happened there,
Speaker 3: right Because obviously you've got all these oscillations further down
Speaker 3: the line during the ice age, but they're nowhere near
Speaker 3: comparable to what happened at the Younger Dryers, and so
Speaker 3: obviously before the younger drys you've got fifty different genera
Speaker 3: megafauna roaming the earth that aren't there.
Speaker 1: Afterwards, you've got.
Speaker 3: And interestingly, right, so if you look at the temperature
Speaker 3: data for previous integrationis like what we're in now. They
Speaker 3: don't look anything like the whole scene. The whole scene
Speaker 3: is very staable. It's only tiny little oscillations in temperature
Speaker 3: all throughout, and that's not what happened in the previous ones.
Speaker 3: Like the previous ones are still interrupted by major spikes
Speaker 3: in oscillations. So I mean there's a number of unique
Speaker 3: components that I talked about in that twenty twenty three
Speaker 3: lecture at the Cosmic Summit, like the methane concentrations.
Speaker 1: And stuff like that.
Speaker 3: So not only that vegetation patterns were very different before
Speaker 3: the young Arson. Afterwards I showed him presentation the dynamics
Speaker 3: between grasslands and woodlands and pine forests and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: They've changed dramatically, very quickly, and that's not something you
Speaker 3: see in previous events either.
Speaker 2: Are the geologists commenting on this change when they look
Speaker 2: back historically to various activities that are coming from outer
Speaker 2: space and impacting the Earth. Do they even comment on
Speaker 2: that or do they not comment on it?
Speaker 3: So, actually geologists are often the most accepting of the
Speaker 3: young and dress impact geochemical proxies, and they say, well,
Speaker 3: that's obviously an impact. It's mainly most of the pushback
Speaker 3: comes from archaeologists. Did that come through clearly?
Speaker 1: I was having you went off for a minute.
Speaker 2: Can you repeat what you just said?
Speaker 3: So geologists are actually the most accepting of the young
Speaker 3: dry stuff. It's mainly archaeologists that have a problem with it.
Speaker 3: And like a geologist can look at these impact proxies
Speaker 3: and say, yeah, like they can't have been caused by
Speaker 3: anything else unless you're saying that those that I mean.
Speaker 3: So this is a catch twenty two. Right, So these
Speaker 3: proxies been produced by a high technology civilization, but the
Speaker 3: assumption of archaeologists is that there was no such civilization then.
Speaker 3: So assuming there was no such civilization, then they can
Speaker 3: only have been caused by an impact event.
Speaker 2: M funny.
Speaker 3: I mean, we've got melting temperatures that are not up
Speaker 3: for debate, Like melted quartz needs two one hundred degrees
Speaker 3: to melt it and volcanoes can't do that. The only
Speaker 3: thing that can do that is modern technology and an
Speaker 3: impact event, which is part of why some of the
Speaker 3: critics course or frauds, like they claim that everything that
Speaker 3: we show us fraud and that we sprinkle it in
Speaker 3: the sample ourselves, and it's like, no, that's not possible.
Speaker 3: Maybe in the first coup of years when only a
Speaker 3: handful of scientists had looked at this stuff, but there's
Speaker 3: dozens of papers with samples that have never passed through
Speaker 3: the hands of any common research group member. And so
Speaker 3: what they're suggesting in that case is that there's a
Speaker 3: global conspiracy between well respected scientists to manufacture this evidence,
Speaker 3: and that's not happening.
Speaker 1: It's simply not.
Speaker 2: So this worldwide that conspiracy is. Uh. Is this the
Speaker 2: excuse for not acknowledging your work.
Speaker 1: More or less?
Speaker 3: A lot of the critics, like Mopov's little and stuff
Speaker 3: like that, they just say, oh, that's a fraudulent don't.
Speaker 1: Worry about that. But it's just not as simple as that.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about in our time that
Speaker 2: we have remaining, when we look at places like go Beckley, Teppee,
Speaker 2: Carahan Teppe, perhaps some of these underground seats like Darren
Speaker 2: Kuru and Turkey. It looks like they're reboot centers where
Speaker 2: someone's trying to show people how to farm or animal
Speaker 2: husbandry or begin looking at the cosmological cycles. What would
Speaker 2: you say about that? Would you believe? Would you? Would
Speaker 2: you have a feeling that they are recovery outlets for
Speaker 2: people that have survived these impact events.
Speaker 3: See this always makes me laugh because the archaeologists say, oh,
Speaker 3: there's no evidence of a lot of civilization anywhere, but
Speaker 3: they've just they've discovered all these sites dating to exactly
Speaker 3: when they're supposed to be dated. Right, So twenty years
Speaker 3: ago they didn't know and they would have said these
Speaker 3: things don't exist, but now they do. And there's good
Speaker 3: evidence that Go Back to Tape is much older than
Speaker 3: they've dated it too, right, Yeah, not only because some
Speaker 3: of the pillars are inserted into walls, Like there's walls
Speaker 3: built up around them that cover up the carvings, and
Speaker 3: so that t pillar was taken from somewhere else and
Speaker 3: reused in the construction of Go Back to Tape.
Speaker 1: And regarding the specific question about.
Speaker 3: Sort of re civilization, potentially, I don't know if there's
Speaker 3: good evidence to suggest that, but there's certainly not good
Speaker 3: evidence to deny it. And I mean, like I just said,
Speaker 3: those pillars have been reused from somewhere. Maybe the original
Speaker 3: site that they were reused from was older, and they've
Speaker 3: come in after the cataclysm.
Speaker 1: They've rebuilt these sites and they've restarted who knows. Ochaeoltists
Speaker 1: don't know. They can't say that, they can't say that
Speaker 1: it wasn't that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's still a huge mystery as to the function.
Speaker 2: But it looks like, given not only the date but
Speaker 2: just what they have found so far, that they were
Speaker 2: educational centers of some kind. Are there other hints and
Speaker 2: some similar sites that you've discovered in any other parts
Speaker 2: of the world, Not that.
Speaker 1: I'm particularly aware of, m not that come to mind.
Speaker 1: At least I'm sure there are some.
Speaker 3: I mean, we talked about earlier about the Cyclopean architecture,
Speaker 3: so obviously sites with the Cyclopean architecture below and more
Speaker 3: modern architecture above, they will have been repurposed, We'll reoccupied
Speaker 3: over time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can't really think of anther than that.
Speaker 2: We opened the show with you talking about a number
Speaker 2: of civilizations that have been found up and down the Americas.
Speaker 2: Do you believe or have any sense of a sophisticated hierarchy,
Speaker 2: a civilization like an Atlantis, like a Moria, uh, existing
Speaker 2: in other parts of the of the planet, And where
Speaker 2: would they be?
Speaker 3: I mean, obviously in Europe, I mean the Middle East.
Speaker 3: We've got go We've got the tapes, right, there's a
Speaker 3: few of them. Now. Obviously on Easter Island you've got
Speaker 3: Cyclopean architecture there. I don't I haven't really looked into
Speaker 3: Malta too much, but you've got similar architecture on Malta.
Speaker 3: There's there's at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. There's
Speaker 3: actually standing stones there with hole drilled in them. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, unless they fell off a boat and landed
Speaker 3: up right in the in the grounds, they were certainly
Speaker 3: there before the mad Sea flooded, right. So, and there's
Speaker 3: been stone circles found in the bottom of Lake Michigan
Speaker 3: as well, I believe. I mean, there's all sorts of
Speaker 3: potential locations, but obviously it's all very thin evidence, like
Speaker 3: there's no archaeological evidence other than the structures itself. And
Speaker 3: I mean I I mean, we've got Gunang Padang in
Speaker 3: Indonesia as well, which I am convinced, despite the pushbacks
Speaker 3: from archaeologists, I'm convinced that there was humans living there
Speaker 3: twenty five thousand years ago and the site was built
Speaker 3: as a megalithic site. You can argue over whether it's
Speaker 3: a pyramid or not, but it's certainly pyramidal. And at
Speaker 3: the lowest level that's been dated about twenty six thousand
Speaker 3: years ago is whether the artifacts have been found, the
Speaker 3: Kujang Stone among chief among them.
Speaker 2: And that's the big problem with Canon Penang is the
Speaker 2: fact that it's been carbon did it? It's such an
Speaker 2: ancient period, a very old time. Why do archaeologists have
Speaker 2: such a problem with that, I mean because they just
Speaker 2: are all over Danny Hillman about that, the geologists who
Speaker 2: found and excavated that site.
Speaker 3: Just because it's a bold client really and the dating
Speaker 3: isn't direct dating of archaeological material. They've they've drilled core
Speaker 3: samples and the core samples and they've dated that material.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm just arguing, well, that's not enough to
Speaker 3: say that this was occupied back then. But there's a
Speaker 3: lot of archaeology that's been done on the exact same
Speaker 3: type of dating, and the fact that that Tedding was
Speaker 3: done on core samples rather than archaeological material, is almost
Speaker 3: the entire basis for its retraction, and so if they
Speaker 3: want to retract articles for that, then they're going to
Speaker 3: have to attract hundreds more.
Speaker 1: It's just dumb.
Speaker 3: And if you look at the Kujang stone that's taken
Speaker 3: from the interface between the two lowers layers, it's very
Speaker 3: clearly an artifacts that is not natural.
Speaker 1: You can't if any archaeologist looks.
Speaker 3: At that and tells you it's natural, never believe anything
Speaker 3: they say because they're not interested in the truth.
Speaker 2: Wow. Hey, Mark, has been fun talking with you. You're
Speaker 2: going to be physically at the Cosmic Summit in June.
Speaker 2: Are you be flying to North Carolina?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: It was the title of your talk.
Speaker 3: That's to be determined. I still haven't fully several on
Speaker 3: what I'm going to represent him, but it'll be interesting.
Speaker 3: It'll be Younger drivest related. It might be a hybrid
Speaker 3: of the latest research in combination with a bunch of
Speaker 3: stuff about the critics, because since the Handcock dibbled about,
Speaker 3: the critics have really stepped it up a notch. And
Speaker 3: obviously I might present some of that scientific fraud that
Speaker 3: I discovered published a discredit the Younger Dry. So i'll
Speaker 3: talk about that.
Speaker 2: Talk a little bit about what you have determined and
Speaker 2: called scientific friued.
Speaker 3: What does that mean?
Speaker 2: Specifically, give us some examples.
Speaker 3: Right, So, a bunch of critics published a paper from
Speaker 3: Hall's Cave and they stated in the paper that the
Speaker 3: geochemical evidence from the Young Dry's boundary was caused by volcanism.
Speaker 3: But what they did is they collected all this data,
Speaker 3: they used very shoddy methods, but that's neither here nor there.
Speaker 3: And what they did is when they found that one
Speaker 3: of the samples came back with a major platinum normally
Speaker 3: like the rest of the young Dry sites, they said, oh,
Speaker 3: we better not include that in our paper. We better
Speaker 3: delete that sample because we want to say the younger
Speaker 3: drives occurs above that m So, their younger driss occurs
Speaker 3: at one fifty one centimeters in the in the in
Speaker 3: the strata, but the sample directly below that, at one
Speaker 3: fifty three centimeters has the platinum spike at the young
Speaker 3: dryas So in order to claim that their samples up
Speaker 3: here are the younger drives, they had to delete this
Speaker 3: sample because they couldn't claim that if they hadn't deleted this,
Speaker 3: and so a co author who was originally on the
Speaker 3: paper but pulled his name off after they submitted it,
Speaker 3: he sent me the original data that they had in
Speaker 3: the paper, and that's how we know they deleted it,
Speaker 3: because the paper that's published doesn't have that sample in
Speaker 3: it anyway, there's no mention of it. But that sample
Speaker 3: single handedly disproves their entire conclusions. They can't claim anything
Speaker 3: they claim unless they delete that sample.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, So are you going to be the
Speaker 2: one that outs them?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've been on a couple of costs talking about
Speaker 3: it in depth. I'm gonna present in depth at the
Speaker 3: Cosmic Summit.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, So those of you listening either get yourself
Speaker 2: out to North Carolina or listen to Mark on the
Speaker 2: streaming program. By the way, it's seventy five dollars for
Speaker 2: the entire program Saturday Sunday, and I think there's some
Speaker 2: other programs on Monday the twentieth through the twenty second
Speaker 2: and twenty third. I think Randall Carlson is doing a
Speaker 2: special presentation on Monday and a couple of other people.
Speaker 2: So the streaming price seventy five bucks for the whole
Speaker 2: weekend is very very reasonable. And by the way, if
Speaker 2: you do not make those specific presentations, they're catalogued and
Speaker 2: stored for you to look at at your leisure, which
Speaker 2: is a very very fun and great benefit because we
Speaker 2: all live in different parts of the world and we
Speaker 2: can't be up at the actual time with the presentation.
Speaker 2: So consider that cosmic sentiment dot com. Go to the
Speaker 2: button on top and look for streaming and check it
Speaker 2: out and make sure to see Mark Young his presentation.
Speaker 2: What dare you speaking, Mark, Saturday, Sunday or Monday.
Speaker 1: It's on the Saturday, I believe in the morning before lunch.
Speaker 2: So okay, excellent, so wonderful, Mark Young, geo Archaeologists. Thanks
Speaker 2: for joining me. A real pleasure, and I expect at
Speaker 2: some point, when you recover from all your discoveries that
Speaker 2: you produce a book. Fella.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So I've written basically a thesis length article on Graham
Speaker 3: Hancock flipsode, but it's about fifty sixty thousand loads going
Speaker 3: out of all the different aspects of the.
Speaker 1: So I might adapt that and publish it. Is there
Speaker 1: any number of things I could write about? So yeah,
Speaker 1: writing technically on the college at some point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it takes time and energy. So hey, I really
Speaker 2: appreciate you joining us, and I hope your show is
Speaker 2: filled with people, and uh, let's have you back again.
Speaker 1: Sounds good, Cliff looking forward to it.
Speaker 2: I wanted to mention that you can still see and
Speaker 2: hear the speakers from the Cosmic Summit by going to
Speaker 2: Cosmic Summing Summit dot com and you can download Mark's presentation.
Speaker 2: You can also download Randall, Carlson, Ben Van Kirkwick, Bob Shock,
Speaker 2: Robert Shock and all the presentations there and again them
Speaker 2: and I think that they're only charging fifty bucks for
Speaker 2: the whole package, and it's a good deal. We want
Speaker 2: to support the conferences like con like Cosmic Summit because
Speaker 2: you know, they are offering us a good idea about
Speaker 2: what's going on in the world of geology, archaeology, anthropology
Speaker 2: and so on. So good to have Mark on the program. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I want to mention Earth Ancients does tours. Our tours
Speaker 2: are half the typical price of twelve to twenty day program.
Speaker 2: For all the details, go to Earth Ancients dot com
Speaker 2: forward slash tours. We have a Guatamalitur in December first
Speaker 2: of the twelfth with archaeologists with Shaman and The beauty
Speaker 2: of that tour is we get to actually interact, climb,
Speaker 2: touch and hang out on pyramids, on temples with shaman
Speaker 2: and we're learning how to connect with these ancient buildings.
Speaker 2: And for all the details go to Earth Agents dot com,
Speaker 2: Forward slash Tours t O U R s and check
Speaker 2: that out. That one is about half full. We have
Speaker 2: another tour coming up April twenty eighth through May tenth.
Speaker 2: That's our Grand Egyptian Tour number ten. That's the Megalithic Tour,
Speaker 2: and that's an amazing tour. We're gonna go to some
Speaker 2: of the most remote areas of Egypt and see the
Speaker 2: evidence of pre dynastic builders. These are guys that built
Speaker 2: on a megalithic scale and they are amazing. For all
Speaker 2: the details go to earth Agents dot com Forward slash Tours. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's it for this program. I want to think my
Speaker 2: guest today, Mark Young, coming to us from Australia. As always,
Speaker 2: the team of Gail Tour, Mark Foster and Faya are
Speaker 2: Pakistani video expert. You guys rock, you really do all right.
Speaker 2: Take care of you well and we will talk to
Speaker 2: you next time.