Today I wrote the following email to members of the Comet Research Group, as well as to authors associated with the recent South Africa YD impact paper. The body of the email read: “Please see the attached .pdf that deals with YD impact craters in North America, South America, and South Africa. The data and its analysis play a part in identifying and resolving an historic error.” The following was attached to the email in a .pdf:
YD impact craters
To account for impact craters found in North America, one hypothesis holds that they were created at the YD boundary by ice chunks projected from a comet-on-ice sheet impact somewhere in the northern Midwest (US). Among the problems with this hypothesis: there is no primary comet remnant crater in North America; a North American impact could not account for YD impact craters and associated effects in South America (Pino, et al) and South Africa (Thackeray, et al) – ice chunk drafting notwithstanding (there’s a paper out there claiming that ice chunks ‘drafted’ from somewhere in the Midwest US to make their way to the Carolinas).
A more recent hypothesis holds that an impact in Greenland (Kjaer, Kurbatov, etc.) is the primary YD impact site. There are irreconcilable problems with this hypothesis, too: it is too far away from North America to account for cratering there; Greenlandic ice projections could not account for the primarily NW-SE axes in the Carolina bays; a Greenlandic impact could not account for YD impact craters in South America and South Africa; etc.
Instead, the primary impact site is in the Southern Ocean, southwest of South Africa. It is identified in my recent paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary,” available here.
What follows are data and its analysis that account for the YD ice impact craters found in North America, South America, and South Africa. The term ‘IO’ is my abbreviation for the ‘Impacting Object’ that created all reported YD effects.
Data:
Google Earth screen capture1: A close view of an impact crater in South Africa. Its grid location is available in the screen shot. Note the runoff channels as well as its SW-NE orientation.
Google Earth screen capture2: The impact site from 1 but viewed from 12+ miles, as well as two lines. The shorter red line is drawn through the impact crater to convey the ice chunk’s direction at impact. The yellow line is parallel to the red line and of much greater extent for use in an upcoming comparison. Each line is oriented SW-NE.
Google Earth screen captures3 & 4: The lines from screen capture2, but from much higher eye altitudes, 166+ miles on slide three, and 1733 miles on slide four.
Google Earth screen capture5 shows the yellow line from the previous slides, as well as a line drawn through the trough at the center of the YD impact crescent in the Southern Ocean. The solid, dense core of the impacting object (IO) carved this trough on impact, so the white line depicts the IO’s pre-impact flight direction. Note that the lines are essentially parallel; the South African impact direction is slightly more northerly, understandable since it is found north of the IO site (indicates a northward fragmentation vector).
Google Earth screen capture6 is the same view as screen capture5 but from a much higher eye altitude. Note that the white IO impact direction line extends over southern Argentina and Peru (i.e. Pilauco site). Note, too, that the white line’s orientation over South America is essentially NW-SE.
Google Earth screen capture7 shows several impact craters in southern Argentina, all with a NW-SE orientation. Note the runoff channels that are very similar to those at the South Africa site.
Google Earth screen capture8 shows several impact craters from North Carolina, all oriented NW-SE.
Google Earth screen capture9 shows the IO back-propagated path as in the previous slide.
Another schematic of the approach path is shown, below. During approach, the IO was at its highest while over North America, which accounts for the continent-wide spread in its debris field (from off the coast of Monterey, CA, to the Carolina Bays). 
Analysis:
The IO’s core trough indicates its immediately pre-impact direction, and though it did not cross directly over the South Pole, it came relatively close. Thus, the western hemisphere impact directions are mostly NW-SE, and the South African impact direction is SW-NE.
The IO’s altitude when over North America, combined with variability in fragment chunk location and initial velocity from the IO sphere, would account for reported variabilities in North American crater axis orientations; that is, the IO’s overflight path accounts for ice fragment crater orientations in North America. A list of representative craters associated with the flight path is found in my paper’s Appendix (South Africa paper was published after my paper).
It is likely that the directionally straight back-propagation path is not exact at greater distances from the impact site (i.e. North America) due to gravitational effects.
Runoff channels at the craters were carved by the fragments’ ice melt. The IO impact was so massive that its runoff created the worldwide flood, as described in my paper.
The IO’s pre-impact ice fragments would be considered comets had they broken off much, much earlier in its Earth approach.
Geology’s “no worldwide flood, ever” hypothesis is indisputably wrong – it is the most profound error in the history of science. The YD event and the worldwide flood are synonymous.
We are in a new geologic era, The Post-Diluvian.
Regards,
Michael
The Worldwide Flood 