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