There is a half Jupiter mass body in the outer solar system that generates comet swarms whose period is in a 3:2 resonance orbit with its period (4969 years). Fragments from one of its comet Swarm:Clusters (A:Cl-1) caused two weather change events, one 12,679 BP and another 236 AD. Other impacts occured inbetween these dates, but only these two dates have similar celestial geometeries. This interval is within a year of 2 times the period of this massive body, or 9938 years and thus are in the 3:2 resonace relationship. This time interval alone shows that it the 12,679 BP event was comet related to a 97% certainy.
http://www.barry....Put.html

Likewise, the residual nanodiamonds offer evidence of such an impact.
http://www.univer...le/24053
NANODIAMONDS DISCOVERED IN GREENLAND ICE SHEET - 2010-09-09
Barry Warmkessel, Ph.D Physics

It's kinda funny about this article, because I just got finished watching an episode of "how the earth was made" on the history channel,a nd the evidence for an asteroid or comet is far greater than this article acknowledges.

A line of soil containing charred organics seperates soil layers that differ in magnitism by a factor of 7 or 8 times. And it was calculated that the air temperature had to reach 1600F (I think,) to cause this charring.

The magnetism anomaly proves it's not a forest fire.

No evidence! What a joke. I wonder how much money it took for these nobs to sell out, probably not much. Got to keep the big lie going. The impacts of 10500 BC were so powerful they stopped this planets rotation and fried every living thing in North America. The evidence is everywhere we look, as long as we plug our ears and disregard the constant flow of nonsense we are spoonfed. Ice carved out the Great Lakes, ya right. Ba Ba

The article does not state that there is not evidence for a comet impact. It states that the lack of clovis points at certain levels can not be used as evidence that there was an impact.

The title is "No evidence for ancient comet or Clovis catastrophe" Its clear what the spin is.

I do not know why, but those "running the show" have succesfully undermined this science for more then fifty years. The evidence is overwelming that the Pole was at Hudson Bay 12,000 years ago but science promotes its fantasy about an Ice Age as if its fact. Thanks for standing up Marjon.