The concern taht I would have, from a scientific point of view is that you are using an unproven hypothesis (comet impact) to prove another hypothesis (ECD), th latter of which shows little physical evidence of even occurring. In this respect, you have used the premise of Professor Hapgood, of the direction of the crustal shift, and extrapolated a crater from that.
If ECD did happen, then there would be some geophysical evidence of this. For example, the Hawaiian islands are a chain of islands created by the crust moving over a hot mantle plume (image below). Any ECD would shift the position of the crust with respect to the plume, thus the hawiian islands would no longer above the plume. there is an indication taht perhaps the plume can move, but this is on a time-scale of millions of years, and not thousands. Of course ECD would also create the same problems for other similar active regions.
Also, the direction of imprintation of magnetic domains within fresh rock on the ocean floors would also show signs of reorientation of the magnetic field with respect to the crust due to ECD if ECD had occured.
Anyway, another problem is the formation of a 500km sized crater. an event capable of creating such a large crater would not be geographically selective in the extinction of species. As you have stated, a comet even though of low density, either due to it being a dirty snow ball, or the more widely accepted hypothesis of it being homogeneous but porous body (as observed in the Giotto and Deep Impact missions for example), still has enough energy in its impact. Tunguska for example is belieed to have been a small fragment of comet ebris from the Taurid stream and it packed a hefty wallop. To create a crater 500 km in size would have deposited enough energy into the bio, and atmosphere to exterminate species on a global scale.
You state that asteroids travel slower than comets, and generally thjis is true, particularly when one compares the velocities of long period, near parabolic comets with those of asteroids. However, teh K-T event, if caused by an asteroid, was most likely caused by an apollo asteroid, which is an earth crosser. Evidence and calculations suggest that the majority of these apollo objects are not supplied from the main belt, but rather they are the inert remains of extinct comets, since they share orbital characteristics of short period comets, as well has having low albedos, similar to the albedo measured on Comet Halley for instance. In this respect, the speed of these Apollo, within the vicinity of the earth will be in the region of 30 Km/sec (similar to that of the earth orbital speed), which means that an impact with earth could conceivably have a speed up to about the equivalent, depending upon the relative velocities at the time. This is about the equivalent velocity of short period comets at about the same distance from the sun.
I would be very interested to see your calculations and your assumptions for determining effect of such an impact, and its ability to shift the crust on mass.
I also have concerns about the Clovis comet scenario, particularly causing ECD. If such an event occurred, the friction between crust and mantle would be enormous, generating much heat, and inducing world wide volcanism. This would have left chemical evidence in the ice sheets of Antarctica as well as Greenland, in the form of sulphur compounds such as sulphuric acid, and one can check the data from teh NGRIP and GISP2 ice cores for example for elevated spikes in these chemicals or even tephra from this time period. Also, if it was a cometary impact (even without ECD), there could be a chemical signatire in these ice cores. There is a large Ammonia spike corresponding to the middle of 1908 (approximately June) in the ice core data, which coincides with the Tunguska impact. High energy impacts should also increase the level of Nitrous Oxide in the air, which again are trapped within ices. So investigation of the ice cores may give you further evidence of such an impact.
You have said that you have contacted other scientists about your discovery. I dont know which scientists you have contacted, but you may wish to approach the Holocene Impact Working Group who may have more information on this to aid your own research, and whom may be likely to obtain funding for further research if there is any validity of your hypothesis.
if I may put forth some advice though. Regardless of your excitment, and your belief that this may have caused ECD, or the tempation to link this to biblical flooding or world wide flood myths, you have to remember that you if you wish to obtain credibilty and credit in the academic world, to reamin as sober and grounded as possible. Remember that in their professional world, scientists work with observables and measurement of data, from which they can create testable hypothesis. These hypothesis are transmitted through per-reviewed articles, and rarely through popular press or YouTube. Some conjecture is carried out through popular articles, but if you read these articles, they are backed up by the data. So what I am saying is, if you wish to be taken seriously by academics, you will want to be as simple as possible, and not jump ahead. Let the data do the talking, and avoid where possible any conjecture over myth or biblical tales. Only those who have obtained a certain respectability in their field tend to have the ability to be taken seriously when interpreting mythological content within the context of science, but you will note that there is little in the way of using myth to prove the science, or the science to prove the myth, but rather more a case of "what if".
Anyway, good luck with your endeavours, and I wish you well in your investigations. I havent been able to view the Youtube video properly,a nd so much of what I write above is based upon your posts on this thread. From my reading, and from other avenues of understanding, I dont think your thesis is sound. You may have found a crater, but this has still to be dated to be congruent with Clovis, and have chemical and physical evidence of it being extraterrestrial in origin. So my advice, start simple. Prove that this is an impact crater, then prove its time of impact, then you can you consider its global and climatic effects, and then and only then, move on to sweeping statements relating to ECD (which you may wish to obtain further physical evidence while you are at it).
This post was created using 100% recycled electrons