by Andy Lloyd

December 2005
Commentary by Rob Solŕrion (abridged)

from DarkStar Website
Spanish version

 

 

 

"And they do not know the future mystery, or understand ancient matters.
And they do not know what is going to happen to them.
And they will not save their souls from the future mystery."

The Dead Sea Scrolls

Prophecy Of The Essenes

 

 

 

During the preparation of Osiris, Isis & Planet X, I had the good fortune and opportunity to read a new book titled Dark Star - The Planet X Evidence by Andy Lloyd.

Andy and I have been acquainted over the Internet for several years, and both of us were interviewed by Hollywood film-producer Robert Sepehr for the second of his Planet X Videos. Andy and I have agreed to disagree on certain matters pertaining to Planet X for reasons which will become apparent in this review of his book.

Andy presents his arguments in a logical and efficient manner, starting with the simpler anomalies of our Solar System and then gradually working into more complex discussions of Dwarf Stars in general and Planet X in particular. By Chapter 12, Andy has actually overly complicated his theory, in my opinion; but he has certainly covered all the bases, to use an American baseball metaphor.

 

For a couple of hundred pages, Andy speculates and theorizes about one aspect of Planet X or another; and I think that he would agree with me that we are basically at a dead-end in terms of purely "theoretical" analyses. What we need now is actual physical proof of Planet X, either its telescopic discovery or its sudden passage through the "mainstream" Solar System.

In reviewing Andy’s book, I shall do it in the order that Andy presented his material.

Most researchers of Planet X Nibiru, myself included, tend to follow the postulation by Zecharia Sitchin in The Earth Chronicles, notably The Twelfth Planet, that this "tenth" or "unknown" planet is approximately the size of Uranus and Neptune, or about 4-5 times larger than the Planet Earth, and therefore that it is merely an as yet "undiscovered" planet within our Solar System.

 

Andy, by contrast, equates Planet X with a Brown Dwarf Star, a distant, unseen binary companion of our Sun several times larger than the Planet Jupiter, with a planetary system of its own. Whereas I suggest that Planet X is accompanied by an "entourage" or "host" of planetoids and moonlets, in Andy’s scenario these bodies, seven in all, orbit the Dark Star. The innermost planet of the Dark Star, the warmest and most hospitable for life, is the Home Planet of the Anunnaki.

 

The planet farthest from the Dark Star is what becomes visible to peoples on Earth during the perihelial passage of the Dark Star’s system, leading in turn to all of our ancient "myths" about this "perturber" or "interloper" planet.

Andy’s Dark Star itself does not actually enter the boundaries of the other planets. However, its "Seventh Moon" (Sitchin’s Nibiru, or "Planet of the Crossing") does "cross over" into that part of the Solar System between Neptune and Pluto, close enough and bright enough to be visible to people on Earth, at least for such a sufficiently lengthy time that cosmic legends could be born and later develop around it.

 

In Cosmic Tree Theory, of course, Planet X Nibiru is coming as close to the Earth as about 60,000 miles (about 100,000 kilometers) and then stationing itself to our North Pole by an electromagnetic "tether" beam.

 

As it approaches close enough to Earth, its South Magnetic Pole is attracted to our North Magnetic Pole, like the opposite poles of all magnets, locking it in place above our North Pole for 900 years, approximately a "Millennium of the Gods", after which time it "detethers" and returns in its orbit to an aphelion somewhere between here and the O’ort Cloud.

On page 48, Andy writes the following about Sitchin’s Nibiru:

"The passages [of Planet X] also present us with evidence that Nibiru/Marduk appeared to the Mesopotamians as a red star during historical times, and that its heavenly passage was unusual.

 

It was faint, red, stood still in the sky and then wandered like a planet. This is highly unusual, to say the least. It is no wonder that the nature of Nibiru remains controversial."

When I refer to Planet X Nibiru’s "standing still" over our North Pole, I use the expression literally: It stopped and "stood still", tethered to Earth as a Winged Disk atop a Cosmic Tree or World Tree or Sacred Tree.

 

Andy’s and Sitchin’s idea that Nibiru "stood still" refer to that optical illusion we get when any planet seems to "stop" and "go backwards" in its orbit, which we refer to as its "retrograde movement". Neither Andy nor Sitchin would agree with me on the meaning of the concept that it "stood still" in the sky.

As an aside here, let me add that amongst the Velikovskian School there is a group of researchers, most prominently amongst them David Talbott and colleagues, who believe, as Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky suggested in "On Saturn And The Flood" published by KRONOS Journal (Volume V, Number 1) in the fall of 1979, that the object which "stood still" over our North Pole was the Planet Saturn.

 

In 1996 David Talbott produced a video regarding this idea, titled Remembering The End Of The World.

 

 

 

 

Remembering The End Of The World

 

 

 

 

 

 

Golden Age and Doomsday

 

 

 

 

 

Mother Goddess & the Dragon

 

 

 

 

 

Some of Talbott’s animated computer graphics at the end of the video are quite well-done, but his absolutely preposterous "Saturn Theory" does not depict the Planet Saturn.

 

It depicts the Planet X Nibiru standing above our North Pole as "The Cosmic Tree"! But Planet X notwithstanding, the flaw in Talbott’s video is obvious.

 

Dr. Velikovsky explicitly stated in his KRONOS article that this hypothetical "Saturn Theory" preceded the so-called "Birth of Venu’s" that he described in Worlds In Collision.

 

Yet for Talbott’s scenario to work, it includes a Planet Venus revolving around Saturn and thus intrinsically contradicts Dr. Velikovsky’s original idea. David Talbott’s video can be obtained from the Kronia Group.

On page 53 Andy writes the following, and I certainly agree with him. His thoughts are worth repeating here.

"The idea that there is a massive undiscovered planetary body orbiting the sun is almost 100 years old now. It is certainly not a new idea, but is one whose popularity has fluctuated down the years. At the moment, it is a possibility that is regaining a certain amount of scientific credibility. An idea, perhaps, whose time has arrived.

"Our science and technology seems to progress at an accelerating rate, and this tends to make us all a little complacent about what remains to be discovered. It seems common sense that any scientific endeavor lasting 100 years would have certainly reached a conclusion by now, as the means to discover the answer has improved. Yet, many of the most important scientific questions remain unanswered: a cure for cancer; a renewable energy source; a unified field theory in physics, to name but a few. These problems remind us that our knowledge of the cosmos, the Earth and ourselves is far from complete, and that science has much to learn.

"And so it is with our knowledge of the solar system. Because we are looking further and further into space with larger and more technologically refined telescopes, we have a tendency to assume that everything in-between has been discovered, catalogued and understood. This is far from the truth in reality.

"Astronomy is only as good as its ability to pick up light sources, or sources of other types of radiation, and distinguish them from other similar sources. Our eyes, searching the heavens at night, perform the most simple form of astronomy, detecting the light from distant stars. Yet we cannot see closer objects, including the outer planets of the solar system beyond Saturn, nor the asteroids and distant comets."

Andy then makes an analogy to a garden in front of a house. If one were standing at the gate to the garden at night, one could see the lighted house beyond the garden (stars) but not see all the dark details of the garden itself (outer solar system).

 

And finally, regarding this hunt for Planet X and other undiscovered objects, on page 80 Andy concludes, rather lamentably,

"This is a hunt for a needle in a haystack, with the lights turned off."

Throughout his book, Andy cites references to Dr. Carl Sagan, who was one of the bitterest philosophical enemies of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, I might add.

 

Andy wrote me in an email that he was trying to present his material as much as possible in a way to incorporate mainstream astronomical thought, and he does that well.

 

On page 57 Andy remarks,

"The late Carl Sagan, a popular and brilliant scientist from Cornell University [in New York, RS], described the potential for a dark sister companion orbiting the sun back in 1985. Sagan acknowledged the speculation surrounding a proposed Nemesis ’star’ orbiting the sun at a great distance. He even proposed a fictional scenario where ancient peoples mythologized this ’Death Star’ as the sun’s Dark Sister.

 

The ’Death Star’ - presumably taking it name from the equally fictitious moon-like battle station of George Lucas’s Star Wars trilogy - could periodically bombard the solar system with comets, when its elliptical orbit caused it to brush through the comet clouds. This, in turn, could create a periodic extinction cycle."

For the record, here is an original quote from Carl Sagan regarding this "Demon Sun":

"There is another Sun in the sky, a Demon Sun that we cannot see. Long ago, even before great-grandmother’s time, the Demon Sun attacked our Sun. Comets fell, and a terrible winter overtook the Earth. Almost all life was destroyed. The Demon Sun has attacked many times before. It will attack again."

Chapter 4 ("Binary Companion") was particularly appealing to me.

 

On pages 77-78, Andy writes the following:

"In 1986, a rather diligent researcher named William Corliss published his book ’The Sun and Solar System Debris - A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies’.

 

Several observed anomalies are cited which may allude to Planet X, or even a dark companion to the sun. These anomalies remain unconfirmed, of course, but make for interesting reading nonetheless. One of them describes an object captured by the IRAS [infrared telescope, RS] survey which sounds very much like the ’Orion’ sighting, only this time it is located in the zodiacal constellation of Sagittarius, in the opposite half of the sky ...

"The article was published in ’New Scientist’ on 10th November 1983, and discusses the discovery of an object in space whose temperature is 230K, which is too cool for a star, but too warm for a dust cloud. It was spotted by the infrared space telescope in the constellation of Sagittarius, and fit the bill for an object ’several times heavier than Jupiter’.

 

Remarkably, British scientists at this time accused their American colleagues of keeping the information of this find to themselves. The British scientists publicly questioned why the Americans had ’been keeping quiet about it in recent weeks’. Speculation was rife, that the discovery was nothing but an intriguing ploy to bolster the chances of further funding from NASA for a new infrared space observatory.

"Those few weeks of silence which followed the report of a new Jupiter-sized planet in the solar system have now extended to 22 years! ... Without this article in New Scientist, no one would have known any different. There is usually some fire behind the smoke, after all. But, why would anyone want to shelve such an incredibly important discovery?"

Yes, indeed - unless to release details of this potentially catastrophic "interloper" would fuel worldwide panic and turmoil!

The Orion sighting mentioned above refers to the detection of a "mini-galaxy" or group of "rogue planets" in the direction of Orion in 1983. An additional group of "rogue planets" was discovered (or rediscovered?) in Orion in the fall of 1997.

 

See Chapter 11 ("Rogue Planet Crossings") of my book Planet X Nibiru: Slow-Motion Doomsday.

 

In the Mayan legends, their "Demon Sun" is first sighted in the Constellation of Sagittarius, after which it travels along "The Black Road" to its ultimate stationary position atop "The Sacred Tree".

Then Andy continues,

"In his analysis of ancient texts, Zecharia Sitchin offered a number of constellations as probable points along the path trodden by Nibiru. These include, in order, the Great Bear (Ursa Major): Orion (along with the star Sirius); then, Taurus and Aries; before heading towards Sagittarius.

 

The last of these is not listed as a constellation that Nibiru visits, but rather one that it usually disappears from, in its course away from our solar system."

Ursa Major is a North Polar Constellation.

 

Planet X Nibiru is stationary over our North Pole as The Winged Disk atop The Cosmic Tree for a "Golden Age" of 900 Earth Years. It seems to come and go from the direction of Sagittarius, the Center of the Galaxy, exactly opposite from the direction of Sirius, its original point of origin. Although Sitchin did not mention The Cosmic Tree, nevertheless it is noteworthy that he included Ursa Major as a station on the path of Planet X Nibirru.

In June 2001 NASA discovered a strange "microlensing object" in the direction of Sagittarius. This object is located between here and globular cluster M22. It can’t be seen because it is "microlensing" the light of M22 behind it. NASA never followed up with additional information about this apparently important discovery. Was it yet another sighting of Planet X?

 

For additional details, see HERE.

What Andy writes on page 81 sounds a bit like this "microlensing object" at M22:

"It turns out that [engineer and amateur astronomer John] Bagby was interested in the work of one E.R. Harrison who, in 1977, postulated the existence of a massive nearby body, lying in Sagittarius, required to explain observational anomalies regarding a ’pulsar period time derivative’. This sounds like a bit of a mouthful, doesn’t it?

 

Simply put, pulsars are highly regular emitters of strong radiation. If a gravitational field comes between a pulsar and us, as observers on Earth, then the highly specific data from the pulsar will be altered slightly. This will allow us to imply the existence of a dark gravity field, which is what Harrison proposed in Sagittarius. His finding may thus imply the location of the Dark Star."

The 1997 discovery of "rogue planets" in Orion seemed to demonstrate once and for all that a planet doesn’t necessarily have to orbit a star. Some of them wander in clusters about the galaxy, and these starless planets have been termed "rogue planets".

 

See Astronomy Magazine, December 1997, "On The Trail Of Rogue Planets" by Peter Catalano.

 

 

 

 

 


"On The Trail Of Rogue Planets"

by Peter Catalano

Astronomy Magazine

December 1997 
from BAUT Website
 

 

Even science has its folklore and myths - among them "rogue" planets. For years a few astronomers theorized that these objects - about the size of Earth or Uranus - wandered freely on the peripheries of galaxies and interstellar space unfettered by the gravitational leash of shepherding stars. Undetectable and unobservable, rogue planets existed in a nebulous theoretical limbo.

Little by little they slipped unconsciously into the lexicon of astro-talk. "The phrase came into use about 30 years ago," explains physicist Freeman Dyson from his office at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey. "I'm not sure who first started talking about them. The idea was just something in the air. As far as I know, there is no evidence that so-called rogue planets exist."

Until now.

In June 1996, Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, published observational data accumulated over 10 years that seemed to show that rogue planets could not only be demonstrably real, but could be ubiquitous, even essential species on the taxonomic tree of astronomical objects.

 

Schild's gone even further: He thinks rogue planets are virtually a cosmic Rosetta stone, the key to understanding some of the most vexing enigmas in astrophysics.

Schild reported in the June 10, 1996, "Astrophysical Journal" that he and his collaborator, statistician David Thomson of Lucent Technologies, found the gravitational signature of at least 50 Earth- to Uranus-mass objects maundering on the fringes of an elliptical galaxy one to two billion light-years away. This galaxy is catalogued simply as G1.

[COMMENT: This Galaxy G1 is located near the northern Constellation of Cassiopeia, so these "Rogue Planets" are in our northern sky and may not be related at all to the Planet Nibiru itself. Thanks to Mark McHugh of Illinois for providing this information. RS]

By any measure, this could be a big discovery - a big discovery few astronomers are buying. Critics concede, however, that the observations themselves are unimpeachable. In fact, multiple observatories all detect the same phenomena Schild reports seeing on his own 1.2-meter telescope at the Mt. Hopkins Observatory in Arizona.

 

When you get right down to it, this rogue planet dispute is not over facts, but interpretation. ...

"Here's the key for understanding these objects," says Schild. "For stars, the cycle of waxing and waning lasts for decades; for rogue planets, brightness and dimming cycles run their course in a matter of weeks. These short-lived 'flickers' imply that the passing object in the lensing galaxy is about a millionth the mass of the sun because we know the square root of the mass is proportional to the duration of the brightness cycle. When you solve the equation, the mass of the microlensing object [rogue planet] is something like a medium-sized planet in our own solar system." ...

"The packs of rogue planets must be enormous," says Rudy Schild. "Basically what I'm seeing is a parade of one planetary body after another passing by my telescope all the time." ...

Projecting Schild's findings in G1 onto the rest of the observable universe implies the existence of at least 10 to the 24th power rogue planets. Schild is either on to something very significant that has monumental implications, or he's the butt of a sardonic cosmic joke. ...

If massive populations of rogue planets are as ubiquitous as Schild claims, why don't we see them in our own Milky Way Galaxy?

Two projects, an American one called MACHO and a French one called EROS, were designed to detect gravitational lensing effects in our home galaxy. While the MACHO group has possibly detected two rogue planets in the Milky Way Galaxy, MACHO team-member David Bennett of the University of Notre Dame says they could also be planets in distant orbits around low-mass stars. 

 

Bennett adds,

"Both the EROS and MACHO collaborations have set upper limits on the contribution of rogue planets to the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy. They must be considerably less than 10 percent of the total mass. If we assume that our galaxy has the same composition as the galaxy that lenses the quasar, then our results indicate that Rudy's interpretation must be wrong."

Schild thinks there's every reason to believe there are lots of rogue planets in the Milky Way. MACHO and EROS haven't found them because he believes these programs aren't optimized to detect planet-mass objects.

"Their focus is finding low-mass stars and brown dwarfs, which are hundreds or thousands of times the mass of rogue planets. The lensing set-up with Q0957 and G1 is the best configuration we have for finding low-mass, planetary objects," he says.

Schild expects that his rogue planets would be gaseous bodies formed around a core of hard rock or ice, such as Uranus. At the atomic level, the elements found in both gas, ice, and rock consist of ordinary protons and neutrons - "baryonic" matter.

 

Astrophysicists contend, however, that the Big Bang couldn't possibly have created enough baryonic matter to account for that much dark matter. That's why they have been theorizing and searching for non-baryonic matter called WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and other exotica such as massive neutrinos to account for the dark matter.

Of course, the weightiest question Schild confronts is simply : Where do all these rogue planets come from?

 

Schild himself has proposed that rogue planets are hatched in enormous numbers, a million for every star, in the accretion disk cocoon out of which stars themselves are formed. ...

"It may not immediately bring us closer to discovering alien life, or even raise the probabilities of life elsewhere in the universe. But rogue planets, I predict, will eventually explain a lot about the cosmic terrain and point the way to answering some big questions. After the discovery of rogue planets, the sky seems a bit less spooky. At least it does to me."

 

 

 

 

Andy touches on this matter on page 83:

"There is no known mechanism to help us understand how a planet could form so far away from a star in the latter case, and many think it unlikely that a ’free-floating’ planet might be captured into such an extended orbit. However, if firm data pointed to the existence of such an orbit, the scientific community would quickly figure out a plausible mechanism to explain its presence, I’m sure."

Andy pursues the idea further on page 101:

"We now know that many of the newly discovered ’extra-solar planets’ have eccentric orbits, indicating that non-circular orbital arrangements in star systems might be fairly normal. In at least one case, a brown dwarf has been found embedded within a ’normal’ extra-solar planetary system, without its presence seeming to create chaos among the other planets. The birth of planetary systems appears to be anything but simple.

"In relation to the Dark Star Theory, the modern understanding of these failed stars appears to offer an ideal platform to explore the concept of an inhabitable world in our comet-cloud, as described by the Sumerians. A world orbiting a dark star that is essentially invisible to us, but that emits massive amounts of heat and enough low-frequency light to support life, whilst not subjecting the denizens of that world to the sort of harmful radiation we are subject to from our sun.

"Could this also explain the almost immortal life-spans that Sitchin claims for the Anunnaki? One might speculate that our woefully short life-spans are due to our constant exposure to high energy particles radiated from the sun. Astronaut ’Gods’ coming to our world might find their life-spans significantly shortened, as well as the subsequent life expectancies of their children.

 

Life on Earth is necessarily mortal. Perhaps the less hostile environment of a habitable moon orbiting a brown dwarf would help to extend the human life cycle."

That is a point that is very well taken, and I must admit that until I read these words by Andy, I’d never considered such a scenario for "immortality", but it makes perfect sense! Bravo, Andy!

In Chapter 5 ("Brown Dwarfs") on page 106 Andy writes,

"But it is also possible that the Dark Star lies on the edge of the brown dwarf spectrum. It is too large to be simply a massive gas giant, but its stellar properties may be too minimal to allow it to be classed as a brown dwarf. It would fit into a class of objects that have yet to be properly defined or studied. However, astronomers are contemplating what these sub-brown dwarfs might be like, with accompanying speculation that there might be at least one more stellar class beyond the T-dwarfs.

"If the Dark Star was to be discovered here in our solar system, this would clearly be the opportunity that astronomers have been waiting for. At the present time, the knowledge of these small sub-brown dwarfs is limited, even at a theoretical level. We do not know the extent of their stellar characteristics; how warm they are, how active their atmospheres are, and how much light they emit, if any.

"Their extensive magnetic fields are a mystery, and they may or may not form like regular stars. With so many unknowns, we cannot predict what scientists will discover next about these objects, and what this will tell us about a possible Dark Star orbiting our own sun. But what we can comfortably predict is that new discoveries will be forthcoming in the near future, and that, based on the history of the brown dwarf studies so far, those findings will contain the unexpected."

You can say that again, Andy! When Planet X Nibiru returns, if it does not destroy our science and technology in the process, we shall certainly have our hands full with new astronomical data.

 

I can’t wait! Because I am one of those who are placing my bets on 12 December 2012 or even earlier.

According to Sitchin in The Twelfth Planet, the Earth’s moon named "Kingu" was previously a satellite of the proto-Earth "Tiamat", both of which were catapulted into Earth’s present orbit following the "Marduk-Tiamat Celestial Battle" when one of Marduk-Nibiru’s moonlets, referred to in the Enuma Elish as a "North Wind", crashed into Tiamat-Earth, creating the asteroid belt and propelling Earth to its newer and warmer orbit closer to the Sun.

 

It is in this context that Andy mentions Dr. Velikovsky on page 123:

"The similarity between the Earth and the Moon’s rocky constituents answers those who have hypothesized that the Moon is a relatively recent companion to the Earth. The writer Immanuel Velikovsky tried to explain various ancient myths that hinted at a previous absence of the Moon and infamously promoted the idea that the Moon had been recently captured by the Earth following a catastrophe, and that the time-scale for this event was relatively recent. If we can take the evidence presented by NASA scientists at face value, then it seems that Velikovsky was wrong. Yet this evidence is in accordance with Sitchin’s version of events in that the Moon was formed by the cosmic collision very early on in the history of the Earth."

By way of reference, Andy cites the treatise In The Beginning by Dr. Velikovsky.

This Prague-based website is maintained by archivist Jan Sammer, who was Dr. Velikovsky’s personal secretary at the time of his death in November 1979. One of the chapters of that treatise is titled "The Earth Without The Moon".

 

I quote from that chapter:

"The period when the Earth was Moonless is probably the most remote recollection of mankind. Democritus and Anaxagoras taught that there was a time when the Earth was without the Moon. Aristotle wrote that Arcadia in Greece, before being inhabited by the Hellenes, had a population of Pelasgians, and that these aborigines occupied the land already before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth; for this reason they were called Proselenes.

"Apollonius of Rhodes mentioned the time ’when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence, and only the Arcadians lived, of whom it is said that they dwelt on mountains and fed on acorns, before there was a moon.’

"Plutarch wrote in The Roman Questions: ’There were Arcadians of Evander’s following, the so-called pre-Lunar people.’ Similarly wrote Ovid: ’The Arcadians are said to have possessed their land before the birth of Jove, and the folk is older than the Moon.’ Hippolytus refers to a legend that ’Arcadia brought forth Pelasgus, of greater antiquity than the moon.’ Lucian in his Astrology says that ’the Arcadians affirm in their folly that they are older than the moon.’

"Censorinus also alludes to the time in the past when there was no moon in the sky."

Since we cannot merely sit back and ignore these "myths" from Greece and Rome, and presuming that all of these chroniclers weren’t making up the same story, which is most unlikely, we must attempt to explain this to ourselves.

 

Supposedly the "celestial battle" occurred in extremely remote antiquity, about a half-million years ago, even before Cro-Magnon Sapiens emerged.

 

Clearly such an event could not have been remembered by anyone. If, however, by "moon" these ancient writers were referring to Nibiru, or The Winged Disk that appeared at the beginning of the last "shar" in 1588 BCE (Exodus and Santorini Cataclysm), then they were referring to the absence of what might be more precisely defined as a "Night Sun" rather than a "moon".

 

Tethered to our North Pole at a distance of about 60,000 miles (100,000 kilometers), Planet X Nibiru may more resemble a "moon" than a "sun" when viewed from Earth. Beyond that, we simply have no other explanation. See Chapter 6 ("The Night Sun") of Planet X Nibiru - Slow-Motion Doomsday.

In a sub-chapter section titled "The 3-Body Solution" on pages 177-179, Andy writes the following:

"The solution I am proposing neatly answers a number of other problems. In fact, everything seems to fall in to place quite neatly.

"Nibiru is seen to enter the planetary solar system moving backwards through the sky (the so-called ’retrograde motion’ of Nibiru). This is one of the puzzling aspects of Sitchin’s account. The backwards motion of this body has always implied that it could not have been an original member of the solar system, making its initial capture nothing short of miraculous. Is there a way that a body can appear to move backwards, even though it is actually moving in the ’normal’ direction through the sky?

"Any student of the stars will recognize this pattern. The outer planets are sometimes seen to undergo retrograde motion, particularly Mars. This was a major puzzle for early astronomers, who charted the movements of the wandering planets across the heavens.

"Why did some of the planets seem to stop, and then, for a short while, move backwards? This motion was due to a phenomenon called ’parallax’. As the Earth spun relatively quickly around the sun, an observer looking out into the solar system would see planets overtaken in a relative sense. Their motion was seemingly negated, and from an observational point of view, temporarily reversed by the actual movement of the Earth around the sun.

"Before Copernicus released that the sun was the centre of the solar system, this effect was quite inexplicable. It resulted in models of the solar system that allowed for additional movements of the outer planets around their own ’spheres’.

"I think that something similar is going on with Nibiru. Let us say that Nibiru is a rocky planet at the edge of the Dark Star system, rather like Pluto is in the sun’s. Let us say that Nibiru’s orbit is quite extended. It seems quite possible then, that as the two halves of the binary star system move towards each other at perihelion, that the outer rims of each system would overlap. The outermost planet of the Dark Star system might enter the planetary zone of the solar system, becoming a visible comet.

"One might also conclude that Pluto, and perhaps other outer Solar planets temporarily enter the Dark Star system, moving within the orbit of Nibiru. Perhaps that is why tiny Pluto’s orbit is eccentric and inclined: such a ’crossing’ alters its orbit over time. The other planets would be too large to significantly perturb, being significant gas and ice giants bound more heavily to the sun.

"Such a scenario affects the way the outer planet of the Dark Star system would be perceived by an observer on Earth. In the same way that the outer planets appeared to pre-Copernican star-gazers to be moving backwards when they weren’t, Nibiru also seems to be moving backwards. But this, too, is an illusion. ...

"This removes the difficulty posed by a ’capture’ scenario, which is statistically unlikely, although not impossible. The pro-grade orbit is also in keeping with the discovery of Sedna, which also has a pro-grade orbit. I strongly suspect that there is a relationship between the orbits of Sedna and the Dark Star; probably taking the form of a resonant orbit. Indeed, the movement of a brown dwarf through the Edgeworth-Kuiper [Comet] Belt at perihelion would explain many of the apparent anomalies of the bodies found in its scattered disc. It makes sense of the science."

Personally I have no quarrel with the idea of this Brown Dwarf binary’s being the "sun" of Planet X Nibiru, if indeed this proves to be the case.

 

After all, in my own estimation Planet X is the center of a "mini-system" of planetoids and moonlets, its accompanying "host" or "entourage".

 

It is Andy’s opinion that our complete solar system evolved from the very beginning as a binary system, and seven "moons" or planets subsequently formed around the Dark Star just as they did around the Sun, removing the "difficulty" of the "capture scenario" proposed by Sitchin. However, since the purpose of Osiris, Isis & Planet X is to propose and describe the events of this "capture scenario", I must disagree with Andy on this point.

Andy devotes Chapter 11 to a discussion of Sedna, which was discovered in 2004. It is a small planet like Pluto which appears to be orbiting the Sun. To date, there is not much definitive information available regarding Sedna. Certainly if one googled for Sedna, one could find all that is known about it.

On page 201 we read,

"When confronted by the twin problems of an astronomer burying her real conclusion within her paper, and the scientific news media subsequently reporting only half the story, one could be forgiven for wondering whether the possibility of a rogue brown dwarf companion to the sun is just a little too much for everyone’s reputations to withstand. One must wonder whether such a notion is tantamount to a modern scientific heresy."

Exactly! They are scientists with vested interests who are afraid of the truth.

Then on page 228:

"Whether this is the case or not, I suggest that Sedna’s discovery draws us ever closer to that of the Dark Star’s, and that this parent body will be found somewhere in the sky north of Sagittarius, probably within some of the dense star fields ignored by IRAS. It is quite possible that it has already been catalogued, but incorrectly defined as a more distant stellar object. (It is interesting to note that a faint ’red dwarf" star was recently identified as the third closest star to the sun, at a mere 7.8 light years.)"

Andy cites as the source of information about this "red dwarf", the Space Daily, 26 May 2003

In Chapter 12 ("The Dark Star System"), Andy quite surprised me with something. He suggested that we triple the length of Nibiru’s orbit from 3,600 years to 10,800 years! That is in direct contradiction to what we know about the length of its "shar", and I cannot accept it.

 

However, oddly enough and not mentioned by Andy, we find on page 29 of Worlds In Collision by Dr. Velikovsky in a sub-chapter titled "The World Ages" this idea:

"Anaximenes and Anaximander in the sixth pre-Christian century, and Diogenes of Apollonia in the fifth century, assumed the destruction of the world with subsequent recreation. Heraclitus (-540 to -475) taught that the world is destroyed in conflagration after every period of 10,800 years."

It is certainly no "coincidence" that Heraclitus’ cycle is three times one "shar" in length! Perhaps every third "shar" is a particularly cataclysmic Crossover of Planet X.

And here, as mentioned earlier, is where I think that Andy begins to overcomplicate his general theory. In connection with this on page 244 he mentions the Mayan Calendar and the Mayan End-Time Date of 21 December 2012.

 

Half of 10,800 is 5,400, which in terms of years, going back in time, equals the approximate beginning of the current Mayan Calendar. Andy writes,

"The period between then and now roughly fits in with the current Mayan Age, which will come to an end on 21st December 2012. This date may be associated with changes in the sun’s activity, or possibly even a reversal of the solar system’s neutral sheet. Does that Age coincide with half an orbit of the Dark Star?"

Since Andy feels that the Dark Star is now near its aphelion in Sagittarius, it will not return to our vicinity until 1,800 years or even 5,400 years from now.

 

He postulates earlier in this chapter that the previous perihelial passage of the Dark Star probably coincided with the so-called "Star of Bethlehem" in about 6-3 BCE.

 

Thus, he would date the next perihelial passage of Planet X Nibiru, at a minimum, in about the year 3600 CE, long after we are dead and gone and all our writings long forgotten. If so, then what was the "cosmic object" associated with the legends of the Exodus and such like, as documented by Dr. Velikovsky in Worlds In Collision?

 

Thus, I simply cannot accept the possible validity of these of Andy’s ideas.

Andy continues his remarks about the time-scale on page 263 of Chapter 13 ("The Dark Star & Mass Extinctions"):

"To explore this idea, we must immediately get to grips with a problem of time-scale. I am often confronted with e-mails that state that Planet X could not have appeared in our skies on such-and-such a date, because there was no massive catastrophe associated with its arrival. The implication is that every time the Dark Star system was to brush past the planetary zone, the Earth (and presumably some other planets too) would be subject to fundamental change.

 

So, if the Dark Star exhibits an orbit analogous with Sitchin’s 3,600 years, the implication is that Nibiru causes devastation on a highly regular basis - extremely often, when viewed on a geological scale. However, I don’t accept this argument: it does not fit with the evidence at our disposal."

Again, I beg to differ.

 

As Robert Sepehr pointed out in the first Planet X Video, we have evidence of catastrophes occurring regularly at intervals of 3,600 years. In my opinion, Polar Axial Displacement accompanies every single "Crossover" of the "Planet of the Crossing". I have presented some of this evidence in Planet X Nibiru: Slow-Motion Doomsday, particularly in Chapter 2 ("The Polar Pivotal Axis").

Then on pages 266-267 we find:

"If the cycle of these extinction events is to be believed (and it remains controversial among scientists), then any direct extraterrestrial cause must be coincident with that enormous time-scale. So it would not be satisfactory, then, to associate a 26 million-year extinction cycle with a planet whose orbit is measured in thousands of years only. The Dark Star’s relatively short orbit (Zecharia Sitchin’s ’Sar’ of 3,600 years, or even a multiple-Sar orbital period of, say, 10,800 years) could only produce a random pattern of extinction events distributed thinly over this time-scale.

"Putting this another way, if the Dark Star is directly accountable for extinction level events on Earth, then it must either pass very close to Earth during a transit actually into the inner solar system, or else it must have brought with it a comet, or swarm of comets, that happened to collide with Earth.

 

Since both these possibilities are statistically unlikely given the sheer size of the solar system, then they could not occur during each perihelion passage. Instead, they might occur very, very occasionally throughout geological history, and the pattern of these events would be effectively random over that time-scale, even if it was closely associated with a cyclical event that was more frequent, like the perihelion passage of the Dark Star."

Once again, I completely disagree.

 

We cannot refer to these ancient cataclysms and mass extinctions in terms of millions of years if we have any hope at all of reconciling written historical records with these events. Take the dinosaur extinction, for example. Did it really occur 65 million years ago? Don’t people actually comprehend what a long period of time that is?! All of these establishment geological time-scales are terribly overestimated in length.

On page 280:

"There is a common adage in science that the more you study a phenomenon, the more confusing it becomes. I think it is self-evident that the material I have presented here is complex and by no means clear-cut. Each of the three examples I have offered provide their own mystery, but taken together they lead to even greater obfuscation."

Andy obviously understands our collective lack of hard evidence in this research. Until we can actually catalogue scientifically, from our "modern" perspective, all of the events associated with Crossover, we shall never be able to write about it with complete clarity and certainty.

Andy estimates that the Dark Star’s mass is several times that of Jupiter. Again, I disagree. I think that Planet X is only about 5 times the size of Earth. And again, only time will tell.

Finally, Andy ends his book on a rather philosophical note.

"Our modern thinking has long since rubbished the warnings of the ancients about catastrophe. By ignoring the ever-present dangers - our modern society - through its misplaced skepticism, has foolishly turned its back on the wisdom handed down to us from the past. We should learn from this.

 

There is great wisdom to be found in the writings of the ancients, and the orally transmitted tribal teachings. These teachings cannot replace our science, but they can, and should, complement our modern framework of knowledge...."

 

 

 

"These are high stakes indeed"

 

 

Additional Information