by Andy Lloyd
Commentary by Rob Solŕrion (abridged)
do not know the future mystery, or understand ancient
And they do not know what is going to happen to them.
And they will not save their souls from the future
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
Dark Star - The Planet X Evidence by
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.
couple of hundred pages, Andy speculates and theorizes about
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.
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
the Dark Star. The innermost planet of
the Dark Star, the
warmest and most hospitable for life, is the Home Planet of the
The planet farthest from the Dark Star is what becomes
visible to peoples on Earth during the perihelial passage of the
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Throughout his book, Andy cites references to
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.
’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
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
"In 1986, a rather diligent
researcher named William Corliss published his book ’The
Sun and Solar System Debris - A Catalog of Astronomical
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’.
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
"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
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
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
See Astronomy Magazine, December 1997, "On The Trail Of
Rogue Planets" by Peter Catalano.
"On The Trail Of Rogue Planets"
by Peter Catalano
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."
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
When you get right down to
it, this rogue planet dispute is not over facts, but
"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." ...
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.
"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"
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
Andy touches on this matter on
"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
"We now know that many of the
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
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
"But it is also possible that
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
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
formed by the cosmic collision very early on in the history of
By way of reference, Andy cites the
In The Beginning by Dr.
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
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
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
"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
"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
"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
"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
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
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
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.
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
"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
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.
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"