The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence
Page 17
3 B. Gladman, M. Holman, T. Grav, J. Kavelaars, P. Nicholson, K. Aksnes & J-M. Petit “Evidence for an Extended Disk” Icarus, 157, pp269-79 (2002)
4 S. Ida, J. Larwood & A. Burkett “Evidence for Early Stellar Encounters in the Orbital Distribution of Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects” The Astrophysical Journal, 528: pp351-6, (2000)
5 J. Kelly Beatty “Bigorbit Object Confounds Dynamicists” http://www.skypub.com/news/news.shtml#bigorbit 5th April 2001
6 C.I.T. News Release “Planetoid found in Kuiper Belt, maybe the biggest yet” 20th February 2004, http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/20kuiper/
7 R. Allen, G. Bernstein & R. Malhotra “The Edge of the Solar System”, The Astrophysical Journal, 549, 241-4, 2001
8 R. Allen, G. Bernstein & R. Malhotra “Observational Limits on a Distant Cold Kuiper Belt” AJ, astroph/0209421v1, 2002
9 R.L. Allen “Current Research:Observational Limits on the Distant Kuiper Belt” http://www.astro.ubc.ca/~lallen/kbo/thesis.html
10 Brunini & M. Melita “The Existence of a Planet beyond 50AU and the Orbital Distribution of the Classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects” Icarus, 160, pp32-43 (2002), extract reproduced with kind permission of Dr. Mario Melita
11 Correspondence from Dr. Brett Gladman, 24th January 2003
12 H. Couper & N. Henbest “The Hunt for Planet X” New Scientist, pp30-4, 14th December 2002
13 C. Trujillo & M. Brown “A correlation between inclination and color in the classical Kuiper Belt” The Astrophysics Journal 566, pp125-128 (2002)
14 S. Collander-Brown, A. Fitzsimmons, E. Fletcher, M. Irwin and I. Williams “The Scattered Trans-Neptunian Object 1998 XY95” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc 325, pp972-78 (2001)
15 C. Arthur “More signs that solar system has tenth planet” http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=360803 12 December 2002
16 M. Hazlewood “Delicate Earth History Science Planet X” 2003
17 Dr Irving Finkel (Assistant Keeper, Cuneiform Collections) in 'Waiting for the Apocalypse' Video, by 'The Clockwork Team', (consisting of Parameshwaran Ravindranathan, Samit Basu and Jaideep Undurti) © University of Westminster 2003
18 Correspondence from Mario Melita, 15th January 2003, reproduced with kind permission
19 M. Brooks “13 things that do not make sense“ New Scientist, p30, 19th March 2005, with thanks to Peter Gersten
20 Correspondence from Brett Gladman, 30th January 2003
21 J.G. Hills “The Passage of a 'Nemesis'-like object through the Planetary System” Astron. J. 90, Number 9, 1876-1882 (1985)
22 A. Lloyd “Winged Disc: The Dark Star Theory” MSS 2001
13. Planet of Crossing
We established in the last chapter that the Dark Star no longer moves through the planetary zone. Scientific evidence points to its existence beyond the recorded limits of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. It presence there is felt by the objects that move through that belt; some of them show signs of being acutely affected by an external influence such as the Dark Star. We will go on later to look at these examples.
But the last chapter also brought up the problem of the visible appearance of Nibiru. If Nibiru is the Dark Star and it lies more than 50AU away, then it is invisible to us for the entire term of its orbit. It could never have been seen from Earth. Yet Sitchin's account of Nibiru describes a highly observable phenomenon, one held in high esteem by the ancient Mesopotamians.
As we saw in Chapter 2, the account of Nibiru is based upon Sitchin's reading of the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth. This apparently outlines the creation of the asteroid belt from the partial destruction of the watery 'planet' Tiamat by the planet/star Marduk, whose 49th name is Nibiru. Marduk itself appears to be the Dark Star. So what is this visible phenomenon called Nibiru?
Ancient References
According to Zecharia Sitchin, Nibiru meant "Planet of Crossing" in the sense of crossing over a boundary or barrier. It is a metaphoric cosmic "ferry". He also pointed to the following quotes from the Babylonian version of the Enuma Elish to further clarify its character:
“NIBIRU: The Crossroads of Heaven and Earth he shall occupy. Above and below, they shall not go across; They must await him.
NIBIRU: Planet which is brilliant in the heavens. He holds the central position; to him they must play homage.
NIBIRU: It is he who without tiring, the midst of Tiamat keeps crossing, let ‘CROSSING’ be his name - the one who occupies the midst”.1
For Zecharia Sitchin, these excerpts from the Enuma Elish provide the additional and conclusive information that allows him to arrive at the claim that Nibiru crossed the asteroid belt during its perihelion passage. However, although it is abundantly clear to any reader of the Enuma Elish that Nibiru is an astronomical phenomenon of some sort, the evidence as to what it might be is ambiguous at best.
Previous work by the scholar and Jesuit priest Franz X. Kugler, entitled “Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel” appears to have influenced Sitchin. It was here that the idea was first proposed that the central figure in the epic, Marduk, might be likened to a "fast-moving celestial body, orbiting in a great elliptical path just like a comet".1 The argument is compelling, given the various clues in the Enuma Elish.
The path travelled by Marduk is 'loftier' and 'grander' than the rest of the 'gods'. It implies that Marduk lies beyond them, as we have described for the Dark Star. Yet, still, the direct quotes about the associated phenomenon 'Nibiru' describe something observable.
Kugler's argument seems to have been the intellectual seed that sparked off Sitchin's wide-ranging theory about the planet Nibiru, and the pantheon of gods associated with it. Since 'regular' comets sweep through the planetary zone during their perihelion passages, it must have seemed reasonable to Sitchin that Nibiru/ Marduk would behave in the same way, particularly as its point of origin as a member of the solar family began with its catastrophic encounter with the celestial Tiamat at a location between Mars and Jupiter.
The fact that this solution for the meaning of “Nibiru” was considered by scholars before Sitchin is lost on many of his critics, particularly those in the academic community.
Waiting for the Apocalypse
In 2003, I was interviewed on film by three post-graduate journalism students, who were completing their studies at the University of Westminster, London. They were making a documentary called “Waiting for the Apocalypse”, which featured several prominent astronomers, including the celebrated Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees.2
The video outlined three possible threats from space: impact events from asteroids and comets, the infiltration of cosmic viruses into the atmosphere, and the coming of Nibiru. Unfortunately, this fascinating video is not available commercially, but I have published some details about it onto the Internet.3 I felt compelled to do this because the video contained some controversial criticisms leveled against Zecharia Sitchin by two Sumerologists, who are curators at the British Museum.
They contended that Nibiru is actually the planet Jupiter and that the original Sumerian word simply “means a pass, means a passing over from one place to another”.3 They questioned Zecharia Sitchin's scholarship, even wondering whether he had ever worked with the cuneiform texts themselves. I wrote to him about this, and he responded with the following thoughts, emphasizing the long history of this debate:
“The notion that Nibiru is just another name for Jupiter goes back to the debate a century or so ago between Kugler and Winkler and their writings on 'Chaldean' astronomy, when Pluto had not yet been discovered. They assumed that the ancients, without telescopes, could not be aware of planets beyond Saturn, so when they encountered in astronomical texts more planetary names they assumed it just (was) one more name for Jupiter or Mars etc.
"(At least we have an acknowledgment that NIBIRU is (a) named in Mesopotamian astronomical texts, (b) is a planet -- i.e. Sitchin did not invent Nibiru as a figment of imagination. I deal with that at length in "The 12th Planet".)
"Establishment thinking has been thus: Someone (say Sitchin) saying this or that means 'B' must be wrong, because everyone knows that it means 'A' (4).
This seems to answer the criticisms leveled by Christopher Walker and Dr. Irving Finkel of the British Museum. Zecharia Sitchin's work is controversial in many ways, but, regarding the specific meaning of “Nibiru”, his theory was not plucked out of mid-air. There was some scholarly basis underpinning it in the work of Franz X. Kugler.
However, further questions remain unanswered, as we will now consider.
The Solution
For years, I have puzzled over the many anomalous and often intractable problems presented by Zecharia Sitchin's Nibiru. A planet that behaves like a comet did not seem to me likely to support life forms similar, if not identical, to us. In 1999, I proposed that the only way that sufficient warmth could be generated among the comets, would be if such life existed on a planet orbiting a Dark Star that was itself orbiting the sun.
For various reasons, I suggested that the Dark Star was itself Nibiru, passing directly through the planetary solar system during perihelion with its own retinue of planets. This was a bold claim, given the size of the brown dwarf required. But I now realize that I was wrong, for some of technical reasons we have already covered.
I remain absolutely convinced that the Dark Star exists, and that it is a binary 'star' orbiting the sun that approaches the planetary zone every several thousand years. But I now believe that this Dark Star is not itself Nibiru. It is simply Nibiru's own parent 'star'. I think it probable that neither the Dark Star, nor the terrestrial Homeworld of the Anunnaki, are easily seen from Earth. The closest approach of the Dark Star is way beyond Pluto, through the so-called Kuiper Gap at the edge of Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt.
What I am proposing is that the observed planet Nibiru is the outermost planet of the Dark Star system. And apart from it being unable to maintain life, Nibiru is essentially how Sitchin describes it; a reddish terrestrial planet that brightens with a cometary aura when moving amongst our sun's family of familiar planets. Nibiru itself is a massive comet the size of a planet, much as Sitchin initially suggested.
But, there is no one living on this frozen rock. It is a barren outpost of the Dark Star planetary system. It appears in the sky merely as a sign that the Dark Star Marduk has once again arrived at perihelion, and for this reason the word Nibiru became one of Marduk's 50 names. Nibiru is a celestial 'ferry', moving across the cosmic darkness, to the hidden Dark Star.
That Strange Orbit
My next suggestion is that Nibiru does not appear to orbit the sun properly when viewed from Earth!
This is a remarkably bizarre claim, I know. But it is part of the problem posed by Sitchin's Nibiru. Indeed, it was the primary objection leveled at me by Dr. John Murray, the English astronomer who wrote a paper providing indirect evidence of a brown dwarf orbiting the sun. (He also appears on the documentary “Waiting for the Apocalypse”.2
Dr. Murray looked at the set of constellations that Nibiru passed through at perihelion and stated, frankly, that the body was simply not orbiting the sun.4 This seemed to create a gaping hole in Sitchin's theory. At the time, I put this down to possible misinterpretation of ancient texts. Now, I realize that this anomaly was actually part of the puzzle...Sitchin's incomprehensible orbit turned out to be right all along.
The 3-Body Solution
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.
The Dark Star System
I now believe that the Dark Star orbits the sun in a similar way to the other planets; pro-grade. This must be the case, because otherwise its capture by our sun would have been a statistical improbability. It seems much more likely that Marduk, the Dark Star, has always orbited the sun, having emerged from the sun's birth cluster as a binary. As such, it must have formed within the proto-planetary disc of the sun, moving uniformly around it, like the other planets.
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 Belt at perihelion would explain many the apparent anomalies of the bodies found in its scattered disc. It makes sense of the science.
There seem to be seven planets in the binary Dark Star system, according to the myth. I suggest that one of the inner planets is a habitable world similar to Earth. It is warmed by its proximity to the brown dwarf, and is bathed in its very dim, reddish light. I will call this the Homeworld.
All of the planets orbit the Dark Star in a pro-grade movement, in keeping with the initial formation of the binary star system 4.6 billion years ago. They also orbit the Dark Star in much less time than it takes for it to transit perihelion around the sun. Even the outermost planet, which cuts through the outer planetary system of the sun, is moving faster than the Dark Star.
Relative Velocities
To explain the consequences of this, it might help to create a model in our minds. Let us imagine ourselves to be standing in the centre of a large field. The field is circumnavigated by a curving road, reaching its closest point directly in front of us at the gate. One can readily imagine a car traveling around the field from left to right. We could wat
ch its motion and confirm that it was moving in a clockwise direction from our point of view.
Let us imagine that a fairground is coming to town today, and that various vehicles carrying the fairground rides are traveling along the road, left to right. We might wave at the drivers as they pass the gate. One of the big trucks is carrying one of those spinning rides which people stand in and are held against the sides by centrifugal force. It looks like half a hat box and sits squarely on top of the truck.
This spinning ride is so big that its outer edge hangs over the hedge of our field. The fairground people must have been in a hurry today because they left the brake of the ride off, and as a result it has started spinning in the wind, whilst atop the truck. It is spinning around in a clockwise manner, in the same way as the truck is moving clockwise around the road.
Whenever trucks have over-sized loads they place a red piece of cloth, or flag, at the most extreme point, to make sure that other road-users don't accidentally knock into it. Today is no exception. The driver of the truck has attached a red flag to our spinning fairground ride, and so it is also moving around the truck clockwise.
Standing in the centre of our field, we watch the truck slowly drive around us. The fairground ride is turning on top of it, which we can see because the sides of the ride are visibly moving. During every revolution the attached red flag also appears.
We focus our attention on the red flag. We can only see it when it spins around along the nearside of the truck, and this happens to be where the over-sized fairground ride overhangs the hedge of our field. For a short while during each revolution of the ride the red flag seems to move into our field, and seems to be moving right to left.
This is how Nibiru appears to us, like the red flag. We only see it when it enters our field; our planetary solar system. Because it is revolving clockwise around a central point on the truck, we see it moving only in reverse, even though the truck, or Dark Star system, is actually moving forward along the road at the same time.