by Andy Lloyd
The result is that, although the Dark Star and its outermost planet are actually moving pro-grade, from the point of view of an observer on Earth, the outermost planet is seen to move retrograde across the sky. This explains a long-standing anomaly.
Nibiru's Apparent Transit
I contend that the outermost planet of the Dark Star system is Nibiru and that it is seen from Earth as a planetary comet, moving backwards through the sky. I don't think it moves into our system anywhere as close as the Asteroid Belt, though. It would be too readily perturbed by the sun's gravity. But I am sure that it would be visible even beyond Jupiter, because of the massive shedding of some of its volatile surface ices; it would act as a massive comet even at a great distance from the sun.
This might be the case under normal conditions in the solar system, but I don't consider the perihelion transit of the Dark Star to be anything like normal. Although the Dark Star remains at a significant distance from the sun, it must still cross the Heliopause, the magnetic boundary of the solar system. I believe that such a transit has an affect on the sun, increasing its activity and leading to a greater intensity of magnetic storms.
These would increase the bombardment of the solar system with charged particles, bringing about a greater visible 'tail' for the cometary Nibiru. This is speculation, of course, because we don't really have any idea what happens when brown dwarfs cross in and out of Solar magnetic fields. But we should remember how active those brown dwarfs can be magnetically, and imagine the consequences.
Its perihelion distance will vary over different passages, as its own orbit around the Dark Star coincides with the perihelion passage of the system as a whole (so my view here is necessarily 'ball-park'). On occasion, there will be an exact juxtaposition between its own perihelion and that of the Dark Star, along a line of sight from the sun. Other times, it will be on the other side of the Dark Star during the exact moment of binary perihelion. So, the timing of Nibiru will necessarily vary over the ages, as will its sky position and relative brilliance. Perhaps this is why there are so many unknowns about the transitory appearance of this body.
Another important detail is the fact that Nibiru is not seen to swing around the sun. It seems to come towards the sun and then quickly recedes, without traversing a large portion of the sky. This explains the weird set of constellations it moved through (which probably vary between different transits anyway), and also the short period of time that Nibiru can be seen.
Even though the Dark Star may take literally hundreds of years to traverse perihelion, the time that Nibiru is observable from Earth is likely to be short; perhaps a matter of weeks or months. I suppose it's possible that there may even be more than one visible transit during a total binary perihelion. Either way, this scenario opens up a number of new possibilities.
The idea that one of the Dark Star's planets is our 'Planet X' has been suggested to me by a couple of people before, most notably John Lee. At the time, I was mildly skeptical because it seemed unlikely to me that a small brown dwarf would be able to maintain a planetary system at such a distance; I am suggesting here that Nibiru may be orbiting at about 50AU from the Dark Star (and this may vary as well, if its own orbit is elliptical around the binary parent). But a recent precedent was discovered in the form of a large planet imaged at a similar distance from a free-floating brown dwarf known to astronomers as '1207'.6 So it's not difficult to extrapolate a similar situation for our binary Dark Star, with Nibiru as the accompanying planet.
The '12th' Planet
This finding has turned my thinking around. It presents us with the potential for a 3-body solution to the orbital configuration. Also, instead of one Planet X body, we now essentially have 3 notables; the Dark Star and two major planets orbiting it (the other 5 appear to be minor bodies). Those two notables are Nibiru at ~50AU distance, and the Homeworld much closer to the Dark Star itself. Add these bodies to the 9 known planets to the solar system brings us to 12 planets, which seems closer to the Sumerian 12th Planet scenario than Sitchin himself!
The 'Ferry'
Other aspects of the myth surrounding Nibiru become more understandable with this hypothesis. In their classic book "Hamlet's Mill", Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend explored the mysterious nature of 'Nibiru' in 1969, and showed that, at that time, no scholarly theory adequately explained its celestial nature. Not much has changed since then, except Sitchin's books of course. Here's what Santillana and von Dechend had to say about what the name Nibiru actually means:
“The plain meaning of 'nibiru' is 'ferry, ferryman, ford' - 'mikis nibiri' is the toll one has to pay for crossing the river - from eberu 'to cross'".7
The 'Planet of the Crossing' is thus a ferry of sorts. This has made little sense up until now, because the implication is that Nibiru takes travelers onto another place. That place was never defined by Sitchin, who insisted that Nibiru was itself the home-world of the Anunnaki; the gods of ancient Mesopotamia. Yet with our new insight, the meaning behind the name 'ferry' becomes crystal clear.
The transit of the Dark Star around the sun at perihelion is still a very remote event. At its closest, the Dark Star is still twice as far away as Pluto. To rendezvous with the Dark Star would take many years of space travel, with the risk of missing an object too remote to observe.
Yet, Nibiru acts as an intermediary. It swoops into the planetary solar system, and then returns to the comet clouds. It would provide space travelers with the ideal stepping stone to the Dark Star. It literally acts as a ferry.
There may be other symbolic overtones to this. If the Anunnaki are physical gods, then their Homeworld is mythological Heaven. It is very similar to Earth ('as in Heaven, so on Earth', 'As Above, so Below', etc.). The myth of the Ferryman coming to collect the dead to take them to the Underworld could have new meaning, in the light of this new hypothesis. This idea works on both a physical and a metaphorical level.
Angle to the Ecliptic
Another vexing issue with Sitchin's model is the fact that Nibiru is said to move through the heavens at a 30 degree angle to the ecliptic, nearly twice that of Pluto. Yet, a sizable planet moving through the planetary solar system at such an extreme angle to the plane of the other planets would cause chaos over time to their orbits. This is called the Kozai effect, which has become a huge headache for me in recent years.
Again, this new hypothesis allows us to circumvent this problem, in that the Dark Star does not actually move through the planetary solar system at all. However, Nibiru, its outlying planet, does - and Sitchin seems reasonably clear about its angle of inclination from the texts and scholarly work he has studied. How do we explain this?
It seems likely that the inner planets of each of the binary stars (the sun and Dark Star) should be as they were created; relatively flat to the plane of the initial proto-planetary disc. Billions of years of interaction between the peripheries of these estranged systems, however, will have lead to chaos and perturbation among some of their outer planets. In the sun's case Pluto is clearly perturbed, as are many of the bodies recently discovered beyond it. So it seems likely that Nibiru is similarly affected, along with any of the Dark Star's own retinue of comets in its locale.
In the analogy used in this chapter, we can imagine that our Dark Star fairground ride is experiencing further mechanical difficulties. Not only is the ride spinning around in the wind, but the hydraulic arm has now engaged and has lifted the spinning ride so that it no longer sits on the flat bed of the truck. Instead, it is held at an angle of about 30 degrees, with the ride spinning around the angulated axis. As we look at the red flag (signifying Nibiru) spin around, we see it subtend an angle to the top surface of the hedge at the edge of the field.
To all intents and purposes, an observer watching the movement of the red flag who was unable to see the rest of the Dark Star truck and its spinning ride, could be forgiven for thinking that the flag was moving in such an odd way that it could not be attached to something that was simpl
y traveling down the road. Yet it is.
In astronomical terms, this means that Nibiru's visible arc across the sky could very well be seen to transit at a relatively steep inclination, reflecting this 30 degree angle to the ecliptic. Yet, the binary Dark Star may still move along a path more in keeping with the sun's other planets.
The upshot of this is that we can predict little about the Dark Star's actual location from the reported transit of Nibiru. This has always been my gut-feeling anyway. I tend to think that the Dark Star lies close to the ecliptic, and still favour the area in the vicinity of Sagittarius as its current location (near to its recent aphelion). This is because the actual 'line-of-sight' perihelion is the Duat region, around Sirius and Orion. Sagittarius is opposite this region on the ecliptic.
But this is only my opinion. Others differ. If my hypothesis here is correct, then detailed efforts to deduce the whereabouts of the sun's binary companion and its own system of planets are almost bound to fail. There are simply too many complicating factors at play.
The Crossing
For a long time, I wondered whether the wording of the 'Crossing' of Nibiru does not apply to a physical location in the solar system - like the asteroid belt - but rather, an observed location in the heavens, as Nibiru brightens towards perihelion. Other researchers have considered similar possibilities, suggesting constellations or imagined lines across the heavens, like the ecliptic.
In a sense, the plane of the ecliptic is synonymous with the asteroid belt, as this orbiting debris field follows the same line as the rest of the visible planets. And this is what distinguishes the 'planet' Nibiru from the others: its path lies at an angle of inclination from the ecliptic. However, this new hypothesis adds further complications to this picture.
It means that we cannot readily predict where Nibiru will appear in the sky, what motion it will perform, or what lines it will cross. It might be spotted in the Northern hemisphere, or even the Southern hemisphere; in other words, it might appear on either side of the ecliptic. However, it is most likely to be located near to the ecliptic, and is most likely to be seen in the vicinity of the zodiacal constellation of Gemini. Previous perihelia may have occurred there, in Cancer, near Sirius, in Orion, or nearer Aries and Taurus. A plethora of possibilities presents itself.
There are multiple meanings for the term 'Crossing'. We have considered that the term refers to the movement across an important 'line' in the sky, like the ecliptic. We have also seen the term refer to the object as a 'ferry', perhaps implying that it acts as an intermediate point between our world and that of the gods. This idea is my preferred option at the moment.
But the first idea attached to this term was that Nibiru physically crossed through the asteroid belt at perihelion, returning to the place of the mighty battle during the early period of our solar system's history. Such a state of affairs implies that Nibiru, a rogue planet that had wreaked havoc with our own world at this location, was in a stable orbit that brought it back to the same spot every 3600 years or so. This has been Sitchin's argument for many years.
Planetary Migration
One of Alan Alford's main criticisms of Sitchin's theory about Nibiru was that Earth's own orbit should pass through the same crossing point as Nibiru.8 Given that the Earth does not pass through the Asteroid Belt, Alford argues, our planet could not have been involved in the Celestial Battle. This was then cited as a prime reason to doubt the potential of Sitchin's remarkable theory.
But Alford's critique reflects a increasingly conservative view of orbital dynamics. Opinions about migrations of planetary orbits differ, but there appears to be a lot more room for maneuver than has been previously thought.
A good instance of this was one of the scenarios explored by Gladman's team, to help explain the anomalous orbital properties of 2000 CR105. They considered a possible mechanism involving the migration of planetary multiple embryos from positions within the orbit of Neptune, to new ones beyond it. They assumed that these embryonic planets would be approximately the size of the Moon or Mars. They argued that the velocities of these objects were sufficient to achieve escape velocities during encounters with each other, propelling some beyond Neptune into new orbits.9
There has even been some thought given to the idea that Neptune once had a more distant orbit than it does now, which might help to explain various orbital properties of anomalous Trans-Neptunian Objects.
I'm not proposing that these mechanisms might be necessarily correct. But, these ideas were proposed by serious astrophysicists trying to explain observed anomalies. They highlight how planetary migration seems to be on the table to explain the EKBO anomalies.
Brunini and Melita also put forward a similar idea, offering a scenario for the orbital transport mechanism for Planet X to its present location.10 This offers us a prime example of science having to adapt to the new reality. Migration of planets is a very real possibility. It can help is to understand how the Dark Star could have wreaked havoc, and yet now exist in an orbit that does not bring it back to the original point of the ancient conflict.
Sweeping the Backyard Clean
Criminals often return to the scene of the crime, but it seems that the Dark Star has long ago moved on, keeping its distance from the other planets. This must be the case - because otherwise the solar system would not just contain several chaotic anomalies, it would be completely chaotic. This chaos is not observed, therefore, that we must discount the possibility that the Dark Star regularly sweeps through the Asteroid Belt, nor any other inner solar system location.
If Jupiter can be said to act as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, picking up the rogue comets that get too close to its significant gravitational attraction, then the Dark Star is the equivalent of a cosmic broom, sweeping the solar system's backyard clean of comets.
In 2002, the popular science writers Couper and Henbest, writing in New Scientist, tried to elicit some comment from Mark Buie of the Lowell Observatory in Arizona about the potential for a hidden Planet X. He admitted that he wondered whether there was something strange going on in the outer region of the solar system, acknowledging that there is a possibility that some 'massive object' has swept the zone clean of debris.11This statement by an esteemed astronomer may not seem particularly adventurous to many, but in the context of the story of the hunt for Planet X, it may represent something of a breakthrough. It reflects the new reality.
References
1 Z. Sitchin “The Twelfth Planet” Chapter 8, p188 Avon 1976. These excerpts are reproduced with the kind permission of Zecharia Sitchin.
2 The Clockwork Team (Parameshwaran Ravindranathan, Samit Basu and Jaideep Undurti), “Waiting for the Apocalypse', University of Westminster, 2003
3 See http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/videos.html
4 Correspondence from Zecharia Sitchin, 31st Dec. 2003
5 Correspondence from Dr. J. Murray, 23rd & 25th August 2000
6 M. McKee "First direct sighting of an extrasolar planet" 11th Jan 2005, with thanks to David Pearson http://newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6864
7 G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend “Hamlet's Mill” App. 39, pp430-451, http://www.apollonius.net/trees.html
8 A. Alford “The Phoenix Solution” p162 Hodder & Stoughton 1998
9 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)
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)
11 H. Couper & N. Henbest “The Hunt for Planet X” New Scientist, pp30-4, 14th December 2002
14. The Origin of the Binary Companion
The very idea that we might be living in a binary star system must seem absolutely crazy. We all know that we live in a star system with only one sun. It is common knowledge that most other star systems are binaries, and so we have come to accept that our system is the exception to the
rule. But that has never led any serious thinkers to propose that we also may have been living in a binary system without realizing it. The whole idea seems absurd.
But if our orthodox knowledge of the solar system was correct, there wouldn't be an observed edge to the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. Something has moved through that distant environment, sculpting the Belt.
We are now able to compare the picture in our outer solar system with distant proto-planetary discs around young star systems. The effect we have noted for our system has been observed around star systems elsewhere. For instance, a much-studied system around a young star poetically called HD141569A brings this comparison into sharp focus. It creates a possible precedent for our own binary solar companion.
Some of the arguments in this chapter are a little technical, reflecting a rather complex set of scientific arguments. The repercussions of these arguments are, fortunately, rather more straightforward in the end.
An Eccentric Binary
HD141569A has a 500AU-wide proto-planetary disc that shows spiral patterning1, indicative of a reaction with a external large body.2 The star is only 5 million years old, so it is unlikely that the disruption is caused by its own planets because they should not have formed yet. So astronomers have been left with several other options to explain the effect. The main possibilities are as follows:
1. The spiral arms were created by the action of a passing star, although the stellar neighborhood is relatively quiet - making this a low probability event