The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence (24 page)

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.

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.

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.
¹¹
This 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.

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.

HD141569A has a 500AU-wide proto-planetary disc that shows spiral
patterning
¹
, 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

2.
There is a bound companion
external to the disk that is affecting it over time with each orbit

3.
The effect is due to
embedded Jupiter-sized planets, despite the youthful nature of the system

To figure out what is going on, the astronomers carried out
calculations to model the effect. They compared their theoretical results,
based upon a set of reasonable starting assumptions, with the observed patterns
of the disturbed proto-planetary disc, and looked for a close match.

The results have shown that the spiral pattern is consistent with
a highly eccentric binary system.
³
This implies the existence of a
binary companion which passed within 930AU of HD 141569A. It directly caused
the observed effects; the spiral structure in the disk and a wide gap in the
disk.

The system is actually more complicated than this, with other effects
providing additional headaches at about 150AU. However, it seems clear that the
continued action of the binary companion, as its moves through many orbital
passages, creates the observed effect, particularly if that orbit is an
eccentric one.
⁴
This is very interesting when comparing HD 141569A
to our sun with its own proposed Dark Star.

HD 141569A has two neighboring stars, HD 141569B and C, which are
each potential candidates as bound companions. So, it may be that one or both
of these objects is bound to the main star in eccentric orbits. This scenario
seems more likely than the alternative of a single flyby of another star, which
would only partially truncate the proto-planetary disc.
⁴
Not only
that, but the passing star scenario also has to reckon with the dearth of stars
in the immediate neighborhood, making the chances of such a close passage
remote. This is a crucial point when we come to consider the observed anomalies
of our own solar system.

While HD 141569A is a very young star system, ours is not.

So the third option listed above becomes possible in our case:
that the Kuiper Cliff, or truncation, is the result of an embedded planet in
the Edgeworth-Kuiper Disc sweeping it out and creating the edge. This was the scenario
explored by Brunini and Melita, as discussed in the Chapter, The
Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. Their studies indicated that this was a distinct
possibility, and that the body should exhibit a low eccentric orbit.

However, it should also be sufficiently close to have been readily
discovered by now, which seemed to be a stumbling block: the semi-major axis of
the Mars-sized planet would be only 60AU, bringing it well within detection
limits.
⁵
So this third option is not without its problems, even in
this older star system of ours.

Some might consider such a scenario to adequately fit the
requirements for a 'Planet X' type-body. However, the kind of orbit described
by Brunini and Melita would keep the planet within the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt at
all times. This would imply no possibility of prior movement through the
planetary zone of the solar system. This might turn out to be the case, of
course, but such a body would not be in keeping with that of Zecharia Sitchin's
Marduk. Dr. Melita has indicated to me that they would be carrying out
calculations for more eccentric bodies in the future
⁶
, which might
possibly be more reminiscent of the classic 'Nibiru/Marduk' scenario.

The Dark Star solution may become the middle ground between the
'embedded planet' and the possibility of the passage of a stellar body through
the early solar system. The complexity of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt may have
resulted from a complex interaction early in the life of the solar system, or
it may even be ongoing. Scientists usually prefer a simple, straightforward
solution to any given problem, according to the philosophical mantra of Occam's
Razor, but sometimes the complexities of reality get in the way.

Let us look closely at the possibility of a passing star creating
the truncated Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. Perhaps the sun's proto-planetary system
was disturbed by the action of a passing star within the sun's primordial star
nursery.
⁷
Even though he favours the embedded planet hypothesis, Dr.
Melita concedes that a small star 1/10th the size of the sun passing by could
have created some of the observed effect in the EKB.
⁵
But, can it
explain the truncation completely?

If the sun was born in a 'stellar nursery' surrounded by many
thousands of other young stars, such an event increases in likelihood.
⁸
Such young stellar clusters can be 10,000 times more dense than the sun's
current location in the Milky Way, increasing the chances of interaction
between neighboring stars dramatically. But does such a scenario provide all
the answers?

Calculations have been carried out to determine whether a small
passing star that approached the planetary zone of the solar system could have
sculpted the EKB.
⁸
In the work carried out by Alice Quillen, et al.,
the disturbing influence could be either a passing star whose own trajectory is
influenced temporarily by the sun's gravity, or it is a binary companion, which
becomes disrupted by external influences. So, a candidate object need not have
been simply a 'field' star or a neighbor in the stellar cluster that the sun
was born in, but it could also have been a binary star in a wide orbit around
the sun, that could have affected the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt during a close
sweep past it. This is useful, because of the potential for a small binary
companion in a generally great circular orbit to periodically pass close to the
planetary zone.

Such a scenario was predicted by John Matese, when calculating the
orbital properties for his small brown dwarf at 25,000 AU. He called this
occasional transient sweep towards the solar system an "oscultation".
⁹
These are complex matters, but it boils down to this; a star causing a
distortion of the sun's proto-planetary disc might be a loosely bound companion
in a rather changeable orbit, or it might simply have been a completely independent
object, passing close to the sun as it traveled through interstellar space.

Bound or unbound, it somehow managed to draw close to the sun's
planetary zone. What interests us tremendously, is whether that object is
actually part of the solar system or not. This would give us a clue as to the
origins of the Dark Star.

In Dr. Quillen's calculations, it is assumed that the object
― a dwarf star ― moves though the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, as it
draws close to the sun. The outcome of the calculations is initially
encouraging. The simulation creates a complex pattern, including both a set of
objects with high inclinations and eccentricities, and also an additional set
of objects with low inclinations and eccentricities. This reflects the reality
observed in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, as far as the distribution of objects
within the observed disc go.
⁸
However, the 'passing star' scenario
encounters difficulties when it comes to explaining the Kuiper Cliff itself.