|
by
Andy Lloyd
June 2002
The possible existence of a hidden planet orbiting the Sun is quite often
associated with catastrophe on planet Earth. Indeed, the popular consensus
that
Nibiru, a mythological planet as yet unaccounted for by scientists, is
about to appear in our skies, may be intrinsically wrapped up with our
common dread of cataclysm. In the same way that many incorrectly anticipated
an apocalyptic event prior to the turn of the Millennium, advocates of the
2003 hypothesis believe that we are about to face our gravest test since the
Flood.
Although I believe in the existence of a hidden Planet X, in the guise of a
brown dwarf or ‘Dark Star’, I have been one of the strongest critics of the
2003 hypothesis. Yet, there is some merit to the idea that Planet X may be
associated with catastrophe. In this paper I will outline a new hypothesis
that seeks to configure the orbital behavior of this hidden dark star with
catastrophic events as recorded by geologists and paleontologists.
A Statistical Threat
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 were to enter the planetary zone, the Earth
(and presumably some other planets too) would be subject to fundamental
change. So if the Dark Star exhibits an orbit analogous with Sitchin’s 3600
years, the implication is that Nibiru causes devastation on a highly regular
basis…extremely often when viewed on a geological scale. I don’t accept
this: it does not fit with the evidence at our disposal.
Catastrophism has come a long way, of course. There was a time when
scientists considered the world to be a very stable place, with an
evolutionary progression that was slow and steady. But we now understand
that many cataclysms have occurred, and that evolution is a more ‘stop-go’
affair than one of slow, incremental change. We know that continents drift
across the face of the Earth, bringing about the creation of mountain ranges
as land-masses lock horns. Further, we know that significant extinction
events have blighted our planet, even worse than the heinous acts of mass
extinction we are currently responsible for. Our awareness has been raised
about how fragile our world can be, and also how changeable when seen
through the eyes of a geologist. We have moved from a theological world-view
that led us to believe that the world was created to meet our needs, to a
more terrifying reality. We live in a world whose stability is not
guaranteed. Our environment has changed many times in the past, sometimes
orders of magnitude worse than the global warming we have created through
our industrial negligence.
 Our world can also be devastatingly affected by external influence. The
chances of this are very remote, occurring on a time-scale that boggles the
mind. This reflects the sheer scale of the solar system, and the almost
negligible proportion of it that is actually occupied by planets, asteroids
and comets. The planetary solar system consists mostly of open, empty space.
Even if two objects orbiting the Sun have paths that cross each other, the
possibility of a collision is extremely remote.
So catastrophic events only become apparent over geological time-scales,
when the small statistical danger posed by an Earth-crossing asteroid or
comet is actually encountered after countless misses. It follows that the
regular reappearance of a planetary body that might somehow pose a threat to
us would not, indeed could not, always be associated with a cataclysm.
Only a passing object the size of an actual star would be guaranteed to
cause environmental devastation on Earth. As the size of the object
decreases, its relative danger threshold would quickly fall away. Large
brown dwarfs passing through the planetary zone might pose a problem. Small
brown dwarfs probably wouldn’t. (The threshold appears to be 10 Jupiter
masses). Regular size planets, or even gas giants, passing through the solar
system would no more cause a problem to us than an alignment of the known
planets.
This is why I maintain that for Nibiru to have brought about environmental
change on Earth during any of its perihelion passages it must be nothing
less than a brown dwarf, or else it would simply not be powerful enough as a
celestial force. If Nibiru is a regular, terrestrial world coming no closer
than Mars, then it could not directly damage our planet. Only when its mass
exceeds Jupiter could it begin to become a real player in the catastrophe
stakes.
The Extinction Cycle
 In 1984, the paleontologists Raup and Sepkoski argued that there is a
cyclical pattern to the extinction events recorded in the fossil record. The
pattern implied a 26 million year cycle, itself indicative of an
extra-terrestrial cause. There are no known terrestrial causes for such
massive and regular extinctions. Could Planet X be to blame, perhaps through
showering Earth with comets as it achieves perihelion?
If the cycle of these extinction events is to be believed (and it remains
controversial among scientists), then any direct extra-terrestrial 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. Nibiru’s
relatively short orbit (Zecharia Sitchin’s ‘Sar’ of 3600 years) could only
produce a random pattern of extinction events on this time-scale.
The 26 million-year cycle would have to be a coincidental pattern, which is
an unsatisfactory explanation scientifically.
Nemesis
One answer to this was the idea that Planet X instead takes the guise of an
extremely remote ‘black dwarf’ star, orbiting the
Sun at the very limit of
its influence. This theoretical body was called ‘Nemesis’. Its orbital
period at such a great distance (about 90,000AU!) would then be analogous
with the 26 million-year extinction pattern. Somehow, the argument went,
Nemesis would bombard the planetary zone with a massive shower of comets at
a given point of its orbital cycle, without ever approaching the planetary
zone itself.
Here’s the problem. If the Earth was successfully subject to a cometary
bombardment with every orbital completion of Nemesis, then to guarantee a
comet strike on little old Earth, each comet shower must have been truly
massive. After all, the shower of comets had to get past Jupiter first! The
black dwarf would have had to have literally peppered the
Sun with comets
every 26 million years, like a Chicago mob catching up with one of their old
buddies. In which case there would have to be ample evidence of renewed and
regular cratering of other planets in the solar system too. But instead the
solar system cratering patterns show little activity in recent epochs,
implying a different mechanism for the ‘cyclic’ extinction patterns. Lone
killer asteroids perhaps, but not massive comet swarms. One or two of these
catastrophes (like the K/T boundary devastation) may have been caused by an
asteroid strike, but the alleged 26 million-year extinction cycle cannot be
accounted for by a routine act of cosmic pummeling.
It is also not clear to me why comets should be released by Nemesis at a
given point in its orbit. Surely there would be a sustained ‘drip, drip’
pattern of long-period comet activity associated with the extremely slow and
distant sweep of Nemesis around the Sun. Advocates of the
Nemesis theory
might argue that there is an interaction with the galactic tide, or an
association with the Sun’s 30 million year motion through the galactic
plane, that triggers such a catastrophic release of comets. But this seems
unlikely to me. One might as well simply look to the motion of the Sun
around the galactic centre, and miss out the middle-man (or middle-dwarf, in
this case). The bottom line is that a cosmic Nemesis is simply too distant,
and irrelevant, to periodically facilitate such devastating killing events.
The Planet that thinks like a Comet
I have something different in mind. In my book ‘Winged Disc’ I proposed a
possible explanation for how a brown dwarf could on the one hand create a
non-random pattern of comets from the distant Oort Cloud, and on the other
actually appear in the solar system. That explanation hinged on the
possibility that the dark star’s loosely-bound orbit around the
Sun was
subject to change in a manner not often considered by astronomers.
Astronomers are used to thinking about planets behaving themselves, and only
small bodies like comets becoming perturbed from their restful canter around
the Sun. But why couldn’t a planet among the comets also behave like a
comet?
In fact, theoretical models show that 25,000AU happens to be a rather
unstable place for a planet to reside. A planet or brown
dwarf at this
distance would be subject to a number of forces from outside the Solar
System, and could readily be nudged into a new orbit. Indeed, one of the
major Planet X researchers, Professor Matese, has calculated orbital paths
for a brown dwarf at this distance that would necessarily bring it close to
the planetary zone on occasion. Such events are known as 'oscultations'. The
subsequent passage of an Oort Cloud intruder past, or through, the planetary
zone could trigger another orbital change, this time into a Sitchin-like
elliptical orbit. (Those occasions would be rare, of course, but then so are
mass extinctions...)
 Another physicist, Jack Hills, has made calculations about the effect of
passing stars and black or brown dwarfs traveling near to or through the
planetary zone. Although passing stars would likely sail on past (given
their considerable size and momentum), the dwarfs run a very real chance of
becoming captured by the Sun. Indeed, his calculations showed that a
subsequent temporary orbit of the captured dwarf could be highly eccentric,
possibly degrading over time. This is in contrast to the general flat
assumption that such a body would quickly be expelled from the solar
system...
Binding Energies and System Expansion
Hills showed that if the
brown dwarf had less than 20 Jupiter masses, then
its temporary infringement into the planetary zone would not necessarily
cause chaos among the other planets. But there would be a different effect,
one that is generally appreciated by astrophysicists, but not well
disseminated. There is an energetic relationship between the orbits of the
Sun’s children. The ‘planetary binding energies’ are not fixed, but
intertwined. Introduce a new, maverick element to the solar system
(particularly one of considerable mass) and those binding energies are
subject to change, even if the planets are tightly bound in stable, circular
orbits. Hills indicated that the overall energy of the orbits of the known
planets could alter if the interloper’s own orbit around the Sun changed.
This might happen if the interloper came from interstellar space and was
captured by the Sun, or if it was an Oort Cloud object that had trespassed
into the planetary zone and taken on a new, more tightly bound temporary
orbit.
Exactly what would be the physical manifestation of such a change in the
binding energies of the planetary orbits as the interloper falls under the
influence of the Sun gravitationally? Simply put, the solar system would be
subject to possible contraction or expansion, dependent upon the particular
event. The very distances of the planets from the Sun would be subject to
change! The dwarf would not need to directly interact with the planets,
either…simply the changing relationship with the Sun would be enough to
affect other bodies in the solar system.
Jack Hills described these effects in a theoretical way. His interest was in
studying whether a body the size of Nemesis, a proposed black dwarf, could
have become captured by the Sun. He concluded that it would have caused too
much chaos in the solar system. But below 20 Jupiter masses, an interloper
would not create the same devastation. In other words, a small brown dwarf
might just have been captured by the Sun in the remote past, and the solar
system would still appear as stable as it is thought to be today. So, if
Planet X is a small brown dwarf, then physical mechanisms have been studied
scientifically that do actually allow for its existence. Furthermore, those
calculations show that the interaction between this dwarf and the rest of
the solar system might have fundamental physical ramifications. The distance
between the Earth and the Sun might have been altered. Not just once; but
every time the temporary orbit of the loosely bound cometary dwarf changes.
 Which leads me to ask…has the Earth’s distance from the Sun altered? Was the
distance between the Earth and the Sun a variable that changed with respect
to the incursion, and subsequent capture by the Sun, of a brown dwarf?
Surely this would have had catastrophic environmental effects, leading to
massive lurches between Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods? Furthermore,
would not the actual physical displacement of our planet have rendered
sudden, catastrophic Earth-changes environmentally? What would happen to the
oceans, for instance, when the Earth suddenly falls away from or towards the
Sun? Would they not be swept over the land, accompanied by titanic volcanic
and seismic activity? Might our understanding of the ebb and flow of Ice
Ages (and mass extinctions to boot) find an extra-terrestrial cause in the
guise of a maverick brown dwarf lurching from one unstable temporary orbit
to another?
I have chosen three examples of sustained catastrophic damage to our world
to illustrate how this hypothesis might work. They start with the most
recent, and work backwards to the early solar system.
The Permian-Triassic Boundary
A great extinction event occurred around the Permian-Triassic boundary some 245 million years ago. The scale of the destruction of life on
Earth was an
order of magnitude greater than the wiping out of the dinosaurs 65 million
years ago. The destruction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous is
now thought to have been caused by a single impact event off the coast of
Yucatan, Mexico. This asteroid or comet impact led to the deposition of
extra-terrestrial iridium, forming the famous K/T boundary in the rock
strata of that period. Can we look to a similar cause for the more
catastrophic P-Tr boundary mass extinction?
 Well, the problem is that the extinctions at the
P-Tr boundary did not occur
instantly during a single boundary event (as would be expected if the mass
extinction had been caused by an asteroid impact). They were associated with
multiple events, including the overturning of the oceans, and massive
volcanism. Paleontologists have recorded 4 distinct extinction episodes
during the Permian, over a 10 million-year period. At a loss to explain such
a bizarre extinction pattern, paleontologists considered the coalescing of
the continents into the super-continent ‘Pangea’ to be a likely cause. Ice
caps were also forming at that time. However, this is an unsatisfactory
theory, as Richard Corfield notes:
“But this explanation does not explain the ‘pulsed’ nature of the several
mini-extinctions that collectively comprise the P-Tr crisis…and so the
current state of the P-Tr boundary debate is an unsatisfactory mishmash. A
messy road kill of both scientific hypothesis and extinction in the animal
and plant world.”
How did the world’s entire ocean become overturned, driving multiple
extinction events over a 10 million year period? The devastation of the
P-Tr
boundary is so great that internal environmental readjustments simply don’t
provide a satisfactory answer. Instead, an extra-terrestrial cause is
necessary to meet the fundamental and sustained changes affecting Earth
during the Permian. But an asteroid impact is insufficient. What else is
there?
I suggest that this pattern of extinction and environmental change is
readily explained by the perturbation of the Dark Star into a temporary
tightly bound orbit. If this Oort Cloud brown dwarf drifted close to the
planetary zone at the beginning of the Permian, and became captured into a
new, much tighter orbit, then the Earth would have been subject to a number
of tremendous pressures. A lurch into a new terrestrial orbit might provide
the mechanism for the over-turning of the oceans, the coalescing of the
continents, and the formation of ice caps. What’s more, repeated passages of
the brown dwarf through the inner solar system, during its 10 million year
long temporary tightly bound orbit, would endanger Earth again and again. At
the end of the Permian, the unstable temporary orbit might have naturally
degraded, expelling the Dark Star back into the Oort Cloud. Such an end-game
orbital change would also have significantly affected the Earth
environmentally, leading our world into the Triassic.
 Such a sustained pattern of orbital change and planetary interaction with a
brown dwarf in the inner solar system would certainly have destroyed far
more life on this planet than the single asteroid strike of the K/T
boundary.
But to achieve this, it seems likely that the perihelion of the dark star in
the Permian was close to, if not synchronous with, the Earth’s own orbit. In
other words, its closest approach during that epoch must have been far, far
closer than any approach achievable during our own.
This comparison leads me to suspect that the Dark Star’s perihelion distance
in our current era is well beyond the inner solar system, or else
significant extinction events should also have occurred in the last 4
million years. The perihelion distance of Nibiru, in other words, is a
variable, and the Permian might have witnessed its closest and most
devastating series of passages.
The Cambrian Explosion and ‘Snowball Earth’
 New advances in molecular biology have allowed scientists to back-track
evolutionary progress, and date the various points when great divergence in
life on this planet occurred. The Precambrian-Cambrian boundary
540 million
years ago represented a colossal sea-change in the development of life on
Earth. The sudden emergence of an immense diversity of life forms at that
time is known as the Cambrian Explosion, but paleontologists now consider it
likely that life was already highly variable prior to this important
geological boundary. The boundary itself indicates a massive carbon isotope
shift, implying ‘profound extinctions among latest Proterozoic life’.
Severe cooling would have accompanied such changes as carbon dioxide was
catastrophically removed from the atmosphere. In fact, such was the severity
of the glaciation during the late Proterozoic that some scientists have
theorized that our planet became completely covered in ice…the so-called
‘Snowball Earth’ effect.
 Again, there appears to have been a multiplicity of this phenomenon over a
period of several million years, rather than a single ‘Snowball Earth’
event. But what could account for such a fundamental climate shift that
witnessed glaciers forming over the equator? It is thought that the break-up
of the then super-continent ‘Rodinia’ may have contributed to this effect,
spreading the broken-up continents around the equator. This increased the
global ratio of sea to land and brought about increased rainfall which, in
turn, scrubbed out the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A positive
feedback cycle then led to a series of glaciations around the globe.
But this is not a satisfactory explanation. After all, the current
continental distribution is also located in a band around the globe, and the
last Ice Age was very mild in comparison. It is also not at all clear what
preconditioned the Earth to go into such a calamitous freeze, the likes of
which have not been experienced since over 600 million years.
 The
‘Snowball Earth’ scenario prior to the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary is
an extreme environmental condition calling out for a bold explanation.
Again, I suggest that the precondition to this series of catastrophic global
glaciations was nothing less than a temporary expansion of Earth’s orbit.
The Earth’s greater distance from the Sun would readily explain the freezing
over of the whole planet, and the orbital expansion of Earth is consistent
with the variable activity of the Dark Star.
The Late, Great Bombardment
 The third catastrophic series of events in the geological record involves a
massive bombardment of the solar system by comets and/or asteroids. The
cratered appearance of the Moon is largely due to this intense bombardment
of space debris that spiked between 3.8 and 3.9 billion years ago, and the
Earth similarly suffered the most cataclysmic bombardment in its history.
What puzzles astronomers is why this occurred so long after the birth of the
solar system. Once again, the bombardment appears to have been a somewhat
dragged out affair, implying intense activity in the solar system for a
time.
This puzzle has recently been resurrected to form the basis for the one-time
existence of a 10th Planet that initially formed between
Jupiter and Mars.
Somehow, this planet took on an unstable orbit and crashed into the Sun, at
least according to the ‘Planet V’ theory.
Another theory holds that the bombardment was the result of a late formation
of the outer planets Neptune and Uranus. This late formation might have been
the result of the more thinly spread material in the outer planetary zone,
causing a longer accretion period. But such a bombardment from outside the
solar system should have catastrophically affected the Jovian moons.
Instead, my favored explanation takes the form of the cosmic planetary
interloper. Sitchin’s account of the Celestial Battle
fits this ‘lunar
cataclysm’ event very well, as the planet between Mars and
Jupiter (Tiamat;
the primordial Earth) was bombarded by the planet Nibiru (my
dark star).
This was said to have occurred about 4 billion years ago, some time after
the solar system had formed. I think this ‘late, great bombardment’ is the
work of an interstellar brown dwarf that came through the early solar system
as a passing failed star. The subsequent interaction with the planets and
the Sun resulted in its capture, and a sustained bombardment of cosmic
debris. But this is where I think Sitchin’s account is insufficient, because
the very nature of the cataclysm was a temporary one, lasting at most 100
million years.
Bearing in mind the calculations by Hills, the interstellar intruder would
be captured into a temporary orbit of some eccentricity. This is consistent
with Sitchin’s model, and for tens of million years Nibiru appears to have
returned to the inner solar system, bringing repeated catastrophic effects
to the inner planets. During that time the Earth was pummeled by thousands
of asteroids, many far larger than the one that killed off the dinosaurs.
Then it all stopped. Why? If Nibiru’s orbit was a stable one that continues
to this day, then surely the cosmic melee would have been a constant feature
of the solar system for the last 3.9 billion years? The answer lies in the
notion that the brown dwarf orbit calculated by Hills is a temporary one. If
the logic of astrophysicists like Matese and Whitmire is to be applied, then
this captured brown dwarf underwent massive orbital expansion, eventually
locating it safely into the outer Oort Cloud. At that distance it could do
no more than shower down a few long period comets, most of which would be
intercepted by the solar system’s sweeper, Jupiter. The bombardment had
ended after within a 100 million years, and the brown dwarf had taken on a
slow, distant orbit around the Sun. But, as we have seen, this was not the
end of the story. More extinction events were to manifest themselves in the
geological record, taking on peculiar attributes.
Physical Mechanisms
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.
The common thread between them is that they all involve unusual or unique
activity over a period of some millions of years. Then the activity stops. A
careful analysis of the bombardment events 3.9 billion years ago seems to
vindicate Sitchin’s claim about a cosmic interloper of extraordinary
significance. Yet the effect disappears as quickly as it occurred, and this
is the significant issue. The theoretical models for such a planetary
intrusion predict eccentric orbital properties, but for only a limited
number of orbits. Where some might argue that a planet in such an unstable
orbit might fall into the Sun, or be ejected outright from the solar system,
I would argue a middle position between these two extremes. The dark star
orbit simply changes from one phase to another, and these phase changes are
what brings about the cataclysms we have seen on Earth at some of the epoch
boundaries described above.
Murray and Matese both point to their non-random data sets of long-period
comet orbits, and claim the existence of a brown dwarf/giant planet
slowly
meandering around the Sun among the comets. Yet they struggle with the
origin of such a body. It could not have formed among the comets, as the
material available at that distance was too scant. But the capture of an
inter-stellar body surely would have taken place much closer to the Sun
itself, or else the brown dwarf would have continued past, oblivious to
Sol’s influence. Whitmire thinks that comets expand out into the
Oort cloud,
and that the giant planet would have done the same, whether captured or not.
I think he is right. The dark star was captured and enjoyed a short-lived
honeymoon of destruction in the planetary zone before drifting out into the
comet clouds.
Perhaps this loosening of the orbital binding energy is a natural effect
brought about by the so-called ‘dark energy’ repulsive force in the
universe. More likely, we simply have never had to consider such a
possibility before, so haven’t built the effect into our accepted physical
models. If we were to find giant planets located tens of thousands of
astronomical units away from stars, then mechanisms to explain their orbits
would be thought out soon enough, I’m sure. But such discoveries necessarily
lie some way off.
A Scientific Prediction
 But I think there’s more to this
brown dwarf than just a lone wanderer among
the outer comet clouds. It reappears, and it creates bizarre but temporary
effects in the solar system. Since our own planet is the one we have had
opportunity to study most, it is the boundary events between epochs, and the
long period Ice Ages that are not attributed to the Milankovitch cycles,
that grab our attention.
Future study of the other terrestrial planets’ geology will provide further
evidence for other cataclysms on other worlds, and my bet is that the same
boundary chronology will apply. After all, if the planetary binding energies
change as a result of a ‘phase change’ in the dark star’s orbit, then all of
the planets will be affected. Local planetary conditions might alter the
physical manifestation of the effect, but the timing would necessarily be
the same. In this I can make a scientific prediction based upon my
hypothesis:
Epochal boundary changes on Mars and Venus will be synchronistic with the
P-Tr boundary event, the Precambrian-Cambrian explosion and the late, great
bombardment, or ‘lunar cataclysm’. And perhaps a few other such events too,
including extra-terrestrial geological markers commensurate with the sudden
onset of long-period terrestrial Ice Ages (those suddenly following tens of
millions of years of no glaciation whatsoever).
The Asteroid Belt
One of the arguments leveled at the ‘12th Planet’ hypothesis is that after
the planetary collision between Tiamat and Nibiru, both planets should have
maintained eccentric orbits that have a common point of origin. Since the
Earth clearly does not intersect the asteroid belt, it is argued that no
such collision ever took place. I think the picture is far more dynamic than
this. The resonance of planetary orbits indicates how planets can shepherd
each other into mutually agreeable configurations, and it seems likely that
bodies ‘settle down’ into more stable orbits over time (becoming less
eccentric). I take this further, claiming that a loosely bound planet can be
affected by external influence as well; the galactic tide, passing stars,
gigantic molecular clouds and so on. Its orbit will vary over time,
sometimes drastically as it is perturbed into a new orbital phase. As such,
we can take nothing for granted here at all.
I think Sitchin is correct in believing that a 10th Planet in the solar
system was known to the Ancients. There is plenty of supportive evidence for
this, even if the physical discovery of this body remains elusive. For
the
Ancients to have had knowledge of this body, they must have witnessed it.
That implies that it must have appeared in the skies, meaning that it has
passed into the planetary zone within Mankind’s collective memory.
But I don’t think that it returned to the asteroid belt. Earth does not
return to the asteroid belt, so why should Nibiru? The ‘Place of Crossing’
could just as easily apply to the motion of the dark star across the
ecliptic, the apparent arc of the visible planets in the sky. In fact, it
seems likely that a planet repeatedly passing through the asteroid belt
would have continually disrupted it over time, to the point where it should
no longer even exist! Its very presence argues against it being the location
of Nibiru’s perihelion. Nibiru would have acted as a
cosmic vacuum cleaner,
in the same way as Jupiter.
Given my own proposals that Nibiru’s orbit is highly variable, it seems
reasonable to conclude that Nibiru does not trespass into the danger zone of
the inner solar system at all, and possibly hasn’t since its devastating
perihelion passages at the Permian-Triassic boundary 245 million years ago.
This conclusion may set me at odds with many other Planet X hunters, but I
think this is a debate worth starting. There is evidence of Nibiru’s
presence in our solar system, and of the devastation it can sometimes
unleash, but those events do not fit into a regular pattern of 3600-year
intervals, or even 26 million-year intervals. They are instead sustained
periods of bizarre activity randomly distributed across the geological
record, and are in accordance with an object whose behavior is more that of
a ‘hit-an-run’ perpetrator than a seasoned offender.
2003, or not 2003
Finally, if Nibiru’s current elliptical orbit around the Sun is also a
temporary one, coincident with the Ice Age of the last 4 million years, then
does this mean that the global warming over the last 13,000 years is
indicative of a now loosened Nibiruan orbit? Is it once again in the process
of returning to the comet clouds, its perihelion position now extended
beyond the barrier of visible observation? This could explain an awful lot
about the scant record of Nibiru observation during the historical period,
despite its mythological significance. All the more reason to breathe easy
about the dark star. It may have caused mass extinctions in the past, but it
is unlikely to do so during its current phase. 2003 will be a non-event,
irrespective of the timing of Nibiru.
Addendum, March 2004
 I recently read
'Delicate Earth', a follow-up book about Planet X penned by
Mark Hazelwood. The belief remains that Planet X will still show up,
although the 2003 prediction has been shelved. That's the benefit of
hindsight I suppose. Rather oddly, I have been having further thoughts about
Nibiru and how it might be tied in with changes in the Sun's properties, and
catastrophic events on Earth, and if anything I have moved towards these
guys. Although I think James McCanney may be taking things a bit too far
with his alternative physics solutions, there may be some truth to the idea
that the Sun's magnetic field is the key to this.
Nibiru need not come near to the Sun to achieve radical effects that would
create big problems for us here on Earth. In fact, as I will explain in my
forth-coming book
'Binary
Companion', there may be the potential for a
significant interaction at what most people consider to be the edge of the
solar system...if Nibiru is a sub-brown dwarf.
That has the potential to open up the debate on the timing of Nibiru
completely. Why? Because it need not move among the planets to achieve the
kind of periodic effects that many predict for it. I have something rather
radical in mind, and it fits in with the very latest scientific evidence for
a binary companion to the Sun. I'll explain it all in the new book to be
released later this year.
References
-
W Alvarez “T. Rex and the crater of Doom” Penguin 1998
-
G Birdsall “Tenth Planet Did Exist Claims NASA” UFO Magazine Jun 2002
-
R Corfield “Architects of Eternity” Headline Book Publishing 2001
-
I Dalziel “Earth Before Pangea” Scientific American, Aug 1994
-
J. & M. Gribbin "Ice Age" Penguin 2001
-
G Hancock, R Bauval & J Grigsby “The Mars Mystery” Penguin 1998
-
M Heil “Math Program Cracks Cause of Venus Climate Change” 12th Mar 2001
-
J Hills Astron. J. 86, 1730 (1981)
-
J Hills Astron. J. 90, 1876 (1985)
-
P Hoffman & D Schrag “Snowball Earth” Scientific American, Jan 2000
-
Horizon “Snowball Earth” Shown on BBC2, 22nd Feb 2001
-
J Jokipii & F. McDonald "Quest for the Limits of the Heliopause" Scientific
American, Apr 1995
-
Illinois State Museum “Ice Ages”
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/
-
A Lloyd “Winged Disc” Available for the Author 2001,
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk
-
A Lloyd “Synopsis of the Dark Star Theory” UFO Magazine Aug 2001
-
J Matese, P Whitman and D Whitmire, Icarus, 141, 354-336 (1999)
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~jjm9638
-
J Murray Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 309, 31-34 (1999)
-
A Pike “Einstein was Right!” UFO Magazine June 2002
-
I Semeniuk “Neptune Attacks” New Scientist 7th Apr 2001
-
Z Sitchin “The Twelfth Planet” Avon 1976
|