The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence (15 page)

Cunningham's
research into cyclostratigraphy has certain parallels with similar work carried
out by the NASA scientist, Maurice Chatelain, into the "Nineveh
constant". The Nineveh constant takes the form of a sexigesimal-equivalent
15 digit number that was found on a clay tablet. This tablet was found within
the Library of the learned Assyrian King Assurbanipal, who reigned in Nineveh
from 669 to 626 BC. It translated to 195,955,200,000,000, a remarkable number
to have been written at all in ancient times, irrespective of any meaningful
significance we may attach to it.

Chatelain's research showed that this figure represented an all-inclusive multiple of all the orbital periods and cycles of the planets in the
solar system, including Earth's precession of the equinoxes, when the cycles
were expressed in seconds. Each cycle period he tried to divide into this
figure fit to within 4 decimal places, including sidereal cycles of Uranus,
Neptune and Pluto. Chatelain claimed that this showed that the Sumerians, and
later Assyrians, had astronomical and mathematical knowledge of these planets.
⁸
This implied that the ancient Mesopotamians had somehow acquired 'impossible'
data about the solar system.

Chatelain claimed that the "Nineveh constant"
represented a much sought after magical formula known as the "Great
Constant of the solar system".
⁸
If true, this would imply a
kind of cosmic resonance throughout the solar system. Now, it is known that
neighboring planets do tend to find agreeable orbits between them, which become
harmonic. In ancient modes of thinking, we might consider this to be the 'Music
of the Spheres' or some such. Is it possible that the ancients could have been
aware of these kinds of detailed mathematical relationships?

There is a physical relationship between the energies of the
planetary orbits. They are mutually inter-dependent, and a change in
circumstance for one planet leads to an alteration in the orbital parameters of
the others (one wonders whether this relationship between the planetary
'binding energies' is the Sumerian 'bond Heaven-Earth', or DUR.AN.KI?). Perhaps
this is what the Nineveh Constant alludes to. The importance attached to this
inter-dependence is now lost. That may be because we do not really fully
understand our own solar system.

The planetary orbits all have their own angular momentums, which
are in turn related to the binding energies. A distant Dark Star companion
would bring with it an additional and considerable quantity of angular momentum
to the overall solar system. If its orbit is somehow variable, then its
'binding energies' are subject to change.

Yet, there has to be a conservation of overall energy within the
system. As such, a sudden change in the variable orbit of a rogue companion,
would upset the order of the entire solar system. Knowledge of this would bring
the importance of the relationships between the planetary bodies into sharp
focus.

This is because any such change to that relationship could spell
disaster for this planet.

The
researcher Maurice Cotterell has investigated the cyclical nature of sunspot
activity, and how it might relate to other orbital parameters in the solar
system, in particular the Earth's orbit and the sun's rotational movement. It
is not immediately obvious how this might be so, but a 'great solar cycle' does
seem to emerge from his findings, which, remarkably, correlates well with the
orbit of the Dark Star. Cotterell took raw data from solar satellite experiments,
and ran it through a super computer at the University where he worked. The
solar data used in his calculations was tied to the sun's rotational cycle.

Because
the sun is a fluid body, it rotates faster at the equator than at the poles,
and the common denominator of these two periods was chosen. Bringing in the
Earth's orbital period, Cotterell was able to amass a database and study the
cyclic periods that might come out of it. He was not to be disappointed.

He
was able to establish a relationship between these rotational periods and the
sunspot activity cycle of about 11.5 years, although the observable cycle is
11.1 years. But his graph also threw out other patterns, and the most
significant of these was a period of 3,740 years, which saw the complete reversal
of the solar system's "neutral sheet".
^9,10
This appeared
to be related to an external phenomenon that was affecting the entire solar
system. I would suggest that external phenomenon would be the Dark Star, whose
perihelion passage may well cause this kind of effect upon the sun and known
planets.

As
we saw last chapter, the magnetic fields of brown dwarfs are very substantial
indeed, creating observed effects in the X-Ray region of the electro-magnetic
spectrum, far greater than the size of the bodies would otherwise have
suggested. Like bringing two large magnets into close proximity, the motion of
the Dark Star around the sun may create a reaction in the overall magnetic
field of the sun, and the solar system as a whole.

If Maurice Cotterell's work is correct, then it might well be
direct evidence of the presence of a failed star orbiting the sun, with a
periodicity of approximately 3,740 years. But this novel idea has not been
scientifically proven, and remains on the fringes of scientific thinking. As
such, this can only stand as a potentially useful piece of corroborating
evidence for an orbital cycle of this length. Indeed, it is by no means certain
that things are quite as simple as this, as we shall see later.

Uranus potentially offers further evidence of the primordial
presence of Nibiru. Uranus is tilted onto its side with respect to its orbit
around the sun. Its moon circulates in this tilted plane, giving the appearance
of a dart-board facing the sun. All of the other planets orbit with their
equatorial regions facing the sun. Astronomers have long speculated that Uranus
was knocked onto its side by another planetary body.
¹

The Enuma Elish describes a close encounter between the Dark Star
Marduk and Uranus, which the Sumerians called Anu. The text describes how Anu
and Marduk seemed to both obtain moons as a result of that encounter.
¹¹
The Uranus system is full of unpredictable anomalies; carbon-rich deposits on
Uranus's moons, and swiftly circling elliptical rings around the planet itself.

In August 2000, the General Assembly of the International
Astronomical Union gave formal numbers and names to an additional 3 moonlets
around Uranus; Prospero, Setebos and Stephano, all of which were derived from
Shakespeare's “The Tempest”. These tiny moons were discovered telescopically in
1999, and added to the new satellites which had been found orbiting Uranus in
1997, called Caliban and Sycorax. Sky and Telescope Magazine reported their
eccentric orbital properties:

“Unlike the planet's inner moons, these new finds are considered
“irregular” because they occupy distant, eccentric, highly-inclined orbits and
travel in directions generally opposite that of Uranus's rotation.”
¹²

Again, the inference of these findings is that the Uranus system
is anomalous, and seems to have been affected by another large body.

On the face of it, then, the data about Uranus and its moons
supports the idea that the planet was struck 3.9 billion years ago by a
terrestrial-sized body, causing an expulsion of energetic debris, and resulting
in the bizarre tilting of Uranus itself. But that is not the only possibility.

Let us say that Marduk is a failed star, not a planet. It is then
several times as massive as the biggest planet in the solar system, Jupiter.
Surely, a close encounter between this colossal 'planet' and Uranus could have
been enough to spin Uranus on its axis, without any catastrophic collision.
This would be in keeping with the Enuma Elish, where a description of an actual
battle between Anu and Marduk is conspicuous by its absence. One can speculate
that Uranus was tilted onto its side because it had a cosmic 'near-miss' with a
failed star, not because anything collided with it. During this encounter, it
happened to pick up some of the cometary debris accompanying the Dark Star:
“Anu brought forth and begot the four winds”.

The Moon's gravity is one sixth that of the Earth's, but its
presence in orbit around our planet remains a puzzle. The other
terrestrial-sized worlds in the solar system either have no moons, or they have
only asteroid-sized satellites, like Phobos and Deimos around Mars, or Charon
around Pluto. There are many possible explanations for the presence of our Moon
in Earth's orbit, but none of them appear completely convincing, suffering as
they do with contradictory evidence. It appears that the jury is still out in
scientific circles. The main problem is that the Moon is remarkably large in
proportion to the Earth.

It seems unlikely that a planet the size of Earth could have
captured such a body, simply because it is too small to attract such a large
satellite. Others consider it likely that the Earth and Moon initially formed
as a binary system. Personally, I am persuaded by those who argue that the Moon
was once a chunk of the Earth, and became a satellite following a very early
primordial collision. Again, this implies primordial chaos in the solar system
as proto-planets were battered by each other.

Zecharia Sitchin is a solid proponent of the idea that there were
catastrophic events in the early solar system which played a dominating part in
the formation of many of the planets, and the order of their orbits, including
the Earth and Moon.
¹³
Most scientists would agree with the
assumption that underlies this approach, but would argue that the sudden
presence of a rogue planet is not necessary to explain the devastation that may
have seen moons evicted from their orbits around planets, with Uranus literally
knocked onto its side.

They admit to still being stumped by the problem of how massive
planets the size of Uranus and Neptune were able to form in the outer zone of
the planetary system, when their computer models indicate that there doesn't
appear to have been enough time for all the material to accrete. They wonder
about migration of planetary orbits to explain such difficulties, but stop
short of considering the possibility that the inner planets themselves may also
have migrated. It is a wild thought.

The idea put forward by Sitchin that our Earth and Moon were
somehow initially sharing a different destiny in the solar system, is judged to
be derisory. After all, on the face of it, the Earth's orbit appears perfectly
normal. It occupies one of the positions predicted by Bode's Law.

Yet, so does a missing 'fifth' planet between Mars and Jupiter, an
area currently occupied by a belt of planetary rubble. Is it possible that the
Earth migrated inwards from this zone, leaving behind it the scattered debris
of a devastating collision between it and another, smaller planet? Is the Moon
itself a highly visible reminder in our skies of such a catastrophe, early in
the life of the solar system?

Recent astronomical research has supported the case that the Moon
was formed in the same location relative to the sun as the Earth. It might
prove to have been an off-shoot of the Earth itself. In March 1999, NASA
scientists issued a press release about findings presented at the 30th Lunar
and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, which said the following:

“Analysis of data from NASA's Lunar Prospector spacecraft has
confirmed that the Moon has a small core, supporting the idea that the bulk of
the Moon was ripped away from the early Earth when an object the size of Mars
collided with the Earth”.
¹⁴

Scientists put the date of this impact to a time 4.45 billion
years ago, only 100 million years after the initial formation of the Earth.
However, recently discovered traces of liquid water in zircon crystal, dating
to 4.404 billion years, has brought this dating into question, suggesting that
liquid oceans were existent upon the Earth a relatively short time after this
collision.
¹⁵
It seems to me that the Earth must have been a bigger
planet prior to this supposed collision, and that it would have lost large
amounts of its primordial oceans as a result.

I, like Sitchin before me, wonder whether such a massive collision
could have propelled the Earth into a new orbit, closer to the sun. Eventually,
such an unstable orbit would have settled down into a more or less circular
one, shepherded as it is by Jupiter. Similarly, take the asteroid belt; it
clearly formed from some early destructive event. Yet, the motion of its
asteroids is relatively well-behaved, resulting in their skating around the sun
in an eternal circle. No one wonders why they aren't far more erratic.

The similarity between the Earth and the Moon's rocky constituents
answers those who have hypothesized that the Moon is a relatively recent
companion of 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.
¹⁶
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 Moon was formed by a
cosmic collision very early on in the history of the Earth. The researcher and
author Joan d'Arc has highlighted the importance of other findings presented by
NASA at the same 1999 conference:

“Papers presented at this conference also indicated that
“similarities in the mineral composition of the Earth and Moon indicate that
they share a common origin”. However, it was noted that, if they had simply
formed from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the Moon would have a core
similar in proportion to that of the Earth's. Based on information obtained
during the Apollo era, the press release stated, it was suggested that a
“Mars-sized body” hit the Earth in its earliest history after its iron core had
formed. The impact ejected rocky, “iron-poor material” from the outer shell
into orbit, which collected to form the Moon, and was then caught in orbit around
the Earth”.
¹⁴

Was this Mars-sized body one of the early moons of the Dark Star?
There appears to be two distinct options for such a catastrophic event. The
scientific evidence from the Moon suggests that such an impact occurred very
early in the history of the solar system, only 150 million years after the
formation of the sun and its proto-planetary disc. If this immense impact was
with a moon of the Dark Star, then it would indicate that the rogue planet's
entry into the solar system was very early indeed.

This might be in keeping with the idea that the Dark Star itself
formed as a binary companion in the first place, and was jolted closer to the
Earth by the gravitational action of a passing star in the relatively
densely-packed stellar nursery. It is a tantalizing possibility. The Moon
itself could have resulted from such an impact. However, Sitchin relates that
the Moon was already in orbit around the primordial Earth before the appearance
of Nibiru/Marduk. So, we might conclude from this that the Moon was formed by a
collision with a small planet within the chaos of the early solar system.

There still remains some doubt about the origin of the Moon.
Studies of terrestrial rock crystals have shown that liquid water was present
on the Earth at a very early stage in its primordial development, seemingly
precluding a collision that was big enough to re-melt the Earth, as a direct
collision with a Mars-sized body surely would have done.

Recent research highlights a means by which the Earth/Moon
system's original distance from the sun could be ascertained. We know from
radiological studies that the Earth and the Moon are roughly the same age. It
seems that they share common stable isotopes of oxygen, which is a strong
indicator that they formed at a similar distance from the sun.
¹⁷
This isotopic analysis supports the idea that the Earth and Moon were derived
from one source.

If the Earth and Moon had always enjoyed the same orbit around the
sun, then the isotopic constitution of their rocks would indeed be a unique
cosmic fingerprint. The question in my mind is whether this fingerprint is
common to other debris in the solar system, like the asteroids. If the Earth
was once orbiting the sun at a greater distance from where it is now, then it
would surely share this isotopic fingerprint with the asteroids. This would be
a simple test of this idea.