Surely the periodic passage of a dwarf star through the Solar System would make the orbits of the planets more chaotic than they are in reality?

On the face of it , this argument appears sound, but I think it is fatally flawed by the premise used that a Brown Dwarf is a proper star.  It is really an oversized planet emitting some visible reddish light and a great deal of heat.The Solar System is largely void, with vast distances between the planets.  Even when in conjunction, they have only the tiniest effect on one another compared with the Sun.  A brown dwarf is more in the gravitational category of a planet than a star.  The kind of gravitational effects you are claiming would mean that Jupiter, Saturn and Mars would be flinging each other about as well.  Yet their effects on each other are clearly negligible.  After all, the Sumerians state that the Crossing point is in the asteroid belt, and not anywhere near the other planets.  During the vast majority of crossings, Mars and Jupiter would not even be in the same part of the sky.

Let us assume that a crossing point places Nibiru at a point of near-side conjunction with Mars or Jupiter.  This will statistically happen only very rarely, given the sizes of their orbits, but it must happen on occasion, I agree.  It will clearly give them a gravitational tug which could potentially perturb their orbits.  But compared to the Sun, this effect will not deviate their orbits significantly.   I would say that Mars, being a fairly small world, would be affected more, and Mars indeed exhibits an erratic orbit, deviating significantly in its distance from the Sun over time.  But Jupiter is too massive to be thrown about, unless a very close fly-by was to occur, which we know canít happen if the Sumeriansí information is correct.

Now, small objects are another matter.  I suspect that the Near Earth Objects, asteroids and comets are an indication of the brown dwarfís gravitational effects.  I apologise for indicating that Uranusís status as a planet knocked onto its side by Nibiru, or its attendant planets, would come into this argument.  This effect clearly was a result of Nibiruís initial and disasterous assault through the ecliptic plane, and couldnít be the result of its later crossings.  However, Titanís eccentricity could be if the conditions were right.

The other point to consider is the assumption that the status quo of the Solar System is the galactic norm.  Prior to the discovery of the various extra-solar planets we had only our system to go on, so assumed that it was representative somehow.  Now we are aware of a greater degree of eccentricity in the orbits of the other systemsí planets, making the more spherical orbits of our system appear to be the exception rather than the rule.  Perhaps this is the legacy of the repeated crossings of Nibiru, oddly nullifying the tendency towards ellipses.  Also, just because the planets are in the orbits theyíre in today doesnít necessarily mean that they have exhibited those orbits all along.  Mars may have been closer to us at one time, perhaps Jupiter further away.  We assume the status quo is eternal because that is our in-grained term of reference.

Comets that periodically enter the Solar System have decaying orbits, yet the 12th Planet has a stable elliptical orbit.  How can this be?

There are two areas of planetary theory that bother me.  One is the affect of Nibiruís massive magnetosphere.  I suspect this will create a great deal of disruption to the solar wind, possibly resulting in a back-wash of radiation and particles into the inner Solar System with massive environmental effects.  The second is the more generalised problem for the 12th Planet theory of cometary orbit decay.  How can the eccentricity of the orbit really be maintained over billions of years?  Anyone considering the 12th Planet theory, whether describing a terrestrial world or dwarf star, has to make a leap of faith here Iím afraid.  At this time, planetary science has an insufficiently large data-base to rule it out, though.

Has the periodic return of Nibiru affected Earth or Mars?

Zecharia Sitchen hypothesises that the Deluge was caused by Nibiruís gravity sending the Antarctic ice-cap crashing into the ocean, causing a momentous tsunami.  A terrestrial-sized planet entering the ecliptic beyond Mars simply wouldnít do this.  No way.  If that were possible, then every conjunction with Venus or Mars would end in environmental disaster.  Nibiru must be at least Jupiter-size, or the Flood would have been achieved by Earthís conjunctions with Jupiter.  Jupiter, similarly, has no environmental effect on us when in conjunction.  So Nibiru must dwarf even mighty Jupiter to cause this disaster.  I assert that only a brown dwarf could provide sufficient a gravitational effect to have predictably caused the Flood.

A thought about Mars.  This dead planet has many anomalous features.  I suspect that the numerous, anomalous dry river beds featuring on the ancient, arid plains of Mars are a result of Nibiruís heat melting the frozen sub-surface waters and temporarily flooding the land.  After Nibiru has passed, the waters again freeze, leaving just the bizarre geological traces of the fluidic activity.  I also imagine that Marsís depleted atmosphere is a result of Nibiruís heat, burning off the volatile gases of this cold world. Rather like the effect the Sunís heat has on the comets as they approach perihelion.  Mars also has some enormous volcanoes, considering its overall appearance as a dead world.  The periodic passage of the brown dwarf could have had the same affect on Mars as Jupiter has on its closest Galilean moon, Io.  In other words, to stir up latent volcanism.  Or else, as suggested by Graham Hancock, these shield volcanoes are like exit wounds from a planet struck by an asteroid or comet.

Why do you have such a problem with Sitchenís model of the 12th Planet?

First of all, how can life emerge and evolve on a planet that enjoys no heat or light from a nearby star.  Perhaps simple organic molecules can live on comets, chemically reacting when undergoing the periodic journey through perihelion, but this is surely not a model foe the evolution of sentient beings.  The Annunaki have eyes, yet there could be no light out there in the Oort cloud.  To me, this makes no sense without the presence of another light and heat source.

Let us say that Nibiru is terrestrial in nature, with a thick atmosphere and adrift in the void with only a few moons for company.  Its atmosphere is lit by an electromagnetic effect, possibly similar to auroras, or even Paul Devereuxís earth-lights.  To achieve this, a considerable magnetic field would be required, interacting with an absent solar wind.  Or intense geological activity to create the Earth lights, thereby continually threatening life on the planet.  Then thereís the temperature of the surface.  Big problem here.  Take Titan; itís within the Solar System, with a totally opaque atmosphere and internally warmed by its gravitational interaction with Saturn.  Yet it has a surface temperature of -180 degrees.  Not conducive to life as we know it.  Surely Nibiru would be even colder than this.   Unless it is truly massive, which brings a massive gravity with it, making its escape velocity phenomenal.  The Annunaki would be adapted to a far greater gravity than on Earth, and their  Earthly descriptions would include their abilities to jump great distances!  As far as I know, their athletic prowess was never alluded to by Sitchin.  And if you need a gas giant to create sufficient internal heat, then you might as well have a brown dwarf. The other route for creating a warm surface temperature would be radioactivity, again precluding life by definition.

Describe the Annunakisí Homeworld.

For life to exist on a planet around a brown dwarf, then the planet must be in close orbit around the Ďstarí.  It would be moon-like.  To illustrate the point, I envision Europa around Jupiter, only warmed and dimly lit by the giant planet.  Bizarrely, this reminds me of Arthur C. Clarkeís 2010, where Jupiter is transformed into a star.  That film always resonated with me, as does the image of two Suns in the sky in general.  It may be archetypal in a Jungian sense, reflecting a deep, sub-conscious understanding from our ancestors.  If your feeling for this is equally resonant, then I think it is clear that sufficient scientific credibility is attached to it to at least make it a possibility.  If they find a brown dwarf, then itís Nibiru.