I have endeavoured to explain Nibiru, the mythical domain of the Anunnaki, as a tiny ‘star’ system in an eccentric orbit around the Sun. Nibiru is not a terrestrial planet moving through the frozen outer reaches of the Solar System, but rather a failed star known as a brown dwarf with a contingent of moons, at least one of which is life-supporting. Although extremely faint at the sort of distances we are dealing with here, this brown dwarf has been detected indirectly by two independent astronomers, Dr Murray (1) and Dr Matese (2), using data from long period comets. They have assumed it travels in a great circle around the Sun, but there is nothing in their papers that contra-indicates an elliptical orbit. Their assumption was the natural default position to take. A few quotes from the Matese paper should make the uncertainties about this assumption abundantly clear:
“Since the sense
of the perturber orbital motion is unknown, we adopt an inclination of
I=90+/-5 degrees for the perturber orbit normal.”
“For simplicity of discussion we consider a circular perturber orbit.”
“The hemispherical nonuniformity in the observed distribution along the great circle could be due to…eccentricity in the perturber orbit. Unfortunately, the original energy determinations are sufficiently inaccurate due to observational uncertainties and outgassing effects that we cannot use such an analysis as presented above to predict the perturber location, sense of motion, or eccentricity.”
Matese actually points out that the great circular orbit that he proposes, which is polar to the galactic plane, is an “unstable equilibrium configuration” and continues:
“This is not a serious objection to the present conjectured orbit. Under the action of the galactic tide, such an orbit would undergo periodic oscultations…That is, under the action of the galactic tide… the perturber would pass relatively close to the planetary zone every several hundred Myr, comparable to the time scales for strong field star impulses to the Oort cloud which would randomize their orbital parameters and substantively affect the perturber orbit. Hills (1985) has determined that objects of mass <10Mj (Jovian masses) would not damage planetary orbits even if they had passed through the planetary system.”
This instability is an important factor. There is the small matter of how a Jupiter-sized planet could have ended up in the comet clouds in the first place, and I suggest that the situation is indeed volatile. While it is possible that the Great Circular orbit that Murray and Matese independently propose is definitive, it is also quite possible that this instability has brought the planet through the solar system, perhaps not so long ago. By so doing, its orbit has been affected by the other planets. In other words...the orbital configuration as it currently stands is elliptical, and unstable.
In my books
Disc (2001) and Dark Star
(2005) I offer a physical mechanism by which
this could happen.
Matese also states that a body that has several Jupiter masses can exhibit an elliptical, or parabolic, orbit around the Sun, and also that it could pass through the central, planetary Solar System without affecting the orbits of the other planets to any fundamental degree. In fact, he considers it a precondition that the sub brown dwarf would enter the planetary zone periodically, during an orbital fluctuation event known as 'oscultation'. The idea that Nibiru exists at all is, therefore, not quite so far fetched as one would initially suppose. Also, its size can be as large as 10 Jupiters without inflicting permanent damage to the relatively stable structure of the solar system, even when entering the planetary zone (See DarkStar13).
Where Matese generalizes about a great circular orbit polar to the galactic plane, Murray is far more specific:
“…In the present paper the hypothesis that the 40,000AU clustering id due to a distant unknown planet is examined. Aphelion positions have therefore been plotted for all class 1a comets with distances between 30,000AU and 50,000AU. The resulting distribution of positions is not random. The aphelia are all within 40 degrees of the ecliptic, but, more importantly, those between 0 and 180 degrees longitude show a reasonable approximation to a sine curve, as would be expected if their orbits had been captured into their present configuration by the presence of an unknown distant object orbiting the Sun at an inclination to the ecliptic.”
Murray’s proposed inclination of 30+/-7 degrees to the ecliptic, with a retrograde orbit, exactly mirrors the orbit of the 12th Planet, as discussed by Zecharia Sitchin in his books ‘The 12th Planet’ (3) and ‘Genesis Revisited’ (4)
Sitchin quotes the movement of Nibiru, as described by Babylonian astronomers from R. Campbell Thompson’s "Reports of the Magicians and Astronomers of Nineveh and Babylon":
"When from the Station of Jupiter
the Planet passes toward the west,
there will be a time of dwelling in security...
When from the station of Jupiter
the Planet increases in brilliance
and in the Zodiac of Cancer will become Nibiru,
Akkad will overflow with plenty."
And from the Book of Job:
In my February 2000 discussion of the Dark Star Theory, I predicted that Nibiru’s perihelion would occur in the Duat, the part of the sky dominated by Sirius and Orion that has such significance for the ancient Egyptians. The above text from the Book of Job, if understood to describe the passage of a celestial body, indicates a movement from the Northern celestial hemisphere (the Great Bear), dropping into the Duat in the Southern Celestial hemisphere, then moving back through the ecliptic at Taurus and Aries. The biblical text says that its motion is back to Sagittarius, but Nibiru would have disappeared from sight long before this.
If the dark star dropped into the Southern celestial hemisphere during its visible movement through the heavens, then it stands to reason that it must be located in the Northern celestial hemisphere at aphelion. So Sagittarius cannot be the location of the dark star, but only the general direction it took as it disappeared. In fact, it must be found North of this constellation, opposite the perihelion point of Sirius in the Southern celestial hemisphere. This would presumably be around the constellations of Aquila and Serpens.
Domain Of The Dragon
Well, Murray discusses the current position of the proposed giant planet/brown dwarf in these terms:
“This places the object at ecliptic longitude 314 +/-14 degrees, and the inclination derived earlier places it at ecliptic latitude +28 +/-7 degrees, or RA 20h 35m, Dec +5 degrees at the present time. Assuming that the undiscovered object exists, there still remains great uncertainty as to its present position.”
RA 20h 35m, Dec.+5 degrees is on the border of the major constellation of Aquila, the Eagle. Well, technically this position is located in the tiny constellation of Delphinus, but given the margin of error pointed out by Murray, Aquila serves as a reasonable approximation.
This would appear to tie in with the biblical passage extremely well. Sitchin’s attempt to place the perihelion of Nibiru in the constellation of Cancer, and aphelion in Sagittarius is erroneous. If these end points of an elliptical orbit really were lying on the ecliptic, then the whole orbit must lie in the plane of the ecliptic, at variance with his claim of a 30 degree inclination.
So some of Sitchin’s thoughts on this matter appear misleading. Aquila seems to sit rather better with the texts quoted above, with Cancer marking the point where Nibiru cuts through the ecliptic on its inward journey, and so perhaps denoting the point when Nibiru becomes visible for the first time.
Therefore, the whole orbit appears thus: Aquila (aphelion), Ursa Major, Cancer, Canis Major and Orion (perihelion), Taurus and Aries, then back in the direction of Sagittarius. The significance of perihelion occurring in the region of the sky between Sirius and Orion is not to be underestimated. This is the sacred Duat and leads us into mythological territory.
Therefore, it does not appear unreasonable to look for ways in which Nibiru’s passage though the heavens could be used to explain these myths. It is also important to seek to locate the last passage of Nibiru, knowing that the brightest point occurs in the Duat. This clue is all-important when trying to date the Messianic Star and the Flood.
In searching for clues to indicate the last appearance of Nibiru in our skies, it is necessary to have in mind the description of this celestial entity in our minds. Sumerian accounts of the great celestial battle between Nibiru and Earth’s precursor, the watery monster Tiamat, indicate clearly its identity as a fiery hulk:
This description of Nibiru by the Sumerians appears to have a later corollary in the Biblical Book of Job, although it is not so clear that we are being told about Nibiru. Clearly, the original texts have been altered to suit the monotheistic dogma of the Hebrews compiling the Bible. However, parallels are apparent between the above Sumerian text about Nibiru and the ‘sea-monster’ Leviathan:
Note how this entity is no longer the victor of the battle in the Hebrew version, but is now the creature defeated by God. This is in keeping with their view that this entity is non other than Satan, representing the ancient pagan religious concept of the Messianic Dragon. But from the Mesopotamian point of view, the victor was the Lord, and the defeated ‘monster’ was the watery Tiamat, the planetary precursor of the Earth. Nevertheless, this awesome description of the brown dwarf appears in the same text as the description of its celestial heavenly passage noted above.
This is clearly no ordinary planet. It seems surrounded by nets, halos, cloak, lightning and flames, and this imagery described its appearance prior to the impact of one of its moons with Tiamat, ruling out these references as being explosions. They are clearly descriptions of Nibiru’s actual appearance, although possibly in an excited state. If one thinks of the corona that one sees around the Sun during a total eclipse, one can begin to grasp the meaning of these verses. This is a fiery entity whose brilliance is not great enough to blind us to its coronal discharge under normal viewing conditions. In other words, a brown dwarf. This brown dwarf has seven moons, which are poetically referred to as “winds” in the texts (literal Sumerian meaning: “Those that are by the side”):
Sitchin goes on to describe the immensely destructive effect upon Tiamat of Nibiru’s close passage. Note that Tiamat must have been a considerably larger planet than the Earth, which is understood, from the texts, to have formed from the cleaving of Tiamat in half. So Nibiru must, in turn, be a considerably greater entity than Tiamat to cause the kind of destruction described:
“As the two planets and their hosts of satellites came close enough for Nibiru to “scan the inside of Tiamat” and “perceive the scheme of Kingu,” (soon to become the Moon) Nibiru attacked Tiamat with his “net” to “enfold her”, shooting at the old planet immense bolts of electricity (“divine lightnings”). Tiamat “was filled with brilliance”- slowing down, heating up, “becoming distended.” Wide gaps opened in the crust, perhaps emitting steam and volcanic matter. Into one widening fissure Nibiru thrust one of its main satellites, the one called “Evil Wind”. It tore Tiamat’s “belly, cut through her insides, splitting her heart.” (4)
In this case, size matters! To have the sort of global destructive power that Nibiru unleashed without actually making contact with Tiamat, then we are looking at a planetary size of gas giant proportions at the very least. The added descriptions of the lightning strikes and enveloping corona point to a mini-sun, or dark star. What is totally clear is that this monstrous sized planet is not a terrestrial-type world. If it were, then its size compared to Tiamat it would be like the Moon compared to the Earth. No one could seriously imply that a body the size of the Moon would destroy the Earth during a close passage, without even touching it. Nibiru must be very considerably larger than Tiamat, which in turn was proportionately larger than the Earth. So how does Sitchin come to the conclusion that Nibiru is terrestrial-sized? Simply because this notion is fundamental in trying to show that humanoid beings live on Nibiru. In my opinion, this was an error of judgment. If ‘alien’ beings are to be found, they live on one or more of Nibiru’s moons, not on a planet so massive that its gravitational attraction can prove so destructive. I will expand on this in later web-site additions, but preliminary study reveals the home-world of the Annunaki to be Dilmun, whose description implies it to be the 7th (innermost) moon of Utu (Nibiru). (5)
So, from the Sumerian texts, we can conclude that Nibiru is a titanic, fiery ‘planet’ that has many star-like attributes. It also has seven moons, which are visible to observers on Earth. In other words, they are brighter than the Gallilean moons of Jupiter, which can only be seen through binoculars. This implies one or more of the following things; they are bigger than Io, Europa, Callisto and Ganymede, they are lit by both our Sun and the fiery light of Nibiru, and/or they are seen when Nibiru is closer to us than Jupiter. It is clear that the appearance of Nibiru and her seven moons is a dramatic and eye-catching event in the heavens.
I do not envision a situation where its appearance could have been missed, particularly as many of the ancient religions were expectant of its return, with their devotees far more aware of the stars than most of us are today.
There is also the possibility that Nibiru brings with it a small retinue of comets which it drags into the Solar System. As Murray and Matese are assuming that the long range comets that they are studying have been affected by the passage of a massive body through the Oort cloud, then it is not unreasonable to assume that some comets will swing into the inner Solar System, dragged in by the accelerating movement of the brown dwarf as it moves through the inner Oort Cloud, the Kuiper belts and enters the Solar System proper. As such, the sky around Nibiru may contain comets, adding to the halo effect, perhaps even giving the brown dwarf a ‘tail’.
Note that any small planetary bodies which are permanently orbiting Nibiru will not eject cometary tails like normal long-distance comets. The reason for this is that the heat of the brown dwarf would, itself, drive off the volatile gases that create the comet tail effect. Nibiru could, for instance, have a large retinue of asteroids or tiny moons orbiting it, but these would no more eject gases, as they entered the Solar System, than would the asteroids in the belt between Jupiter and Mars. Saying that, the classifications of what are asteroids and what are comets are becoming less clear all the time as our data-base of these entities increases. Nevertheless, small planetary bodies permanently in the vicinity of a brown dwarf would inevitably lose their volatile ices.
But that is not to say that Nibiru’s gravitational pull would not cause an epidemic of normal comets to enter the Solar System, and this could account for periodic environmental catastrophes on Earth. It may also give the ‘dragon’ a tail.
In his semi-fictional work "The Lost Book of Enki", Sitchin alludes to a fiery body appearing in the sky; a 'flaming dragon', or 'monstrous demon from the celestial deep', and identifies it as a flaming comet associated with Nibiru (6). Given that a comet moving through space could not actually be on fire, unless burning up in Earth's atmosphere, I think the description would better describe Nibiru itself.
Nibiru would get excited by its close proximity to the Sun during perihelion, warming it and creating a coronal aura as its brown dwarf status is energized. This coronal discharge would not encircle Nibiru, but would be swept back by the Solar Wind, appearing like a pair of fiery wings flying towards the Sun. For more details, see DarkStar21.
Would this not look remarkably like a celestial fiery bird, or dragon? Is it the Phoenix of Egyptian mythology, reborn periodically in the sky, or the celestial dragon that makes up so much of Chinese and Arthurian mythology? Does this understanding also correlate with the “Messianic Dragon” mythology revealed by Sir Laurence Gardner in his Grail Series? (7) The Messianic Dragon can be understood as a duality underlying much heretical knowledge. It reflects the conflict between Horus and Set in Egyptian mythology. The brown dwarf resides for the most part in the constellations of Aquila and Serpens, the Eagle and the Serpent. Combine these and you have a celestial dragon. This point of aphelion is opposite the Duat in the celestial sphere, which the evidence above commends as perihelion.
Continue to DarkStar2a
Written by Andy Lloyd, 6th May 2000, author of 'The Dark Star' (2005) and 'Ezekiel One' (2009) and 'The Followers of Horus' (2010)
Next page: Astronomical Updates
J.B.Murray Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 309, 31-34 (1999)
2) J.J. Matese, P.G. Whitman and D.P. Whitmire, Icarus, 141, 354-336 (1999) Dr John Matese
3) Z. Sitchin “The 12th Planet” p245-246 Anon Books, 1976
4) Z. Sitchin “Genesis Revisited” p30, 324-328, 34 Avon Books, 1990
5) A. Alford “When the Gods Came Down” p154-158 Hodder & Stoughton 2000
6) Z. Sitchin "The Lost Book of Enki" p154 Bear & Co 2002
7) L. Gardner “Genesis of the Grail Kings” Bantam 1999
8) Kathy A. Svitil "Dogged scientist looks for 'Planet X'" from Discover Magazine 5/12/01 With thanks to Lloyd Pye
9) L.Moulton Howe 2001 http://www.earthfiles.com/earth317.htm
10) "Bow Shock around LL Orionis" image produced by the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) using data collected by Principal Astronomer C.R.O'Dell (Vanderbilt University). http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/05/index.html