Betty Hill's Star Map
Author Steve Pearse
sent me a copy of his book 'Set Your Phaser to Stun' to review. It's
full of astronomical information and technical data about the stars in
our solar neighbourhood, and highlights his analysis of the correct
positioning of the star map drawn by abductee Betty Hill. Anyone
who wants to read an in-depth discussion of the book itself can refer to
Despite many problems
I encountered with the way the book had been written and presented, at
the core of the book was a pretty solid piece of research.
Pearse's critique of Marjorie Fish's analysis was very strong. The data
which she had relied upon to build her 3D model of the solar stellar
neighbourhood had changed substantially since the 1970s, as more
powerful telescopes had come online in the Southern Hemisphere.
This meant that her map was now distorted to the point where it no
Additionally, it is
now recognised by scientists that for stars to produce useful,
potentially life-supporting planets they need to have a certain degree
of 'metallicity'. That is, the elemental composition of the star
heavier than mere hydrogen and helium must reach a certain threshold to
allow life-supporting rocky planets to form in their proto-planetary
disks. The problem for the Fish model is that her favoured stars,
Zeta Reticuli 1 and 2 (which are older, Sun-like stars) are now
understood to have very poor metallicities. As a result, it is
unlikely that they will be found to harbour habitable worlds in their
Now, that's not cast
in stone, but taken in conjunction with the positional changes of the
neighbourhood stars in astrometric charts, the case for Zeta Reticuli
seems increasingly problematic. Steve Pearse argues that many of
the well-known researchers associated with the Hill Abduction case
should be aware of these issues, yet they continue to adhere to the Fish
model as proof of the reality of the abduction event. He offers a
new solution which has its merits (right), although I think it's fair to
say that the case is really blown wide open. Still, his arguments
seem strong enough to contemplate a new world for those pesky ETs, the
Andy Lloyd, 2nd
New Egyptian Chronology Fits with Return
It is well known that ancient
Egypt was unified under one King, Menes, for the first time around 3000BCE.
Until very recently it was thought that the land along the Nile had been
originally settled by farmers about 1000 years before that. As someone
interested in the ideas of author Zecharia Sitchin, I always found it curious
that Egypt's chronology did not fit closer with the return of the planet Nibiru
to our skies, which Sitchin claimed to have occurred around 3760BCE. This
appears to be an remarkably important date, marking the beginning of the Nippur
calendar and the Jewish count of days. So, if this date was so significant
across the entire Levant region, then why wasn't the chronology of early ancient
Egypt also configured along the same lines? It's a puzzle I have often
pondered over. Fortunately, new radiocarbon dating work, performed by
scientists from the University of Cambridge, has lead to a rethink which
presents us with just such an alignment:
the chronology of the earliest days of Egypt has been based on rough estimates.
With no written records from this very early period, a timeline has been based
on the evolving styles of ceramics unearthed from human burial sites.
scientists have used radiocarbon dating of excavated hair, bones and plants,
with established archaeological evidence and computer models to pinpoint when
the ancient state came into existence. Previous records suggested the
pre-Dynastic period, a time when early groups began to settle along the Nile and
farm the land, began in 4000BC. But the new analysis revealed this process
started later, between 3700 or 3600BC."
For Egyptologists, this
presents new problems, because the gap between the initial inhabitation of Egypt
- by groups who farmed the land along the Nile - as indicated by this scientific
work, and the acknowledged dates for the unification of Egypt is really rather
short; at just several hundred years. By comparison, a similar evolution
from agriculture to civilisation occurred over a much longer time period in
Mesopotamia. So why was there such an accelerated race to civilisation in
Egypt during this period?
Again, from a Sitchinite
perspective, this may tie in with the return of the planet of the gods, Nibiru.
Sitchin argued that the periodic return of Nibiru, which he configures with the
Sumerian Shar of 3600 years, fitted with bursts of acceleration in human
only the presence of the Nefilim but also the periodic arrivals of the Twelfth
Planet in Earth's vicinity seem to lie behind the three crucial phases on Man's
post-Diluvial civilization: agriculture, circa 11,000 B.C., the Neolithic
culture, circa 7500 B.C., and the sudden civilization of 3800 B.C. [in Mesopotamia] took
place at intervals of 3,600 years. It appears that the Nefilim, passing
knowledge to Man in measured doses, did so in intervals matching periodic
returns of the Twelfth Planet to Earth's vicinity."
In the case of Egypt, does this
argument also apply to the settling and emergence of agriculture along the river
Nile, leading to a speedy development towards the high civilisation of the first
Egyptian Dynasties? It would make sense, perhaps adding further credibility
to the concept that something remarkable occurred around 3750BCE.
Andy Lloyd, 4th September 2013
1) R.Morelle "New timeline for
origin of ancient Egypt" 4th September 2013
2) Z. Sitchin "The Twelfth
Planet" p415, Avon Books, 1976
Neil Freer on Planet X
I was recently copied in on
correspondence from leading author Neil Freer about the existence of Nibiru/Planet
X (1), which many readers might find of interest. It highlights the
duality of Sitchinite thinking between the Dark Star Theory versus fears of an
in-coming Planet X body:
"Already in 1976, John Anderson of JPL and NASA, head of the
Pioneer space craft exploratory mission that sent two Pioneer craft out in
opposite directions from the Earth, said when the results of the probes were
evaluated that it was certain that there was no twin to our Sun, no brown, red,
failed star/dwarf companion to our Sun of any kind, but that there was clear
evidence of a large planetary type body, a tenth planet. Note: 1976
The IRAS satellite infrared telescope team found Planet X /
Nibiru in 1983. They announced it 6 times in the mainstream press, the last time
on Jan 30, 1983 in an interview of an IRAS team astronomer, Ray Reynolds, of the
Ames Research Center who said, "Astronomers are so sure of the 10th planet that
they think that there is nothing left but to name it." The NASA "official"
version is that no planet was found, a lie, and the shades were pulled down.
Since then astronomers have been intimidated by funding fright and will not say
By the early nineties, Harrington of the Naval Observatory,
having read Zecharia's The Twelfth Planet, invited Zecharia to his office for a
conference. This is the video of their interaction: (http://xfacts.com/x1.htm)
Harrington, by that time, had the Pioneer, IRAS, data and
findings, the evidence from visual "residuals", (observations of deviations in
the orbits of the large planets indicating gravitational pull from another large
planet), and the positive results of computer simulations. Note that, in the
conference with Zecharia, Harrington says that he was confident --- in the early
nineties --- that it "....is a nice, good planet, with an atmosphere in which we
could be comfortable". That level of information and detail negates any question
as to existence of planet Nibiru...........as shown clearly and unequivocally on
a huge blow-up of a 4500 year old cylinder seal printout, VA/243, held by
Zecharia showing our Sun with all the ten planets in their proper size and
location around it, Sumerian (right).
People who are into this topic should do their homework in
depth. David Morrison and those in NASA (under military control) who are
charged with maintaining the disinformation, must go laughing all the way to
their offices when they see the speculation about a twin to our Sun, or brown,
red, green, purple, dwarf, whatever, repeated once again. It's doing their job
for them. Why the cover-up? Because it is related to the other two
major cover-ups as detailed in the attached Declaration of Cosmic Humanity.
All three are inextricably interrelated. Mention any one and the other two
are brought into question. And the PTB, Vatican, Pentigon (sic) don't want
Let's get passed (sic) this speculation, Nibiru has been
disclosed, let's focus on protecting ourselves against it's potential
devastating effects on the Earth and our species when it orbits into the inner
solar system as a member of the system. Depending on Earth's position
relative to it when it comes in, the effects can be milder or catastrophic.
See: Allan and Delair, Cataclysm!
The PTB know all about it, will go into their underground
cities to protect themselves and consider us "useless eaters" (Kissinger).
And it's on the way in, early effects are Earth changes and Climate changes:
global warming/cooling, CO2 emissions, are symptoms not causes.
I can't apologize for sounding a bit harsh and impatient
here: things are getting close and we need to look out for ourselves and the
rest of the planet."
I wrote back to Mr Freer to
highlight the fact that the 1983 press releases which he spoke about mentioned a
Jupiter-sized planet, which could just as easily be describing a sub-brown dwarf
(which are actually smaller than Jupiter, due to a quirk in physics I explain in
'Dark Star'). I urged
him to have an open mind about the nature of Nibiru, and what it might turn out
to be. Astronomy and planetary science has made many new discoveries since
the early nineties, many of which are pertinent to these issues. I'm sorry
to say that he did not reply to me.
It seems to me that the debate
around Nibiru is becoming increasingly polarised. On the one hand are
those who think it is an in-coming planet, spelling imminent doom for our world
on a timetable that (like my pension date) just keeps getting rolled back year
after year. On the other, that Nibiru is a phenomenon connected to a more
distance sub-brown dwarf object lying among the comets.
As I noted last month on this
blog, more researchers interested in this topic are advocating the existence of
a brown dwarf companion as the more likely solution. There are good
reasons for this, because without this potential heat source the claim made
above by Mr Freer that Nibiru could still be a habitable world becomes very,
very hard to justify.
Andy Lloyd, 2nd September 2013
1) Correspondence from Neil
Freer, 28th August 2013 (correspondence is not subject to copyright laws)
Some Scientific Progress on
Brown dwarfs are
tricky to study, because even the bigger, brighter ones by definition
don't emit an awful lot of light. But using the 1.4 billion pixel
camera of the Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS),
some progress is being made. In a recent report, this quote caught
observations on four of them allowed the team to reach several
conclusions: These companion brown dwarfs are infrequent, making up only
about 0.6% of binaries, at least for those in which the stars are widely
spaced (closer pairs were much more difficult to study). More
puzzling, the scientists found that the brown dwarf companions are well
enough understood to conclude that they did not form at the same time as
their more normal, companion star."
Well, that presumably means that these brown dwarf companions were
captured (or perhaps formed independently from an orbiting or captured
partial nebula later on, who knows?) But it's a pretty small sample
range at just 4 such objects, so it might be a bit of a stretch to read
too much into this at this stage. Also bear in mind that the kind
of 'brown dwarf' I'm focussed on with my Dark Star Theory is some way
down on the scale of these objects. So way down, in fact, that the
Dark Star companion would really be a sub-brown dwarf, a cosmic entity
which lies between the smallest brown dwarf and the gas giant Jupiter.
Even so, could this
mean that the Dark Star might have formed or been captured some time
after the formation of the solar system? It most likely first made
its presence felt 3.9 billion years ago during a period of time known as
the 'late, heavy bombardment'. This was some 400 million years
after the formation of the Sun, which more or less insinuates that any
Dark Star out there should really have formed during the same time.
Andy Lloyd, 5th
Use Pan-STARRS to Detect Brown Dwarf Companion Stars" 3rd September 2013
with thanks to Mark