Andy Lloyd's Dark Star Blog

Blog 17   (August 2014)

Early Earth Pummelled for over 1 Billion Years

We've know for a while that the Earth and Moon were subjected to one almighty bombardment about 3.9 billion years ago, some time after the formation of the solar system.  it's always been my contention that this 'late, heavy bombardment' was the celestial battle spoken of by Zecharia Sitchin who outlined an alternative history of the solar system from the one provided by mainstream science.  Now, new evidence has emerged to show that this bombardment took place over a much longer period of time than previously thought - perhaps as long as a billion years.  How could this be possible? 

Two words spring to my mind to explain such a long and sustained bombardment:  'Debris Field'.

It seems highly probable that the Earth must have been passing through a colossal debris field over a protracted period of time.  Consider: When we get meteor showers, the meteors are a collection of minor debris from a destroyed comet arranged in a massive cloud that the Earth moves back through annually.  Hold onto that thought.

Here's an excerpt from the New Scientist article about this discovery, which indicates the size of the asteroids/comets thought to have been colliding with the Earth during this greatly extended 'late heavy bombardment':

"The impacts were on a scale beyond anything that Earth has experienced since the dawn of complex animals. The asteroid believed to have finished off the dinosaurs left a layer of spherules a few millimetres thick. "Our layers are 30 to 40 centimetres," says [Donald] Lowe [of Stanford University]. That suggests the asteroids were at least 20 kilometres across and possibly more than 70. "They were big boys," says Lowe." (1)

So, if the Earth was annually passing through a massive cloud of asteroids, some of which are 70km in diameter, then it was either:

1. periodically moving through the asteroid belt, causing immense disruption, for nigh on 1 billion years (which implies the Earth's orbit was very different back then, meaning that it has migrated inwards significantly over time), or

2. moving through a cloud of debris left over from one almighty collision prior to 3.9 billion years ago involving, presumably, a destroyed rocky planet.  If so, then the field of debris has since completely dissipated.  For Earth to be moving through that field of debris over time implies that the Earth was somehow involved in that initial collision - it was essentially re-visiting the scene of the crime every year, enduring another massive pummelling until the field of debris had dispersed through the Earth's gravitational action over time.

Either way, the Earth's and the solar system's history is not as we have been previously given to understand it.   I think that this new evidence requires a major planetary collision to have taken place in the inner solar system about 3.9 billion years ago, possibly along with a significant migration of Earth, likely to have involved another unknown planet.  This seems to greatly strengthen Sitchin's theory explaining the catastrophic events of the early solar system.

1)  Michael Marshall "Earth's early life endured long asteroid bombardment" 15 August 2014 with thanks to Lee

newscientist.com article

Planet X Return in 2017?

I was sent a carefully prepared document by a Christian researcher named Robert Codell this month about the return of Planet X.  He ties such a return in with the possible Second Coming of Christ, and offers October 2017 as a projected date for the reappearance of the 'red star' in question.  

How has he come to this rather startling conclusion?  Is it something we should take seriously, and prepare for?

Robert's calculations are based upon a literal reading of the Biblical dates.  He has taken several key events from the Bible, worked out the dates these occurred based upon a literal chronology, and assumed that each of these dates was commensurate with a return event of Planet X/Nibiru.  Here is an excerpt from an appendix in his paper, setting out his reasoning and calculated timings for the orbit of this proposed body:

"You can see that I had to change the year of Christ's birth to 3,998 for this to work (from 3,977) or add 21 years to my existing timeline. Note the final figure of 2017 can easily change by plus or minus 5 years if I change the orbital decay or starting orbit length even slightly so I would not say that 2017 is locked in from this test but nonetheless I think it does give good supporting evidence for the return of Planet X within then next 5 or 10 years and 2017 is a strong possibility."    (1)

Detail from Jean Cocteau's 'La Crucifixion' mural at Notre Dame de France, showing the appearance of a Dark Star/solar eclipse event

The Talisman of Orpheus

References:

1) Robert Codell "Biblical Timeline: Adam till today" Appendix 11: Planet X's Return, ver 6.4 - August 2014,

portfolioconnect.com.au image

2) Correspondence from Robert Codell, 12 August 2014, reproduced with permission

3) Correspondence from Daryl Richardson, 30th August 2014, reproduced with permission

Arguing Against Cult Status

I recently read and reviewed a book by Ufologist and Theologian Ted Peters regarding Ufology.  It's a re-working of a book named "UFOs: God's Chariots' first published in 1977. The section on ancient aliens really grabbed my attention, and I've spent some time trying to encapsulate my response to the heated argument Peters generates in his text.  Here's an excerpt from my review:

Although some of his criticism of the ancient astronaut hypothesis is well-placed (he quickly reviews von Däniken, Zecharia Sitchin, Scott Alan Roberts, Philip Coppens, R.L. Diane and the Reverand Barry Downing), his arguments take on an unexpected passion, bordering on antipathy. He is particularly scathing of Erich von Däniken, falling just short of accusing him of fraud (pp140-1). Peters focuses his arguments upon von Däniken's reappraisal of the origins of many ancient monuments. Although this is a significant segment of von Däniken's work, even without such 'evidence', his theories still merit consideration. But von Däniken falls into a general trap, Peters says, whereby myths about ultra-intelligent alien species "reveal the implicit dimension of religion built into the scientific mindset" (p174) and therefore also the mindset found generally within Ufology.

"Von Däniken assumes unquestioningly the validity of the naturalistic-scientific way of thinking, so he proceeds to hammer and chisel away at ancient scriptural testimony, to reshape it, and to make it fit the modern paradigm. His ancient alien theology naturalizes all supranatural claims. Von Däniken and his disciples are providing us with a secular theology, a non-religious theology, a theology without a belief in God." (1)

So, Peters argues that von Däniken's work is pseudo-scientific, based upon a "scientized viewpoint" which, in any event, is poorly executed and wide of the mark. Personally, I think this is over-simplifying the role of science. Our modern perspective, which von Däniken and others draw upon to reframe ancient literature, is built upon a far greater tableau of understanding than just science. Further, Peter's understanding of the ancient alien hypothesis has it that such theorists believe that God is an alien (p269), which, again, is not my understanding of their position at all. Such thinking certainly doesn't figure into my own ventures into this subject, nor my reading of many books on the subject.

Furthermore, I take issue with his portrayal of the ancient alien movement, such that it is, as some kind of pseudo-religion. In my experience, there is far too much ambivalence and inertia within said 'community' to warrant such a grand label - and a good thing too. Peters over-interprets enthusiasm for an idea with quasi-religious zealotry. Where's the evidence for that? Von Däniken's Church of Latter Day Aliens? Where are the religious rituals of initiation, of promulgation, of conformity here? There is none of that. My teenage children have a vague notion of the ideas I'm interested in, but have thankfully not been subjected to the childhood of indoctrination that they might have expected from orthodox religious parents.

So, how is any of this akin to some kind of new religious movement? It isn't - and I suspect Ted Peters knows it. But, for whatever reason, the concept of ancient astronauts really gets under Ted Peters' skin and, unfortunately, his resulting rhetoric becomes prone to exaggeration and distortion. (I wonder whether this is the area of Ufology which is most threatening to his religious sensibilities? He provides evidence later in the book that religious beliefs are not threatened by the discovery of ETI, contrary to popular assumption (pp265-7) - although perhaps a later post-ETI-disclosure generation, once fully adjusted to the new reality, might form a different perspective in time).

Written by Andy Lloyd, 7th August 2014

References:

1) Ted Peters "UFOs: Gods Chariots?: Spirituality, Ancient Aliens, and Religious Yearnings in the Age of Extraterrestrials" New Page Books, 2014, p142,

   UFOs: God's Chariots?

The complete review can be read here:

andylloyd.org/ufos_godschariots.htm

This generated some excellent  on the Dark Star Planet X forum:

groups.google.com forum

Winged Disk of the North

One of the regular contributors to the Dark Star Planet X forum, Wayne James, noted recently the similarity between the monumental artwork 'Angel of the North' near Gateshead in Northern England, and ancient Mesopotamian Winged Disk symbolism (e.g. Ahura Mazda, Shamash, Ashur) (1).  I think he might have a point, given the remarkable wingspan of the statue compared to the central angelic figure.  All that's missing are the central solar circle and the two ureus swirls. 

The 'Angel of the North' as a Mesopotamian Winged Disk

Just for a bit of fun, I've used an online Photoshop package to create such a spectacle - a Winged Disk of the North, if you like (right).  It's a bit of an amateur job, but you get the idea!  This was almost certainly not the symbolism designer Antony Gormley had in mind, according to Wikipedia (2), but I rather like the idea nonetheless.  Thanks Wayne!

References:

1)  Wayne James  20 August 2014

groups.google.com forum

2) "Angel of the North"

wikipedia.org wiki

Ancient Y-Dwarf Evolution

Astrophysicists studying a tiny sub-brown dwarf known by its WISE moniker J0304-2705 think that the object might have undergone a remarkable evolution during its extended lifetime.  The object, located between about 30 and 60 light years away, has an unusually low metallicity for a sub-brown dwarf of this size (between 20-30 Jupiter masses), leading to the suggestion that it may be as old as 10 billion years (1).