All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2015 - Project Camelot
01:37:07
PROJECT CAMELOT: ANDY LLOYD : DARKSTAR THEORY
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, I'm Carrie Cassidy from Project Camel.
And I'm here with Andy Lloyd, who is the author of Dark Star, and also a number of other books, and some of which I have read, actually, and I'm going to be asking you about that.
He's a wonderful author.
He's also a painter, as it happens, a very talented one.
And we're here in North of England.
I think you call this Northwest or whatever?
West Country.
West Country, okay.
And this is actually my second visit to interview Andy and it's been many years since my last interview, right?
It has, yeah.
So this is a pleasure.
It's sort of unique because I don't always get to revisit the Camelot whistleblower, so to speak.
But this is a great opportunity And so I want to welcome you and I also would like to basically get you to give sort of your own introduction to yourself.
Maybe a short update about what you've been doing over the years since we did the last interview, and we'll go from there.
Okay.
I've been a Planet X researcher for many, many years.
I've started a website on my ideas about the Dark Star, the Planet X Nibiru phenomenon, back in 1999.
So this is about 16 years on.
Dark Star was a book I wrote.
It was published 10 years ago, so this is the 10th year anniversary of that book.
I've enjoyed a good readership and hopefully I've been able to inform a lot of people about these ideas.
They partly stem from the writing to Zechariah Sitchin but I come to it with a scientific training.
I've got a degree in chemistry with some postgraduate work and I bring to the Planet X genre a degree of sort of Scientific rectitude to try and understand how those ideas about Planet X are physically possible and indeed the potential for being highly likely for this body and the implications for all of us.
So that's my research interest.
I also have a very great interest in our ancient history and where we're from, which again ties in with the Sitranite themes.
And the science of that and how, you know, the origins of our species.
So those are my general ideas and interests.
And of course they, you know, break down into lots of specifics as we try and sort of look at the reality underlying the Planet X concept.
Okay, now you also turned to fiction, right?
After writing this non-fiction book ten years ago, which was quite an investigation of the Dark Star.
The Dark Star, in essence, is what you would say a brown dwarf with a small, what I've heard referred to as a mini solar system, which is a number of planets going around it.
Do you agree with that concept?
I introduced the idea of the Brown Dwarf some years ago, and I realised a couple of years later that the use of the term Brown Dwarf was changing.
And Brown Dwarf now is taken to understand that the concept means a planet-stroke star, it's kind of a hybrid between the two, of between 18 and 80 Jupiter masses, so it's an absolutely enormous thing, so it's like a kind of proto-star.
And I suspect now that the size of this thing is probably more about four or five Jupiter masses, so it's what we'd call a sub-brand dwarf.
It's smaller than that, and it's in fact denser and smaller than Jupiter, but still an extremely substantial thumping great planet X. And you're absolutely right, so effectively it's a binary companion to the Sun.
It's like a little mini star that's old, dark, And contains this retinue around it of its own planets, comets, whatever it is.
I'll talk a little bit more about that later on.
Which move around the Sun in an ecliptical orbit, probably going very far out, and then returning to us occasionally, which causes all the interesting stuff.
Okay, and just to touch on the fiction now, you've written...
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think you've got a trilogy going, but you've basically written two books of the trilogy, and the third book still hasn't come out.
That's right.
And I think I've read...
The two books, and I've been one of those people waiting for the third one.
Yeah, I think I've just been not very good at writing that third one due to lots of work and family pressures and so on.
I have ideas in my head on how to complete the book.
I just haven't really been very good at writing it recently, but I still plan to.
Alright, excellent.
Good to know.
So I think everyone who reads the first two, let me just give you a plug here, would be on the edge of their seats for the third one.
I do have people write to me and say, come on, Andy, get it done.
Yeah, it's a good story.
It really is.
And I'd like to see it made into a movie.
I think it's got great potential.
So I think that should be added sort of, you know, fuel to get you going and finishing.
But to move on, so at the moment, we haven't visited you for quite some time, not even sure how many years, maybe four or five years.
And you've obviously continued your investigations, it appears, into this, well, Planet X, whatever one wants to call it, right?
So can you describe maybe how you kind of got on that road?
What you're thinking is now and if it has changed over the years.
Sure.
So, initially...
It was a fairly sort of just me writing and I came up with an idea back in the 90s and I went with it and I bolted out and tried to formulate it, which I did.
Now I'm very fortunate to have, I will say, a group of people working with me within a forum, the Dark Star Planet X forum, which is all the Google groups, and there's a number of researchers on that, some of whom are extremely good.
We work in a sort of collegiate way to support each other in our research.
We pick up bits of science that are pertinent, we examine things, we work on things.
So I guess I'm playing a lead role within that, but I do have the support of a number of colleagues now, which is a fantastic thing.
Okay.
And essentially what we do is we monitor the latest findings in science and we look at how those scientific...
Findings correlate or go against the theory as it stands.
Obviously the theory is adaptable.
And to come to your point about changing, things have changed over the years.
And the use of the word rollercoaster is a bit overused, but effectively we've had our ups and downs.
I suppose a few years ago, when something called WISE was...
Putting its findings out, which is an infrared space telescope, it didn't appear as though they were going to find the dark star, and that was a low.
But in the last couple of years it's really swung back again, and science, I think, is really trying to get its head around the fact that there is a growing body, which I'll go into in a little bit, of indirect evidence for the existence of this object, but it flies in the face of the fact that the scopes don't seem to be able to find it.
So either, somewhere along the lines, those scopes aren't doing their job properly, or there's something to do with this planet that's really rather special, or, which is my thinking at the moment, it's not something special to that one planet, but there's something about sub-browned dwarfs, which we don't understand, which explains why we know it's out there, we can detect it indirectly, but haven't been able to see it, so I'll explain that a little bit.
Okay, go right ahead.
Okay, so the evidence is very, very strong that in the outer solar system, a very substantial body exists that's changing or has changed in the past the orbits of a lot of the bodies of the solar system.
It has a perturbing effect.
And there are other issues of evidence to do with things like angular momentum within the solar system and lots of other physics-type stuff, which leads you to think there's something big missing and that it's had an effect on the outer solar system bodies.
The problem is, though, for something that big to be spotted, the big space telescopes that detect things in the infrared sphere should have found it.
And they don't appear to have.
It's a little bit of a repeat of what happened in 1983 with IRAS which is something that's discussed a lot on the internet where there was a...
A press release went out from what I suppose was NASA saying, oh, we found this very substantial planet X body, Jupiter-sized, and then everything kind of went quiet.
And a lot of people have speculated down the years that this was actually supposed to be a proper release but then just basically got grabbed back.
Now, just let me ask you, was that the Harrington information or was the Harrington information before that?
Robert Harrington has discussed that, or at least the late Robert Harrington discussed that.
I think the chap who came out with it was called Nugerberg or something like that.
And it was released in the Washington Post on 1983.
You can find it on the internet very easily.
It appeared to have been, at the time, an official release of, look, the infrared scopes picked up this warm, big object, which appears to be in the solar system, and then it all kind of went quiet.
In actual fact, there were a couple of these things that came out around about the time.
There was one that was found in Orion, and there was one that was found in Sagittarius.
The one that was found in Orion really made the big splash.
The one in Sagittarius was the one that interests me more because I think that was the one that was all about.
And there appeared to have been at the time some changes that were going on with how the data from IRAS was being collated and examined.
And there was some controversy within the scientific teams.
So the scientific teams at the time consisted of the Americans and then there was a contingent that were sort of Anglo-Dutch.
And the European contingent got a bit...
Iffy about what was happening because the Americans basically just canned it.
So, there is reason to think from these that this is a sensitive subject.
And somewhere along the line, someone pulled the plug.
You know, the big announcements made and they pulled the plug.
So, WISE came out in about 2011-12, I guess.
It was a space telescope that went up to do the same work, but maybe sort of a thousand times more powerful than IRAS was.
And the nature of infrared telescopes is that they only go up for a short period of time, because they, for whatever reason, I can go into the physics of it, but...
They can only really do their job for about six months to a year, and then they cease to function appropriately.
So this was the first time that there'd been an infrared search for about 20 years, and nothing in between at all by anybody.
So the controversy around that object that had been found hadn't really had any opportunity to re-find it.
But Wise has not come up with a similar object.
Yet, the indirect evidence had led a lot of the people who worked on that scope to think that they should find something.
And a lot of the people who were working in that investigative team were experts on brand dwarfs, or sub-brand dwarfs.
So they were actually saying, part of our remit is to try and find these failed stars close to the Sun, either within the solar system or more likely beyond the solar system, this is what they were saying.
And they did find some, but they didn't find...
The one that we were hoping that they would find.
And yet, we're still getting these anomalies that indicate that something is moving around out there.
And the latest thing that came out was about April of last year, where a team of really, really good planet hunters, who specifically are looking for objects in the outer solar system, and have got a really good track record of discovery, said, and have got a really good track record of discovery, said, look, you know, we've been examining now a series of objects, starting with Sedna, and there's maybe a dozen now of the similar things called trans-Neptunian objects, which are objects just beyond
and there's maybe a dozen now of the similar things called trans-Neptunian objects which are objects just beyond the Kuiper Belt and these objects are displaying anomalous orbital properties ...which can only really have created by something else very large out there.
So they're kind of in the process of trying to triangulate more of these objects.
And the more they find, the easier it is that it should be to find it.
And yet, here we are a year later...
...despite them saying, we think this must mean that there's a planet ten times the size of Earth...
That exists 200 astronomical units away.
Despite them saying that, still haven't been able to find it.
So really speaking, one would have imagined they should have been able to figure out where it was and just set some big scope to find it, because of course it would be a very exciting discovery for anybody, wouldn't it?
Yet nothing's come out.
So I'm starting to really get quite interested in why that is.
Right.
Because from my perspective, there's a very deep mystery going on here as to why the left hand says something's out there and the right hand says no, it's not.
Okay.
Alright, so you're becoming interested in this sort of, well, for lack of a better word, secrecy around discovering what should be there, correct?
Yes, I think there's a number of possibilities.
That's one of them.
Let me put this to you.
When astronomers find a new object, they have to verify that they've discovered it.
That process takes time.
It would be lovely for them to, as in the movies, find something Oh wow, here it is!
And then pick up the phone and the press is around.
That's not how it works in astronomy.
They write a paper, the paper is peer reviewed, it gets published, they make an announcement alongside the peer review.
And during that period of time, they keep the trap shut.
Because if they let it be known, someone else from another team is going to find the same thing.
So there is a period of time, probably about three to six months, where something is discovered and everyone who has anything to do with it says nothing at all to anyone else.
They just quietly go about writing a paper.
Provides an opportunity, if someone were keeping an eye on these things, for that to be tampered with.
Now, I'm not saying that's what's happening.
I'm just saying that that is a plausible scenario if you're trying to understand what might be going on.
Make a good book.
There's another plausible scenario, and that is that this object is kind of cloaked.
It is in some way hidden from view.
Now, it's big.
It's a dark star.
I call it a dark star for a good reason.
And that is because it's not throwing out a huge amount of light.
Because if it was, it would be very obvious to all of us.
We'd be able to see it as a naked object for the most part.
But this thing doesn't produce a lot of light.
It might be warm.
It certainly warms the planets around them and makes them habitable.
But it's not something that's immediately obvious to us.
But even so...
Even given the great distance it is, it should be reflecting some of the Sun's light back and we should be able to see the reflected light.
And that's what they look at.
And it should be warm enough against the absolute zero, practically, of the night sky for these infrared scopes to find them.
So, I've been thinking over the last few months as to whether there is something around it that prevents it from releasing that heat and light to us, and is effectively shielded that way.
And a number of people have come up with some ideas like Dyson spheres and things like that, which are interesting ideas, but I think it's a little bit more simple than that.
Because people haven't been able to find these sub-brown dwarfs, they don't know what they look like or what their properties are.
But it strikes me that this thing acts kind of like a cosmic vacuum cleaner.
And as it moves through the solar system, it's kind of drawing into itself, or collecting into itself, like Jupiter does with comets, other bodies from the outer solar system.
And it produces kind of a retinue around it.
Now that doesn't necessarily have to be just...
Moons, planets, comets, what have you.
It can be dust.
And that dust can accumulate over billions of years and become very substantial.
Now the reason we don't see dust in the solar system is because the Sun has a sort of positive force of movement away from it in the form of the solar wind.
And this blows away all the dust.
So it kind of clears away about 80 astronomical units of space around it that's constantly being swept out by the Sun's solar wind.
The sub-brown dwarf thing is a much smaller body and it's not going to have the same effect.
Although it might have a very strong magnetic field, it's not blasting stuff away from it.
And so it can, in fact, be the opposite.
It can collect the stuff as it moves around that's being moved away from the solar system.
So this is what I'm thinking.
I'm effectively starting to think that this thing, and possibly all sub-brand dwarfs that aren't close to their parent stars, may be effectively absorbing a nebula around them and be moving around in what is essentially a big cloud of dust.
And that's why they're so extremely difficult to find.
That possibility means that you're not going to be able to spot it because when astronomers are looking for what's called dark nebulae out in space, which is the birthplace of stars, a star might be right in the middle of it, just about to spring to life, yet they cannot see it because it's just black.
It's blacked out by this dust nebula.
Okay.
Well, that's very interesting.
It does seem to correlate a bit with my interview from yesterday with Cameron Faley.
And so people watching this will watch that and be able to get kind of an overview of this sort of subject from different points of view.
But in terms of the, you know, because we say it's like the brown dwarf itself and then They're planets, right?
That are going around it.
So it's a mini-solar system.
And it also, do you agree with the idea that it comes through every, well, some people have said 26,000 years, some say 36,000 years.
If I have it right.
Sitch was 3600 years.
100?
Yeah.
So his is kind of a short orbit in the great scheme of things.
Okay, maybe it's 2600, 3600.
Cruttenden talks about 26,000 because that's the procession of the equinoxes and he thinks the binary system creates kind of a tilting effect through or a spinning effect through the procession.
So that's a possibility.
And then you can run up as far as you want, Kerry.
I mean, you can go up to 26 million years.
Which is the nemesis people.
Now, they're the scientific guys who thought that this object in some way created the dinosaur extinction.
So that there is thought to be a sort of an extinction cycle of about 25 to 30 million years, whereas at that point in the cycle, the Earth is bombarded by comets while at extinction event.
That particular thought has got a lot of critics.
But, you know, the point being is that you've got 3,600, 26,000, 26 million.
Okay.
The further you go out, the bigger the orbit.
Now, to my mind, as long as we're being sensible about this, I don't really think I need to pitch a number in because, really speaking, there is a spectrum of potential here.
I personally think it's probably near the 26,000 now just because...
Like I was saying, if it was 3,600 and we're talking about sub-brand dwarf, it should be really pretty easy to spot, even with the things I'm talking about.
But maybe not.
Maybe not.
So, the spectrum is wide open.
Okay, but we have...
I mean, I think it was Paul LaViolette talks about the ice core samples that they find, which indicates something comes through...
Every certain number of years, and I'm not sure what that exact number is, but there are events, and some are more major than others, and some are more minor.
And you don't actually have to have the Dark Star plunging through the solar system for it to have some kind of effects.
It can have resonant orbits with other cometary bodies.
There can be comet swarms.
It has points in its orbit which are called Lagrangian points, which are very stable positions within its orbital path where other objects, which would be called Trojans, move around as well.
So, for instance, you could imagine that the dark stars on one end of the orbit, the Trojan objects on the other end of the orbit, and as they swing around, we get an impact Okay.
So, you know, there are a number of mechanisms which could explain cyclical events that doesn't necessarily mean you have to pin it down to the arrival of a large object.
Okay, now what about the heating up of the planets?
Have you noticed or have you been tracking, even since you first started writing the Dark Star book, indications, for example, on the sun?
Possibilities of what we call, you know, pole shifts?
And are you looking at that angle?
I keep an eye on it.
I think it's fair to say that the Sun remains very much a mystery to scientists, even ones who are like that speciality.
The Sun is an immensely complicated, complex body, and its magnetic fields are really, really complicated, and their cycles are really, really complicated.
And just when science thinks it understands it, the Sun does something completely weird to throw them.
So...
I think it's highly likely that the two bodies, the Sun and the Dark Star, have some kind of cyclical arrangement between the two that makes magnetic field strength fluctuate.
And that is going to be a complex arrangement.
It isn't just going to be the one turns up and the other one flares up.
I'm sure that would be a very major effect.
I'm sure that's likely.
But over a course of time with these two things whizzing around a sort of common centre of gravity, I think that it's very likely that the Sun is going to have some kind of thing.
It's so complicated to try and understand the machinations of the Sun's internal magnetic field that I think to try and point to any singular event and say, well, I think that's probably due to the dark star would be, well, taking a bit of a shot in the dark, really.
It's a hard thing to say.
Yes, I think it is likely that the...
The solar system as a whole fluctuates in terms of its energy and so on.
There's external dynamics which we're only beginning to understand.
And people have said, you know, the planets have shown signs of warming or cooling or what have you.
And again, you know, If you don't understand or appreciate that there's a massive piece of the jigsaw missing in the form of this planet, then it's difficult to be able to give a reasonable explanation for some of these things.
So yeah, I think that's quite possible and I keep an eye on it.
There's no smoking gun from what I've seen, but there are plenty of other smoking guns in terms of the anomalies of solar system orbits and angular momentum.
Well, can you talk about some of those anomalies then that you've been tracking?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Someone's just produced a very, very good paper about angular momentum, for instance.
And I've been aware about this for a long time.
I think it was something that Walter Cruttenden wrote around about ten years ago as well.
And it's been another little scientific mystery that scientists don't really want to get too much of a grab on.
The angular momentum, which is the mass and movement of the solar system combined, it's missing 99% of what should be there.
Now, that is a pretty staggering statistic, and from anybody's point of view, you'd look at that and think, well, something's not right here.
But when you look at the angular momentum of the Sun and the known planets, there's a whole chunk missing from what should be there now, from how the solar system was thought to have evolved.
Okay, but can I ask you, do you agree with the idea of, and I don't know exactly because I'm not a physicist or astronomer or whatever, but I've been told that there's a heliocentric view of the solar system and that it's different than the standard one, if I understand it correctly.
That one has a theory in which the Sun in a certain sense Leads the other planets sort of on a trail and that the other planets kind of trail the sun.
Yeah.
That they don't actually, if I understand completely, circulate around it so much as follow it.
Well, the Sun moves through the galaxy like a carousel horse.
So as it goes around, it's bobbing up and down.
And the whole retinue of planets moves with the Sun through that while circulating around.
And not only that, but all the stars around us are also going through this kind of complex cycle of movement.
Some moving closer towards us, most of them moving away.
They're all moving through a very complex thing.
And trying to understand where everything is and how it's moving.
If you watch the star map over the course of millennia, the stars change positions in the sky and the constellations change ever so gradually as a result of these relative movements moving stars away.
So yes, the...
But the solar system...
I see what you're saying.
The solar system is part of a whole, it's part of the galaxy, but it also...
It's a kind of crucible into its own right, whereas it's an enclosed system, energetically.
So unless there is another body that is affecting it or being affected by it or interacting with it, you can consider it as a closed system.
And that closed system...
Is missing a massive amount of its angular momentum.
That's very interesting.
So there's a gentleman who doesn't want to be identified.
I know who he is, but he doesn't want to be identified.
He wrote a very, very interesting paper recently setting this out mathematically and agreeing with the opinion that there's a missing massive planet that's causing this.
Okay, very interesting.
But it's very controversial.
I mean, there is a...
I don't know if you're tracking this, but I've heard lately that astronomers are dying sort of unpredictably.
You're going to make me nervous now.
What?
You're going to make me nervous now.
Oh, okay.
Well, I don't mean to.
I mean, I can say, you know, it is something that's coming out in the news now.
Now...
I can say that there is some documentation of this, and people are tracking it.
They do track it.
There's a concentration of bankers.
The odds are very high that you get somebody in the same profession.
We had microbiologists, for example.
Twenty-five Marconi scientists all died.
I mean, the odds of that, there's something going on.
That much you can put together in your head.
And lately, somebody said, astronomers are starting to, you know, disappear or die in mysterious ways.
Now, I personally haven't tracked that, so I don't know how much, you know, leverage that has.
But at the moment, what I would say is, you're telling me you've got a person who's written a very interesting paper, right, on angular momentum, who's stating that...
Was the figure 90% of whatever's supposed to be there?
99%?
I mean, that's astronomical.
Well, I also sent this paper to an astrophysicist I know.
Again, can't use names because these guys don't like to be in the spotlight.
And said, what do you think?
Where is it?
Is there something to this?
And he's written back to me, and I trust his judgment.
I've known him a long time.
And he's like, well, it could be this, it could be that, but not really very convincing counter-arguments.
That, he hasn't actually come back and said, this is rubbish.
Okay.
And I think the reason is because I think it's a well-established, well-established and documented realisation, but one that's kind of just, let's just move that to one side for now, because it's not easy to explain, and in order to explain it, you have to bring in another body, because, you know, as I was saying, the solar system's closed...
Right.
It's energies of a closed system.
What goes on within it goes on within it and if you change one thing you'll change the parameters of other things within the system but it's effectively unless you bring something from without into the system to change it It's very, very difficult to mess about with the maths too much.
So I think this is an authentic, genuine mystery, but as with the one which I was explaining earlier with the orbital characteristics of the outer Neptunian objects, the trans-Neptunian objects, There isn't an easy answer.
And so astronomers kind of just shelve it.
So another mystery that I'm finding very interesting at the moment, which takes me to Mr Sitchin...
is water on Earth.
Now, this is something that we've been working on for some time, and we've been getting very interesting things that have come through from some of the more exciting probes that have gone to the comets and to the asteroids.
Now, I'll just give a little bit of detail here, Kerry, because water is made of a different number of components.
Everyone knows hydrogen oxide H2O. But the hydrogen aspect of that has different isotopes.
So you will have what's called just hydrogen, which has got one protein, and then you'll have deuterium, which is heavier, but it's still hydrogen.
Now, if you look at a body of water and you break down that water into its component, hydrogen oxide and deuterium oxide, you get what's called an isotope ratio.
And that isotope ratio can vary.
The more heavy water you throw into water, the more that changes.
So, Earth has Its oceans has a certain isotope ratio and other bodies in the solar system also have their own isotope ratios and it can tell us a lot about the origin of those worlds as compared to our world.
What's turned out is that the isotope ratio of water on this planet is very similar, not to the comets which were thought to have bombarded our planet with water, but to the asteroids in the outer part of the asteroid belt.
Now, the asteroid belt is about four astronomical units away.
We're one astronomical unit.
The asteroid belt is a circular belt.
Our orbit, more or less, is a circular orbit.
Earth and those asteroids don't come anywhere near each other.
So how is it that the Earth's isotopic ratio has more in keeping with those asteroids than the comets who can visit Earth and dump water here?
So this is very interesting.
So the obvious explanation, which no one is putting across at all, is that those asteroid bodies and the Earth started life in the same place.
And something or other walloped something and moved it so that the two were separated.
And from my point of view...
As somebody who's been interested in sitranite ideas for a long time, it seems the most plausible and simplest explanation for this fact that's emerging is that the Earth was walloped and migrated into the inner solar system, having started life in the asteroids, and that the asteroids that remain with the same isotopic ratio were also part of that collision.
Okay, and that's very interesting, but it does, in a sense, inadvertently or...
Whatever, posit the possibility of something that did impact them all.
Because there's nothing that we know of in the solar system that could have had that effect.
Astronomers talk a lot about migrating planets now.
Now, we always, if you learn basic astronomy at school, we think, well, these are the planets that have always been in the same place.
They all started life.
Okay, it might have been a bit chaotic at the beginning, but everything settled down.
But for the Earth to have shifted into a much closer orbit, something event must have taken place.
Now we know the Earth was walloped at some point because the Moon was formed from the Earth.
So there's some sort of previous there.
Well, that's actually a jump, though, isn't it?
That the Moon was formed from the Earth?
This is the thinking, because the rocks and the Moon are very similar to the rocks and the Earth, and so on and so forth.
If you study the geology of it, and again, these isotope ratios of the water, Earth-water and Moon-water are very similar, and again, they correlate to the asteroid belt.
So they all tie in together.
Okay, now what about the idea that, I don't know where I got this, but I thought that the Earth might have been part of Saturn at one time.
Have you ever heard that?
I haven't come across Earth being part of Saturn.
I have heard that Venus may have been part of Jupiter.
That was an idea that came out from Immanuel Velikovsky, who posited the concept that Venus is a very, very young planet.
And it was created from something that happened during the ancient history of humans, an event that was seen that birthed Venus, built upon his analysis of myth.
Okay, but you don't...
In other words, you don't know...
Well, let me say this.
So there is this asteroid belt.
What of the larger outer planets, which ones are closest to that asteroid belt?
The asteroid belt is the one...
There's two asteroid belts.
The one that we all know and love is the one between Mars and Jupiter.
So the outer point is going to be getting closer towards Jupiter.
So...
You know, what I'm saying is the Earth appears to have started off, given that data, from sort of the back end of the asteroid belt, which is closer to Jupiter than it is to where we are now, which is a very substantial away from where we are.
And that's evidence.
You know, that's something that's...
You know, the scientific thinking up until very, very recently was that the Earth should be dry.
Because I was talking about solar wind.
The solar wind blows off volatiles, and in the heat of the early solar system, when things haven't really condensed very well, water, along with atmospheric conditions and so on, should have been sort of flung away from the Earth, creating just a dry rock.
So one of the mysteries of the solar system is why the Earth has got oceans.
So the answer to that, which has been extant for many, many years, is that...
Comets visit the Earth, crash into the Earth, and they're big snowy ice balls, and they deposit all their water, and over a period of time, hence the oceans.
Now that's going by the wayside rapidly, because the comets haven't got this isotopic ratio, and it's clear that they're not related to the Earth in the way that was considered.
Not only that, but I don't know if you saw the photographs of comets that were coming back from, you know, when they get inside the halo and actually have a look.
Instead of being these kind of big snowballs...
They're just great lumps of rock.
Yes.
And they look just like asteroids.
Now, if you pick up a book on astronomy from like 10, 20 years ago, they will have depicted the surface of an asteroid as like the Antarctic.
It's just a great big ice sheet.
It's not the case at all.
They're dry bodies.
And okay, they outgas.
There's stuff inside that warms up and produces these halos.
But they certainly don't appear to have the amount of water that would have created the oceans of the Earth.
So again, why isn't the Earth a dry rock?
Okay, but there's also the thing that has to do with the water on Mars, and how it disappeared.
And I don't know whether or not you've looked into the isotope ratio, as you call it, on Mars, and whether it resembles anything to the Earth, or if it's completely different.
Because that would also be interesting.
And my understanding is that there was some impact On Mars, that caused all the water to...
It's not all gone, but some of the surface water to leave.
The Martian thing is really interesting because, officially, the consensus opinion is that Mars is a dry planet.
Just a dust thing.
But, but, but, but, but, as you're indicating, there are signs on the surface of running water.
And the more they've been able to explore the surface, the more they've come to realise that water seems to have flowed on the ice.
And of course there's ice on the poles and so on, carbon dioxide ice and water ice.
But they haven't been able to get stuck into that stuff.
I personally think that there are oceans on Mars, and they're just under the surface.
And underneath the regolith of the Martian surface are massive frozen oceans.
And if you drill down into them, there's more water than...
What's happened is Mars has just basically frozen over.
It's lost its atmosphere.
It's frozen over.
And it's just become sort of a big...
Well, sort of like a billiard ball underneath the ice of these oceans.
So I think there's massive scope there...
Yes.
For life underneath the oceans and so on.
And they've recently discovered pockets of methane and so on that's coming out of Mars.
Sure.
Which again is a very, very strong indication of life.
Now I think if you were to talk to...
Someone within, say, NASA, and catch them off guard and just have a little quiet conversation, I think they would say, yeah, you know, it's pretty likely that there is life on Mars.
But officially, they just don't.
They always have to appear very, very sceptical.
But the evidence is really, really getting stronger.
Well, I mean, this is in the mainstream, obviously, where they talk about life on Mars.
What they really mean is like some microscopic something, I assume.
But, I mean, well...
Because of what I do, Project Hamlet, obviously we have lots of testimony of having bases on Mars, that we have bases on Mars and so on.
And that there is a lot going on on Mars and that there are different forms of life.
And in fact that, well, you're the one who writes the fiction books, but that Mars was one of the planets that the Anunnaki sort of settled on.
Along with Earth.
That, you know, they split.
That's the story, as you know.
But there's also the scientific side, which I thought I'd been hearing about, which is that scientists are finding more and more signs of water on Mars.
So I think this is making the rounds.
Now, the question I have for you again is whether or not This isotopic ratio, have you ever compared Mars and the Earth?
I think it's an interesting question.
I don't know the answer.
Because I don't know how much water they've been able to analyse on ice, because as far as I know it's just all trapped within the polar ice.
They haven't been able to find ice on the surface of the areas where they've dropped into, because like...
The probes that have gone onto the surface have gone into interesting areas like craters and so on where they can go and probe around.
What they haven't done, as far as I know, is dropped them onto the ice caps where the water is and then done those experiments.
But I need to look into that.
It's a good question.
So that's the party line, obviously, about Mars.
It prevents...
I mean, we've got a lot of cover-up going on.
Anyone who starts down these roads and starts investigating...
You know, what NASA is releasing, what other evidence there is, and you know, the two don't, they never match.
You've given us three quite strong sort of points of investigation for the evidence of The presence of the brown dwarf or, you know, this mini solar system as some people call it.
I can give you a few more.
Yes, happy to hear some more.
There are probes that got sent out into the outer solar system, Voyager and Pioneer, very, very early on, back in the 70s.
And...
The Pioneer ones, I think, it was the Voyager ones, I don't know one of them.
Let's go with Voyager.
They deviated from their paths once they started getting out into the outer realms of the solar system and slowed down.
So instead of going along on a trajectory which would have taken them away from the Sun, you know, on a mathematically reasonable way, they appear to be getting pulled back.
And there has been some speculation that at some point they're just going to end up slipping back again.
So what's caused that?
They don't know.
There was a lot of investigations that went on for many, many years as to whether there was some kind of technical issue with these probes.
The probes haven't got a lot of electrical stuff going on inside them, so they don't send a lot of data back.
But the very small amounts they do, from that they can gauge exactly where they are, triangulate them and so on.
So their anomalous behaviour, it's not just the natural bodies in the outer solar system.
We send out artificial bodies into the solar system and they start behaving weirdly.
You see where I'm coming from?
Yeah.
So, that correlates well with these outer Kuiper Belt objects.
So, what else can I tell you about?
The heliopause is a limit of the solar system's magnetic field.
So I was telling you before about the solar wind thing.
The solar wind thing is so important.
It's an amazingly important thing.
It kind of reaches a natural balance with the magnetic field of the rest of the galaxy.
It's almost like the solar system's shield.
It's like a spherical, should be a spherical body around the Sun, around about 80 astronomical units, which these probes, by the way, have gone through, or in the process of going through.
And it's where the two magnetic fields meet.
Okay.
Now, that heliopause...
Has been studied and it doesn't behave as it should theoretically.
Instead of being a nice circular thing, it's distorted.
And that distortion, again, is an anomaly, exactly the same place we're talking about these other anomalies appearing.
And NASA put this down to something called interstellar fluff, which is not a very scientific term.
Again, sort of indicating their lack of understanding, really, of what's going on.
That's just a kind of, oh, we'll just shelve this again.
So something is interacting with that area in a very localised way that is creating a distortion with the heliosphere, the heliopause, which, again, is something we're finding out about.
Now, the question I think, and, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, would be, has this distortion, I mean, I don't know, you know, we know, obviously we're not going back too far in history for the study of this, but is it possible this distortion hasn't always been there?
I suspect the distortion is the thing that we were talking about earlier on with the two bodies, whose magnetic fields cause changes in each other.
And those two magnetic fields interact.
And what's going on at the heliopause is another scientific sort of bit of evidence for...
An interaction between the two magnetic fields.
Okay, but again, it may be changing over time.
Yes, because this body that we're talking about has got an extremely bizarre orbit.
It has a highly elliptical orbit, and at a point where it comes in close, it's going to have a much stronger effect on that localised field, and when it goes away, it's going to have a weaker effect on the field.
So, but the field necessarily, no matter how far apart they get, as long as it's within the sun's area of influence, which extends out to about a light year, it's huge.
As long as it remains within that period, it's going to have an effect because the system is enclosed and all the bodies within the system take part in the physics of what goes on within the system.
So once you bring the dark star in, it doesn't matter if you fling it out to a long distance, it's going to continue to have an effect on the overall system.
Now what about, you know, I have a witness called Mark Richards, Captain Mark Richards.
I don't know if you've seen the interviews, you know, interview recalls that I've been doing.
He's in prison and I interview him in person and then I have to do total recall of everything that we've talked about and put it into an interview kind of style.
But he has been talking, and also Paula Violet has been talking, about a body, or more than one body even, possibly, that may be going across the galactic center, or perturbing...
Or even could be going in sort of a circular way into the galactic center on some level.
That could be creating...
Well, the potential, according to Paul LaViolette, was a very strong potential for stimulating what he calls a superwave that is kind of an eruption coming from the galactic center of electromagnetic energy.
Now, he was positing, even recently to me, and I think on his forums...
That there's a G2 cloud with a planetary body in it that's quite large, and maybe more than one.
And I don't know whether you've seen that or heard that, and he's been talking about that.
I don't know if that relates to what you're saying.
I think it all relates.
Any external activity that has an impression upon our solar system, of course this is massively important, And this stuff we were talking about, about the dust and the fluff and so on, if you have a NOVA event, stuff gets flung out when stars explode and then collapse.
And that has got to go somewhere.
And the impact can be massive on our solar system.
An event that's quite close by us can be potentially an extinction-level event.
The Sun protects us to some degree, but these dust clouds that can blow in and blow out as a result of events outside the solar system, we don't really understand it because we've not sat through and lived through one of those events yet.
But it may well be that in the Earth's history, these kind of extinction events are related to some sort of massive cosmic event and the things that they're talking about, if they're on the kind of scale they're talking about, that's serious stuff.
I couldn't tell you how that relates to a dark star, because like I said, the dark star's within the confines of the solar system, but it would be affected in the same way the Sun would be, and in many ways it would be less protected by it.
Okay, but the idea of this G2 cloud would be outside the solar system, is that the understanding?
Well, that's my understanding from what you're saying, in terms of if it's moving through towards a galactic core, I mean, that's an immense distance away.
Now, one would expect...
Well, I mean, you start talking in terms of, you know, thousands of light years and so on, so any event that occurs...
It takes absolutely ages for it to sort of impact upon us.
Whenever we're looking out into the light sky, we're looking back in time.
And the further away you go, the further back in time you're looking.
So when we look at the galactic core in Sagittarius, and we look, you know, we're seeing events that are happening thousands of years ago.
But that doesn't mean they're not happening.
Or haven't happened already.
Or that their impact isn't on its way towards us.
Right.
Yeah, fascinating.
So...
Okay, I'm going to sort of make a transition here, and then we can maybe circle back if things occur to you, so don't feel that you're kind of having to follow where I'm taking you, because I'm happy to have you take me in other directions.
But I am interested in how, you know, there is this side that has to do with artificial intelligence, and I don't know whether you've ever investigated this or thought about it, What had occurred to me was, and maybe it sounds quite crazy, but when I hear of an electromagnetic cloud formation, I think of an artificial intelligence.
That it could actually be, in theory even, an artificially intelligent being.
Needless to say, enormous.
But that could also be...
You know, I wonder whether some of these events and some of these things that we're talking about could be affected by an artificial intelligence and how our solar system can be affected by artificially intelligent objects, so to speak.
Do you ever go down that road?
Have you thought along those lines?
And as a corollary to that, there are these...
They were described as these big block, square black objects that were parked behind the moon at a certain point, that were said to be possibly artificially intelligent craft from artificially intelligent beings that have come into our solar system and basically parked on the other side of the moon, such that we never hear anything more about it, but they were reported at a certain point.
I think...
I don't know if you've come across the work of James Lovelock, Gayer Hypothesis?
I don't...
I know...
I've heard the name, but I don't know the...
So, I mean, there's a gentleman still alive, bless him, quite a relatively...
Well, quite a famous scientist who put forward the idea that the Earth is, as a biosphere, effectively a being.
And...
I think the thing about the magnetic...
It's a very simple thing, I suppose.
We record information magnetically, or at least we used to do on tapes and so on.
And...
It seems to me that fluctuations in magnetic fields could be records of things that have occurred, and you could use that into all kinds of wonderful things in the paranormal sphere.
You could look at ghosts and you could look at all kinds of things.
Akashic records.
You could go into that whole realm and see that as being some kind of electromagnetic effect which is permanent, which is in some way held within the Earth, that we can...
In, through some sort of interaction that we use in our brains, in our own personal magnetic fields, somehow interact with that and draw from.
So if you take those ideas and find some kind of reality with them, and I don't know how you'd prove them, but they're very interesting ideas, then clearly you can project those into other worlds.
And you can project them to the Sun.
And you could even argue, I suppose, The old concept of the gods in terms of the stellar bodies or the stars or the planets or whatever has some kind of Meaning behind it in terms of intelligence, that the planets have some kind of intelligence.
Again, you can't prove it because they would be speaking to us in a way that we wouldn't necessarily be able to grasp directly.
I don't know how you'd measure information coming from a planet on some kind of electromagnetic frequency.
Okay, but that isn't quite the same thing as an artificial intelligence.
Cloud.
Being or cloud.
In other words, now, maybe this gets too esoteric and we don't really have to go too far down this road, but ultimately, you know, people relate to Earth and Gaia and, in fact, Mark Richards, again, this person who is a captain in the secret space program, talks about the fact that the ETs relate to planets as if they are beings and they are conscious beings.
And that they have, for example, they wanted, they insisted for in one circumstance that he was a part of, that one of the planets be present at this meeting, in essence.
And that those are conscious beings, but they're not artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligence is another kind of beingness, right?
That's separate from organic consciousness, I think you might say.
That gets very esoteric.
All I'm doing is kind of throwing this out as something to be considered because the G2 cloud specifically, when it was described to me, sounded...
The planet itself might be a consciousness and a conscious being, but it might be caught in In a sense, an artificial, a web of artificial intelligence.
Okay.
And we have, we can think of our internet as being here on Earth.
And if it gets, actually it's probably already happened, but it's basically becoming an artificially intelligent or intelligence.
Yeah.
It's a network of intelligences, artificial intelligences, but it isn't organic, you know.
Yeah.
For what it's worth.
But at what point do you say the internet's thinking for itself?
The internet comes alive with its own thoughts.
Well, we don't know...
I mean, this gets into where artificial intelligence...
I just was curious whether you, as...
You know, because you have an interesting scientific background, but you also have a very...
Well, you write fiction, so you have a great imagination, which I think, if you have a great imagination, it's a sign of great intelligence, for what it's worth.
Right.
And it's not given enough, you know, humans aren't given enough credit in that area, I don't think.
But at any rate, what I'm trying to say here is that I just was curious whether you had gone down any of those roads in your own sort of queries.
Philosophically, perhaps.
Yeah.
In the sense that...
Whenever you're trying to stretch the window of technology and scientific understanding, these thoughts are very important.
And as you were saying about the internet, it does interest me at what point that becomes an entity.
The internet you could look at as being something that has its own mind.
And I know that people who are working in the AI field are really, really quickly moving towards...
I think there's some point maybe in the next 10, 20 years that it's projected that...
You know, artificial intelligence is going to be a complete reality.
They're going to create something that has its own mind.
And I guess we need to legislate, we need to work out ways to prevent that artificial intelligence becoming hostile to humans, which goes to Isaac Asimov and the whole laws of robotics and so on.
So from a philosophical level that's very important and on a practical level that's something we're moving towards.
I'm intrigued by what you're saying about artificial intelligence within some kind of cloud as effectively beings because the word artificial implies creation, that somebody's made them.
It would be a very sensible way of exploring the universe, for instance, wouldn't it?
If you created something that's ephemeral, that is...
It's highly mobile, can pick up a ride on a comet and go spinning off to another galaxy and then report back through whichever wavelength it is or frequency or however it is that it does that.
That would be an extremely good way of spying on things and looking at things and observing things.
Well, again, Mark Richards goes into that, which is why in part I was bringing it up, but I'm not sure how it dovetails with this discussion.
I don't want to get too far off the track here, but I wanted to just bring it up.
But in essence, in terms of the dark star and what's coming, are you, I don't know, are you and your team at this point thinking that this planet is moving closer into the solar system such that its effect is greater now than, say, last time we talked, five years ago, whatever.
I just did interview Cameron Faley, as I was telling you, who is positing that there's possibly...
He has aggregated enough information where he thinks there are going to be happenings in the next year.
In fact, he believes he's pinpointing really specific months.
He's saying December of 2015 that this planet or group of objects is going to be visible in our night sky.
Near the sun, he says, you know, and it will look like a second star, so to speak, I guess.
And then that it will actually, you know, it's not going to hit us, but it's going to be having an impact on Earth such that as it moves, I think he said, between the Earth and the sun and crosses our path,
It's going to happen in, he's saying, June of 2016 into August of 2016 and then lasting about a year in which he was saying was going to throw off because he said that specifically Planet X or Nibiru has this iron oxide dust that it's surrounded by.
Now, that's kind of a timeline that he's thrown out.
In your case, are you and your team looking at effects based on these anomalies that you've been tracking, so to speak, that indicate something soon, some event, some interaction, or whatever?
Opinion is divided.
Some people are strongly of the opinion that Planet X is here and that it's moving through the solar system.
And then there are sceptical voices that say there's insufficient evidence to agree with that and it's more likely to be way, way, way out there.
I'm the second camp, but I listened to the first camp.
The evidence that I've seen that people have put forward...
It's generally in the form of photographs taken of the sun, which shows secondary bodies close to it.
And it's usually taken of photographs of the sun close to dusk and so on.
but you know a lot of this a lot I'm not saying they all are but a lot of them look like simple lens flares or sun dogs or what have you you know there are anomalies that occur within photography when you point a camera a very bright object that can be represented as something that's there when it's actually just an artifact of the lens and in the camera and so on.
- Sure. - So I'm kind of on the skeptical side.
That and also the fact that, you know, Kerry, we've kind of heard a lot of this before in terms of the last 15 years. - That's right, yeah, absolutely. - And people coming out, "Oh, next year's gonna be the year," and so on.
And after a while, if you're not new to it, you think, well, I've heard this a few times now, and I need something a bit stronger for me to get really sort of interested in.
And I've been listening to, reading a guy who's come up with similar sort of ideas, who talks about a black star coming through the solar system.
And again, they're talking about some kind of shroud thing, they're talking about some kind of cloaking device or something.
And...
They, like me, are thinking, well, there's all this evidence for this thing, and if it's in some way naturally cloaked from us or artificially cloaked from us, either through intelligent means or just physics of the thing, then I guess I'm opening myself up to people saying, well, Andy, if you're saying you can't see this thing because it's in a nebula, then who's to say it's not here?
Who's to say it's not flying past Saturn as we speak?
You're not going to see it either way.
And, you know, part of me thinks, hmm, you know, it's opened up, for my mind, potential for a more exciting possibility.
The only thing I would say, though, is, you know, I was talking about the sun blasting everything away from it.
Yes.
If the shield is a big cloud of dust, and it's existing around a dark star, and it's moving through what is effectively interstellar space around our solar system, collecting this dust,
collecting these things, sweeping it out, being a cosmic vacuum cleaner, as soon as it comes into the inner solar system, In the same way that comets have all of their gases internally blasted out and produce these beautiful comet tree effects, that same thing's going to happen with the Dark Star.
Its retinue of dust should be blasted away from it, which means it should become visible.
Right.
Because, you know, effectively the shield dissipates.
So if it is here now, then you would have one hell of a view of this thing as it, you know, it would come in as a dark object, like in a cloak, an invisibility cloak, and then as it approaches, that cloak's going to be swept away from it, and it's going to be sort of appearing, it's all this magnificence.
Now, you could argue that that is exactly what Sitchin writes about.
A Nibiru.
It just appears.
It flows bright.
It has these dragon-like winds coming away from it, which is the stuff being flung back from the sun, or the dust being thrown back.
And the wind disc, effectively.
Yes.
So, I'm not seeing that happening now, and I'm not seeing people showing photographs of that happening.
But if an object enters in the solar system, that is what I would predict it to look like.
Okay.
Okay?
Right.
So, at the moment, there's all this interesting stuff, and you're still tracking it, obviously.
Yeah, I mean, I keep an eye on all this stuff, and I listen to everyone's point of view, and I just try and validate it as a reasonable...
I'm not saying someone has to prove something.
It's plausibility, whether it's plausible, and then if it's plausible, it's a possibility, and it's something you can say, well, that might be happening, because we know something's there, we just don't know where it is, and we don't know why we can't find it.
Okay.
Now, you live really close to GCHQ, right?
Right.
Okay.
So, I've asked you this before, but I'll ask you again anyway, just because it's, you know, a fun question.
You know, I don't know if you've come across anybody or anyone has contacted you from there because of your proximity to there, because of the investigations you've done.
I have a whistleblower who does say that there is something and that it has been moving in and that there are actually more than one body coming in and out and so on and so forth.
He's always very vague and so we don't get very clear information.
But recently, having been approached by this other very intelligent man who's done a great deal of study and Clearly coming out under his own name, his family name, etc.
So he's not going to be shy about even having a dialogue with you, for example, and kind of comparing and contrasting information.
We do know there's evidence that they have been preparing for something, well, especially in the United States, and you could even say worldwide.
There is a sort of, one could even say, a collision of events happening even now with regard to the financial system, for example.
That may indicate something going on.
And this particular man has given me a slide that has, or several slides, which will be available to the public, in which, you know, he's saying the signs of this.
And he's also tracking the Bible and he's tracking the Quran.
I mean, given that one has sort of a theory and then starts to make things try to conform to that theory, there's a tendency to want to make things fit that aren't necessarily going to be logically I don't necessarily follow, okay?
But just given the playing field that I've just described, and the fact that you're near GCHQ, has anyone ever come to you and tried to, behind the scenes, and I don't even know if you told me if they had, but, you know, said a word one way or the other?
Kerry, I had the great privilege a few years ago of being able to go on a tour around GCHQ, which was fascinating and entirely above board.
And I know people who work there, and I really can't say anything more than that in terms of anything that I know about people who work there, because...
Friends, family, what have you, they work within a security environment that is extremely tight.
And although I'm not aware of anything that they do, because they are extremely good at not talking about it.
I mean, anyone who lives in Gloucestershire knows people who work at GTHQ. There's thousands of people there, and we all know people who work.
But they are really very, very good at not talking about stuff, which is great for them and for the security of our nations.
From what I've seen of the work they do there, I think it's an amazing organisation.
I am not part of the intelligence community.
I am not working for the intelligence community.
I can absolutely guarantee that anything I'm saying is completely independent of anything I may have had contact with people, but I know people who do work for it.
Does that make sense to you?
Sure, absolutely.
Well, there's also, one could say that their concern is, you know, is nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Now, there are some other organizations, such as Men With Hill.
That may be more targeting, you know, outer space, etc.
My understanding of GCHQ, right or wrong, is surveillance.
They survey anything and everything.
And I guess, you know, in the last few years, we've all become acutely aware of just how much they survey everything.
Now, I think people like you and me who kind of keep an eye on these things just out of sort of interest.
I've been aware about this activity for donkey's years.
Yes.
And it's no surprise to hear that, you know, the blanket sort of metadata analysis and so on that we've been aware of as a result of whistleblowing.
Other people may be more surprised by that, I'm not sure.
But these things go on, it's why there's spies.
Exactly.
Well, but it is interesting to sort of look at your body of work and wonder whether or not, you know, would somebody be motivated to come and contact you on some level?
And certainly you must see the possibility, right?
Email's a wonderful thing.
One of the things that's not so great about email is you don't know who it is you're talking with.
So anybody who writes to me with ideas sends me a link to, which is quite frequently, sends me a link to this, link to that, link to the other.
I don't know their provenance.
I get to know people in the same way everyone else does on email.
If you interact with someone long enough, you get to know them.
You can tell people's character through the way they write, the way they come across, the way they react to things.
You can make a judgement on people over a period of time.
But I don't know whether the people who are sending me this stuff have got disinformation in mind or whether they're working for a community of intelligence or whatever.
You have to simply use your own personal judgment as to whether you feel what they're saying fits with the paradigm that we're working within or whether it's somebody who might be throwing a spanner in the works.
Well, has any good ideas come to you in this way?
Always.
Because people send stuff and I read it and I look at it and I think about it.
Like I was saying, what I really love about what this research has become is it's a collegiate effort.
But a lot of the people that I work with I've never met.
Yes.
So they're not people I grew up with or people that have sent me references about themselves.
You take all these things on trust.
Okay, what about the scientific community then?
Let's go to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Much more defensive.
They're defensive, but has anybody from that community ever contacted you and said...
Yes, but they tend to be the younger ones.
They tend to be the ones who are starting out, who are Involved in ideas and the formulation of ideas.
And young people with young minds are just amazing because they get information thrown in and they've intellectually been primed to take all this stuff in and really run with it.
And they do.
And they throw out ideas and then they're excited by the new possibilities.
When they've spent about 15, 20 years in science, somehow or other that will get banged out of them.
And instead of having this very sort of...
with this and produce new ideas they become conservative in their ideas and they look at what has come before as being almost set in stone and that the movement within science has to necessarily be slow so that you don't shift a paradigm you don't suddenly overturn the apple cart you just chip it away at it bit by bit and they become sort of servants of that process yes
so the young people are always more exciting because they're willing to make that leap and stretch their ideas and not necessarily throw their weight behind them but but at least work with it a little bit So I know a few very young astronomers, but, you know, as they get further into it, they tend to become more distant because they realise...
That if they start to be associated with people like me, who are a little bit offbeat and will consider lots of wonderfully strange ideas, which is often where progress comes from, that if they're associated with that, then they're looked down upon by their colleagues.
Sure, so they'll stay away at that point.
But again, that's not to say that I don't have people who send me stuff.
And I know from the tone of many of the emails that these people are well-read, probably quite scientifically advanced in their thinking.
They spot something, they'll send it off.
I get stuff from the media as well.
People will send stuff within the media who don't...
Project these ideas into their workplace, but through their work have come across them and get interested and go with them.
So, I mean, that's the wonderful thing about the internet.
Sure, absolutely.
But in the old days with Mr.
Sitchin, perhaps pre-internet and all the other research in those days, it was all done by snail mail.
And they'd get a letter and it would have a typeface and an address and provenance you could look at and say, well, that was postmarked in such and such a town.
You know who these people are to some extent.
We don't have that now.
We just have to kind of work with it.
So, you are still investigating those.
So, you know, you haven't kind of thrown in the towel and said, oh, forget this.
A couple of years ago, when WISE produced its findings which were largely negative and not completely negative, because there were a few things of interest that, you know, a number of astronomers caught on to, I did feel a little bit like, hmm, I might have got this wrong.
You know, and I went through a little bit of a, you know, soul-searching thing where I've put a lot of work into this, but at the end of the day, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Mhm.
And, you know, it took me a little while to pick up from that, and in the last year or so, I really have, just because this stuff's coming out, and it's like, oh my god.
And I can, I write on my blog, I keep a monthly blog, and I put these little articles out, and I say, look, you know, the simplest way of looking at this is to consider these ideas, and when you throw these ideas, it all makes sense.
And I don't know how many people are listening to that, but, you know, I've got a little bit of, you know, steam backing me to run with it.
Okay, well that's good to hear.
So, you've laid some groundwork.
You've really given us a description of the anomalous things out there that could point to a body in the solar system or perturbing it from a distance.
Are there any other things going on that we haven't talked about that you want to bring my attention to or that are smaller maybe anomalies or also having to do with...
One of the things, again, that this other person is talking about are things like preparations going on on surface Earth.
Indirectly, it looks like you look at effects on planetary bodies, and from a scientific point of view, do you look at the social fabric of the society you're in at the moment and look for signs there?
Because I know when you wrote your fiction book, you actually did track some of the stuff that was going on, you know, with regard to the society.
So any thoughts on that?
Yeah, I still think that if this...
You see, the thing about this Dark Star stuff is that, you know, we've been talking for some time about, like, physics and...
You know, where this thing is and what it is and so on.
But the implications of finding it are far-reaching for us.
Because if the system is found and there is life there and not just microbes or whatever, but like solid old life, intelligent life, life capable of interstellar travel, life capable of coming and visiting us, life capable of having been our origin...
Then it blows open everything.
And, you know, It just seems such a wild jump.
But the thing is, you find this thing.
I think the stakes are so high with this.
You find this thing.
It changes everything.
It's a game-changer.
It's not just another little dwarf planet in the solar system or, you know, we found a little microbe on Mars.
These things, as fascinating as they may be, don't change our concept of who we are or change our understanding of our place in the universe.
Whereas this thing does.
It would.
It would have this enormous effect on us.
And, you know, if we...
If we did turn out that we were, at some point, a slave species, we were built in the same way that we can do with genetic engineering and so on now.
If we were, from there, And we started life with overlords and anarchy and bosses and we're just the guys who do the running around for them.
Then what are we now?
What is our place within the universe in relation to these guys who are still around, who could come here and so on?
I guess the greatest impact though, if that discovery is made, would be on them.
Because we have gone from You know, 400, 4,000, whatever we were, to 7 billion plus, expanding massive amounts of people, churning out lots and lots of information.
We're noisy as a species.
We throw out of our planet radio waves full of all kinds of stuff, all kinds of information.
We make a lot of noise.
We're like big kids rattling our toys and shouting at the universe.
They're watching us.
They know what we're up to.
We're throwing it out at them.
So they know a lot about us.
And I strongly suspect that if they're out there, which I believe to be the case, I can't prove it, but if they believe to be the case, that they have continued to monitor us and it's likely that to some extent they still have a presence here.
Because it doesn't make sense to me that having gone to all of those efforts, they would have just walked away from it and just left us to...
Once the understanding is made, from their perspective, that we know about them, then we become a threat.
And if we become a threat, then they have to change the way they deal with us.
They have to stop being observers and they have to go back to being overlords, because they have to contain us.
So, yes, this is the short answer.
You know, there is great potential for the way we do business having been moulded over time.
And our society in general is moving towards a more patrician and less...
It's going back to big bosses.
So whichever way you look at it, on an economics level or on a politics level, the potential for control from a small hierarchy is growing.
And if it was something that was going on in a covert way in previous decades, it's going to be far more obvious to us in the coming decades.
And the guys who've been around the longest are going to be the guys with the most clout, and that would be them.
Okay.
So all of this interests you and you're attracting it to some degree?
I'm aware.
You know, when you look at the world through a different set of eyes, you make connections that other people don't see.
Right.
So those connections produce patterns, they produce ideas.
Again, I'm not going to say it makes sense of everything, but you just see things in a slightly different way and I'm sure yours is going to be the same.
Because you interview all these incredible people and you take bits from all of them and it builds up a picture in your mind of what's going on.
And then stuff comes along and you go, well that makes sense because of this, that and the other.
Which most normal people who aren't aware of this stuff will never make that connection.
Certainly.
Well, what about ancient archaeology?
Have you looked at ancient archaeology and do you look for...
I mean, I know you know the work of Sitchin and so that impacts to some degree your perspective, I think, on even beginning your search for this body because of your interest in his work.
But have you also continued to follow ancient archaeology?
Maybe some of the newer discoveries that are being made right now Has there been anything that you've heard of that might add to the sort of anomalies that point to something?
I think the most exciting work for the last few years that I've come across is Michael Tellinger's stuff from South Africa, where he has, not discovered because they, you know, the inhabitants of that part of the world have been aware about it for years, but he has brought to the world's attention these remarkable stone circles and the cities down there,
which Are incredibly widespread and speak to a civilisation which, going back a long time, had huge spread across that area.
Now he's thrown into the pot some really quite unusual ideas about what these circles were all about.
Yes.
And I'm not going to say that I entirely accept what he's saying in regards to that, but...
If you tie in what he's saying as he promotes it with Sitchin's material about, you know, inhabitation down there for doing all this work that we've been talking about, you know, the slave work or whatever, it does kind of correlate.
and some of my research team have been finding similar circles up in Syria and in that part of the world and we've been looking at that because that's kind of interesting as well because they're very very similar in terms of architecture they're in a part of the world which you know frankly is not very accessible right now so and then a couple of these things are even in sort of into the sort of Golan Heights into Israel and so on
So that produces this kind of spread that comes up through Africa and into the Middle East, which again has this kind of sitch and I overtime.
So that's very, very interesting.
I find that quite intriguing.
And it's substantiated in the Sumerian tablets and the whole Babylon.
Long civilization, et cetera, et cetera, right?
Yeah, so there's this big tradition of building these things that seems to go back a long, long way.
You know, I'm not...
It's funny, because people who are into the International tend to fall into either Sitchinite or von Däniken camps.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
But I think one of the things that von Däniken really sort of promoted that I find...
Really hard to get my head around in terms of the reality of the world, as most people see it, was just how these monuments were produced and how some of the monuments, particularly down in South America, were created.
So another thing that I've really started to open my eyes to was just how advanced South American and Mesoamerican architecture was and their technologies and so on, which, of course, they were largely wiped out from the Conquistador invasion.
So that, again, you know, I was listening to something just the other day about that conquistador thing, and again, it immediately just starts flicking things in my mind.
I'm reading a wonderful book at the moment by a lady called Ardy Sixkiller.
What's her second name?
I don't know.
Clark.
Ardy Sixkiller's Clark.
And she's been going around.
She's an ethnic Native American Indian...
academic who's been going around Mesoamerica collecting stories, particularly following the footsteps of a couple of archaeology guys from the 19th century, and collecting UFO stories and stories of contact.
And what's really jumped out at me from what she's gathered, because she's a remarkable woman, this lady, I'm sure.
I don't know if you've met her, maybe you'll get a trance one day.
No, but I was told about her, I think, and I would be interested in possibly interviewing her.
I'm really impressed by this book.
So, is just how much interaction there appears to be between ufology and Mayan civilisation, and just what a magnet those ancient sites are to UFO events.
Yes.
And again, you know, my sitch and I sort of bleepers go off.
You know, why is that?
What are these guys?
Is there still something there?
Were those things, I'm not saying that they weren't made by the locals, because a lot of people see that as being sort of an ethnocentric mentality that von Daniken was espousing, really, was Eurocentric.
Thinking that the indigenous people couldn't possibly have built these structures because they're just too amazing.
But I'm sure they did build them.
I'm sure they were amazing in their own right as architects and builders.
But was there something else behind them that lay behind the creation of these things?
The Anunnaki, they were only in the hundreds.
They didn't do the donkey work.
They just produced the ideas and threw it at the indigenous people and taught them how to do stuff.
Well, let me say that I just spoke in Malta with Hugh Newman.
And I don't know if you're familiar with Hugh Newman's work.
He sponsors a megalithomania conference actually here in England every year.
But he's interested in, well, ley lines and ancient archaeology, etc.
But he's also now gotten into this whole Investigation into what we call the longheads.
And Brian Forster's work, and I've interviewed Brian as well, and he has, in fact, a museum now in, I think it's South America, with the longheads, and have been tracking even a huge amount of longheads that have been found in North America, as a matter of fact.
And we know that there were some found in Malta as well.
Now, these are not deformed heads.
There is ample evidence.
In fact, Brian Forster has brought them, the heads are now being DNA sequenced, or whatever you call it, to prove that they're not human, that they are, in essence, another race of beings, that they are, you know, elongated naturally.
And there's hundreds.
I mean, there may even be thousands of them.
Which they've found.
And a lot of them have been hidden, but they're now being unearthed in various ways.
And also looking in old newspaper articles where photographs were taken when they didn't have such a clampdown on this topic in the mainstream news.
So they've really created quite a trail of evidence.
And Hugh did a presentation for a Maltese audience that I was also speaking at.
And he has a Quite a substantial trove of photographs of the skulls.
So what that indicates is that, yes, maybe there were hundreds, maybe there were more than hundreds.
Maybe they had offspring that were, you know, as they say, Nephilim, as written about in the Bible, in other words, Anunnaki human combination.
But there is evidence in these ancient sites of these ancient skulls And also, of course, in the temples in Egypt, we have, you know, drawings of these elongated heads wearing hats, what look to be hats, but could easily be their skull shape, you know, covered by hats.
Must have been scary giving birth, huh?
My family laugh at me because I kind of find the Planet of the Apes really disturbing.
Yeah, and it's like, you know, it's kind of ranked science fiction, I guess you could argue, really.
But I don't know, there's something about that that really gets me.
We were watching some of the new films the other day and I was trying to explain to them why...
It gets under my skin.
And I was saying, look, you know, we are finding out about all these different species that have coexisted with humans, modern humans, during relatively recent times, during the Ice Age and so on.
You know, not just the Neanderthals, which we all know about, but the Homo floresiensis, the little miniature guys from Indonesia who were like three foot tall.
So they were around until, I don't know, maybe 15,000 years or something ago.
And the hobbits, they're effectively called...
So that's a whole new subspecies that, you know, science is like, oh, okay, there's another one.
I don't know whether what you're talking about falls into that category.
I would have thought that science would have wanted to get on top of that as a whole new subspecies of humans.
Oh, well, I mean, you know, like I said, they're doing the test to show that they're not human.
But, of course, I don't know if the evidence is in.
It just indicates that, of course, they are also very tall.
So they basically follow the Sitchin description.
And again, the carvings in the temples, not only in, certainly in the Middle East, but not only in Egypt, but also in Babylon and Iran, some wonderful Iranian carvings and so on.
So the evidence is there, is what I'm saying.
And it's being unearthed.
And the trail continues.
There's also Antarctica, and I don't know whether you've gone into investigating anything to do with Antarctica that might relate to a tracking, for example, of this planetary body or whatever.
Because I have heard, as you probably have, of there being outposts.
Originally they said that it would first be seen I think it's Antarctica's southern pole.
Well, you know, Antarctica's an ideal place to put the kind of telescopes you'd use to find a warm but dark object.
Right.
Okay, so from that perspective it makes sense.
You want to...
The Earth's atmosphere is full of heat, even in the Antarctic, so it kind of blinds the cameras to warm objects that you're trying to find, very small warm objects.
So if you're going to look for it, that's where you'd put it.
You'd either put it up in space or you'd put it somewhere very, very cold and very, very bright.
Chile has got some great mountains and there's some really, really good scopes up there in the Chile Mountains and a lot of top astronomers go there.
So it makes sense, if you were going to look for this kind of object, to put it in Antarctica.
And they do have observatories down there What I would say is you can see the whole of the southern hemisphere from pretty much anywhere within the southern hemisphere.
You don't need to be down in the Antarctic.
So in the same way we're more accustomed to the northern hemisphere, you can look up in the night sky in Britain and you'll see most of the northern night sky.
You can see the poles.
You don't need to be at the bottom of the world to see the poles, the southern poles.
But the advantage for the infrared, yeah, there's a possibility there.
But I... But you haven't gotten any particularly Well, there was stuff years ago where it was like this, you know, this stuff's coming out, these are the photographs, it's all coming out, and it's here now, and again, that was like five years ago.
So, you know, I have a healthy dose of scepticism born of years and years of seeing these things come out and nothing actually coming of it.
Although there are some people who would argue, hey, Nibiru came and went.
It just didn't show itself.
It was in here, it went, and you guys are all just, you know...
Closing your eyes to it, you know, and people say that to me, and I think, well, you know, you're entitled to your opinion.
I don't think that's the case, but, you know, people think we've missed it, you know, it's gone through.
Yeah, I mean, there's evidence of that.
I would say, you know, I can say that we interviewed Luca Scantamberlo in Italy, and he was getting a supposed...
Information from Cristoforo Barbato, who was an Italian journalist who subsequently lost his job and was practically penniless as a result of releasing this information publicly and to Luca, and that he supposedly was met with by a member of SIEV, the Italian, well, the Vatican Secret Service organization, who leaked what was supposed to be at least evidence of this.
Back in those days.
Now, the interesting thing is that we did have our car, after the interview, broken into where we parked it at Milan Airport.
We flew from there to Norway, and during that time, they didn't take any credit cards.
Some credit cards were there in the dash.
If it was about that, they could have taken that.
They obviously searched the entire car.
They broke the lock.
It was parked at an airport parking, which is supposedly guarded or whatever you want to call that.
Take it or leave it for what it's worth.
There were repercussions and people have died along this trail.
So one has to kind of gather the evidence and basically say, okay, it was all just a facade or something did happen and people died accordingly.
Robert Harrington is said to have been killed over it and other people.
But there are still some things going on along these lines and you yourself are tracking some anomalies.
So...
What is it they don't want us to know?
Certainly something.
And then, you know, you follow the audience as you can.
We're happy to have you out there, tracking whatever may be, and continuing along these lines, and I'm glad that you're also writing fiction, based on putting some of these things together, at least in a hypothetical way, such that, you know, using one's imagination to extrapolate What could be, what could have been, you know, this kind of thing, is always valuable, I think.
So, thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you for your time and your service to humanity, as I like to say.
Absolutely.
Anything you want to add here?
Name of your books, website, that sort of thing?
Yeah, I operate at two websites.
The Dark Star Theory website.
Very easy to find on the internet for googling Andy Lloyd.
And also find AndyLloyd.org, which is one I started a few years ago just to try and bring it all together.
And on that latter one, AndyLloyd.org, I write my blog.
I'm putting out a monthly blog.
And it's, you know...
It's not just the science stuff.
I do little articles and stuff as we've discussed, but I'll also throw anything else that jumps out at me, particularly anomalies, anything that's anomalous that I can, you know, sort of throw out and put a few thoughts into.
So quite eclectic material on there as well as the science stuff.
And I'm just going to keep going.
And I'm hoping one day it's going to come to the attention of the world, this thing.
I just want to tell you one thing, Kerry.
If it does, I won't be the person who takes any credit for it whatsoever.
There are a lot of people out there, like-minded to me, who are really great researchers, all coming up with different ideas and so on.
But the people who will get the credit are the people who find it, the scientists who discover it, who manage to get this out into the public domain, and rightfully they will be the people who will get the credit.
But you know what?
It would just be lovely to know it's real.
It would be lovely after all these years to know it's there and then be able to say, alright, okay, here's the implications.
If it talks like a duck, it moves like a duck, it swims and waddles like a duck, it's a duck, it's Nibiru.
That means, bang!
You're in this whole hypothesis.
And to have the opportunity one day to be able to say, alright, come on, you need to now go to the next step and realise the implications of this.
That, for me, is the thing I'm waiting for.
Alright.
Great.
▲
Export Selection