Hi everyone, this is Carrie Cassidy from Project Camelot, and I am very pleased today to present Andy Lloyd, and we're going to be talking about the news around Planet X, Planet 9, and the other planetary bodies, if we can.
I think one's called GNA, and God, there's so much stuff going on.
It's crazy so I wanted to bring Andy on the show and as many people will know I interviewed him several years ago and he wrote a book called Dark Star which actually he researched I believe for 10 years before the release of that book and that was a nonfiction book and then subsequent to that he's written a trilogy of which he's working on the last the last book of the trilogy now And
I've read the first two books of the trilogy.
It's a fascinating story and it's all about the return of Marduk and Planet X. So he's a very well-researched individual and I don't have his straight bio in front of me, but I'm going to let him introduce himself here.
So I'm going to just do one thing here, which is to check with everyone as far as how our sound is.
And Andy, why don't you say hello to everyone?
Hi everybody.
Nice to be on the show again.
Okay, great.
And just one moment here.
here.
OK, looks like we are broadcasting.
OK, so far everything looks good, so that's just great.
Okay, Andy, so in terms of what's going on, let's start with your introduction and hold on here.
Okay, hi everyone, and I'm going to switch the camera over now to bring Andy on.
We're actually doing a little bit different type of production here, so hopefully this will all work.
And yes, you're on the screen.
Great, Andy.
So welcome, Andy, and please do introduce yourself in your own words.
I'm an independent researcher working in England.
Astrophysics and astronomy is not my day job.
But I've had a keen interest in it for 20-odd years.
And Planet X subject, I've been looking into, as you said, Kerry, for, what, 10 years before I had the book published in 2005.
So I reckon I've been going on this since about 1995.
So it's about 20 years now.
And my interest in it lies in the potential scientific validity of a massive Planet X body or at least a...
A phenomenon that was known to the ancients that's now being rediscovered by science.
So I come from a Sitchin perspective, but actually as a scientist, which I am by training, actually really, I'm really interested in this body and what it's all about and predicting what it's going to be and the repercussions when it's discovered.
So I've got a fairly broad brush interest in it.
But really it can get quite scientific when I'm sort of really delving into what's going on out there and certainly what's been going over the last couple of months have really, really picked that up a lot.
So, you know, this evening I'm hoping to cover a lot of those discoveries and offer some insight into it and mostly actually to share with people listening to this and watching the podcast How the latest ideas that are coming out of the scientific community about Science X actually correlate really well with Zechariah Sitchin's predictions about this body and also previous
reports that effectively have been sort of put down to being conspiracy theorists in the past but they appear to actually correlate pretty well with what these guys are coming out of now.
Although they're out there saying, you know, this isn't what you think, this isn't this Nabiru thing, this isn't Planet X, this isn't, you know, they're trying to reshape it into a new format that is digestible by people who tend to be dismissive of people like myself and others interested in this subject.
Actually, you know, there's actually an awful lot of common ground here, which I think is worth exploring.
Absolutely.
Can you talk about the recent posts you've made?
Let's kind of start there.
And for those interested, go to my website, projectcamelotportal.com, and you'll find the links to his post.
I think that's the fastest way to get there.
If you haven't read them already, he's been writing about the reports coming out in the news and then kind of cross-correlating with Information that he's researched over the years regarding Sitchin, etc.
So if you can kind of summarize, I guess, your recent posts.
And I guess they've been getting a lot of notice out there as well, right?
Yeah, sure.
This last week, well, it's been amazing, really.
So, really, the last two months have generated some really exciting Planet X news.
Now, the context of this...
Let's just pull back a little bit and I'll explain a little bit about Planet X to people who don't know a lot about Planet X. So, Planet X is a ported body that exists beyond Neptune that is a major planet.
So, a major terrestrial planet, not like Pluto, which is a dwarf planet, you know, a lot of people talk about its planet, Pluto a planet or dwarf planet or whatever, but something relatively substantial, sort of either the size of the Earth or bigger, Or something actually really big like another sort of gas giant like Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, what have you.
So there's been a lot of hypothetical arguments put forward for this body in various different orbits and various different sizes.
And there's an awful lot out there on the internet about a planet X body that might be returning into the solar system causing catastrophic events in the future.
So, there's a lot of interest both in the scientific community and also in the non-scientific community about this.
Now, the interest within the scientific community has really taken off probably in the last five years, maybe a little bit more, since the discovery of certain bodies out in the Kuiper Belt and beyond that have shown anomalous properties.
And these have created speculation that there is another body out there that's moving things around.
Say, 100 years ago when Planet X was first talked about, the reason why people considered there was a possibility that it might be out there was that the planets Neptune and, to a lesser extent, Uranus, which is a little bit nearer to us, were thought to be getting affected, perturbed by an outer body.
Now, that was found not to be the case.
Well, you know, I'll give a toss a little bit on that, but generally speaking, that was thought to be an anomaly in the maths of the 19th, early 20th centuries.
A mistake, if you will.
When the discoverer of Pluto was out there looking for it, Clive Tombaugh, who was working out in the Midwest, he spent about 30 years trying to find Pluto.
He was actually looking for Planet X. So he considered there to be a probability, I think he was working with his own at the time, a probability that there would be this Planet X body, and he was searching for it and found Pluto as a result, which was effectively the first ever Kuiper Belt object to be found, which is what Pluto is.
So this search has been going on for years, and it's had its ups and downs, and back in the 80s and so on, there was a lot of talk about Nemesis and so on, and then the scientific community really shut the whole thing down and just said, look, actually, NASA said, you know, this is another rubbish about the sky search, we've not found anything, there's nothing out there to find, this is a non-story, and it became the realm of conspiracy theorists and people believing in mysterious planets and so on.
The last five to ten years have seen a renaissance within the scientific community about Planet X. Now, an awful lot of astronomers will still tell you, look, it's a lot of rubbish, don't believe in it, but an awful lot of them, particularly ones who are interested in the outer solar system, have come to realise that there really is some weird stuff going on out there.
And the more they discover bodies, the more that they correlate these weirdnesses together.
And this latest discovery, this only reported last week, It's as a result of dynamical models and modeling that's done on this cluster of these type of objects which they're all kind of pointing in one direction and their anomalous trajectories and movements are indicating as a group that something is shuffling them about.
So this is where this news has come from.
So if we step back one month into December, initially this whole thing kicked off with two papers that were released by astronomers who were working out of Atacama in Chile using, I think it's ALMA I've got it written down here.
I can't remember where I've written it.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter.
It's Alma in Chile.
So in Chile, they've got these big telescope arrays up on the mountains in the Atacama Desert.
And it's really good.
You know, there's not a lot of light pollution down there.
It's a really good place to sit these observatory.
So they're searching the skies.
And these two guys are looking specifically using their telescopes at particular planets to try and find, I don't know, exoplanets.
They're looking for things that are orbiting around and so on.
So they're specifically pinpointing certain areas.
And they produced two papers, two separate teams working at ALBA and Atacama produced papers.
One of them was coming up with a proposed object that was seen moving near Alpha Centauri.
Now, Alpha Centauri is obviously a very well-known star because it's our nearest star system, apart from the Sun.
And the other one was in a different zone in the sky, which was this Naar that you were talking about.
They named it after a Nordic messenger goddess, and that was found to be in Aquila, which is a completely different constellation.
So two separate areas.
And there was this storm on the internet when these were produced because basically the guys who were doing these papers just kind of put them out onto the sort of scientific publication forums.
Now you can publish scientists' draft work, you can publish peer-reviewed work, or you can publish stuff that's appeared in journals, what have you.
What these guys did is they basically put it out onto the net for all public display Their work, which was practically draft work based on these, you know, sightings that they have of this moving object, which each one of them was only sort of two points.
So it was seen here at one point, six months later, it was seen, moved across, and it's like, hey, this is shifting.
And they, but again, in both papers, I mean, there's no coincidence.
They produced them at the same time.
Both teams were obviously sort of, right, if you do, we'll do it.
They submitted this work into sort of To say, look, we want you to look at this.
This is either a sort of a new asteroid in the solar system that's quite close, or it's a new Kuiper Belt object that's moving around, or even possibly, and this is where they got into a bit of trouble really, even possibly a ground wolf, or a small ground wolf, or sub-ground wolf, or a massive gas giant type planet in the very outreaches of the solar system.
The further away it is, the bigger it must be in order to correlate with all the movement and the size and the luminosity and so on.
So they produce these papers and it looks very exciting because if you pick that up and you're interested in the Planet X subject and you certainly start talking about objects that are way out there that are potentially massive and that they've got these two visuals on them and there's two different objects in two different parts of the sky, then you look at that and you think, well, that's pretty exciting news.
So what happened next?
was that the scientific community went into overdrive on their peer reviews publicly and basically said, A, you shouldn't have put this out in the way that you did because this needed looking out for publication release and B, it's probably a load of rubbish anyway because if you were looking at such a tiny little part of the sky and you know the serendipity of discovering a planet X body in this tiny part of the sky would indicate that perhaps on a statistical level These
things are swarming around all over the place.
So they had a lot of criticism thrown at them from the scientific community.
Astronomers working in the same field, pretty high-end people, particularly the guy, Mike Brown, who just produced this new paper.
And they retracted their papers shortly afterwards.
So, you know, that kind of thing goes on.
That's just the politics of the astronomy field and all scientific fields, really.
And the guys who put these papers out, they basically justified it by saying, look, we weren't sure what we were seeing here, so we were just throwing this out, we found this data, we just wanted to see what people thought.
But it was kind of like opening up a hatch and chucking a bombing and seeing what happens, really.
So that was kind of, I don't know, Act 1 of the two-act play.
And Act 2, which occurred last week, was that the very guy who was, or one of many I suppose, but the very guy who was you know sort of putting criticism their way for releasing this prematurely, himself published a paper that basically had worldwide publicity all over the world.
People have been talking about this, Planet Nine, and they haven't actually found it yet, but what they've done is they have, like I was saying, this cluster of objects.
We've been able to create some dynamical observations from the clusters that indicate that there's the only solution, in their opinion, the only solution that fits with the movement of these Kuipergapha objects is that there is a sizable planet-acted body moving around beyond the Kuipergapha.
Okay, so can you explain, from what I understand, most of these scientists worked for or are somehow affiliated with Caltech.
Is that right?
Yeah.
The ALMA scientists from December were a separate group of people.
They're basically just astronomers, well, not just anything.
They're astronomers using massive telescope arrays, and they thought they discovered something, and they put it out.
Maybe they have, Kerry.
There is nothing to say that they haven't very, very luckily discovered Planet X moving through the sky.
I mean, it is possible.
But what was said about it was, look, you know, you guys have just gone to publication too quickly.
The thing is, with this Planet X thing, and one of my astronomy sort of guys that I know has basically said that this is a big subject at the moment in astronomy.
They're getting closer and closer and closer.
The more objects you find and the more that you can fit them into your models and the more that each of them, you know, indicate that something's moving around out there, the closer you're going to get to pinpointing it.
So the Caltech guys, they're led by Mike Brown and Mike Brown is He's generally perceived within the astronomical community as being a big beast.
I mean, he's a guy who, I think he goes by the moniker of Plutokiller, you know, something like that, because I'm not sure what it is, but it's something like that.
He's, you know, in his own right, a famous contemporary astronomer who is a planet hunter, and he's found loads of these bodies, and he's, you know, top guy on the thing.
So, obviously, It would appear from everything he's written about, he's been quite interested in the Planet X subject for quite some time.
I've picked up quotes from him from 10-15 years ago where he was talking about, well, you know, there may have been something massive in the solar system early on because that's the only way you can explain all these anomalies.
He was saying this a long time ago, so, you know, he's into this.
It's curious that he was so critical about the other guys, and I find that ironic.
He's so critical about these other guys, but then he goes and splashes a big paper.
The atmosphere within the astronomic community at the moment is like a tinderbox thing.
You only need a little light and it's all going to go up, because everyone wants to be the person that a new planet gets named after.
You would be, wouldn't you?
If they found a massive planet X body, okay, they're going to call it after a Greek god.
Okay, whatever.
I don't know what they're going to call it.
Maybe they call it Nemesis.
Who knows?
Nibiru seems extremely unlikely.
But they're going to call it after a god.
Marduk.
But really, all these guys, they just want to be the person who finds it.
Because in the history books, which is what it's all about when you're doing this kind of science, you want your name next to the planet.
So this is a huge thing.
So if you take that perspective and you consider what Mike Brown's done, he's Fairly quickly, I think, come to realise that if he doesn't get his name stamped all over this, someone else might be into it.
And this is what a lot of this is all about.
And I think he was quoted a couple of years ago as saying, someone asked him, you know, if you found Planet X, Mike, would you just sort of release it or what?
And he was saying, well, you know, to be honest, I'd want to make sure of this and I might know about it, for all you know, blah, blah, blah.
And he's playing around with it a little bit.
You know, these guys, this is big state stuff for them.
Big states.
Okay, just curious, have you had any written dialogues with these people?
Will they talk to you?
I don't think so for years, no.
To be honest, I know that they watch what I write.
I can tell you that straight off, Kerry, because when I wrote up my blog, I wrote the blog out, and it was very popular, got picked up, and a lot of people read it, which is great.
And I put a little joke in it inside because I thought Planet Nine, this is like Planet Nine from Outer Space, which is that old turkey movie, you know?
The crazy one.
Right, yes.
I saw the poster on your post, yes.
So I thought, well, that's a bit of fun.
So I just slapped Planet Nine from Outer Space on the thing, just as a bit of a joke, see?
Because it's kind of funny with the whole thing about the turkey and, you know, is this a turkey announcement?
Anyway, so I was reading my...
I did a brand blog the other day and what should appear but the same joke except someone had done a bit of Photoshop and made it into Planet Nine from Outer Space.
So someone's obviously picked that up from me and put it onto him.
So there's a bit of cross traffic going on, you see?
Sure.
But I wrote to an astronomer on Monday to ask his opinion and he's somebody, I'm not going to say what his name is, I don't want to embarrass this guy or anyone really.
I've been in contact with him and I'm on LinkedIn and stuff.
I wrote to him and said, I'm really interested to hear what you're thinking of this.
He's actually referenced in my friend's paper.
He's got a couple of papers referenced in it.
He said, I'm writing a paper.
I'll tell you when I've got the paper released.
And then I wrote back to them and said, well, I've got some ideas, blah, blah, blah, and I've been, you know, I wrote this book ten years ago, and it correlates pretty well with what they've said, and I've got some ideas about this that might interest you.
But guess what, Kerry, you never wrote back to me.
So, you know, I think someone like myself, I think they find me difficult to deal with, because on the one hand, you know, I'm like a loose cannon.
On the one hand, I come up with ideas, and I'm kind of ahead of them a little bit in some ways, But on the other hand I'm also a bit scary because I'm not an academic and I'm out there in you know in a different zone to them and I'm also speaking my mind I'm not constrained by the etiquette of an academic community which is important you know I can yes and and so therefore you know and also I'm associated very much with Sitchin see so from their perspective
that's like an They just want to distance themselves from A, sitching massively.
That's just their thing.
They don't want to be anything to do with anything from the past because of the repercussions of that, which we can talk about later.
Secondly, there's this whole Planet X thing going on about doomsday prophecies and so on, which isn't really my bag so much, but they spend a lot of time Talking that down.
So, you know, people like me who come along and, sorry, my words being rather silly in the background.
Talking that down is an important part of the show.
So if they then deal with me in a serious way, then people will say, well, look, you know, you're associated with this guy and he's scary because he comes up with all these crazy ideas.
So that, you know, they don't want to do that.
Well, it is fascinating that they have these lines drawn to where these people cannot just sit around and And have an open discussion.
There's a tremendous amount of ego invested here.
Can you talk a little bit about...
Okay, so we've got the Caltech guys and they're led by Mike Brown.
The other group, do you know anything about them?
And again, they did something unorthodox.
They released a paper without peer review or going through all the channels, right?
So what...
And then you're saying they actually retracted it?
I didn't know they retracted it.
Somehow I missed that part.
Are you sure they retracted it?
Yeah, the astronomer guy I was talking to earlier on this week, under the internet on the email, he basically said, yeah, they retracted the papers.
And I said, well, that's interesting, because I've never heard of that.
So I'm just basically saying what he said to me.
I see.
I've made the comment, you know, that peer review becomes peer pressure.
And I think that's What happens with these big telescopes is you have international groups of astrophysicists and astronomers and they're very interested in working together with these big telescopes but they don't actually have to be there sat under a telescope looking, it's all automated and so on.
So they all work in collaboration with each other.
And they're an international team.
So one of the teams is, the guy in charge is called LISO, which is L-I-S-E-U, he's E-A-U or something like that.
And he's the person who sort of put a press release out about the one report.
I think that was about Alpha Centauri.
And he may have actually discovered a new body going around Alpha Centauri.
He says, we don't think that's what it is, but he might have done.
He might have found Alpha Centauri D, I think, Alpha Centauri.
Alpha Centauri D. And the other one is a guy called, I'll just get the pronunciation right on this if I can, Vlennings.
And he's the one who's associated with the NAR one, which is in Aquila.
So, you know, these are basically the people who got their heads on, the first name on the paper, and, you know, they're heading up this international team.
But they would have had to have all the members of the team agreed to release this.
What I'm saying to you Kerry is that it's unorthodox.
You're quite right for them to make that leap.
The reason they're doing it is because the states are just so high.
They do not want to be beaten by someone else.
This gets into your astronomer friend who told you they retracted their paper.
Did he explain any further?
Because they had to put it out knowing full well they were going to get a huge response in the community, right?
Then why would they retract it so quickly?
It's not like they didn't know they would get pushed back.
So did he elaborate as to why they might have retracted the paper?
No, but I'm not surprised that they have.
And I think the reason I haven't found that in more elaboration is because he didn't write back to me when I said, oh, I've got this idea and I want to share it with you.
Because I basically said, look, I've got this idea.
I want to do something with it.
But, you know, if I tell you it and you think it's great, I want you to, you know, take me on board with this.
And I think that's a scary thing for that.
Anyway, that's a different thing.
So I'm not surprised that they retracted it because I think what's happened is they now know that they've got this out, which was the purpose.
So say, for instance, Planet X got found near Alpha Centauri.
Everyone's going to go, well, that was Lysso's team.
They found that out.
They maxed that in December.
So they've already done, effectively done what they wanted to do, which is state their claim on it.
But the reason they'll have attracted the draft paper effectively is that they'll have to go back and find some more data points.
So what they need is more than two points.
So at the moment they've got two points in the sky over two time periods, two epochs, whatever you want to look at it, and they need to find three or four.
Now that's going to take them a year maybe to sort of do another image of that area Once the Earth's moved back into position and the Sun or whatever, you know, to get a good image of it.
And over time, using parallax and so on, you can see what the movement is and you can do the calculations to see if that orbit, you know, you've got three or four points.
It'll be three or four points of the movement of an object.
It's creating a trajectory.
You can then find out its properties.
You can work out its mass.
You can get a much better idea of what it is and where it is.
Because at the moment, all you've got is a light moving across the sky, which is, it doesn't tell you how far away it is or anything.
So, you know, this is why, you know, I think they've retracted it, to do some more work on it.
Okay, so one would also wonder, I mean, I'm throwing this out, that they got some kind of pressure from perhaps, you know, an outside agency, whatever, telling them to retract it.
That's always a possibility as well, right?
It is, but really, if you're looking at their motivations, they don't need an outside agency like...
You don't need the men in black to turn up on their doorstep to turn to pull it.
The intense pressure of their peers within the astronomical community saying to them, guys, what are you doing?
Are you crazy?
You're putting this out.
You haven't done enough homework.
You know, what do you want?
You just want the Planet X Brigade to be jumping up and down and screaming in blue mode?
I mean, this is the thing.
What they're doing is they've stepped out of line within an unwritten law within astronomy at the moment, which is do not talk about Planet X in these kind of terms, because if you do, all you're doing is you're inflaming a conspiracy theory.
Irrespective of what data they've got in a way, irrespective of what they actually think they've got here, there's a political aspect to it, which is keep your mouth shut.
I get it.
Okay, so let's actually look at Planet Nine or...
Okay, let's clarify this.
Are you basically saying that Planet Nine is Planet X and is the brown dwarf?
Is that what you're saying or what?
Yes and no.
Okay.
I think...
Okay, I'm going to show you a quick diagram.
I don't know if it's going to come out on your thing, but from my perspective, right?
This is from my book from years ago, okay?
And this diagram...
Here, with the trajectory of this thing between the cloud and the inner reward cloud, and I'll do a little bit of demonstration on this in a little bit.
This is basically what these guys have just put in print.
So, from my point of view, the prediction I made about the...
The prediction I made about the orbital parameters of this object are very, very similar to what Mike Brighton's just put out, and I wrote about it ten years ago.
The difference between him and me is that I'm talking about a body that's very, very, very big, or very, very dark and dense and, you know, massive, full of mass.
Whereas he's talking about something that is a minimum of 10 Earth masses, which is in itself pretty big, but could be as much as maybe 20 to possibly even 30 Earth masses.
I don't know if he's going to go higher than that.
I've kind of read through his paper and they're a little bit vague on this, but...
Basically, the further it manages to get out, the more likely it is to be a bit bigger.
Either way, he's looking at something that's probably about a hundred times less than I talked about in Dark Star.
Okay.
So in that context, in terms of mass, I've got a lot of work to do in order to prove that, you know, the Dark Star idea could still be a go.
And I'm up against it, really, because it's a tough call, that one.
But I've got some ideas.
But in terms of the orbit, which I put out as a result of reading Sitchin and also thinking this through and adapting Sitchin to the modern science and looking at it, it's the same thing.
So, of course, I'm going to look at that and say, well, actually, I think they're right because it's in the right place.
It's behaving in the right way.
It's moving around in the right way.
And actual fact, if you look at what Sitchin wrote about the size of Nibiru, actually, they're on the money there as well.
So, you know, if you took kind of a cross between Meister and Sitchin's, and you kind of amalgamated the right bits and kind of forgot about the wrong bits, if there are wrong bits, they're saying exactly the same thing as us.
And that's kind of interesting because it means that they're discovering something really extraordinary.
But where Sitchin's wrong, I think, is firstly, I don't think this thing comes anywhere near us at all.
I think it's scattered out and moved out into a longer orbit.
Something might come near us, but it's not this thing.
It might be something attached to it, or it might be...
Anyway, there's ideas.
And the other thing I think he's got wrong is the orbital period, which again, I've thought for a long time, 3,600 years is just not enough.
It needs to be tens of thousands of years, and this is what they're talking about.
They're talking about 10,000 to 20,000 years.
So I think, you know, and I've said this a long time and I've written in my book and all this kind of stuff, 3,600 years, it basically picked that number because it's the Sumerian Saar from the sexagesimal system, which is the funky, you know, sort of six times ten Sumerian numerical system that they had.
And actually, you could have picked another number.
There's something called Saaru.
I don't know if I pronounced that right.
No idea.
But in old Babylonian, the Saru was 36,000 years.
So he could have, instead of picked the Saru, he could have picked the Saru.
Yeah?
It's arbitrary.
But for whatever reason, that 3,600 number, we really grabbed over that and said, look, this is absolutely right.
It's got to be 3,600.
And it's become part of Sitchin law.
You know, for me to turn around as a Sitchinite and turn around and say, guys, I think that 3,600 is not right.
That's heresy.
You see?
Well, heresy is too strong a word, but it's It basically takes his work and, you know, sort of rejigs it quite a bit.
So a lot of Sitchinites will be thinking, I don't like that, that 3600 is important.
And where I'm wrong, potentially, is the mass, which means the Dark Star thing could be a bit of a sketchy thing.
So maybe Sitchin was right in the first place about Nibiru, but I don't know.
There's a lot to think about.
Are we talking, I mean, when this discovery, so-called discovery of Planet Nine, are we saying, has it really been discovered, or is that still, is even that, I mean, with all the scientists reporting, etc., is there really a planet called Planet Nine,
for lack of a better designation, for what I understand, or is even the existence of that, call it brown dwarf or planet, Is that existence still in question?
What they've done is they've done a statistical analysis on the clusters of objects.
So they've got six what they call trans-Neptunian objects, extended, scattered type of bell objects.
I mean, there's another way of using these monikers.
One of them is Sedna.
You might have heard of Sedna.
The other one is, have I got it written down?
I want to get the numbers right, otherwise I look like a clown.
2012 VP113. So that's another one.
It's kind of a famous one as well.
And there's six of these things.
And they're all behaving in such a way that their orbits, which are very, very long for Kuiper valves, they extend out beyond the Kuiper valve.
They look like they've been moved away from and I think our audience has the intellectual capability to comprehend big words, so go right ahead.
So this jargon is important, but basically what it is, is the Kuiper being the second asteroid belt around the solar system.
These objects have been scattered away from it, so they're in longer trajectories.
They're still in ellipses, but they're in longer ellipses, and they're anomalous as a result, because they've basically broken away from Neptune's grasp, and they've moved out into the gap between the Kuiper Belt and the Warp Cloud, which is the Comet Cloud, which is spherical things that surround the solar system.
So those objects, mechanically, Within the solar system, you have to be able to explain them.
So if you find them, and they're behaving in a strange way, and as you'll recall, when Sedna was first discovered, it was like, well, what?
How is this?
They found it near its closest approach, but they realised from its trajectory that it must go way out there.
And it's like, how does that get out there?
How did that manage to escape?
Because there aren't any massive planets to have moved it around.
So there's a number of options.
One of them people put forward was, well, a star, The nearby star must have moved, you know, because all the stars are moving all the time in relation to each other.
If they move around the galaxy, they all kind of bump and grind a little bit.
And every so often, a star will move into the proximity of our Sun, you know, over the four and a half billion year history of the Sun, and potentially it will jog a whole bunch of comets and move around some of these Kuiper Vals objects and so on.
So some people have theorised, so then they do dynamical models and they do model testing and they try and work out, well, Is this thing as a result of a star?
But, hey, if a star moves that close to be able to do that, then they would scatter all over the place.
So, you know, you look at it, and they do the correlations, and they see how these disks are disturbed, and will it work, and will it work?
Okay, but within that, what my question is, is do the bodies exist, regardless of whether they're able to track them beyond the point when they so-called discover them initially?
Okay, so they do these analyses, and Basically, what Mike Brown is saying is that when we do these dynamical studies, we find that there is a correlation between these objects such that they are pointing in a certain direction that an object would be perturbing them, and we create a range of values, which means that this range within which this object might exist is quite broad, so we can't pinpoint exactly.
However, there is a 99.99%, I'm not exactly certain, 0.007% chance that they were wrong on this.
There is a 99.99% chance that something is out there doing this, because nothing else works.
Nothing else that you modern will work, and because these things are moving in the way that they are and they correlate so well, we're absolutely certain.
Now, one astronomer called Dave Jewett, who is another planet hunter, or another dwarf planet hunter, he's Well, very gentlemanly said, well, you know, hey, what happens if you add a seventh one of these things through the numbers?
Then you're stuck, aren't you?
You've got six numbers, but what if the seventh one's wrong?
I don't know.
Six things that are all doing the same thing.
It's adding up to a statistical variation, which means that they're probably right.
So I'm looking at them thinking, I think they're probably right.
They've probably done that maths, really knocked it over a few times and made sure that, and they may have Again, they may have produced this whole thing a bit too quick.
I don't know.
But the problem is, in order to find this thing, they need to use a big telescope.
And only the two of them working with this telescope is going to take them something like they estimate five years to potentially find this thing.
And Mike Brown's probably thinking, there's so many people looking for this stuff right now.
And these guys in Chile have just come up with this, you know, two points.
And that's out of the blue.
And they've just, like, bashed it straight out.
And he's probably thinking, you know, I didn't hear that that story was coming.
It just appeared.
So if someone grabs this object and finds it before me, I'm not going to know.
It's just going to go out there.
So he's probably thought, right, I'm going to play their game.
I've just got to publish.
And I think that's what he did, you see.
So, yes, Perry, I think they've probably got it.
I think they've probably...
You know, the height is worth it.
Okay, so you're saying there are six possible bodies out there.
Is that correct?
Am I getting this right?
Or are we saying there's six things that show up that could actually only be one thing, but seen six different ways?
Or are we saying there's six bodies?
No, the evidence that they're using to say this planet exists are known bodies that have been discovered over the last 10-15 years that are behaving in anomalous ways and when you actually...
it's like triangulation.
It's like if you've got a mobile phone signal and someone wants to find you, they'd have to pick your mobile phone signal up from various directions And triangulate to find where you are.
And this is a little bit like this.
This is like triangulating, except they're not just using three bodies, they're using six.
And they're saying, we've got six triangulation points.
Now, they're not pointing to the body, and this is really important.
They're pointing to the point where it moves them.
So they are triangulated to the perihelion.
They're triangulated to the point where The effect occurred.
Now, the planet is moving around in an orbit.
Okay, so they're all talking about one planet, in other words.
They're talking about one planet, yeah.
So, while they're pointing at that point, the planet's moved on.
Yes, I get that.
So, they can't say, we've triangulated to the point, that's where you look, it's right in that point.
What they're saying is, we will draw out for you a massive Range of values for where this could be.
It's entire orbits in the sky.
And you have got, in order to find K-89, we'll have to look and pinpoint a very faint object moving in this entire body of sky, and it's going to take ages.
That's what they're saying.
But they're saying the indirect evidence is now so strong that something is out there that you can't deny it.
Okay, so now I kind of want to change gears a little bit because, and there's a lot to cover here because I know we haven't actually even covered everything, the points you made.
But I sent you a link this morning that was to someone, you know, amateur astronomer type person, whatever.
And they're saying there's a body that's now showing up near the sun.
And I don't know.
I can't remember whether you watched it or you didn't because I sent it out.
Okay.
Now, I see these people doing this constantly.
And the question is, is what they're saying, does that even make sense?
I mean, I see that they're seeing something.
But I'm not so sure it's actually a planetary body.
But what do you think?
Is there something coming from behind the Sun?
Is that accurate?
Or does that even correlate with what these other guys are saying?
No, no, it's nothing.
It's not even related.
No, because what they're talking about is an object that's probably something like a thousand astronomical units away.
Now, an astronomical unit is the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
So a thousand astronomical units is just like a godly long way away.
Okay, so what about these people that keep seeing these objects next to the sun?
Okay, so what you're describing is an effect seen on cameras which indicate, usually at the point of sunset, but not always, usually at the point of sunset, as the sun effectively gets occluded a little bit, there is a little bright object that appears to the side of the sun.
Now, you know, there are...
Things that you can account for.
Sun dogs and lens flares and so on.
People argue, well actually is that an astronomical body or is that something to do with a camera or is that just a light effect or what is it?
It's quite an interesting debate because there's an anomaly there to be explained.
It's not like there isn't something there to be seen.
There is evidence of sorts.
It's just the nature of what that evidence is.
I'm going to say to you that the longer this goes on, and it's been going on for years, years people have been coming up with these, I mean back to 2003 that I know of, so this is 2016, that's 13 years these reports have been coming out.
Right.
The longer that goes on, the less likely it is to be true.
Now the reason I say this is this, if you have two bodies that are going around the sun, and the earth's going around pretty fast because it's Pretty close to the Sun.
And then you've got an object.
This is going around very close here.
You've got an object coming around here.
That's going a lot more slowly because it's further away.
So any kind of planet X body that's got an orbital period of thousands of years is moving a lot, lot slower than the Earth, even a perihelion, which is as it's approaching it.
So in order to remain hidden behind the Sun for any length time, it's got to be moving...
In the exact opposite position of the Sun to the Earth.
So it can do that, probably, for a few weeks.
Because as the Earth rotates, if it's moving in the same direction, it's moving further away from the Sun than the Earth is, but as it's moving around, there's a potential, it's not very statistically likely, but there's potential for that object to be eclipsed by the Sun.
The Sun gets in the way and occludes it.
But that ain't gonna last for very long because eclipses, as you know, are pretty short affairs.
So, you know, maybe a few weeks tops, it could be stuck behind there.
But as the Earth moves around and as different constellations appear and, you know, the Sun moves through the zodiac effectively as time goes on, this object at some point has to come into view.
So if you were talking about an object that had just been seen for a couple of weeks and had never been seen before, then, oh, I don't know, maybe that's a story.
I wouldn't like to explain how on Earth it couldn't have been seen all the time that it took to get to behind the Sun.
But these stories have been going on for 13 years.
So, you know, if something's going on about now in 2016, that means that everything that's come before it in 2003, 2007, 2012, they're all wrong.
So, if they're all wrong, Then why isn't the 2016 one wrong?
See what I'm saying?
Yeah, I appreciate that.
So, there, and we also have, I mean, I really, it really is, you know, complex as to why it is we keep getting all these reports that people are so sure that this body is going to be affecting our Earth.
And, you know, I've told you about One of my witnesses, Cameron Faley, he's cross-correlating basically religious or biblical and knowledge in the Quran with science.
And he is a trained physicist.
And he thinks the body is suddenly going to appear and be...
Affecting the Earth between, say, June and August of this year.
And I can say that Bob Dean, all these years ago, told us, and he was sort of a follower of Sitchin, if you want to call him that.
And he told us years ago that the Planet X would show up, but it would be, Nibir, it would be that his insider knowledge Was told that it was going to show up sometime around 2017.
Whereas Sitchin himself, right before he died, said it wasn't going to show up until something like 2050.
He sort of changed his story, I think, from what I understand, partway through his life.
So, you see where I'm going with this.
I know there are a lot of people listening, and they listen and they watch all these things constantly on the internet.
And I also have, you know, other witnesses that tell me that there are and have been bodies, even planetoids.
Now, some of them simply can't be as big as they're purported to be.
And the body you're talking about would be...
So it needs to be very, very far away.
So what do you do with all of this?
In other words, you're talking about the scientists coming up with something, but what they're really seeing is something so far away that it's not going to affect our solar system, it sounds like, at all, right?
You know, I'm in a curious position because it strikes me that the scientists state me because, like, I'm in a conspiracy camp and question them and so on And then the conspiracists don't like me much because I sound like a skeptic and a scientist.
And I'm kind of like treading this sort of line down the middle, which is, look, you know, I'm interested in what we would call sort of science, really, which would be like facts and trying to distinguish fact of fiction and so on.
But on the other hand, I don't want to be dismissive of ideas that might prove to be of value because, you know, ideas are important.
And if you become...
Really sort of blind to them and really have tunnel vision with this stuff, then you might miss something really important.
But Kerry, I was dealing with this question in 2003, and I was dealing with this question in 2012, and every time people say, next year, it's going to happen next year, you know, Marshall Master with the whole 2012 thing, you know, I thought, right, I'll go out for that.
Because I stood up to it and said, look, you know, this isn't happening, guys.
There isn't any evidence for this.
And same back with Hazelwood and Zeta talk back in 2003.
And I think even a bit of Y2K time there was a little bit of that as well.
So I've been dealing with this consistently for years and years and years.
And after a while, I think, look, actually, you know, I'm right.
Because, you know, you can't keep on saying, oh, no, it's next year.
Oh, no, it's next year.
Oh, no, it's next year.
Because, actually...
There isn't any evidence for it, but there is evidence for a Planet X body and it's massive and it's big news and potentially it upsets a whole car, which is what the scientists want to avoid, which is that it might actually be something to do with us.
It might actually change everything.
It might be a real game changer in terms of who we are and where we came from and so on.
So if you want a conspiracy, I'm not saying you personally, Kerry, but everyone else who's really into conspiracies at the moment, why don't you question why it is that there is all this stuff about Planet X, doomsday, planet's right on top of this, oh no it's not, oh no it wasn't, you were right.
Because every time that comes out, it puts a nail into Planet X. It says, This is nonsense.
These people that they're talking about here, they just all want the world to end.
And it's just, I don't want to get into the psychodynamics of it or the sort of desire for them to see the world end and rapture and all the goodness knows what comes with it.
But, you know, what happens with that is any sensible argument at all that's made for these sort of ancient astronauts or anything that's made for, you know, this planet's got something to do with us on a mythological level.
This planet is...
That's just brushed to one side because it's so easy for the debunkers to say, oh, can I ask that of all nonsense?
So, you know, yes, people have accused me of being a disinfo guy.
They accuse me of being, like, in the, you know, the federal agency's pocket or what have you.
So, I don't know what to tell you from my perspective.
I think it's the other way around.
I think, really, if there's a disinfo guy, All right.
Well, there does appear to be some bodies.
Now, the thing that also occurs to me, which is something that one of my, you know, whistleblowers told me, is that there are many planetoids.
And in fact, we have...
Clark McClelland, who used to work for NASA during the Apollo years, he talks about a brown dwarf which has got a Dyson sphere, I guess, pulling it along or something, and that is in our solar system.
I know that this is throwing yet another thing in there.
But it did appear that Clark has some background to have reason.
A lot of other things Clark has said have actually been shown to be true.
So for what it's worth, he doesn't have a vested interest in really Saying something false.
So, at any rate, he's been told this by his insiders within the NASA community somewhere, somehow.
And Harrington, as you know, who died, stated that this body had been found and then died in mysterious circumstances, or what appear to be.
So, you know, I guess what I'm trying to do here is just also cross-correlate with This new information coming out that you're then analyzing from your own perspective, but at the same time, what do you do with, you know, because we got involved with,
you know, the sort of escapee from the Vatican who then gave information to Cristofaro Barbato, the reporter, Who then published that information, and then Lucas Scantamberlo was someone we went and interviewed because we couldn't get to Cristofaro, but basically Cristofaro Bobato was then completely blackballed.
He lost his job as a journalist.
He couldn't get another job.
He had all kinds of repercussions because a so-called You know, member of SIEV, which is the secret services of the Vatican, brought him some information about this so-called incoming body.
So there is that story as well, which did correlate with Harrington's information.
What do you have to say about that?
The saying, really, which is that I think, personally, the discovery of this body is enough.
It doesn't have to be A doomsday object.
It doesn't have to be the end of the world.
Well, okay, but the idea is that does the...
Even if you say 36,000, 3600 years, are you talking about...
It's trajectory, from what I understand, is supposed to be perpendicular to the plane of our galaxy, if I understand it correctly, at least by some people's estimation.
And therefore...
It's only when it comes close that it even, you know, matters, so to speak.
No, I profoundly disagree with that, Kerry.
All right.
Actually, the point for me is that actually it's the power of the idea that is dangerous.
It is not the fact that it's physically in our face, because it's no way it could be.
It's the fact that the discovery of this object blows everything apart.
It It resets our understanding of who we are.
I cannot be more profound about that.
If all the decisions that have gone down in the last 3,000 years or whatever just turn out to be wrong, and our understanding of who we are is changed, then That's profoundly important.
Well, aren't you...
I mean, why should a planetary body affect who we are unless you're talking about the Nibiru Anunnaki side of things?
Exactly.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
I mean, I can appreciate this.
You've brought in Vatican intelligence into this.
Yeah.
That wouldn't be a coincidence, would it?
No, of course not.
Christianity is...
The Bible...
You know, it's largely built upon Sumerian myth, at least the Genesis part of it.
Absolutely.
Right.
So, you know, and that's only something that's really been understood for maybe like 700 years, I don't know.
And most people who are Christians probably don't even appreciate that, all the Jews.
From their point of view, it's like, what?
But it's like, it's rewritten in Babylon by people who were picking up Akkadian, Babylonian, Sumerian myth.
So, you know, That's a huge thing right there, and people, you know, that's been out in biblical scholarship, that's been known about for decades, but most religious people have got no idea about this at all.
So if you find out that actually, you know, Sitchin was right, God, what?
In what he's saying about the fact that there are the others, I mean, think lost, right?
Think about the terror of being on an island, and you're just about getting your stuff together, and then you find out there's another lot over the other side of the island, And they're kind of scary.
That's what this lot are like.
We are they, they are us, but they're kind of scary.
And they've been around a lot longer than us and they've got powerful tools and toys that they can, you know, and this idea is Okay, but let me ask you this, of course, because you're talking to the Camelot audience.
You appreciate that they're right on board with you there.
But my question is, why is it that a planetary body...
Now, the notion is, I assume, is because if there is a race that inhabits or even did inhabit this body, then...
They come and go and are able to come and go into our solar system a bit easier the closer it comes to us.
Is this your thinking?
Your guy is talking about Dyson spheres, right?
I don't know, you know, I know a little bit about Dyson spheres.
Enough to know that Dyson sphere effectively is a hypothetical artificial construct built by an innate intelligence that wraps itself around its stuff.
Okay, so from like the orbit of Earth, you would build...
A massive sphere, the radius of Earth, around the star to trap its energy in order to be able to do it.
So you hide the star effectively within the sphere.
Now, for instance, we could be talking about that in terms of an object within our solar system, they're effectively saying you've got an alien intelligence in our backyard that's got that kind of level of technology.
I mean, huh?
Well, yeah, but I mean, this is not a problem for me anyway, in terms of, you know, the investigation I've been doing for the last 10 years.
You and I have been thinking about this stuff for God knows how long.
Right.
The plumber on the street who suddenly finds that, you know, Independence Day is around the corner...
It's going to react in a different way.
Okay, but you're not...
I still want to bring you back to this question.
So here we have this planet that could be called Planet 9 or whatever they want to call it that might be, in essence, what you refer to when you say brown dwarf or Planet X. And at least you personally.
So if it is such a planet and it does exist and so on, does the fact that it moves closer to us Make a difference.
Is it because you think they can then...
You know, because now I'm sort of going into your fictional books, in which now, because it's closer, it can travel more easily to and from Earth.
Is that your thinking?
Well, I mean, possibly.
We don't know what their level of technology is.
You know, here's the thing.
Sitchin's talking about 3,600 years.
He's talking about that in terms of the return of Anu.
Yes.
The major god.
So, basically...
And you hopped over to Worth and did a tour of duty every 3,600 years to see how things were going and to, you know, basically give the troops on the ground a bit of a pep talk, make sure everything was right and then went back over again.
So he would have actually got it.
He's not, you know, there must be some kind of major propulsion system that they're operating, rocket ships.
I mean, you know, Sichuan was using the talk of the day.
He was talking about rocket ships.
Rockets, yeah?
So, from his point of view, they must have been using rockets.
Now, we don't know what they were using.
They could have been using some kind of nuclear drives, they could be using some sort of fusion reactions.
Well, yeah, and wouldn't they be bending space?
And as a result of that, we have absolutely no idea what their capabilities are.
Now, if you get into ufology in general, then you've got flying saucers, you've got We've got all kinds of weird and wonderful things.
Who's to say the Anunnaki aren't visiting us every week?
We don't know!
With the contactees from the 60s, the Damascus and all that lot, the Nordics, I mean, they could easily be, I mean, if there's any truth to it, I'm not saying there's any truth to it, but what I'm saying is if you look at the sort of UFO reports that deal with Nordics, you could argue, well, those are Quite possibly an anarchic.
When you talk about, like, Tim's experience where he met somebody in London who was, like, in the know and appeared to be some kind of alien.
He used to say he wasn't meeting one of the ancient gods.
We just don't know.
It all sounds a little bit science fiction, but we don't know what they're capable of.
And if they actually exist and they're actually in our back garden and capable of visiting us, and we are their big experiment and we have expanded in the last, I don't know, Thousand years from like half a billion inhabitants to like seven billion inhabitants.
We are of acute interest to them.
You know, we've gone to the moon.
Our science is always evolving.
We don't know when the next big discovery might be around the corner.
And who's to say that there isn't something that From our point of view, we discover in the next 50 years that puts them on their level in terms of moving around the universe.
Well, who's to say, from my point of view and my witness's point of view, the fact is that we already have, if you listen to Mark Richards, who considers himself to be a captain in the secret space program, who's in prison for the last 30 years because they don't want him to talk.
So what, in terms of this body that you say Obviously, we've got sort of a lot of activity around right now.
It could be a body that has nothing.
Would you concede this at all?
Could it be a body that has nothing to do with actually the so-called Nibiru?
Could that be a completely other body?
Okay.
Yes, it's possible.
But let's play Mike Brown at his game, okay?
All right.
Statistics.
And the chances of something not being right.
So he said he's got six points that pinpoint towards an orbit.
The statistical likelihood of being wrong is really remote.
Okay, what's the statistical likelihood of Sitchin's inclination of the orbit?
And I've got a little thing here to show you.
Let's say the inclination, right?
Let's say that's the plane of the solar system.
The inclination is like that.
So it's like 30 degree inclination.
So the orbit is moving, you know, around a different So he's got 30%, they're talking about 30%.
The axis of the actual orbit, it seems to be the constellations that Sitchin talked about.
So where he's talking about Orion being potentially aphelion, Sagittarius being perihelion, these constellations appear prominently within Sitchin's writings where he's picked him out of the Bible.
And he only put about six of these constellations on, but he mentions Orion, he mentions Taurus, he mentions Sagittarius, and those three have all been picked up by Mike Brown in what his analysis is of the most likely positions of this thing.
So we've got the right positions in the sky, we've got the right inclination, we've got potentially the right size object, because Sitchin used to talk about this thing being sort of small Uranus or a much larger Earth, potentially exactly the same as well.
What's the statistical likelihood of them getting all that right?
Yeah, it is a very interesting, you know, synchronicity we've got going on.
Well, I don't think it is.
I don't think it's serendipitous.
Three is a bit of a lucky judgment.
No, well, that's serendipity.
Well, no, you're not saying that.
Synchronicity doesn't mean that.
We're talking about things that actually are synchronized and do correlate, and there's a reason for that.
So, go ahead.
So, exactly.
You're right.
I'm joking.
I'm just thinking about what they might throw at me in terms of arguing the point here.
You know, if...
If what they're saying is the same as what he's saying, at what point do you go, whoa?
I mean, I have to agree with you.
There's something going on here, which is why I have you on my show.
I think when scientists start talking about something they so-called just found, and it seems to correlate with what Sitchin was talking about coming out of, not Sitchin's head, but the Sumerian tablets, I don't care how he interprets everything, you know, because a lot of people like to say, oh, it was his interpretation.
But, you know, how far away can you get with interpretation?
And then you have to still come back to the fact that he was describing another planet.
I mean, you know.
He was basically saying, look, if you take the seven tablets of creation and you read that literally, You know, there's all kinds of stuff in there about gods fighting each other and gods having arguments with each other and so on and so forth.
But there's also a lot in there about stars and planets and movement.
And if you take the two together and you kind of look at it like the ancients did, The Romans called, you know, Mars, Mars, right?
You know, the gods were named after planets.
Absolutely.
So what he's doing is he's saying, well, it's just the Sumerians did the same.
This isn't out of character with what the ancients did.
This is exactly what the ancients did.
So when you're talking about, when they're talking about their cosmic way of Genesis, the way things formed, and they're talking about the names of gods, they're talking about planets.
Yeah, okay.
Now, let's back up from this and actually go through anything else, any other points that you made within your recent posts.
Because it is interesting.
I don't want to say who had a lot of feedback about this, so I want to keep that person's name out of this situation.
But you and I exchanged some emails in which that person felt that you were actually...
I guess in the way you were talking about this new find, that you sounded like you were promoting a meme, in other words, a piece of disinformation that people would wrap their minds around, and that you were part of a team doing this knowingly or unknowingly.
And the question is, you know, what are we talking about here?
Because if scientists are finding this, and this thing is very much in the sort of front and center of, call them, you know, conspiracy theorists, if you wish.
To me, that's not a derogatory term.
I think we should all be looking for conspiracies constantly, because there are conspiracies constantly, and that's the world we live in.
So you're stupid if you don't look for these things.
But...
To say, so when he accused you of this, at the same time, it is a very interesting notion that this whole notion of Planet X body and all the different perspectives that we've kind of delineated here to some degree.
What's going on in your estimation and then also getting back to your paper?
Like, why would they disinfo this?
Why have an incoming body?
If there's nothing going to perturb our Earth in any cataclysmic way, why bring this body in constantly over and over and over again?
And why put it out as a piece of disinfo?
And why would these scientists at Caltech and elsewhere be contributing to this?
Actually, they don't sound like they're contributing to this because they're finding a body so far away it wouldn't do anything.
No, no.
At some point, if there's something out there, it's going to be found.
So the people who are trying to prevent it, if such that they are, if they're trying to prevent this from happening, are basically just trying to hold back progress.
It's the old idea, isn't it?
They just don't want the world to change on their watch.
But they know at some point someone's going to find it because it's there to be found.
So it's just really difficult to find this thing because, you know, Luminosity tends to fall off to the fourth power as you move away from the sun and reflected light from the sun.
So the further you go out, much more difficult it is to find this unless it's burning up its own light and sending out its own light.
But it was just reflected in the sun.
So at some point they're going to find it.
They just need to get a big enough and good enough sky survey.
Now, you could argue why on Earth didn't Ys find it?
And I think this is a very important point.
If you want to get into it, I'll come back to the chakra you need in a moment.
Okay.
But you can take me off down on a slightly different thread now.
So you've kind of got people who are theorising it's there.
A lot of people who say rubbish, this is just the scientists.
They're not a homogenous body of people who are, you know, trying to avoid finding it or trying to find it.
There are some who have been saying for years, oh, there's something out there, and there's a lot of them who have just been poo-pooing out there.
So they set up the infrared telescope-wide, I don't know, about four years ago or something like that.
Put it up in space.
It did a big sky survey.
The very nature of these types of telescopes is they're short-lived.
They only last about a year or so.
And if you're trying to find a moving body, especially when it's quite a long way out at the slowest part of its orbit and it's moving really slowly through the sky, you've got to kind of capture that moment and you've got a very short period of time to do it.
And it's a very difficult thing to do.
But nevertheless, because it's supposed to be in the infrared, Infrared sky survey, this thing should be, you know, luminous in the infrared.
It should have been spotted.
So the argument...
We basically said, look, we're looking for sub-brand dwarfs.
We're looking for brand dwarfs in the general vicinity of the Sun.
And if they're out there, we're going to spot them.
And they found some that were about seven light years out or something.
And then they didn't find anything in our cosmic back garden, which is within the area of the Sun itself.
And they've been able to say, you know, with some authority, Wise didn't find these things, therefore they're not there.
Now, this super-earthing object, it should give out some heat of its own.
It won't necessarily be as warm as a sub-brown dwarf, but it should still be radiating some warmth.
So why didn't Wise get that?
Well, I mean, let's get into the stuff that I talk about, which has to do with the fact that there's a cover-up.
Don't forget that Cristofaro Barbato was given some information.
He is a journalist.
He came forward with whatever he came forward with.
Luca Scantamberla picked up on it, but the bottom line is that there was a cover-up.
Okay, our car was broken into in the Milan airport.
Apparently, they were worried that Luca gave us, like, you know, some evidence or something.
And, you know, the fact is, they didn't find anything, and, you know, we didn't have anything.
But...
The fact that they would look, the fact that they would go through this trouble tells me, indicates to me, that there is a cover-up.
Now, we know there's a cover-up surrounding whatever this planet is.
Call it Planet X, okay?
So you're saying, I don't know if you mean Iris, but But one of the telescopes didn't find what it was supposed to find or didn't see anything.
So then they come back and they tell us, well, they also have gone to the moon and Mars and, you know, have bases there and they don't tell us about that either.
There's a lot they don't tell us.
And there's a reason for that, supposedly.
One of the reasons being that they don't want human beings to panic or live differently in such a way that it will affect You know, the stock market, etc., etc., and their way to make money, and so on and so forth.
And their control, of course, over humanity.
That's always an issue.
So, with that in mind, so you can...
I'm happy to have you continue, but I just want to have the caveat that you say one of the reasons you might not have heard that they discovered something is because they didn't tell us.
Yes.
I agree with you, Kerry.
You know, there is potentially a means to prevent people from, you know, coming out with their observations and so on.
You know, you can strong arm them or you can trash their data or you could have a very high level gang of NASA astronomers whose job it is to take down any maverick astronomers who Come up with data that purports to show Planet X, which I think is probably what they were doing about 20 or 30 years ago.
I mean, that's well documented, really, in terms of the kind of heat these people could generate and the kind of peer pressure they could apply.
And you could argue that there's a conspiracy behind that insofar as those people who become powerful within the astronomical community who are playing those debunking games have got someone behind them who are pushing and pulling their strings.
I mean, I don't know.
Sure.
You know, I've got no way of knowing.
I mean, it's a feasible supposition in the same way that the feasible supposition five years ago was that NSA had ability to be able to track everyone's phone call, read everybody's email, do whatever, how they want it on the internet for the last, I don't know, because how many years?
And, you know, the intelligence services in the government said, oh, no, no, we'd do that.
And then Snowden said, ha, ha, ha.
And, you know, we all know that as a fact now because, you know...
Right.
It's been revealed.
So the conspiracy theorists were right about everything that Snowden said.
We have government secrecy in this country that's unbelievable.
I was just writing on our board today.
We have what's called a 30-year rule in Britain where government papers aren't released for 30 years.
The 30-year rule is the light one.
We have a 100-year rule for the tastiest stuff.
Nothing comes out for 100 years.
Everyone's a lifetime.
And then they release it quietly.
Stuff that pertains to the Napoleonic era or the First World War, whatever it is.
And that's the stuff we know about.
Who's to say there isn't a sort of 500 year rule, stuff that's never going to see the light of death.
So governments, from their point of view, they use this term, and the media do the same, they use this term conspiracy theory.
As a very loose thing to basically say anybody who's got an idea that basically the government are doing something wrong, they're a conspiracy theorist.
So if the government are looking at us and saying, we're doing something wrong, then we're terrorists or we're some sort of malicious intent, bad boys, bad guys, whatever it might be.
So it's one-way traffic, isn't it?
Well, sure.
Okay, so to get back to this, though, then in your paper and with your points, you delineate out these things, and then you don't hear, for example, you have an astronomer friend who's pretty wrapped up in the community, but he was communicating with you, and then you get no feedback.
What do you think?
It's life.
Well, it's also, it's possible that you're now threatening his paradigm or someone is telling him, you know, don't encourage this guy or, you know what I'm saying?
In other words, there's something going on there.
It's about reputation.
I mean, if these guys, they'll talk to me because I come up with some ideas and they like ideas, right?
But if I say something, if I become associated with them publicly, then...
That's anathema.
It's like, you know, that's their reputation taken down a couple of days.
I totally get its motivation.
It's all about how they look.
It's how they appear to their peers.
They do not want to be seen.
Well, this is why these people are hard to even believe on any level, because they're so wrapped into their own community and ego and all of this nonsense.
They can't step back from it and realize from all the rest of us, it's like, who cares?
Who cares, really?
You know, what's important is the truth.
What's important is what we as a species discover about the world and the universe and so on.
And the politics and its reputations and who's released this paper and who said this about what.
It just doesn't matter.
But to them, it really does.
They're so wrapped up in it.
Well, yeah.
And that gets into the almighty dollar and, you know, that in fairness, this is how they support themselves and their families.
So then they can rationalize that, oh, well, I have to make a living.
And I don't want to be laughed at because then I can't make a living.
And there's something to be said for that because people like us on the outside don't make a very good living oftentimes.
I don't really make anything from this.
I make enough to go out for a meal every six months.
Yeah, right.
So, you know, the rest of my life, this is, I am an independent researcher of the truest nature of the term.
Right.
Well, and that's very honorable in my view.
Okay, so now somebody, I do have some people asking questions, and let me say, everyone, if you have questions, put them in all caps, and we will try to get to them.
But Andy, before I go to the questions, I do want to be able to make sure that you were able to cover, you know, your various papers and comments that you've come up with so far.
So I have a feeling maybe we didn't touch on all the points.
So you want to bring forward some points?
Yeah, there's one really important thing, which I haven't seen Through the rounds on the internet, I'm surprised in the last few days because actually the Planet Nine thing, so earlier on this week they released the positions they thought it would be, and it is a range throughout, right?
But what they're saying is a lot of that range has already been covered by various sky surveys, Catalina, Pan-STARRS wise.
So the areas that those haven't covered are the bits that they're most interested in, which is where they project this So that puts it in Orion, or thereabouts.
Well, you know, avid readers and watchers of your shows and so on in the past will recognise Orion as being a rather important constellation for Iris, which you mentioned a minute ago, because in 1983 there was a very famous Washington Post Announcement about the discovery of Jupiter-sized objects in the solar system by IRAS in Orion.
And this thing's been like, you know, Planet X lore ever since.
That was fairly hastily retracted in the same way we were talking about the other things.
And it's all a bit vague, really.
It was just one of these things that got announced in the Washington Post, which is quite a big thing.
And then it was all kind of a bit vague as to what it was, but basically, you know, there's a lot of talking astronomical community.
Well, if you look into this, it was probably an ultra-warm galaxy or something.
So it kind of said, look, all the conspiracies that talk about Planet X and the massive Planet X body were wrong.
But here we are looking for aphelion of this object in Orion, and it's an iras thing.
So iras might have actually spotted it.
I don't know why no one's talking about this, because it seems obvious to me.
And the second body that IRAS came up with, with a very, very similar story, very similar story, which was picked up by the British this time.
So it's not as famous as the American one, because it's Britain, obviously.
So, you know, we don't get quite as much.
So anyway, New Scientist published an article around about the same time about an object that was found in Sagittarius that was by IRAS. And this particular time, and I've got, you know, some correspondence It created a bit of a stir within the IRAS team because this Sagittarius object, well basically the British and the Dutch who were working on this data, they wanted it released and the Yanks really really didn't.
So that was kind of interesting to me.
So eventually it made it into the new scientists but there was all this argument going around the scene and eventually what they said was oh we ran out of funding.
We haven't got any more money, which is what we were talking about.
Yes, that was very suspicious.
Right, so Sagittarius is the other end of this spectrum.
Now, you might be wondering, why am I saying two things on the opposite side of the sky?
It's the furthest point.
Why could it possibly be Sagittarius?
Well, what happens is with the Planet Nine thing, is that their correlations could be 180 degrees wrong, okay?
So if you're pointing in one direction, you're also effectively also pointing in the opposite direction.
And what they've chosen to go with, which they argue in their paper is the rational choice, is what they call the anti-aligned phase.
In other words, this thing is pointing away from the direction that these, you know, six cut about objects are pointing towards.
So effectively, Where it is now is the opposite of the effect where they felt it.
Do you see what I'm saying?
It's a bit odd.
But you could also argue that it's an aligned one.
In other words, it's the opposite end.
They've got it the wrong way around.
There's a perihelion in the aphe in the wrong way around.
They're pretty sure they know what they're talking about.
But on this axis between...
Because Sagittarius and Orion are basically the opposite side of the sky, right?
On this axis, which is exactly the axis Citra was talking about, and this is exactly the axis I talked about in my Dark Star book, exactly the axis.
I've been talking about Sagittarius for years and talking about Orion as well.
This axis is IRAS as well.
Yeah, that's very interesting.
Now, let me...
Okay, so let me ask you though, were the scientists relate?
I don't think I saw any reference to Iris in the scientific paper.
So they didn't mention it?
Are they not aware of it?
How could they not be aware of it?
Iris was huge.
It was very well known.
I actually worked for JPL back in, I guess, the years when Iris was actually active.
So, I was a contractor to JPL in the communications area, not scientific at all, but nonetheless, they certainly knew about iris.
These are scientists that are very wrapped up in this world, and they don't know about the reference to iris.
I know, and it's like, the only thing I can think of, because I have the same thing as you, Kerry, I just don't understand it, you know, they must know about this.
The only thing I can think of is, again, because they know that by...
Correlating their proposed planet with this Planet X law, they are discrediting themselves amongst their peers.
That's the only explanation I got for it.
In their actual scientific paper, there is no discussion that I could see.
I mean, it's like a 14-page paper and it's mostly equations, right?
I'm not the best with equations, but I can read a scientific paper.
I couldn't find anything within that paper that directly talked about constellations or directly talked about positions, you know, bright ascension, declension, the ways that you'd normally talk about coordinates.
Couldn't find it.
So, you know, it wasn't...
Sorry, all the screens changed.
It's three people over there.
So, hello, Kerry.
Hi.
I just thought I'd put myself on the screen because this is just...
Yeah.
I couldn't find anything in there.
And it's only until four days later, after this paper came out, that they came up with the IRAS, not the IRAS thing, but the positions of Orion and Sagittarius.
So it's like after the fact.
Now, they must have known when they read the paper, but it didn't include it in the paper.
They mentioned nothing about IRAS, and they mentioned nothing about IRAS on their block.
So I can only assume they know about it, but they don't want to do the best.
Because of the association with Planet X and, I don't know, what it could do.
Yeah, it's very, very interesting.
I mean, again, you know, I can say that we had an interaction with a physicist at Caltech during the filming of our pilot, and he actually tried to Act as though, you know, actually was lied to us, to our faces, thinking that we were too naive and too stupid to know that what he was telling us was not true.
He was trying, now it was a very desperate effort, and because I give him credit for having intelligence, I have to say, you know, and being part of society, etc., etc., and That he knew what he was saying was actually a lie, but that he wanted to, you know, sort of redirect us so seriously that he decided he'd risk that because he thought we were stupid enough to swallow it.
Now, having come across that experience and also being told by another scientist also associated with Caltech that Caltech has various levels in which some are read in and some aren't to what really is going on.
And this particular scientist apparently is not read in, was his point.
So, you know, that he should be forgiven for trying to, you know, redirect us or misdirect us or whatever.
The reason I'm saying that in response to what you're saying is that how do you explain this when you're really trying to cover a playing field of information?
And so you would put out what is out.
You know, if there was something that, especially if it...
Substantiated what you were trying to put out there.
A friend of mine on my forum called Jolene Harrington made a really, really interesting point where she said that what happens is these guys, and I'm sure you're very familiar with this, Harry, they're basically trying to reconfigure the whole story in the format they wanted.
So they want to produce something that's digestible, that's acceptable, and they will include the minimum amount of information That will plunge them into the kind of controversies they want to avoid, and they will include the maximum amount of information that distances themselves from that, that makes them look good.
So, you know, I can understand that.
There's motivations.
I mean, the world you're moving in, in terms of talking to all these guys and trying to figure out what their motivations are and whether they're trying to misdirect you or whether, you know, this is all game play that's going on.
You know, it's amazing.
It's a fascinating field, but you just don't know what, you know, you have to use your instincts, I guess, in order to be able to ascertain the truth.
Well, it's just that if you cross-correlate information and you find some very severe contradictions, then you really have to, or one is pushed to want to look for why the contradictions exist, and that's where we are now.
Okay, so...
Before I continue and take these questions, is there anything else that you wrote in your papers and that we haven't covered here that you'd like to say about this whole story, about this discovery?
Anything else?
I'm actually flabbergasted because it's not like I mean, your article went out, it was actually pushed out over Rents as well, who's got a very large readership.
One would think that all of the people out there, they read what's on the internet, and then if items of interest come up in various places, they would push them to scientists who maybe don't do that kind of reading, but then get emails from their friends saying, oh, have you seen this?
Oh, have you seen that?
They would have come across your papers, your discussion, your points.
Again, Do you not get any emails, like from, even if you don't have to say who, but are people not writing to you that are scientists?
No.
None?
No, I listened to a radio interview on the BBC, because here's the other thing about this discovery, which kind of has captured the imagination of the public.
Now, I can say that because I've been working in this field for a long time.
The only times that seems to have happened is when, you know, you talk about doomsday stuff, but This particular announcement, they haven't actually found anything tangible, have they?
I mean, as you've made the point yourself, Kerry, what they've done is they've created a proposal that this thing exists.
They've done an analysis which indicates that the percentage likelihood of them being one is pretty small, and that therefore we should all be looking for it because it's got to be there.
That's basically what they've said, but they haven't actually found it.
And yet this story has made headlines all over the place.
And, you know, I mean, I take it as my sort of, you know, I'm being British and so on, it's the BBC over here.
So if something makes the BBC, like sort of evening news on the radio, on the telly, then from my point of view, they get the big time.
I don't know what the American equivalent is, CBS, Fox, whatever it is.
Right, sure.
Right, so they had a guy, one of the interviews on the BBC, who was interviewing Mike Brown, and this was on Sunday lunchtime, which is, you know, a major sort of news thing, because everyone sat down there having their Sunday afternoon to listen to the news or whatever.
So it's a big news thing, and they're talking to Mike Brand.
So Mike Brand's going on about Planet Nine, and he's putting his proposal out, and that's great, and he's all very laid back and cool and so on.
And then Mark Mardell, bless him, goes, so this thing, is it anything to do with Nibiru, then?
Is it anything to do with Sumerian creation mythology?
And my friends are like, no, no it's not!
No, no, no it's not!
That's just beyond the contempt!
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It really came down in their hearts straight away.
And Mark Mardale, I don't know if he was just trying to push his buttons, or it was like he knew that this was something that he needed to give the astronomer an opportunity to comment on in order to be able to make a point publicly that you shouldn't be thinking about this because it's all nonsense.
It's the only time that I've come across in 20 years where basically Sitchin's ideas, and his name wasn't mentioned, but it's the only time I've come across where that's been that mainstream.
So I think it gives you a feeling for the impact that this story has had.
And, you know, bless him with Sitchin.
I wish he was alive now to see it because he would have been really excited about all this.
I know that, you know, from his point of view, there's a number of boxes this does not tick, but, you know, Wow, it would have been a great print for him, really, really, really.
So the other thing I should mention, Kerry, is just coming back to the gentleman you were mentioning before, and I should just make this a bit really...
Listen, I can absolutely deny, and it's kind of silly for me to even do so, because people who know me think, yeah, right, Andy.
I can absolutely deny that I am in anything to do with intelligence or government.
I don't have a group of people sitting down with me to work.
What I do have...
It's a fantastic group of friends on the internet who are common researchers.
We exchange ideas.
We talk about stuff.
In this particular instance, the pieces that I wrote, I wrote.
I got feedback from them.
You know, people like Barry Warmcastle.
He's been Planet X for years.
Alan Cornett and Lee Covino.
I mean, these are all people that are part of my network.
Mark Keller.
These are all people I work with.
But they're just like me.
They're regular straight guys.
They know a lot about astronomy.
They're interested in this stuff.
But we ain't Absolutely.
Okay, so you just blinked out for a minute, but you're back.
Okay, let me look at the questions now, if you don't mind, and we won't keep you for too much longer.
I think this has been going on a while now.
So, time is just speeding by.
So someone...
I hope our sound is okay.
I thought it was fine, but if anyone's having sound problems, maybe they're on their end.
Do let me know if there's an issue.
Okay, I'm looking for questions in all caps, all right?
Someone is saying...
I don't...
Well, I will just ignore anybody who's rude.
It says a magnet.
I think they meant magnet.
Is a magnet a hologram because it is split?
Or if you split it, it says it looks the same two new dipoles.
I'm not sure what that...
Does that mean anything to you?
Okay, in terms of Planet X, you could...
My dark star thing is like, you know, say it's Jupiter's size, you know, say it's a bit smaller Jupiter's size, but you know, it's going to have a big magnetic sphere.
So maybe what they're talking about is like magnetic field adjustments or something moves through the solar system.
So they might be discussing about like changes to the sun, because the sun's got a very complex magnetic field, magnetic field.
And you know, there's a neutral sheet around the solar system and so on.
And as this thing moves through it in an inclined orbit, It might readjust some of the magnetic variability within the solar system, which might have all kinds of physiological to your physical effects and so on.
So yeah, maybe.
A lot of it depends on how far this thing is away.
The solar system is surrounded, or at least the planetary bits are surrounded by something called a heliosphere, which is like the extent of the sun's magnetic field, which is vast.
This object Planet Nine, they're talking about, does not come within the heliosphere, from what they're saying.
It comes up to about 200 astronomical units, and the heliosphere is 80.
So from the projections from the Caltech group, we shouldn't have any trouble with that whatsoever.
If you're talking about a standard sort of Planet X model, say a Citronite Nibiru one, which is coming into the solar system all the way into the asteroid zone, then, yeah, potentially it has got some sort of effects on the solar system.
So, you know, you pay your money, you take your choice on that.
That may not be answering these questions at all.
You might be talking about theoretical physics.
Okay.
Someone, you know, try to be specific in your questions.
Obviously, we have limited time, but if you can make them as clear as possible.
Okay.
Someone is saying, what is the true date of, I guess they mean planet X. I'm not sure if they mean when planet X might be.
Said to be closest.
I guess that's their point.
I mean, again, if you've listened to the whole discussion, and I encourage you to go back and listen to the whole discussion if you haven't, once we close down here, then it will go onto YouTube, obviously, and you'll be able to do that.
You know, when it gets closest depends on where it is to begin with.
And again, the trajectory, etc.
And we've kind of covered that quite a bit.
Is there anything you want to say about that, Andy?
I'm just going to give out the Sitchin app perspective on this.
So say Sitchin was writing for 3,600 years.
Say 3,600 years has got nothing to do with the orbit of the object.
I'm just saying.
Let's say that it is the return point where annual content.
So he called into Sitchin.
He came back 3760 BC. Then Sitchin projected 160 BC, which would predict the next one out to sort of 3000 AD, which is quite a long way out.
And then I think in his last book, or the penultimate book, he kind of changed his mind and he kind of thought that around about 550 BC that he comes back and maybe the whole thing had been shortened a little bit.
I don't know why.
And that was to correlate it.
Between the sort of building, I think, of the temple and, you know, the fact that the Bible's being written, a lot of the Old Testament was being written in Babylon around about 500 to 600 BC. So from a Jewish perspective, it was a very important period of time.
So anyway, you kind of pulled it back because 160 was getting into the messianic era.
You could argue, well, maybe that's moving into sort of Christ zone in the Star of Bethlehem, all that kind of stuff.
So if you took the 560 correlation and you made that 3000 years or so for Nibiru, Then that would be, what, 2,500, something like that.
So, you know, from the Sitian point of view, we're way off.
You know, it's not in our backyard at all, it's way off still.
And if you're talking about...
Of course, there are alternatives to what Sitian actually said, which is that, you know, the whole thing was reconfigured around Santorini, the explosion there, which is the Exodus, and therefore it's due any minute.
So if you go down that route, which I think the Colbrin Bible and various other pursuits that people make with this, And then, you know, according to them, it's on our doorstep and some people actually think it's already been, you know, it's actually came and went.
So a lot of the guys who are theorising that about 2012 said, you know, 2012 was it, it moved through and went and you're a bunch of idiots because you didn't notice.
So, you know, there are a lot of different ways of looking at this.
My personal feeling is, like I said to you, it doesn't matter, really.
It's the discovery of the thing and the implications of its discovery Upon our understanding about ourselves and our place in the universe, this is what is so important.
The idea itself is going to be very challenging.
Okay.
Let's see.
I'm actually looking for direct questions for you that are, you know, worded, well-worded to some degree.
So...
It doesn't look like I have much here really.
I'm always surprised by that.
At the moment we have a live audience of 294 people, which in the middle of the day on YouTube isn't too bad for a live audience.
So of all those people listening, do you have any questions?
This is it, last call.
Here's Andy in a live setting.
You can ask him anything you want about this subject.
And hopefully you've maybe looked into the material yourself and have something to ask.
And so while we're waiting to see if anything else shows up, Andy, do you have anything else you want to kind of cover In this regard, I mean, even looking towards the future, what you think might be going on, you know, what is logical for next steps, even out in the community or from yourself?
Well, you know, Mike Brown is doing a great job of trying to rally the troops.
And he's basically stuck his flag up and said, right, rally the troops, come and let's find this thing out.
He's got the advantage of having access to an eight-meter-wide telescope, which is a very substantial body.
A very substantial bit of clip.
I was reading on this blog, somebody who wrote in and said, oh, you know, I'm going to go and buy a telescope and I'm going to set up in the background and try and find this thing.
And, you know, okay, you know, the difference between what he's got in this day.
But the point is, he is, I think, doing a great job at rallying people around to look for this object.
And the positives that come out of this, which I think there are many, many, many positives that come out of this, irrespective of whether he sees my point of view or not, which I strongly suspect he doesn't, But the positives that come out of this, it's a game-changer in terms of how Planet X is taken seriously within both the general community and the scientific community.
And that, from my point of view, is a wonderful thing.
Now, whether people who are interested in it from a catastrophic perspective find that unsettling, and I know that's a bit of a weird thing to say, but if you take something that is effectively having a go at the stage, if you like, And then you make it mainstream.
And the people who are kind of thinking, I don't know, they'll have to tell me.
But are they going to find that as compelling a story if it becomes mainstream as it was when it was off the road and off the map?
I don't know.
Well, I mean, it doesn't have anything in your view, okay?
It doesn't have any impact that is catastrophic.
Physiologically, you know, speaking, you know, in terms of physics to our planet, what might happen, you know, that type of thing.
Ocean levels, you know, volcanism.
It may affect the sun, it sounds like, to some degree, which then does affect volcanism.
You know, there may be some something going on there, and maybe there has been anyway, but we don't...
In other words, where do you go with that perspective?
You're talking about a kind of a cultural, even spiritual impact, but you're not talking about a physical impact of any kind on our solar system, right?
If I get you correctly.
Not from the planet itself.
Right.
But...
In terms of, you know, if my idea is about this dark star thing, which is basically that you've got a warm body in its own system that it warms, you know, say you've got a gas giant, or you go as far as a sub-giant, that gravitational tug upon its moons is enough to warm it and make it potentially habitable.
So, from my perspective, if you find something sizeable out there, you've got potential for life, and so on.
If there are beings out there, as the ancient gods, then if you discover where they live, then that has implications.
Because, like I said, it's a game-changer.
It's potentially a game-changer.
There will be mockery of this and there will be, you know, a massive disinformation campaign upon this.
But if Sitchin basically, essentially, got it right in terms of the orbit and where it is and then they find it and it's actually Describing the orbit and describing the characteristics he spoke about, then, you know, the rest of what he says falls into place, in which case, you know, that's a huge thing.
That's an absolute huge thing.
But, okay, so, but to get back, physically, not much, probably, although not directly, there could be some indirect things, like if the sun is affected, etc., Although it doesn't sound like you would go down the cataclysmic lane regardless of that, right?
And the other thing is that if it's a brown dwarf like you think of it, and I think as Sitchin saw it, then it actually has planets circulating it.
So it's like a mini solar system in a sense.
Well, he talked about it in terms of being a sizable terrestrial body.
So like the Earth, only much more massive.
So I think he went up to about...
Ten of us masses, which is very similar to what these guys are talking about.
Again, another correlation between what he talked about and what they're talking about.
He actually pretty much predicted the right mass from what they're saying.
Now, I think it might be a lot bigger than that because my argument is, well, if you've just got a terrestrial planet moving through, you know, the freezing cold depths of space, then how is anyone going to live on that?
You know, the atmosphere just treats us out on the surface.
It's just a cold rock.
So, you know, my point is you need to have a system in order to be able to have the bodies warm in each other in order to create some heat in order to make a habitable environment.
So, you know, I took his ideas and I came up with this whole brown water thing, which became a massive thing on the internet.
And, you know, it's possible, Kerry, I'm wrong about that.
Right.
In which case, I've personally taken the whole thing down a rabbit hole.
You do what?
I'm sorry?
I... It's possible that in the last 15 years, in terms of the sub-brown dwarf idea, I've taken the whole thing down a rabbit hole.
Okay.
So, yeah, we're really talking about two things then.
We're talking about a possible brown dwarf with a mini solar system circulating it.
Yeah, one planet of which is Nibiru.
That's one theory.
And then there's another theory that goes, this is an isolated planet by itself on a trajectory.
Correct?
But I wouldn't call it Brand Dwarf or whatever so much now when I started that whole world, but a Brand Dwarf actually is a star.
So it would be a sub-Brand Dwarf.
A sub-Brand Dwarf.
5-10 Jupiter masses, which is actually smaller than Jupiter, and it's not that old, so it's not, like, knit up or anything.
It's just a smoldering pile of gaps, giant.
But it's what's going around it that's important.
It's that stuff that's going around it.
And so, you know, what I'm working on at the moment is a way where that, you know, a good Visible physical explanation as to why we haven't spotted this thing yet, and I think I've got a really good idea, but that's to come if I'm right.
Okay, someone wants to know if it would be visible from Antarctica when it comes visible, and is this the Anunnaki home planet?
I think the last question you sort of answered, at least if it's so-called Nibiru, then it's likely, in your view, Anunnaki-related, but...
Would it be visible from Antarctica?
Yes, but it would also be visible from practically the whole of the bottom hemisphere and quite a lot of the northern hemisphere as well.
Because as the stars circulate around the Earth, you know, we get to see quite a large range of the sky.
So Orion, say it's in Orion, Orion's a sudden constellation, but we see Orion in the northern hemisphere during the winter and in the autumn.
So, you know, as long as it's the right time of year, Anyone can see Orion, but it's a southern constellation.
We see the North Polar, we see Polaris, right, which is the Northern Star, which is the Polestar, which everything's revolving around.
Well, in the South, you've got the Southern Star, I don't know if it is down there, because I live up in the North.
But you can see that from Antarctica, but you can also see that from the cubic amount of the Southern Hemisphere.
So you don't have to be in Antarctica to be able to see a huge range of the sky.
But the advantage of being in Antarctica is if you want to use infrared because there's not a lot of heat down there.
So there's not a lot of warmth to, you know, if you wanted to stick up an Earth-bound infrared telescope, you'd shove it down there or you'd put it up in the mountains or something, somewhere where it's cold and there's not a lot of infrared interference.
So that would be your advantage of being down in Antarctica.
Okay, now somebody is asking, actually they're referencing really flat earthers.
There are a lot of flat earth theories out there right now.
I don't know if you've been following all of that.
Someone is asking, is the earth a ball?
And I think that they're basically trying to get at whether the earth is flat.
I don't know, have you heard about that stuff?
and do you have a theory on why there is such a resurgence at this time of interest in thinking that the earth is flat?
I don't believe it's flat.
And I really couldn't explain why other people think it's flat.
I think if they went on Google Earth and spent any time on that, they'd probably change their opinion.
Okay.
I mean, unless there's some kind of trans-dimensional way that a sphere can become a flat plane and, you know, you're in the realm of fairies or something, I don't really quite know how to work, really.
Maybe there is a way of doing that, I don't know.
Yeah, I actually, I think it might have something to do with hyperdimensional physics in the way these people are perceiving this at this time, but...
I do know that they've got all sorts of theories and all sorts of things where they think they've got...
One of the theories that goes that all the pictures that we've seen of Earth, in other words, with all the spacecraft having left Earth and satellites, etc., etc., the ones that have gotten far enough out should have been able to shoot back and show us different pictures of Earth.
And that one of the points made is that you always see the same exact picture of Earth And it's actually not even quite accurate.
It's a composite.
That's interesting.
So yeah, that's one of the points that at least some flat Earth people seem to make.
I'm not even sure that's completely true.
I know that I just looked at some pictures from Ken Johnston from NASA that they did shoot back at the Earth and they seem to have gotten different angles on the Earth.
I can't tell you, you know, it doesn't appear that that's actually true, even that that's the only picture of the Earth.
But this is a point they make.
Presumably they don't believe in satellites and stuff, right?
You know, you'd have to get into the whole thing.
I don't want to make this a discussion going down that road.
There are a lot of people.
That's the question that was in the chat.
I thought I'd run that by you quickly.
Okay, so let me see if there's anything else here.
Other than someone thanking you for researching and doing your homework, there doesn't appear to be anything new.
Thank you for that.
You know, Carrie, there are some really lovely people out there in our community.
Oh, sure.
It's a great joy and a great privilege to be able to come on a program like yourselves and Okay, well please do keep writing new blog items because I know people are now going to be very tuned in to hear your your take on all the announcements that that may be coming in the you know because once this it's kind of like the ball is rolling it does appear that this thing
is building towards something so please do and then Why don't you give your website out?
I do have it linked on my website, but nonetheless, give out the pertinent information, as well as tell us the report on the third book of the trilogy that you're working on, which I'm very anxious to read.
Okay.
Well, andyloid.org or darkstar1.co.uk.
Those are the two.
Basically, Googling Andy Lloyd will probably do the job just as well.
I'm just going to quickly show you Dark Star, because that was the book.
So Dark Star is the book.
Written before 2005, really.
2005 was published.
It has got a lot of Planet Nine stuff in it.
If you look through this book, you look at the images, you read some of the text, you think, oh, wow.
I'm quite impressed with myself, really, because a few years ago I was thinking, hmm, I don't think this is going to work out.
But now, not so much.
Books.
I've been in contact with my publisher.
He's quite keen for me to do a non-fiction title, actually.
What we're talking about doing is taking, I mean my blog's vast, taking general threads of what we're talking about, which is Planet X related, and maybe drawing upon those into sort of more filled out articles that would explain a lot of the repercussions, which we haven't talked about much actually, the anomalies and the repercussions in the solar system and stuff like that.
so a lot of the evidence and so on and and maybe producing non-fiction book and and i have got this novel uh idea now for finishing the trilogy and it's taking me about three years to come up with it but i'm really pleased with it and i've got uh what i think are some really stunning ideas to to conclude the trilogy which is basically going to be all about the analogy and what they do when they find out about what we're doing you know kind of interesting so uh yeah
i'm looking forward to writing that because you know i'm just building up the chapters and looking for opportunity to go with that but it's time time time time time time you know i work a pain i write i keep this blog going and And then I do a fine time with the family and write books.
And, you know, I mean, it's just not a thousand number of days left.
So, you know, I try it.
I'm trying.
Okay.
All right.
Well, thank you so much for coming on the show.
And let's do this again in the future.
I'm glad we were able to make the connection.
There was very little interference, which is interesting.
And, you know, once again, thanks.
And thanks for everyone for listening and watching.
And this will go on to YouTube and, you know, have a life, a long life.
So have a great, great day or great night in your case, okay?