On January 20, 2016, a paper by CalTech researchers Konstantin Batygin and Michael Brown was published in the The Astronomical Journal titled, “Evidence For a Distant Giant Planet in the Solar System.”
Absent any actual observations, this paper offers a scientific explanation for Planet X which they’ve dubbed “Planet Nine.” Needless to say, our e-mail lit up like a Christmas tree as soon as this story broke.
On a scientific level, this announcement is speculative. So we decided to monitor the mainstream media response as well as the response of those who have been following this topic for years.
What we found interesting about the mainstream media response is that their usual tactic of humiliating and dismissing Planet X researchers was completely suspended for the benefit of CalTech, Batygin, and Brown. No doubt this is what triggered the intuitive suspicions of those who follow the topic of Planet X, who are more interested in the political perturbations of this story.
Evidence of these cynical suspicions appeared immediately as the following acronym began popping up for Planet Nine: “(N)ibiru (I)s (N)ear (E)xtinction.” While this is a catchy acronym, it is anyone’s guess as to whether or not this is based in fact.
However what may explain the intuitive aspect of this acronym is a name well known in Hollywood: Edward D. Wood Junior. If you are a director in Hollywood and you have been forced to make a movie you absolutely despise, you replace your name in the credits with the pseudonym, “Edward D. Wood, Jr.”
Edward D. Wood Jr. wrote and directed the science fiction movie, Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959), which was unquestionably the worst of its kind in the history of cinema. Ergo, by using the pseudonym Edward D. Wood Jr. despairing directors can send a message of dissent to everyone
For this reason, Plan 9 from Outer Space has found its own famous niche, where it represents something that is so terribly awful that nobody could ever forget it. Therefore, those who are skeptical about the agenda of this Planet Nine announcement are arguably experiencing an intuitive “Plan 9 from Outer Space” feeling about Planet Nine.
Therefore, having identified the instinctive cynicism of those who follow the topic, this article seeks to take a more deductive and reasoned view of Planet Nine and why these concerns are warranted. With that, let’s begin with the mainstream media response itself.
Mainstream Media Response
This story begins with CalTech’s January 20, 2016 announcement of the paper published in The Astronomical Journal by Konstantin Batygin and Michael Brown.
Caltech Researchers Find Evidence of a Real Ninth Planet
Caltech researchers have found evidence of a giant planet tracing a bizarre, highly elongated orbit in the outer solar system. The object, which the researchers have nicknamed Planet Nine, has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun on average than does Neptune (which orbits the sun at an average distance of 2.8 billion miles). In fact, it would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the sun.
The researchers, Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown, discovered the planet’s existence through mathematical modeling and computer simulations but have not yet observed the object directly.
“This would be a real ninth planet,” says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy. “There have only been two true planets discovered since ancient times, and this would be a third. It’s a pretty substantial chunk of our solar system that’s still out there to be found, which is pretty exciting.”
Batygin and Brown describe their work in the current issue of the Astronomical Journal and show how Planet Nine helps explain a number of mysterious features of the field of icy objects and debris beyond Neptune known as the Kuiper Belt.
The key points to keep in mind with this article are that CalTech intentionally evades any mention of the term “Planet X,” and that this ground-breaking announcement about “Planet Nine” is based on extrapolation, not observation. Furthermore, it is not until the mainstream media begins reporting on the story that the term “Planet X” is used.
Fox News, 20-Jan-2016
Scientists may have just found a ninth planet and it’s massive
Scientists believe they may have found a giant planet in our distant solar system, possibly the long-sought after Planet X.
It is believed to have a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the Sun on average than does Neptune. As a result, it would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the Sun.
“This would be a real ninth planet,” CalTech researcher Mike Brown, who along with his colleague Konstantin Batygin, made the discovery which they are calling Planet Nine.
It’s “the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system,” said Brown, who is famous for helping demote Pluto to a dwarf planet.
In this Fox News article, reporter Michael Casey quotes Mike Brown as saying, “It’s [Planet X] ‘the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system.’ ” What this shows is that both CalTech and Brown are going to extraordinary lengths to distance themselves from the term “Planet X.” Why is this? Perhaps it is because of a paper published in The Astrophysical Journal in 2014.
Phys.org, March 16, 2014
Planet X myth debunked
It was an elusive planet that for 200 years appeared to explain Uranus’s wobbly orbit. And there was the sister sun theorized to be near our solar system that caused asteroids to swerve toward Earth.
There is just one problem: neither “Planet X” nor “Nemesis” ever existed, researchers now say.
Or probably not.
“The outer solar system probably does not contain a large gas giant planet (“Planet X”), or a small, companion star (“Nemesis”),” concluded University of Pennsylvania astronomer Kevin Luhman, who directed the study using NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) telescope.
The results were published in the most recent edition of The Astrophysical Journal.
Whether you call it Planet Nine, Planet X, or Plan 9 from Outer Space, astronomer Kevin Luhman is saying no how, no way, while CalTech’s Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown are saying au contraire and getting away with it. So what comes next? Planet Nine becomes Planet 9Y? Ergo, we need to focus on the real difference between the terms Planet Nine and Planet X.
Planet Nine vs. Planet X
Planet Nine, “the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system,” according to Mike Brown has never been observed. Ergo, the designation has no basis in observation which means Brown and CalTech are playing a game of Three-Card Monte. Nonetheless, the mainstream media (such as in the Fox News report noted above) are quite accurate in calling this a Planet X story and here is why.
Planet X is a long standing term used by astronomers to describe an undiscovered planet in our outer solar system. The history of the term dates back to the discovery of Uranus, the first planet to be discovered with a telescope. It was first sighted in 1690 by John Flamsteed, but was mistaken for a star. However, in 1781 it was correctly discovered as a planet by Sir William Herschel.
After Herschel‘s discovery of Uranus, astronomers were able to observe complete orbits of the planet. This is when they took note of gravitational perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.
At this point, astronomers knew that an undiscovered, large planet beyond the orbit of Uranus was responsible for these gravitation perturbations and this is actually when the term Planet X first came into limited use.
Planet X meaning an unobserved planet, known to exist by virtue of its gravitation effects on other bodies in our solar system.
This is when the search began for Planet X truly began, which led to the next major discovery in our solar system. Not with a telescope, but with mathematics. This is because the planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed.
In 1845 astronomers Urbain Le Verrier in France and John Couch Adams in England used perturbations in the orbit of Uranus to mathematically calculate the location of Neptune. In 1846, using these calculations, Neptune was quickly observed with a telescope by astronomer Johann Galle in Germany.
Following the discovery of Neptune astronomers were surprised to observe gravitational perturbations in the orbit of Neptune, just as they had with Uranus. And so the search for Planet X continued here in America, where in 1894 wealthy Bostonian Percival Lowell founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona.
According to Wikipedia, Lowell’s greatest contribution to planetary studies came during the last decade of his life, which he devoted to the search for Planet X, a hypothetical planet beyond Neptune. Although Lowell did not discover Pluto, Lowell Observatory did photograph Pluto in March and April of 1915.
In 1930 Clyde William Tombaugh of the Lowell Observatory was credited with the discovery of Pluto, which at the time was assumed to be the Planet X that was perturbing the orbits of Uranus and Neptune.
That assumption was proved wrong with the 1978 discovery of Pluto’s moon, Charon, by United States Naval Observatory Astronomer James Christy. This discovery allowed astronomers to accurately determine the size of Pluto. What the data showed is that Pluto is less than one fifth the size of the Earth. In fact, it is so small, our own moon is much bigger than Pluto.
But more importantly, this 1978 discovery clearly showed that Pluto lacks the mass necessary to perturb the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, both of which are approximately four times the size of Earth. Consequently, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) reclassified Pluto as a member of the new “dwarf planet” category, and Pluto lost its status as the 9th planet.
Mike Brown of CalTech, who discovered the trans-Neptunian dwarf planet, Eris, was instrumental in seeing to it that Pluto was downgraded to a dwarf planet. He takes great pride in that fact, as evidenced by the title of his book, How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming, and his Twitter handle: @plutokiller.
This takes us back to Mike Brown’s careful avoidance of the term Planet X by using the designation Planet Nine. This is ironic because the paper he and Konstantin Batygin published in the The Astronomical Journal uses the exact same method that was used to discover the planets Neptune and Pluto — that being the observation of gravitational perturbations and locating the planet by means of mathematical modeling.
This is why the mainstream media is right in calling this a Planet X story. Moreover, this Three-Card Monte Planet Nine designation tactic by CalTech is, by itself, more than enough to warrant the instinctive suspicions of those who have followed the story of Planet X for a long time. It begs a simple question — are they being clever? or are they being intentionally obtuse? This is a very thorny question, because the truth of the answer to this question could very well open up a very deadly can of worms.
Can You Handle the Truth?
An object that has yet to be observed, but is named in an evasive way, raises a very thorny prospect — that this grand announcement of Planet Nine by CalTech has less to do with science and far more to do with politics. For each of us this is a very critical question, because if this is, indeed, a politically driven agenda, what is the meaning of all of this?
This is the burr under the saddle of those who view this announcement with great cynicism and concern, because it gives us neither a pure science answer nor a pure political answer. But rather something in between and so in analyzing this twilight zone of science and politics, let us take an alchemical approach.
Alchemy is much more than simply turning lead into gold as we were told. It is a view of science that incorporates spirituality in a holistic manner. So with this in mind, let us take a look at exactly what is at stake here.
This is not a story about something happening way out there, this is story about something that could cost you your life. A story that has only yet begun to be told. Now you, the reader, are standing at a fork in the road with only two possible choices: to acquiesce or to struggle.
- Acquiesce: Blindly accept the edicts of our government and media.
- Struggle: Act with courage to march to the beat of a different drummer in a responsible and enlightened way.
With this in mind, let’s first look at the pros and cons of the choice to acquiesce, and then flip the coin to the opposite side so that we can clearly see the pros and cons of the choice to struggle.
|The Choice to Acquiesce|
|The bliss of ignorance. You can ignore the significance of this story to pursue self-gratification.||Willful indifference makes you blind and complicit.|
|Ego gratification by mocking those who choose to struggle.||Yielding your free will puts your life in the hands of those controlling the message.|
|Use your belief in Creator as a firewall against the difficult questions raised by this topic.||You anticipate fate and the whims of a vengeful God with a sense of special exception. Self-delusion about the depth of your relationship with Creator.|
|You will be in lockstep with the majority instead of being shunned in a small, heretic minority.||By pursuing “safety in numbers,” you emotionally paper over the need to live a spirit-driven life.|
|The Choice to Struggle|
|Be a free thinker; find truths that resonate within you.||The fear of making a mistake about what is true.|
|By practicing self-reliance you will naturally become more self-reliant.||You will not have the comfort of knowing you are not a person of interest.|
|Building spiritual strength gives you the will to survive even the most adverse circumstances.||Isolation as a result of your determined expression of free will in following your own spiritual path.|
|Enhance your chances of survival by forging a deeper relationship with Creator.||Isolation as a result of being perceived as a heretic.|
Having reviewed this comparison, you, the reader, now have a simple choice of free will.
In other words, whatever you choose next, you are solely responsible for the consequences of your decision. You cannot pass the buck to anyone else. The buck stops with you.
If you choose to acquiesce then you have finished reading this article. May the odds always be in your favor.
If you choose to struggle, we will now present concepts that may serve as helpful references for your own deliberation of the truth, with the goal of arriving at an informed and intelligent decision.
The Agenda of Intentional Obfuscation
Earlier in the article, we referred to Brown and CalTech’s tactic of coining the “Planet Nine” designation as a game of Three-Card Monte. That was for the benefit of those who’ve chosen the path of acquiescence over that of struggle. However, for those of you who’ve chosen to struggle, the correct term is “obfuscate,” which means, “to confuse, darken, bewilder, or stupefy.”
Therefore, the underlying cause or the cynicism regarding the CalTech announcement of Planet Nine is the suspicion of an agenda of intentional obfuscation. Do the facts warrant such suspicion? And if so, is there a simple test by which we can make such a determination? Yes.
Thanks to the efforts of Planet 7X creator, Gill Broussard, we have an example of a clear pattern of intentional obfuscation with which we can test the Calech/Brown announcement of Planet Nine. The modus operandi is:
|Change the Name for Planet X||Planet 7X||Planet Nine|
|Change the Distance (Threat)||360 Years Orbit
[nothing too terrible happened]
|10,000 to 20,000 Years Orbit, 200 AU
[not in our lifetimes; stays far away]
|Commandeer the Topic||Attack Sitchen||Attack ALMA,
Attack historical astronomers
Those who dismiss this as coincidence do not want you to be aware of the facts. With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at each modus operandi as applied by both Gill Broussard and CalTech/Brown.
Change the Name for Planet X
As we pointed out earlier in this article, the term “Planet X” has been used in the astronomical community since the discovery of the Planet Uranus in 1781 by Sir William Herschel.
The use of “X” in the term does represent the Roman numeral ten. The “X” stands for a body in our solar system that is gravitationally perturbing a cataloged object, but is as yet unobserved and unknown.
Both Broussard and CalTech/Brown maintain that Planet 7X and Planet Nine have not been observed as of yet. What is the significance of this? That was best summed up by Dr. Brian Marsden (1937-2010) while he was the Associate Director of the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatories, “The failure to observe an object only proves one thing; that you’ve failed to observe it, and nothing else.”
So given the many names for “Planet X,” does this permit free license to pull new designations out of a hat like a cosmic rabbit? No, because all of the alternate names for Planet X have a clear historical basis, as demonstrated in the short list below:
|Alternate Name for Planet X||Historical Source|
|Destroyer||Ancient Egyptians and Hebrews|
|Red Kachina||Hopi Prophecy|
What is important to note is that these Planet X alternatives are formal nouns, not numerical designations such as those used by Broussard and Caltech/Brown.
Broussard created the term “Planet 7X” or “P7X” which he says stands for a planet that has yet to be observed, but which is seven times the size of Earth. The logic of this designation is a contradictory oxymoron. How can you name an object by its size without first observing it to determine its size?
While Broussard created an oxymoron to obfuscate the term “Planet X,” CalTech/Brown is employing a far more insidious tactic — a tactic perfectly explained in the January 20, 2016 Fox News article cited above: “It’s [Planet Nine] ‘the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system,’ said Brown.”
By creating these intentionally misleading designations for Planet X, both Broussard and CalTech/Brown are positioning themselves to:
- Create Confusion: Creating unfamiliar designations for Planet X confuses those unfamiliar with the topic, thereby enabling misdirection and misinformation opportunities.
- Demean the Work of Others: Using unwarranted smears and unfamiliar designations for Planet X sets Broussard and CalTech/Brown up to demean and dismiss the work of others with deceptive attacks.
- Suppress Alternate Explanations: By addressing the same public concern with unfamiliar designations, Broussard and CalTech/Brown seek to suppress alternate explanations of what they are presenting. Consequently, using different search keyword terms such as “Planet Nine” and “Planet 7X” intentionally bifurcates search engine listings, thereby driving Internet traffic away from alternative Planet X research sites.
So what’s in a name? The agenda behind it. The same holds true for the test of distance.
Change the Distance (Threat)
Earlier we used the term Three-Card Monte, a gambling game that has been around since the 1500s. A huckster moves three playing cards around while asking something like, “Where’s the Queen?” If you guess right, you win the bet. If not, you lose, as folks most often do.
In this case the question, “Where’s the Queen?” is just as tricky as, “Where’s Planet 7X?” or, “Where’s Planet Nine?” The operative term for all three questions is “where?” This is because those who are technically illiterate when it comes to astronomy are not interested in orbits, variances, and so forth. They only want to know two things: Where is it (Planet X, Planet 7X, or Planet Nine) in relationship to me? And is it a threat?
Obfuscation can be accomplished in a variety of ways, and Broussards’ method is simple: overload those attempting to take in all his data with baffling propositions. This is why his summary text is embedded into his graphics. It forces those attempting to take it all in to reconstruct his many and various propositions. With this in mind, let’s attempt to simplify this.
According to Broussard, the designation Planet 7X stands for an unobserved planet that is 7 times the diameter of Earth. Therefore, given that Earth is 7,926 miles in diameter, multiply that by 7 and you get 55,482 miles. To put this in perspective, Uranus is 31,763 miles in diameter, ergo Planet 7X is 1.75 times the size of Uranus.
Broussard further claims that the closest approach of Planet 7X to Earth is 0.7 LD. LD stands for lunar distance which is the average distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon, or 238,900 miles (384,400 kilometers).
Therefore, the closest approach of Planet 7X to Earth (0.7 LD) equals 167,230 miles. Additionally, Brossard’s graphics for Planet 7X project an orbit of 232 – 360 years.
Therefore, what propositions are those trying to make sense of these graphics presented with?
- The last flyby of Planet 7X occurred sometime between 1656 and 1784.
- This period of time spans the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution in Western Civilization — a period of time noted for extensive record-keeping.
- The Gutenberg printing press was invented sometime around 1440.
What is the Planet 7X message? Given the absence of any historical records evidencing any form of catastrophic consequences for Earth resulting from the flyby of a massive object during the period 1656 and 1784, this object is not a direct threat, assuming there have been no deviations in the object’s orbit.
While explaining this as as orbital deviation may seem logical to the untrained mind at face value, it would nonetheless be just another baffling proposition. Remember, according to Broussard, Planet 7X is 1.75 times the size of Uranus and passes within 0.7LD of Earth.
Aside from the fact that every living soul on Earth would have seen such a massive object, what does Broussard’s Planet 7X theory actually imply? A good way to frame this answer is by examining the relationship between the Earth and the Moon.
The moon is 1.0 LD away from the Earth and the tidal gravitational force it brings to bear upon Earth is what causes our ocean tides. Without the moon, our seas would be as calm as lakes, but there is even more to that. Were the moon to suddenly disappear, the subsequent absence of its tidal gravitational force would cause the entire surface of Earth to sink by approximately 18 inches. The result of that would an E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event.)
In other words, had Planet 7X passed between the Earth and the moon sometime between 1656 and 1784 as Broussard maintains, you would not be reading this article because your ancestors would have perished in a Planet 7X E.L.E hundreds of years ago.
But for those of you who are not interested in examining the twilight zone math, ask yourself one simple question — given that Broussard claims to be a graphic designer and yet cannot demonstrate anything to substantiate that claim, how is it that his Planet 7X graphics, which arguably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create, came to be? Or in other words, who paid for the graphics and why?
The bottom line for Broussard’s Planet 7X propositions is that the question, “Where is it [Planet 7X a.k.a. Planet X] in relationship to me?” is irrelevant because Planet 7X is not a historically documented threat. Ergo, nothing to see here, move along, which we shall, to CalTech and Mike Brown.
The distance for Planet Nine makes the question, “Where is it [Planet Nine a.k.a. Planet X] in relationship to me?” every bit as irrelevant as Planet 7X, but for a completely different reason.
The astronomical unit (AU) is a unit of length, roughly the distance from Earth to the Sun. Dr. Brown’s Planet Nine discovery proposes a highly elliptical orbit that brings it as close as 200 AU to the Sun and as far as 600 – 1200 AU at it’s furthest point.
Even though the margin of error is 600 – 1200 AU, and the estimate of Planet Nine’s orbit is 10,000 to 20,000 years in duration, the only scientific conclusion for anyone who is asking, “Where?” is, “Don’t bother.” Or in other words, you could say, “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” because Planet Nine has yet to be observed. Or has it?
Commandeer the Topic
To commandeer something is to take possession of it without authority. If the military commandeers your house for a command center, it’s time to pack your bags. With Planet X, the goal of Broussard and CalTech/Brown is to make everyone else in the Planet X topic pack their bags and leave.
With Broussard the message is simple — he’s right and everyone else is wrong. At the top of Broussard’s “wrong” list is Zecharia Sitchin, author of The 12th Planet.
We examined Broussard’s attack on Sitchin last November, in our documentary Planet 7X Theories vs. Zecharia Sitchin’s Work.
Yowusa.com, November 7, 2015
Planet 7X Theories vs. Zecharia Sitchin’s Work
Planet 7X researcher, Gill Broussard, recently appeared in a documentary titled “Watchers Nine: Days of Darkness” with L.A. Marzulli. In that program, Gill Broussard challenged the work of Zecharia Sitchin, author of “The 12th Planet,” with several unsubstantiated claims.
This video is a ‘fair use’ response to Broussard’s unsubstantiated claims, made by Planet X researcher and investigator, Marshall Masters, publisher of the Yowusa.com web site and several books on the topic. Gill Broussard is welcome to produce a response video to substantiate his currently unsubstantiated claims.
L.A. Marzulli (The Nephilim Trilogy), the host of this Pinlight Productions docuseries, states in his interview with Broussard that Zecharia Sitchin’s book, The 12th Planet, “…put Planet X on the map.
What is important to note is that Sitchin’s orbit for Planet X / Nibiru is 3,600 lunar years, whereas Broussard’s orbit for Planet 7X is 232 – 360 years. Rather than say they are talking about two different objects, Broussard uses unsubstantiated claims to demean the work of Sitchin. This is an integral part of Broussard’s agenda to commandeer the topic in furtherance of his goal to establish himself as the only credible voice on the topic of Planet X.
Is this tactic limited to alternative science? No. In fact, it is a tactic based in the high-stakes political motivations of mainstream science. Here the culprit is Planet Nine proponent Mike Brown of CalTech. The following are excerpts from our response to his attacks on his professional astronomer colleagues at the ALMA observatory, with direct quotes:
Yowusa.com, December 17, 2016
ALMA Astronomers Publish Planet X Papers Before USA Can Suppress
On December 10, 2015 ALMA astronomers published two Planet X scientific abstracts in which they report initial observations of two very large objects at the edge of our solar system.
Located in Northern Chile, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) is the largest single telescope in the world and is located at an altitude of 5,000 meters.
Because this observatory is not under full or majority financial control of the United States government, the USA was unable to suppress the publication of these papers.
- “ ‘The logical leaps are sort of astounding,’ he [Brown] said. ‘What they really saw they saw is a little blip and then six months later another little blip.’ ”
- “ ‘The evidence that the researchers offer for their findings is too scanty,’ Brown said, and the probability that they could have stumbled across a huge, planet-like object in a tiny patch of sky is too small.’ ”
- “Finding Planet X in the small field of vision they studied with the ALMA telescope, he said, ‘would be like scooping a cup full of water from the ocean and pulling out the white whale.’ ”
- “ ‘There’s so many reasons why they can’t possibly be correct,’ Brown said. ‘It’s embarrassing to the field.’ ”
Why is Brown’s white whale bombast pure propaganda? Because ALMA is not only the largest observatory in the world, it is one that America propagandists cannot suppress or compromise.
These attacks on the ALMA astronomers were so brutal that they withdrew their published papers. Not at the speed of science, but at the speed of politics. However, that was not enough to satisfy Brown, because not only was he arrogant and dismissive, so was Washington Post reporter Sarah Kaplan, who in the same article smeared Planet X astronomers Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaug in a very ugly way and without any apparent reason:
Yowusa.com, December 17, 2016
ALMA Astronomers Publish Planet X Papers Before USA Can Suppress
SARAH KAPLAN: “…no Planet X researcher was more beleaguered than Percival Lowell, who launched into the search for the distant object in an attempt to redeem himself after he became a laughing stock for suggesting that aliens might be building canals on Mars.”
SARAH KAPLAN: “Pluto would become ‘Planet X’ a decade later, when a farm kid named Clyde Tombaugh working at the Flagstaff, Ariz., laboratory that Lowell founded came across a small moving speck in his own photos of the sky.”
On one hand, we can attribute these unwarranted attacks on the ALMA astronomers by Brown as professional jealously. In other words, he was getting ready to publish his own Planet X paper and did not want them muddying the waters, so to speak. However, that assumption is only useful when presented as a Broussard-like baffling proposition.
This is because a green Washington Post reporter with no understanding of astronomy was used by Brown and CalTech to demean the reputations of past Planet X astronomers, by calling Percival Lowell a “laughing stock,” and by calling Clyde Tombaugh “a farm kid.”
This takes us back to the Fox News article noted above, where reporter Michael Casey quotes Mike Brown as saying, “It’s [Planet X] ‘the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system.’ ”
Ask yourself, if Brown’s Planet Nine has nothing in common with Planet X, Planet 7X, or the recent observations reported by the ALMA astronomers, then why is he using Washington Post reporter Sarah Kaplan to do his Planet X dirty work for him? This brings us to the crux of this article, the agenda.
In 1959 Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone series (1959–1964), injected an indelible phrase into the modern lexicon, “Imagine, if you will…”
With this in mind, let us now take all that has been presented here as the context for one possible explanation of the agenda behind Planet Nine — one lurking in the shadows and begging us to imagine, if we will.
What you are to read now is, as Rod Sterling so aptly put it, in “…the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge.”
- Time: The near future
- Where: Everywhere in the world
- What: People are standing in the streets together, pointing up at the sky and feeling the fear of the unknown punching them in the stomach. Not because of what they see, but because they know deep down that they are not prepared for what they see.
The wrong question people ask each day is, “When will I see it with my own eyes?” It is an open-ended question that begs for dismissal by those allegedly in the know.
Therefore, while that is the wrong question, the right question is, “When will I believe that what I am seeing with my own two eyes is a clear and present danger?”
In between these two questions is a grand opportunity for those seeking to dramatically reduce the human population during the coming Planet X System flyby. This is because the vast majority of humankind lives along coastal shorelines. Prevent them from seeking safety inland, and nature will do the rest. The question then becomes, “How do you fool them into dying in place?”
Simple. You let them do it to themselves by manipulating their emotional hopes of hearing, “Everything is fine. Nothing terrible will happen.” Like a game of chess, your strategy begins with the first pawn and then a series of moves that obfuscate your strategy. Within a few more steps your opponent’s King is in check and there is nothing to be done for it.
So now, let’s play the game.
Imagine, if you will, that after looking up at the sky everyone goes back into their homes to tune their televisions to the major news networks to find out what is happening. Now they are, “on a through-route to the land of the different, the bizarre, the unexplainable…”
They see the news anchor and two guests. One representing the government and another representing what they will title, “conspiracy theorists.” Again, imagine, if you will, that these two men are Mike Brown and Gill Broussard.
NEWS ANCHOR: “We’re all looking up right now at a disturbing sight and wondering, ‘What does this mean for us?’ First, let’s get the official story from the man behind Planet Nine. Is this Planet Nine? or what folks call Planet X or Nibiru?”
BROWN: “Well this is not Planet Nine which is well beyond the orbit of Pluto. Nor is it what some want to say is Planet X or Nibiru. In this regard I agree with David Morrison, NASA’s senior scientist at the NASA Astrobiology Institute when he said in 2008, ‘Nibiru does not exist. NASA has never discovered or detected Nibiru or anything remotely like it. Nibiru is simply a fake, a hoax, the result of a small religious cult that is unfortunately scaring lots of people with totally false stories.’ ”
NEWS ANCHOR: “A religious cult?”
BROWN: “I believe Morrison was referring to a lady by the name of Nancy Lieder. As I seem to recall, she’s the leader of the Zetatalk which she founded in 1995. She offers a bizarre blend of bad pseudoscience to explain her mysterious conversations with extraterrestrials called the Grays. The only thing she’s living proof of, is that our first amendment rights are alive and well.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “OK, so this is not Planet X or Nibiru, so could have one of the two objects observed by the astronomers at the ALMA observatory in Chile been in fact your theorized Planet Nine?”
BROWN: “No, because they were confused by errors in their equipment and subsequently had to withdraw their papers. Like I said to Sarah Kaplan of the Washington Post back in December 2015, ‘for those of us who actually work on this, it’s embarrassing to even say you might be looking for these sort of things in the outer solar system because there have been so many crazy theories.’ ”
NEWS ANCHOR: “With that in mind, Mr. Broussard, I wonder if the astronomers at the ALMA observatory might have observed the Planet 7X you’ve theorized to exist.”
BROUSSARD: “It would be impossible for it to be Planet 7X because of the orbit. So no. I tend to agree with Mike. They were confused by errors in their instrumentation.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “Well then, do you disagree with Mr. Brown that what we’re seeing in the sky right now is not Planet X or Nibiru as it is also know?”
BROUSSARD: “Well I’ve been told there is no scientific evidence for the existence of either Planet X or Nibiru, which is an unsubstantiated theory put forth by the writer Zecharia Sitchin, author of The 12th Planet. His translations of the ancient Sumerican texts have been debunked by several experts, and so I suppose that like Nancy Lieder of Zetatalk, all you can say about Sitchen is that he has a large cult following.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “So is what we’re seeing in the sky Planet 7X?”
BROUSSARD: “It could be a possibility, that is, assuming it has broken apart. That would explain why the fragments have reddish tails.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “Well Dr. Brown, what do you say? Is what we’re seeing in the sky a fragmented Planet 7X?”
BROWN: “Not to insult Mr. Broussard, but it is none of the above. We’ve been studying this object closely and here is what we’ve found. It is actually a very large comet that sneaked up on us from behind the sun, much like the Chelyabinsk meteor that detonated over the Chelyabinsk Oblast in Russia back in February 2013.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “As I recall NASA didn’t see that one coming.”
BROWN: “That’s right, but neither did the Russians or the many amateur astronomers who make most of these sightings. Its a big sky, as we like to say.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “So then, given that you didn’t see it coming and that it is not Planet 7X, Planet X or Nibiru, what exactly are we seeing?”
BROWN: “It is a very large comet dubbed Wormwood by Project Wormwood at the Learmonth Solar Observatory in Australia who first observed it. That’s how it works in astronomy. If you’re the first to observe, you get to name it and that’s the name they chose. Which of course played straight into the hands of conspiracy theorists, religious zealots and other such fear-mongers. Needless to say, it wouldn’t have been my first choice.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “So you’re saying it is one comet and not several comets?”
BROWN: “Yes that is correct. Wormwood is just one comet that has broken apart.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “So have we ever seen anything like this before.”
BROWN: “Yes and no. This is the first comet with a red tail, which tells us it contains a good deal of iron. So in that regard, it is something new and the flyby will afford us with a historic opportunity to observe what could be a whole new class of comets. So the red tails are new. What’s not new is that this comet has broken apart, just as Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 did back in 1993.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “Isn’t that the comet that broke apart and then impacted the planet Jupiter?”
BROWN: “Exactly. What we’re seeing now is essentially a replay of what happened back in 1993 with Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “And as we all know, Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 impacted Jupiter, not the Earth. In fact, we’ve prepared a short historical clip on that.”
VIDEO INSERT: Cut to historical piece on Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9. Astronomers sitting at their computer consoles watching the impacts and celebrating with great gaiety.
NEWS ANCHOR: “So Dr. Brown, will Wormwood impact the Earth or Jupiter as did Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9?”
BROWN: “No, it will do neither. Of than some occasional solar storms that will temporarily interfere with your television broadcasts, Wormwood will pass us by.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “And what do you say Mr. Broussard?”
BROUSSARD: “Well, I’m not one to enjoy agreeing with the government but this time I’d have to say Mr. Brown is right with one small exception. I expect to see more meteor showers and perhaps a few more meteorite impacts, but that’s pretty much it. Otherwise, enjoy the show. It will be a spectacular sight to tell your grandchildren about.”
NEWS ANCHOR: “And for those of you out there who are worried, be careful of those seeking to profit by spreading fear and panic. We expect to see a lot of that, similar to what happened when Halley’s Comet flew by the Earth back in 1910. We’ve prepared a short historical piece on that, so let’s take a look a it.”
VIDEO INSERT: Clip documents the apocalyptic hype surrounding the 1910 return of Halley’s comet, with advertisements of anti-comet pills and elixirs, gas masks, and so forth.
NEWS ANCHOR: “And so folks, now you know. This flyby of Wormwood will not be anything more than an interesting light show of a new kind of comet. No doubt the solar storms and meteorites that our guests tell us may happen are of no real concern. So don’t be scammed by people spreading irrational fear and panic like folks did with Halley’s Comet back in 1910. With that, I’d like to thank both of you gentlemen for coming on and explaining all this to us.”
Previously in this article you learned that there will be only two possible choices once everyone is standing in the street with family, friends and neighbors and pointing up at the sky: acquiesce or struggle.
- Acquiesce: Blindly accept the edicts of our government and media.
- Struggle: Act with courage to march to the beat of a different drummer in a responsible and enlightened way.
So now you have a choice to make. You can make it now, or you can make it later once everyone is pointing up at the sky, but be forewarned. If you are living along a coastline, or have loved ones living along a coastline, when that time comes, your king will already be in check.
Category: Planet X