LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
A second sun was seen on and around May 29, 1630, and 20 or 30 years later a lot of new comets showed up just as we would expect - the first wave to have been flung in by a companion star that briefly lit up to scare the bejeebies out of everyone at the time. And we do see that the effects of this event were exactly as we would have expected them to be, only it seems to have been covered up and/or forgotten, for the most part in its historical context. Also, there have been attempts to describe this second sun as a "comet." It's possible, of course, but it seems that, in such a case, it would have been described as a "flaming star," which was equally portentous. The observers of the time had no problem distinguishing between comets and other observational anomalies.Of course, the mentioned article was written over 8 years ago, and prior to the recent research by Martin Lunn and historian Lila Rakoczy. But it's SOTT editors current assessment that the hypothesis of the companion sun being a "noon-day sun" remains worthy of consideration.
So why it was described as a "second sun" is an interesting question. Could it have been a supernova?
Checking the records of the various supernovae, nothing fits this period - either Cass A or Kepler's SN or Tycho's SN... How this relates to Flamsteed's star, when he actually observed it, and other details remain to be determined by collecting data.
Later on, John Dryden suggested that the comets of 1664 and 1665 were related to the Sun that was seen at the birth of Charles II. He described this apparition as "That bright companion of the sun...."
All kinds of comparisons were made suggesting that Charles' birth was similar to the birth of Jesus, and it was conjectured that just such a sun had appeared at that event also. So, even if we have very little to go on, we might take these interpretations as indicative that this "noon-day sun" was in view for a while.
What IS interesting is how, other than this sort of commentary, all other records of this phenomenon have sort of disappeared - unless, of course, the author of this book found them to be too crazy and just omitted a lot of them.
So, it seems that we have found some descriptive evidence that may "fit" with the hypothesis that the companion sun was at perihelion on May 29, 1630, or close enough for horseshoes. And that the comets that followed 20 or 30 years later were an initial group that was flung in or pushed in with this star. If we are correct and the disturbance in the Oort cloud was prolonged for hundreds of years as the star passed through, and that the disturbance resulted in masses of comets entering the solar system in a spiraling motion, it just may be that there are some really big ones out there on their way in to the "target" from ALL directions.
Buddha is quoted as saying, "This life of separateness may be compared to a dream, a phantasm, a bubble, a shadow, a drop of dew, a flash of lightning." But in our case, lightning, or electrical phenomena, is exactly the binding force that may explain many of the perceived mysteries and inconsistencies in weather, on Earth and in Space. Remember how "everything is made of stardust"? But what if everything is also highly electrical in nature? Radical thinking, you say? No, it's just one of the good hypotheses we abandoned, and now it's coming back to light after years of spinning wheels, and due to the necessity of explaining accumulating "anomalous" observations.But if these theories that mainstream astronomers peddle are only ad-hoc then what is the real story here?
Donald E. Scott says, that it is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state.Mainstream astrophysicists are continually "surprised" by new data sent back by space probes and orbiting telescopes. That ought to be a clue that something is wrong. New information always sends theoretical astrophysicists "back to the drawing board". In light of this, it is curious that they have such "cock-sure" attitudes about the infallibility of their present models. Those models seem to require major "patching up" every time a new space probe sends back data.
When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicists have circled their wagons and conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S.