Science is structured method of explaining what we experience through observation.

It is a systematized approach that seeks to objectively verify what is happening thereby allowing us to predict and to exert some control on the forces that shape our lives.

Science does not contain absolute truths; new ideas and explanations are generated at an ever increasing rate and old certainties are consigned to the waste bin. We believe that the principles of science provide the only sensible means of separating probable fact from probable fiction.

But good science is about more than logging observations. Without the ability to wonder and to speculate, knowledge is empty.

Albert Einstein put it beautifully when he said:

"Imagination is more important that knowledge".


Like science, religion is an attempt to explain what we experience. However, there are no rules to religion - which can quickly lead to intellectual anarchy if it is used to replace science as a worldview.

Everyone who expresses a view on history colours actual events with their own belief system. Neither of us have any interest in supporting any particular religious view. But we do share a common approach on the way the world is, and how its history has been fashioned:

  1. There is order in the universe and, against all probability, humankind exist. We think it is reasonable to refer to this propensity towards order as 'God'. The anthropomorphic gods created by the world's religions makes it easier for people to deal with the apparent insignificance of their existence, but such deities are (for us) only within the mind.
  2. God did not set up the rules of the universe to casually break them, so all events must conform to the principles of rational science. This means that miracles, magic and the supernatural do not exist and cannot be used to explain any historical event.


Today's news is tomorrow's history. The arguments as to the 'truth' of the situation begin immediately and the generally accepted version that becomes recorded history is the account that best serves the purposes of the victor.

The history that most of us were taught at school is at best a loose approximation of past events, and at worst complete fiction. For many people history is made up of unconnected packets of information made up of names, dates, battles, discoveries and inventions. Because there is now so much knowledge in the world experts have become increasingly specialised, focusing in on tighter and tighter subject matter. This has created a situation where it is difficult for an expert in one field to see the broader context of her or his work, and a disarticulated, modular model of history has been inadvertently created.

Our own research has shown us that, whilst each expert is probably correct in their findings, they have missed the point that the history of mankind is highly interconnected and that events separated by huge amounts of time and space may be directly related. Some people are so conditioned into believing that everything stands in isolation, that even the discussion of broader connections causes them extreme discomfort.

Our Critics

When we published our first book, The Hiram Key, we expected to be attacked by people who would use the inevitable small mistakes to dismiss our main thesis. Surprisingly only a few people did do so with the vast majority of people giving us support and encouragement.

We welcome debate because it gives us the opportunity to either change our minds or to prove our case.

The major difficulty that we have encountered is with a small number of individuals who adhere to a believe system that is so rigid that they find it impossible to conceive that there are other approaches that are as equally valid as their own. We have found that these people tend to be scholars who have not developed an intellectual approach to knowledge. In our experience, the more senior the scholar the more open the mind. They may or may not agree entirely with our ideas, but they understand how to debate them and appreciate that opposing views can deserve equal respect.

For some critics it is our approach that distresses them. They seek to deny our findings simply on the basis that they conflict with what they already believe. We invite everyone to debate our findings but we ask that they do not apply the rules of their own dogma to replace reasoned logic.

Because history is complex we have adopted a holistic and 'fuzzy' approach, whereby we consider a great deal of apparently unconnected material at the same time and look for potential patterns and linkages. Only where we find multiple reasons to argue a fit do we put forward a speculative idea.