All through history, the truth is obscured by those that wield sufficient power to hide it for their own reasons. History has been written by those who win battles and who have ruled.

However, it is not only obscured deliberately as many people find they inadvertently obscure the truth. The mind can play tricks on people as the information that is taken in by a persons observations is stored by having to delete much of that original information, When that observation is recalled and retold, much of the original information can be distorted as it passes through our perceptual barriers. Our memory recall can be faulty and gradually over time, the original observation we witnessed becomes something different to us and now not the original reality at all. Just recall stories of 'the fish that got away' which appear to allow the size of the fish to grow with every telling of the story. Even consider the game of Chinese whispers and how a simple message like 'Send reinforcements we are going to advance' can become 'Send three and fourpence we are going to a dance' With each repetition, something is lost and made up in the listening and telling.

The reason for mentioning this is that very often it is not anyone's fault that the truth is lost. The telling and retelling and the recalling of infomation and observations throughout science can lead to misunderstanding. With the power of credability this can get worse. Credibility is about the power of belief (Credo is Latin for I believe). When we are young we can make this mistake of believing someone just because of who they are. We might think that they could not possibly be wrong. What can happen then is that that information right or wrong, can become the bedrock for our own future way of thinking. We would or could rely on this more and more unquestioningly in our own pursuit of truth not knowing that the decision we made to accept the information in the first place was an emotionally constrained one - one based on belief. The decision made was - I will unquestioningly accept that what this person is saying is the truth because they are the professor. If we ever get a chance to look back and examine the evidence and find that the Professor was wrong, we cannot attach blame to them as they themselves migth have picked up faulty information regarding the truth from someone else with a series of other emotionally constrained decisions.

You might be thinking how do we progress. We need something like the peer review system to spread the news about new scientific observations. The answer resides in how we choose to lable our information and how we choose what is more likely to be the truth.

Your own primary observations must be treated as most likely to be the truth, with a caveat that they could be a result of hallucination. An understanding of trance and trance induction would help. Next, you should consider secondary observations. These are ones that are made and related to you by people you personally know well and trust. You cannot accept them as reality or the truth, but good signposts to where that is. If you have lots of secondary observations and one good conflicting primary one, you must decide to go with your primary one. Tertiary information is all other information that you get in through reading, the media, or via people you do not know well. Some of this might be correct, but much passed through the information filter barriers in many minds before it has reached you so becomes unreliable whoever is reporting it. And that is where many people go wrong. If the leader of a country says something and a roadcleaner also happens to pass the same comment at the same time, we should not believe one more than the other. We should only consider that the information is Tertiary and as such should be treated with suspicion until we have further evidence otherwise. What you are reading in 'Peer Reviewed' magazines for instance, may well be completely misleading for all the reasons mentioned above.

The trick now is to go back to all your past decisions and to take away the emotional elements (like belief and if it felt right at the time) and to reconsider what might be nearest to the truth. On completeing an exercise like that, you will often find that some decisions in your past were extremely poor. Rather than dwelling upon that though, it can be quite liberating as you now realise how much there is now out there to explore again with new eyes and ears.

Apart from liberating, as a scientist, it is becoming very important that you do this as the future of mankind now depends on finding new ways forward and one that will work can only be ones based on or around the truth and the pursuit of truth

Mankind on this World is facing crisis on many fronts. What is needed more than ever is good decisions based on good observations by those with no desire to conceal the truth, however awkward that may be to others.

Ron Pearson' work Creation Solved?, with its attempt to put science back on the road to truth, offers mankind so much.

I urge you to read his work and take up this challenge within your own area of expertise. His work underpins all of science and therefore affects all of science and offers opportunities to all areas of science.

Please do not concern yourself with Ego and Status as those involve more emotions that will lead you to poor decisions regarding the pursuit of truth.

That may well upset readers with over inflated ego’s and to whom status means so very much. It may well upset those who seek to retain power over others for selfish reasons and it may well worry those who could stand to lose much in future financial payments from budgets and grants.

We apologise for this, as that is not our aim to upset but to inspire. Our aim is simply to pursue the truth. However the truth can damage those with much to lose and the history of science is littered with those people that clung to the old views and who have eventually suffered because of that.