Our Method

Wheel of Heaven advances a hypothesis, not a doctrine. That distinction matters because it determines how we treat evidence, how we respond to counter-evidence, and what we expect from ourselves and from readers. This page makes the rules of the game explicit.

What "working hypothesis" means

A working hypothesis is a provisional explanation that organizes available evidence while remaining open to revision. It is not a belief system. It does not ask for faith. It asks for attention: look at the evidence assembled here, follow the reasoning, and decide for yourself whether the pattern holds.

The core hypothesis is that the Elohim described in ancient texts were members of an advanced civilization, and that many mythological narratives encode real events filtered through the cultural tools available to their authors. This claim is testable in principle: it predicts specific patterns in textual, archaeological, and astronomical evidence. Where those patterns appear, the hypothesis gains weight. Where they do not, it loses weight. Neither outcome is a crisis.

How we handle evidence

Three rules keep the work honest:

Convergence over isolation. A single passage, a single artifact, or a single alignment proves nothing by itself. What matters is whether independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion. A textual reference is stronger when it aligns with archaeological evidence, and both are stronger when they fit the precessional timeline. We look for clusters, not lone data points.

Source transparency. Every claim should trace back to a citable source: a primary text, a published study, or a documented observation. Where we interpret, we say so explicitly. The Library preserves primary sources. The Resources catalog documents secondary and comparative material. The Wiki connects terms and concepts. Readers should be able to check our work.

Confidence as a spectrum. Not all claims carry equal weight. Some are well-supported by multiple converging sources. Some are plausible inferences. Some are speculative extensions. We try to signal the difference. When we write "the text describes," we are summarizing. When we write "this could be read as," we are interpreting. When we write "one possible explanation is," we are speculating. These are not interchangeable.

What we do not claim

Intellectual honesty requires marking boundaries:

• We do not claim to have proven the hypothesis. Proof belongs to mathematics. We work with evidence, inference, and plausibility.
• We do not dismiss mainstream science. Established findings in archaeology, linguistics, biology, and astronomy are our starting materials, not our adversaries. When our hypothesis contradicts established science, we note the tension honestly rather than pretending it does not exist.
• We do not claim access to hidden or suppressed knowledge. Everything presented here is derived from publicly available texts, research, and observations.
• We do not ask readers to believe. We ask them to consider, to follow the evidence, and to think critically, including about our own reasoning.

How cherry-picking is avoided

Cherry-picking is the most common failure mode in alternative-history work: selecting evidence that supports a conclusion and ignoring evidence that contradicts it. We guard against this in three ways.

First, we try to present the full context of every source we cite. A verse taken out of context can mean almost anything. A verse read within its chapter, its book, and its cultural moment constrains interpretation.

Second, we acknowledge counter-evidence and competing explanations. Where a mainstream interpretation of a text or artifact is more parsimonious, we say so. The hypothesis does not need every data point to work; it needs the overall pattern to be more coherent than the alternatives.

Third, the site's structure is designed for cross-checking. Wiki entries link to related entries. Timeline entries link to sources. The reading is never meant to be linear and sealed; it is meant to be networked and open.

What would change our minds

A hypothesis that cannot be challenged is not a hypothesis. Here are the kinds of evidence that would weaken or overturn the core claim:

• If the textual parallels we identify turn out to be translation artifacts or cultural coincidences that dissolve under closer linguistic scrutiny.
• If the precessional chronology proves incompatible with established archaeological dating when examined rigorously.
• If the convergence patterns we highlight are better explained by simpler, well-documented cultural diffusion without any need for the hypothesis.

We do not expect to be right about everything. We expect to be wrong about specific points and to correct course when the evidence warrants it. The site is versioned, open-source, and publicly maintained for exactly this reason.

An invitation, not an argument

Wheel of Heaven is not trying to win a debate. It is trying to lay out a coherent reading of old material in a way that is transparent, cross-referenced, and open to critique. If the hypothesis holds up, it should do so because the evidence is persuasive, not because the presentation is. If it does not hold up, we would rather know.

Read critically. Follow the links. Check the sources. That is the method.