Talk:Uriel Machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Uriel Machine:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Verify: sources Cleanup: separate "criticism of the book" content from the "what the thing is" content Expand: what the machine is, how it is made, who developed it, history, usage, evidence, counter-evidence

This article is confused and confusing, with factual errors such as Halley's Comet is not an asteroid.

It needs a rewrite and the nonsense needs removing. --Dumbo1 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked it now and integrated your changes. Is it sufficiently NPOV? Pydos 09:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked again. I agree the scepticism you added was needed, but my tweaks are to move it back to NPOV (i.e. not overtly sceptical). I can't agree with you however that it is pseudo-archaeology Pydos 12:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

All professional archaeologists I have spoken to regard this as Pseudo-archaeology. There may be a few who don't, but I've never met them. I've added a link to Tollmans Hypothetical Bolide. Article reads a lot better now thanks. --Dumbo1 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

point. The historians i've spoken to think the case is well argued but think it's stretching too far out on a limb so they won't endorse it. It's a well written book if you want to put it on your christmas list. Pydos 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have a feeling that Dumbo1 may like to add some comments, possibly peer review, against my two? Peer review would be the best way as it makes it sound Neutral Point Of View. Pydos 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with it thanks. I don't mean to sound too sceptical, but what the authors are doing is constructing a very big story from what are very few certainties. We can be fairly certain that many Neolithic monuments had alignments with the rising sun at the winter solstice (much more common than summer solstice alignments). We also know that Meteors do fall on the Earth and sometimes create tsunami, (although as the impact is a point, the tsunami loses power quickly as it spreads from the impact point). Unfortunately for us even now, we can't predict where and when meteors will hit the Earth. From the archaeological record we can determine that in the Neolithic, materials technology was somewhat behind where we are today. The Uriel's Machine story relies on us believing that in the past there was a great and advanced technological culture. A lot of what I would consider to be fringe beliefs also rely on this. However there is NO evidence to support a highly technological culture, and plenty of evidence to show that their culture, although sophisticated, was more primitive than today. So even though it is, I am sure, a good story, I don't think it has much if any truth behind it.

Theres loads of good new interesting research being done on the neolithic, which is increasing our knowledge of the period at a rapid rate. It is this that I find fascinating and the stories are just as interesting as Uriels Machine, only backed up with real physical archaeology. --Dumbo1 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, point made, it is a leap into the dark. I meant no disrespect to your point of view, I just wondered if you could help add some negative comments from respectable sources in the comments section. I intend to try and add more about the archaeology...that said i appreciate it is difficult to explain any link between astronomical knowledge of the neolithic and how they could have predicted a comet. "a great and advanced technological culture" may be stretching Knight and Lomas' opinion slightly. I will consult the book and see if they suggest how they saw the comet coming (it's trajectory and distance could have allowed them to see it with the time necessary to prepare - this is just my own leap into the dark). Pydos 13:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

From the Publisher's Review:

"Uriel's Machine also presents evidence that: ... A single female was a common ancestor to all living humans. Angels bred with human women to create The Watchers, giant half-human beings. The oral tradition of Freemasonry records real events."

From DNA evidence we think there were more than one mitochondrial eve. I'm not sure about these giants. evidence etc and freemasonry creeps in.

There may be somethings in the book that are worthy of investigation. Certainly the event flooding the (now submerged) north sea plain, due to rising sea levels, is interesting, (the tollman bolide).

But the book seems too much like 1421 (Gavin Menzies). It caught me at first, but with a deeper look, his bigger claims seemed unsupported by evidence.

I've put in one negative link in the comments page. Where the book has been reviewed by an academic (there aren't many), they are private sites, so I can't get to them. --Dumbo1 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've got too much else to read atm, but thanks for the thought! In the article it says: "It is suggested that chambers found in Britain could be sealed against Tsunami". Does he give any examples. Souterrains? --Dumbo1 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the neg comment - it helps it sound neutral. Umm, i've not got the book to hand as i write this missive but i will look at it later and add the evidence. However responding to the Publisher's preview point; Angels bred with human women to create The Watchers, giant half-human beings. is NOT what they mean in the book. This is the view in Genesis (i think), what they ACTUALLY say is that the better nourished, high status individuals in the society (who would then grow to be taller than their counterparts) would be regarded as 'giants', and because only the high status individuals would have the knowledge that Lomas and Knight credit them with they would be regarded as Demi-gods, or 'angels' if you will. Human nature being what it is i expect that they enjoyed the opportunity to sleep with 'ordinary' women. Just a hunch.

On another note I haven't read 1421, but Uriel's Machine is well argued...which is just as well as it's a lot of speculation. I can't actually remember them mentioning a mitochrondrial eve, except in the first few pages of the overview - and yes i'm with you in any case; last i heard there were at least seven 'Eve's'! Pydos 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is only one mitochondrial 'Eve', the woman who is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans. Nobody who understands genetics doubts that such a female existed.

There may be some debate over whether she was human (i.e. Homo sapiens) or an earlier hominid, though I believe that the general consensus was that was Homo sapiens (this is related to the out-of-Africa versus multiregional debate).

The "seven Eves" business (probably referring to Brian Sykes' book The Seven Daughters of Eve is about seven women who each represent a distinct strain of mitochrondrial DNA, who together comprise most of the mitochondrial varieties in modern Europe. But this refers to a later stage; no one, Sykes included, doubts that these seven women themselves had a common ancestor. --Saforrest 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 AfD? 2 Rewrite needed 3 Grammar and spelling 4 Book is not about predicting cometary impact

[edit] AfD?

Ok, this article just seems absurd to me. To begin with, 'Uriel's Machine' is the title of a book. It is not, as far as I can tell, an accepted factual thing of any kind (other than the book itself, which I guess is extant ;). So, at best, this article needs to be rewritten as a discussion of the book, and the theories contained therein.

Having said that, what then makes this article notable or encyclopedic? Giving benefit of doubt, this still appears to be nothing more than a minor and very fringe theory that borders on pseudohistory or even New Ageism. So why, then, would this article not constitute little more than spam for the publisher of said book?

Having thought all that, my first instinct would be to AfD this article, but on reflection, that's overeaction. In fact, I care so little about this issue that my entire input is likely to be limited to this rather cynical note. Eaglizard 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had another go at a rewrite to try to make the article less biaised. However I agree it appears to be an advert for a book, which no self respecting archaeologist would take seriously. I've also removed a lot of irrelevency, like the stuff about the megalithic yard, which has its own page. Dumbo1 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Megalithic yard info will need putting back in, since it is the proposed unit of measurement in building an Uriel machine. Burns flipper (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Uriel machine' seems to be an invention of Knight and Lomas, so it seems ridiculous to me to give it its own entry. I think something has to be done about it, either AfD or make it on the book. BUT I've been told that an article on a book can't criticise it!--Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite needed

This is an article about an "Uriel machine", and as previously stated it appears to be more about a critique of a book. This article should contain info about what the machine is, how it is made, who developed it, history, usage and evidence. Counter-evidence should also be presented, sourced. Burns flipper (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started rewriting; my first task is to describe the object in terms of the above, then to add in the commentaries from third parties/criticism. Burns flipper (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar and spelling

I don't care about centre/vs center, but the A and an article says it should be 'a' before words like unique where the u has a 'y' sounds -- so it all depends on how Uriel is pronounced! I prounce it almost like you, so I'd put an 'an' before it...--Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Actually I was told that I couldn't, in the case of Where Troy Once Stood which claims Troy was in England, put in a quote of an article that shows that Homer's descriptions match the geology of where Troy is thought to be, or a list of artefacts described by Homer found in the Eastern Med. Because "Attempts to disprove the book's thesis don't belong in the article either--we should stick to what secondary sources say about this book, which is almost nothing." Which is a real problem where a book has virtually no reviews by experts in the subject. Like this one, which I have done quite a bit of work on in the past.--Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book is not about predicting cometary impact

I've removed text from the article that implies the Uriel machine was originally constructed to predict cometary impact - it wasn't. The book states that Enoch was taught how to build one for the purpose of preserving advanced celestial mechanical knowledge into a time of upheavel when it had been identified by the so-called Watchers that a cometary impact was coming (and the book doesn't state or imply that they gained this knowledge from using an Uriel machine). Using the template in the Book of Enoch, anyone can then construct a machine for the purpose of solar, lunar and venusian predictions. The book never states anything about using it for predicting cometary impact. I've also removed the counter-evidence, as this doesn't apply since that's not the purpose of the machine. Burns flipper (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I've reinstated my sentence about mainstream not agreeing with the idea, as to the best of my knowledge and research (which I have done) that's a factual statement and shouldn't be considered POV.

Hold the presses. I just looked at the flyleaf on my copy, which says the international (sic) network of observatories could "accurately predict cometary impact years in advance." I can see the problem. Which is why I think this article is badly named. It really is about part of the book and this device is about part of that network, a crucial part, right? So I'm not convinced you should have removed that bit wholesale. I presume you have the book handy? If not, I do.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have the book handy and I think the problem is that the 'blurb' in the front flap states it could be used for this, whereas the main text of the book doesn't suggest it is a main feature of the device (the 'blurb' being the more sensationalist bit to grab potential buyer's attention) - at best, it's feature of being able to 'measure the declination of any heavenly object' (p 247) would allow someone to notice an object moving differently over time, although no other heavenly objects are stated. Your statement "No mainstream archaeologists or astronomers back this idea" cannot be sourced unless you have spoken to every 'mainstream' archaeologist and astronomer, and remains POV - feel free to reword to something more specific. Burns flipper (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's got to be some way to say it, how about 'not supported by'? Lomas & Knight would have made a big thing of any mainstream support.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)