* What is the standard view of history is completely wrong? * What if science and writing developed from an advanced prehistoric civilisation in the British Isles? * What is written evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls records megalithic history and provides the plans for a machine that could rebuild civilisation following a global catastrophe? * And what if Jesus and his brother James were practitioners of megalithic astronomy? In URIEL'S MACHINE Knight & Lomas offer powerful new evidence that our planet was hit by seven mountain-sized lumps of comet, creating a series of giant waves that ripped across the globe. Putting together the latest findings of leading geologists with their own sensational new archaeological discoveries, they show how a civilisation emerged and was able to build an international network of sophisticated astronomical observatories which provided accurate calendars, could measure the diameter of the planet and accurately predict comet impact years in advance. The revelation that this is the true purpose of the great megalithic sites in Western Europe, built long before the Egyptian pyramids.
The last few years have seen literally dozens of books challenging our beliefs about history and archaeology, each of them seeking to show that the past was quite different from what standard books tell us.
With Uriel's Machine, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas move away from their previous books about the Knights Templar, Freemasons and the strange chapel at Rosslyn in Scotland, and turn their attention instead to the much more distant past.
The authors believe that Earth was hit by a comet in 7640 BC, and by another one in 3150 BC, each time resulting in great devastation. From their study of Stone Age monuments around Britain, and of the non-Biblical Book of Enoch, they conclude that Enoch visited Britain some time before 3150 BC to learn how to construct a megalithic celestial calculator which, amongst other things, could be used to forecast the arrival of comets.
In the end, of course, there can be no absolute proof of this or any other rewriting of history--or indeed of more orthodox versions of history. Knight and Lomas's conclusions are controversial, but that in itself is no bad thing. Existing paradigms in every discipline should be challenged, and this is what they are doing. --David V Barrett