Jump to content

random anything.


Given To Fly
 Share

Recommended Posts

If a person is a vegetarian or a vegan, why would they want to eat something that is not made out of meat, yet made to look and "taste" like meat?

 

As I stroll through my local grocer, I see these "meat alternative" products in my grocer's meat aisle. Items that look almost like hamburger that are made out of plant based materials. Then, in the frozen food aisles, I see they same sort of nonsense going on, as well. Yet, when I visit the produce section of the store, I don't see meat items disguised as fruits and vegetables. There are no hotdogs with carrot greens sticking out the top of them nor meatballs trying to pass themselves off as plums.

 

If you don't want to eat meat, then why would you want to eat something made to look and "taste" like meat? That makes as much sense as lesbians using strap-ons. It's almost as annoying as turkey bacon. You can't get bacon from a turkey. I'm not even buying beef bacon. What the hell is that!?! Bacon only comes from a pig. Period. And enough with this Canadian bacon, as well. It ain't bacon, it's ham.

 

Which brings me to burgers. A burger is just short for hamburger. Just because you sandwich something between a bun, that does not make it a "burger". There is no such thing as a "chicken burger" or a "veggie burger". Those are just sandwiches. Just sandwiches made with buns. Let us put an end to this nonsense, once and for all. 

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 9:24 PM, KingKitty said:

If a person is a vegetarian or a vegan, why would they want to eat something that is not made out of meat, yet made to look and "taste" like meat?

 

 

Quite a lot of vegans are mentally ill. Animal fats are the most nutritious foods on the planet they contain nutrients essential to human health that don't exist in plants, B12,D3, heme iron etc etc.....

So very slowly their bodies start to leech from the organs brain and bones to get the nutrients it needs to survive, it's a slow process so younger people who ate meat all their lives will do quite well for a bit.

 

So their natural instincts kick in to tell them they need animal fats and animal proteins and instead they start trying to make beef out of plant sludge or chicken out of wheat gluten and chemicals.

Textbook mental illness.

 

Vegetarians can do just fine as long as they accept they need animal fats and don't overeat.

 

But look if someone is doing fine as a vegan good luck to them I say, I get it, I agree with what they say when it comes to factory farming and the way animals are treated.

Just cut the shit guys, you're not saving the planet and it's not the natural diet for our species. It's just a globalist cult to control the food supply.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Itsa said:

Quite a lot of vegans are mentally ill. Animal fats are the most nutritious foods on the planet they contain nutrients essential to human health that don't exist in plants, B12,D3, heme iron etc etc.....

So very slowly their bodies start to leech from the organs brain and bones to get the nutrients it needs to survive, it's a slow process so younger people who ate meat all their lives will do quite well for a bit.

 

So their natural instincts kick in to tell them they need animal fats and animal proteins and instead they start trying to make beef out of plant sludge or chicken out of wheat gluten and chemicals.

Textbook mental illness.

 

Vegetarians can do just fine as long as they accept they need animal fats and don't overeat.

 

But look if someone is doing fine as a vegan good luck to them I say, I get it, I agree with what they say when it comes to factory farming and the way animals are treated.

Just cut the shit guys, you're not saving the planet and it's not the natural diet for our species. It's just a globalist cult to control the food supply.

I tend to agree with you. Having said that, my post was mainly an attempt at humor Yet I am genuinely annoyed by the faux meat products in my butcher’s section of the grocery store, nonetheless.  And, I am also puzzled as to why one who doesn’t eat real meat would want to eat something that is supposed to taste like meat. I imagine the faux meat products are there to lure those who are contemplating the giving up of meat. Still, it makes no sense to me.

 

I will agreed that those who are rigid vegans/vegetarians that I’ve met in my journey through life, do tend to be a bit off, to put it politely. Which reminded me of an encounter I had with a co-worker a few years ago on the topic of meat eating (he was a vegan).

 

He was spouting on about some vegan nonsense regarding chickens having empathy. He went on to say how “scientist” have determined that chicken express “empathy” towards their young. Essentially, giving support to the idea that chickens have emotions. After I finished laughing at him, I told him the true story of the chicken who lived for about two years without it’s head. How this chicken become a bit of a celebrity, even visiting the Queen of England. He thought I was making it, yet the other idiots in the room all began “Googling” my claim and found the actual story.

 

This chicken was kept alive by the farmer who owned it, by feeding it though it’s “neck hole”. This chicken even went out in the yard with the other chickens and proceeded to scratch and peck at the ground, just as it’s fellow chickens would. In fact, it did everything all the headed chickens did, without it’s head. I pressed him as to his claims of “chickens having empathy” by asking him why didn’t the other chickens in the yard freak out that one of their co-workers showed up to work without her head? Surely, if they had even a minuscule amount of empathy, they would be troubled over Helen the Hen showing up without her head.

 

Unable to argue his empathetic chicken point against that, he changed it to, “Well, they show empathy towards their young (baby chicks) by protecting them. I went on to explain how that is simply an act of self preservation. Every living thing on this planet strives to maintain it’s own kind by procreation. In fact, that is the one thing we can all be one hundred percent sure about in this world; for what ever reason, we are to make more of our own kind. From the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, we are all driven to make more of our own kind (of course, that argument doesn't bode well with homosexuals, but that‘s another topic).

 

I went on to point out that all these chickens were doing was protecting themselves. These mother hens see their offspring as extensions of themselves. They are like some loving mother hens of a Disney cartoon, they are just making sure their own kind continues. I further went ton to explain that they are merely biological machines, if you will. As the headless chicken proved, they function purely on some pre-programmed, biological functions. Without a head, it has no brain. Without a brain, it is not “thinking”, it merely functions.

 

Being the workplace, I  didn’t want to express my personal conclusion that this can also be proof that there is a God and that God gifted us humans with the chicken. The chicken is a small, biological “machine” which is easy to raise, cheep (no pun intended) to feed and can produce not one, but two forms of food, plus feathers for insulation and comfort. Not to mention the fact that, without chicken eggs, there are a heck of a lot of things you just can’t cook/bake, as well. In fact, eggs are an important source of the kind of cholesterol. If one has had any damage to their brain, a good doctor will prescribe they eat as many eggs as they can to help rebuild their brain matter. 

 

As a side note, when I got home from work that evening, I type the words “chicken empathy” in to my search engine. Bingo! A slew of stories came up which had been posted on all the Left wing “news” sites about chickens with empathy. Though all written by different authors, each one sited their main source of information…you guessed it, PETA. Also fun to point out, each article was almost verbatim to what this joker was telling me at work that day. It was as though he read this crap and memorized it, which I’m sure he did, in fact. Were as my opinions and my words were derived from my own conclusions, my own thoughts and ideas.

 

So, in conclusion; yes, they are a bit daft.

 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KingKitty said:

I tend to agree with you. Having said that, my post was mainly an attempt at humor Yet I am genuinely annoyed by the faux meat products in my butcher’s section of the grocery store, nonetheless.  And, I am also puzzled as to why one who doesn’t eat real meat would want to eat something that is supposed to taste like meat. I imagine the faux meat products are there to lure those who are contemplating the giving up of meat. Still, it makes no sense to me.

 

I will agreed that those who are rigid vegans/vegetarians that I’ve met in my journey through life, do tend to be a bit off, to put it politely. Which reminded me of an encounter I had with a co-worker a few years ago on the topic of meat eating (he was a vegan).

 

He was spouting on about some vegan nonsense regarding chickens having empathy. He went on to say how “scientist” have determined that chicken express “empathy” towards their young. Essentially, giving support to the idea that chickens have emotions. After I finished laughing at him, I told him the true story of the chicken who lived for about two years without it’s head. How this chicken become a bit of a celebrity, even visiting the Queen of England. He thought I was making it, yet the other idiots in the room all began “Googling” my claim and found the actual story.

 

This chicken was kept alive by the farmer who owned it, by feeding it though it’s “neck hole”. This chicken even went out in the yard with the other chickens and proceeded to scratch and peck at the ground, just as it’s fellow chickens would. In fact, it did everything all the headed chickens did, without it’s head. I pressed him as to his claims of “chickens having empathy” by asking him why didn’t the other chickens in the yard freak out that one of their co-workers showed up to work without her head? Surely, if they had even a minuscule amount of empathy, they would be troubled over Helen the Hen showing up without her head.

 

Unable to argue his empathetic chicken point against that, he changed it to, “Well, they show empathy towards their young (baby chicks) by protecting them. I went on to explain how that is simply an act of self preservation. Every living thing on this planet strives to maintain it’s own kind by procreation. In fact, that is the one thing we can all be one hundred percent sure about in this world; for what ever reason, we are to make more of our own kind. From the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, we are all driven to make more of our own kind (of course, that argument doesn't bode well with homosexuals, but that‘s another topic).

 

I went on to point out that all these chickens were doing was protecting themselves. These mother hens see their offspring as extensions of themselves. They are like some loving mother hens of a Disney cartoon, they are just making sure their own kind continues. I further went ton to explain that they are merely biological machines, if you will. As the headless chicken proved, they function purely on some pre-programmed, biological functions. Without a head, it has no brain. Without a brain, it is not “thinking”, it merely functions.

 

Being the workplace, I  didn’t want to express my personal conclusion that this can also be proof that there is a God and that God gifted us humans with the chicken. The chicken is a small, biological “machine” which is easy to raise, cheep (no pun intended) to feed and can produce not one, but two forms of food, plus feathers for insulation and comfort. Not to mention the fact that, without chicken eggs, there are a heck of a lot of things you just can’t cook/bake, as well. In fact, eggs are an important source of the kind of cholesterol. If one has had any damage to their brain, a good doctor will prescribe they eat as many eggs as they can to help rebuild their brain matter. 

 

As a side note, when I got home from work that evening, I type the words “chicken empathy” in to my search engine. Bingo! A slew of stories came up which had been posted on all the Left wing “news” sites about chickens with empathy. Though all written by different authors, each one sited their main source of information…you guessed it, PETA. Also fun to point out, each article was almost verbatim to what this joker was telling me at work that day. It was as though he read this crap and memorized it, which I’m sure he did, in fact. Were as my opinions and my words were derived from my own conclusions, my own thoughts and ideas.

 

So, in conclusion; yes, they are a bit daft.

 
 

Ha! cool story.

To be honest I feel a bit mean saying they are mentally ill, I know a few vegans and they are cool.

Problem is though is the fakeness of the whole movement. Like I said I get it that people would look at the animal farming industry and say you know what I want nothing to do with this anymore, done it myself. So why then does it have to be the BEST and HEALTHIEST diet that will save the planet. It's not and it won't. Some will even say that humans are natural herbivores when they are textbook omnivores , herbivorous animals ALL eat animal proteins even if its just insects and grubs on a gorillas vegetation.

 

To me it says something about this realm we all 'came down' to, to live you have to feed off something else. Nothing wrong with working out a way to make that situation the best it can be but swapping out meat and the nutrition it provides for a hunk of toxic chemical filled sludge is going to make you ill and it's very dishonest. You need a drastic change of diet and supplements to be vegan. 

My current feeling is that the ketogenic diet consisting of only natural foods is optimal even though I don't follow it myself. I also think we need animal fats even if it's small amounts but I'm happy to be proved wrong, it's just the "evidence" a lot of vegans provide is retarded and they will never admit it like most members of a cult, their ego needs to take a hit to come back to reality but a lot will never be able to take it.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Itsa said:

Ha! cool story.

To be honest I feel a bit mean saying they are mentally ill, I know a few vegans and they are cool.

Problem is though is the fakeness of the whole movement. Like I said I get it that people would look at the animal farming industry and say you know what I want nothing to do with this anymore, done it myself. So why then does it have to be the BEST and HEALTHIEST diet that will save the planet. It's not and it won't. Some will even say that humans are natural herbivores when they are textbook omnivores , herbivorous animals ALL eat animal proteins even if its just insects and grubs on a gorillas vegetation.

 

To me it says something about this realm we all 'came down' to, to live you have to feed off something else. Nothing wrong with working out a way to make that situation the best it can be but swapping out meat and the nutrition it provides for a hunk of toxic chemical filled sludge is going to make you ill and it's very dishonest. You need a drastic change of diet and supplements to be vegan. 

My current feeling is that the ketogenic diet consisting of only natural foods is optimal even though I don't follow it myself. I also think we need animal fats even if it's small amounts but I'm happy to be proved wrong, it's just the "evidence" a lot of vegans provide is retarded and they will never admit it like most members of a cult, their ego needs to take a hit to come back to reality but a lot will never be able to take it.

 

 

 

 

Certainly, not all vegan/vegetarians are koo-koo nutty. There are extremist within any group. They tend to give such groups a bad reputation, and tend to be the most vocal.

 

I an understand one having compassion for another animal and therefore not want to partake in the killing and eating of said animal. Yet, like it or not, we human animals are omnivores. Our teeth are designed to help us consume grains, vegetation and meat. Not to mention the old saying, "you are what you eat". The lentil bean (legume) is the highest form of protein in the plant world, yet it is still not match to actual meat protein. And, as you've mentioned, it (lentils) does not supply us with the essential fats we need, which we can get from meat.

 

The headless chicken story does not suggest that these are just stupid animal, therefore we can eat them and hold no regard to their well being. Even if they can function without their heads does not mean we shouldn't treat them with respect and care as we raise them for the potential use of consumption. Stories of slaughterhouse horrors are true and are indeed horrific. But for every one of those, there are several farms that still take great care in the raising of their livestock. 

 

The bigger question is: Do vegan not salivate at the smell of bacon?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, KingKitty said:

why didn’t the other chickens in the yard freak out that one of their co-workers showed up to work without her head?

 

chicken1.jpeg.96ae4a5d4042e778e0d155a57884e390.jpeg

 

I would seem to be a vegetarian .... for the last decade or actually much more .... I don't eat meat but it is because, one day an image of a cow (with it's tongue hanging out and staring at me) came into my mind ....... after that, every time I tried to eat meat, all I could see was that image and the taste actually revolted me!

 

I consider that your physical form is described by your thoughts and beliefs ....... that you (or correctly, your body) will convert (in a physical sense) anything consumed into what is required .... the same as plants do!

Yes plants do that :)

 

Will put this into a quote and hopefully you will need to expand the quote to read .... as it is fucking a bore for most and rather long!

 

Quote

Alchemy, a natural process...

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Breaking down the barriers between physics, chemistry and biology.
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:06:20 +0200
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen I would like to request that anyone who replies to this article on the newsgroup please send a CC to me at . That will be most helpful. Thank you! - Madhavendra Puri.
EVIDENCE THAT ATOMS BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
THAN OUTSIDE OF THEM
Madhavendra Puri
The Bhaktivedanta Institute
E-mail:
A number of chemists report that plants, animals and human beings ROUTINELY TRANSMUTE MID-RANGE ELEMENTS (for example, potassium into calcium or magnesium into calcium) AS PART OF THEIR ORDINARY DAILY METABOLISM. These transmutations obey rules such as: Mg + O => Ca; K + H => Ca. This is revolutionary since, according to current physical theory, the energy levels required for such transmutations are billions of times higher than what is available in biological systems.
Equally inexplicable fission reactions such as Ca => Mg + O; Ca => K + H are also reported. But revolutions in physics have repeatedly occurred, such as the quantum revolution in which the radical property of non-locality, previously considered impossible, is now accepted by physicists (see Aspect and Grangier 1986, Bransden and Joachain 1989, p.671-681, Chiao et al 1993, Squires 1990, p.173, Rae 1986, p.25-44, and Penrose 1990, p.369).
What I am presenting here is not the "cold fusion" of Fleischmann and Pons which, as far as I know, lacks clear evidence of actual fusion.
Even if the Fleischmann and Pons effect turns out to be actual fusion, it is only the fusion of isotopes of the lightest element hydrogen under special laboratory conditions which is quite different from the UNEQUIVOCAL FUSION AND FISSION OF MID-RANGE elements found in biological transmutation reports.
Now let us examine the evidence for biological transmutation. Crabs, shellfish and crayfish have shells made largely of calcium. A crab 17 cm by 10 cm has a shell weighing around 350 grams. Periodically these animals shed their shell and create a new one. This is called molting.
When molting, a crab is very vulnerable and hides away from all other creatures so it can not get calcium by preying on other creatures.
According to French chemist C. Louis Kervran of the Conseil d'Hygiene in Paris, seawater contains far too little calcium to account for the rapid production of a shell (the calcium content of sea water is about 0.042% and a crab can form a new shell in little more than one day).
If the entire body of a crab is analyzed for calcium, it is found to contain only enough calcium to produce 3% of the shell (even taking into account the calcium carbonate stored in the hepato-pancreas just before molting).
Even in water completely devoid of calcium, shellfish can still create their calcium-bearing shells as shown by an experiment performed at the Maritime Laboratory of Roscoff:
"A crayfish was put in a sea water basin from which calcium carbonate had been removed by precipitation; the animal made its shell anyway." (Kervran 1972, p.58)
"Chemical analysis made on animals secreting their shells has revealed that calcium carbonate is formed on the outer side of a membrane although on the opposite side of the membrane, where matter enters, there is no calcium. This fact has left specialists perplexed." (Kervran 1972, p.58) Seawater contains a sufficient amount of magnesium to form a shell if we accept Kervran's proposition that crabs routinely transmute magnesium into calcium; Mg + O => Ca. It would be interesting to put a crayfish in water devoid of both calcium and magnesium and see if it can still create its shell. Normal egg shells produced by hens contain calcium.
Kervran (1972, p.41) reported an experiment in which hens were confined in an area in which there was no source of calcium and no calcium was present in their diet. The calcium deficiency became clearly manifested after a few days when the hens began to lay eggs with soft shells. Then purified mica (which contains potassium) was given to the hens.
Kervran (1972, p.41) described what then transpired: "The hens jumped on the mica and began scratching around it very rapidly, panting over it; then they rested, rolling their heads on it, threw it into the air, and began scratching it again. The next day eggs with normal shells (weight 7 grams) were laid. Thus, in the 20 hours that intervened, the hens transformed a supply of potassium into calcium. ...
An experiment of this kind, using the same mica, was undertaken with guinea-fowls over a period of forty days. The administering of the mica was suspended three times and each time a soft- shelled egg was laid ... ." One might suggest that the calcium in the egg shells was borrowed from the bones of the hens. But if this is true, why were soft eggs laid when the mica was withheld and normal eggs laid when mica was given to the hens?
In order to avoid the conclusion that the hens transmuted potassium into calcium, one would have to show that mica somehow stimulates a metabolic pathway in which calcium is removed from the hen's bones and used in the production of the egg shells. This could be completely refuted by feeding the hens mica (and of course absolutely no calcium) for such a long period of time that all the calcium in their bones would have been completely exhausted.
If after that time the hens still produce calcium-bearing egg shells, we must conclude that the calcium in the egg shells is not being taken from the bones.
At that point, we seem to have no choice but to acknowledge the transmutation of potassium into calcium within the hens.
Kervran (1972, p.52) described experiments performed in 1959 by the French government in the Sahara desert. The government was interested in determining the nutritional requirements of petroleum workers in the extreme heat prevalent in the desert.
In the first experiment, conducted near a place called Ouargla, the total amount of magnesium ingested per day per man was measured and compared with the amount excreted. It was found that, on the average, each man daily excreted 117.2 milligrams of magnesium more than he ingested. Thus, each day, each man lost on the average 117.2 milligrams of magnesium.
Now we must consider how much magnesium is on reserve in the human body: it turns out that the body is not able to mobilize more than 5000 milligrams of magnesium.
Thus, at a daily loss of 117.2 milligrams, it is clear that after 50 days the bodies of the petroleum workers should have been completely depleted of magnesium. But the experiment was conducted for 180 days and each day each man excreted on the average 117.2 milligrams more than he ingested.
The second experiment lasted for 240 days and was conducted near Tindouf which has a drier climate. This time each man excreted each day an average of 256 milligrams of magnesium more than he ingested.
Under these conditions, after 20 days, each man should have been completely depleted of magnesium; but somehow they survived for 220 days thereafter.
It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that the human body is able to create magnesium.

Biochemist H. Komaki of the University of Mukogawa in Japan reported that a number of different families of microorganisms such as Aspergillus niger and Saccharomyces cerevisiae create potassium during growth.
(Komaki 1965, 1967) Kervran described a germination experiment using ryegrass seeds (type Rina) performed in 1971 by the Laboratory of the Societe des Agriculteurs de France (Kervran 1972, p.107). Out of an initial group of 2000 seeds, 1000 were set aside as a control batch and the other 1000 were germinated.
The control batch weighed 2.307 grams before drying and 2.035 grams after drying.
These 2.035 grams were analyzed and found to contain 3.02 milligrams of magnesium, 6.97 milligrams of potassium, 6.00 milligrams of calcium and 0.021 milligrams of copper.
The magnesium, calcium and copper contents were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy and the potassium content was determined by flame emission.
The 1000 seeds to be germinated were germinated for 29 days in Petri dishes under a plastic sheet to insure that no dust could get in. Aside from 430 milliliters of Evian water, absolutely nothing else was supplied to the seeds during germination.
430 milliliters of Evian water was found to contain 10.32 milligrams of magnesium, 0.39 milligrams of potassium, 33.11 milligrams of calcium and 0.00 milligrams of copper.
After the 29 day germination period, the plants were converted to ashes under high temperature and the ashes and residual Evian water in the Petri dishes were found to contain 3.20 milligrams of magnesium, 16.67 milligrams of potassium, 36.50 milligrams of calcium and 0.10 milligrams of copper. Before germination there were 6.97 milligrams of potassium in the seeds. During germination 0.39 milligrams of potassium were added to the growing plants (this came from the Evian water).
If atomic nuclei can not be altered in biological systems, we expect that after germination there should be 6.97 + 0.39 = 7.36 milligrams of potassium in the plants and residual Evian water. But this was not the case.
After germination the plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 16.67 milligrams of potassium.
Thus 9.31 milligrams of potassium were apparently created during germination.
Before germination there were 3.02 milligrams of magnesium in the seeds. During germination 10.32 milligrams of magnesium were added to the growing plants (this came from the Evian water). If atomic nuclei cannot be altered in biological systems, we expect that after germination there should be 10.32 + 3.02 = 13.34 milligrams of magnesium in the plants and residual Evian water. But after germination the plants and residual Evian water were found to contain only 3.20 milligrams of magnesium.
Thus 10.14 milligrams of magnesium were apparently destroyed during germination.
Before germination there were 0.021 milligrams of copper in the seeds. During germination 0.00 milligrams of copper were added to the growing plants.
Assuming that atomic nuclei cannot be altered, we expect that after germination there should still be 0.021 milligrams of copper in the plants and residual Evian water. But it turned out that after germination the plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 0.10 milligrams of copper. Thus 0.079 milligrams of copper were apparently created during germination.
Before germination there were 6.00 milligrams of calcium in the seeds. During germination 33.11 milligrams of calcium were added to the growing plants (from the Evian water). Assuming that nuclei can not be altered, we expect that after germination there should be 39.11 milligrams of calcium in the plants and residual Evian water. However, after germination the plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 36.50 milligrams of calcium.
Thus 2.61 milligrams of calcium were apparently destroyed during germination.
The following challenge can be made: no one knows how much potassium, calcium, magnesium and copper was in the seeds before they were germinated.
It was assumed that the amounts of these elements was not significantly different from the amounts of these elements in the control batch.
How do we know this is true?
What should have been done is to start with a 100 grams of seeds, mix them around thoroughly, weigh out 50 batches of 2.000 grams each, randomly select 25 of these as control batches, determine the amounts of potassium, calcium, magnesium and copper in these batches and note the maximum variation in these elements among these batches.
The remaining 25 batches can then be germinated and the plants analyzed for element content. In this way we would have some measure of the variation among different batches (both germinated and control).
On the positive side, it can be argued that since the seeds of the control and germinated batches were of the same type, the variation in element content between these two batches was not significant.
Some support for this idea can be found in the data provided by chemist D. Long of the Michaelis Nutritional Research Laboratory in Harpenden, England.
Long analyzed (using atomic spectroscopy) six batches of rye grass seeds (each of which weighed 5.4 grams before drying) and discovered that the difference in potassium content between the batch containing the greatest amount of potassium and the batch containing the least amount of potassium was 0.054 milligrams of potassium per gram of dry seed weight.
Similarly, the maximum difference in magnesium content was 0.033 milligrams per gram of dry seed weight, that of calcium was 0.091 milligrams per gram of dry seed weight, and that of copper was 1.19 micrograms per gram of dry seed weight. (Long 1971, p.7)
Kervran proposed that the plants performed the following nuclear reactions: Mg + O => Ca; Ca => K + H.
Kervran did not discuss the reaction involving copper.
Based on experience derived from similar experiments, Kervran said that if the seeds are germinated in doubly-distilled water, the amount of transmuted material is much smaller and may fall within the range of experimental error and therefore not be significant.
The reason for this is that each kind of plant is only able to transmute certain elements into certain other elements.
Thus the experimenter must provide the plant with a certain amount of certain elements if he wants to observe a large amount of transmuted material.
For germinating rye grass seeds, Evian water is the perfect growth medium because it provides this particular kind of plant with the elements it needs.
Kervran (1972, p.132) also described a series of experiments in which wheat and oat seeds were germinated "on porous ash less paper saturated with a fertilizing solution of salts dissolved in water. The solution was free of calcium."
In the case of wheat (Roux Clair) there was 3.34 times more calcium in the plants than in the seeds; in the case of one kind of oats (Noire du Prieure) there was 4.16 times more calcium in the plants than in the seeds; in the case of another kind of oats (Panache de Roye) there was 4.51 times more calcium in the plants than in the seeds. The calcium content was determined by two independent methods (conventional chemical analysis and atomic absorption spectroscopy); both methods agreed closely.
Kervran performed more than 20 such experiments, mostly on oat seeds.
Kervran (1972, p.133) mentioned that the moon plays an important role in the production of calcium.
The above huge increases in calcium were obtained in experiments in which the germination started at the new moon and stopped on the second full moon (after 6 weeks). This is an important consideration for those who attempt to duplicate these results.
A lunar influence on the metabolic activity of various plants and animals was also reported by biologist Frank A. Brown. (Gauquelin 1969, p.131-133)
D. Long questioned Kervran's methods of analysis.
Long (1971, p.9) said that Kervran had made (in some of his earlier experiments) the mistake of comparing the ash weight of the control batch with the ash weight of the plants after germination. Kervran may have made this mistake in some of his earlier experiments but he did not do so in the rye grass, wheat and oat germination experiments described above.
In these experiments, he rightly compared the weight of the control batch with the weight of the seeds to be germinated. In other words, the weight comparison was done on the two batches of seeds before one batch was germinated. This is the correct procedure as acknowledged by Long himself.
Long germinated rye grass seeds in deionized water and reported that he was unable to observe a transmutation of elements.
As discussed above, this is to be expected since without a sufficient input of certain elements, there is insufficient material to be transmuted.
A more serious criticism is Long's claim that he corresponded with Kervran who advised him to germinate green lentil seeds (Leguminacae) in water containing certain minerals. Long reported that although he did this he was still unable to observe a significant transmutation of elements. But Long did not attempt to duplicate the best of Kervran's germination experiments, namely the rye grass, wheat and oat experiments described above.
I hope that many scientists will do these experiments and report the results to the scientific community.
In the 1950s Pierre Baranger, a professor and the director of the Laboratory of Organic Chemistry at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, performed a large number of germination experiments and concluded that plants routinely transmute elements.
Baranger did his experiments independently of Kervran.
Baranger said: "My results seem impossible, but here they are. I took every precaution. I repeated the experiments many times. I made thousands of analyses for years. I had the results verified by third parties who did not know what I was investigating. I used several methods. I changed my experimenters. But there is no escape. We must submit to the evidence: plants transmute elements." (Michel 1959, p.82)
I tried to get more information by writing letters to the Ecole Polytechnique, the Societe des Agriculteurs de France and the Agronomie Research National Institute, but I received no reply.
In 1975 chemists O. Heroux and D. Peter of the Division of Biological Sciences of the National Research Council of Canada conducted a meticulous experiment with rats (Heroux and Peter 1975). They measured the amount of magnesium ingested through food, water (and even air) as well as the amount of magnesium excreted in the form of urine and feces over three periods of time: 69 days, 240 days and 517 days.
In the case in which the rats were fed a diet in which the amount of magnesium ingested was less than the amount of magnesium excreted, it was expected that the total amount of magnesium in the body would decrease. In fact, long before the 517th day of the experiment it was expected that there would be zero magnesium in the body.
However, when the rats were analyzed for total magnesium on the 517th day, each rat contained, on the average, 82 milligrams of magnesium.
The method used to determine the amount of magnesium in the body, food, water, air, feces and urine was atomic absorption spectroscopy.
Heroux and Peter verified the accuracy of their determinations by giving samples to two other laboratories (the Division of Chemistry at the National Research Council and the Department of Chemistry at McMaster University); both of these laboratories obtained essentially the same results as Heroux and Peter at the Division of Biology at the National Research Council.
Finally, other methods were used (such as destructive neutron activation and spectrographic emission) and these methods yielded results very similar to those obtained using atomic absorption spectroscopy.
I do not advise the replication of this experiment since it involved killing the rats in order to analyze their bodies for magnesium. Experiments involving animal killing are not required since there are many ways (as described above) to verify biological transmutation without such killing.

Bibliography

* Albert, D. "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics." Scientific American, May 1994, pages 32-39
* Aspect, A. and Grangier, P. "Experiments on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons."
* In Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (edited by R. Penrose and C. J. Isham). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986
* Bohm, D. and Peat, F. Science, Order and Creativity. New York: Bantam Books, 1987
* Bransden, B. and Joachain, C. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Essex: Longman Group U.K. Limited, 1989
* Chiao, R., Kwait, P. and Steinberg, A. "Faster than light?" Scientific American, August 1993, pages 38-46
* Darnell, J., Lodish, H. and Baltimore, D. Molecular Cell Biology. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1990
* Gauquelin, M. The Cosmic Clocks. London: Peter Owen, 1969
* Heroux, O. and Peter, D. "Failure of balance measurements to predict actual retention of magnesium and calcium by rats as determined by direct carcass analysis." Journal of Nutrition, 1975, volume 105, pages 1157-1167
* Kervran, C. Louis. Biological Transmutation. New York: Swan House Publishing Company, 1972
* Komaki, H. "Sur la formation de sels de potassium par differentes familles de microorganismes dans un milieu sans potassium." Revue de Pathologie Comparee, Paris, September 1965
* Komaki, H. "Production de proteines par 29 souches de microorganismes et augmentation du potassium en milieu de culture sodique, sans potassium." Revue de Pathologie Comparee, Paris, April 1967
* Long, D. B. "Laboratory Report on Biological Transmutation." Monograph of the Henry Doubleday Research Society. Braintree, Essex, England, September 1971
* Michel, A. "Un savant francais bouleverse la science atomique." Science et Vie, Paris, 1959, pages 81-87
* Penrose, R. The Emperor's New Mind. New York: Vintage Press, 1990
* Rae, A. Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986
* Squires, E. Conscious Mind in the Physical World. Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1990

 

 

If plants can do that .... then 'humans' can and do as well.

 

32 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

The headless chicken story

 

 

chick2.png.ee0464e9d45bbd353aa26da37ec041b5.png

 

chick3.jpeg.3eca18aa7e1c18af97f9e4e516b553df.jpeg

 

Just saying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the disturbing photos, Ink.

Yet, in all fairness, headless is different from semi headless. 

 

I've no real issue with any vegans/vegetarians, I merely made a semi-humorous post regarding the faux meat I see at the grocer's butcher section in most stores today. I can completely understand a person feeling uneasy about eating another animal.

 

And now for something completely different:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

And now for something completely different:

 

Mate .... I have zero problem with anyone eating meat .... I mean NO problem!

 

It just is not for me for some time.

 

If friends come round for a meal (when I had friends lol) then I have no issue cooking (and buying) meat for them. 

I just cannot eat it myself :)

 

7 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

Thanks for the disturbing photos

 

I actually saw one day, in the street, a man come out of a house with only a partial head .... It did make me think "what the fuck!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fluke said:

Anyone know how to fix a Samsung tablet? I think it got a virus after I was on some made kinky russian porn websites and now it won't turn on. Or if It does it crashed and goes off...

Place in microwave, set to full power, set for thirty seconds, enjoy the show, get new phone.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fluke said:

Was a tablet though. Big screen HD. :( 

I see, sometimes there is a sequence of buttons you can hold while pressing the power button and stuff that reads the rom that can not be altered, therefore bringing the device back to factory state or maybe a bigger microwave.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fluke said:

Anyone know how to fix a Samsung tablet? I think it got a virus after I was on some made kinky russian porn websites and now it won't turn on. Or if It does it crashed and goes off...

There's a joke & a lessen to be learnt there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fluke said:

The sad thing is i am approaching 30 and everything i said was true :( lol

 

Out of likes...
Ahhh I find your honesty most refreshing Fluke,  👍 (presuming you're right handed) there's nothing wrong with a little left handed internet surfing, and a few kleenex on the floor as a spunk hamper - don't want to stain the carpet.
Not that I've ever done something so utterley foul.
 

 

2 hours ago, bobb said:

Place in microwave, set to full power, set for thirty seconds, enjoy the show, get new phone.

outta likes Bob, 🤣

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Intelligent People Fear the Truth

 

By Julian Wash Rattleberry Pie |

Thursday, August 21, 2014 |

 

Today I would like to return to your awareness an aspect of the Human condition that bargains with uncertainty and finds comfort in denial. Every so often we must deal with an unpleasant truth we wish would just go away. Sometimes the truth can be very shocking and we find ourselves inadequately prepared to handle it. That’s when denial comes to the rescue— and what can’t be denied can always be rationalized away.


Perhaps we take for granted our gift of expression and ability to interface in such a complex world. It’s a wondrous thing really. Our curiosity and appetite for adventure are tempered only by the fear of death. We fancy ourselves as intrepid beings willing to brave most any course and face the great unknown. Be this as it may, there are limits. There are places where even the most courageous will dare not venture. 


In the following paragraphs I intend to wrestle on a pair of Salvatore Ferragamo shoes that are way too tight. You see they’re stylish, expensive and give a good impression. The blister forming on my big toe is of no consequence. I need only convince myself that it’s me and not the shoe that’s the problem. As usual, I’ll put on my best face and it’s off to the party I go.
 

Ignorance is Bliss

 

As we walk in this light of consciousness we find ourselves on a narrow isthmus just above the churning waters of doubt and confusion. Should we fall into these tumultuous tides, we risk succumbing to their cold and relentless currents. But there are times we would rather jump than confront a scary truth that beckons before us. When truth is more frightening than the lie that conceals it, denial can become a welcomed place of refuge.


We’re aware that jumping away won’t solve anything. What it will do is provide an opportunity to avoid something we really don’t want to face. So we dive into the swirling abyss and dismiss the matter as hopeless and irresolvable. We wash-up somewhere downstream clinging to the slippery banks of evasion. Happy to now see it all behind us, we make a vow to never pass that way again. And yet, the memory lingers.


Avoiding truth is not so much a function of ignorance or intelligence but rather conditioning and programming. Being able to convince ourselves that a pertinent truth is neither relevant nor important is a feat worthy of some note. We’ve all been thoroughly schooled on how to do just that. We’ve been told repeatedly in our lives how to think and what to believe and so it becomes somewhat natural to impose these same edicts upon ourselves. If something seems too dangerous to handle we simply label it as such and avoid it at all costs.


Many of us would rather admit the “shoe” fits just fine if it makes everything else that much easier. So we brush off the undesirable stuff and continue onward pretending once again that we’re an intrepid soul. If something doesn’t match our sensibilities and reasonable expectations we are quick to dismiss it. For those who decide to accept a difficult truth, they are torn by decision and run the risk of changing the way they see the world. For some it can create a paradigm shift or an awakening. They might begin to question all that they once held as true. Everything would then fall under doubt and scrutiny. How many people are truly willing to upset the proverbial apple cart to this extent for a glimpse of bitter truth? 


I have found this number to be few. Most would rather accept the status quo and not make ripples in their world. There are logical reasons for this and I would be challenged to dispute such a mindset. But truth has a way of anchoring deep within us even when it comes uninvited. Whether we like it or not, truth is truth. 


Being naive and unaware may have a blissful quality to it. But it does not represent who and what we are. If we are indeed the intrepid souls we fancy ourselves as being then there is little we can’t do. We have powerful minds and an even greater will, so we are very equipped to handle the most difficult of matters. Living in denial or rationalizing away our fear offers no ultimate remedy. We are merely jumping into those murky waters of evasion where we find other wayward “swimmers” who are also struggling to just stay afloat.

     

Breakup and Heartbreak

 

No one wants to face a breakup. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in a troubled relationship. If, for instance, one suspects the other of being unfaithful there are a number of avenues they may choose to take. Denial is certainly one of them. It is much easier to convince yourself there isn’t a problem, even when compelling evidence suggests otherwise. Instead of diving deeper into the issue, some will choose to simply continue along as if there’s no problem at all.


In the end this serves no one. When two people are in love, an intuitive bond is formed. If the bond is broken, so goes the relationship. As painful as this may be, it also affords an opportunity to rediscover oneself, move on and grow from the experience. By denying the bond is severed, one is doomed to live a life of mediocrity, shallow love and empty promises. But gosh, don’t these shoes look great.


Sometimes we feel intimately connected with an institution or belief. If we love, for example, our country or religion, then we are likely to only see the good things about it. We don’t want to know about the dark side. This is not important. More apple pie and ice cream please. Ah, such a good life. If and when presented with an uncomfortable truth, many will simply dismiss it. The lie they believe is more attractive than the truth they’ve been served. In conversation they may offer cursory lip service and feigned interest, but when it really comes down to it they can care less about this truth you bring. It’s water under the bridge for them —the same water which they swim in.


It can be heartbreaking indeed when one realizes the institution they so ardently believe in is not what they thought it was. Now as we near the anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11, our sensibilities and intuitive knowing are once again feeling challenged. There are many “truths” people have dismissed because it defies all that they hold on to. Yes, and so a life of mediocrity and illusion is chosen above reality. More apple pie please. 

 

Chess and Deduction

 

There was a time I was a pretty good chess player. I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but I was rarely beaten. But that was a while ago and most any state level player would surely make me eat my words along with my tinfoil hat. That being said I do know the rules of the game and how to play to win. 


Chess is a strategy game. An expert player utilizes many tactics ranging from logic and deduction to deception. One of my best moves with less experienced players was to make them think I didn’t know what I was doing. I use to call it my “Colombo” maneuver after the detective show from the 1970’s. Deception is an interesting aspect to the game indeed. Sometimes I would forgo my queen as a ruse. Only a dummy would lose their queen early in the game. But you have to give up something really good to make the ruse work.


The powers that (want to be) are master chess players. I am both humbled and appalled by their methods. I play an aggressive game—but all I can think about is knocking my opponent’s “king” right off his little Masonic square. The master players are patient and will think long and hard between each move. They rarely make mistakes. Every move has purpose and meaning. Sometimes they too will sacrifice a major figure on the board to move their plan forward. 


When I reflect on the events of 9/11, I see a whole lot of chess playing. This was a carefully orchestrated game indeed. And while I’m not prepared to point fingers at any particular group or organization, I am aware of the “sacrificial” pieces that were set in play. They weren’t queens or knights, pawns or rooks— they were skyscrapers. One chess player can’t fool another. Whether on a board or played in real life, I know these moves from a mile away. But not all the pieces fell like they were supposed to. Something clearly went wrong. There was one piece that stood alone and had to be taken off the board in a very brash, inexplicable and self-destructive way. This is the chess equivalent of the illegal move of simply grabbing the piece from the board as a frustrated child might do. Ah yes, the cold chess master blinked as there was no errant plane (or whatever else) to cover the ruse of the collapse of Building Seven.

 

Final Thought

 

Who among us has not awakened to this clarion call? I ask and wonder. What else does one need? She fell in front of us for all to see, to bear witness and to comprehend. Forty seven stories of exceptional construction, metal and concrete, yielded to a simple fire—so they say. Eighty-one vertical columns, forty-seven stories of steel-framed perfection dropped into its own footprint in nary 6.5 seconds. Perfectly normal, of course, assuming laws of physics and reason don’t apply. World Trade Center Building Seven should resonate at the core of each and every one of us. If it does not then perhaps the lie has gotten the best of us. The sleepwalkers would rather jump into the murky water than face a truth of this magnitude. I would offer them a safety line if I could, but it seems they would rather drift away into their sea of mediocrity and indifference. And it is so — and so be it.


I cannot live in that world of make-believe. Like so many others, I’ve been accosted by truth and I have found that truth has indeed that magical quality of setting us free. So agonizing over a bitter reality seems a small price to pay when it comes right down to it. And so as I pick up the pieces of Seven, I pause and reflect about the meaning of it all. You see, that building spoke in ways hard to describe. I love what she stood for, not because she was merely a building, but because she woke so many of us in the thunderous roar of her climatic fall.


And yet there are those of admirable intelligence that still cannot see or will not see. Their paradigm simply won’t allow it. But to what end does it affect me? It does. This is not merely a battle rooted in science and logic but rather in the heart, mind and consciousness of Humankind. The non-seers and the “won’t- seers” seem to shirk their duty of an enlightened Human. To jump off the path and swim beyond this towering spectacle of resonate truth seems inexcusable and unacceptable to me. Where are we as a race when we dismiss such a trumpeting call to wake? Do we simply forget how this building fell before us?


I decided to take off those shoes because the pain was getting ridiculous. Seems I started a fad though. Everyone at this formal affair has now slipped off their shoes, taking delight in the grounding experience. They tell me they “feel free” and of course that’s exactly what I like to hear. And so now I must ask—how free is free enough?

   

-Until next time

 

email: [email protected]

Article originally published at:

http://www.rattlereport.com/rattleberry/2014/why-intelligent-people-fear-the-truth
This content may be freely reproduced in digital form, provided this and all original links are included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...