It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whats for dinner?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 





I do agree mostly with what you are saying.
Here is an interesting statistic I read - Dont hold me to it though as it may not be truly accurate but does say something true about animal rearing.
It takes 10 x more land to rear animals for food consumption than if that land were used for crops.
Also - In way we have artificially increased the numbers of animals bred for consumption massively
I think I heard that one years ago. There is some math to it but it sound correct.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by brokedown
 





What have you been smoking all night ?

There are many examples of omnivores on this planet.

Bears, Chimpanzees, Baboons, Dogs, Ravens the list is endless.

So, I take it, from your OP that these animals are not from Earth as well ?




Thats a very good point. We have to remember that there were a lot of things brought to earth that also don't belong here. I'm not sure on the ones you mentioned. It's a tuff call. I know more about humans than the animals. Aside, some of them could just have that type of diet. So it may not be an obvious answer. I would look for target foods.


"Lots of things brought to Earth that also don't belong here". Yes animals are alien and have souls and if we payed attention could teach us a lot.
edit on 29-1-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 





Those are the first and obvious, glaring problems with your theory.
You simply lack knowledge and understanding to draw reasonable and working hypothesis to prove your theory so you are taking stabs in the dark due to your own ignorance.
But it does show you have a good imagination with the things you work from, which is very limited when it comes to health and basic nutrition facts.
Well your correct and the obvious points as well, but you failed to realize why it all happened to being with. Your trying to say that we were ok before it was commercial driven, I'm saying we were better off but still not meeting the needs.
It's not possible to meet those requirements and farm your own. You can't grow the diverse needs to meet those demands.

So your comments leaves me asking do you believe we were never suppose to ship food, or try to live in multiple places at the same time?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


I think its important to note that mother is the necessity of invention. When we do things like make a new processed food product, it could be because we feel like something is missing in our intended diet.

If our evolution of food has left you believing it was purly a profit thing, I think your wong. Our need to adapt stems from being dumped on the wrong planet. Granted we might have become calused to the fact that all we do is evolve, while those changes stem from our first placment here.

In your earlier reply it sounded as though you believe that we had a perfect diet at one time, is that correct?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If that were true, our processed food would cost less and the natural food would cost more.
You can still sell natural food. Either way, its not our food.

Actually, processed food is cheaper and natural, organic food is more expensive.
A trip to your local grocery store will prove that.
One box of Nutty Bars, $1.99....3 Green Peppers, $2.99.

Of course growing food is the cheapest, but we are not talking about that.



I have allready proven on another channel that those sources don't exisit like you might think. We could eat sardines, but anything lower than that and your not getting the RDA. So are you saying we were suppose to live on a boat, or near a store that sells sardines?

Most certainly not, dear friend, although you can if you want to.
I am saying for a fact that calcium can be found in many other foods.
Like: Beans, Vegetables, Oranges, some Breads...etc..Found HERE
Milk has more per serving, but you can definitely get it elsewhere.


Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by havok
 


I think its important to note that mother is the necessity of invention. When we do things like make a new processed food product, it could be because we feel like something is missing in our intended diet.

If our evolution of food has left you believing it was purly a profit thing, I think your wong. Our need to adapt stems from being dumped on the wrong planet. Granted we might have become calused to the fact that all we do is evolve, while those changes stem from our first placment here.

In your earlier reply it sounded as though you believe that we had a perfect diet at one time, is that correct?


I don't believe we had a perfect diet at all.
The diet was not processed or stripped of it's nutrients by modern techniques like todays diet.
It was more basic, wholesome, and earthly, yes...but not perfect.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect diet.

But I can say that eating locally and naturally grown fruits, vegetables and meats are close.
Not processed junk foods and fast foods, rich with fats, salts and sugars.
Which I don't believe were a beneficial part of our diet, ever.






posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 





I don't believe we had a perfect diet at all.
The diet was not processed or stripped of it's nutrients by modern techniques like todays diet.
It was more basic, wholesome, and earthly, yes...but not perfect.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect diet.

But I can say that eating locally and naturally grown fruits, vegetables and meats are close.
Not processed junk foods and fast foods, rich with fats, salts and sugars.
Which I don't believe were a beneficial part of our diet, ever.


Well I agree, there probably never was a perfect diet, at least here on earth. It's hard to argue why we made the changes we did. I'm sure greed played at least a small part of it.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by manna2
 





Those are the first and obvious, glaring problems with your theory.
You simply lack knowledge and understanding to draw reasonable and working hypothesis to prove your theory so you are taking stabs in the dark due to your own ignorance.
But it does show you have a good imagination with the things you work from, which is very limited when it comes to health and basic nutrition facts.
Well your correct and the obvious points as well, but you failed to realize why it all happened to being with. Your trying to say that we were ok before it was commercial driven, I'm saying we were better off but still not meeting the needs.
It's not possible to meet those requirements and farm your own. You can't grow the diverse needs to meet those demands.

So your comments leaves me asking do you believe we were never suppose to ship food, or try to live in multiple places at the same time?


I hear ya. I am on a different wave length is all. I am a forced-to-retire-carpenter-due-to-nutcase-theft-through-bubble-economics that has become a farmer (ostrich). The healthiest diets throughout history where cultures thrive in health have always been high in protein derived from animals and tiny seeds.
My opinion the absolute best food for human consumption is hemp seeds and oil and ostrich meat and eggs. Both are nearly perfect and whole foods.
Hemp alone can sustain life having all the aminos and a perfect balance of omegas.
What is interesting about the ostrich is it's unbelievable proliferation rates.
When a husbandman steps in we can far outproduce what nature can do.
If a herd can grow off 100 birds from eggs a good husbandman can get all eggs fertile and have a very high hatch and survival getting better than 1000 to grow off.
Thats 900 birds that would have never lived without human intervention.
Add to that ostrich has the best feed to meat ratio of any livestock in the world.
Cattle is somewhere around 15 lb's of feed to get 1 lb of red meat.
Ostrich can be done around 2 lb's to 1 lb of red meat. It is considered to be the only environmently friendly farm animal in the world. So, because of human intervention in pursuit of good food, thousands, millions and billions animals live when they would have never existed. My opinion is that I have an obligation to treat them well, if not baby and cater to them their entire existance if I intend to use them for my food and others food.
Temple Grandin said it best when discussing the slaughter practices she dedicated herself to changing to be more humane and beneficial to both the animal (cattle in her case) and humans. "Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be" Without me, these beautiful creatures would have never existed, but with me they have the best life an ostrich could have as I admire them and love them and treat them better than I treat myself. And thousands survive due to my care when nature would have had them destroyed due to lack of care and the less than optimal conditions I provide.


If you want a real conspiracy, look into why natures most perfect food and best natural medicine is kept so far from human consumption, i.e. hemp. It sustained some dutch communities in the great famine for 2 years on 2 tablespoons of hemp oil a day per person.
And hemp is the biggest kill for a high there is as the canibinoids counter the effects of thc.
Hemp is known as the anti-marijuana because it counters the effects of thc almost completely.
If you are looking for the perfect food, I would point you to hemp. And you never have to rotate the crop and it refurbishes the soil instead of depleting it. It grows fast and tall in almost every climate producing an abundance of seeds in just a few months. And the hemp fibers are stronger and softer than cotton and last like 6 times longer AND FROM 1 ACRE OF HEMP YOU CAN PRODUCE 100 gallons of methane a month, which is a thousand times cleaner than ethanol.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


Ya it sounds like it got a bad rap, thats to bad.

I'm anti drug myself so I can see where some people might not understand that Hemp is a different story.
I have had hemp necklaces, and have seen an isle here in a local grocery store of Hemp food. I just laugh not knowing it's probably good for you. There is no way to deny we are obviously victims of our own stupidity sometimes. It sounds like they need to open there eyes.

On the Osterich meat, well I have never had it and the only thing that comes to mind is yewww. It reminds me of one time when I was talking to someone in Australia, talking about how its possible to eat Rue. I guess its just all meat either way you look at it. I love venician, Moose, beef, and pork. I have eaten menudo many times, and probably have a few unwanted meat parasites. I lost my gall bladder a few years ago so things have changed.

The only non animal food that has saturated fat is the avocado. So it was something I was thinking of when I did my research on this whole deal. The fact that we have a gall bladder tells us that we are equipped to process small amounts of oil. It's just liquid salt is all it is. It causes an effect a lot like when you put Dawn dish soap on oil. Breaks it up. Anyhow, all meat has oil, and beef and pork are probably the worst. Moose is probably the best, when I last had it, I was told it had to be mixed with other meat as it was just to lean.

Because I no longer have a Gall Bladder, when I want to eat ground beef, I have to rinse it in water to remove the oil, it sucks.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
C'mon tooth,you know the drill.You've been trumpeting this whole dubious target foods proves we don't come from planet earth theory all over the place but where's you're evidence.

I don't mean backing up you claims with more claims,I mean verifiable evidence.

Ok lets run with you ideas a while shall we for the sake of this argument.
The example you provided to 'verlfy' that animals have a target food there meant to eat,the anteater.
The anteater has specialised to eat ants and their larve,i would agree with.

How did that happen,what process or who created the ideal food for the ideal feeder??

What came first ant or anteater??

When we were hunter gatherers feeding on what we caught and the berries,fruit we found.Also seafood as proven by the huge seashell deposits found by neolithic settlements up and down the West Coast of Scotland.

How do you know that wasnt our ideal diet ,how can you be exactly sure what that diet was to say it wasn't idead ??

When we developed agriculture,more out of a desire to take control of our resources all year round rather than rely soley on living within nature we naturally would have traded the 'ideal' diet for all year dependibility.

As our knowledge and experience of farming grew we developed a wider and better diet that presisted in it's basic form until the mid 19th century with the advent of canning and the beginning of processed foods.

Cows milk would have be drunk as a by product of keeping cows for meat not because of it's calcium content (that's a wife's take just like eating carrots is good for your eyesight) but simply as a safer alternative to water.In those days everybody including children drank a form of beer as the water wasn't safe to drink much like it isnt in the thirld word today.The process of making beer,heating the water etc killed the bacteria making it safe.When people were living the nomad hunter gather life they would have drunk from safer,fresh running water.When they began farming and settled on the same land their water sources often were standing and stagnant becoming polluted.

You're 'our food isn't ideal therefore we came from another planet' rests on some fairly large leaps of deduction.

1.That every living creature has an ideal diet.

2.That an ideal world/situation is the norm or the intention in which case was the creature made ideal for their enviroment or the enviroment made ideal for the creature - and by what or who.

3.That 15,000 or 10,000 years ago we weren't eating an almost completely ideal diet.

4.That aliens or gods actually exist and for whatever reason best known to them decided to gather many,many thousands of hapless humans from their idyllic home planet along with many hundreds of spieces we share part of our genetic make up with also in many,many thousands and transport us all here.A mammoth logistical undertaking - for why ??

Also consider this,in a previous thread you hypothesised that if this was our home why are we weak and kept alive by medicine.Speak for yourself but i'm 40 and perfectly fit,had bad dose of food poisoning once but that was my cooking.That a broken nose is the sum of my health problems.

Also when humans lived in smaller groups moving to follow their prey then elsewhere in winter to exploit the natural resources,they weren't weak and sickly requireing a medical profession to survive which suggests they were strong,healthy and had an ideal diet.

The only way you can objectively look at our and animal feeding behaviour and derive that it even remotely let alone plausibly suggests intervention is if you begin with intervention and retrofit the facts to suit

That's not a credible approach.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by fastbob72
 





C'mon tooth,you know the drill.You've been trumpeting this whole dubious target foods proves we don't come from planet earth theory all over the place but where's you're evidence.

I don't mean backing up you claims with more claims,I mean verifiable evidence.

Ok lets run with you ideas a while shall we for the sake of this argument.
The example you provided to 'verlfy' that animals have a target food there meant to eat,the anteater.
The anteater has specialised to eat ants and their larve,i would agree with.

How did that happen,what process or who created the ideal food for the ideal feeder??

What came first ant or anteater??
Why couldn't they have been made at the same time?




When we were hunter gatherers feeding on what we caught and the berries,fruit we found.Also seafood as proven by the huge seashell deposits found by neolithic settlements up and down the West Coast of Scotland.

How do you know that wasnt our ideal diet ,how can you be exactly sure what that diet was to say it wasn't idead ??
The understanding comes from the observation of numerous diets. You will see several patterns. The first is that there never is an experimental stage unless the species is starving. Dogs, while they are domesticated, meaning we determine what they eat, don't eat rocks and dirt, much less do they even try them. The fact that they don't try random things as food, is an inportant clue. The other fact is that all species are choosing the same items as choice food, without any experimentation. This is an important clue. On a rare occasion you might find a species that is eating what appears to be his target food. If this includes most of that food group, then he is not eating his target food. This is phase one of hunger. A species might even pick up an additional food group when phase one food is not available, that is phase 2 of hunger. Phase three is eating rocks and dirt, starvation.




When we developed agriculture,more out of a desire to take control of our resources all year round rather than rely soley on living within nature we naturally would have traded the 'ideal' diet for all year dependibility.
But you missed the whole point here, even though its you typing it. Why would we feel the need to control our resources? It's because the resources are not fitting us to the best of our needs. In other words, they aren't our resources.




As our knowledge and experience of farming grew we developed a wider and better diet that presisted in it's basic form until the mid 19th century with the advent of canning and the beginning of processed foods.
And you probably missed the point again. If we have to go out of our way to produce food, its no natural. The food was not naturaly meant for us. On a balanced planet, things would automatically be provided as needed. This planet does not provide for us, we manipulate it so that it can produce for us. The reason is simple, its not our food, and its not our planet.




Cows milk would have be drunk as a by product of keeping cows for meat not because of it's calcium content (that's a wife's take just like eating carrots is good for your eyesight) but simply as a safer alternative to water.In those days everybody including children drank a form of beer as the water wasn't safe to drink much like it isnt in the thirld word today.The process of making beer,heating the water etc killed the bacteria making it safe.When people were living the nomad hunter gather life they would have drunk from safer,fresh running water.When they began farming and settled on the same land their water sources often were standing and stagnant becoming polluted
No, cows milk was to serve a purpose, and it still does today. It offers many things, but the first on the list...


•Cow’s milk is highly rich in calcium content. Calcium is essential for the growth and development of bones. It joins with phosphorous to form calcium phosphate, which is an integral element of hydroxyapatite, which in turn provides structure and strength to the bones.
cows milk

Havent you seen the commercials, milk does a body good? Calcium is the main reason we use cows milk. It is rich in calcium, and oddly enough, we don't have a good source of calcium here on earth. It's because like it says in the bible, many things were given to us in food, herbs, plants, animals, but none of these things are from our home. In other words none of them were intended for us.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by fastbob72
 





You're 'our food isn't ideal therefore we came from another planet' rests on some fairly large leaps of deduction.
There is a lot more than just that. It's clear in the bible that earth is not our home, thats a quote. There are also multiple instances of proof of intervention in the bible as well. In addition our own DNA has tell tale signs that its been tampered with, best described by lloyd pye on human genetics.




1.That every living creature has an ideal diet.
To not believe this means you believe that success of life is based on chance of eating whatever. I'm pretty sure that if someone or something was smart enough to design planets with life, they would also be smart enough to know that life also needs proper food. While thats not proof, the fact that some species, even just one, has been identified with target food, is proof.




2.That an ideal world/situation is the norm or the intention in which case was the creature made ideal for their enviroment or the enviroment made ideal for the creature - and by what or who.
By what or whom, is the million dollar question. A joke was made once by an ATS member that there is a giant celestial squid out there just pooping out planets with life on them.

Our mtDNA in the article of mitochondrial Eve on wiki explains that our species population never was below tens of thousands. So this pretty much squashes all ideas of evolution, otherwise we would have the proof of our bones everywhere.




3.That 15,000 or 10,000 years ago we weren't eating an almost completely ideal diet.
Unless our needs changed, which there is no proof of.




4.That aliens or gods actually exist and for whatever reason best known to them decided to gather many,many thousands of hapless humans from their idyllic home planet along with many hundreds of spieces we share part of our genetic make up with also in many,many thousands and transport us all here.A mammoth logistical undertaking - for why ??
Aliens have been reported to have been abducting people as far back as we can remember, and there often times isn't a clear reason. Zecariah Sitchen believes (based on documentation) that we were to serve as slaves to harvest gold for the athmosphere of a different planet. There appears to be mention of these things in the bible as well. It appears that we placed in a compromising position, and basically held hostage here. There is nothing that instinctivly ties us to this planet.




Also consider this,in a previous thread you hypothesised that if this was our home why are we weak and kept alive by medicine.Speak for yourself but i'm 40 and perfectly fit,had bad dose of food poisoning once but that was my cooking.That a broken nose is the sum of my health problems.
Your health will start to diminish rapidly. Keeping in mind that even your testostrone is surly low and you probably need hormone therapy at this point. I suggest you at least get that checked because letting that level get low is a precursor to death. Wow, so you don't even wear glasses at this point, thats amazing, so far anyhow.




Also when humans lived in smaller groups moving to follow their prey then elsewhere in winter to exploit the natural resources,they weren't weak and sickly requireing a medical profession to survive which suggests they were strong,healthy and had an ideal diet.
They also didn't live to be 80 years old.




The only way you can objectively look at our and animal feeding behaviour and derive that it even remotely let alone plausibly suggests intervention is if you begin with intervention and retrofit the facts to suit

That's not a credible approach.
Our food issues was all in hindsight.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
See tooth you go round and round in your circular knowledge which dispite your asserstion it's cutting edge is very linear and almost niave.

Ok so the anteater and the ant appeared at the same time.How ??

Explain it to me tooth cos to me it sounds like you're saying the suddenly came into existence in a puff of smoke.

Animals learn from their mother when she brings back food,they are hungry she feeds them,they learn very quickly what food,the look,smell and taste they are meant to eat.It's hard wired into them through genetics from their parents and species what they need to eat.

And again the natural phenomenon of animals eating what is easily accesible and within their normal range you give a fanciful system of phase 1&2&3 hunger.It's like all psuedoscience,give it a fancy name and make it sound scientific but nonsense is nonsense all the same.

Also just because you don't understand what you're seeing doesnt mean if you make up a theory to fit your van Daniken ideas it make it true.

I suggested that mesiolythic man was eating an ideal diet you never answered that.

And when I say some groups developed farming in order to secure his resourses YOU are the one that missed the point.Man has always strived to control his enviroment and some groups kept the 'ideal' nomadic life others settled and farm.

By saying if they farmed to secure resources means they couldnt have been living right in the first place is typical of the either right or wrong simplistic outlook i expect from you.life,man,history,civilisation is nuanced not black and white like you see it.

As I've said many,many times prove it,evidence.Just saying this what i believe and backing it up with what you think you see isnt proof



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Bananas! Our target food is bananas. It's the only food that contains every single nutrient the human body needs. They fit perfectly in our hands, we have the fingers to peel them. We're monkeys! We eat bananas!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Cusp
Bananas! Our target food is bananas. It's the only food that contains every single nutrient the human body needs. They fit perfectly in our hands, we have the fingers to peel them. We're monkeys! We eat bananas!


And the skin's perfect for making wooly mammoths slide on their hairy arses.lol



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join