part 2
part 2
part 2
Lets change it up
same song and dance over and over
thread after thread
I nominate Weezard to do the testing...
you can be the first non believer to offer some proof. that it does, or doesnt hold value. you've never done it right? so try something new?
Not so right.
I did it in the late 60's.
Found no merit. Quite the contrary.
And, I only did half the grow.
And, I took pictures.
Wish I still had them.
you up for the "challenge"?
you do like to experiment right?
Science? I refer to the pdfs I posted earlier; those are proper laboratory experiments with control groups, the procedure is explained, and outcomes are quantified (plant weight, foliage counts, fruit size, yield, etc). But most important, if the experiment is repeated, the new tester would obtain similar results. That is the type of "science" that most of us advanced growers respect and appreciate. Things like "stoner logic" (which sorry to say is all that you have provided thus far) and "bro-science" may be fun to cite, but unfortunately they usually amount to nothing more than "anecdotal evidence" (no bueno).
Lastly, if you are going to debate from a "theorist" perspective (which you are), then IMHO, your strongest hand should not be some crazy babble that includes google pics of my friends garden--rather slam your opponent with irrefutable evidence; I guarantee you will walk away a winner every time.
Perhaps the only reason why you are unable to link/cut & paste to any "science" that "buds don't need direct light", is because.....hmmm, none exist?
If I had an opportunity to slam a "know it all" that made some crazy claim (say...someone like me), then I would relish at the opportunity to make him eat his words. Merry christmas/happy birthday, cuz here is your opportunity.
Sorry dude, but you gotta do better than stoner logic to prove that "buds don't need direct light"!
BTW, I do appreciate your "youthful exuberance" but, IMHO its time to up your game a little.
Good luck!
The "challenge" is to the folks that are making claims based on their impressions.
Trying to use the thinning of fruit to validate the stripping of fan leaf?
That's just silly.
Don't mind throwing a little ink at the claimants, but I can't afford to waste my meds on someone else's beliefs.
Been there, did that.
And only because my partner at the time was 110% "convinced" that it would give a bigger yield.
So, did half and placed a bet.
Loser, had to give up his share of the winners extra weight.
It was only a little over a pound and a quarter.
But I enjoyed the hell out of it.
So again I ask, would any true believers care to support their beliefs with a proper test run?
I'd love to change my mind about this.
Heck getting more output from less machine is the American dream.
Aloha, y'all
Weeze
You may have noticed their lack of interest in definitive experiment.
btw.. I never said buds don't need direct light. if your gonna quote me at leas quote me right.
My bad, I confused you with Sativied...he is the fool that made that comment. Guess age has a way of catching me...sorry!
If there are no cannabis studies on a particular area of concern, IMHO, the next best thing is to examine those on flowering/fruits and extrapolate what applies to cannabis--and use our intelligence to differentiate what may or may not be applicable.
Again, 1000 apologies for confusing your words with someone else!
Cheers!
And there's the problem that keeps this issue from reaching any consensus - people resort to personal attacks... cute.My bad, I confused you with Sativied...he is the fool that made that comment. Guess age has a way of catching me...sorry!
The whole point of my post before that was to point out how people like you and your ignorant comments about buds requiring direct light kill a proper discussion about this. If you cannot get the simple fact that leaves are the only 'sources' and the rest are 'sinks' you're missing a few essential botany basics that don't require any scientific resources, any college book on botany should do the trick. E.g. read up on phloem transport, how it works for the 'entire' plant.So...please back up your claim with some science, that way we all can learn why "buds don't need direct light"!
...Rather than shifting the burden of proof - as is so common for defoliators - where is your science showing that buds 'do' need direct light? (rhetorical question as it doesn't exist).
If I don't defoliate around 20 - 30% of my leaves, I'll get pounds of popcorn. I SCROG though and my plants are close together.
Cat...thanks for proving my point.
First, the hay taste you refer to in your weed, is a result of inadequate dry/curing--nothing to do with defoliation. Please research what causes the hay taste/flavor/aroma in weed; not interested in teaching Weed Dry/Curing 101 classes today.
I love when people insult others in posts and then end it with something stupid like Cheers!. Another lol from me ...Cheers man!
Nah, I think I'll pass on that. In fact, I'm not even going to read whatever counter points you made. You're just too smart for me, and I won't get any of it ... Toodles. Done with this thread, as you seem to think you are the expert on it and we should all be in this thread to learn from you, the Weed Guru, and of course lavish our praise and thanks on ya for you being so altruistic to help all of us misguided, ill-informed, not nearly as experienced as you understand how to do everything right ...Now, let me hold your hand and respond to your counterpoints--