:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
AmyStrange.org and the UNeXpLaiNed ©Copyrighted by Dave Ayotte & Caty Bergman
|JAN|FEB|MAR|APR|MAY|JUN|JUL|AUG|SEP|OCT|NOV|DEC|
BLOG ARCHIVE
2012 <<<< 2013 >>>> 2014
JAN-21-2013 [MON] 20:31 PST - FOX: THE FOLLOWING FEB-28-2013 [FRI] 16:55 PST - ANCIENT MYSTERIES: BIGFOOT APR-26-2013 [FRI] 17:11 PDT - UFO CRASH: Kecksburg, Pennsylvania MAY-17-2013 [FRI] 18:41 PDT - GROWING MARIJUANA (CANNABIS) INDOORS JUN-07-2013 [FRI] 17:36 PDT - PROBABILITIES JUN-29-2013 [SAT] 13:37 PDT - IN POT WE CREATE
We're still working on our new research project:
http://www.amystrange.org/SEK-KEYES-Israel.html#israelkeyesproject
We're still working on our new research project:
http://www.amystrange.org/SEK-KEYES-Israel.html#israelkeyesproject
We're still working on our new research project:
http://www.amystrange.org/SEK-KEYES-Israel.html#israelkeyesproject
We're starting a new research project:
http://www.amystrange.org/SEK-KEYES-Israel.html#israelkeyesproject
ONCE AGAIN, we're working our butts off researching for this webpage:
http://www.amystrange.org/UNX-ufo.html
ONCE AGAIN, we're working our butts off researching for this webpage:
http://www.amystrange.org/UNX-ufo.html
BLOG: JUN-07-2013 [FRI] 17:36 PDT Table Of Contents
PROBABILITIES
Before we get into this month's BLOG (BLG), let me tell you about our
last action packed adventure. It was literally like watching grass
grow (no pun intended). Check it out:
INDOOR GARDENING: Growing Marijuana (Cannabis)
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
PROBABILITIES
If you've read enough of this BLOG (BLG) or our website, you know that
me and Dave mention probabilities a lot. Mostly to counter Dave's
wild theories or stories.
If you were a fly on the wall, you'd hear me ask, "Now, how probable is
that, Dave? I mean really? More probable than this other theory that
passes Occum's Razor?
Occum's Razor is a kind of a probabilities meter. The answer to a
question, or mystery, more likely than not is the one that makes the
fewest assumptions. But, and even the skeptics dictionary agrees
with me here, just because one answer makes less assumptions than
another, don't always make it the right one. Any assumptions
eliminated with Occum's Razor should not be tossed out like
yesterday's garbage, at least not until they are proven false. I'm
going to add "proven false absolutely" to that, because some people
seem to think that because it don't pass the "Razor" test, that
alone is enough to prove it false.
There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but if you're not also
skeptical of your own beliefs, than you're just a biased observer,
and not a real skeptic. Science should do the same thing, but that's
a whole 'nother discussion, for a whole 'nother time.
I'm not going to give you a probabilities lecture here (or anywhere for
that matter) with all kinds of math to go with it, but I will teach
you something practical about probabilities by explaining my point
of view using penny poker as a kind of entertaining way of doing it.
Let's start with the penny part first. Here are the ten coin flips we
made (T = Tails, H = Heads):
(01) T
(02) H
(03) T
(04) H
(05) H
(06) T
(07) H
(08) H
(09) T
(10) T
Anyway, "Occum's Razor" and probabilities are OK as a far as they go,
and to us it's a way to begin our discussions or our research, but
reality has a way of laughing at the "razor" and probabilities...
sometimes.
What that means is probabilities don't mean a wit per incident. Let's
take our penny example above. As most of you probably know, the
probabilities of flipping either heads or tails with each flip of
any two sided coin is fifty-fifty (based on two possible outcomes,
divided by one flip), and even though that probability will always
be fifty-fifty, that is only before you flip, not after. The
probabilities after you flip are still the same, or so you would
think.
The general consensus amongst statisticians is that probabilities don't
only apply to each individual flip, but also to each set of flips,
and the more flips, the better your chances are that all your flips
will be equal to the fifty-fify probability. For example, with our
first five flips, the odds are not evenly fifty-fifty, but more like
sixty-forty in favor of heads, and in the second set of five flips,
that is reversed, making the overall set fifty-fifty again. What
that means to me is that in actual practice, if the result of a set
of flips is the same side in consecutive throws, the more flips your
set includes, the more it will conform to the overall fifty-fifty
probability structure.
For example, if heads is the result of five flips in a row, with each
new flip the probabilities go up that the result will be tails
instead of heads. But regardless of all that, no matter how many
times in a row your flips result in the same side coming up, the
probability for the next flip will always be fifty-fifty,
regardless. Ain't statistics and probabilities fun?
But penny probabilities are small change (pun intended) compared to the
Big Mama of game probabilities, and I'm not talking about bones
(dice), but poker.
I'm not going to get into any kind of mathematical probabilities
lecture about how to calculate the chances for being dealt each
specific hand of poker. Instead, let's talk about the king of poker
hands (excluding hands with wild cards, cards that can represent any
card in the deck), the Royal Flush, Ace high. I don't think there is
anyone out there that doesn't know the probabilities for being dealt
such a hand are very high (depending on how you do the calculations,
it is approximately either 640,000 to 1, or 30,000 to 1). If you
want to know more about how the probabailities and odds for poker
are calculated, check this page out at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability
In conclusion: even though the odds at getting a Royal Flush, Ace high,
are really high, people still get them. Logically that should also
mean (no matter how high the probabilities are) that flipping
consecutive heads hundreds of times in a row, or that UFOs really
are from other worlds, or that Sasquatch really is real; all those
things are also possible, despite the probabilities against them.
BLOG: JUN-29-2013 [SAT] 13:37 PDT Table Of Contents
IN POT WE CREATE:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
LAST UPDATED: January 1, 2014MAY-17-2013 [FRI] 18:41 PDT - AN INTRODUCTION TO INDOOR GARDENING: GROWING MARIJUANA (CANNABIS) INDOORS [ INTRODUCTION ] [ THE NEXT BIG STEP ] BOOK SOURCE [ A KINDA SHORT HISTORY OF POT ] [ SEEDS AND GERMINATION ] GERMINATION TIMETABLE [ WHERE TO GROW ] [ TRANSPLANTING ] [ TEMPERATURE ] [ NUTRITION ] NUTRIENT TABLE [ LIGHTING ] LIGHT SPECTRUM GRAPH CRI TABLE [ WATER ]BLOG: MAY-17-2013 [FRI] 18:41 PDT Table Of Contents
AN INTRODUCTION TO INDOOR GARDENING: GROWING MARIJUANA (CANNABIS) INDOORS Dave has always enjoyed experimenting with plants. I love them too. A house without plants should be a criminal offense, ha ha. Just joking. Dave though, like everything else he does, is taking this to a whole 'nother level. For example where he lives, he's got a little tree that he plucked from the ground and is now growing in a small pot on top of a tree stump (SEE BELOW: the small pot on the very far right). Am I the only one that sees the irony in this?He's also got a dandelion root immersed in a glass of water so he can see just how exactly it grows back from just the root. That experiment was actually pretty interesting. He still has it on his back porch, and for a couple days at least, there were (I swear) a hundred or more tiny-little spiders attached to the glass with a kind of nest made of webbing, and every time the wind would blow (even just a little), the itsy-bitsy spiders (sorry, I couldn't help myself) would all move around together in a kind of swarm (like one organism) while constantly rebuilding their nest as the wind blew it (and them) around. Hmmm, that reminds me of a discussion on swarms we had while writing our UFO webpage last week, and how they might explain some UFO sightings. Go HERE to read more about it. He also gathered together some dandelion seeds, germinated them and they are now growing in another small pot of dirt on the same tree stump, right next to the potted tree I mentioned above. He was curious to see just how dandelions grow those cool roots. Most people I know hate dandelions, but Dave seems to be in love with them. He's weird, it's just as simple as that. THE NEXT BIG STEP (Growing Pot) Anyway, Dave now thinks he's ready for the next big step. He wants to experiment with growing pot (marijuana, weed, bud, this bud's for you, you know what I'm talking about) next. It's legal now where he lives, so why not? He started off by getting the following book that was recommended to him by a good friend of his: BOOK SOURCE: "Gardening Indoors With Soil and Hydroponics" by George F. Van Paten
The book has loads and loads of pictures and illustrations, but (no matter how many books you read or pictures to look at) there's no better way to learn than by getting your hands dirty and actually doing it yourself. There is no doubt in our minds that this book was written by someone who has gotten down and dirty and done his own experiments. You can learn and memorize a lot of things, but real understanding comes from actually doing what you learn. While we were looking this book up on Amazon.com, we saw some other interesting books. One of them was called "Aquaponic Gardening: A Step-By-Step Guide to Raising Vegetables and Fish Together" by Sylvia Bernstein. Like the title says, Aquaponics is growing fish and plants together, using the fish poo as the nutrient base for growing plants in water, rather than soil. I didn't really get too much into it, but it was an interesting idea none the less, and I'll have to remember to read more about this later. One thing I'd like to find out is if the fish have to be separated from the plants for this to work? The book by Van Paten, although it did have one solid chapter on hydroponics, was mostly aimed at growing plants indoors in soil with loads of information about temperature, nutrients and lighting. Soil based seems to be the way Dave wants to go anyway, and besides, from what I can see, hydroponics involves monitoring the chemical levels of the water the plants are growing in and making sure it stays within a certain balance. Seems like a lot of hard work, but maybe that's just me. Dave wants to do the aquaponic thing anyway, with at least one plant, for research purposes. Using fish poo to grow pot. I'd pay a buck to see that, ha ha. Dave just wants to smoke it. Research, he keeps telling me. Whatever. BACK TO THE BOOK Anyway, back to the book and learning the basics of indoor gardening. Indoor gardening is basicly using science to bringing outdoor plants and growing them indoors. The two types of outside plants that are most often grown indoors, besides weed (marijuana), are vegetables (which include spices) and flowers. I think both have their own individual preparations and rules for nutrition and lighting. Dave made the decision that marijuana should be grown using the preparation and rules that involve flowering plants, although most plants (excepting algae, ferns, some vines and ivys, and other's I can't remember off the top of my head), produce flowers; the flower on marijuana is the reason the plant produces THC (TetraHydroCannabinol), and thus the reasoning why Dave thinks we should defer to the flowering rules over all else. Make's sense to me. We'll read more and find out for sure... What Dave found out was that there are mainly two stages of marijuana growth, the vegetative stage (which is mostly the life of the plant until it begins flowering) and of course the flowering stage. This is where you do all the "Sensimilla" whodoo.
In the picture on the left is the infamous dandelion root I mentioned earlier. And to the right of that, you should be able to see a round red-rubber top that Dave is using as a dish to hold a bunch of germinating Pussy Willow seeds (using the paper towel pre-soaking method, his favorite). The little spider swarm was hanging from the toothpicks like a curtain. A KINDA SHORT HISTORY OF POT The first thing on the agenda was getting seeds for germination. I won't bore you with the details, but the best seeds to get if you are buying them is from a retailer that sells them with "All-Ammerican Selection" (AAS) somewhere on the label. They are suppose to grow better than other brands. Dave nor I know if this is true or not. Sounds pretty official though, although it makes me wonder just how you get a hold of some pot seeds to grow, no way can I believe that any company that sells seeds with an AAS label would be involved in marijuana seeds, at least not yet anyway. I mean, I know one way to get them. Buy some pot and use those seeds. That is way easier to say than to actually do, I know that much anyway. Dave tells me that back in the day (pre 1970-80s) marijuana (also spelled marihuana) mostly came from Mexico. It cost ten dollars for a lid (ounce) and was loaded with seeds and stems. You could get other kinds like Columbian and Thia Stick, but they cost more. Forty dollars for an ounce of Columbian, and Dave doesn't remember how much Thia went for because he never had the opportunity to buy it (although he has smoked it), but he does know that it was sold by the gram rather than by the ounce (28.34 grams to an ounce) and it was at least ten dollars a gram. There's hash also, but trust me, you can't get seeds from hash. In the early 70s, Nixon declared a "War on Drugs" and marijuana was immediately placed on a list (along with heroin) as a schedule one drug, which meant it had no medicinal value what so ever. Then in the late 70s, the way Dave explains it, some pretty big busts occurred all around the United States, which was immediately followed by a marijuana drought. For almost six months (if not longer), nothing. Then, a small trickle appeared, but at a price. It cost forty dollars for a lid (ounce). The good news was that it wasn't from Mexico. It was a new and different kind of pot, or so Dave remember's people saying at the time. It was called "Sensimilla", which is from the Spanish "sin semilla" (this is the correct spelling) which means "without seed," and ever since then it hasn't been easy getting marijuana seeds. It cost more for Sensimilla, but it was worth it according to Dave. It gave you a nice buzz, also according to Dave. It WAS way better than Mexican Pot, somewhere between Columbian and Thai. And every year the stuff kept getting better, but also began to cost more and more. Today, I think it's sold by the eighth (1/8 of an ounce, around 3 to 4 grams) and cost about forty dollars, or so I'm told. Dave just made a possible connection between the time Sensimilla began hitting the streets and the end of the Vietnam War. Maybe some of our guys learned a few "Sensimilla tricks" while they were over there. It's an interesting hypothesis and quite probable, in my opinion. I'm sure someone must have written about this before us. Anyway, from then on, pot from Mexico (known as Mexican Pot) became a kind of code word (or slang) for bad (shitty) pot. Still is, as far as I know, although Dave admits it (the original mexican pot) wasn't as bad as people are making it out to be today. Sensimilla (Dave likes this spelling better than the correct one) was produced primarily by making the plant think it was time to produce flowers (and as a result more THC) by cutting the amount of light the plant receives (this obviously mostly only works in an indoor growing environment) from 16 hours to 12 or less hours after it has had at least two months to grow. After two or three weeks, the light is again raised to 16 hours for another two or three weeks, then back again to 12 or less, on and on for as long as you desire (usually two or more times, up to six or even more if you want). Each time the light is reduced, more THC is produced, and more flowers I would guess also, but I'm not sure about that part. The tricky part is to separate the female plants from the male plants so seeds aren't produced. Dave likes to call this the sensimilla trick, but the really tricky part is that the female plant, if there are no males around, will produce their own male parts so they can fertilize themselves, and you have to constantly look for and remove that part so it can't fertilize itself as a result. Kind of cruel in a way which got us discussing plants and can they feel emotion or pain. Dave thinks they do, maybe not emotion but definitely pain; while I just hope they don't, because if they do, fire seems to be their biggest enemy, and I don't even want to think about THAT reality, although we did discuss that a little. I'll have to reproduce this discussion in another blog entry later. It was a pretty interesting discussion none the less, in my opinion. So in conclusion, that's kind of why it's not as easy to get seeds today as it was in "the day," according to Dave anyway. Dave just found this webpage on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_cultivation He's going to read that while I read more from our book source. UPDATE: Dave checked out a couple places online to get a feel for the prices. Ten dollars for one guaranteed female seed is not unheard of from what Dave has seen so far. We'll keep you updated. SEEDS AND GERMINATION
GERMINATION is the name of the process the seed goes through once it's triggered to start growing. The timetable below was the first thing I came across when I started reading our book source. In a second, we'll explain how to set up seeds so they are triggered to begin growing (germinating): GERMINATION TIMETABLE ======================= The First 55-72 HOURS: ----------------------------- By the end of 72 hours (3 days), the SEED should already have absorbed the water around it, and this along with a warm environment and plenty of air, THIS SHOULD HAVE TRIGGERED THE ROOT TIP TO BEGIN GROWING AND BECOME VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE SEED COVERING. 10-14 DAYS: ----------------------------- By the end of fourteen days (2 weeks), THE FIRST ROOTS SHOULD BE EASY TO SEE GROWING OUTSIDE THE SEED, reaching out and down for something on which to anchor the rest of the plant. At 21-30 DAYS: ----------------------------- The SEED should be ROOTED by now, and YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE TWO LEAVES BEGINNING TO FORM. Before we get into discussing getting set up for germination, let's go over some of the scientific terms used for parts of the germinating seed, and then some scientific names for marijuana (cannabis) itself, but first a word from our sponsor (Dave).
Dave has found three seeds that look healthy enough to germinate, and as soon as we finish our research, he is going to try and start them. His first objective (hoping that at least one of the seeds that germinate is a female) is to get more seeds. We'll keep you udpated, hopefully (we're crossing our fingers), when we write the second part of this Blog entry next month or maybe not until the month after that. SCIENTIFIC TERMS Those first leaves (also known as the seed leaves or embryonic leaves) that are the first to appear from inside the seed, if you want to get all sciency about it (and who doesn't, ha ha), are known as the cotyledon ("seed leaves"). Also, the (embryonic) root tip, mentioned above, is called the radical, and the part between the leaves and root is called the hypocotyl (or the "hypocotyledonous stem", which means, "below seed leaf"). While we're on the subject of scientific terms, Dave found these on the webpage he was reading: SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_cultivation
"Cannabis belongs to the genus Cannabis in the family Cannabaceae and includes four species, C. sativa, C. indica, C. afghanica, and C. ruderalis (APG II system). It is typically a dioecious (each individual is either male or female) annual plant (life period: April–September)... "GERMINATION To trigger the germination process, SEEDS NEED FOUR THINGS, (1) to be warm, (2) wet, (3) oxygen/ CO2), and (4) a relatively dark place to grow. There are two popular ways to meet these four needs, at least according to our book source above. TO START GERMINATING SEEDS NEED FOUR THINGS ======================== 1 Heat (1) 2 Water (2) 3 OXYGEN/ CO2 (3) 4 DARKNESS (4) The first way (method) is called "direct seed" and the second is called "pre-soaking in water". Dave has almost always used the "pre-soaking method," and so have I, mostly anyway, when I've done it. Although, I've also just put seeds in good dirt and watered them, hoping they'll grow and most of the time they do. Although Dave has also planted seeds directly in soil also, he likes the pre-soak method that he uses because he likes to see the seeds start. I have to agree so that's the method we'll discuss in more detail below, after a short discussion about the "direct seed" method mentioned above. DIRECT SEED From what I gather direct seed seems to mean what I wrote about doing earlier and that is to plant the seeds directly into the soil without any transplanting involved at all. Here's an interesting website we found about direct seeding from about.com: http://gardening.about.com/od/seedstarting/f/What-Is-Direct-Seeding-Or-Direct-Sowing.htm The only real difference between direct seed and pre-soaking was that with pre-soaking you start the seeds outside the soil, and after they start germinating, transplant them into their permanent homes. Obviously when you direct seed, you still have to meet the four needs mentioned above. You shouldn't plant your seeds before the last frost (1), nor should you plant them deeper than twice their length, and also be sure the seeds are watered very well (2) the first time around and regularily after that. And unless you are planting them outside in some kind of weird vacuum, there will be plenty of oxygen/ CO2 (3) for when the seeds need it, which is usually after the first 24 hours after being watered. Being in the soil takes care of them being in the dark (4). Another thing to keep in mind when planting seeds directly into the soil is to space them so each individual plant has enough room for the roots and leaves to grow and also so they don't have to fight each other for sunlight. After about a week, according to the germination table above, you should start seeing the seedlings begin to poke their tiny little leaves (cotyledon) through the soil. Success! PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE Please, go to the above webpage and check it out for yourself. Never take our word for anything, if you have any doubts, always do your own research to make sure we're not just snowing you. But, after everything is all said and done, personal knowledge really IS an awesome tool. You can either memorize things that other people tell you are facts, or you can get your hands dirty and find out for yourself what the real facts are or maybe find out those memorized facts are really nly just another person's opinion masquerading as a fact. Personal knowledge is a good thing, and fun too. PRE-SOAKING Anyway, to start the pre-soaking method, you can either first find a warm (1) and dark place (4) to put the seeds in a glass or other container of water (2) and let them sit there for NO MORE THAN 24 HOURS. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, because the seeds WILL LITERALLY DROWN at this stage if they can't get oxygen/ CO2 (3) for longer than 24 hours; or, you can skip that step all together and place them directly between two paper towel sheets or two pieces of cheese cloth and soak the sheets thoroughly (2), as we will explain further in the next paragraph. After you've soaked the seeds in a warm (1) dark place (4) for 24 hours (2), if they already aren't there, place them between two paper towel sheets (or two sheets of cheesecloth) in a dish of some kind. Now wet the paper towels, draining any excess water for the same reasons mentioned above about the seeds literally drowning due to lack of oxygen (3). Now place these seeds in a warm dark place and wait 72 hours, wetting the paper towels or cheesecloth once a day, remembering to also drain them of any excess water after wetting. AFTER THREE DAYS, we should be able to see the root beginning to grow. After the root tip (radical) emerges and begins to grow outside the seed covering, is the best time to transplant them to a more permanent home.Above is a picture of some pussy willow seeds (it's not a good picture) that Dave gathered together earlier in the week. At least he thinks they're pussy willow seeds anyway. I have no idea what they are. All last week where Dave lives, a whole shit-load of tiny little seeds, covered with some kind of cottony-like substance, were floating all over the place. He knows that they're not dandelion seeds, because he's already started germinating some of them and these are not the same at all. Dandelion seeds float around in a kind of round parachute kind of thingy, while these seeds were kind of in the middle of some cottony stuff, not hanging from their parachutes like dandelion seeds do. So, definitely not dandelion seeds, Dave has concluded. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, subject to verification of course. While they were floating around, He grabbed as many of them as he could, and using the paper towel pre-soaking method, he tried getting some of them to maybe germinate. In the picture above, the seeds have been germinating for 96 hours (4 days). He also added a little dirt with the seeds, just in case. If you look closely, you can maybe see that some of them have actually germinated.
UPDATE: Dave was only able to salvage one of the above seeds and transplant it. It seems to be healthy and growing well. Dave has it out in the sun right now. If you look real close (it's a little right of center), you can see the tiny leaves with the seed covering still attached to it. We'll put up a different picture when there is something better to see.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Dave found more pussy willow seedlings and added them to the above peat pot with the original seed. You should be able to see them better in this photo than the one above. This photo was taken 14 days after the original seed was started. WHERE TO GROW One of the important things to keep in mind after picking out a place to grow indoors, are the lights and that their intensity decreases (making it less effective) by one quarter for every square foot distance away it is from its target (plant), or something like that. It follows the inverse square law, which basicly states that change is in inverse proportion to the square of the distance of the light. What that means is that the closer to the light the plant is, the better it will grow. Keeping it at least one foot away, obviously, or the light will burn or rapidly remove water from the plant faster than it can be replaced. There are grow lights out there that are cool to the touch, so as far as I know closeness isn't as important with these kind of lights, but I'm not too sure how useful these lights really are for growing good healthy plants. I guess it'll be time soon for a field trip to a local nursery to find out what they have to say about all this. Dave picked out a place that he's going to call his, "Mad Scientist Pot Lab". I told him he needs to get some beakers, test tubes, bunsen burners, and something that shoots out electric sparks. You know, for atmosphere. He laughed, but I could see the wheels turning in his head. Oh my GAWD!
Notice the trellis on the right. If you follow it down, you should see a bag (bottom right) with the big letters EDS printed across it. He has that hanging from what I think is a three-part folding fireplace screen that he folded together into a triangle. In this he is hanging a big empty bag of animal feed. He's going to cut holes in the bottom for drainage and place a few layers of cheesecloth and then dirt, enough for the roots to grow down at least two feet, and the plants themselves to grow up to about two (or three) feet. He also has a shelving unit set up (to hold the carbon dioxide making bottles), which also has crossbeams sticking out from the top shelf that hold up the trellis and is perfect for hanging the lights. He has it all figured out. Mad scientist indeed. SHOPPING LIST After finishing a quick reading of both the book and webpage, these are the things Dave thinks he will need before he can start growing his experimental pot: soil liquid fertilizer paper towels cotton small dish tweezers timers plant containers charcoal timer fan outdoor electrical cord heater thermometer lights green light bulb ph test strips humidity test strips lumber (2x4) paneling screws chicken wire sealant nails TRANSPLANTING Since Dave has decided to use peat pots and modify his pre-soaking method so he is almost directly planting his seeds in the dirt, and then just put the whole pot in the dirt, no transplanting shock for the plants; since Dave is doing this, we won't be discussing too much about how to transplant. Except to say that when transplanting seeds after they have begun germinating, the MOST IMPORTANT thing to remember is to be very careful not to damage the tiny roothairs. And also, make sure the tiny seed leaves (cotyledon) are pointing up and the root is pointing down. Obvious stuff, right? TEMPERATURE The optimum temperature for growing pot (and most plants too) is 25 °C (78 °F), at least according to our book source. The website Dave read says this: SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_cultivation
"The optimal day temperature range for cannabis is 24 to 30 °C (75 to 86 °F). Temperatures above 31 °C and below 15.5 °C seem to decrease THC potency and slow growth. At 13 °C the plant undergoes a mild shock, though some strains withstand frost temporarily. Frost occurs when air temperatures dip below 0 °C (32 °F) and ice crystals form... "NUTRITION (INCLUDING CO2) If you like checking the pH of your soil, the balance looks to be between 5.8 and 6.8. Here's a little chemistry about pH from Wikipedia: SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH"Pure water has a pH very close to 7 at 25 °C. Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are basic or alkaline. [...] "The exact meaning of the 'p' in 'pH' is disputed, but according to the Carlsberg Foundation pH stands for 'power of hydrogen'... "PRIMARY NUTRIENTS The three major nutrients needed for good plant growth are represented on most fertilizer bags (and other containers) as NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium) and the numbers 00/00/00 represent the amount of each ingedient included. The following is a list of important mobile nutrients and for what they are needed. Mobile merely means the nutrient is easily washed away and needs to be replenished regularly. The letter in parenthesis is the scientific notation for the chemical. NITROGEN (N) According to our book source, nitrogen is the most common nutrient deficiency. This nutrient is mostly responsible for leaf and stem growth, overall size, and healthy vigor. This sounds very important for growing good pot. PHOSPHORUS (P) Also according to our book source, phosphorus is important for photosynthesis, flowering and seed production. This too sounds very important for growing good pot. POTASSIUM (K) And finally quoting directly from our book source, potassium is, "necessary to make the protiens that augment the oil content and improve the flavor in some vegetables and herbs." Dave reads that to mean, it makes pot taste better. Certainly sounds like it (especially the herb part), although he did agree that he was ignoring the "some" in "some vegetables and herbs". "Even if I'm wrong, it obviously won't hurt the plant," he added. I agree. CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Equal in importance to the nutrients listed above is Carbon Dioxide: SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide"Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume. "As part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product. However, photosynthesis cannot occur in darkness and at night some carbon dioxide is produced by plants during respiration. Carbon dioxide is produced by combustion of coal or hydrocarbons, the fermentation of sugars in beer and winemaking and by respiration of all living organisms. It is exhaled in the breath of humans and land animals. It is emitted from volcanoes, hot springs, geysers and other places where the earth's crust is thin and is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution. CO2 is also found in lakes at depth under the sea, and commingled with oil and gas deposits... "Interesting stuff, in my opinion. I guess you just have to like chemistry in order to appreciate it. But anyway, we make Carbon Dioxide and plants take it and with light (through photosynthesis) replenishes the air we breath which we turn back into Carbon Dioxide. I personally think it's a kind of symbiotic relationship in a way, even though Science doesn't technically consider it such. While rereading the Wikipedia page up above, Dave noticed something that gave him an idea: SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide"Yeast metabolizes sugar to produce carbon dioxide and ethanol, also known as alcohol, in the production of wines, beers and other spirits, but also in the production of bioethanol: "C6H12O6 -> 2 CO2 + 2 C2H5OH... "C: Carbon H: Hydrogen O: Oxygen MAKING CO2 No matter how he describes it, whether it's a necessity, it helps bring cost down, or whatever way he tries to word it; I know deep down it's so he can make wine or beer to drink (editor's note: she's got me pegged to the wall on that one). Regardless of all that, it actually makes sense. Since plants do need carbon dioxide, making your own (as a biproduct of making alcohol) so you can always have more than enough for them, really does just make sense and is also practical. For example, if you like to drink, and Dave does or did anyway, there's the obvious benefit of also having something to drink while you are smoking your research, ha ha. My only concern is that, well it's not really a concern so much as a wonder as to what's next? Growing his own tobacco or coffee? I wouldn't put it past him. NUTRIENT TABLE Included in the table below (in alphabetical order) are a list of most of the nutrients needed for healthy plant growth, including the primary (1), secondary (2), micro (M) and sub-micro (S) ones, and also their scientific notation, whether they are mobile (wash away easily) or immobile, and also the Parts Per Million (PPM) limits for some of them. Primary and secondary nutrients are in red (an *asterisk also precedes their names): SCIENTIFIC MOBILE/IMMOBILE NAME NOTATION (1) (2) (M) (S) LIMITS (PPM) ================================================================= BORON B Immobile (M) 0.5 - 5.0 *CALCIUM Ca Immobile (2) 100 - 150 CHLORINE Cl Immobile (M) 200 - 1000 COBALT Co Immobile (M) COPPER Cu Immobile (M) 0.1 - 0.5 FLOURIDE F Immobile (M) FLOURINE (S) IODINE (S) IRON Fe Immobile (M) 2.0 - 10 MANGANESE Mn Immobile (M) 0.5 - 5.0 *MAGNESIUM Mg Mobile (2) 50 - 100 MOLYBDENUM Mb Immobile (M) 0.01 - 0.05 NICKEL Ni Immobile (M) *NITROGEN N Mobile (1) 150 - 1000 *PHOSPHORUS P Mobile (1) 50 - 100 *POTASSIUM K Mobile (1) 100 - 400 RUBIDIUM (S) SELENIUM (S) SILICON Si Immobile (M) SODIUM Na Immobile (M) *SULFUR S Immobile (2) 200 - 1000 TELURIUM (S) VANADIUM (S) ZINC Zn Mobile (M) 0.5 - 1.0 FERTILIZING The most important nutrients to replenish are the mobile ones listed above, mostly because they wash away easily when the plant is watered. One important thing to remember, is not to start fertilizing the plant for at least two weeks after germination. I think it's a good idea simply because it's easier to tell if you're over or under fertilizing by the color and texture of the leaves, plus the plant needs a good starting root base, by then it can stand a little chemical abuse and neglect. You shouldn't neglect your plants though, they depend on you for everything, unless you just plant them in the ground outside, then they're on their own. But I think they respond better when you care for them like they're one of the family. Never hurts really. Another important thing to remember is that it's a good idea to first mix just a tiny little bit of the fertilizer in with the plant's water first, to see how the plant reacts. As always though, don't take our word for this. Do your own research and experimentation so you can see for yourself, nothing wrong with that. LIGHTING The object of this section is to give you (and us) enough knowledge so we all know what to look for when deciding which (grow) bulbs to buy for indoor gardening, but we have to admit that this section was the hardest section to research. Not because it's really difficult to understand (intensity was a little confusing at first though), and not because the light spectrum used by plants is difficult to understand either, but because we have yet to find anything that makes it easy to decide between one type of bulb and another based on the light spectrum it emits. There's tons of information in our book source about foot-candles, lux, lumens, "PAR watts", and even CCTs and CRIs (More on all this a little later); but there is nothing that combines all this information together (except the kelvin color/ temperature scale) so that when you go out to buy lighting, you have some kind of rating system or color range information to make it easy to chose. At least nothing that we've found yet anyway, but we're still looking, at least I am anyway. UPDATE: I just got back from checking out places that sell light bulbs specifically, and after a quick look, I've found that one of the product details for metal halide grow bulbs is the kelvin temperature (color) of the bulb. This is fine as it goes, but it doesn't tell us if it emits the other kelvin temperatures also. The only thing I can assume at this point is that maybe that's as high a color (or kelvin temperature) as it can emit. In other words, it emits all the colors of the spectrum up to that color (or kelvin temperature). That must be what's going on here, because there are metal halide grow bulbs that have a kelvin temperature (color) of 10,000 K. That's far outside the light spectrum range that flowers need to grow. If that was the only kelvin temperature (color) it emits, that would put in the ultraviolet color (kelvin temperature) range and that would make it practically useless for growing plants. Dave agrees with me so until we can find out any different, we'll assume that's what's going on. One thing we did learn, which we'll discuss more in a bit, is that the kelvin temperature (color) used by bulb manufacturers is the kelvin temperature (color) where the bulb stabilizes. This doesn't really tell us whether the assumption we just wrote about is true or not, but it does at least explain how they come up with the kelvin temperature for a bulb. If that was all greek to you, hopefully you'll understand most of it after reading the "Light Spectrum" section, coming up soon. ANYWAY, the three basic things you need to know about light is what exactly "light spectrum", "intensity", and "photoperiod" mean and what they have to do with growing plants indoors, especially marijuana. Before we start, there is one thing you need to know, no matter what kind of lights you use and especially if you are using only one light source, and that is that you must be sure to spread the light's "hot spots" (the point where the light is brightest and hottest) so the plants aren't fighting each other over one "hot spot". More on that little anger management issue later. LIGHT SPECTRUM From our book source: SOURCE: "Gardening Indoors With Soil and Hydroponics""Plants need light to grow. The light must have the proper spectrum and intensity to ensure rapid growth. Light is comprised of separate bands of colors. Each color in the spectrum sends the plant a separate signal. Each color in the spectrum promotes a different type of growth."LIGHT SPECTRUM GRAPH Although the color, kelvin, and nanometer scales are approximate (and in no way should be considered accurate, Dave is trying to combine two different graphs from our book source into one graph), the graph below is still good enough to give you a general idea what part of the light spectrum the optimal growth zone is in (represented by the light blue line) that plants use to help them grow, and also you can see the part of the spectrum (roughly) that we can see (which is represented by the black line).Points A, B, and C above are approximate points where the following happens in plant growth: A: Phototropic Response B: Photosynthetic Response C: Chlorophyll Synthesis These are the three most important things for which plants use light. Kelvin is the scale used to measure each color's temperature. It starts at absolute zero: O (Zero) K = -273.15 °C (-459.67 °F) Nanometers (nm) are a measurement of light. One nanometer is equal to 1 billionth of a meter (10-9). Light is measured in wavelengths which are recorded as nanometers (billionths of a meter). One wavelength is the distance between the beginning of a cycle to the end. The cycle of one wavelength (also known as the signal) goes from positive (or more positive) to negative (or more negative) and back again. That's known as one cycle. Now imagine that you can actually see the lightwaves going up and down, over and over again, a billion times before they travel the length of one meter (1 meter = 3.28 feet). Amazing, huh? But the really amazing part is that you actually do see this, at least your brain does, and interprets this into a color. Now THAT's even more amazing. The Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) ZONE is the main portion of the light spectrum that the plant actually uses. Most scientist think it is between 400 and 700 nm (see the graph above), but there are some scientist that think it is really between 350 and 750 nm and they use that scale accordingly. The PAR ZONE is probably the most important thing to know about the light spectrum, at least in relation to plant growth. The Zone can also be expressed in kelvin also, roughly from 3,000 to 6,500 K. "PAR watts" are important also, but we'll discuss that in greater detail when we get to the section on Light "Intesity". All you need to know right now is that "PAR watts" refers to the specific amount of specific photons in a measured space (for example, a square meter) that plants need to grow. A PHOTON, basicly, is an elementary particle that acts both like a wave and a particle at the same time. It is also responsible for the phenomenon that we all call light. It's what allows us to see and for plants to grow. We could get into a long discussion about physics (specifically quantum mechanics and wave–particle duality), but all you really need to know about photons is they are measured in both nanometers (nm) and kelvin (K) as you can see in the graph above; and also, like we just mentioned, in "PAR watts". And if your interested in this kind of thing, from our book source: SOURCE: "Gardening Indoors With Soil and Hydroponics"
"'PAR watts' is the measure of the actual amount of specific photons a plant needs to grow. Photons are a measure of light energy. Light energy is radiated and assimilated in photons. Photosynthesis is necessary for plants to grow and is activated by the assimulation of photons. Blue photons are worth more PAR watts than red photons, but scientist have difficulty measuring the exact difference.From what I understand, Dave doesn't care one way or the other, is that bulbs are also given PAR ratings which I assume is a rating based on how much of the right photons the light gives out. We're still looking into this one. Also, from our book source: SOURCE: "Gardening Indoors With Soil and Hydroponics""Each color of light activates different plant functions. Positive tropism, the plant's ability to orient leaves toward light, is controlled by spectrum. Lightbulbs deliver only a part of the necessary light plants need to grow. However, they deliver enough! Most plants' light needs can be met by artificial means."WHAT DO WE KNOW SO FAR? Before we start discussing Light "Intesity", let's go over what we know so far, and add a couple new things. First, we know which part of the light spectrum that plants need to grow. In nanometers (nm), it's from 400 to 700 (or 350 750 nm). In kelvin (K) it's from 3,000 to 6,500 K, written (left to right) 6,500 to 3,000 K in the graph above. Using color, it's roughly from blue to red. The Kelvin (CCT) temperature/ color rating seems to be the one used the most by grow bulb manufacturers. I've occasionally seen the CR Index (CRI) used also. What's CCT, CRI mean you ask? Glad you asked. The other two ratings that seem to be important also, are as follows: The Color Corrected Temperature (CCT) rating is the temperature (in kelvin) the colors in the bulb become stable. The Color Rendering Index (CRI) is used by companies to rate a bulb. The higher the CRI (noon sunlight is rated at 100), the better the bulb is for growing. Here is a CRI Table to help you make comparisons: SOURCE: "Gardening Indoors With Soil and Hydroponics" CRI TABLE BULB TEMP (K) CRI ========================================== Warm White 300 K 52 Cool White 4,150 K 62 Lite White 4,150 K 62 Deluxe Daylight 8,500 K 84 Vitalight 5,500 K 96 Noon Sunlight 5,300 K 100 INTENSITY: FOOT-CANDLES, LUX and LUMENS... OH MY! As if nanometers and kelvins weren't confusing enough, the next thing you need to know about light is intensity. Hold onto your britches, this next part is going to be a hard ride, at first. Practically all light is measured using either foot-candles, lux or lumens. Easy enough right? Ok, try this then, one foot-candle is the intesity of light coming from one candle, measured at one foot away. Got that? Ok, now try this one. One foot-candle is equal to 10.76 lux, and one lux is equal to one lumen per square meter. Is your head spinning yet? No, than try this one on for size. This should clear everything up, hopefully. The problem with foot-candle and lux is that they are mostly used in measuring visible light, the light we can see. Plants use (see the light spectrum graph above) a larger portion of the light spectrum than humans can. Of the three mentioned above, lumens are probably the most accurate measurement to use when comparing bulbs. From what I understand, Dave seems to get this too, is that the more lumens the better, and I've actually seen it mentioned along with kelvin in the product details for both the metal halide and high pressure sodium light bulbs, and thse seem to be the most popular bulbs also, so there you go... and that's all we know, to paraphrase a funny line we heard from an episode of "The Big Bang Theory". We think it was called the "Fig Newton" episode? WATTS As far as we know, "PAR watts" and bulb wattage are two different things. We'll be discussing the latter and with that in mind. Next to kelvins and lumens, the wattage of a bulb is the next important thing to know this is one area we can understand readily enough. The most popular bulb watts favored by indoor growers is 400, 600, 1,000, or 1,100 watts, because they produce more lumens and have a higher PAR rating than lower watt bulbs. Before deciding what wattage of bulb to chose, let's go over the two things we mentioned earlier about hot spots and distance. If you are using single bulb lights, and not the florescent kind that are over a foot long, you need to know is that where the bulb is brightest and hottest, is called the bulb's "hot spot". If you are growing just one plant, that's not much of a problem, but if you are using one bulb (with one "hot spot") to grow three or more plants, the plants will bend towards it and fight for dominance. Besides, it's hard to get light all around the plant with only one "hot spot". One of the best solutions is use more than one light, which can be expensive if you use high wattage bulbs in the range of a 1,000 watts. But, there is a cost cutting solution to this problem and it involves that nasty little "d" word we mentioned earlier, distance. Distance is the enemy of light and plants. The further away the plant is from the light, the less light intensity, which translates into less lumens per square meter, or something like that. It is based on the inverse square law, that the intensity of the light changes in inverse proportion to the square of the distance. I = L/D2 I = Intensity L = Light Output D = Distance What that means is if you start with a light output (intensity) of 1,000 (for arguements sake) and measure that intensity one meter away from the source, you would end up with 1,000 because you are dividing by the square of one (which is still one) and this keeps the intensity still at 1,000. But if you measure it at 2 meters away, you are not now dividing by 2, but the square of two (which is 4) and the intensity decreases to 250. If you measure the intensity 3 meters away, you are now dividing 1,000 by 9 (111.1) and so on. You can see how distance can rapidly eat up light intensity. Also, since higher wattage lights (for example, 1,000 watts) have to be kept at least two feet away from the plants or they will literally cook from the heat, lower wattage makes more sense. Not only because you can put them closer the the plants (higher light intensity), they also cost less to run. For example, two 400 watt light bulbs (our choice, by the way) cost less to run than one 1,000 watt bulb and you can not only put them closer to the plant, but also spread out the "hot spot" better so the plants all aren't focusing on only one source. It's a win, win situation all around, we think. IN CONCLUSION (SO FAR ANYWAY) This was all so confusing at first, but at least now it's a little less confusing, compared to when we first started digging into the lighting aspect of indoor gardening. Trying to remember and organize it all into one understandable discussion was a big task, but here we are, more organized than we were in the beginning. There should be enough information here so that anyone can make an intelligent choice on which kind of light to buy, but before we move on to one of the more interesting things about light and plants (the photoperiod), let's go over what we now know. We now know what nanometers and kelvin are and that kelvin (the color/ temperature scale) is one of the two most used measurements to rate bulbs. The other one is lumens, and the more the better. The wattage of the bulb is important also. The higher the watts the more lumens produced. It also seems to us right now that the higher the lumens produced, the higher the CRI rating is as a result. We'll have to make sure about this one though, but it makes sense to us. PHOTOPERIOD This is basicly the period of time light is applied to plants within a 24 period. Sounds simple enough right? But for growing marijuana, it is part of what Dave calls the "Sensimilla Trick". The following is based on the assumption that the plant is a female. We haven't researched yet how to tell the difference, but trust me, Dave is already on top of this and we'll talk more about it when we actually have some plants and pictures to show you. One of the things that plants respond to in their lifecycle is the shortening of the sunlight photoperiod. When the days get shorter, many plants (including marijuana) begin the seed production process which is to start flowering so they can make seeds. For marijuana, this also signals maximum THC production, to protect the flowers. What this means is that after giving the plant enough time to grow bushy (after one month the top is clipped to generate a shorter but bushier plant), you induce flowering by cutting the light the plant receives by significant amount of time (for example, from 16 to 12 hours of light in a 24 hour period). We'll talk more about this in our next BLOG (BLG) entry. WATER Looks like we'll be getting to water in our next BLOG (BLG) entry also, which doesn't look like it's going to happen for a couple more months at least. It's a long story, but basicly the prep work is going to take longer than we anticipated it would take. You'll see what we mean in our next "Indoor Gardening" Blog. We'll link it from here when it happens, and a link back to here from there, of course. Or check out our yearly BLOG (BLG) compilation for 2013, every once in a while: http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-2013.html Hope this all helped and that you'll join us again... soon.2013: APR
BLOG: APR-26-2013 [FRI] 17:11 PDT Table Of Contents
Since we're in the middle of working on our UFO webpage anyway, we decided this would be the perfect time to watch the following docu-vid on the alleged crash of a UFO in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania on December 9, 1965. We were surprised at how little known this crash is, especially compared to the alleged Roswell UFO crash of 1947. Anyway, here are our preliminary research notes: SOURCE: "Secrets Of UFOs: Kecksburg UFO Crash" Studio: Grizzly Adams Prod DVD Release Date: March 21, 2006 Run Time: 50 minutes ASIN: B000E991L6 Story starts with Kenneth Arnold in 1947 December 9, 1965 at Kecksburg, Pennsylvania, USA Column of blue smoke bottom of ravine large acorn a kind of bronze copper color this area is now quarantineed get out Wright Patterson - Dayton, Ohio WHJB Eyewitnesses, the next day, didn't want their interviews aired. "We received other calls tonight from other people who said they had changed their minds now at the last minute and did not want the statements they had made over this past weekend used on this radio program tonight. One person said they were afraid of the state police and another person said they did not want to get in trouble with the army." Project "Blue Book" was in operation Falling meteorite Northeastern US and parts of Canada Meteor shower seen that same night John Murphy Aggressive jornalist 3:18 am Soviet Venus Probe The "Cosmos 96" Satellite November 23, 1965 December 9, 1965 Jim Romansky If you want to read more about UFOs, the timeline and such, feel free to go to our webpage dedicated to the subject: http://www.amystrange.org/UNX-ufo.html Or, if you want to read more about this specific incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_incident2013: MAR
WE WERE TOO BUSY WORKING ON THESE WEBPAGES: http://www.amystrange.org/UNX-sasquatch.html http://www.amystrange.org/UNX-ufo.html2013: FEB
BLOG: FEB-28-2013 [THU] 16:55 PST TOC
Since we're in the middle of working on our Sasquatch (AKA Bigfoot) webpage anyway, we decided this would be the perfect time to review the A&E Documentary called "Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot" hosted by Leonard Nimoy, and take some research notes. It also seemed like the perfect thing to put up on our blog, so there's almost an exact copy of our notes at both places, of course, we'll be putting it on our blog first. If you want to read more about Sasquatch, it's timeline and such, feel free to go to our webpage dedicated to the subject: http://www.amystrange.org/UNX-sasquatch.html SOURCE: Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot Actors: Narrated By Leonard Nimoy DVD Release Date: April 26, 2005 Studio: A&E Home Video ASIN: B0007WFUFG We first started watching this documentary on February 28th, but didn't actually finish it until the next day. The details aren't important. Let's just say the watching was interrupted by a doer who wanted help getting something done, and leave it at that. It started off with a spooky kind of music that sounded like the wind, and then almost at the same time, a quote from a former President of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology, G.W. Gill, appeared:Then, a half dozen or so quick three second video blurbs, and finally Leonard Nimoy started his introduction, and the aura of mystery got thicker than pea soup AND peanut butter, it was a nice way to slide into the introduction. Dave loved it. He won't admit it, but he went bonkers over it. Almost like clockwork, every ten seconds "Whoa! Did you see that? That was sooo cool!" Or his other variant, the detailed explanations for what that particular three second video blurb was all about. I knew I would be hearing all this again later in the documentary, but rather than get annoyed, I turned it into a kind of game, keeping mental track of some of the facts he was using to bolster his explanations for each picture, then see if the documentary itself corroborated his memory. Suprisingly enough (well, maybe not that surprising, since after all, we had already both read a bunch of books about Sasquatch), he was mostly right on the money. Needless to say I think, he went quietly ballistic when Leonard Nimoy's voice came from out of the speakers. Myself, I think Leonard Nimoy has the coolest voice for this sort of thing, and yes I know who Spock is, but I don't go gaga over him like Dave does. It's funny really... and sometimes maybe even just a little bit creepy, but still endearing. ACT 1: ANCIENT DEVIL From the video captions:"Either the most complex hoax in the history of anthropology has continued for centuries without being exposed, or the most manlike and largest non-human primate on earth has managed to survive in parts of North America and remains undiscovered by modern science.""Zealous [sic]", from the last paragraph above, was probably caused by some kind of spoken word to caption translation gliche. We both think Leonard Nimoy was probably going for Salish, or Selis, Indian Tribes instead of Zealous. Long before the white man came (who incidently were also the ones who decided to lump all of the Native Americans together in the Pacific Northwest, including British Columbia, that spoke some form of the same language, the Salish language, and thus the term "Salish Peoples"), the Salish Peoples were the dominant tribes in the area. Among the legends: Giant Men of Mount Shasta Stick Men of the Washington Mountains Hoopa Valley Located in Klamath Mountains Northern California Sightings are common. Hupa Indians "Oh-Ma" "Boss of the Woods" Columbia River, Oregon Archeologist along the banks Mysterious Sasquatch-like carvings Human size with clearly a monkey or Ape-like face when did they ever get the chance to see a monkey or ape? Klickitat baskets weaved in are large figures maybe Sasquatch? In 1840, Elkanah Walker E. Walker, a missionary Spokane Indians Washington "Nine Years With The Spokane Indian The Diary, 1838-1848, of Elkanah Walker" by Clifford M. Drury In a Letter, Walker described race of giants lived in the mountains came down sometimes steal salmon eat them raw strong smell In 1884, near the town of Yale, British Columbia Strange creature captured some called, "A Young Bigfoot" nicknamed "Jacko" In 1893, "The Wilderness Hunter" In 1958, Bigfoot became a world-wide phenomenon that Summer, road crews Northern California whole mess of Bigfoot tracks In 1967... 10:22 (33:36) ACT II: Evidence 1967 PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM controversy surrounding it Some think it depends on hoe fast the film itself was filming Patterson can't remember 16 or 24 frames per second at 16, it moves very unlike a human at 24, it looks more like it's a human Disney said they didn't do it A "Lost in Space" TV series Special effects man is linked to it DR. GROVER KRANTZ Professor of Anthropology Washington State University World authority on Cryptozoology Bering Straits Land Bridge He believes Sasquatch might be descendants of Gigantopithecus Footprints Dermal Ridges average 7 fee, 8 inches 800 pounds If it is Gigantopithecus it might be a descendant of the Yeti in 1982, footprint showed highly detailed evidence of dermal ridges withstood forensic examination U.S. Forest Service Patrolman Some strands were found by Bigfoot hunters while on an expedition was analyzed by Dr. Sterling Burnell A Biologist from Berkley, California. belonged to an unknown species "It is clearly related to the human-chimpanzee-gorilla group, but is distinguishable from each of these." In 1971 The highest quality audio of what some people believe is from a Sasquatch like creature. recorded by a group of campers in Washington State PHOTOS Date: 1972 LOCATION: Waterfall Forks, WA. ANALYSIS: Hoax DATE: 1991 LOCATION: Mt. Ranier, WA ANALYSIS: Undetermined 18:28 (25:30) ACT III: CONTACT The Bigfoot Research Project SOURCE: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bioforum/1994-August/010160.html The project, conducted in association with the Academy of Applied Science, in Boston, MA [from "AMB": "Concord, New Hampshire"] is the most professional and sophisticated approach ever attempted on the subject and the only one of its kind in the Country. (USA) 5 year study detection contact communication all existing information from all the way back to the 17th century PETER BYRNE Former Game Hunter 10 year expedition in search of Yeti mountains of Nepal very involved in the Migration theory live in small groups complex social order with a throwing out the sons who become Rogue males looking for other groups to overthrow the dominate males of that group traveling from California and Canada and back The unanswered question is when and where exactly does this occur? At the time of the airing Byrne was collecting data from 400 sightings enter them into a database and see if there's a pattern 1961 Byrne: photo of a 14 1/2 inch footprint sorry but the photo they show looks like it could have been made by a wood shoe it's not a good photo really BUT it isn't anywhere near 16 inches long BLUFF CREEK Patterson-Gimlin Film 28:58 (15:00) ACT IV: SIGHTINGS in 1992, October 12 EXCLUSIVE VIDEO Daryl Owen and Scott Herriott Two Bigfoot Hunters we have studied this video a little closer and it does look like there's something there but it doesn't move I'll believe there's something there but not that it's Sasquatch Not enough evidence for that When you have to outline the knee and face on a photo with a marker and point out the toes and I still can't see it. Sorry. Dave finally admitted to me that he couldn't really see anything either but, he added, that doesn't mean there isn't anything there. I agree. Dave's starting to think like me. That's scary. WHY HASN'T A SASQUATCH BEEN FOUND? The following creatures Mountain Gorillas Pygmy Hippopatamus Snow Leopard Giant Panda all were considered myths until they were discovered by explorers COELOCANTH extinct 60 million years 1938 was the first recorded finding accepted by "real" science South African fisherman Nimoy: "First the Geography and vastness of the terrain being searched. Much of the Pacific Northwest is innaccesible and full of dense lumber" Peter Byrne: "The Pacific Northwest here, to give you an example of its size and ability to hide things has 73 aircraft lost from Northern California to Alaska since World War II. Lost, and thats an official FAA, Federal Aviation Administration figure, it's not just a myth, it's not just a newspaper story" How many dead bears have we found? According to Grover Kranz, "Probably, the most commonly asked question is, if the Sasquatch is real, why don't we find their bones? Well, if bears are real, why don't we find their bones? I've talked to many hunters, many game guides, conservation people uh, ecology students and everything and asked them for-- how many remains of dead bears have you found that died of natural death? Over my 20 years of inquiry, my grand total of naturally dead bears is zero. Now, with the best population estimates we can make, there's at least 100 bears out there for every one Bigfoot. And we haven't found the first bear yet. While we would very much like to find the remains of a naturally dead Sasquatch. The chance is just so remote as not to even seriously think about it." 37:30 (6:00) ACT V: LEGACY WILLOW CREEK the town that is called "The Gateway To Bigfoot Country" Willow Creek, California More sightings have been reported here than anywhere else in the world 1976 Bus stop just outside Willow Creek Jason and Jeff Ombi 18 inch long footprint Cast made by an aunt Debra Jones 3 1/2 inches in the ground Labor Day Weekend Bigfoot Daze celebration Starring in an episode Six Million Dollar Man In 1969, SKAMANIA COUNTY, Washington NIMOY: " ...following an outbreak of Sasquatch sightings and footprint discoveries, the Board of County Commissioners passed the world's first Sasquatch Protection Ordinance "Killing a Bigfoot in Skamania [Background IMAGE: Sign reading, 'BIG FOOT CROSSING NEXT MILE'] Carries a $10,000 fine and 5 years in prison."NIMOY: "All 50 states and all 10 Canadian Provinces have reported sightings or found tracks of this mysterious animal. Over the decades, these claims have been the root of many legends. In the dense timber of the Pacific Northwest, where the animal is most commonly recorded, these legends have been immortalized and virtually brought to life. This phantom creature has been known by many names: Hairy Ghost... Ancient Devil... Sasquatch... and more recently, Bigfoot." [...] NIMOY: "The oldest account of Bigfoot was recorded in 986 A.D. by Leif Erickson and his men. During their first landing in the new world, the Norsemen wrote about monsters that were horribly ugly, hairy, swarthy and with great, black eyes. "But the legend of Bigfoot existed in North America long before the white man arrived. The Zealous [sic] Indian Tribes of British Columbia called the creature Sasquatch', meaning, 'Wild Man of the Woods'."2013: JAN
2013-JAN-21 [MON] 20:31 PST
"The Following": Series Premiere on FOX
We're not sure just yet how good this show is going to be, but we can certainly see some signs that something big is about to happen. Something as big, at least culturally anyway, as the "X-Files" and "Dexter" were and are respectively. The hype is big, and the buzz is even bigger. And best of all is the packaging. From the visually stunning teasers to the excellent cast choices, it looks perfect. Almost too perfect really. THE PREMISES: SOURCE: http://www.fox.com/the-following/ "THE FBI estimates there are currently up to 300 active serial killers in the United States alone. What would happen if these killers had a way of communicating and connecting with each other? What if they were able to work together and form alliances? What if one brilliant and charismatic, yet psychotic mastermind was able to bring them all together and activate a cult of believers following his every command? "Welcome to 'THE FOLLOWING,' the psychological thriller from creator/ executive producer Kevin Williamson ('The Vampire Diaries,' 'Dawson's Creek,' the 'Scream' franchise) and starring Golden Globe winner and Emmy Award nominee Kevin Bacon in his primetime series debut... " MAIN CAST AND CHARACTERS: SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Following Kevin Bacon as RYAN HARDY, a former FBI agent who retires on disability after catching Joe Carroll. Hardy is called back to service when Carroll escapes from prison. James Purefoy as JOE CARROLL, a professor of English literature and a serial killer. While in prison, Carroll forms a cult of followers online, before escaping from prison to execute a plan of revenge focused on Hardy. Natalie Zea as CLAIRE MATTHEWS, Joe Carroll's ex-wife, who also had a relationship with Ryan Hardy. Annie Parisse as DEBRA PARKER, an FBI specialist on cult behavior, called in to head the investigation of Carroll and his cult. Shawn Ashmore as MIKE WESTON, a young FBI agent whose hero is Ryan Hardy. Weston makes a study of Joe Carroll while in training, and is the team's expert on the case. Maggie Grace as Dr. SARAH FULLER, the only survivor of an attack by Joe Carroll, when she is rescued by Ryan Hardy. SERIAL KILLERS in GENERAL On the "Official Website" for the show, FOX explained what the show was about, and started it off with an FBI estimated number of serial killers that it believes (or estimates) is the number of serial killers currently working the USA. That number is, according to the FOX website, 300. Some people may think this is an exaggeration, but we think this is a conservative number. The interestinf thing about this series that wefind intriguing is the premise that one serial killer has figured out who all these serial killers are and organized them all together to follow his lead. We want to know how that worked. It's as good a reason as any to watch a new TV series. THE SHOW ITSELF Whenever we watch a serious movie, Dave only has one real rule. Someone has to die in the first five minutes. In the beginning of this premiere, five people die, and quite bloodily at that. For Dave, that was enough, but for me, it wasn't. I like value, not quantity. Dave just likes blood or death or both. The "serious" movies we mostly watch together are horror movies, although we have watched classics too like "Casablance," but even in that movie, someone is killed in the first five minutes. As we watch movies, we also discuss them. This show was no different, so sometimes we miss things, like how the serial killer escaped. It moved quickly through the introductory phases and within the first twenty minutes, we knew the basic characters and premise of the show. A serial killer escapes, and starts killing again, while at the same time connecting up with an underground network of serial killers, that he created, to start them up on an organized killing spree, or something like that. The cinematography was dark, but not overly dark. It wasn't gritty dark, but it was intense. You forget for a second sometimes that you are watching free TV and not a cable pay channel like Showtime where shows like the forementioned "Dexter" appears. It is as bloody intense as that, but only time will tell if it will become better than the blood. Blood does sell, but it has to be better than blood to be culturally significant like "Dexter".2012 <<<< 2013 >>>> 2014