Dr. Lietzau's L-NEAT

The plants are almost certainly "Rye Grass," probably Lolium perenne, of which I've tracked down a few specimens out here. Even if it should turn out to be "barley," the sizes and shapes of the node collars of each are remarkably similar. The same general discussion would be accurate for either one. Since the Rockville 2, "Anomalous Axillary Shoot Growth" plant is Rye Grass, as confirmed by the "inflorescence" in the photo I have, it is probably a common "contaminant" or "volunteer" in the agricultural fields. I've been able to locate and examine in sufficient detail, several dozen plants growing under various conditions.

When grown with insufficient light, the Rye Grass tends to fall over and naturally produce bent nodes. These nodes clearly fall into the almost identical size category as the "Rockville 1, Bent Nodes." Plants growing in sufficient light do not develop pronounced bends, or none at all. The "straight" plants fall into a smaller-sized range of node collar sizes identical in size and range of appearance to the two "Control 2 and Control 3" plants analyzed on the accompaning photo (Straight plants should have an average of less than 4 mm with that as an upper limit, more or less. "Bent" plants should develop an average over 4 mm., with many node collars at 5.0 mm or above).

As I did NOT encounter any nodes from the longer "bent" range on "straight" plants, the single node of a "Field-Grass" that had been inadvertently included with another sample, "r1cir-cntb," has been pasted onto the R1 Bent Node Analysis Sheet as a possible "anomaly" indicating that the bending is of some energetic origin other than natural recovery due to mechanical downing.

This single specimen, pasted onto the R1 Bent Node Analysis Sheetas "r1cir-cntb," has a minor enough bend to be considered in the "straight" category, yet its node collar length is 5.0 mm which is characteristic of naturally bent stems. This would support the theory, (as scientifically established in other cereal plants, not as in the vernacular use of "speculation"), that the bending in the other nodes is not simply the result of natural recovery processes. What the statistical analysis actually shows is that the measurements of the "Bent Node" specimens actually confirm that they are, indeed, bent.

The "long but straight" specimen, "rc1cir-cntb," together with the TIMING of the sampling with regards to the probable age of the formation, will have to serve as evidence that the "Bent Node" sample shows a greater degree of bending and accompanying elongation than is likely or possible to result from natural processes in the time frame available. Experiments have demonstrated that there is no hoaxing technique which is capable of producing the bending and elongation of the nodes.

As this is our first encounter with "Field-Grass" analysis, no experiments have yet been done with Rye Grass, or referred to in Professor Levengood's "BLT" "literature". However, conclusive experiments were carried out and reported by "BLT" involving the downing of Barley and Wheat with subsequent measurement of the effects. I have not seen the original article referring to the actual measurements of the downed plants. However, references to it including those by Nancy Talbot of the "BLT" infer the following. The recovery begins about the 3rd day in Barley, and somewhat later in Wheat. It is negligible for several days, then the elongation accompanying the bending reaches a value of about 10% after a considerable length of time, certainly greater than one week.

The average node collar elongation of the "Bent Node" sample is 61.3% greater than that of the two controls, C2 and C3, which fall into the same size range as the local, "straight" samples, and which is similar to that of Barley. Even with just the two controls, the difference is highly significant. The local measurements only serve to reinforce that the measured size ranges appear to be typical regardless of the sample sizes. Similarly, the additional specimen, "r1cir-cntb," displays an elongation factor of 67% without sufficient bending to account for its origin. (A virtually identical situation exists with the"Anomalous Axillary Shoot Growth" specimen, both regarding the size of the node collar and the lack of bending).

I decided to take a little more detailed look into Lefty's and Nancy's work, then apply it to Mike's pictures. Here is the result. I would say that due to the lateness of the season, maximum results are unlikely and "marginal results" are to be expected as in the 1st Paulden Ohio wheat formation. Again, while Lefty's reference to significant means the longest node length of the bent nodes compared to the longest node length of the control nodes, it seems reasonable that this would also apply to the ratio of the lengths between the outer and inner curve of the bend itself. It certainly seems to apply to the absolute angle measurement itself.

By comparison with the data on Nancy's page, http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.html , this just misses her remarks for 48 hours with a 40 Deg or higher criterion, but elsewhere she mentions no significant changes in less than a week. If I am right about the ratio of the inner and outer sides being related to the control lengths, then the ratio would be significant even below 30 Deg. The largest angle measured exceeds Lefty's 45 Deg criterion. While we need to get some controls to compare this with, it seems probable that they will verify the above extrapolation.

Thus, this photo alone stands as highly presumptive, if not conclusive, evidence for a "marginal but significant" non-hoaxed, non-natural, energy effect. I used color reversal because it made it easier to distinguish the stalks from the shadows without needing to adjust the brightness or contrast. The evidence is right there in plain view for any critics to check. Remember, this ratio simply proves that the bending is significant, as we trust to Lefty's work to indicate that significant bending should not occur within 3 days to a week.

In regards to the "anomalous axillary shoot growth" specimen from rockville 2. I have a copy of the image from about 1 month. I believe that single image, similar to that of a verified expulsion cavity in wheat or barley, to be a sufficient enough anomaly to authenticate the entire formation, although we have sufficient other samples to verify the (two) anomalous phenomena. (in addition, the uppermost node visible is also unbent and 5.0 mm long, itself a contradiction as in "r1cir-cntb" which was pasted onto the evidence sheet). I am unaware of any similar "natural" growth habit in barley or wheat.

It might be hypothesized that this resulted, in the field, from the downing of the plant removing the "apical dominance." This is ruled out as a "natural" occurrence as no evidence of axillary growth was present in at least 10 local specimens of "rye grass" which were naturally bent, several also displaying enlarged nodes in the same size range as the "bent node" formation plants. Lodging resulting in statistically enlarged nodes and bending under natural conditions should also have released axillary shoot growth if it were typical of the species.

Thus, there are two anomalies represented here. The first is the presence of any, let alone multiple, axillary shoots on the above ground nodes of the reproductive stem. The second, is the incredible endurance, and even 3rd, the continued growth of these anomalous shoots under unfavorable conditions following harvesting of the specimens.

More to come at another time. However, this represents the strongest L-NEAT evidence for Rockville 1. Preliminary examination indicates that a similar, supportive but not significant, pattern might be present in the Wheat of Rockville 2. In the light of the conclusive nature of the Anomalous growth, the merely suggestive, but not conclusive, L-NEAT results are probably unnecessary.