[GpsFrontier]

Hello amohydro,
I know you are convinced that the real plant water product boosts plant growth, and that's fine. But you haven't given me anything resembling creditable research yet. First the you-tube video doesn't show/prove a thing. All that was shown was that some numbers changed on a meter, not that plants actually grow better using the product.

Second, sum guy name Dennis just doesn't qualify as CREDITABLE RESEARCH in the least. A study done by Cornell university, or a study done by the University of Arizona Controlled Environment Agriculture Center would be considered creditable research. A study done by some guy name Dennis that has a website on the internet, is NOT creditable research even if it's meant in good faith. Anybody can put a website online, it only takes about $5 a month to do so for a good website, and there are millions of free websites online. Just because something is posted on the internet doesn't make it true. That's why researching your sources credibility is important.

I checked out the website somewhat, and I saw nothing to give me reason to believe there is anything creditable on it. I'm not using my other computer with my SEO tools on it, so I didn't check out websites background. But I never saw the name Dennis on it anywhere, and going by the copyright date at the bottom of the page, I doubt it's more than a couple months old (with a copyright 2013).

So bottom line, it's fine if you want to believe the product helps plant growth, but I still haven't seen anything to suggests it does a darn thing but empty your wallet.

P.S.
You can post up to 20 pictures in each post easily. All you have to do is navigate to the picture on your computer to attach it. You can't attach a folder full of pictures, you need to attach each picture individually. I always like looking at pictures, they tend to raise more questions, as well as give me ideas for the future. However posting pictures aren't proof of anything. Without knowing the creditability of the research facility, as well as the context and having the creditable research study report documenting who took the pictures, where they were taken, what there showing, and how it compares (is different) to the control batch, pictures are useless as proof of anything. It's fine if some regular joe wants to do their own research, and the results could be interesting, but those type of results will always be highly suspect (thus not valid) to anybody but them, people with an agenda, and the easily fooled if they want to try and pass it off as actual "creditable research."