Until you pointed it out. I didn't realize plant nodes had peers.
Still awaiting facts or artifacts.
= = = =
Curious. My error, I guess. I was sure that what a scientific journal was--was understood.
I was even pretty sure it was understood that the fellow scientists reviewing submissions of articles to the scientific journals constituted the peer review process. Seemed like a pretty Junior High level of understanding to expect. Guess that's what I get for ASSUming a Jr High level of understanding.
By way of a helpful suggestion . . . I'm sure that there are online dictionaries that would have suitable definitions of "peer review."
- - - - - -
YOU demanded "HARD" facts. Very hard scientific facts were presented with proper references. You refuse to accept them. Then you deny them. Then you deny the denial.
Impressive.
- - - - -
You have been presented with scientifically researched and scientifically verified artifacts of an evidently non-human phenomenon--set of phenomena, actually. Evidently the data sets are too troublesome for you to wrap your construction on reality around.
I can leave you be. I don't really need to cause so much stress over a world view, construction on reality.
I just felt the lurkers and other readers deserved to see the bankruptcy of the position.
I think you have accomplished your mission with discerning, sensible people everywhere.
One parting fact: Opinions written on paper or in Journals are not fact. They are theory.