Yes I did. The lamps accomplished ruling out intensity differences. A no light test group is not needed. No light groups never grow excess collenchyma. That never changes since the absence of a light source is always the same. They were all grown in the same green house, over the same week, with the same temperature throughout. Once again, strawman.
Okay. So what did you find in the spectrum of moonlight that was not in the spectrum of sunlight (or for that matter, not in the spectrum of night-glo lamps)?
How did you determine that the intensity of the night-glo lamps was no greater than that of moonlight? Did you actually measure the difference with a calibrated photometer, or did you just judge that subjectively by eye without the aid of measuring instruments?
Your claim that a no light test group was not needed is complete nonsense! How else could you credibly rule out that deprivation of light was the major (if not the sole) cause of plants' failure to thrive or survive! I submit that the only reason you failed to include a group exposed to no light at all is fear of damaging the credibility of your hypothesis that deprivation of light had little or nothing to do with your results. Your whole experimental procedure and conclusions based on it reeks of confirmation bias and deliberate avoidance of any tests that might possibly cast legitimate doubt on your initial hypothesis!
In Addition, if you admit that you did not have any no light test groups, how can you so confidently assert that "No light groups never grow excess collenchyma."? Besides that, the growth of excess collenchyma (even if true) is no more evidence of harm than is the growth of calluses on the feet of someone who does a lot of walking and running.