[ska///235i]

Guys forget it

OP is a joke, no matter what facts you have...he write you a bible

He probably bet his life on Seattle and had an early celebration..... Then that pass play made him insane

[stimpy]

See you in court Goodell.

[csu87]

Im not sure you really countered anything I said, but rather took the Wells approach of, you say one thing, but Im going to just say something else and take that as the gospel.

As to the science, which is the biggest and key thing here that the report basically says science proves that the balls wouldnt have deflated, here are 2 articles to read. And if you say " Well the 4 balls from the Colts that were tested tested at higher psi than the Pats (albeit, 3 still below the 12.5 limit, but no one cares about that right?)," keep in mind that these balls were tested at the end of halftime, after the balls had a chance to warm up in the equipment room.

Discusses the differences temperatures make on ball psi
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/cul...y-over-science

Discusses why the method used by the Wells Scientist was flawed
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/n...d=441003075768

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by tony20009

In light of that, I'm asking you what specific elements of the Wells report do you take exception with to the extent that you think they more probably show "the deer beside the road is from a zoo," so to speak? I've very clearly noted what points in the Wells report lead to my agreeing with the conclusions Paul, Weiss drew. I'm merely asking you to afford me the same courtesy in support of your position.

Thank you.

I've had some time to try re-thinking about the points above...and I have some questions?

Green:
Where are the data that show the "near equal" pressure readings as given by the gauges?
I just finished looking at the air pressure readings for each Pats' and four Colts' balls, as measured by each gauge I see one ball measured by one gauge whereby the pressure shown for the Pats' ball is similar to any of the pressures measured for any of the Colts' balls. The data I see are in the table titled "Measured pressure (in psig) of footballs, recorded at halftime of AFC Championship Game, January 18, 2015."

Blue:
What is the "scenario" that is easily "mimicked and exceeded?"
I understand what it means to "mimic" a scenario; I don't understand what it means to "exceed" a scenario, although I do understand that quantifiable things can be exceeded. So, before I can re-consider my thinking on the matter, I need you to tell me please what "scenario" it is that has both qualitative and quantitative dimensions such that it can be mimicked and exceeded.

Red:
The two officials who measured each of the Pats' balls and four of the Colt's balls did use two different gauges. No question about that.

My questions are:

• No logging of what? I see the logging of halftime measures. Are you referring to referee Walt Anderson's measurement of the ball pressures prior to the game's start?
  
  If "yes" be your answer to the second question in this bullet, it is so that Mr. Anderson did not document in writing what measurements he observed or what gauge he used. "NFL game officials are not required to, and do not as a matter of standard practice, record in writing the pressure measurements taken during their pre-game inspections of game balls." (Source: Wells Report; page 52.)
  
  The entire procedure Mr. Anderson used is found in the Wells report beginning on page 50. Given the way events played out, yes, it's unfortunate that Mr. Anderson, indeed referees in general, don't record the details of their pre-game ball inspections. Be that as it may, one must do the best one can with the information one has. My read of the Wells report indicates that their retained scientists, Exponent, did exactly that.

Purple:
In spite of what you may think, I do closely read the posts to which I respond. Occasionally I misconstrue the writer's points, but I (almost) never reply to comments I've not taken the time to read thoroughly. And when I do reply, my replies are thorough and reasonably well thought out, especially considering the venue.

I rechecked CSU87's three posts in this thread and I don't see that he has identified any specific statements quoted from the Wells report with which he takes exception. Since you see where CSU87 did "abundantly and clearly" indicate which specific statements, conclusions or premises with which he takes exceptions, kindly please point them out to me. Here are his posts:

• http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...4&postcount=80
• http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...6&postcount=82
• http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...9&postcount=84

What I see is:

• An assertion (false) that "all" evidence against the Pats/Mr. Brady is "circumstantial." That is absolutely not true. (It's surprising to me that anyone who actually has read the Wells report would make that claim. I have pointed to multiple non-circumstantial pieces of evidence in multiple posts.)
• An assertions that "The ref said he thought he used the higher gauge at the start of the game, and the lower at halftime." That's not factually accurate at all.
  • Pre-game ball pressure measurement:
    "Anderson is certain that he checked the footballs prior to the AFC Championship Game with one of the two gauges that he brought with him to Gillette Stadium. Although Anderson‟s best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge, he said that it is certainly possible that he used the Non-Logo Gauge."
  • Halftime ball pressure measurement -- As noted above, the measurements from both gauges are documented in the report. There's no question of which gauges were used; they both were.
• I see a comment about the temperature differences accounting for measured differences. I addressed that point in a prior post. It's quite thoroughly covered in the report section titled, "Analysis of Physical, Usage, and Environmental Effects."
• I see a comment wherein CSU87 expresses his dissatisfaction with the burden of proof. (Lord only knows why for it's the same burden of proof that will exist in a civil trial.)
• I see a claim, which I also in a prior post addressed, that there are multiple possible conclusions one can draw from the Wells report data and data analysis, namely but not limited to:
  • Maybe something against the rules happened and Brady was involved
  • Something against the rules happened and Brady wasn't involved
  • Nothing against the rules happened
• I see a claim noting that balls will lose air pressure do to "conditions." (Presumably weather conditions). I already responded to that comment as well.
• I see an assertion about the "open and shut" qualities various writers have ascribed to the information pertaining to the case. That also I have addressed.
• I see a comment, also responded to, about Mr. Brady commissioning his own report.
• Lastly, I see a comment about Mr. Goodell sitting on the appeals board, and again, I replied directly to that comment.

What I think is that you didn't closely read my posts for had you, you'd see that I have responded to substantively all of CSU87's points, not one of which specifically referenced one or several statements in the Wells report.

Now I don't at all mind that someone not read my posts; they tend to be long; I know that. Plus, they are rarely easy to skim, and that is intentional; I don't want low quality replies. I'm quite okay with having a discussion with one or two folks who are willing to take the time and make the effort to have a comprehensive discussion. All the other folks who don't want to read my post and engage on a comparable level...I have no problem with that. I only ask that if one doesn't thoroughly read my post, don't comment on it. I give everyone else exactly that courtesy and it's all I ask for in return.


All the best.


P.S.
In grad school, I was for a while an English instructor. Many years have passed since then, but even now, I have no trouble telling, based on what they write, that one has read and understood whatever they write about. One need not have been an instructor, to tell, however. Folks who participated in extemporaneous forensics competitions know exactly what I mean. It's patently clear within as little as 30 seconds when a speaker really doesn't fully grasp the topic/content of which s/he must speak.

[M2BMW]

Originally Posted by ska///235i

The balls were under inflated in the first half. Then was changed back to specs after half. Refs should check all balls before game time and during game time.

Brady is not 100% guilty as there is no evidence and have not been proven in court. Is all he said-she said.

Im not saying He did or didnt do it or known about it but you're innocent until proven guilty.

NFL fines are average in tens of thousands so a million dollar is a big fine regardless what the franchise is worth. They dont fine a penalty base off the net worth of a team.

Two first round draft is like taking your best player away from the team. I dont recall another team with the same punishment

4 game suspension.
Well do you think cheating by deflating a ball is equal to or worst than beating a child or wife or doing drugs amd drug enhancements? Well those offense will only get two games most

Also Ray Lewis was accuse of murder... Hes doing well now

Its all first world problems and god bless Merica!

What Brady did impacts the integrity of the game, once fans start questioning
that, it turns into professional wrestling ..... cheating is cheating.

[csu87]

if we could only be as smart as you.

I may not be an english instructor, but I am a professional bullshitter and its patently clear within as little as 30 seconds when a speaker only accepts their conclusion as absolute and wont accept any other conclusions, and then continues to just throw a ton of extra fluff to cover up that fact.

Im not going to go through the Wells report and pull out quotes, because, frankly, i dont care nearly as much as you do apparently. All my posts have been pointed towards the fact that the report does not clearly show any wrongdoing. You bring out little excerpts that fit your theory, but ignore the ones that dont.

Doesnt matter anyway, as the case will get overturned in court. The NFL hasnt had the best track record when their suspensions appeals are heard by actual courts, and not Goodell court. And since you like examples, Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice, Jonathan Vilma....

[ska///235i]

Originally Posted by m235i

What Brady did impacts the integrity of the game, once fans start questioning
that, it turns into professional wrestling ..... cheating is cheating.

Right, but there are so many other things surrounding it

Is it ok to be caught cheating, abosalutely not ok. I just think its always targeting on New England because they have been so sucessful for over 13 years. These offensive are done by all NFL teams

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by csu87

if we could only be as smart as you.

I may not be an english instructor, but I am a professional bullshitter and its patently clear within as little as 30 seconds when a speaker only accepts their conclusion as absolute and wont accept any other conclusions, and then continues to just throw a ton of extra fluff to cover up that fact.

Im not going to go through the Wells report and pull out quotes, because, frankly, i dont care nearly as much as you do apparently. All my posts have been pointed towards the fact that the report does not clearly show any wrongdoing. You bring out little excerpts that fit your theory, but ignore the ones that don't.

Doesnt matter anyway, as the case will get overturned in court. The NFL hasnt had the best track record when their suspensions appeals are heard by actual courts, and not Goodell court. And since you like examples, Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice, Jonathan Vilma....

How would you know that insofar as you haven't "gone through" it? You claimed to have read it, so how hard can it be to find the points in with which you take exception? You write of the "excerpts" I cite to support my assertions, yet cite none that support yours.

And you see, that's why I have yet to accept your arguments. So far, you've made only unsupported assertions. Well, any fool can do that. You gripe about proof, yet offer no specific examples of proof that supports your claims.

Red:
I'd suspected as much, but I'd refrained from saying so. I no longer have to wonder what grade of BS-er you are. You've told us all in no uncertain terms.

All the best.

[M2BMW]

Originally Posted by ska///235i

Right, but there are so many other things surrounding it

Is it ok to be caught cheating, abosalutely not ok. I just think its always targeting on New England because they have been so sucessful for over 13 years. These offensive are done by all NFL teams

Like I said cheating is cheating, if the rule did not exist there would be no cheating. New England made the choice to do this.

I don't agree with the targeting of New England. It could have been Dallas and I believe the punishment would be similar with the same evidence because the NFL is protecting the integrity of the game for its brand and fans

[stimpy]

Originally Posted by m235i

What Brady did impacts the integrity of the game, once fans start questioning
that, it turns into professional wrestling ..... cheating is cheating.

Good job headline reader.

What Brady did? Did you read imaginary texts? Were you in the bathroom with 'the deflator'? Educate yourself for crying out loud.

The fact is the math has been done by a number of universities and scientists that the PSI level of the balls (barely below minimum) were the expected behavior with the climate and timing of tests.

[M2BMW]

Originally Posted by stimpy

Good job headline reader.

What Brady did? Did you read imaginary texts? Were you in the bathroom with 'the deflator'? Educate yourself for crying out loud.

The fact is the math has been done by a number of universities and scientists that the PSI level of the balls (barely below minimum) were the expected behavior with the climate and timing of tests.

read my post again if you did not understand my point...

[stimpy]

Originally Posted by m235i

read my post again if you did not understand my point...

I still don't understand your point. I could of easily quoted this post as well...

Originally Posted by m235i

Like I said cheating is cheating, if the rule did not exist there would be no cheating. New England made the choice to do this.

I don't agree with the targeting of New England. It could have been Dallas and I believe the punishment would be similar with the same evidence because the NFL is protecting the integrity of the game for its brand and fans

New England made the choice to do what? Have a chat with science / mother nature and have the weather deflate their balls .5 PSI (give or take a little) below the legal limit?

Again, 3 of the 4 Colts balls were also below the legal limit and they KNEW they were going to get tested.

Explain that.

[M2BMW]

Originally Posted by stimpy

I still don't understand your point. I could of easily quoted this post as well...



New England made the choice to do what? Have a chat with science / mother nature and have the weather deflate their balls .5 PSI (give or take a little) below the legal limit?

Again, 3 of the 4 Colts balls were also below the legal limit and they KNEW they were going to get tested.

Explain that.

lol, when you figure it out think about it .....

[csu87]

Originally Posted by csu87

Im not sure you really countered anything I said, but rather took the Wells approach of, you say one thing, but Im going to just say something else and take that as the gospel.

As to the science, which is the biggest and key thing here that the report basically says science proves that the balls wouldnt have deflated, here are 2 articles to read. And if you say " Well the 4 balls from the Colts that were tested tested at higher psi than the Pats (albeit, 3 still below the 12.5 limit, but no one cares about that right?)," keep in mind that these balls were tested at the end of halftime, after the balls had a chance to warm up in the equipment room.

Discusses the differences temperatures make on ball psi
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/cul...y-over-science

Discusses why the method used by the Wells Scientist was flawed
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/n...d=441003075768

Originally Posted by tony20009

How would you know that insofar as you haven't "gone through" it? You claimed to have read it, so how hard can it be to find the points in with which you take exception? You write of the "excerpts" I cite to support my assertions, yet cite none that support yours.

And you see, that's why I have yet to accept your arguments. So far, you've made only unsupported assertions. Well, any fool can do that. You gripe about proof, yet offer no specific examples of proof that supports your claims.

Red:
I'd suspected as much, but I'd refrained from saying so. I no longer have to wonder what grade of BS-er you are. You've told us all in no uncertain terms.

All the best.

You missed my above quote. Or are you picking and choosing again?

I have gone through the report, but as I'm on my phone, copying and pasting isnt practical.

Those links there more probable than not, disprove the Wells Report. A true debater uses all available information and not just one item.

[stimpy]

Originally Posted by m235i

lol, when you figure it out think about it .....

Busy at work so really putting half assed effort here. I'll read it later

[ska///235i]

Ok, im not protecting Brady but if balls are deflated...it could also be the RB or a WR that wants them deflated. Im just saying lol

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by stimpy

Good job headline reader.

What Brady did? Did you read imaginary texts? Were you in the bathroom with 'the deflator'? Educate yourself for crying out loud.

The fact is the math has been done by a number of universities and scientists that the PSI level of the balls (barely below minimum) were the expected behavior with the climate and timing of tests.

Presumably "the math" to which you refer is that pertaining to the Ideal Gas Law. That law and and it's application to the footballs in the game in question is very exhaustively discussed beginning on page 38 of the Wells report appendix.

Had you bothered to educate yourself on what the Wells report actually says, rather than reading the comments of sports editorialists and parroting them here, you might have a different view? Had you read the report rather than relying on the soundbites you see or hear, you'd know that Exponent used the scientific method to empirically analyze the balls and the gauges. The nature of the questions they addressed include but are not limited to:

• • Needles
  • Gauge stems
  • Gauge bodies
  • Gauge GUI
  • Gauge-to-gauge variability and accuracy
  • Gauge accuracy in the measured pressure range
  • Balls: Physical factors including game use, natural leak rates, rubbing, multiple gaugings, humidity, temperature and the impact of changes.

They did other tests too. Their data, their methods, all of it is shown right there in the report. There are no secrets. It's there for anyone to see if they but bother to actually read it. Hell, even the science and math parts even are explained in layman's terms.

I'm not going to list out all the testing they did. I'm not going to explain to you what approaches they used or how they incorporated into their testing the stuff you claim they didn't. If you "educate yourself" by reading the damn report, you too would quite likely be considerably more skeptical about what you've read that various sports editors have written about the impact of temperature and the allegedly overlooked role it played in the 2015 AFC Championship game between the Colts and Pats.

All the best.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Presumably "the math" to which you refer is that pertaining to the Ideal Gas Law. That law and and it's application to the footballs in the game in question is very exhaustively discussed beginning on page 38 of the Wells report appendix.

Had you bothered to educate yourself on what the Wells report actually says, rather than reading the comments of sports editorialists and parroting them here, you might have a different view? Had you read the report rather than relying on the soundbites you see or hear, you'd know that Exponent used the scientific method to empirically analyze the balls and the gauges. The nature of the questions they addressed include but are not limited to:

• • Needles
  • Gauge stems
  • Gauge bodies
  • Gauge GUI
  • Gauge-to-gauge variability and accuracy
  • Gauge accuracy in the measured pressure range
  • Balls: Physical factors including game use, natural leak rates, rubbing, multiple gaugings, humidity, temperature and the impact of changes.

They did other tests too. Their data, their methods, all of it is shown right there in the report. There are no secrets. It's there for anyone to see if they but bother to actually read it. Hell, even the science and math parts even are explained in layman's terms.

I'm not going to list out all the testing they did. I'm not going to explain to you what approaches they used or how they incorporated into their testing the stuff you claim they didn't. If you "educate yourself" by reading the damn report, you too would quite likely be considerably more skeptical about what you've read that various sports editors have written about the impact of temperature and the allegedly overlooked role it played in the 2015 AFC Championship game between the Colts and Pats.

All the best.

Read the links i posted, then re-evaluate where you stand in the science. I know you will dismiss those reports, but the evidence in them is hard to deny.

[Who's on first]

I'll just leave this here:

For those that think the Pat's AND Brady are innocent, YOU CANNOT REASON WITH UNREASONABLE PEOPLE.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by csu87

Read the links i posted, then re-evaluate where you stand in the science. I know you will dismiss those reports, but the evidence in them is hard to deny.

Originally Posted by csu87

Im not sure you really countered anything I said, but rather took the Wells approach of, you say one thing, but Im going to just say something else and take that as the gospel.

As to the science, which is the biggest and key thing here that the report basically says science proves that the balls wouldnt have deflated, here are 2 articles to read. And if you say " Well the 4 balls from the Colts that were tested tested at higher psi than the Pats (albeit, 3 still below the 12.5 limit, but no one cares about that right?)," keep in mind that these balls were tested at the end of halftime, after the balls had a chance to warm up in the equipment room.

Discusses the differences temperatures make on ball psi
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/cul...y-over-science

Discusses why the method used by the Wells Scientist was flawed
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/n...d=441003075768

You need to use the "trust but verify" approach a bit more. Rachel Ehrenberg is either outright lying or just never read the Wells report and used the PUMA approach to expressing an opinion. How do I know this has to be so? Read on....

You claim to have read the Wells report. Why are you citing some third party's commentary? Having read the report you should be able to see as plainly as I can that the people you are relying upon have not, could not have read the report. Read the Wells report content I've copied and pasted below. After you've done so you too will realize that these writers on whose opinions you've based your have quite simply been misrepresenting facts to you. I can't say why they are doing so, but I can with no trouble at all see that they have. You will too if you just take the time to read what I've shared below.


[PUMA = PUlled it outta My Ass; or in other words, she's gonna be loud and strong, and it don't matter if she's wrong.]

Re: the Science News article:

• The Wells report very clearly does not fail to "[acknowledge] that game day conditions could have accounted for the psi changes." Moreover, Ms Ehrenberg's use of the Wells report statement (found on found on PDF page 16) "there’s an 'absence of a credible scientific explanation for the Patriots halftime measurements' is taken completely out of context.
  
  Contrary to Ms. Ehrenberg's patently ill informed, non-contextually valid claims, the fact is that, among other things, what the Wells report says, and I quote, is:
  • According to basic thermodynamics, it is completely expected that the temperature and pressure inside a football drop when it is brought from a warmer environment into a colder environment and rise when brought back into a warmer environment. It is important to note, however, that these variations in temperature and pressure are time-dependent (in the time ranges at issue in the present investigation).
  • As a result of being exposed to relatively colder temperatures when brought outside to the field for the first half, the pressure inside the footballs for both teams was lower at halftime when compared with the reported pre-game levels. This is consistent with the Ideal Gas Law, which predicts, among other things, the change in pressure that is caused by a change in temperature. Based on information regarding actual conditions on the day of the AFC Championship Game, however, the application of the Ideal Gas Law (assuming equilibrium conditions) cannot account entirely for the pressure drops observed in the Patriots halftime measurements. Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law. Indeed, all but three of the footballs, as measured by both gauges, registered pressure levels lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law, assuming an initial pressure of 12.5 psig and temperature conditions that we understand were present on Game Day. In addition, applying the Ideal Gas Law while assuming equilibrium conditions fails to account for the transient nature of the halftime testing, as described in detail herein.
    
    It also appears that the Patriots game balls exhibited a greater average pressure drop than did the Colts game balls. This difference in the magnitude of the decrease in average pressure between the Patriots and the Colts footballs, as measured at halftime, was determined to be statistically significant, regardless of which gauges were used pre-game and at halftime. Therefore, the reasons for this difference were an appropriate subject for further investigation.
  • A series of environmental factors were evaluated for their potential contribution(s) to the difference in the observed pressure drops at halftime. These included:
    • a. The effect of external temperature on the pressure inside the football:
      • i. The likely temperature of the room when the pressures of the footballs were measured prior to the game (67–71°F).
      • ii. The likely temperatures on the field during the first half (48–50°F).
    • b. The impact of timing on the halftime measurements (i.e., when and in which sequence the measurements were made during the period of time in which the balls were inside the Officials Locker Room at halftime (the “Locker Room Period”), which we have been told by Paul, Weiss was approximately 13.5 minutes).
    • c. The effect of ball surface conditions on the pressure of the footballs (i.e., wet vs. dry ball).
    • d. The impact of which gauge was used prior to the game (Non-Logo or Logo).

The ranges listed above were based either on weather reports, measurements made by Exponent, or information provided by Paul, Weiss, and represent the lower and upper bounds for the realistic ranges of these factors.

All of these factors were found to contribute in varying degrees to changes in the internal pressure of footballs. However, given the magnitude of the temperature change that would have affected the footballs at halftime when they were brought from the field to the locker room, a key factor in explaining the difference in measurements between the Patriots and Colts footballs is timing; that is, the change in pressure with time as the footballs were brought from a colder environment (the field) to a warmer environment (the Officials Locker Room) at halftime.

• A series of transient experiments were run to quantify the time-dependent pressure behavior of footballs and to understand how such behavior might help explain the difference in the magnitude of the pressure drops measured at halftime.
• We determined that there was a small window in which it was theoretically possible to combine the factors listed in [in the bullet point that begins with the words "A series of environmental factors"] above to achieve pressure levels that matched those recorded for both the Colts and the Patriots on Game Day, regardless of which gauge was used to measure the footballs pre-game, test them at halftime, or set them prior to our experiments. However, as described below, the precise combination of factors required for the Patriots halftime measurements to fall within the range predicted by the transient experiments while also matching the Colts halftime measurements to the predicted range required setting certain parameters—particularly the timing of the halftime testing and the surface condition of the footballs—at levels believed to be unrealistic and unlikely to have been present on Game Day. In particular:
  • a. I f the Non-Logo Gauge was used pre-game, the Patriots average halftime measurement from Game Day is always lower than the pressures predicted by the transient curves. If one allows for the standard error associated with the Game Day measurements, the Patriots halftime measurements will overlap with the pressures predicted by the transient curves (with the Colts halftime measurements also matching the predicted range), but only in the outer range of the error band, and only if testing of the Patriots balls began immediately once the footballs arrived in the Officials Locker Room at halftime and took no more than 4 minutes. Based on information provided by Paul, Weiss, however, we understand that testing is likely to have begun no sooner than 2 minutes after the balls were returned to the locker room and is likely to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes.
  • b. I f the Logo Gauge was used pre-game, the Patriots average halftime measurement will match the pressures predicted by the transient curves (with the Colts halftime measurements also matching the predicted range), but only if the testing of the Patriots balls began immediately once the footballs arrived in the Officials Locker Room at halftime and took no more than 4 minutes, and only if the majority of the Patriots game balls were wet. As noted, testing of the Patriots balls is likely to have begun no sooner than 2 minutes and is likely to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes. Further, based on statements made to Paul, Weiss (and subsequently conveyed to Exponent) by Patriots ballboys and game officials, we understand that some of the Patriots game balls may have been damp when tested at halftime, but none were water-logged.

Accordingly, within the range of game conditions and circumstances most likely to have occurred on Game Day (based on information provided by Paul, Weiss), including the timing of various events that are understood to have occurred in the Officials Locker Room during halftime, we have identified no combination of the environmental factors listed above that could reconcile the Patriots halftime measurements with both the results predicted by our transient experiments and the measurements of the Colts balls taken at halftime on Game Day.

• Ms. Ehrengerg contacted Roderick MacKinnon of Rockefeller University and quoted him as having said, "The scientific analysis in the Wells Report was a good attempt to seek the truth, however, it was based on data that are simply insufficient. In experimental science to reach a meaningful conclusion we make measurements multiple times under well-defined physical conditions. This is how we deal with the error or ‘spread’ of measured values."
  
  Well, I have no doubt that Dr. MacKinnon makes "measurements multiple times under well defined physical conditions." The thing is that the scientists who conducted the experiments to test the Game Day balls, pressure gauges and conditions did as well. The report even contains a section dedicated to discussing the impact over time of repeating their testing procedures. The test procedures are expressly identified in the report, not only the procedures for testing the balls, but also the ones for evaluating the pressure meters. (Wells Report Appendix I, pages 26ff and 56ff)

I haven't read the content at the other link you provided. I will and I'll reply when I can.

Other:
In the meantime, I have to ask you this. Why do you think I have any reason to lie to you or twist facts in any direction other than the direction they most easily want to go, so to speak? I've been very open about the fact that I'm not really even a football fan and that my primary interest in this matter issues from the ethics involved, not who was right or wrong. It doesn't even matter to me who the players in this situation are.

What matters to me is that the ethical nature of our culture is such that "stuff" like the alleged events of Deflate gate are even alleged to begin with. What matters to me is that people don't behave with enough integrity to simply present the facts and let them fall where they may. What matters to me, though it's only tangentially related to Deflategate, is that our so-called leaders -- be they elected or appointed, private or public sector, people of action or people who report on and opine about others' actions -- our leaders are more desirous of proving their own point of view rather than simply giving us all the facts and data they have and allowing us to arrive at our own conclusions. And what matters to me is "the public's" willingness to let those so-called leaders do their data collection, data analysis, and conclusive thinking for them rather than doing it on their own and for themselves.

That those things are what concern me is not a new theme for me here on B-post. You'll see that in topic after topic, my comments harken to one or more of those very same themes, and/or they demonstrate my faithful adherence to the values -- integrity, candor, objectivity, completeness, etc. -- that I claim just above are generally lacking. You see it in this thread. You'll see it in my "Where Do You Get Your News" thread. You'll see it in my "God and Darwin" thread and in the "Christianity" thread. You'll see it in my "Fake Watches" thread.

What you'll also see is that I stay focused. For example, in this thread, you've seen that I refuse to even discuss "Spygate." It has nothing to do with the events and facts pertaining to Deflategate.

I stay objective and I don't use the PUMA approach. I have in this thread very clearly said I don't know much about Spygate other than that it happened too far in the past to have any relevance to Deflategate. That I know nothing it is another reason I haven't written about it.

You keep harping on the science associated with the ball pressures and temperature. I honestly don't think you read the bulk of the scientific testing that Exponent conducted. I don't think so because of the claims you've made in this thread. I took science classes in school and though I don't know every fact there is in science/physics itself, I know enough to tell just how rigorous Exponent's testing process was and I, just as you could if you'd read their document, can tell whether that process was rigorous enough.

So, again I ask you, why do you think it is I who wants to advocate for a disingenuous "truth" or read and interpretation of the facts? I'm biased in some ways. I am biased, prejudiced even, in some regards, but football, Tom Brady, The Patriots, The Colts, and The Wells Report are not among them. In and of themselves, those things/people are meaningless to me. Indeed, the Wells Report's only value to me is that it contains a lot of information about the events of the 2015 AFC Championship game, enough of them that I can read the report for myself and tell whether it's authors and contributors did a fair and high quality job of assessing the situation or whether they did not do that.

I don't need a third party writer to tell me what it says, or to interpret it for me, because I've read it. It's not a "hard to read document" and it's not even a long document. Because I've read it, I also know instantly whether a third party writer/commentator is in PUMA mode or not.

All the best.

[csu87]

I'm not looking at the 3rd party analysis, I'm looking at the results from numerous other science organizations that replicated the game conditions and show that their could have been 1.5+ psi loss due to the environment. You ignore this point, and focus on something that i never brought up.

You keep with your opinion that i did not read the report despite me saying the opposite; similar to what Wells did when given explanations that contradicted his hypothesis. Why would i lie about this?

Anyways, i see you're from DC, and like most people in DC, you are firm in your opinion and won't listen to anything that doesn't support it.

No sense discussing it further, since after this season when they actually will test balls in game conditions, we will see that balls indeed lose pressure through the game. Also, deflated balls obviously don't gain a competitive advantage since the Pats destroyed the Colts in the 2nd half after a relatively close 1st half.

[alz0rz]

Hahahahahaha Brady cheated and is sitting out 4 games. Sucks to cheat.