Need Patsfans help for Deflategate speech.

Hello, everyone!

I'm writing a speech on Deflategate for school and since I'm up against the clock, I thought I would yet again turn to patsfans.com for a little assistance. I was a more active poster during Deflategate and prior seasons, but this scandal took a little piece of my soul and so I haven't been around as much lately.

I was up to date on all of the Deflategate stories but since the season started, all of it has just become a blur. I'm having trouble remembering the sources and scientists most favorable to Tom and the idea that the Ideal Gas Law was completely to blame.

I need five citations (sources) to focus on.

This is what I'll be focusing on:

If this is somehow still fresh in people's minds, I could use a quick refresher course. I tried to google the information last night, but everything of importance seems to be lost in a sea of click bait articles and ********.

(Mods, please leave this here in the main forum until its run its course. I would really appreciate it. My speech is due today so I'm working on it now.)

Hi.

PATS16N0 said:

Hello, everyone!

I'm writing a speech on Deflategate for school and since I'm up against the clock, I thought I would yet again turn to patsfans.com for a little assistance. I was a more active poster during Deflategate and prior seasons, but this scandal took a little piece of my soul and so I haven't been around as much lately.

I was up to date on all of the Deflategate stories but since the season started, all of it has just become a blur. I'm having trouble remembering the sources and scientists most favorable to Tom and the idea that the Ideal Gas Law was completely to blame.

I need five citations (sources) to focus on.

This is what I'll be focusing on:

Spoiler

I. Firstly, I will demonstrate that the loss of air pressure in the Patriot footballs can be accounted for with ease using the Ideal Gas Law.

II. Second, I will prove to you that NFL flat out lied to the public numerous times, with the intention to deceive.

III. Third, I will demonstrate the lack of concern over air pressure in footballs, until it became an excuse to attack and destroy the ability of the Patriots to compete on a level playing field.

If this is somehow still fresh in people's minds, I could use a quick refresher course. I tried to google the information last night, but everything of importance seems to be lost in a sea of click bait articles and ********.

(Mods, please leave this here in the main forum until its run its course. I would really appreciate it. My speech is due today so I'm working on it now.)

Click to expand...

Hi---I have a bunch of stuff I could try to send you, but it would take awhile. However, the entire Wells report is online, and if you look through it, you can get what you need.


There are too many details to go into, but I would start with these:

1) first of all, the idea that it was "more probable than not" that Brady had "general awareness" of tampering has a couple of problems, one very rudimentary math (more in a moment), and another on terminology.

To the point, it was declared "more probable than not" that the ball attendants deflated the ball in the first place. Next, it was declared more "probable than not" that Brady had "at least general awareness" that they had done something. But this is based on a VERY sleight of hand use of language. Notice that it said that Brady likely had "general awareness that they had done something," but this only makes Brady "probably" aware of something ASSUMING IT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, one cannot assume that the deflation happened, but only that it "More probably than not" did. SO (and this is critical) it means what you really have is a probability of a probability, NOT a probability of a certainty. BIG DIFFERENCE.

For the sake of example, let's just say it was deemed 75% likely the ball was tampered with, and 75% likely IF the ball was tampered with that Brady had "general awareness." This means the odds that Brady had "general awareness" are 75% of 75%, which is only 52.5%--barely probable at all (I take 75% because that would be right down the middle between 50/50 and 100 percent probability). But let's say it was just 67% likely of each (2/3rds)--now you are down to less than 40% likelihood. So, his "probable" guilt is calculated, mistakenly, from shifting from the calculation of a probability of a probability of a probability of a presumed certainity.

On top of this, there is a standard of "general awareness." But what does this even mean???? This was brought up by the judge, by the way. This just adds to the ambiguity.

2) next--and this is KEY, KEY, KEY. Whenever I mention this, ears perk up--and there are records in wells which depict what I am saying. I will continue this point in a next post. to be continued....

wheresmosi said:

Hi.



Hi---I have a bunch of stuff I could try to send you, but it would take awhile. However, the entire Wells report is online, and if you look through it, you can get what you need.


There are too many details to go into, but I would start with these:

1) first of all, the idea that it was "more probable than not" that Brady had "general awareness" of tampering has a couple of problems, one very rudimentary math (more in a moment), and another on terminology.

To the point, it was declared "more probable than not" that the ball attendants deflated the ball in the first place. Next, it was declared more "probable than not" that Brady had "at least general awareness" that they had done something. But this is based on a VERY sleight of hand use of language. Notice that it said that Brady likely had "general awareness that they had done something," but this only makes Brady "probably" aware of something ASSUMING IT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, one cannot assume that the deflation happened, but only that it "More probably than not" did. SO (and this is critical) it means what you really have is a probability of a probability, NOT a probability of a certainty. BIG DIFFERENCE.

For the sake of example, let's just say it was deemed 75% likely the ball was tampered with, and 75% likely IF the ball was tampered with that Brady had "general awareness." This means the odds that Brady had "general awareness" are 75% of 75%, which is only 52.5%--barely probable at all (I take 75% because that would be right down the middle between 50/50 and 100 percent probability). But let's say it was just 67% likely of each (2/3rds)--now you are down to less than 40% likelihood. So, his "probable" guilt is calculated, mistakenly, from shifting from the calculation of a probability of a probability of a probability of a presumed certainity.

On top of this, there is a standard of "general awareness." But what does this even mean???? This was brought up by the judge, by the way. This just adds to the ambiguity.

2) next--and this is KEY, KEY, KEY. Whenever I mention this, ears perk up--and there are records in wells which depict what I am saying. I will continue this point in a next post. to be continued....

Click to expand...

Hey!

Thanks for the response.

What I really need is the most reputable scientists that came out against the findings of the Wells Report. I need to cite 2~3 sources by name, article, credentials, and date. I'll use the Judge Berman transcripts as one source to demonstrate the dishonestly of the NFL, I'll use other NFL examples of ball tampering for another, but I need the most reputable scientist that came out in our favor as a source against the actual science.

I just don't remember his name. Wasn't there a Dean of Yale or something?

Who was the biggest heavyweight in the world of physics to come out in Tom's favor?

I need articles as citations, so I'm wondering if anyone remembers the biggest rebuttals that came out of the science community in our favor. I just don't remember what they are now because it's all blurred into one ridiculous episode, and i'm having trouble finding it online amidst the sea of click-bait ********

Try these 3: John Leonard, MIT; Michael Briggs and Martin Wosnik, both UNH. Good luck!

Dude, procrastinate much?

PATS16N0 said:

Hello, everyone!

I'm writing a speech on Deflategate for school and since I'm up against the clock, I thought I would yet again turn to patsfans.com for a little assistance. I was a more active poster during Deflategate and prior seasons, but this scandal took a little piece of my soul and so I haven't been around as much lately.

I was up to date on all of the Deflategate stories but since the season started, all of it has just become a blur. I'm having trouble remembering the sources and scientists most favorable to Tom and the idea that the Ideal Gas Law was completely to blame.

I need five citations (sources) to focus on.

This is what I'll be focusing on:

Spoiler

I. Firstly, I will demonstrate that the loss of air pressure in the Patriot footballs can be accounted for with ease using the Ideal Gas Law.

II. Second, I will prove to you that NFL flat out lied to the public numerous times, with the intention to deceive.

III. Third, I will demonstrate the lack of concern over air pressure in footballs, until it became an excuse to attack and destroy the ability of the Patriots to compete on a level playing field.

If this is somehow still fresh in people's minds, I could use a quick refresher course. I tried to google the information last night, but everything of importance seems to be lost in a sea of click bait articles and ********.

(Mods, please leave this here in the main forum until its run its course. I would really appreciate it. My speech is due today so I'm working on it now.)

Click to expand...

Okay, back to point 2:

The wells report shows that 8 of 11 balls were underinflated what could be accounted for by game conditions (temps, etc.). BUT, this was based on the assumption--HIGHLY SUSPECT--that the PSI was measured by the correct gauge before the game. There were 2 gauges, and one was .35-.5 PSI too high--it was higher than the other one, and the other one was shown to be consistent with other random gauges, suggesting the high one was defective. Now, the refs BEST RECOLLECTION was that they used the HIGH gauge (not knowing it was high at the time) to check the balls pre-game, and they set the balls at the low end of what was permissible (I believe 12.5 PSI, if memory serves). This is the ONLY point that the investigators disregarded the refs best recollection, which they said was otherwise sincere, reliable, etc. etc. (More on that later).

Now, This is critical, because if this is what happened, then a ball that was measured pre game at 12.5 would really only be 12.0-12.2, meaning that when looked at the deflation rates, they would have to lower the acceptable number by .35-.5 PSI (the actual permitted drop, PLUS the drop to account for the flawed orginal overly high reading). NOW, if one takes this into account, only 2 balls were under the acceptable deflation rate instead of 8, AND only by .1-.2. If you got to the Appendix in the back of the report, you will see that it lists additional factors based on wetness that coud deflate the balls an additional .3 PSI. (The report says balls were wet from rain, but not drenched). So, if one calculates that is additional possible .3 decrease due to wetness, EVERY BALL falls into a range that could be naturally accounted for. IF you can account for ALL outcomes naturally, then the claim that it is more probable than not that tampering occurred is out the window. IN ADDITION, the suspect intercepted ball was measured separately at half time, AND ON 3 MEASUREMENTS was foundto be within acceptable range!

Now, why did the investigators challenge te refs memory on this one poin t only: because, they said, the recorded measurements pre-game were consistent with what the Patriots claimed to got when they measured (if I remember correctly). So, assuming Pats gauges were correct, it would make sense if the res gauged matched, it would be the correct one, and not the one that was flawed and measured .35-.5 PSI too high. BUT, as someone here at patfans BRILLIANTLY pointed out, this overlooks one CRITICAL point: the study showed that the ball can inflate between .5 and 1.0 PSI from prepping (rubbing, squishing, scuffing, etc., all of which is permitted to get balls to where QB likes them), though the effects where off in 15 minutes. BUT, if the Pats measured PSI right after they were done prepping--something that I don't believe was addressed one way or the other--then the Pats would get reading .5-1.0 too high,---MEANING THAT THE FACT THAT REFS GAUGE WAS THE SAME would show it more likely that refs used high gauge---as they believe they did--and NOT the regular gauge. Thus, the assumption that the refs were wrong about which gauge they used pre game is based on a HUGE oversight re: when Pats measured PSI after prepping, before giving to the officials (Note: it was confirmed that effects of prepping would have worn off before refs measured, as tyey did not measure until 45 minutes after they were given the balls, and once again, effects were shown to wear off in 15 minutes).

Okay, one third point--I'll come to this in a moment.

wellsreportcontext.com

Okay, last point:


The American enterprise institute had 2 members that unsolicited assessed the Wells report, and found it deeply flawed. This is important, because the AEI was the group that was used by previous commissioner (NFL) when he was called in by Goodell to serve as the reviewer for the appeal of the Bountygate suspensions with the saints. ow, in the Bountygate case, EVERY SUSPENSION was overturned because the AEI analysis said that the league investigation could not sufficiently substantiate its findings against players that they found likely to have acted inappropriatel y(e.g. accepting payments for injuring opponents). So, te very same group that was appointed by a former commissioner to overturn Goodell's investigation in the past, said that they found this report for Deflategate comparably inadequate to demonstrate probable guilt. In fact, the even went as far as to say its findings were similar to those that one would find in a reprt design to affirm a preconceived outcome--think about what this is saying.

I think it is good to consult the experts that people have linked, but I would not rely exclusively on arguments from authority--I think following out the reasoning I have provided is key to showing one's own ability to employ critical thinking in assessing the data.

Start with the sources in the 5 links below:

Ted Wells Report Deflategate

Deflategate Legal Filings - The Sports Esquires

Takeaways from briefs filed by NFL, NFLPA over Brady's suspension

The Wells Report in Context

Legal Implications of the Judge Berman Ruling

This is just what I needed. I can't believe I didn't think to just go to the Patriots rebuttal website.
Thanks so much.

wheresmosi said:

I think it is good to consult the experts that people have linked, but I would not rely exclusively on arguments from authority--I think following out the reasoning I have provided is key to showing one's own ability to employ critical thinking in assessing the data.

Click to expand...

I agree completely but this Professor is a stickler for format and the format is to provide external sources. I did another before the way you're suggesting because that's my nature and my grade suffered for it.

Stupid, I know.

I don't know how long your speech has to be, but in this life, when there is no evidence of anything happening, it generally serves to say things like, "Here's my speech: the balls were never deflated manually, but rather naturally through the laws of physics. And two, the judge overseeing the case in New York City chided the NFL by saying there is absolutely no evidence, emails or otherwise, having to do with the AFCCG."

That should pretty much end it there. If someone brings up emails, you cite the judge. You're covered. If someone brings up the balls, you cite the laws of physics, you're covered.

Either way you don't even have to argue points, because you have sources. One, an MIT professor. Two, a NY Judge.

And you're done.

Needs to be 8 minutes long, so semi-lengthy lol.

I guess you can take some stuff from my slide show

More serious than just footballs: Five Urgent Questions the NFL needs to address

PATS16N0 said:

I agree completely but this Professor is a stickler for format and the format is to provide external sources. I did another before the way you're suggesting because that's my nature and my grade suffered for it.

Stupid, I know.

Click to expand...

Hi, sure--but if you google, you can use the Wells report itself as a source, as well the AEI report.

PATS16N0 said:

Needs to be 8 minutes long, so semi-lengthy lol.

Click to expand...

That's not enough time for Joker to clear his throat.

goheels22002 said:

That's not enough time for Joker to clear his throat.

Click to expand...

Joker, what about Off the Grid?!

A couple of friendly suggestions:

I. Firstly, I will demonstrate that the loss of air pressure in the Patriot footballs can be accounted for with ease using the Ideal Gas Law.

II. Second, I will prove to you that NFL flat out lied to the public numerous times, with the intention to deceive.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is for a college class as you mentioned a professor.
I: "with ease" is maybe too casual and overstated: I'd say "solely" it sounds more scientific.
II: "flat out" is casual slang, just take out "flat out", maybe if you want to make a point say "flagrantly lied" or "blithely lied" or something?

My attempt to de-mystify the Ideal Gas Law:
Deflategate Science Simplified | New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard