upstater1
Hall of Fame Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 16,841
I've twisted nothing. Three of the balls came in slightly below the expected measurements. You don't think that's compelling, I don't think that's compelling, but neither has anything to do with whether it is evidence.
All you have to do is change your rant to say they don't have any compelling evidence and I'd agree with you. But to say they have no evidence at all is factually incorrect. I honestly don't know any other way to say this, so if you still disagree I guess we're at an impasse.
I read Palm Beach's post about the balls where he averaged the two together. That's why I wrote what I did. If you're looking at one of the ref's measurements, then yeah, you'll find balls below. But then other questions come in that neither you nor I have info on. Who measured the balls first? Is the divergence because of gauges? Was air coming out with each measure? The fact that one ref had higher and lower readings on either set shows that additional info is needed. Presumably, Wells has this info.
If his info is that the gauges were differently calibrated or that one refs initial readings are more credibble, then that gets me right back to my original point. There is no evidence period. Not even compelling evidence.
I will go one step further for you. The reason that Wells states that the scientific stuff is not convincing is because the Colts balls were considered the control set, and they didn't show enough of a drop.
He is not at all making any requirements as to the Patriots balls. He might even be convinced. What makes him suspicious is the Colts balls.
But while he thinks the divergence between the two sets is some evidence, it actually is not.
UNLESS he believes that the Colts balls somehow defied the rules of Physics.