Exponenet falsified data

[Ivan]

It might not be a representative test, but that doesn't mean data was falsified. Falsified means they reported something different than their instrumentation showed.

So true. I had no problem when Wells used a meat thermometer to test the Patriots balls and I accepted his findings of guilt because that's what the thermometer told him.

 

[NashuaPats]

Exponent showing the needles from each gauge weren't that noticeably different.

Nothing misleading about this at all.

 

[The Brandon Five]

It might not be a representative test, but that doesn't mean data was falsified. Falsified means they reported something different than their instrumentation showed.

They did that as well.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/08/08/letter-to-daniel-marlow-on-exponent-error/

http://climateaudit.org/2015/08/07/exponents-trick-to-exaggerate-the-decline/

http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/29/exponents-transients-bodge-or-botch/

Figure 12 of the Wells Report (excerpt in right panel) shows two calibrations (V1, V2) over the Logo and Non-Logo gauges over pressure ranges. Both the V1 and V2 calibrations show considerably larger differences between Logo and Non-Logo readings than actually observed on Game Day, and thus even the V1 tests appear to already experience drift from Game Day readings.

Exponent presented formulas for conversion from Logo and Non-Logo scales to Master scale, with the formulas said to have been calculated from an “early” set of measurements. The differences from Master scale arising from these formulas is shown as the dotted black (Logo) and dotted green (Non-Logo) lines in the right panel. The gap between the lines given by the formulas is noticeably less than the consistent ~0.38 psi observed gap on Game Day, strongly suggesting that some drift had already taken place by the time that Exponent calculated its calibration formulas. The failure of their conversion formulas to preserve this observed difference is a real count against this aspect of their technical work and a frustration to comparative analysis.

 

[patsfan13]

Here is the letter from McIntyre to Marlow. As yet no reply. On of the commentators referenced a NYT article from May, it states that Marlow was instructed not to comment on the Wells report, he also claims that Marlow has been paid by the NFL previously as a consultant. I can't confirm this claim.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/08/08/letter-to-daniel-marlow-on-exponent-error/

 

[Dr Pain]

feel free to ask him

Evans Crawford 1911 Professor of Physics
Princeton University
381 Jadwin Hall, P.O. Box 708
Princeton, NJ 08542-0708

Phone:

609-258-4383

E-mail: [email protected]

 

[NashuaPats]

McIntyre tried contacting the Princeton prof to get his reactions to the rebutalls. Did anyone hear if he got a response? More of these guys should contact that Princeton prof.

He wrote on his blog on Sep 1 that the the Princeton guy, Marlow, did not respond to him. McIntyre had a buddy of his at Princeton talk to Marlow and Marlow said he would respond, but he never did. McIntyre even sent him a copy of the article before submitting it to the Financial Post to give him a chance to respond before McIntyre hammered him and still Marlow ignored him.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He wrote on his blog on Sep 1 that the the Princeton guy, Marlow, did not respond to him. McIntyre had a buddy of his at Princeton talk to Marlow and Marlow said he would respond, but he never did. McIntyre even sent him a copy of the article before submitting it to the Financial Post to give him a chance to respond before McIntyre hammered him and still Marlow ignored him.

Was Marlow already in Wells' pocket or was that the Columbia professor?

 

[patsfan13]

Was Marlow already in Wells' pocket or was that the Columbia professor?

A comment over at climateaudit.org claims that Marlow is a paid NFL consultant, the Columbia guy has never been heard from.

Being on the Goodell payroll could explain Marlow remaining silent while his integrity is being publicly trashed.

 

[NashuaPats]

Was Marlow already in Wells' pocket or was that the Columbia professor?

I have no idea, but McIntyre pointed out that Marlow has done work for Exponent in the past.

 

[Zeus]

IANAL but work in a technical field and have been an expert witness.

Had this matter been litigated on a level playing field, there would have been far more extensive discovery related to Exponent's work. Experts from both sides would have been deposed at great length, likely for several days. The testimony probably have taken a day or more for each side.

The NFL's process did not afford Brady/NFLPA a fair opportunity to explore the expert work in the level of detail needed to understand the accuracy/reliability of Exponent's work.

Commissioner Scheisskopf believed his expert and had no interest in even listening to any critique of Exponent's work. One of the difficulties techncial experts face is making their testimony understandable to the judge (or jury as the case may be). If the judge isn't interested, it's pretty easy to just try to make the issue seem confusing. That way, the criticisms don't really amount to anything, especially in the mind of a unprincipled simpleton like Scheisskopf. There's no way he understands any of this because math is hard and science is boring.

 

[NashuaPats]

IANAL but work in a technical field and have been an expert witness.

Had this matter been litigated on a level playing field, there would have been far more extensive discovery related to Exponent's work. Experts from both sides would have been deposed at great length, likely for several days. The testimony probably have taken a day or more for each side.

The NFL's process did not afford Brady/NFLPA a fair opportunity to explore the expert work in the level of detail needed to understand the accuracy/reliability of Exponent's work.

Commissioner Scheisskopf believed his expert and had no interest in even listening to any critique of Exponent's work. One of the difficulties techncial experts face is making their testimony understandable to the judge (or jury as the case may be). If the judge isn't interested, it's pretty easy to just try to make the issue seem confusing. That way, the criticisms don't really amount to anythiing, especially in the mind of a unprincipled simpleton like Scheisskopf. There's no way he undersatnds any of this because math is hard and science is boring.

And yet Commissioner Scheisskopf determined that the science overwhelmingly proved that the balls were tampered with while even Exponent was unwilling to make such a strong claim.

 

[RobertWeathers]

A comment over at climateaudit.org claims that Marlow is a paid NFL consultant, the Columbia guy has never been heard from.

Being on the Goodell payroll could explain Marlow remaining silent while his integrity is being publicly trashed.

Thanks for the clarification. No wonder....