All of the non-Exponent mathematicians concluded the same thing. The difference in 0.3 expected PSI can be accounted for by:
A. The gauge that Anderson said he used, rather than the other gauge that he said he didn’t used but the Wells report chooses to use nonetheless.
or
B. An elaborate scheme to remove an extra 0.3 PSI (an absurdly small amount, certainly different from the 2-3 pounds!!!! leak) from each football. And so coincidentally 0.3 was both the difference in gauges and the amount they nefariously decided to release.
And even if you do believe the other gauge was used (because you are really stupid), the 0.3 difference is well within the margin of error since exact conditions were unknown and testing devices were not precise.
Good post. However, one thing I want to specify that really shuts up accusers if they are at all intellectually honest, is the evidence for why the report was wrong about which gauge was used. This does not even involve challenging the science of EXPONENT--even IF its methodology and numbers are accepted, the report reached the wrong conclusion, based on wrong reasoning about which gauge the refs likely used. To explain:
Though the explanation for why the refs were likely wrong about which gauge was used (the ONLY point, BTW, where their recollection was rejected--once again, they thought they had used the one that turned out to be broken and reported .3 too high on PSI) was opaque in the report, the reasoning seems to have come down to this: when the ball attendants delivered the balls, they were said to be around X PSI, which was in keeping with the gauge other than the ones the refs thought they used. Because it was determined that too much time had passed for the PSI to still reflect the effects of the prepping (which wear off in 15 minutes, whereas 45 minutes passed before refs checked balls) it was determined that the gauge consistent with hte reading of the attendant's number was more likely the ones the refs used. (as the patriot gagues were found to be accurate with their PSI ratings. ). HOWEVER--and this is the absolutely critical part of the argument!--if you go back and read the section of Wells on ball prep, you will see that the attendants said they measured the PSI of EACH ball RIGHT after they prepped it, before going on to the next ball. This means that the numbers the attendants got WOULD reflect an inflated number.
Hence, given that the inflation would have worn off before the balls were tested by the refs, this means that the number the refs got should actually have been lower, NOT THE SAME, as what the attendants told them they had set them at. Since the balls would have deflated by about .3 after the prepping effects wore off, this means that the gauge that showed the same PSI would actually be the one that was broken--i.e. the one that measured about PSI too high. (In other words, if the Pats got a 12.5 reading right after prep, this would really be a 12.2 reading by the time the refs tested it). Thus, the fact that the refs got the same reading SHOULD HAVE led to the conclusion that they had, in fact, used the borken gauge (later found to be broken), which was .3 too high. The report made the EXACT OPPOSITE inference from what it should have--same number means they used the non broken gauge, and thus must have been wrong about which gauge they used.
So, in short--yes, they footballs were underinflated, BUT NOT AS A RESULT OF TAMPERING. If the refs had been aware of the natural deflation after prepping wore off, they would have used the other gauge, and/or added air to each ball.
The whole report mistakenly assumed that the attendants measured the PSI of all the balls only at the end of prepping all of the balls (and with enough time passing for the effects to wear off) , but this was not the case --the report itself shows they measured each ball one at a time before moving on to hte next ball, which is what you would expect someone to do, if you think aobut it.
The reason is this is critical is that EVEN IF one trusts the science of the report, it should sitll have led to the opposite conclusion. exponent made it clear that they were accepting the numbers given to them--they were not checking whether the report's consideraiton of which gauge was likely used, etc. is accurate. Thus, one does not even need to go the route of challenging exponent's science (even if it is true that other respectable methodologies challenged this and got results that would have exonerated the Pats). This one simple oversight is mathematically clear, and leaves any reasonable person realizing that that the report made the wrong assumption about which gauge the refs likely used.
