Another scientific rebuttal of exponent

[patfanken]

Every single report that Exponent has delivered for a client is flawed in the same ways. Selective testing to produce desired results, ignoring obvious scenarios that do not support the outcome, ignoring scientific methods and accurate regression analysis, etc. It's tedious but you will see Senator Waxman making the same complaints about Exponent during the Toyota sudden acceleration fiasco that are voiced about Wells.

Goodell goes from someone who the majority in polls considered a liar after his false public statements about the Rice case to the fair and even dispenser of needed justice.

Another HUGE point that needs to be publicized more often is, I read that Welles first went to Columbia to provide him with the science for his report, and then later went to Exponent. I find that odd. Is it a fact that Welles went to Columbia, didn't get the results he wanted, and THEN went to Exponent, who has proven in the past willing to give the client any results they want.

I'd certainly want to ask the people at Columbia about their meeting with Welles and why they didn't use them for the report. And I'd like to ask Welles (under oath) why he went to Exponent AFTER he went to Columbia first.

 

[PatsSox363804]

Another HUGE point that needs to be publicized more often is, I read that Welles first went to Columbia to provide him with the science for his report, and then later went to Exponent. I find that odd. Is it a fact that Welles went to Columbia, didn't get the results he wanted, and THEN went to Exponent, who has proven in the past willing to give the client any results they want.

I'd certainly want to ask the people at Columbia about their meeting with Welles and why they didn't use them for the report. And I'd like to ask Welles (under oath) why he went to Exponent AFTER he went to Columbia first.

This is a great point. Someone should find a way to get this to Florio since he seems to be the only guy who may contact Columbia and try to get the facts.

 

[juny]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=deflategate+columbia

Just look at the top links: NFL was supposed to formally ask Columbia to do the analysis. What happened?

 

[goheels22002]

Not true.

It's a complicated equilibrium. May not even be the same every time, because conditions won't be the same.

As an example, I remember once seeing liquid raindrops falling out of the sky in NH when my outdoor thermometer was saying the air temperature at the surface was seventeen (yes, 17!) degrees Fahrenheit. Obviously the air temp was warmer aloft, and the heat loss (cooling) while the drops fell did not cause them to freeze into sleet. Probably were large drops formed in much warmer air, but in any case it shows it is not a simple thing.

It is not a simple thing. It's a life or death matter at 200 mph. This is why NASCAR inflates race car tires with Nitrogen.

http://www.nascar.com/en_us/sprint-...ology-hub/nascar-mobil1-technology-tires.html

 

[Fencer]

(While it may come off that way, I don't intend for this to be a snarky question) Change from what? In the history of the league, no one has ever checked the PSI of a ball at halftime, ever. How will we know if these results will be out of whack with the future testing results when there is nothing else to compare them to.

Again, I don't mean to attack you with any of this. It's like eom pointed out in his post, there are so many variables we don't know from the AFCCG that comparing those results to future test results will largely be useless (that won't stop people from trying, though.)

What I mean is that the footballs will, for example, be at different temperatures when measured than they would have been had the ball-handling procedures been the same as they were in the previous season. Thus, when measured they may not show the same pressure they would have in previous seasons. Hence the measurements may not be as clearly exonerating to the Pats as we may hope.

 

[Koma]

I confess that I did not read the entire Wells report. When I went through Greenaway's study in the OP, I was surprised to see the differences in appearance of the logo and non-logo gauges. I had read that the needle of the non-logo gauge was bent compared to the logo gauge, but didn't picture the differences being so distinct.

In a perverse way, I have to give Exponent credit for photographing the two gauges in a way that makes them appear as similar as possible. The needles on both gauges are the same length, but the one on the non-logo gauge appears half an inch shorter because it is bent so much.

I understand the scientific argument, but the significant difference in the appearance should get pushed more because that will be easier for more people to understand. Anderson claims he used the gauge with the logo and relatively straight needle. Wells somehow convinced him that he used the gauge with no logo and a needle that's bent at something like an 80 degree angle. I could see not noticing the logo difference, but the bent needle is not something you can easily overlook.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Another HUGE point that needs to be publicized more often is, I read that Welles first went to Columbia to provide him with the science for his report, and then later went to Exponent. I find that odd. Is it a fact that Welles went to Columbia, didn't get the results he wanted, and THEN went to Exponent, who has proven in the past willing to give the client any results they want.

I'd certainly want to ask the people at Columbia about their meeting with Welles and why they didn't use them for the report. And I'd like to ask Welles (under oath) why he went to Exponent AFTER he went to Columbia first.

I'd like Goodell to explain, in exact and precise detail, the significant pressure loss to the footballs that the IGL doesn't explain. I mean, significant to me would have to be greater then "more probable than not". I'm thinking 75-99%?