Let's do an experiment. Let's say the Patriots gave the officials their 12 balls before the game; we know that Brady likes the ball close to 12.5 PSI, although it is doubtful that all of them would have that exact pressure; Brady also stated that it has more to do with feel than pressure, and we know that because these are new pigskins and they undergo the rubbing process, there will be some deviation in their PSIs. So, let's say that each ball given to the official was between 12.5 and 13.0, and we'll lean closer to 12.5 to prevent bias. I am also assuming here that the balls WERE checked (which is in dispute) and that they were in fact 12.5 or over when submitted (also in dispute) and that the rubbing process did not cause them to artificially deflate after the check-in and before the weather decrease (also under dispute.) In other words, I'm being a Colts-homer for this one to make a point.
Ball 1: 12.5
Ball 2: 12.5
Ball 3: 12.5
Ball 4: 12.6
Ball 5: 12.6
Ball 6: 12.6
Ball 7: 12.7
Ball 8: 12.7
Ball 9: 12.8
Ball 10: 12.8
Ball 11: 12.9
Ball 12: 13.0
Now is the inherent problem, which is that after the balls are used and measured at halftime, we don't know which ball is which any more. At best, we can now do a minimum-maximum deflation study of each ball. Instead of using balls 1-12, we'll change them to A-L, since these balls are not in the same order as the original 12 balls. Now, we'll put some random measurements in for the halftime measurements that seem to align with the reporting. We will put one ball way under and the others all between 11.5-12.4 lbs, which would be a very conservative estimate of the weather effects during the game.
Ball A: 12.0 (minimum 0.5, maximum 1.0)
Ball B: 11.9 (minimum 0.6, maximum 1.1)
Ball C: 11.6 (minimum 0.9, maximum 1.4)
Ball D: 12.3 (minimum 0.2, maximum 0.7)
Ball E: 12.0 (minimum 0.5, maximum 1.0)
Ball F: 11.5 (minimum 1.0, maximum 1.5)
Ball G: 12.4 (minimum 0.1, maximum 0.6)
Ball H: 12.3 (minimum 0.2, maximum 0.7)
Ball I: 12.0 (minimum 0.5, maximum 1.0)
Ball J: 11.8 (minimum 0.7, maximum 1.2)
Ball K: 11.7 (minimum 0.8, maximum 1.3)
Ball L: 11.0 (minimum 1.5, maximum 2.0)
Total Deflation
Under this sample set, 12 footballs lost a total of 7.5 PSI, or an average of .625 PSI on each ball, which is still well within the conservative estimates of the weather cause. However, even under this setup, it is possible that 9 individual balls dropped more than 1 PSI (although they could not have all dropped and remained within the data set- the point, though, is that one could falsely infer that a great majority dropped "between 1-2 PSI" when in fact it is likely that a few did.)
Rapaport's report fluctuated between "six balls were 1 PSI under", "some balls were a few ticks under", "a few balls were a few ticks under". Remember, THERE IS NO WAY TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHICH OF THESE IS TRUE UNLESS EVERY BALL WAS MEASURED BEFORE THE GAME AT THE EXACT SAME DOCUMENTED PSI. So, I believe his reporting was accurate, even if disputed/contradicted by someone else who interpreted the results differently.
And of course, the "unnamed source" used this statistical differential to say that "Ian is wrong" although Rapaport's reporting is probably closer to the practical truth.
Ball L
We are not sure if Ball L really exists. This would be the football that has been reported to be significantly underinflated, the one that some have said was in the Colts' possession. Let's say that there was a ball that came in at 11.0 PSI (Mortensen's initial report was that they were 2 lbs under the average, which is 13.0, not 2 lbs under 12.5- in other words, the reading was 11.0 PSI). This ball may not have truly been grossly underdeflated at all, as it may have simply been Ball 1, Ball 2, or Ball 3 dropping about the maximum weather factor, from an initial inflation of 12.5 PSI. However, if it was the only one that dropped that low, there are certainly questions, yet that it is anomalous seems to be in the Patriots' favor, particularly if it was in the Colts' possession.
Mortensen's Lie
Using this same, fairly likely data set, I believe that Mort's source/Mort was manipulative in the reporting of the "facts." We've seen the media and these sources manipulate their reporters with partial, out-of-context information, as coined by Bob Kraft.
Did you ever notice that Mortensen never reported the PSI weight of the footballs?
You sure would think a source would just tell him what the footballs actually weighed instead of using a relative measurement scale like "2 psi under." Under WHAT? Obviously the source has the information, but like what we've seen with Jay Glazer and Kelly Naqi have done, twisting facts to fit a narrative, only to find out soon that there is a much more context that makes them look silly.
The source/s in the whole Deflate-Gate story have been careful not to lie; instead, they present facts out-of-context.
In this case, we can already see the relativity at work. Mort's report on the footballs, in fact, fits in directly with the entire "game plan" of the source/s. I am quite certain that Mortensen used a 13.5 PSI basis for his report, and of course, ESPN, as they've done this entire time, manipulated the league's "requirements". Let's look at the ball measurements again, although this time we will use the maximum deflation values, and instead of using the actual ball variation measurements as a baseline, we will use a 13.5 PSI scale, and we will assume there is a maximum deflation on each ball. In other words, let's just add a 1 to every maximum deflation point, going from 12.5 (minimum requirements) to 13.5 (maximum requirements). Even though this math and logic makes no sense, it is most likely what was used in the manipulation, in the same manner they have reported other stories.
Ball A: 12.0 (minimum 0.5, maximum 1.0, Mort's translation 2.0)
Ball B: 11.9 (minimum 0.6, maximum 1.1, Mort's translation 2.1)
Ball C: 11.6 (minimum 0.9, maximum 1.4, Mort's translation 2.4)
Ball D: 12.3 (minimum 0.2, maximum 0.7, Mort's translation 1.7)
Ball E: 12.0 (minimum 0.5, maximum 1.0, Mort's translation 2.0)
Ball F: 11.5 (minimum 1.0, maximum 1.5, Mort's translation 2.5)
Ball G: 12.4 (minimum 0.1, maximum 0.6, Mort's translation 1.6)
Ball H: 12.3 (minimum 0.2, maximum 0.7, Mort's translation 1.7)
Ball I: 12.0 (minimum 0.5, maximum 1.0, Mort's translation 2.0)
Ball J: 11.8 (minimum 0.7, maximum 1.2, Mort's translation 2.2)
Ball K: 11.7 (minimum 0.8, maximum 1.3, Mort's translation 2.3)
Ball L: 11.0 (minimum 1.5, maximum 2.0, Mort's translation 3.0)
Conclusion
Although I am using a sample data point, the fact is that no definitive list exists, though I do think that the measurements I used are likely close to where the balls measured. This would support two reports, one using out-of-context math/reasoning and the other using a more reasonable, relevant approach, and both sources concluding different things from the same general information about where the balls measured. Therefore, I don't expect either of them to be proven "wrong" even though one will clearly be misguided and out-of-context.
Bonus
Jerry Rice's career stat projection without stickum: 44 games, 81 catches, 954 yards, 3 TDs, 0 SBs
