NYT report on Exponent and Deflategate

[raduray]

A puff piece. I already posted my comment.

http://tinyurl.com/zzc37rm

 

[ausbacker]

Reading that article lead me to a startling conclusion; Exponent employees, specifically those who worked on Deflategate, in my opinion, are a bunch of ****ing morons.

 

[oldrover]

I'm printing this to get the most out of it.

 

[Tony2046]

Stopped reading after "far below 12.5" .

And it's not what Patsfans say it's what 21 scientists said in their Amicus brief filed with federal court that apparently the ass hat Chin failed to comprehend.

 

[Dorito Dink]

"We knew that our company’s report would be scrutinized. We knew we needed to be totally bulletproof here."

Coming from the company who went on the record saying there is no link between second-hand smoke and cancer. Eat **** and die you corrupt scumbags

 

[Triumph]

The Treason Times is a joke anymore.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Reading that article lead me to a startling conclusion; Exponent employees, specifically those who worked on Deflategate, in my opinion, are a bunch of ****ing morons.

Nope just sycophants who give the guy paying the bills what he wants and tell him what they want to hear...........

 

[Dorito Dink]

Reading that article lead me to a startling conclusion; Exponent employees, specifically those who worked on Deflategate, in my opinion, are a bunch of ****ing morons.

"Which we spent 3 months of our lives performing." Yet you still got it wrong. Unbelievable.

A friggen 4th grader conducted the same experiment in 2 weeks and produced accurate results. Exponent employees can take a long walk off a short pier

 

[aluminum seats]

Toyota calls in Exponent Inc. as hired gun

“…I wouldn't have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis," said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer.

CDC: Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults who have never smoked. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%. Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

And yet the interesting thing in that article -- they *still* don't answer any of the criticism. Just comments like:

“What disappoints me the most from the scientific community is they said we didn’t do things that we did,” he said. “And it’s in the report. I believe in the scientific method. I believe in challenging what people say. That’s all part of the verification and validation process. I have no problem with that. But if you’re going to look at what someone else has put forward as a hypothesis, a theory or experimental verification, you have to understand what they did, and then work from there. And I’m not sure that everybody did that.”

No, that's not true. Legitimate criticisms are there, unexplained in the report, and you have not addressed them. The entire article reads like group-therapy for a bunch of scientists who are pissed that their work was trashed by their peers in a very public manner, and can't get over it and want to tell the world "It's still real to me!"

 

[Hammer of Thor]

An example:

As part of those experiments, Pye set up a television replaying the game in real time. Exponent employees imitated what they watched — throwing the balls, falling on them, shuffling them out of play, wiping them with towels, spraying them with water to simulate rain.

“He was the head ball boy,” Pye said, nodding to an employee named Daniel Kingsley.

Kingsley shrugged. Unlike the Patriots’ ball boys, he has a Ph.D in mechanical engineering.

The complaints were that you did it wrong! That your spraying it lightly with water every few minutes did not accurately simulate the real life conditions. No one is saying you didn't try to take it into account. They were saying you did it incorrectly. Where's your response to that?

 

[juny]

And yet the interesting thing in that article -- they *still* don't answer any of the criticism. Just comments like:


No, that's not true. Legitimate criticisms are there, unexplained in the report, and you have not addressed them. The entire article reads like group-therapy for a bunch of scientists who are pissed that their work was trashed by their peers in a very public manner, and can't get over it and want to tell the world "It's still real to me!"

exactly. as the rebuttals came out showing the flaws in the exponent report, i was curious to see if there were holes or responses to them. oddly enough no one has given any scientific arguments. no one rebutted the amicus brief by the group of professors. exponent should argue the facts and not sound like a bunch of whiners.

 

[ausbacker]

And yet the interesting thing in that article -- they *still* don't answer any of the criticism. Just comments like:


No, that's not true. Legitimate criticisms are there, unexplained in the report, and you have not addressed them. The entire article reads like group-therapy for a bunch of scientists who are pissed that their work was trashed by their peers in a very public manner, and can't get over it and want to tell the world "It's still real to me!"

It read like some favors were called in to help Exponent get more work.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Yet not one of them asked themselves why, if the Patriots deflated the balls, even their dubious science only proved the balls were about 0.2 less than they should be.

I couldn't read too much of the article. Did it explain that of 21 independent reports, none of them would support Exponent's claims?

NYT clearly in the NFL's pocket.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Showed up on my FB feed this AM from a Colts fan. F the NYT and FB.

 

[h0c2000]

Who knew the scientific method involved whining to the press.

 

[Tony2046]

Toyota calls in Exponent Inc. as hired gun

“…I wouldn't have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis," said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer.

CDC: Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults who have never smoked. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%. Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.

On top of that they had one of their studies kicked out of court.

I'll link it later.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Exponant are a bunch of whores that are lousy in bed.

 

[DaBruinz]

I'm printing this to get the most out of it.

I thought for sure you'd use it for this:

or this:

 

[The Brandon Five]

Here's the money quote:

Caligiuri passed along the basics: The Patriots’ footballs were thought to be pumped up to about 12.5 p.s.i. before the game, the Colts’ balls at 13 p.s.i. The halftime readings were much lower and varied. The temperature outside was 48 degrees. It was known that the balls were tested at halftime inside, at room temperature: 11 Patriots balls but only four Colts balls, because officials ran out of time. The referee had two gauges, and one was way off.

Their whole ironclad case rests on this completely unfounded assumption.