WBUR.org (NPR radio station) 8/31/2015 Op-ed “DeflateGate, And The Patriots’ False Appearance Of Guilt references this site. The the author of that piece (Robert Blecker) recommends particularly the third link below:
- Exponent never claimed Pats/Colts difference unexplained. Lawyered-up language fooled the lawyers.
- NY Times op-ed request/correction request letters
- See the basics explained with simple pictures.
- Open letter to Robert Kraft
- Q‘s to as Exponent that would have freed Tom Brady
- Letter to Prof. Marlow (asking him to retract support for Exponent). Provides a nice short-ish explanation in text.
- In-depth proof: download the Amicus brief (on the official court docket and commented on superficially by the Wall Street Journal)
Analysis of the Exponent report indicates that the headline from the investigation would have been: “Patriots right on their science: no evidence of wrongdoing” , except that, to please the NFL, Exponent applied assumptions they knew to be wrong and misrepresented how their simulation compares to the real-world events. Absent those assumptions, the rest of the Exponent experiments and analysis thereof strongly supports the Patriots. Thus #FreeTomBrady
The analysis is in the Amicus brief that was submitted to the court for consideration, received 8/26 before 10am. It relates to the court case and not just the data.
Attention-catching highlights from the above brief (I will add convenient links to details later if there’s enough traffic)
- Basically, the only reason the Exponent data is incriminating is that Exponent’s simulation didn’t keep the balls in the bag during their simulated halftime like the NFL did in January.
- When reading Exponents charts, only this time adjusting for the balls’ warming slower in a bag, Exponents data clears the patriots of wrongdoing.
- None of the reasons Exponent gave for not believing the ref (about what gauge was used) were ones Exponent actually believed made sense; they don’t.
- The NFL is hurting the integrity of the game with new rules that pump up balls by 2 extra psi for the 2nd half of 30-degree games for 2015 as compared to all previous years.
Best next steps to verify for yourself: See the list of links at the top of this post. use the above Amicus brief link for deeper proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sorry for crude website formatting.
Please submit only comments addressing specific steps in the arguments proposed below. I’ll correct my analysis and conclusions if needed.
9/26: Exponent never claimed pressure difference unexplained; lawyered up language fooled lawyers. Additional letter to NY times.
9/18, 9/21: New York Times op=ed request/correction request and follow on request.
9/17: Wall Street Journal mentions the amicus brief but not its importance.
9/16: A reporter for a major national newspaper called me and informed me that the amicus brief I submitted is now on the official court docket.
9/11: Court put my letters on the docket
9/9: added the Amicus brief link to the bullet list.
8/31: Reference the editorial (early AM), Open letter to Robert Kraft (9:13 am)
8/30: simple picture explanation added
8/26: see hot/new.
Aug. 20 (just after midnight)
- Brief improved (see brief point),
- Above points simplified: greater clarity of the real point although loss of precise numbers. For numbers see the brief