Now available on amazon (paperback and kindle): the book!
See also: Spreadsheet of supporting calculations!
Most Americans think the Patriots cheated by deflating footballs. The $100 million scandal is how and why that’s still the case. The NFL had 100% proof of 0% deflation and of no Patriots’ conspiracy, but hid it, until it leaked out unexpectedly, in ways that took detective work to uncover. Hidden NFL data backed up the witness testimony that the NFL dismissed to appease the other owners and he public. A 300 page, meticulously researched and documented book nails down how it all came about and shows so much more NFL wrongdoing than anyone would have imagined.
The challenge is get scientific peer review of the book, and get all major news organizations to concur that the proof is indeed that certain, and to push the point such that it becomes less painful for the NFL to apologize and return the draft picks than it is to suffer continued pressure and ridicule. If enough people vouch for it and network to reach enough influential people, the light of justice can shine.
Consider joining the Facebook “undeflated” group and providing tips and ideas there, and “liking” the Facebook CatchingTheAccusers page and share ideas there.
To not merely believe the outrage but truly know it, read the book. Write a review on amazon and convince others to check it out and get involved. Previous groups and petitions seem to have gotten only a few hundred followers. Tens of thousands are needed to catch the press’s attention that this is “a thing” that needs to be reported.
Earlier efforts on Deflategate are below:
Early efforts at resolving Deflategate
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.
Revisions of earlier efforts:
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