Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate

These simple questions (to ask the Exponent witnesses) would have won the appeal: Goodell would have to concede because he’d know he’d lose in Court.   These questions bring out that Exponenet lied about their central conclusion and that Exponent’s research, much quite good, actually proves that no air was removed from the footballs.

The questions weren’t asked because the defense didn’t figure out the “trick” Exponent used because the defense expected bias and spin rather than outright lying.

Key problem: What made it look like the Patriots balls didn’t have enough pressure is that exponent’s simulation of half-time freely exposed the balls to the air to warm up quickly, as compared to on the real game day the balls had been kept in the bag.  The Patriot’s balls had lower pressure than Exponent simulated because the Patriots’s balls were still close to the original field temperature.  Exponent knows this.  Exponent knows that their data proves that no air was removed.

Exponent lied in being unaware that the Patriot’s ball pressure was just right.

These questions would have drawn that out.

1) Based on your research, was the pressure measured in the Patriot’s balls in the locker room at halftime the right pressure* for them to be at if the balls were at field temperature when measured? 

(Correct answer: Yes.) They should readily answer yes.  If they don’t see the supplementary questions.

*”Right pressure”: close enough to be within the band of random variation uncertainty around the measured pressures.  That range is the horizontal shading around the red horizontal line in Exponent Figures 29 and 30.

2.  Did you run a simulation as best as you reasonably could to estimate much pressure the Patriots balls likely gained from warming up from field temperature before they were measured in the locker room at half time?

(Shockingly, the correct answer is no.  What they simulated for halftime was very different from what happened at halftime and they knew it.  They will probably lie by saying yes or playing dumb, so continue to the next question.)

3.  I see that you documented that on game-day the Patriot balls remained in the bag until each ones was measured.  Did you simulate the balls staying in the bag  until each one was measured?

(Shockingly, correct answer is no.  )  Presuming that they play dumb, see the supplemental questions later below).

4. Do think 11 footballs would warm up noticeably slower if they were in a bag, as you documented that they were on game day, instead of spread out in the open?

(If they say no, ask them if they think groceries don’t stay cool better in a bag then out of a bag.)

5. If the ref was right in his recollection of the gauge use, and if you move the expected pressure down a bit from your simulation to reflect even 15% slower warm-up, then doesn’t the actual pressure fit the expected pressure as best as the experiments can discern, meaning that they fit in the uncertainty band around the actual measurement?

(If they don’t agree, use Figure 10 from the Marlow letter or the Amicus brief to prove it).  That figure is reproduced in the supplementary section below.

6. Here is the single most important conclusion your report made:

In both the Non-Logo Gauge and Logo Gauge simulations, …  subject to the discovery of an as yet unidentified and unexamined factor, the measurements recorded for the Patriots footballs on Game Day do not appear to be completely explainable based on natural causes alone
— Exponent report, page 61

You seem clearly aware that the bag is a factor.  You disavowed taking account of the bag when you described the tests.  Your results matched exactly a ball out in the open.  It seems that you must know that keeping the balls in the bag could have slowed the warming.

How can you possibly argue that the statement above was true?


Having proved Exponent lied in their central conclusion, you can also dig deeper (see amicus brief post for proof of much slower warming in a bag, and to put to rest the gauge issue, to show that the Exponent testing completely vindicates the Patriots.  It’s not “uncertain”.  It’s certain that the Patriots did not take air out of the balls.

Follow up questions for if Exponent doesn’t provide the right answers when asked

Follow up for 1:

if they play dumb or say “no”, then direct them to their crucial Figures 29 and 30, follow the dotted “wet ball” curve leftward all the way to the time=0 (which is past the shaded part), then go up a bit to reflect how the red dots are slightly above the dotted line.   It’s in the horizontal shaded band, so its close-enough to the actual game result shown as the horizontal red line).  For more detail, see the Marlow letter or the amicus brief

Follow up for 3:

3a. I see that when you described the first-half simulation, you explicitly mention using bags believed to match the Patriot and Colts bags.  I see you said you replicated the game-day use of the bag.  The bag is mentioned again in carrying the balls to the half-time simulation room.  But then, when it comes to the half-time portion, where it really matters whether the ball is in the bag or not, you say this:

The procedure used to generate the halftime measurements during Game Day was replicated. Namely, the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges were used.
–Source: Bottom of Exponent page 56 (as discussed in my brief on page 35).

Do you agree that the second sentence completely retracts the first sentence, so that all you’re really committing to is using the two gauges, and not replicating anything else? 

Correct answer must be yes.  Google defines “Namely” as meaning “which is to say”.

3b. Did you notice that in your simulations, the balls warmed up at the same speed they warmed up in your earlier lab-bench test with a single ball out in the open on a little pedestal on the table?

(Answer should be yes).

Assuming they say no, point out this:

“The data sets generated by the two methods (game day simulations and the transient curves) correlate well to one another:”
Exponent, Page 59, last paragraph

3c: Did you notice that the transient curves were determined based on a ball alone on a small pedestal on a table.

they noted the correlation between their simulation and the lab-test as if it were a good thing. The data sure does too.  Oops! The data should have showed a lower warming rate, due to the bag slowing down the warming – especially given that it was likely closed the first two minutes before any balls were removed.

5a: see graphic


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *