Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate (and sorry for the primitive site formatting — the time went into content, not formatting) Sent 9/27/2015 (referencing 8/31 letter and adding more) To: nrsilver@fivethirtyeight.com, datalab@…., contact@… Subject: Corrections needed on 538 article that was not to your high standards Nate (and corrections department if there is one), I’m a…
Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate (and sorry for the primitive site formatting — the time went into content, not formatting) Below is the letter I emailed to the New York Times 9/26/2015 More info against The Times’ Science-Against-Patriots report Dear corrections department and journalism integrity department, Here are additional concerns and additional evidence beyond my…
Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate (and sorry for the primitive site formatting — the time went into content, not formatting) The public and even the defense lawyers thought the concluding paragraph of the NFL/Exponent “Science” report said: Based on the information available to us and our experiments, we found no “good” explanation for the difference…
Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate This follow up letter was sent to the New York Times correction department September 21, 2015 for these purposes: Defeat the various reasons The Times might possibly use to not seriously consider the need for correction, including that they might argue that their article had not taken any position but…
Home page for DeflateGate: see www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate The response I eventually received from my original corrections request failed to adhere to The Times stated corrections policy. Here is the follow up that I sent 12/18/2015: Below is the text. For a version with graphics, please see the pdf: Corrections policy not followed re: Science Against Patriots…
( Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate leading in particular the material that Robert Blecker referenced in his wbur op-en piece) As far as I know, Robert Kraft has not seen this. Any help getting it delivered and confirming that he read it would be greatly appreciated! Letter as of 8/31/2015. Robert Kraft, owner New England Patriot Re:…
Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate Here is the simple explanation as it was when Robert Blecker referenced it in his op-ed piece on WBUR’s web site (a Boston public radio station).
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.…
Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate Princeton physics Professor Daniel Marlow reviewed the Exponent report and told the NFL it seemed fine. 8/29/2015: Prof. Marlow sends email 5:15 am confirming receipt. On 8/28/2015, lunch time, I phoned Professor Marlow to call his attention to the simulation freely exposing balls to the air, vs the balls being in…
(Please excuse imperfect production quality of video – -time/skill was limited). Link to home page: www.BetterDialogue.com/DeflateGate Proof in the amicus brief proven to far higher precision, with better graphics also, then what is in the video. Still, the basic concept in the video is exactly the issue. NFL/Exponent data vindicates Patriots (balls warm slower in…