https://sports.yahoo.com/news/1-year-aft...16233.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwxXsEltyas

However, once Ted Wells' report was published last spring, including an appendix showing Exponent's work, actual scientists started doing what actual scientists do: review the conclusions of a new study.

As time has allowed more serious analysis to come in, the results have been an overwhelming destruction of the conclusions of Wells, Exponent and the consulting work of Princeton professor Daniel Marlow.

It's been from all directions: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (multiple studies), Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Chicago, Boston College, the University of Nebraska, the University of Illinois, the University of New Hampshire, Bowdoin College, Rockefeller University, where a Noble Prize winner couldn't have lampooned it more viciously, and so on and so on.

Then there were unaffiliated retired scientists, climate experts, professional labs, even the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, which crushed the science of Wells' report. A fourth-grader in Sacramento discredited it for her school science fair.

And these are just some of the ones that received media attention.

About the only counter argument is all these people must all be Patriots fans (they aren't). Even if they all were, they'd be opening themselves up to scientific ridicule for their conclusions from other scientists who aren't Patriots fans.

Only no one is ridiculing them. No one is criticizing these critics. It doesn't appear anyone is fighting back.

Maybe there is a professor or study out there that, with the currently available information, defends Exponent, Wells and the NFL, but there aren't any readily found on the Internet or in scientific journals. They certainly aren't making themselves easy to find.

If every smart scientist who studied this case (and isn't affiliated with the league) says nothing happened, then how long does everyone keep saying something did?

The most damning rebuke is from Dr. John Leonard, one of numerous professors at MIT who have tackled this case. In a popular YouTube video, the Philadelphia Eagles fan doesn't just blast Exponent's conclusions but shows the flawed methodology that failed to account for how atmospheric pressure impacted the footballs that were measured at halftime. He basically calls them hacks, and when he fixes their mistake, he essentially closes the argument out. In the months-old video he asks Exponent to explain itself. To date, it hasn't. Apparently no one has disagreed with Leonard's findings.

He put helium in the balls. Old auburn trick, ask jackie sherrill.

(01-19-2016 02:08 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/news/1-year-aft...16233.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwxXsEltyas

However, once Ted Wells' report was published last spring, including an appendix showing Exponent's work, actual scientists started doing what actual scientists do: review the conclusions of a new study.

As time has allowed more serious analysis to come in, the results have been an overwhelming destruction of the conclusions of Wells, Exponent and the consulting work of Princeton professor Daniel Marlow.

It's been from all directions: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (multiple studies), Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Chicago, Boston College, the University of Nebraska, the University of Illinois, the University of New Hampshire, Bowdoin College, Rockefeller University, where a Noble Prize winner couldn't have lampooned it more viciously, and so on and so on.

Then there were unaffiliated retired scientists, climate experts, professional labs, even the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, which crushed the science of Wells' report. A fourth-grader in Sacramento discredited it for her school science fair.

And these are just some of the ones that received media attention.

About the only counter argument is all these people must all be Patriots fans (they aren't). Even if they all were, they'd be opening themselves up to scientific ridicule for their conclusions from other scientists who aren't Patriots fans.

Only no one is ridiculing them. No one is criticizing these critics. It doesn't appear anyone is fighting back.

Maybe there is a professor or study out there that, with the currently available information, defends Exponent, Wells and the NFL, but there aren't any readily found on the Internet or in scientific journals. They certainly aren't making themselves easy to find.

If every smart scientist who studied this case (and isn't affiliated with the league) says nothing happened, then how long does everyone keep saying something did?

The most damning rebuke is from Dr. John Leonard, one of numerous professors at MIT who have tackled this case. In a popular YouTube video, the Philadelphia Eagles fan doesn't just blast Exponent's conclusions but shows the flawed methodology that failed to account for how atmospheric pressure impacted the footballs that were measured at halftime. He basically calls them hacks, and when he fixes their mistake, he essentially closes the argument out. In the months-old video he asks Exponent to explain itself. To date, it hasn't. Apparently no one has disagreed with Leonard's findings.

Why would atmospheric pressure only impact the footballs for one team?

I wish the air would deflate out of this issue.

What gate will it be this weekend? MileHighGate? Patriot players convicted of blood doping to cope with Denver altitude? That would take the cake.

(01-19-2016 03:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:08 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/news/1-year-aft...16233.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwxXsEltyas

However, once Ted Wells' report was published last spring, including an appendix showing Exponent's work, actual scientists started doing what actual scientists do: review the conclusions of a new study.

As time has allowed more serious analysis to come in, the results have been an overwhelming destruction of the conclusions of Wells, Exponent and the consulting work of Princeton professor Daniel Marlow.

It's been from all directions: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (multiple studies), Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Chicago, Boston College, the University of Nebraska, the University of Illinois, the University of New Hampshire, Bowdoin College, Rockefeller University, where a Noble Prize winner couldn't have lampooned it more viciously, and so on and so on.

Then there were unaffiliated retired scientists, climate experts, professional labs, even the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, which crushed the science of Wells' report. A fourth-grader in Sacramento discredited it for her school science fair.

And these are just some of the ones that received media attention.

About the only counter argument is all these people must all be Patriots fans (they aren't). Even if they all were, they'd be opening themselves up to scientific ridicule for their conclusions from other scientists who aren't Patriots fans.

Only no one is ridiculing them. No one is criticizing these critics. It doesn't appear anyone is fighting back.

Maybe there is a professor or study out there that, with the currently available information, defends Exponent, Wells and the NFL, but there aren't any readily found on the Internet or in scientific journals. They certainly aren't making themselves easy to find.

If every smart scientist who studied this case (and isn't affiliated with the league) says nothing happened, then how long does everyone keep saying something did?

The most damning rebuke is from Dr. John Leonard, one of numerous professors at MIT who have tackled this case. In a popular YouTube video, the Philadelphia Eagles fan doesn't just blast Exponent's conclusions but shows the flawed methodology that failed to account for how atmospheric pressure impacted the footballs that were measured at halftime. He basically calls them hacks, and when he fixes their mistake, he essentially closes the argument out. In the months-old video he asks Exponent to explain itself. To date, it hasn't. Apparently no one has disagreed with Leonard's findings.

Why would atmospheric pressure only impact the footballs for one team?

They didn't if you watch the youtube video by Dr. Leonard at MIT. He explains the difference and why. The Patriots balls were EXACTLY the pressure they were supposed to be, due to ideal gas law, with the outside temperature, with zero human deflation.

As I said before, I wish the phraseology from the Nixon scandal would be shown the gate.