[tony20009]

Originally Posted by tony20009

In light of that, I'm asking you what specific elements of the Wells report do you take exception with to the extent that you think they more probably show "the deer beside the road is from a zoo," so to speak? I've very clearly noted what points in the Wells report lead to my agreeing with the conclusions Paul, Weiss drew. I'm merely asking you to afford me the same courtesy in support of your position.

Thank you.

I've had some time to try re-thinking about the points above...and I have some questions?

Green:
Where are the data that show the "near equal" pressure readings as given by the gauges?
I just finished looking at the air pressure readings for each Pats' and four Colts' balls, as measured by each gauge I see one ball measured by one gauge whereby the pressure shown for the Pats' ball is similar to any of the pressures measured for any of the Colts' balls. The data I see are in the table titled "Measured pressure (in psig) of footballs, recorded at halftime of AFC Championship Game, January 18, 2015."

Blue:
What is the "scenario" that is easily "mimicked and exceeded?"
I understand what it means to "mimic" a scenario; I don't understand what it means to "exceed" a scenario, although I do understand that quantifiable things can be exceeded. So, before I can re-consider my thinking on the matter, I need you to tell me please what "scenario" it is that has both qualitative and quantitative dimensions such that it can be mimicked and exceeded.

Red:
The two officials who measured each of the Pats' balls and four of the Colt's balls did use two different gauges. No question about that.

My questions are:

• No logging of what? I see the logging of halftime measures. Are you referring to referee Walt Anderson's measurement of the ball pressures prior to the game's start?
  
  If "yes" be your answer to the second question in this bullet, it is so that Mr. Anderson did not document in writing what measurements he observed or what gauge he used. "NFL game officials are not required to, and do not as a matter of standard practice, record in writing the pressure measurements taken during their pre-game inspections of game balls." (Source: Wells Report; page 52.)
  
  The entire procedure Mr. Anderson used is found in the Wells report beginning on page 50. Given the way events played out, yes, it's unfortunate that Mr. Anderson, indeed referees in general, don't record the details of their pre-game ball inspections. Be that as it may, one must do the best one can with the information one has. My read of the Wells report indicates that their retained scientists, Exponent, did exactly that.

Purple:
In spite of what you may think, I do closely read the posts to which I respond. Occasionally I misconstrue the writer's points, but I (almost) never reply to comments I've not taken the time to read thoroughly. And when I do reply, my replies are thorough and reasonably well thought out, especially considering the venue.

I rechecked CSU87's three posts in this thread and I don't see that he has identified any specific statements quoted from the Wells report with which he takes exception. Since you see where CSU87 did "abundantly and clearly" indicate which specific statements, conclusions or premises with which he takes exceptions, kindly please point them out to me. Here are his posts:

• http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...4&postcount=80
• http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...6&postcount=82
• http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...9&postcount=84

What I see is:

• An assertion (false) that "all" evidence against the Pats/Mr. Brady is "circumstantial." That is absolutely not true. (It's surprising to me that anyone who actually has read the Wells report would make that claim. I have pointed to multiple non-circumstantial pieces of evidence in multiple posts.)
• An assertions that "The ref said he thought he used the higher gauge at the start of the game, and the lower at halftime." That's not factually accurate at all.
  • Pre-game ball pressure measurement:
    "Anderson is certain that he checked the footballs prior to the AFC Championship Game with one of the two gauges that he brought with him to Gillette Stadium. Although Anderson‟s best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge, he said that it is certainly possible that he used the Non-Logo Gauge."
  • Halftime ball pressure measurement -- As noted above, the measurements from both gauges are documented in the report. There's no question of which gauges were used; they both were.
• I see a comment about the temperature differences accounting for measured differences. I addressed that point in a prior post. It's quite thoroughly covered in the report section titled, "Analysis of Physical, Usage, and Environmental Effects."
• I see a comment wherein CSU87 expresses his dissatisfaction with the burden of proof. (Lord only knows why for it's the same burden of proof that will exist in a civil trial.)
• I see a claim, which I also in a prior post addressed, that there are multiple possible conclusions one can draw from the Wells report data and data analysis, namely but not limited to:
  • Maybe something against the rules happened and Brady was involved
  • Something against the rules happened and Brady wasn't involved
  • Nothing against the rules happened
• I see a claim noting that balls will lose air pressure do to "conditions." (Presumably weather conditions). I already responded to that comment as well.
• I see an assertion about the "open and shut" qualities various writers have ascribed to the information pertaining to the case. That also I have addressed.
• I see a comment, also responded to, about Mr. Brady commissioning his own report.
• Lastly, I see a comment about Mr. Goodell sitting on the appeals board, and again, I replied directly to that comment.

What I think is that you didn't closely read my posts for had you, you'd see that I have responded to substantively all of CSU87's points, not one of which specifically referenced one or several statements in the Wells report.

Now I don't at all mind that someone not read my posts; they tend to be long; I know that. Plus, they are rarely easy to skim, and that is intentional; I don't want low quality replies. I'm quite okay with having a discussion with one or two folks who are willing to take the time and make the effort to have a comprehensive discussion. All the other folks who don't want to read my post and engage on a comparable level...I have no problem with that. I only ask that if one doesn't thoroughly read my post, don't comment on it. I give everyone else exactly that courtesy and it's all I ask for in return.


All the best.


P.S.
In grad school, I was for a while an English instructor. Many years have passed since then, but even now, I have no trouble telling, based on what they write, that one has read and understood whatever they write about. One need not have been an instructor, to tell, however. Folks who participated in extemporaneous forensics competitions know exactly what I mean. It's patently clear within as little as 30 seconds when a speaker really doesn't fully grasp the topic/content of which s/he must speak.