St. Louis Cardinals front office under FBI investigation for hacking

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

but it was just a little bit of air !

It was probably only 3 or 4 emails!

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

but it was just a little bit of air !

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

It was probably only 3 or 4 emails!

Except it might not have been ANY air. The physical evidence is weak as hell. Heck, the New York Times, relying on an independent research report, blew the Wells Report out of the water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/op...gate.html?_r=0

Our recommendation? When the N.F.L. hears Mr. Brady’s appeal of his suspension later this month, it should proceed with the knowledge that the Wells report is unreliable.

http://www.aei.org/publication/on-wells-report/

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploa...lls-report.pdf

Big punchline:

The fact that the average pressure of the Colts balls was significantly above the prediction of the Ideal Gas Law, while that of the Patriots balls was not, is inconsistent with the findings of the Wells report. Our conclusion that the warming of the balls during halftime is the key factor overlooked in the Wells report is supported by the observation that the readings of the intercepted Patriots football, measured separately from the other Patriots balls, came in almost precisely at the prediction of the law. Under the hypothesis asserted by the Well report, the odds of this Patriots ball matching the Ideal Gas Law prediction were between 1 out of 3 and 1 out of
300. It is therefore unlikely that the Patriots deflated the footballs.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Except it might not have been ANY air. The physical evidence is weak as hell. Heck, the New York Times, relying on an independent research report, blew the Wells Report out of the water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/op...gate.html?_r=0




http://www.aei.org/publication/on-wells-report/

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploa...lls-report.pdf

Big punchline:

Why is a conservative political thinktank doing research on footballs?

Anyway, remember how I was talking a few weeks ago about how you have to assume an extremely specific timeline (invented out of thin air by a Patriots fan) of what happened during the halftime measurements to come to this conclusion? These guys don't just assume it, they state it as fact in their report with no evidence.

Also, to reach their conclusion, they're assuming that a football is a rigid vessel. I don't think it is, do you?

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

Why is a conservative political thinktank doing research on footballs?

Anyway, remember how I was talking a few weeks ago about how you have to assume an extremely specific timeline (invented out of thin air by a Patriots fan) of what happened during the halftime measurements to come to this conclusion? These guys don't just assume it, they state it as fact in their report with no evidence.

Also, to reach their conclusion, they're assuming that a football is a rigid vessel. I don't think it is, do you?

I'd just give it up, man. It's like arguing Kobe/LeBron with Arrow 2. You can post 1500 statistics that all point 1 way and it doesn't matter.

The owner of the team accepted the penalties levied for being caught cheating. He accepted them. That is not what innocent people do. It wasn't a plea bargain, it wasn't anything. The NFL said, "this is what we fine you. This is what you lose." And Kraft accepted that as is.

Anyone arguing that they didn't cheat, at this point, is a total ****ing idiot.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

Why is a conservative political thinktank doing research on footballs?

Anyway, remember how I was talking a few weeks ago about how you have to assume an extremely specific timeline (invented out of thin air by a Patriots fan) of what happened during the halftime measurements to come to this conclusion? These guys don't just assume it, they state it as fact in their report with no evidence.

Also, to reach their conclusion, they're assuming that a football is a rigid vessel. I don't think it is, do you?

A football can be rigid enough a vessel to resist deformation at a certain pressure, which is all that matters in this case.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Cochise

A football can be rigid enough a vessel to resist deformation at a certain pressure, which is all that matters in this case.

No, a rigid vessel means that the container has the same volume regardless of pressure, not that it resists deformation when at pressure. A football is not a rigid vessel.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

Why is a conservative political thinktank doing research on footballs?

Anyway, remember how I was talking a few weeks ago about how you have to assume an extremely specific timeline (invented out of thin air by a Patriots fan) of what happened during the halftime measurements to come to this conclusion? These guys don't just assume it, they state it as fact in their report with no evidence.

Also, to reach their conclusion, they're assuming that a football is a rigid vessel. I don't think it is, do you?

Do you mean measuring the Colts footballs last? No evidence? They said they ran out of time when doing the Colts footballs. What does that suggest? That they did the Pats balls first, and THEN the Colts balls. Heck, "suggest" is too weak a word. What other possible conclusion could there be.

And bottom line is the Wells report should have included the timeline, and should have factored it in, or ELIMINATED IT, but they didn't.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Do you mean measuring the Colts footballs last? No evidence? They said they ran out of time when doing the Colts footballs. What does that suggest? That they did the Pats balls first, and THEN the Colts balls. Heck, "suggest" is too weak a word. What other possible conclusion could there be.

And bottom line is the Wells report should have included the timeline, and should have factored it in, or ELIMINATED IT, but they didn't.

No, they couldn't come up with any temperature coefficients that made sense with that scenario, so they had to invent a different one to try to fit their explanation into the data: there was a significant break in between measuring the last Patriot ball and the first Colt ball. The made up scenario states that the officials measured all of the Patriot balls, stopped measuring to re-inflate all of the Patriot balls, and then proceeded to measure all of the Colt balls. Basically, the first Colt ball should have warmed up just about the same amount as the last Patriot ball in any scenario other than this specific one, and the data does not support this.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Except it might not have been ANY air. The physical evidence is weak as hell. Heck, the New York Times, relying on an independent research report, blew the Wells Report out of the water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/op...gate.html?_r=0




http://www.aei.org/publication/on-wells-report/

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploa...lls-report.pdf

Big punchline:

Take it back to the Patriots thread. I don't want to rehash this shit here.
There is going to be plenty of juicy dirt making its way to the news cycle to keep this thread nice and fat on its own.

Not to mention, given the geographic proximity and members of CP that root for said club, the responses should be priceless or dead silence.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

Take it back to the Patriots thread. I don't want to rehash this shit here.
There is going to be plenty of juicy dirt making its way to the news cycle to keep this thread nice and fat on its own.

Not to mention, given the geographic proximity and members of CP that root for said club, the responses should be priceless or dead silence.

Merely for the record, I didn't bring it up. I only responded to statements others made.