zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 28, 2017 16:43:20 GMT
Because referees don't grip the footballs like QBs do. A couple of PSI wouldn't be noticeable to someone who just picks up a football but doesn't grip it like a QB does.
As for the difference, a couple of inches can be the difference between converting or not converting a 3rd or 4th down. And a couple of PSI can be the difference between completing a TD pass and having that pass get intercepted. So it's a pretty significant advantage.
Every team brings their own footballs so they can inflate the footballs to their preference, AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE LEGAL LIMIT. BUT UNLIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM, BRADY CHOSE TO GO UNDER THE LEGAL LIMIT, WHICH IS CHEATING.
As for SpyGate, every team tries to figure out play calls, but every other team did it in a legal way, which isn't cheating. The Patriots did it in an illegal way, which is cheating. And NO, NOT EVERY TEAM DOES IT ILLEGALLY LIKE THE PATRIOTS DID. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF AT ALL THAT OTHER TEAMS DO IT ILLEGALLY LIKE THE PATRIOTS DID.
Sorry cupcake, the science has already proved the Patriots innocent. You can keep coming up with your Wells/Exponent/Marlow nonsense, but they were hired by Goodell, and are the only scientists who think any deflation occurred. Dozens more have determined no deflation occurred. Additionally, Exponent's experiments (Which Marlow rubber stamped) are demonstrably fraudulent. One graph shows that wet and dry footballs warm at the same rate - they do not. Another experiment (Master/Exemplar gauge) sought to determine if ref Walt Anderson was right in saying he used the logo gauge pre-game. Wells/Exponent used the results of this experiment to conclude he was wrong. The problem is that with the knowns and unknowns, it is literally 100% impossible to determine that experimentally. You lose. Again.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 28, 2017 16:45:16 GMT
There were several idiots on the IMDB boards (e.g. klawrencio and Rey_Kahuka) who kept mistaking what AH stood for even though they were given several clues. They mistakenly thought AH stood for Anne Hathaway, which was incorrect. And I even proved that they were incorrect.
I registered on IMDB in November 2005. Anne Hathaway was still unknown to general public moviegoers like myself at that time and didn't become well-known to general public moviegoers like myself until "Brokeback Mountain" was released (in limited release in a few cities in December 2005 and then in wide release in January 2006).
We've literally seen your username as AnneHathaway_fan. Then you changed it. The comment about her popularity proves nothing. She became famous after The Princess Diaries in 2001. Anyway, there is no way for you to prove your name was ah_fan when you registered. We know it was annehathaway_fan at one point, and it may have even been something else before that. You lose. Again. Nope. You're clearly lying because that was never my username. But it's not surprising that Brady fans like you would lie since Brady continues to lie about his involvement in the illegal tampering of footballs.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 28, 2017 16:48:19 GMT
We've literally seen your username as AnneHathaway_fan. Then you changed it. The comment about her popularity proves nothing. She became famous after The Princess Diaries in 2001. Anyway, there is no way for you to prove your name was ah_fan when you registered. We know it was annehathaway_fan at one point, and it may have even been something else before that. You lose. Again. Nope. You're clearly lying because that was never my username. But it's not surprising that Brady fans like you would lie since Brady continues to lie about his involvement in the illegal tampering of footballs. Yes it was. You have no credibility. You've accused ctown of photoshopping a picture of a thread while it still existed as depicted in his image. There is no coming back from that. That's just a drop in the bucket of your lies though.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 28, 2017 16:59:58 GMT
Because referees don't grip the footballs like QBs do. A couple of PSI wouldn't be noticeable to someone who just picks up a football but doesn't grip it like a QB does.
As for the difference, a couple of inches can be the difference between converting or not converting a 3rd or 4th down. And a couple of PSI can be the difference between completing a TD pass and having that pass get intercepted. So it's a pretty significant advantage.
Every team brings their own footballs so they can inflate the footballs to their preference, AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE LEGAL LIMIT. BUT UNLIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM, BRADY CHOSE TO GO UNDER THE LEGAL LIMIT, WHICH IS CHEATING.
As for SpyGate, every team tries to figure out play calls, but every other team did it in a legal way, which isn't cheating. The Patriots did it in an illegal way, which is cheating. And NO, NOT EVERY TEAM DOES IT ILLEGALLY LIKE THE PATRIOTS DID. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF AT ALL THAT OTHER TEAMS DO IT ILLEGALLY LIKE THE PATRIOTS DID.
Sorry cupcake, the science has already proved the Patriots innocent. You can keep coming up with your Wells/Exponent/Marlow nonsense, but they were hired by Goodell, and are the only scientists who think any deflation occurred. Dozens more have determined no deflation occurred. Additionally, Exponent's experiments (Which Marlow rubber stamped) are demonstrably fraudulent. One graph shows that wet and dry footballs warm at the same rate - they do not. Another experiment (Master/Exemplar gauge) sought to determine if ref Walt Anderson was right in saying he used the logo gauge pre-game. Wells/Exponent used the results of this experiment to conclude he was wrong. The problem is that with the knowns and unknowns, it is literally 100% impossible to determine that experimentally. You lose. Again. It's irrelevant what dozens of other scientists (including 1 scientist who works for a company funded by Robert Kraft) says. Besides the fact that none of those dozens scientists were willing to come forward like Professor Marlow did and subject their analysis to the scrutiny of cross-examination (which makes their analysis completely worthless and invalid), Professor Marlow's analysis is all that's needed.
When it comes to expert analysis, it's quality (not quantity) that counts. If Albert Einstein (the most brilliant physicist in history) makes a statement on a physics-related subject, then that's all the proof that's needed. It's irrelevant if a dozen other scientists say the opposite of what Einstein says. If Einstein says it, then that's more than enough proof.
Einstein is not available to speak on the physics of DeflateGate so Professor Marlow is now the most qualified physicist on the planet to speak on the physics of DeflateGate. Princeton University, the highly-respected Ivy League university that Einstein was a resident scholar of, made Professor Marlow the Chairman of their Department of Physics so NO ONE on the planet is more qualified to speak on the physics of DeflateGate than Professor Marlow. And when Professor Marlow stated that the amount of deflation in the Patriots footballs couldn't have been caused by weather alone and had to be caused by a combination of weather AND human tampering, then that's all the proof needed. So YOU LOSE.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 28, 2017 17:09:08 GMT
If all they did was make unsubstantiated claims, you'd have a point, but they backed up their claims with math and experiments - experiments that are not demonstrably fraudulent like Exponent's. That Marlow backed them up only shows that his support was bought.
LOL no. By backing up Exponent he showed that he'll support whoever pays him to. He has no credibility - just like you.
It's just too bad he didn't do his own math or experiment on the issue. All he did was say Exponent's methods were sound - but they weren't. Only an idiot (or a shill) would think a wet football and a dry football warm at the same rate. Only an idiot (or a shill) would think the Master/Exemplar gauge experiment could determine if Walt Anderson was right or wrong about which gauge he used when precise internal temperatures of each football were not known. Those two experiments prove Exponent was in the tank for Goodell. That Marlow approved of their methods proves he was in the tank for Goodell. You lose. Again.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 28, 2017 18:50:06 GMT
If all they did was make unsubstantiated claims, you'd have a point, but they backed up their claims with math and experiments And yet, when it came time to come forward and sit in the witness chair and defend their analysis under the scrutiny of cross-examination from the opposing side, none of those scientists (including 1 who worked for a company funded by Robert Kraft) were willing to do so. Because they were all afraid that their faulty analysis would be taken apart under the scrutiny of cross-examination.
Professor Marlow was the only scientist who wasn't afraid to sit in the witness chair and defend his analysis under the scrutiny of cross-examination from the opposing side. That's because Professor Marlow knew his analysis was sound and unbreakable. And Professor Marlow was 100% correct. Brady's lawyers tried their best to poke holes in Professor Marlow's analysis, but they couldn't even make a dent in it. Professor Marlow's analysis stood up against all challenges.
By backing up Exponent he showed that he'll support whoever pays him to. Judge Denny Chin also backed up the evidence against Brady. Are you claiming that Judge Denny Chin (an unbiased federal appellate court judge who has no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to review evidence objectively and without bias) was also bought? So now your defense of Brady is the pathetic claim that the NFL bribed a federal appellate court judge (which would be a felony) to rule against Brady? Once again, YOU LOSE!
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 28, 2017 19:04:39 GMT
And yet, when it came time to come forward and sit in the witness chair and defend their analysis under the scrutiny of cross-examination from the opposing side, none of those scientists (including 1 who worked for a company funded by Robert Kraft) were willing to do so. Sorry cupcake but they can't just insist the court hears their unsolicited claims. They have to be called upon. Anyway, you obviously don't understand anything about the relevant science, which is why you only cite claims you like instead of analyzing them for substance and veracity. I already destroyed Marlow's credibility. If you're going to continue to bring him up you're going to have to explain why he thinks wet and dry footballs warm at the same rate, and why he thinks the precise pressure and temperature values were not needed to determine which gauge was used pre-game. You won't do that though, because you can't. You're just going to have to accept that Marlow approved what's obvious faulty methodology. Well, you won't do that either, you'll just continue to repeat bullshit that's already been thoroughly refuted. Didn't say he was bought. He didn't rule on evidence, only on Goodell's authority as laid out by the CBA. As for as what he supposedly said about the science, he's a judge, not a scientist. He's not in a position to say which scientist is or isn't wrong. He accepts scientific evidence at face-value. Oh, isn't Chin the one that duped by a scammer posing as Madoff? nypost.com/2014/07/24/madoff-judge-duped-by-scammer-posing-as-ponzi-villain/ha
|
|
|
Post by marsexplorer on Feb 28, 2017 19:13:31 GMT
How ya doin Schlacko?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 28, 2017 19:15:04 GMT
He didn't rule on evidence Judge said said on the record in open court that "THE EVIDENCE OF BALL TAMPERING IS COMPELLING". That sounds pretty clear that Judge Chin felt that there was plenty of evidence proving Brady cheated. he's a judge He's not in a position to say which scientist is or isn't wrong. He's a judge whose job is to review evidence objectively and without bias, whether that evidence is ballistics testimony or DNA testimony or medical testmony or scientific testimony or other witness testimony. And he is in a position to say which scientist is right or wrong. That's what his job is, to review evidence objectively and without bias and then make a judgment based on that evidence. He's been doing it for a long time and is good at it, which is why he's on the 2nd highest court in the country.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Feb 28, 2017 19:24:17 GMT
He didn't rule on evidence Judge said said on the record in open court that "THE EVIDENCE OF BALL TAMPERING IS COMPELLING". That sounds pretty clear that Judge Chin felt that there was plenty of evidence proving Brady cheated. he's a judge He's not in a position to say which scientist is or isn't wrong. He's a judge whose job is to review evidence objectively and without bias, whether that evidence is ballistics testimony or DNA testimony or medical testmony or scientific testimony or other witness testimony. And he is in a position to say which scientist is right or wrong. That's what his job is, to review evidence objectively and without bias and then make a judgment based on that evidence. He's been doing it for a long time and is good at it, which is why he's on the 2nd highest court in the country. Anne Hathaway Fan, please regale us once again with the story of the devilish Pats fan thumping your stupid ass in a Hooters parking lot. Thanks!
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 28, 2017 19:36:58 GMT
Irrelevant. You know why? He's not qualified to analyze scientific evidence, therefore he accepted it at face-value. Exponent fudged their report to reach a conclusion suggesting guilt, and Chin is obligated to accept that conclusion, meaning he's obligated to accept everything justifying that conclusion.
He accepted at face value a report which is demonstrably fraudulent. If you want this conversation to move further, you have to address the fraudulent report.
Do you think wet and dry footballs warm at the same rate?
|
|
|
Post by marsexplorer on Feb 28, 2017 19:40:03 GMT
Anne Hathaway Fan, please regale us once again with the story of the devilish Pats fan thumping your stupid ass in a Hooters parking lot. Thanks! I think the thing that bothers me most about that story is he went to a bar alone to watch the Super Bowl? He was stupid enough to rile up a bunch of Pats fans with no backup? I don't get it.
|
|
shawshanked
Sophomore
@shawshanked
Posts: 246
Likes: 66
|
Post by shawshanked on Feb 28, 2017 20:13:00 GMT
I am not an American and started watching NFL only 3 years ago. I am still not very knowledgeable of the game but I like it and at least one thing I have figured out. That New England Patriots are very good and achieve so much success simply because they are that good. The exaggeration that they have won Super Bowls because of cheating seems ridiculous now. I am not a fan of Patriots but still I am not so foolish as not to understand that they are very talented side and their quarterback is awesome. Sometimes, it is easy to spread lies when majority people indulge in that lie. On IMDB boards so many people used to say Patriots are cheaters and win by cheating that even I bought into their lie. That said, I am personally a fan of Russell Wilson and support Seattle. But I needed to give my views as an objective person. That Patriots achieve things because of cheating is the greatest lie ever told. I'm not a Pats fan either but I agree with you. It's asinine to suggest they won 5 Super Bowls because they cheated. Even if they actually were guilty of Spygate and Deflategate, they did t have enough of an impact to really matter. Amazing how everyone slams the Pats for that but the Saints paying players to take out opposing players is okay.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 28, 2017 20:57:51 GMT
Irrelevant. Chin is obligated to accept that conclusion WRONG on both counts. A judge is NEVER obligated to accept any testimony from any witness. What a judge does is listen to the argument from one side and then listen to the counter-arguments from the opposing side and then decide based on the arguments from both sides, which side's case is stronger. In the DeflateGate case, Judge Chin read the briefs from Brady's lawyers and heard the counter-arguments from Brady's lawyers. In the end, Judge Chin decided, based on his extensive experience hearing arguments from lawyers and reviewing evidence and deciding cases, that Professor Marlow's testimony was sound and that Brady's lawyers didn't have a sufficient counter-argument to debunk Professor Marlow's testimoy. So an unbiased federal appellate court judge who has no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to review evidence objectively and withut bias ruled that Brady's lawyers didn't have a sufficient counter-argument to debunk the compelling evidence proving that Brday cheated. That isn't irrelevant at all. He accepted at face value a report which is demonstrably fraudulent. No, he didn't. Judge Chin took an oath to review evidence objectively and without bias. That means he has to listen to the arguments from both sides and decide, objectively and without bias, which side's case is stronger. Judge Chin read the briefs from Brady's lawyers and listened to the arguments from Brady's lawyers. And in the end, Judge Chin decided, based on his extensive experience hearing arguments from laywers and reviewing evidence and deciding cases, that Professor Marlow's analysis is sound and that Brady's lawyers didn't have a sufficient counter-argument against Professor Marlow's analysis. you have to address the fraudulent report. I don't have to address it because the Wells Report isn't fraudulent. Brady's lawyers had their opportunity to prove in court that the Wells Report was fraudulent and they failed to do so. That's why they lost the case. So the Wells Report is correct and not fraudulent.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 28, 2017 21:08:56 GMT
Anne Hathaway Fan, please regale us once again with the story of the devilish Pats fan thumping your stupid ass in a Hooters parking lot. Thanks! I think the thing that bothers me most about that story is he went to a bar alone to watch the Super Bowl? He was stupid enough to rile up a bunch of Pats fans with no backup? I don't get it. Most of the my co-workers here in the Bay Area are 49ers fans so they had no interest at all in watching a Super Bowl that the 49ers weren't playing in. As for riling up a bunch of stupid Patriots' fans, I've always been respectful to fans of other teams and never committed violence against someone for not being a fan of the Cowboys (and being out I the Bay Area, I'm often surrounded by plenty of people who aren't fans of the Cowboys) so I had expected that Patriots' fans would also be respectful to fans of other teams. But as I found out, Patriots' fans are arrogant and classless and have no respect at all for fans of other teams.
I just didn't anticipate such behavior from Patriots' fans because I would never commit violence against fans of other teams. That was the same thing that happened with that Marvel troll billbrown7071 on the IMDb boards. Someone wrote a post saying that Scarlett Johannson was over-rated ad wasn't hot. I replied to that post saying that I agreed that Scarlett Johannson wasn't hot. I didn't anticipate that a crazed Marvel troll like billbrown7071 would go ballistic over that and start following me around IMDb because I would never follow someone around a message board just for saying that they don't think a certain actress is hot.
My attack by Patriots' fans was real and I really am disabled because of that.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 28, 2017 21:14:49 GMT
The Wells Report is fraudulent because it contains Exponent's Appendix, which is itself fraudulent because it contains two experiments that are nonsense - either due to incompetence or bias. Wet and dry footballs don't warm at the same rate, though their graph suggests they do. The Master/Exemplar gauge experiment would require precise temperature and pressure data from pre-game measurements. But there is no such data, so that experiment could not have accurately determined what it sought to determine. Chin accepted the Wells Report because he doesn't know science enough to see these errors. nypost.com/2014/07/24/madoff-judge-duped-by-scammer-posing-as-ponzi-villain/ha, Chin was duped. Just like you...by Goodell.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 28, 2017 21:15:02 GMT
I am not an American and started watching NFL only 3 years ago. I am still not very knowledgeable of the game but I like it and at least one thing I have figured out. That New England Patriots are very good and achieve so much success simply because they are that good. The exaggeration that they have won Super Bowls because of cheating seems ridiculous now. I am not a fan of Patriots but still I am not so foolish as not to understand that they are very talented side and their quarterback is awesome. Sometimes, it is easy to spread lies when majority people indulge in that lie. On IMDB boards so many people used to say Patriots are cheaters and win by cheating that even I bought into their lie. That said, I am personally a fan of Russell Wilson and support Seattle. But I needed to give my views as an objective person. That Patriots achieve things because of cheating is the greatest lie ever told. I'm not a Pats fan either but I agree with you. It's asinine to suggest they won 5 Super Bowls because they cheated. Even if they actually were guilty of Spygate and Deflategate, they did t have enough of an impact to really matter. Amazing how everyone slams the Pats for that but the Saints paying players to take out opposing players is okay. Not "if" they were guilty. The Patriots were indeed guilty. That's why they were punished. Name 1 other player or team in NFL history that was punished for cheating when they were innocent.
You can't name any. That's because the NFL doesn't punish innocent players or teams for cheating. The NFL only punishes guilty players and teams for cheating.
The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls by cheating with SpyGate and won 1 Super Bowl by cheating with DeflateGate. So the cheating did indeed have a significant enough impact to matter.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Feb 28, 2017 21:31:29 GMT
Not "if" they were guilty. The Patriots were indeed guilty. That's why they were punished. Name 1 other player or team in NFL history that was punished for cheating when they were innocent.
You can't name any. That's because the NFL doesn't punish innocent players or teams for cheating. The NFL only punishes guilty players and teams for cheating.
The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls by cheating with SpyGate and won 1 Super Bowl by cheating with DeflateGate. So the cheating did indeed have a significant enough impact to matter.
There doesn't have to be a precedent. Unprecedented things happen. It's easier to believe when you substitute the NFL with Goodell (former Jets employee). Saying over and over that the Pats won by cheating isn't going to convince anyone. The users here know what a pathetic loon you are.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Feb 28, 2017 22:00:24 GMT
I think the thing that bothers me most about that story is he went to a bar alone to watch the Super Bowl? He was stupid enough to rile up a bunch of Pats fans with no backup? I don't get it. Most of the my co-workers here in the Bay Area are 49ers fans so they had no interest at all in watching a Super Bowl that the 49ers weren't playing in. As for riling up a bunch of stupid Patriots' fans, I've always been respectful to fans of other teams and never committed violence against someone for not being a fan of the Cowboys (and being out I the Bay Area, I'm often surrounded by plenty of people who aren't fans of the Cowboys) so I had expected that Patriots' fans would also be respectful to fans of other teams. But as I found out, Patriots' fans are arrogant and classless and have no respect at all for fans of other teams.
I just didn't anticipate such behavior from Patriots' fans because I would never commit violence against fans of other teams. That was the same thing that happened with that Marvel troll billbrown7071 on the IMDb boards. Someone wrote a post saying that Scarlett Johannson was over-rated ad wasn't hot. I replied to that post saying that I agreed that Scarlett Johannson wasn't hot. I didn't anticipate that a crazed Marvel troll like billbrown7071 would go ballistic over that and start following me around IMDb because I would never follow someone around a message board just for saying that they don't think a certain actress is hot.
My attack by Patriots' fans was real and I really am disabled because of that. I shall send you some proof before the end of this week that proves I'm speaking the truth.
Oh, so you're going to send proof now? Will it just be a picture of some crippled asshole in a wheelchair?
|
|
SportsFan19
Junior Member
@sportsfan19
Posts: 2,858
Likes: 2,255
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Feb 28, 2017 22:35:56 GMT
DC-Fan stands for...
Dicks & Cocks Fan.
|
|