- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,840
- Reaction Score
- 48,729
People have just started getting around to reading the whole report. And I have admitted with my first report that I haven't (and won't) but I really like the work being done here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...best-recollection-on-a-key-piece-of-evidence/
Walt Anderson thinks he used the gauge with the higher readings before the game. He says this a couple times. The investigators keep asking him about this until he finally allows that this is possible.
In a footnote, the Wells people actually ascertain that he very likely used the lower reading gauge, in order to widen the numbers for the balls.
Is this not an example of what I'm talking about from the Wells team? They have a huge bias in this.
So which gauge did you use, Walt, realizing that there could be a question later about the inflation of the footballs?
“Well, my best recollection is that I used the one with the long, crooked needle.”
Is it possible, Walt, that you used the other gauge that was available? You know, the one that for whatever reason measures the air pressure at 0.3 to 0.45 PSI lower?
“Well, I don’t know about that. . . .”
Isn’t it possible, Walt?
“Well, it’s certainly possible.”
That’s how investigations that start with a predetermined outcome and work backward unfold. (Holy crap, I think I’m beginning to agree with Don Yee.) And that’s why Wells should have concluded based on the scientific evidence that the question of whether tampering occurred in connection with the AFC title game is inconclusive.
Walt Anderson thinks he used the gauge with the higher readings before the game. He says this a couple times. The investigators keep asking him about this until he finally allows that this is possible.
In a footnote, the Wells people actually ascertain that he very likely used the lower reading gauge, in order to widen the numbers for the balls.
Is this not an example of what I'm talking about from the Wells team? They have a huge bias in this.