Should we dismiss that figure even though evidence points towards it?

And what would be the downgrades? Resolution, Physics, Framerate? With the few games that are cross platform for Xbox One and PS4 that are aslo on the Wii U, those games were not impressive on any platform. COD: Ghost ran at an unlocked frame rate at 720p and it looked like the PS3 and 360 version but ran noticably less framerates. Ghost wasn't even a demanding game on current gen consoles and it needed significant downgrades on the Wii U. SO what has changed if KH3 made it's way to Wii U. 

And? I have other strengths. I deal with transistors on a daily basis as a physics student, and have a good understanding of the math involving their power consumption. These are the things they used to predict the Wii U's power. 

As for your second comment:

The PS4 has official specs. 

http://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/ps4/techspecs/

The Xbone has multiple sources describing its specifications, many of which are official. 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6976/amds-jaguar-architecture-the-cpu-powering-xbox-one-playstation-4-kabini-temash/4

Everything about the Wii U's specs is conflicting depending on who is looking at it, although the general consensus is in between generations. 

I'm talking about graphical downgrades. those multiplatforms like cod ghosts don't represent the wii u's power, since they are far bellow exclusive titles.

Ok I didn't say anything about you're other strenghts. So where does it say the PS4 is clocked at 1.6 GHZ, Where does it say the PS4 has 8 ACE units or any of that other stuff? If the people got the PS4 specs rights they proabably got the Wii U specs right. The Wii U is just as simply configured at the PS4 and Xbox One. It's not like they are looking at CBU like the PS3 had. 

Ok I didn't say anything about you're other strenghts. So where does it say the PS4 is clocked at 1.6 GHZ, Where does it say the PS4 has 8 ACE units or any of that other stuff? If the people got the PS4 specs rights they proabably got the Wii U specs right. The Wii U is just as simply configured at the PS4 and Xbox One. It's not like they are looking at CBU like the PS3 had. 

What part of "OFICIAL SPECS" you don't understand. Sony released all/most of the ps4's specs. "people" didn't get it right, it was officialy revealed.

What about you? Can you look at a picture of the Wii U's motherboard or GPU and derive conclusions? If so, go! 

Weren't we talking about floating point performance? How do you know all of their PS4 specs which weren't given by Sony are correct? It's easy to get specification right if you are given them in the first place. There isn't a device on the motherboard that tells us the theoretical performance of the Wii U. People have to figure that out. It is entirely different from counting certain features by looking at the physical component on the board. There are assumptions involved, and calculations to be made. 

Here is the analysis that ended with 178-350 gflops by the way. Notice how they mention that the GPU isn't just a r700. 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511628

"The die is exactly 11.88 x 12.33mm (146.48mm²). Chipworks believe that it's "fabricated in a 40 nm advanced CMOS process at TSMC". It carries Renesas die markings, but no AMD die markings (although there is an AMD marking on the MCM heat-spreader). This is unexpected, as it was widely reported that the GPU was originally based on AMD's R700 line, and Nintendo publicly referred to it as a Radeon-based GPU. As the die appears to be very highly customised (it looks very different to other R700-based GPUs), the markings (or lack thereof) may indicate that the customisations were not done by AMD, but rather by Nintendo and Renesas."

"It it worth noting at this stage that a large portion of the GPU logic is still unexplained."

hat makes their opinion more believable then the popular one?