I understand the point he’s trying to make and I usually like Neil, but I think he’s being a bit full of himself in this clip. Yes eye witness testimony is not great evidence. People are fallible, they make mistakes, they can sometimes not see things clearly or see the things they want to see. Even though it’s not great evidence, it’s still evidence. If it was just the victim’s testimony vs the defense’s then I’d understand being skeptical because that’s a my word against theirs. But If you have more and more witnesses, then it becomes a lot more credible.
So in defense of the judge. Sure he misunderstood what Neil was saying, but at the same time he probably thought it was reasonable for Neil to understand that multiple witnesses gives more credibility.
So yes Neil, we get your a scientist and you believe cold hard facts over people’s stories, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in it.
For 8 years Neil was giving a false account of President Bush's 9-11 speech. Then Sean Davis asked Neil to show the speech. This was his reply:
"I have explicit memory of those words being spoken by the President. I reacted on the spot, making note for possible later reference in my public discourse. Odd that nobody seems to be able to find the quote anywhere — surely every word publicly uttered by a President gets logged. FYI: There are two kinds of failures of memory. One is remembering that which has never happened and the other is forgetting that which did. In my case, from life experience, I’m vastly more likely to forget an incident than to remember an incident that never happened. So I assure you, the quote is there somewhere. When you find it, tell me. Then I can offer it to others who have taken as much time as you to explore these things. One of our mantras in science is that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence."
Got that? Neil is saying his eye witness testimony is all he needs to back up his accusations.
For what it's worth I don't believe the eye witness testimony he gives in this video. Or his brave confrontation with a StarBuck barrista.
I take eveything Neil says with a grain of salt. When he makes a claim my first response is to ask "where's the evidence".
You should be rejected Neil. You are living as a fraud. You are a black Bob Lazar. Your career is lying and acting like you have a scientific understanding.
Without very strict self control/discipline, one is guaranteed to see what they want to see, hear what they want hear and will believe anything they tell themselves.
With that being said, that is one of the biggest problems with the usa… most are completely and totally delusional. 100% disconnected from reality.
You may have missed the point that he was commenting on how the eyewitness testimony contradicted the actual evidence (that being a complete lack of any pointing to this suspect). It would not matter if you had 50 witness saying it was this suspect, if there is no evidence to be found anywhere that corroborates the crime. It is perfectly reasonable that this suspect may just look like the actual perpetrator.
She didn't get it wrong. Neil said he couldn't convict if an eye witness was the only evidence available, so technically he did imply that he needed "more than one eye witness" to to convict. In my experience, Judges choose their words very carefully
Facts
Eyes lie all the time.
I understand the point he’s trying to make and I usually like Neil, but I think he’s being a bit full of himself in this clip. Yes eye witness testimony is not great evidence. People are fallible, they make mistakes, they can sometimes not see things clearly or see the things they want to see. Even though it’s not great evidence, it’s still evidence. If it was just the victim’s testimony vs the defense’s then I’d understand being skeptical because that’s a my word against theirs. But If you have more and more witnesses, then it becomes a lot more credible.
So in defense of the judge. Sure he misunderstood what Neil was saying, but at the same time he probably thought it was reasonable for Neil to understand that multiple witnesses gives more credibility.
So yes Neil, we get your a scientist and you believe cold hard facts over people’s stories, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in it.
What a pompous hypocrite.
For 8 years Neil was giving a false account of President Bush's 9-11 speech. Then Sean Davis asked Neil to show the speech. This was his reply:
"I have explicit memory of those words being spoken by the President. I reacted on the spot, making note for possible later reference in my public discourse. Odd that nobody seems to be able to find the quote anywhere — surely every word publicly uttered by a President gets logged.
FYI: There are two kinds of failures of memory. One is remembering that which has never happened and the other is forgetting that which did. In my case, from life experience, I’m vastly more likely to forget an incident than to remember an incident that never happened. So I assure you, the quote is there somewhere. When you find it, tell me. Then I can offer it to others who have taken as much time as you to explore these things.
One of our mantras in science is that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence."
Got that? Neil is saying his eye witness testimony is all he needs to back up his accusations.
For what it's worth I don't believe the eye witness testimony he gives in this video. Or his brave confrontation with a StarBuck barrista.
I take eveything Neil says with a grain of salt. When he makes a claim my first response is to ask "where's the evidence".
Why are science popularisers are all so full of themselves? Like y'all are famous for being celebrities, not actually accomplishing shit
How are you so smart but not realize how utterly annoying you are?
oh man, should have said it
I will believe Bernie Sanders' promises over Neil's stories any day of the week. Dude is a complete self absorbed phony.
Neil the fraud.. Liar
You should be rejected Neil. You are living as a fraud. You are a black Bob Lazar. Your career is lying and acting like you have a scientific understanding.
The whole system is corrupt
On my life Neil should have said that to that judge!!!! You prove my point right here judge!!!
Neil loves the smell of his own farts.
By 2 or 3 witnesses let everything be established.
I block every cgannel that reposts this egotistical tool
Believe NONE of what you hear and HALF of what you see.
Without very strict self control/discipline, one is guaranteed to see what they want to see, hear what they want hear and will believe anything they tell themselves.
With that being said, that is one of the biggest problems with the usa… most are completely and totally delusional. 100% disconnected from reality.
Usa is very disturbing. Needs a massive overhaul.
I think you may have made this story up, Mr Tyson.
Hold thy tongue and don't outshine the master.
This is why I'll never be allowed on a jury. I would absolutely say some smart ass shit like that.
You may have missed the point that he was commenting on how the eyewitness testimony contradicted the actual evidence (that being a complete lack of any pointing to this suspect). It would not matter if you had 50 witness saying it was this suspect, if there is no evidence to be found anywhere that corroborates the crime. It is perfectly reasonable that this suspect may just look like the actual perpetrator.
What would happen if he said it?
She didn't get it wrong. Neil said he couldn't convict if an eye witness was the only evidence available, so technically he did imply that he needed "more than one eye witness" to to convict. In my experience, Judges choose their words very carefully
I wish you were rejected from talking for at least a few minutes.
So true!! I feel sorry for you Americans. Your justice system is f****
It’s syntactically ambiguous. “More than one witness’s testimony”
Neither the judge nor NDT understood the other
Never been afraid to spend up
Remember police and judge's are just like everyone else.
They All have to wipe the little brown hole after a pop.
Don't get me wrong I support police 24 7
But they are just people some better some not
Some people just aren’t ment too see the full picture when it comes too locking up people it’s a sad system not everybody thinks the same