Although the video is mostly true, it, too, is misleading. Humans are not infallible, and most of the techniques are reliable. Polygraphs (to my knowledge) are not used to determine guilt, but are used to eliminate suspects. In other words, if you have a suspect pool, the polygraphs (if you agree to take one--they are voluntary since they cannot be used in court) are often used to pick out high priority suspects from those less likely to have committed the crime. Fingerprints are dependent (like all evidence) depend on the competence of the examiner. If the technicians and scientists lie under oath about the reliability of evidence in court, they are guilty of perjury and should be prosecuted themselves. Any examiner should be able to determine whether a hair is from a human or a dog (one of the examples used in the video) and I assume the evidence was re-checked and that is how it was corrected. This video is good evidence, however, that the death penalty, where legal, should be very carefully used, and why juries should look at evidence before it is accepted. Look at where "Global Warming" evidence assumption has gotten us. The number of people supposedly dying every year from "Second-Hand Smoke Exposure" is totally made up. There is no question that second-hand smoke isn't good for you, especially if you have other underlying health issues, but the statistics on the harm done are totally fabricated. A number of civil law suits have awarded damages based on the numbers. I don't believe there have been any criminal prosecutions, however, as the statistics don't stand up to scrutiny.
I have came to a point that I challenge all science especially the one that is going to send someone to jail or death sentience. Some of this is excepted as science but a lot is science by group agreement and not by fact. Global warming is a good example scientist all agreed global warming is man made. Were these scientist all working for Rothschild holdings amazing yes they were, did that have anything to do with the out come I don't know. Is science bias well it is not supposed to be, but it is.
All scientists DON'T agree that global warming is man-made--the ones who are dependent on government funding generally do, but when they retire, they often "let the cat out of the bag".
Bill, if you are part of a jury, sometimes only one vote will keep someone out of jail, or, more significantly, from going to Death Row.
Yes, I know that. I was that one person once. I guess I was responding to Martin's second entry and mayhave missed something.
The material in the bag is very little. The secret is that they don't know what the climate or the weather is doing. It is all based on algorithms similar to those used to predict food shortages, pollution, and...weather. Here at least, they are unable to predict the weather for seven days ahead, much less 50 years. They have learned the lesson of Paul Ehrlich, however, who predicted in 1969 that billions of people would starve and the society would collapse due to food shortages and environmental collapse by 1985. It served his purpose at the time, but many of us lived beyond 1985 and he was discredited. Now predictions are made for 50, 100, or more years out so that few if any of us will still be alive. If you read calamity predictions back into the 1920s, they were predicting warming was going to kill the oceans in a few years because fish not seen in northern waters were captured off Norway. In the 1970s, the world was cooling so fast that we were going to be in an ice age within 2 decades. There were even suggestions that the polar ice be colored black to reduce albedo and slow the cooling. That didn't catch on, so everybody reduced course, and said the earth was warming at a dramatic rate (similar to the 1920s but there was no big environmental movement then). The truth is, no one knows for certain what the climate will do--that is the secret in the bag. We have too little knowledge, and there are too many variables to make long-term predictions about climate. According to Viking history, Greenland was warmer than Denmark in the 10th century, and continued that way until around the end of the 14th century, when things turned dramatically colder and the Viking colonies were abandoned as uninhabitable. The talk is always "on record" when the data really only extends back a few decades (ice cover, space age), or centuries (surface temperature estimates by written account-thermometers don't go back very far. NASA, the Brits and this guy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ing-97-percent-consensus-claims/#8d5e592485dd have all been documented falsifying records to support global warming. If they had valid data, "adjustment" wouldn't be necessary. Check out the Medieval Warm Period and the "Mini Ice Age". The earth has overall been in a warming trend since the last Ice Age, but there have been many variations within that time period. After all, burning fossil fuels is simply putting carbon back into the atmosphere that was once there and removed by photosynthetic plants.
They like to call it "climate change" now because that's one thing they can be pretty sure of. That's what the climate does, and that is what the climate has always done. The real trick is drumming up the fear of it so that people will agree to lower their standard of living, even while the climate alarmists do nothing of the sort.