शैडोइंग अभ्यास: We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

- A man has been found lying dead at the side of the road with oozing, elongated wounds to his back.

To solve the murder, a local official calls all the farmers in the village and demands they all bring their tools to the main square.

In the square, each man is set to lay down his sickle.

And then something curious starts to happen.

In the rising heat of the morning, flies begin to descend, all landing on a single sickle.

Its owner buckles, falling to his knees and admits to murder.

This is from a 1247 book, "The Washing Away of Wrongs" by Song Ci.

And it's the first writing we have of an empirical approach to forensics.

But okay, big deal.

Anyone could have just swapped the sickles or used their neighbor's.

But forensics today are much more accurate, right?

Fingerprints support investigations in over 70% of murders and DNA evidence in more than 90%.

But then you also read an article like "Hair sample that put men into prison for 28 years, turned out to be dog hair." - That is not science.

That is not justice.

- See, in 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published this 350 page report stating that, with the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to consistently demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual.

And they also said that some tests do not meet the fundamental requirements of science.

So we ask people to rank five famous forensic techniques, all of which are still being used in court.

Okay, five forensic techniques here.

And I just need you to rank them in order of accuracy from the least accurate down here to the most accurate.

So what do you think?

- I don't know if I'm gonna nail these.

- Whoa. I dunno.

- I don't know what forensic to put first here.

- Okay, hair. What are you thinking?

- I think hair is last, eh?

- I would probably put the hair on the top two.

- I feel like hair would probably be the easiest to, - To fake? - To fake, if you like.

- I think hair at the bottom, because if it's not got the follicle intact, just hair in general.

- Mm. - Do you think?

- Yeah. - Yeah.

- Hair has always been an object of interest for crime scene investigators.

And before DNA, they would look for the microscopic similarities in the surface and the cross section of hairs to try and get a match.

For example, analyzing how rough the fish scale like structure of the surface of the hair is, or how the pigment is distributed through the hair shaft.

- The examiner's trained eye can learn many things.

Is it human hair? Of what race?

Animal hair? What family?

This vital information may help to establish guilt or innocence - Between the 1970s and 1999, the FBI used this against defendants in 268 cases.

But when they later reexamined this using DNA as evidence, it completely flipped the field on its head, and it turned out that even the most experienced FBI examiners would routinely claim they had a match between hairs that were from two different people.

And they sometimes couldn't even tell the difference between a human hair and a dog hair.

Out of those 268 cases that used microscopic hair analysis, 96% were declared false.

33 people were already sentenced to death, and nine were already executed by the time the errors were found.

Today, the FBI only uses hair as evidence if it can be supported by DNA testing, which is why microscopic hair analysis goes to the bottom of this list.

What do you think of bite marks?

- On a crime scene? - On a crime scene?

- Yeah, yeah. - It's been...

Dracula, is Dracula there?

- Least accurate is gonna be pretty close to bite marks, I think.

- Midway. - Midway? - Last.

That's last.

That's not realistic, innit? - Okay. Okay.

Mm. Bite marks at the top.

The idea behind bite marks is simple.

If you can use dental records to identify a deceased person, surely you can identify a perpetrator by the bite marks left on a victim.

Since the 1950s, bite mark analysis has been used in thousands of cases.

But then some experts, like forensic dentist Mary Bush, started looking into the method more deeply.

- There was no scientific exploration into bite marks before they were used in the court of law to say that this was even a feasible technique that you could do.

- One study from the university at Buffalo used a set of model teeth to create 89 bite marks in cadavers, alongside controlled bite marks made in wax.

And out of those 89 bite marks made in skin, none of them matched the measurements of the ones made in wax or the original model teeth.

In fact, when they compared the bite marks in skin to a wider collection of 411 model teeth, it wasn't even the original model that made the bite mark that was the closest match.

After 12 studies, their conclusion, bite mark transfer to skin is not reliable.

Skin isn't a good medium to leave an imprint of someone's bite mark.

It's soft, it's squishy, and it distorts under pressure.

But despite all this, there's still been no ban and bite mark evidence is still allowed in courts worldwide.

We asked Dr. Bush for a comment and she said that while the scientific method is happy to discard an old and disproven theory, the justice system prefers consistency in a historical precedent.

So even the new flurry of evidence wasn't enough to get bite marks out of court.

In fact, bite marks have been used as evidence as recently as 2025, which is why it gets the second worst spot on our list.

Blood, if you don't have DNA and you're just using like kind of the patterns that it leaves along the ground.

How they splat. - Right?

- Like the picture, that blood on a crime scene could give you.

- Okay. - I'm looking, thinking of putting blood at the end, but like, I don't know. - Okay.

Put blood at the end. - Okay.

- I would go blood then - Second. - Second place.

- Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

- So bloodstain pattern analysis.

When someone is injured, the way their blood pools and drips into the environment is in a distinct pattern.

And in 2020, "Wired" actually did an episode with a crime scene analyst on how these different stains can be interpreted.

You can use physics and biology to rewind the clock and extrapolate where in space the blood must have come from.

This all started in 1971 when chemist, Herbert Leon MacDonell, published "Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood." In this book, MacDonell described how you can use the width and length of a stain to calculate the angle of impact, and then using trigonometry, trace that back to the point of origin of the spatter.

The book quickly became the foundation of bloodstain pattern analysis, and everyone was using it.

In fact, MacDonell even established a Bloodstain Institute where thousands of US police officers would enroll.

The Supreme Court of Iowa actually referred to the practice as relatively uncomplicated.

So they didn't require proof of its reliability.

They were happy to go ahead with MacDonell's tests that he did alone in his basement.

And soon enough, bloodstain pattern analysis was used in courts all over the states.

But here's the problem.

Plotting the flight path of each bloodstain using trigonometry assumes the trajectories were straight lines and gives this common origin point, which suggests the victim was standing up.

The issue is, MacDonell and then many forensic investigators after him and even "Wired," failed to account for the effects of gravity and drag as obvious as this sounds.

When you include these in your calculations, the common origin point lowers, and you can see that in this example.

It's more likely that the victim was actually sitting down.

The first study to measure the baseline reliability of bloodstain pattern analysis was only done in 2014.

That's over 50 years after it started being admitted in court.

And a large scale study from 2021 found that analysts come to different conclusions about a way a stain was made, about 8% of the time.

And that's because the same stain can come from many different mechanisms.

And the fact that blood differs from person to person, depending on how many red blood cells versus the plasma you have.

Men actually tend to have a 15% higher concentration of blood cells than women, which makes their blood more viscous.

Nowadays, investigators have new software which uses fluid dynamics to help them map these complex 3D seams.

So bloodstain pattern analysis is improving in accuracy, which is why it gets this middle spot in our list.

Okay. But surely fingerprints must have a lot of value in identification.

How unique do you think fingerprints are?

100

- I think they're pretty accurate.

101

- They're fingerprints. - Fingerprints.

102

- That's probably one. - That's number one.

103

- Yeah. - Okay. Okay.

104

I mean, yeah, you use fingerprints on your phone, you unlock it, you pay stuff, right?

105

- 'Cause fingerprints are unique.

106

Even when you have a passport, like they scan you when you enter a country.

107

- On March 11th, 2004, a terrorist organization operating in Madrid set off explosions on four commuter trains.

108

The attack killed 193 people and injured thousands more.

109

Quickly after, the police found a finger mark on a detonator bag left behind, and they matched it to Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Oregon.

110

There's only one problem, there are no records of Mayfield even leaving the US.

111

He doesn't even own a passport.

112

So how could he have pulled this off?

113

- I honestly felt like I was being framed because I hadn't been outta the country for over 10 years, - But despite that, the fingerprint evidence against him was considered so damning that Mayfield was incarcerated.

114

But this wasn't a glitch.

115

It was built into the method from the start.

116

In 1890s Kolkata, the city's rich career criminals were avoiding jail by paying people to serve sentences for them.

117

It was a good tactic since, at the time, there was no practical way to identify a person.

118

So the criminals were getting away with it.

119

Three officers, Edward Henry, Azizul Haque and Hem Chandra Bose started taking the prints of everyone who came through the station, but they quickly ran into a problem.

120

When they got a suspect in, how could they crosscheck their prints against their own database when there were 10 prints per person and thousands of people coming through?

121

They needed a classification system.

122

Haque proposed that they should look at whether a fingerprint has a whorl.

123

It's the spiral pattern that a person might have on their fingers.

124

And because each of your 10 digits can either have a whorl or not, there are a total of two to the power of 10 or 1024 ways your whorls can be arranged.

125

So the officers just built 1024 wooden pigeon holes to organize these fingerprints.

126

Okay. But what if like me, you don't have a whorl?

127

Well, two thirds of the population actually don't.

128

So the system had to go further.

129

Once you have a pigeonhole number, you go for additional layers of identification.

130

Some of the additional categories that you could assign included whether you had a plain arch, which was denoted with the letter A, or whether you had a tented arch, which was denoted with a T.

131

Similarly, you could look at which side of the finger this loop structure is on.

132

And with a few more identifiers like these, we get a much more in-depth classification, one that would go on to be used for the next 100 years.

133

Famously, the world's first fingerprint bureau, which was established in London in the New Scotland Yard, used this fingerprinting system.

134

- I started in 1988 with Metropolitan Police in forensic services.

135

- Could you paint a picture of what the room would've looked like with all these pigeonholes?

136

How big was this space?

137

- So we're looking at a space of about 30 to 40 meters in length and about 10 to 20 meters in width.

138

The collection at the time was about 3 to 4 million I think.

139

- That is intense.

140

Yeah, that's wow.

141

- It's a lot of fingerprints.

142

- Now, today's system takes into account these little details along the ridges.

143

It's called friction ridge analysis.

144

And well, it's no surprise that combing through pigeon holes for these would've taken weeks, but online databases today can basically do it in minutes.

145

No way this phone works.

146

Hello? - Howdy, Gregor.

147

Just trying to get a hold of you.

148

- Why are you calling me through this thing?

149

You have no data?

150

Just get Saily.

151

- You know, I travel a lot for filming.

152

I actually just got to London.

153

I always wanna be able to connect to the internet as soon as I land, and with the help of today's sponsor, Saily, it couldn't be easier.

154

First, you just scan the QR code and download the Saily app, then you search your destination, the UK, for example.

155

And next you just pick a data plan.

156

And finally, during checkout, apply the coupon code Veritasium to get your exclusive 15% discount.

157

No more dodgy cafe wifi or unexpected roaming charges.

158

All you need to do is just switch on your mobile data when you land, and that's it.

159

Saily works with all iPhone and Android devices.

160

And once an eSIM is installed, you can keep adding plans in the app for each new trip.

161

And in the rare case that your phone isn't compatible with Saily, you can get a full refund at no questions asked.

162

I've gone with the Saily Ultra Plan, which gets you unlimited data globally with access to airport lounges, fast track services, and NordVPN, NordPass, NordLocker and Incogni on top.

163

So to stay connected on the go for an affordable price, you can scan this QR code, download Saily, and get 15% off your plan with the coupon code Veritasium.

164

So I wanna thank Saily for sponsoring this part of the video, and now back to our case.

165

So if all the details are painstakingly placed into these databases, then where's the problem?

166

How is Brandon Mayfield falsely accused?

167

Well, say you have a mark from a scene and you wanna run it through the US fingerprint database, you can't actually search the database using the whole mark because you first need to identify a number of features on the print.

168

These are called minutiae.

169

It's where the ridge line split or end.

170

- To even search the database, you need a minimum number of minutiae points.

171

It's very efficiently sorted, hundreds of million prints, but it cannot make an ID.

172

So what it does, it pulls out the most similar ones, at least 10, 20 up to 40 in some jurisdiction.

173

And then the human examiner has to compare.

174

- This works in theory, but the problem is how these minutiae are identified in the first place.

175

- What is interesting in my research published scientific reviewed research, the same thing one examiner see only three minutiae and one sees 10 minutiae.

176

So 10 minutiae is enough to run the database.

177

However, if the other are only the three minutiae, they couldn't run it.

178

So whether you find a criminal or not depends on the luck of the draw.

179

Even if you give the same pair of prints to the same examiner twice, 10% of the time, they will reach a different decision.

180

- And these disagreements are from controlled studies where the examiners had no context about the crime, but in reality, they often do.

181

As many as 42% of the requests that fingerprint experts process state whether a suspect has a criminal record.

182

- In a recent case that I was involved where a firearm was involved and a forensic firearm expert had to decide whether a bullet was actually fired on the firearm, on the suspect.

183

On the former submission form that was given to the forensic scientist, it said that it's homicide, it said the age of the suspect and the victim, and it even said the race.

184

It said the suspect is black, and the person who died the victim was white.

185

- For over a century, experts have held so much trust in fingerprints that in the FBI case for Mayfield, the examiners claimed with 100% certainty that that was his mark.

186

This likely happened because when another fingerprint expert was brought in to verify the match, they probably already knew the verdict of the original analyst, and they probably also knew the stakes of what a match could mean for the case, which made it all the easier to agree with the initial verdict.

187

Even the fingerprint expert working for the defense agreed that the mark matched Mayfield's fingerprint when in reality, it belonged to a man who had links to terrorist organizations in Spain.

188

This is the impact of conformity bias.

189

- So all of this pressure, all of this context and intervention in the forensic science, I say to the police and the prosecutor, leave the forensic examiners alone.

190

Give them independence of mind to make decision based on the relevant scientific evidence and do the work rather than telling them about the case.

191

- Well, if there were issues with all these other techniques, why don't we just use, - DNA? - DNA first?

192

- Yeah. - DNA has got to be surely, - DNA should be top.

193

- It has to be DNA because, - Okay, okay.

194

- You already know everyone have their own DNA.

195

- But even DNA analysis can fall prey to the same problems.

196

Back in the 80s, you had to do this with a sample the size of a dime of blood or saliva.

197

But today you can do it with less than a pin hair's worth.

198

In fact, just this year a 61-year-old cold case was solved with just 0.4 nanograms of DNA.

199

But the paradox is, the increasing sensitivity of DNA analysis could also be its downfall.

200

In 2012, paramedics in California responded to a call about a severely intoxicated homeless man.

201

They treated him and took him to the hospital, but along the way, they also picked up traces of his DNA on their equipment and gloves.

202

Then later that night, they responded to a murder of a businessman and they accidentally transferred the homeless man's DNA to the victim's fingernails.

203

Because of that, the homeless man, Lucas Anderson, was charged with murder and he faced the death penalty despite being hospitalized at the time the crime occurred.

204

He spent five months in jail before charges were finally dropped.

205

- So this is trace DNA and touch DNA, where you can get this kind of DNA transfer that happens.

206

- I see how that could be abused easily.

207

So my DNA could be in a place I've never been before.

208

- Yeah. - And if DNA is deposited under the right conditions, say a dark dry place, it can persist for hundreds of years.

209

- And if, for example, somebody touches a door handle, well, loads of people are gonna be touching a door handle, so you're definitely going to get more than one profile off of there.

210

- These samples with multiple DNA profiles are called DNA mixtures, and they have been found to be the most common source of error in DNA interpretation.

211

- Some people shed more cells than others, so the majority of the DNA that you're getting off of that door handle may not be from the last person who touched it.

212

- The problem in interpreting a mixture comes down to how a sample gets analyzed.

213

The most common way to do it uses short tandem repeats or STRs.

214

DNA is made up of four nucleotides, G, A, T and C.

215

And the SDR method looks at how chunks of DNA, usually three to five nucleotides long repeat in your genome.

216

For example, G-A-T-A, G-A-T-A and so on.

217

For one person, they might have G-A-T-A repeat six times, whereas another individual might have nine repetitions.

218

A standard SDR test will look at around 20 locations on your genome for where these repeats can occur, and it will count how many repeats you have in each location.

219

- So if you are looking at 20 of these markers and you've got one from mom and one from dad, you're actually getting 40 different genetic markers coming back.

220

So the chances of somebody having the same combination of genetic markers as you is around one in a billion.

221

- Here's what a crime scene sample containing just one contributor looks like on an STR test.

222

You can see how it's easy to compare this to a sample from a suspect.

223

But if the crime scene sample contains DNA from multiple individuals, then their profiles will begin to overlap, all with varying signal strengths.

224

And the more individuals in the mixture, the more difficult these results are to interpret.

225

With four or more individuals, it becomes increasingly hard to compare a clean DNA profile from a suspect to the mixture.

226

And now it's hard to say whether the suspect was actually in the sample.

227

You just can't tell which peak belongs to who.

228

It's kind of like having five people talk to you at the same time.

229

You can hear all the noise, but it's really hard to single one out.

230

Now, some labs claim they can reliably separate samples of up to five individuals.

231

And to test this, the National Institute of Standards and Technology ran a controlled study in 2013.

232

They've sent out a DNA mixture from a fictional crime scene to labs all across the US.

233

Their aim to see how different facilities interpret the same mixture of four people's DNA profiles.

234

69% of the labs got the analysis wrong.

235

And despite the sample being deliberately complex, only 21% of the labs deemed the mix inconclusive and not possible to give a comparison on.

236

After NIST published the study, new checks have been imposed to address some of the issues, but there's still no lower limit on the quality or the quantity of a DNA sample that labs are permitted to analyze.

237

And labs themselves still decide if something is too mixed or too partial.

238

Now, you might think that using the entire sequence genome would be better, but that can actually introduce different kinds of problems.

239

Now, your analyst has access to hair color, eye color, ethnicity, and that could introduce discrimination in the way the sample is being analyzed.

240

- This is where the guidelines and the guardrails have to come in here.

241

What are the genetic markers that are being used for this?

242

This is where the really interesting ethical questions come into it.

243

People think that DNA is like the silver bullet that will answer everything.

244

And it is true.

245

DNA evidence is incredibly powerful, it's amazing for identifying individuals, but DNA can never be taken out of context.

246

- Now, the point of this video isn't to bash forensics.

247

I think it's still better for us to live in a world where forensics exist rather than one where they don't.

248

But if we want to keep calling forensics a science, we need to continue the work of the people who actually made this video possible, who've dedicated their lives to already reassessing the field and making it as accurate as it is today.

249

Do you think it's fair calling this a forensic science?

250

- I still think there's science in it because you're trying to do the best with the information you have, which is often times what science is trying to do is, with the information you have, this is the conclusions you make until you know something better.

251

- Hey, one last thing.

252

Last year we launched the official Veritasium game, Elements of Truth.

253

It's a trivia game with 800 questions covering science and technology, and we on the team get quite competitive.

254

So every time we play things get very saucy.

255

See, there's this mechanic where you can't only guess an answer, you have to put down a number between one and 10 to gauge how confident you are that your answer is right.

256

So it gets very fun very quickly.

257

The game is coming out later this year, so if you're interested in pre-ordering, you can click the link in the description, which will take you to the Elements of Truth website.

258

Thank you so much for your support in this project.

259

And as always, thanks for watching.

📺 उसी चैनल से

Something is jamming GPS over Europe. Here's what we found

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

The Absurd Engineering Behind the Internet

✨ अनुशंसित वीडियो

49 वाक्य

How forensic scientists fight crime by analyzing handwriting

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

66 वाक्य

What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

25 वाक्य

Fauci Funded Wuhan Lab Leak Shocking Bioweapon Truth!

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

137 वाक्य

Bộ XƯƠNG trong rừng | Nhân chủng học pháp y | giáo sư Sue Black

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

233 वाक्य

Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

530 वाक्य

Human Immortality 4K | Can Science Defeat Aging?

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

385 वाक्य

Is spider web really stronger than steel?

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

143 वाक्य

What Happens When Science Clashes with the Public?: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #7

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

124 वाक्य

These Crimes Will Send You To Death Row

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

166 वाक्य

A Few Good Men – Courtroom Scene

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

55 वाक्य

Nanotechnology: technology on a small scale | IELTS LISTENING TEST | SECTION-4

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

यह C1 स्तर का स्पीकिंग पाठ वीडियो “We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years” पर आधारित है। सबसे ज़्यादा दोहराए गए शब्द ये हैं: Dna, mark, hair, fingerprint, forensic। इस वीडियो में शैडोइंग के लिए 259 वाक्य और 4064 शब्द हैं। बोला गया हिस्सा 23:19 लंबा है। वक्ता लगभग 174 शब्द प्रति मिनट की स्वाभाविक गति से बोलता है, जो रोज़मर्रा की बातचीत के करीब है। 82% शब्द अंग्रेज़ी के 3,000 सबसे आम शब्दों में से हैं; बाकी शब्द अभ्यास से पहले देख लेना अच्छा रहेगा।

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो के 15 सबसे कठिन शब्द, उच्चारण और अर्थ के साथ:

शब्द	उच्चारण	अर्थ
examiner संज्ञा	/əɡˈzæmɪnɚ/	जाँचकर्ता
stain संज्ञा	/steɪn/	दाग, दाग़
firearm संज्ञा	/ˈfaɪəɹˌɑː(ɹ)m/	अग्निशस्त्र
genome संज्ञा	/ˈd͡ʒiː.noʊm/	संजीन
interpret क्रिया	/ɪnˈtɜː.pɹɪt/	निर्वचन करना, अर्थ लगाना
investigator संज्ञा	/ɪnˈvɛs.tɪˌɡeɪ̯.təː/	जाँचकर्ता, अन्वेषक
sickle संज्ञा	/ˈsɪkl̩/	दरांती, हँसिया
trigonometry संज्ञा	/ˌtɹɪɡəˈnɒmətɹi/	त्रिकोणमिति
pigeon संज्ञा	/ˈpɪ.dʒɪn/	कबूतर, कपोत
analyze क्रिया	/ˈæn.əˌlaɪz/	विश्लेषण करना
width संज्ञा	/ˈwɪtθ/	चौड़ाई
arch संज्ञा	/ɑɹt͡ʃ/	चाप
verdict संज्ञा	/ˈvɜː.dɪkt/	निर्णय, फ़ैसला
passport संज्ञा	/ˈpæspɔɹt/	पासपोर्ट, पारपत्र
accuse क्रिया	/əˈkjuz/	आरोप लगाना

वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब

शब्द	अर्थ
come back क्रिया	वापस आना
lie down क्रिया	लेटना
pick up क्रिया	उठाना
sit down क्रिया	बैठना
stand up क्रिया	उठना

दोहराने लायक वाक्य

वीडियो के छोटे, पूरे वाक्य जिन्हें आप रोज़ की बातचीत में इस्तेमाल कर सकते हैं:

What are you thinking?
What do you think of bite marks?
How unique do you think fingerprints are?
You have no data?
Do you think it's fair calling this a forensic science?

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:

संरचना	वीडियो में
Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है	has been found · has been · has always been
Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है	has been found · is set · is distributed
Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी	testing, which is · women, which makes · accuracy, which is

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

वक्ता 49 बार संक्षिप्त रूपों का प्रयोग करता है, जैसे don't, you're, can't। इन्हें वैसे ही छोटा बोलें जैसा आप सुनते हैं।

“th” की ध्वनियाँ: width /ˈwɪtθ/, ethical /ˈɛθɪkəl/
“sh” और “zh” की ध्वनियाँ: minutia /maɪ̯ˈn(j)uːʃ(iː)ə/, measurement /ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/, submission /səbˈmɪʃən/
लंबे शब्द — बलाघात सही रखें: minutia /maɪ̯ˈn(j)uːʃ(iː)ə/, examiner /əɡˈzæmɪnɚ/, microscopic /ˌmaɪ.kɹəˈskɑ.pɪk/, investigator /ɪnˈvɛs.tɪˌɡeɪ̯.təː/, trigonometry /ˌtɹɪɡəˈnɒmətɹi/

हिंदी भाषियों के लिए मुश्किल ध्वनियाँ:

/v/ और /w/ का फ़र्क़ — /v/ में ऊपर के दाँत निचले होंठ को छूते हैं, /w/ में होंठ गोल होते हैं: whorl /(h)wɔː(ɹ)l/, investigator /ɪnˈvɛs.tɪˌɡeɪ̯.təː/, width /ˈwɪtθ/, verdict /ˈvɜː.dɪkt/, glove /ɡlʌv/
/z/ — इसे “ज” (/dʒ/) न बनाएँ: forensic /fəˈɹɛn.zɪk/, examiner /əɡˈzæmɪnɚ/, forensics /fəˈɹɛn.zɪks/, analyze /ˈæn.əˌlaɪz/, accuse /əˈkjuz/
शब्द की शुरुआत में s + व्यंजन — पहले “इ” न जोड़ें: stain /steɪn/, scan /skæn/, sponsor /ˈspɒn.səː/

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

पहले बिना बोले पूरा वीडियो एक बार सुनें और जो शब्द नहीं आते उन्हें लिख लें।
0.75× गति से शुरू करें, एक-एक वाक्य की शैडोइंग करें, और सहज लगने पर सामान्य गति पर लौटें।
अपनी आवाज़ रिकॉर्ड करें और मूल से तुलना करें, ख़ासकर examiner, stain, firearm जैसे शब्दों पर ध्यान दें।

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

शैडोइंग तकनीक: पूरी चरण-दर-चरण गाइड पढ़ें →

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

Something is jamming GPS over Europe. Here's what we found

The Absurd Engineering Behind the Internet

Why It Was Almost Impossible to Make the Blue LED

You've (Likely) Been Playing The Game Of Life Wrong

We're trying something new...

How does light 'know' the shortest path?

The CIA's new tech doesn't make sense

Why does every mammal get 1 billion heartbeats in their life?

Why Cold Drinks Were Deadly Before 1914

Exposing The Flaw In Our Phone System

Our Greatest Delusion

The Most Controversial Problem in Philosophy

Why Boredom is Good For You

Why Are 96,000,000 Black Balls on This Reservoir?

Explaining Pi With Pizza

5 Fun Physics Phenomena

The Most Misunderstood Concept in Physics

Falling ladders - why does this happen?

How a slinky falls in slow motion #shorts

We're 99.9% sure this pattern is true, but no one can prove it

How forensic scientists fight crime by analyzing handwriting

What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think

Fauci Funded Wuhan Lab Leak Shocking Bioweapon Truth!

Bộ XƯƠNG trong rừng | Nhân chủng học pháp y | giáo sư Sue Black

Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??

Human Immortality 4K | Can Science Defeat Aging?

Is spider web really stronger than steel?

What Happens When Science Clashes with the Public?: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #7

These Crimes Will Send You To Death Row

A Few Good Men – Courtroom Scene

Nanotechnology: technology on a small scale | IELTS LISTENING TEST | SECTION-4

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब

दोहराने लायक वाक्य

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?