It is not real.
If it’s real, I hope he doesn’t mind some friendly criticism which I was happy to provide. 
Uses the same handle as the real NDT does on twitter. I’ve watched a bit of startalk, and his phrasing is similar enough. Didn’t go off the handle when “corrected” by a Doper.
I wouldn’t place a bet on it, but I would actually say better than even odds that it’s real.
ETA: wonder if the real Joe Rogan will show up in the thread in his honor.
Do you think NDT goes around doing Google searches for message boards that he can comment on?
Assuming that it IS really him, that thread would be an awesome one for Phil Plait’s return to the Dope.
Speaking as the Doper in question, I have to ask: why is “corrected” in quotes? 
ETA: I also find it curious that our new join, Neil deGrasse Tyson, was not motivated to contribute anything to the “Information loss in theoretical physics” thread. Surely an astrophysicist would have some observations? Or about the James Webb Space Telescope thread? Nothing to add their, Neil? Hey. c’mon, we welcomed you as a new member of our community, remember?
Because I was not sure that corrected was quite the right word to use there. “Clarified”, “Elucidated”, “Informed”, or the word that you used, “Contradicted.”
He did not say that there was no such study, he said he was not aware of any such study.
I wanna believe it’s real, but it seems a stretch.
I know absolutely nothing about anything being discussed in that thread, so in that sense have nothing to go on (as in no idea of the quality of his posts or anything), but I was fascinated by this. So, sincerely wondering: Why do you believe it’s real? (I don’t want to start the puns again, but there is a certain aroma…)
Typical of humans. So many people have lost so much money…
Hey, @neiltyson, come on down! We’d love to have you here in the Pit. We love astrophysics down here. Come on down! 
It would be an odd thread to join if it was someone looking for attention (there are plenty of physics threads with a lot more viewers), it is consistent with what NdGT would say about the topic, it is the same style as his writing, and I lose nothing if I believe it’s him and turn out to be wrong.
This is one of those situations that works well with the heuristic rule: “If there are two possibilities, believe the one that’s easier to disprove, until disproof is provided”* - it’s easy for @neiltyson to disprove the proposition that this a spoof account (just post on Twitter https://twitter.com/neiltyson (or on his website)) something like "I just joined the SDMB), but almost impossible to disprove the idea that it’s a real account. Therefore, until “spoof account” is disproved, I’ll tend to believe that it’s a spoof account, although I’d love to be wrong.
*This is the principle used in trials - it’s easier to disprove innocence than to disprove guilt, so believe in innocence until sufficient evidence has been presented to disprove innocence.
I can agree, Andy, when there’s some need to determine truth or fiction. But there’s no reason for him to prove he’s genuine. He’s not asking us to get emotionally invested in some story, he’s not asking us to donate to some GoFundMe. Why would he care who believes him? Believe him or don’t, it’s all the same to him.
Good point. I’m not demanding proof. As long as this fellow posts good information, I approve of him continuing here - even if I withhold judgment about whether he’s the real Neil or someone who posts the same kind of informed posts that the real Neil would.
I believe that there is a principle here on this board – not sure if it’s an explicit rule or just something implicitly understood – against misrepresentation. And I think it’s important on a board that has dedicated itself to fighting ignorance. Whether we like it or not, “argument from authority” is a powerful influencer. And making arguments when you think you’re discussing something with a well-known authority when you otherwise wouldn’t even bother is the desired response by both trollers and scammers – in this case, the scammer is not stealing your money, but stealing your time while wallowing in the newly-gained attention.
Yes, I responded to “Neil deGrasse Tyson”, but I responded in a way that was snarky but not blatantly offensive, in order to take exception to a statement that he made. I’m not likely to devote much more time to engaging with our new join.
Think about how the real NDT would go about joining the board, in the unlikely event that he should ever want to. If it were me, I would start by contacting the board administration, state my interest in participating, and establish my authenticity through this private communication. There could then be an announcement that this handle represents the genuine individual. Twitter deals with this sort of issue via their “authenticated” checkmark designations.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
If you treat him as though he is the real deal, and you get it wrong, so what? What have you lost?
Well that’s hard to answer without knowing exactly what treating him that way would entail exactly. I certainly don’t see much to be gained. What if the person in question isn’t who they say they are, they put forward some ideas that you then spread further in their name? What if these are ideas that the actual person doesn’t agree with? How much trouble do numerous famous people have with people believing untrue rumours about them? My guess is more than at least some of them find totally harmless.
In general I’m just surprised that people would believe something like this quite so readily. My default position is that it’s best to doubt everybody’s credentials online. Especially in a forum where other people obviously aren’t using their real names, why you would come in and explicitly state who you are? What, other than undue authority would one have to gain doing that?
There are examples of people pretending to be somebody famous on social media, and they were able to do so because the actual person didn’t have an account. I know of at least example where that actual person then signed up only to put out the message: “Due to numerous imposters pretending to be me, I have been forced to set up an account. Now, F*** off.”
So that all is good reason for me personally to approach any situation like this with quite a high degree of skeptisism.
But not an odd one for the real person to be the one that motivates them to sign up, using their own name? As I said, i don’t know the intricacies of the subject, so I wouldn’t know if its importance would be a big enough reason for this person to think they have to correct some wrong ideas or similar.
Are these hard to achieve? By which I mean mimic.
I’ll emphasize again I have no understanding of any of the actual topic, I’m purely fascinated by the what makes the posts convincing. Given that caveat, just from reading the posts I couldn’t figure out any aspects of the text that stood out as a recognisable style. Could you give some example?
And as to what you have to lose, I think that would at least be some impartiality regarding the content of what this person writes. Put another way, the only reason to use the name whether it’s ‘real’ or not, would seem to be to gain some authority.