Gothamist77%

Groups seen going in and out of two Brooklyn manholes, NYPD says 9%

By Ryan Kost75%

5/30/2026, 5:24:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Anecdotal, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.5% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 289 faulty-reasoning hits from 227 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.8% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,974 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.30% of the article peer group.

Police are investigating after groups of people were spotted entering and exiting two manholes on opposite ends of Brooklyn early Friday morning. 
In Gravesend, seven unidentified individuals entered the sewer system near McDonald Avenue and Colin Place at around 11 p.m. 
Thursday, according to the NYPD. 
They were seen leaving around 2 a.m. 
Surveillance video from the Flatbush Scoop shows the group exiting the manhole one by one before gathering near two parked cars, where they appeared to remove soiled clothing and clean themselves off. 
No arrests were made, police said. 
In another incident in Williamsburg, eight unidentified individuals entered the sewer system near Heyward Street and Bedford Avenue around 1 a.m. 
Friday, according to the NYPD. 
They exited around 3:40 a.m. and left in a vehicle. 
No arrests were made and the investigation is ongoing. 
Officers conducted searches at both locations and found nothing, according to the NYPD. 
The 62nd Precinct posted on X that the area is “safe and free of hazards.” 
The city’s Department of Environmental Location said it had inspected the sewer infrastructure at the Gravesend location and said it found no damage. 
It stressed entering sewers is both illegal and dangerous, with hazards including noxious gases, unstable surfaces and flooding risks. 
It is unclear whether the two incidents are connected. 
Confirmation Bias
5.7%
Anchoring Bias
9.7%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
11.9%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
6.6%
Pessimism Bias
12.3%
Negativity Bias
22.5%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
19.8%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
14.1%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
2.2%
Biased Writer Voice
14.1%
Indoctrination
8.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

227 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.