NTD100%

Videos Showing Men Mysteriously Popping out of NYC Sewers Go Viral 89%

6/2/2026, 8:22:21 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Burden of Proof, and Appeal to Authority, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 39.9% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 773 faulty-reasoning hits from 203 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.9% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,487 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 88.60% of the video peer group.

And videos of mysterious men going into New York City sewers has been getting a lot of attention on the internet. 
NTD's Shawn Marshall has what people are saying along with a possible explanation. 
>> Multiple videos are popping up showing groups of men descending into and ascending out of sewer manholes in Brooklyn and Queens in late May. 
Sometimes wearing solid coveralls and protective gear, carrying shovels and headlamps, staying under anywhere from two to four hours. 
NYPD's 62nd Precinct posted, "The NYPD and other agencies have completed their sweep, confirming the area safe and free of hazards." 
But residents worried about what's going on underground have posted concerns to social media. 
One says, "In the last 12 months, we've had unauthorized men going into manholes several times." 
Another asks, "Are they figuring out how to attack NYC?" 
In the past, people in the city have been caught sewer diving in search of gold, jewelry, and other valuables. 
And police are investigating this as a possible explanation. 
A spokesperson for the city's Department of Environmental Protection warns that entering the sewer system is both dangerous and illegal. 
Shawn Marshall, NTD News. 
Confirmation Bias
14.3%
Anchoring Bias
10.3%
Availability Heuristic
39.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
19.2%
Hindsight Bias
9.9%
Overconfidence Bias
10.8%
Framing Effect
25.1%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
14.8%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
4.9%
Negativity Bias
24.6%
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
12.3%
Primacy Effect
5.4%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
31%
False Dilemma
4.9%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
22.2%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
22.7%
Appeal to Emotion
28.6%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
33.5%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
36.9%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
9.4%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

203 words analyzed.

Analysis

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