ABC News⁠98%

New trove of eerie UFO files released by the Pentagon ⁠93%

7/11/2026, 12:33:40 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Anchoring Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 37% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 543 faulty-reasoning hits from 243 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 90.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠93% (1,054 of 14,081 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 92.50% of the video peer group.

Now to the Pentagon releasing its latest trove of files related to UFOs. 
The dozens of videos, images, and reports, some as recent as last year. 
Here's Perry Russom. 
>> Tonight, the eerie new videos released by the Pentagon showing more of what the government calls unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAPs. 40 new files today including 19 videos. 
One UAP described by a pilot as having flight characteristics unlike anything they had seen in their 28 years of military service. 
Two encounters allegedly happening just last year. 
One video shows a UAP in the clouds, at times partially hidden. 
The camera follows it for just over 2 minutes. 
A second video shows what looks like a six-pointed star bobbing in the skies above the Yellow Sea in Asia. 
Camera zooming in on this UAP from 2020. 
A partially redacted Pentagon report says it was about 12 to 15 ft tall. 
In 2015, the US military capturing a UAP speeding past their camera. 
Three new pictures released including this one taken on board the Columbia space shuttle in 1996. 
An object apparently floating in orbit around Earth. 
It's still not clear what any of these objects are. 
>> Rachel, so far the Pentagon has released more than 300 UAP files under directive by President Trump. 
The Pentagon says more files are coming, Rachel. 
>> Yeah, lots of interest in this. 
Okay, Perry. 
Thank you. 
Confirmation Bias
34.6%
Anchoring Bias
21.4%
Availability Heuristic
32.5%
Representativeness Heuristic
8.2%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
5.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
5.3%
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
16.9%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
37%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
2.9%
Appeal to Emotion
5.3%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
9.9%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
9.1%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
8.2%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
21.4%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
5.3%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

243 words analyzed.

Voice attribution · Experimental

Who is speaking?

See where attributed voices appear and how each speaker's manipulation signature differs from the writer's voice.

1speaker11%attributed speech217writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice

Perry Russom

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words100% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
Biased Writer Voice-6.0 pts
Writer 6.0%Perry Russom 0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Analysis

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