SoCal beachgoer makes horrifying discovery in sand 20%

By Katie Jerkovich0%

6/20/2026, 10:45:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 326 faulty-reasoning hits from 217 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.3% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,624 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.50% of the article peer group.

An Orange County woman made a shocking discovery during a walk along the beach when she came across a piece of human skull in the sand. 
San Clemente resident Katherine Kinnison said she was walking near Linda Lane Beach on Wednesday when she spotted something strange sticking out of the sand. 
She initially thought the find  the bottom half of a jawbone with four teeth still attached  could have belonged to a sea animal before realizing it was human. 
“I had this thought, ‘Don’t touch it and go alert somebody,’” Kinnison told The California Post. 
“I found seal bones in the past and parts of different fish vertebrae,” Kinneson explained. 
“I still don’t think I have processed what it is.” 
Kinnison notified area lifeguards, who contacted the sheriff’s department. 
“They do believe it’s of Native American heritage,” Sgt. 
Lizbeth Gwisdalla told The Post. 
“And they do not believe it is anything suspicious or malicious.” 
Kinnison cited a combination of recent high tides and sand replacement for potentially unearthing the jawbone. 
The area of Orange County where Kinnison made the discovery was once home to the Native American group of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. 
The California Post contacted the Native American Heritage Committee for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%Katie Jerkovich: 2.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 13.8%Katie Jerkovich: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias13.8%This article: 6.9%Katie Jerkovich: 5.9%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.1%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Katie Jerkovich: 13.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect15.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Katie Jerkovich: 1.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias7.4%This article: 4.6%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.6%This article: 15.2%Katie Jerkovich: 14.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 3.7%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.4%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.3%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.1%Katie Jerkovich: 2.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority4.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 5.6%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.4%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.2%Katie Jerkovich: 11.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion15.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.4%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.4%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.9%Katie Jerkovich: 7.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal6.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.1%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.6%Katie Jerkovich: 5.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote16.6%This article: 4.1%Katie Jerkovich: 2.5%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.1%This article: 15.2%Katie Jerkovich: 10.1%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice15.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.9%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 3.5%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

217 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers54%attributed speech99writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageKatherine Kinnison • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Kinnison • 16 words • 100.0% coverageKatherine Kinnison • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Kinnison • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLizbeth Gwisdalla • 9 words • 100.0% coverageLizbeth Gwisdalla • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLizbeth Gwisdalla • 11 words • 100.0% coverageKatherine Kinnison • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageThe California Post • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lizbeth Gwisdalla

80%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words21% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Unattributed Quote+80.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lizbeth Gwisdalla: 80.0%80.0%Quote-first Misdirection+36.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lizbeth Gwisdalla: 36.0%36.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.3 ptsWriter: 33.3%Lizbeth Gwisdalla: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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