Pentagon makes third drop of UFO files including fresh details on unexplained ‘orbs’ ⁠74%

By Ariana Baio⁠0%

6/12/2026, 12:50:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Anecdotal, and Recency Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 67.4% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 741 faulty-reasoning hits from 181 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,315 of 20,370 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.90% of the article peer group.

The Department of Defense released a third tranche of documents related to UFOs Friday, including several recent recounts of unidentified glowing “orbs” captured on videos by bystanders. 
The newly-released batch of files, contains reports from the CIA, Defense Department, FBI and other intelligence agencies dating back to 1949. 
While some are analyses of flying objects, many are also firsthand accounts of “orbs” or unidentified objects in the sky. 
One report, from July 2025, states that two eyewitnesses saw “an intense bright light” in their backyard and found two “orbs” described as a “brilliant red sphere” that also contained a “white plasma ‘sun.’” 
Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell said the release contained declassified and historical unidentified anomalous phenomena and that the Defense Department was working to release the next batch of files. 
“As the unprecedented levels of interest in both this topic and the Trump administration's historic transparency effort continue, WAR.GOV/UFO has received over 1.7 billion hits worldwide since the site's launch on May 8, 2026,” Parnell added. 
More follows… 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.5%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 44.8%Ariana Baio: 3.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic44.8%This article: 11.0%Ariana Baio: 0.8%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic11.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.3%The Independent: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Ariana Baio: 7.7%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.1%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.8%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.9%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.7%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Ariana Baio: 10.7%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 5.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 3.0%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.4%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.8%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.5%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 42.0%Ariana Baio: 1.6%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias42.0%This article: 18.8%Ariana Baio: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect18.8%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 5.0%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.1%Ariana Baio: 2.0%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority27.1%This article: 19.9%Ariana Baio: 1.4%The Independent: 1.5%False Dilemma19.9%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 3.8%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 19.9%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon19.9%This article: 19.9%Ariana Baio: 7.1%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion19.9%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.1%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.8%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.1%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof1.1%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 44.8%Ariana Baio: 2.2%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal44.8%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 67.4%Ariana Baio: 2.2%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)67.4%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.8%Ariana Baio: 2.6%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote18.8%This article: 18.8%Ariana Baio: 2.0%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection18.8%This article: 8.3%Ariana Baio: 8.0%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice8.3%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.5%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.8%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.9%

181 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker35%attributed speech117writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageSean Parnell • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSean Parnell • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sean Parnell

100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +56.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sean Parnell: 56.3%56.3%Unattributed Quote-29.1 ptsWriter: 29.1%Sean Parnell: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-29.1 ptsWriter: 29.1%Sean Parnell: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.8 ptsWriter: 12.8%Sean Parnell: 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.