BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 30.7% saturation with 192 hits. Analysis detected 1,269 faulty-reasoning hits from 625 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,511 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.

A Harvard astronomer known for challenging the scientific establishment has been chosen by the Trump administration to lead a team of handpicked scientists that will analyze potential national security risks posed by unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs). 
Avi Loeb, a highly respected cosmologist who served as head of Harvard’s astronomy for nearly a decade, was appointed to helm the newly formed UAP Science Advisory Council. 
The panel will investigate origins of unidentified orbs and other mysterious objects reported by military officials in recent years. 
Established to evaluate national security risks, the council will report to a higher-level UAP Governance Board overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 
The initiative is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to increase transparency and declassify information regarding the highly debated issue. 
Also selected for the council is Timothy Gallaudet, an oceanographer and retired U.S. 
Navy Rear Admiral who has previously advocated for disclosure regarding recovered craft, and Ben Lamm, a billionaire tech entrepreneur. 
The establishment of the council comes amidst bipartisan congressional pressure on the White House for further disclosure, fueled by arguments from Republican lawmakers that elements of the federal government have historically suppressed evidence of extraterrestrial encounters. 
Nonetheless, the Pentagon office tasked with investigating UAPs has asserted that no definitive evidence of alien life has been discovered. 
Loeb says he approaches the matter from a practical perspective rather than buying into sweeping cover-up theories. 
“My impression is the government is baffled by not being able to infer the nature of some of these objects,” he stated. 
The Israeli-American researcher has long theorized that extraterrestrial technology could already be on Earth, first capturing widespread public attention in 2017. 
At the time, he proposed that ‘Oumuamua  an interstellar cookie-shaped object passing through our solar system  showed signs of being an artificial alien artifact rather than a standard space rock. 
He later established the Galileo Project at Harvard University to search for evidence of extraterrestrial life. 
Then, in 2023, he spearheaded an expedition that retrieved metallic fragments from the Pacific Ocean, proposing that the debris could have originated from alien technology. 
Predictably, Loeb’s willingness to think outside of the box has drawn pushback from the academic establishment. 
Some institutional peers have criticized his fast-paced style and his willingness to share information directly with the public rather than waiting for slow-moving, traditional peer-review processes. 
Arizona State University astrophysicist Steve Desch has often challenged Loeb’s theories, claiming Loeb’s role will hinder the project’s traditional outcomes. 
“I don’t know what’s going to come of this, but we’re not going to get any closer to answering these questions with him in charge,” Desch said. 
Loeb, however, has disregarded his critics’ comments, saying that they lack the imagination needed to explore new ideas, the Associated Press said. 
The outlet further stated that Loeb has promised a grounded approach to his new position within the administration and will tackle issues from a national security perspective. 
“It’s like a detective story,” Loeb said in an interview. 
“It’s a lot of fun, as long as you don’t pay too much attention to the critics.” 
Following their inaugural meeting last month, the committee immediately went to work, submitting a formal request to the Pentagon for more than 50 multimedia files and documents regarding documented UAP events. 
While the proceedings of Loeb’s group remain confidential, he has committed to public briefings and the creation of a website to disclose their results. 
Moving forward, Loeb said he aims to follow the science without distraction. 
“Let’s keep our eyes on the orbs,” he said, “not the social media.” 
Stay informed! 
Receive breaking news alerts directly to your inbox for free. 
Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.6%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 5.0%One America News Network: 4.6%Confirmation Bias14.6%This article: 4.2%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.1%One America News Network: 2.4%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 3.4%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.7%One America News Network: 3.9%Availability Heuristic3.4%This article: 5.1%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.7%One America News Network: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias3.5%This article: 13.4%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 12.0%One America News Network: 15.3%Framing Effect13.4%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.8%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.7%One America News Network: 1.1%Status Quo Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.9%One America News Network: 4.3%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 4.3%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.1%One America News Network: 1.8%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 14.2%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 10.7%One America News Network: 11.8%Negativity Bias14.2%This article: 6.2%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.2%One America News Network: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias6.2%This article: 4.2%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.1%One America News Network: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error4.2%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.5%One America News Network: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.5%One America News Network: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.4%One America News Network: 5.3%Halo Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.3%One America News Network: 2.0%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.6%One America News Network: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.1%This article: 10.4%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.7%One America News Network: 2.5%Ad Hominem10.4%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.7%One America News Network: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 30.7%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 5.9%One America News Network: 6.3%Appeal to Authority30.7%This article: 4.8%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.6%One America News Network: 1.8%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.2%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 4.4%One America News Network: 5.4%Hasty Generalization15.2%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.3%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 9.5%One America News Network: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion0.3%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.3%One America News Network: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.6%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 3.4%One America News Network: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 5.4%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.2%Tu Quoque5.4%This article: 3.8%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.0%One America News Network: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.8%This article: 1.9%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.9%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.7%One America News Network: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.5%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.8%One America News Network: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.5%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Personal Incredulity3.5%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.2%One America News Network: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 3.1%One America News Network: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 5.6%One America News Network: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.4%One America News Network: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 3.8%One America News Network: 3.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.4%This article: 2.4%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.7%One America News Network: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.4%

625 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers30%attributed speech438writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coveragePentagon office • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAvi Loeb • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAvi Loeb • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Desch • 27 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 27 words • 0.0% coverageAvi Loeb • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAvi Loeb • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAvi Loeb • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAvi Loeb • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Avi Loeb

100%flagged-word coverage
91 attributed words49% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Politically Right Leaning -16.2 ptsWriter: 16.2%Avi Loeb: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Avi Loeb: 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.