Wild Video Shows Quadcopter Drone Plucking Man From Raging Floodwaters ⁠62%

By Joe Wilkins⁠84%

7/8/2026, 2:23:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 54.1% saturation with 178 hits. Analysis detected 1,032 faulty-reasoning hits from 329 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (8,433 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.50% of the article peer group.

Two men in Southern China are alive thanks to a daring rescue involving a hulking quadcopter drone. 
Footage shared by Chinese state media Xinhua shows the moment a stranded flood victim is plucked from the top of an oil tanker by a drone in Guangxi, an autonomous region bordering Vietnam. 
After being strapped into a harness by a brave rescue worker, the man is whisked from the tanker, holding onto the support lines for dear life as the drone carries him above the raging waters. 
As the brief clip shows, the flood reached about halfway up nearby transmission poles, and well beyond the first floor of nearby buildings. 
Elsewhere in Guangxi, China’s CGTN reported emergency responders deployed telecomm drones in order to restore internet connection to flooded areas, allowing flood victims to connect to first responders and loved ones outside the disaster area. 
Guangxi bore the brunt of typhoon Maysak , which ripped its way inland through China’s Southern coast. 
It left a trail of destruction in its wake, forcing over 130,000 to evacuate as rainfall totals reached as much as 35 inches over a few short days. 
In one flooded village, rising waters even liberated hundreds of snakes from a breeding farm, which went on to terrify stranded disaster victims waiting for their own rescuers to arrive. 
North of Guangxi in China’s Hubei province, a severe storm resulting from the typhoon created a monster tornado powerful enough to suck a man out of his 12th-story apartment, while unrelenting rain unleashed massive landslides across the western province of Gansu. 
With China bracing for yet another massive typhoon , the country’s emergency response capacity is facing a major stress test — drones and all. 
More on drones: The Number of Drones Being Deployed to Surveil Anti-Trump Protestors Is Staggering 
The post Wild Video Shows Quadcopter Drone Plucking Man From Raging Floodwaters, Whisking Him to Safety appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 6.8%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 32.2%Joe Wilkins: 6.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic32.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 35.6%Joe Wilkins: 13.2%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect35.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.9%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 7.3%Joe Wilkins: 4.7%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias7.3%This article: 53.5%Joe Wilkins: 25.8%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias53.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.7%Joe Wilkins: 5.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority20.7%This article: 7.3%Joe Wilkins: 2.6%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma7.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.2%Joe Wilkins: 12.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization5.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.6%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon4.6%This article: 15.2%Joe Wilkins: 11.5%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion15.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.5%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 29.2%Joe Wilkins: 4.3%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal29.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.4%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.6%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 54.1%Joe Wilkins: 26.8%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice54.1%This article: 10.6%Joe Wilkins: 1.8%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination10.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 5.0%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.9%

329 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers21%attributed speech261writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageXinhua • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageCGTN • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CGTN

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words51% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CGTN: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-68.2 ptsWriter: 68.2%CGTN: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%CGTN: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%CGTN: 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.