Steven Spielberg says he's believed in alien life since 'Close Encounters' ⁠97%

6/7/2026, 4:10:00 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Optimism Bias, and Personal Incredulity, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 69.5% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 554 faulty-reasoning hits from 128 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 94.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (797 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 96.40% of the video peer group.

Look, I've been a believer since I made Close Encounters 50 years ago. 
Um but I and I wouldn't call that science fiction. 
I called it science speculation. 
When I did press on Close Encounters, they refused to call it science fiction. 
But I I I I I was certainly a believer of life elsewhere, but I was I would always say until I see a UAP or a UFO with my own eyes, I'm not going to categorically state that there's proof that there's life life from out there has come here. 
But I that I have changed that because I'm now willing to to change my mind because of the circumstantial evidence, which is overwhelming. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.7%Associated Press: 1.8%Confirmation Bias29.7%This article: 10.2%Associated Press: 0.6%Anchoring Bias10.2%This article: 48.4%Associated Press: 2.6%Availability Heuristic48.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Associated Press: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias18.8%This article: 16.4%Associated Press: 4.7%Framing Effect16.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.2%Associated Press: 0.4%Status Quo Bias10.2%This article: 18.8%Associated Press: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect18.8%This article: 39.8%Associated Press: 2.7%Optimism Bias39.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 6.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Associated Press: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 10.9%Associated Press: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias10.9%This article: 10.9%Associated Press: 1.2%In-Group Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Associated Press: 0.1%Primacy Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.5%Associated Press: 3.5%Appeal to Authority19.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.8%Associated Press: 2.4%Hasty Generalization18.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.8%Associated Press: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion18.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 69.5%Associated Press: 0.4%Burden of Proof69.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.8%Associated Press: 1.2%Anecdotal18.8%This article: 7.8%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman7.8%This article: 11.7%Associated Press: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 39.8%Associated Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity39.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

128 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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