The Astounding Pop Mech Show: A Former Navy Admiral Thinks UFOs May Be Hiding in Earth's Oceans 92%

By PopMech Editors51%

7/2/2026, 7:32:04 PM

Topics: Ufos, Navy, Oceans
Keywords: Vodcast

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 75.7% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 270 faulty-reasoning hits from 74 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.8% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,895 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.30% of the article peer group.

Could Earth's oceans be home to nonhuman intelligence? 
One former Navy Admiral thinks so. 
His experience is explored in a new Pop Mech story called “Nonhuman ‘Intelligence’ Is Hiding in the World’s Oceans, Ex-Navy Admiral Says. 
That’s a Legit Threat.” 
Watch the full episode above now, and check out more installments of “The Astounding Pop Mech Show.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 3.0%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%PopMech Editors: 2.4%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 36.5%PopMech Editors: 6.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect36.5%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 2.6%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.4%PopMech Editors: 1.4%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias28.4%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 29.7%PopMech Editors: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect29.7%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 60.8%PopMech Editors: 7.1%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority60.8%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.4%PopMech Editors: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion5.4%This article: 10.8%PopMech Editors: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question10.8%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 36.5%PopMech Editors: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)36.5%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.4%PopMech Editors: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote5.4%This article: 35.1%PopMech Editors: 2.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection35.1%This article: 29.7%PopMech Editors: 8.1%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice29.7%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 1.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 75.7%PopMech Editors: 9.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…75.7%

74 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.