Ex-Pentagon employee described seeing 'translucent triangle' fly overhead in 2023 UFO sighting 67%

By Samuel Chamberlain74%

8/7/2026, 5:57:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 57.4% saturation with 147 hits. Analysis detected 1,068 faulty-reasoning hits from 256 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.8% and a BS Rank of 67% (10,365 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.10% of the article peer group.

A former Pentagon employee and his wife saw a strange, triangle-shaped aircraft fly over their Colorado home late one night in October 2023, according to a startling account included in the fifth batch of UFO files released by the Trump administration Friday. 
The account, outlined in a FBI interview summary known as a Form 302 from January of this year, contains some of the most striking descriptions of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena  government-speak for UFOs. 
The witness said he and his spouse were sitting on their back porch shortly before 11 p.m. when they noticed something flying overhead “possibly as low as 300 feet.” 
The summary report adds that the UFO “looked like a perfect triangle  without any extra wings, fins, or any bubble for the engine housing” and “appeared almost see-through” with “what appeared to be a haze or distortion around it  as if you were looking through mist; and that there were ripples like you were looking at an object that is underwater.” 
The ex-Pentagon worker insisted that the object was “competely silent” and he “did not feel any rumble, static or any other effects from the object as it passed over him.” 
President Trump, who ordered the rolling disclosure earlier this year, has said repeatedly that he is skeptical about the existence of alien life, but mandated transparency about UFOs after former President Barack Obama said of aliens during a February interview: “They’re real, but I haven’t seen them.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 52.7%Samuel Chamberlain: 4.0%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias52.7%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.1%California Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 29.3%Samuel Chamberlain: 3.1%California Post: 4.1%Availability Heuristic29.3%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.6%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.0%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 6.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 34.8%Samuel Chamberlain: 8.3%California Post: 9.8%Framing Effect34.8%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 4.5%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.6%Samuel Chamberlain: 7.7%California Post: 15.3%Negativity Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.1%California Post: 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.6%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.1%California Post: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.8%California Post: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.8%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.4%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.9%California Post: 1.5%Recency Bias18.4%This article: 17.6%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect17.6%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.8%California Post: 2.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 47.7%Samuel Chamberlain: 4.8%California Post: 4.1%Appeal to Authority47.7%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.1%California Post: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.8%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 8.0%California Post: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.2%California Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 3.6%California Post: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 18.4%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque18.4%This article: 11.7%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.5%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof11.7%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 57.4%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.8%California Post: 3.5%Anecdotal57.4%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 35.9%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.3%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)35.9%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.7%California Post: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.7%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.1%California Post: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 29.3%Samuel Chamberlain: 6.9%California Post: 12.4%Biased Writer Voice29.3%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.1%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.8%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.5%California Post: 2.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias18.4%This article: 16.4%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.4%California Post: 5.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.4%

256 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker18%attributed speech209writer words
Selected voice

President Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%President Trump: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.9 ptsWriter: 35.9%President Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -20.1 ptsWriter: 20.1%President Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%President Trump: 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.