Truthout85%

Pentagon Seemingly Caused a Medevac Plane to Crash, Killing Everyone Onboard 59%

By Sharon Zhang89%

8/5/2026, 2:33:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 23.1% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,274 faulty-reasoning hits from 628 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of 59% (12,094 of 29,351 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.80% of the article peer group.

The Pentagon appears to have caused a plane crash that killed four people in New Mexico in May that happened while the military was conducting a GPS jamming test a hundred miles away, new reporting finds. 
On May 13, a medevac flight took off from Roswell shortly before midnight to pick up a patient in Ruidoso, as Wired reported recently. 
It was a dark night and the area is sparsely populated, and thus lacking ground-based lighting that pilots could rely on for navigation. 
So the pilots contacted the Albuquerque air traffic control center in order to fly instruments-only, referring to the common practice of relying on the plane’s instruments rather than using visual cues, according to the Wired account and the summary of the incident from the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) preliminary report. 
But, shortly after midnight, the pilots reported losing their GPS, rendering the controls they needed for guidance useless. 
They would need the air traffic controllers to guide them to where they needed to go. 
At the same time, however, three other aircraft in the area also lost their GPS and needed attention from controllers. 
Disoriented and lacking sufficient guidance, the pilots on the medevac flight requested to land at a nearby runway that they could see. 
What they didn’t see, until it was too late, was that there was a mountain standing in their route, and the pilots crashed into the side of it. 
Everyone on board  two pilots and two nurses  died. 
The crash sparked a wildfire, known as the Seven Cabins fire, that ultimately burned over 31,000 acres. 
Around this time, an Air Force unit was holding an annual event called NAVFEST in which electronic warfare units gather to test things like GPS jamming, which is increasingly used to combat drones in modern warfare. 
The NTSB notes the military’s jamming exercises in its preliminary findings on the crash, and notes that the military informed pilots of the demonstrations ahead of time. 
The agency also finds that air traffic controllers requested that the military pause its disruptions at a couple of points as they were assisting the medevac flight. 
The incident appears to be the first known incident of a fatal crash in relation to the U.S. military’s GPS jamming exercises. 
The crash adds to scrutiny over the seemingly high number of unusual flight-related incidents under the second Trump administration. 
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was recently criticized for endorsing low-altitude flyovers by military jets after videos showed an incident in Florida in which a Blue Angels aircraft flew extremely closely over a crowd of people. 
There were no reported injuries, but the video and Hegseth’s fervor sparked concerns that future flights may not be so lucky. 
Just on Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration said that it is investigating an incident in which a commercial jet was allowed to take off from Washington National Airport on Tuesday at the same time as President Donald Trump’s helicopter, Marine One. 
Though no contact occurred, it highlighted issues in communication between military and civilian air traffic controllers. 
That incident hearkens to a crash in January 2025, as Elon Musk and the “Department of Government Efficiency” were slashing air safety jobs and regulations, when a military helicopter and an American Airlines flight collided as the latter aircraft was making a landing at Washington National. 
The collision killed 67 people and was the deadliest plane crash in the U.S. in over 20 years. 
Meanwhile, earlier this summer, a pilot flying into Washington National filed a safety complaint when he said that the Trump administration’s UFC stage, on the White House lawn for Trump’s 80th birthday, was causing blinding lights that made it hazardous to fly. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.9%Sharon Zhang: 6.3%Truthout: 5.3%Confirmation Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Sharon Zhang: 3.7%Truthout: 3.1%Availability Heuristic15.8%This article: 3.7%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 6.2%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Sharon Zhang: 10.7%Truthout: 9.7%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Sharon Zhang: 2.7%Truthout: 2.0%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 19.7%Sharon Zhang: 16.3%Truthout: 10.9%Negativity Bias19.7%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.3%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Sharon Zhang: 1.6%Truthout: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error10.8%This article: 5.7%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.1%Truthout: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.4%Truthout: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.4%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 1.1%Recency Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.4%Sharon Zhang: 3.7%Truthout: 3.2%Appeal to Authority12.4%This article: 3.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.4%Truthout: 1.7%False Dilemma3.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.2%Sharon Zhang: 7.5%Truthout: 6.7%Hasty Generalization10.2%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.4%Sharon Zhang: 9.1%Truthout: 7.9%Appeal to Emotion10.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.1%Truthout: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 23.1%Sharon Zhang: 3.1%Truthout: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.1%Sharon Zhang: 1.6%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof9.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 2.5%Anecdotal14.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.9%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.3%Sharon Zhang: 2.2%Truthout: 1.4%Unattributed Quote4.3%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.7%Truthout: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.5%Sharon Zhang: 11.7%Truthout: 8.2%Biased Writer Voice7.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 8.5%Truthout: 6.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

628 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.