I’ve never seen anything like this..
Credibility score: 47/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "I’ve never seen anything like this.." and rated it 47/100 for credibility (a BS score of 53/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-27. Its weakest claim — "Speaker expresses shock and disbelief at the unfolding events" — scored 45/100 and was flagged as emotional button. 15 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 15 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 15 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of chaos at a shooting scene. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
Setting the scene with high drama and a promise of 'a lot more' than just a gunshot wound. Classic trailer energy. 🎬
Why this score: The opening sequence is a rapid-fire montage of dramatic clips, designed to hook the viewer by previewing intense moments from the video. It's not making a specific claim but rather setting a tone and expectation for the content to follow, focusing on the chaotic nature of the event.
Original quote: “Chaos [snorts] erupts as cops respond to
shooting.
>> In Peoria, Illinois, this man just got
shot over an argument. As he collapses
next to a car while suffering from
massive arterial bleeding, a massive
crowd begins forming around him. As
police arrive to render aid, they'll
have to [music] deal…”
Speaker questions why people say 'amberlamps' instead of 'ambulance'. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:18
Bro's out here doing linguistic analysis mid-crisis. The 'amberlamps' take is a deep cut meme, not a real question. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to a common mispronunciation of 'ambulance' ('amberlamps'), which is a well-known internet meme. This isn't a factual claim but a comedic observation and a bit of a dig at the perceived intelligence or education of people in the video, playing on a popular cultural reference.
Original quote: “>> WHY DO THEY ALWAYS call it an
amberlamps? Like, that's not what it is.
What the [ __ ] is an amberlamps? Like,
stop it. It's an ambulance.
Oh my god.”
Speaker's dramatic reaction to unseen content, promising it's blocked out. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:30
The build-up for something 'blocked out' is pure theater — like a magician showing you the empty hat first 🎩✨
Why this score: The speaker is creating suspense and a sense of 'forbidden knowledge' around content they claim will be censored, which is a common entertainment tactic. It's not a factual claim, just setting a mood.
Original quote: “Oh my god. Can I show this? I Okay, it's blocked out. Okay, it's going to BE BLOCKED OUT.”
Speaker expresses shock and disbelief at the unfolding events — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:30
Pure shock and awe, dropping an F-bomb. The chaos is doing all the heavy lifting here. 🤯
Why this score: The speaker uses exclamations and strong language ('OH MY GOD', 'HOLY []') to convey intense emotional reaction to the video's content. This is designed to evoke a similar emotional response in the viewer, rather than presenting a factual claim.
Original quote: “I JUST CHECKED IT. >> [screaming] >> OH MY GOD. HOLY [ __ ]”
Comparing this chaos to an Ebola clip — using a shocking anecdote to amplify the current scene's absurdity. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 2:30
Bringing up the Ebola clip is pure emotional button-pushing — it's not a comparison, it's a 'remember how crazy that was?' moment to make this seem even crazier. 💀
Why this score: The speaker uses a vivid, disturbing anecdote about an Ebola incident to draw a parallel with the current chaotic scene. While both situations involve public interference with emergency services, the Ebola comparison is designed to evoke a strong emotional response (disgust, fear of contagion, disbelief) rather than provide a logical comparison of the events. It's a rhetorical move to heighten the perceived insanity of the situation.
Original quote: “Does he have a Ebola Yes, do you remember the Ebola clip where they were yelling at the doctors trying to like cuz the doctors were trying to transport a person with Ebola and then enough of the village got angry at them that they forced the doctors to drop the [ __ ] coffin and then they took the…”
I've been drinking — the classic excuse for questionable life choices 🍻 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:30
Dude drops the 'I've been drinking' card like it's a get-out-of-jail-free pass for not feeling his legs. Peak drunk logic. 🤦♂️
Why this score: This is a direct quote from the person being addressed in the video, used as an explanation for their inability to move. It's a common, if not always valid, excuse for impaired physical function, and the speaker is simply repeating it.
Original quote: “I'VE BEEN DRINKING.”
Guy claims 'I can't feel my legs' then immediately 'I've been drinking'. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:30
Can't feel his legs but also 'been drinking'? The excuses are doing a full 360. 😵💫
Why this score: The speaker claims a severe physical impairment ('I can't feel my legs') but then immediately offers a contradictory explanation ('I've been drinking'). This creates a mismatch between the asserted confidence in his inability to move and the actual cause, which seems to be self-induced intoxication rather than a genuine physical injury. It's a classic dodge.
Original quote: “I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS. I'VE BEEN”
A person is told to back up to allow help, but resists physically. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 6:30
They're literally being told 'back up so we can help,' and the response is 'stop touching me.' The priorities are... unique. 🤦♂️
Why this score: This exchange highlights a conflict where one party is trying to provide assistance, but another is resisting, seemingly driven by immediate emotional reactions ('Stop touching me') rather than the stated goal of helping a friend. It's an emotional reaction overriding practical advice.
Original quote: “Back up or we can't help your friend.
Stop touching me, bro.
Stop touching me, bro.
GET YOUR HANDS OFF”
Claiming a 'miracle' after a chaotic scene, ignoring the actual injury. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:30
Went from 'screaming' and 'zap him' to 'miracle' real quick. What actually happened to his legs, though? 🤔
Why this score: The speaker declares a 'miracle' that the person's legs 'work now' after a chaotic scene involving a 'zap' and yelling. This completely glosses over the actual injury or medical intervention, creating a dramatic, almost sarcastic, narrative that ignores the reality of the situation. It's a classic move to frame a chaotic event as something else entirely.
Original quote: “YOU'RE GOING TO ZAP HIM TO GET HIM IN
THE
Get in the [ __ ]
Look, your [ __ ] legs work now.
Now your
I got
It's a miracle.”
Contrasting one 'normal' person with the 'rest of this shit' using loaded language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
Calling one person 'normal' and everyone else 'this shit' is a classic way to frame a narrative. It's a vibe, not a fact. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('normal person' vs. 'rest of this shit') to create a clear dichotomy and express their frustration. It's a subjective judgment presented as an obvious truth, designed to elicit agreement from the viewer rather than provide objective analysis.
Original quote: “Isn't it crazy the difference between just like one normal person and the rest of this [ __ ]”
Shouting about someone being shot while still threatening pepper balls — prioritizing crowd control over immediate aid. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 10:30
Someone got shot, but the pepper ball threat is still the main event. Talk about mixed signals. 💀
Why this score: The speaker drops a heavy emotional bomb ('Someone got shot') but immediately pivots back to the threat of pepper balls and crowd control. This uses the shooting to emphasize the chaos and the need for compliance, rather than focusing on the victim, which can be seen as using a serious event to push an agenda (crowd dispersal).
Original quote: “SOMEONE GOT SHOT. WALK. KEEP GOING. YOU WILL BE PEPPER BALLED.”
Claiming the whole 'riot' was 'over nothing'. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
Calling it 'nothing' when someone got shot and people are fighting is a wild take. That's a lot of 'nothing.' 💀
Why this score: The speaker dismisses the entire chaotic event, including a shooting and multiple assaults, as 'nothing.' This is a significant downplaying of serious events and shows a confidence in judgment that doesn't align with the visible and stated facts of the situation (a shooting victim, officers being attacked). It minimizes the gravity without providing any evidence or context to support the 'nothing' assertion.
Original quote: “A riot over nothing.”
Contrasting 'those people' with 'normal, reasonable' people — classic loaded language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:30
Pitting 'those people' against 'normal' people to create an us-vs-them narrative. Real subtle, chief. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language by creating a stark, judgmental dichotomy between 'those people' (implying irrational, problematic individuals) and 'normal, reasonable' people. This framing is designed to elicit an emotional response and align the audience with the 'normal' group, rather than presenting an objective observation. It's a rhetorical shortcut to dismiss a group without needing to articulate specific, verifiable issues.
Original quote: “Isn't it crazy the difference between those people and just like a normal person that's just like reasonable and not out of their [ __ ] mind?”
Comparing 'those people' to 'normal, reasonable' people — classic us vs. them 🚩 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:30
Immediately setting up a dichotomy between 'them' and 'us' to make a point. Real subtle. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language ('those people' vs. 'normal, reasonable person') to create a clear 'us vs. them' narrative. This frames the situation in a way that encourages the viewer to align with the 'normal' group and dismiss the 'other' group, rather than engaging with the specifics of the situation.
Original quote: “Isn't it crazy the difference between those people and just like a normal person that's just like reasonable and not out of their [ __ ] mind?”
The speaker is reacting to chaotic scenes, expressing disbelief and confusion. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 14:30
Just pure chaos and a lot of yelling, the speaker's just trying to process what the hell is happening. Same, honestly. 🤯
Why this score: The speaker is reacting emotionally to the video footage, using exclamations and expressing confusion rather than making a factual claim. It's a raw, real-time reaction to an intense situation.
Original quote: “>> Get them over here by EVERYONE ELSE.
>> BACK UP.
>> DRAGGING ME.
WHAT THE [ __ ]
>> OH, I'm about
>> GET THE [ __ ] UP.
>> I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS.
>> BACK.
BACK. BACK.
GET BACK.
>> HE'S MY COUSIN.
>> GET BACK.
GET BACK.
>> LOOK AT THEM TOUCHING HIM. LOOK AT THEM
touching him. Look at them going…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →