the group chat just got leaked...
Credibility score: 43/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "the group chat just got leaked..." and rated it 43/100 for credibility (a BS score of 57/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-21. Its weakest claim — "Connecting Epstein's email about a 'secret society idea' to current 'mass surveillance guy' and 'sex trafficking leaders' as if it's all one big conspiracy." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 13 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 13 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 12 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Claims the Illuminati group chat was leaked, setting a dramatic tone. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
Starting with 'Illuminati group chat leaked' is pure clickbait gold — sets the stage for maximum drama, not facts. 🍿
Why this score: The speaker immediately uses highly sensational language ('Illuminati group chat leaked', 'unprecedented times') to grab attention and establish a dramatic narrative. This framing primes the audience for a conspiracy theory rather than a straightforward news report, using emotional appeal over factual presentation.
Original quote: “Hello guys and gals, me Mudahar. And ladies and gentlemen, it seems like the Illuminati group chat, the Illuminati contact sheet actually ended up getting leaked. I wish I could make that statement up, but it seems like we live in the most unprecedented times.”
Attributes the leak to a hacker named Maya Arson Crimu, linking to a past 'nofly list' leak. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:15
Connecting 'Illuminati leaks' to a 'nofly list' hacker is a leap — one's a government list, the other is, well, the Illuminati. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker confidently links the 'Illuminati group chat' leak to a specific hacker, Maya Arson Crimu, and then immediately references a previous, verifiable event (the 2019 no-fly list leak) as if the two are equally credible or related. This creates a false sense of authority and consistency, implying that because the hacker was involved in a real leak, this new, extraordinary claim must also be real, despite the massive difference in the nature of the alleged leaks.
Original quote: “Now, to give you an idea, ladies and gentlemen, this whole story actually came from a hacker known as Maya. Now, Maya Arson Crimu is actually an individual that we've covered before. you know, back when the nofly list ended up getting leaked, you know, the 2019 list. This is”
Calling the hacker a 'hacktivist' and saying nothing is scarier. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Calling someone a 'hacktivist' and 'scary' is just painting a picture with words, not facts. It's a vibe, not data. 🎨
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('scarier than a hacktivist') to describe the individual. While 'hacktivist' is a recognized term, the added emotional weight is designed to evoke a specific feeling rather than convey objective information.
Original quote: “Okay, so this is what we call a hackist. And nothing is scarier than a [ __ ] activist”
Hypocrisy accusation for privacy, using emotional language — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:30
Calling them 'scumbags' for wanting privacy while demanding theirs. The emotional language is doing all the heavy lifting here. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('scumbags') to frame the organization's desire for privacy as hypocritical, without offering specific evidence of their alleged 'looking into every aspect of your life.' It's a classic 'do as I say, not as I do' accusation, but delivered with maximum outrage.
Original quote: “remember same scumbags that want to look into every aspect of your life, but god forbid you're looking at what the [ __ ] these people are talking about. That's”
Lists powerful figures in a 'secret' dialogue, implying control over the world. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Naming a bunch of powerful people and then saying they 'control the world' is pure emotional button-pushing. — It's a classic 'they're all in on it' vibe. Conspiracy bingo! 🚨
Why this score: The speaker lists prominent figures (Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, military leaders, Sarah Bond, Tulsi Gabbard, Jared Kushner, Eric Schmidt, Greg Brockman) and then immediately jumps to the conclusion that these individuals 'control the world.' This uses loaded language and an emotional appeal to suggest a clandestine, powerful group without providing concrete evidence of their 'control' or the nature of their 'dialogue.' It's designed to evoke a sense of unease and suspicion.
Original quote: “dialogue off the record. And the people having the dialogue are the individuals that really do control the world that we're in. Now again, how you have people like Elon Musk, Peter Theel, US secretary, you know, US like military leaders and ultimately Sarah Bond, one of the former directors of Xbox…”
Calling a group of powerful individuals the 'Illuminati' or 'Legion of Doom' — using loaded language for dramatic effect. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 6:30
He's not just describing a group, he's slapping on 'Illuminati' like it's a job title. That's pure vibe-setting, not reporting 💀
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, conspiratorial terms ('Illuminati', 'Legion of Doom') to describe a group of powerful individuals. This framing immediately biases the audience's perception, implying nefarious intent without presenting concrete evidence of such. It's an appeal to existing conspiracy theories rather than a neutral description.
Original quote: “off thereord industry. Literally the Illuminati, right? Like there's the there's no way to shape this any other way around. What do you call it when you have some of the most powerful world individuals, the world bosses together in one organization? Okay, you can either call it the Legion of Doom…”
Connecting Epstein to Peter Thiel's invite based on financial ties and past closeness. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 8:30
Connects Epstein to the invite with 'obviously' and 'makes sense' — but the actual reason for the invite is pure speculation. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker uses strong, confident language ('obviously,' 'makes sense') to link Epstein to the invitation, implying a clear understanding of the motive. However, they immediately follow this with a speculative statement about the purpose of the invite ('probably not to have like a dialogue on how to traffic human beings but about some other billionaire shit'), revealing that the actual reason for the invitation is unknown. This is a confidence mismatch where the certainty of the connection doesn't align with the speculative nature of the explanation.
Original quote: “obviously Epstein was included into this situation because let's not pretend obviously you know Jeffrey Epstein was a very very important figure when it came to being sort of interconnected financially and of course we've seen before that Peter Theal and Jeffrey Epstein were obviously a lot closer…”
Calls the world a 'clown world' due to perceived absurdity, using emotional language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:30
Calling it a 'clown world' is pure emotional appeal — sets a vibe without actually explaining the absurdity. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, emotional language ('clown world', 'Tommy Wiso') to dismiss the seriousness of the situation, rather than providing a logical breakdown of why it's absurd. It's a vibe check, not an analysis.
Original quote: “What the [ __ ] man? We really do live in a clown world. It's so hard to like take some of the stuff seriously sometimes because, you know, this is this is like the same organization that talks about WW3 and then they pull a Tommy Wiso, how's your sex life, huh? Like, come on now, dude. Like,”
Speaker mentions "build a cult" section, then immediately downplays it as "makes no sense" — Volume Game in action. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 12:30
Drops a bombshell like 'build a cult,' then immediately shrugs it off as 'makes no sense.' Classic rhetorical whiplash. 🎢
Why this score: The speaker introduces a shocking detail ('build a cult section') but then quickly dismisses its significance by saying it 'makes no sense' based on their research. This is a volume game: throw out a provocative idea, then quietly retract or downplay it, leaving the initial impression to linger without full commitment.
Original quote: “also kind of talk about other wild [ __ ] for instance like building a cult or like a build a cult section which might sound really extreme but ultimately according to the research that I've kind of done over here and basically the only reporting that's out there again it's it's just a whole set of…”
Claiming Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the 'only one' to respond, a bold generalization. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 14:30
Calling him the 'only one' is a huge leap without showing who else was asked or what their responses were. That's a big claim, chief. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker asserts Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the 'only one' to make a 'real response' to AI and tech stances, which is a broad generalization. Without defining 'real response' or providing evidence of who else has been asked and failed to respond, this claim lacks the necessary context to be taken as an objective fact. It's a confident statement without the data to back it up.
Original quote: “coincidentally, he's been the only one that's made a real response.”
Connecting Epstein's email about a 'secret society idea' to current 'mass surveillance guy' and 'sex trafficking leaders' as if it's all one big conspiracy. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 16:30
Jumping from an old email about a 'secret society idea' to 'mass surveillance' and 'sex trafficking leaders' in one breath. That's a triple jump with no landing gear 🤡
Why this score: The speaker connects disparate elements—an old email mentioning a 'secret society idea' (which the email itself says 'all failed so far'), 'mass surveillance,' and 'sex trafficking leaders'—as if they are all part of a single, interconnected conspiracy. This creates a false equivalence between unrelated or vaguely related concepts to imply a grander, more sinister plot without providing direct evidence of their actual connection.
Original quote: “even people like Epstein, for instance, like he would basically send an email to this Joy Edo character and say, you know, Peter Theal loved the secret society idea. He's done a lot of work on the concept. All failed so far. Which again to me is like just wild reading this stuff too because again…”
Claims conspiracy is true while saying he doesn't want to say it's true. Classic volume game. 📢 — Volume Game (45/100)
At 18:30
Starts by saying he's not saying 'conspiracy is true,' then immediately says 'conspiracy is true.' The old 'I'm not saying, I'm just saying' move. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses a 'volume game' by first disclaiming the idea of a conspiracy ('I don't want to sit here and just say... conspiracy is true') and then immediately asserting it ('Conspiracy is true. But, bro, all these connections just stop'). This rhetorical trick allows him to introduce a controversial idea while attempting to shield himself from direct ownership of the claim, making it seem like he's just 'observing' rather than stating a fact.
Original quote: “I don't want to sit here and just say like, listen, put the tinfoil hat on and say conspiracy is true. Conspiracy is true. But, bro, all these connections just stop, man. Like, at this point, just I I wish these [ __ ] would just come out and at least explain the plan. You know what I mean? Other…”
Claiming Peter Thiel's 'insane little closed door club' has been leaked, implying conspiracy. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 20:30
Calling it an 'insane little closed door club' and 'leaked out' without details just screams drama. It's all vibes, no specifics. 🎭
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'insane little closed door club' and 'leaked out' to create a sense of scandal and conspiracy without providing any verifiable details about what was leaked, by whom, or what it actually contains. This relies on the audience's existing distrust of powerful figures rather than presenting evidence.
Original quote: “being said, ladies and gentlemen, Peter Theal and his insane little closed door club has been kind of leaked out and now people are going to look through it and people are going to have some serious questions and maybe people might grow enough of a spine to fight back properly.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →