I caused an international investigation.
Credibility score: 48/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "I caused an international investigation." and rated it 48/100 for credibility (a BS score of 52/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-18. Its weakest claim — "Questions the kiwi's presence in America — using an extreme analogy to highlight rarity and tracking." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 30 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of a dramatic international Kiwi rescue operation. — Just Vibes (50/100)
Setting the stage with a dramatic hook about an accidental international incident and personal reluctance to be online.
Speaker claims their actions led to a situation involving government, multiple countries, and the Queen — building high stakes. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Using 'the Queen' and 'the Crown' immediately ups the ante, making it sound incredibly serious and high-stakes.
Speaker claims they were under investigation and their story was going to be on the news, even against their will. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
The speaker is very confident their story would be on the news, but then says they 'might' see their name, and a reporter 'told' them it would be told.
Speaker claims to be the unknown cause of a widely known international situation. — No Frame (75/100)
This is the core premise of the video, setting up the reveal. It's a straightforward statement of intent.
Speaker describes kiwi birds, emphasizing their unique characteristics like egg size. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Describing kiwi eggs as 'the size of your [ __ ] head' is vivid, but also exaggerates for dramatic effect.
Describing the kiwi's mistreatment — using vivid details to evoke strong emotional response. — Emotional Button (75/100)
Paints a clear, disturbing picture of the kiwi's situation — designed to make you feel its distress.
Asserting common knowledge about kiwis in New Zealand — implying negligence from the bird's handlers. — Missing Context (45/100)
Claims 'common sense' knowledge about kiwis, but 'common sense' can be subjective and vary wildly.
Citing personal expertise as a vet nurse and specific genetic details about kiwis — establishing authority. — No Frame (75/100)
Speaker uses their professional background and specific knowledge to back up their claims about kiwi biology.
Explaining kiwi nocturnal habits — setting up the problem with clear, relatable logic. — No Frame (75/100)
Starts with common knowledge to build a baseline — makes the later reveal more impactful.
Describes American comments about the kiwi — highlighting a disconnect with animal welfare. — Missing Context (45/100)
Uses anecdotal comments to paint a picture of widespread ignorance — but it's a selective snapshot.
Details the kiwi's enclosure conditions — emphasizing lack of proper care. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Words like 'only refuge' and 'tiny wooden box' are chosen to evoke strong negative emotions.
Questions the kiwi's presence in America — using an extreme analogy to highlight rarity and tracking. — False Equivalence (20/100)
Compares a kiwi in a zoo to a panda at a gas station — a dramatic, but not accurate, comparison.
Speaker highlights conflicting information about the kiwi's gender, showing a 'Missing Context' scenario. — Missing Context (45/100)
Points out conflicting info from 'people on this video' vs. 'comments' — sets up the confusion.
Speaker uses strong emotional language to express disbelief, an 'Emotional Button' press. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Repeatedly calling the situation 'insane' is a direct appeal to the viewer's emotions, not just a factual statement.
Speaker frames their investigation as a 'duty' due to lack of records, highlighting 'Missing Context'. — Missing Context (45/100)
Frames their personal involvement as a 'duty' because of the alleged lack of official records for the kiwi.
Speaker details the 'Volume Game' of conflicting information, highlighting widespread 'misinformation'. — Volume Game (45/100)
Lists a barrage of conflicting details (names, gender, number of kiwis) to show the sheer volume of 'misinformation'.
Speaker uses 'Loaded Language' like 'mistreating and abusing' to describe the kiwi's situation. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Uses strong, negative terms like 'mistreating and abusing' to describe the kiwi's care, evoking a strong emotional response.
Speaker frames their actions as crucial for reporting to the Department of Conservation, a 'Confidence Mismatch'. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Expresses high confidence in the need to report to authorities, despite previously stating confusion and misinformation.
Contrasting American perception with Kiwi reality — setting up a cultural divide. — Missing Context (45/100)
Paints a picture of American ignorance versus New Zealand expertise — frames the issue as a cultural misunderstanding.
Claiming kiwis are going irreversibly blind, then asserting professional authority. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Starts with a dramatic claim about kiwi blindness, then immediately pivots to 'I'm technically a professional' to bolster it.
Equating throwing away a kiwi egg to throwing away a panda baby — an emotional appeal. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Uses the 'panda baby' analogy to trigger a strong emotional response, highlighting the severity of the kiwi situation.
Comparing an unregistered kiwi to an unknown panda in NYC — emphasizing the gravity of the situation. — False Equivalence (20/100)
Uses a highly exaggerated analogy (panda in NYC) to underscore the perceived illegality/danger of an unregistered kiwi.
Claiming the kiwi is 'unregistered' — setting a suspicious tone with loaded language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling it 'unregistered' immediately implies something shady, even if it's just a lack of public record. It's a strong word choice.
Demanding public internet evidence for a kiwi's presence — setting a high bar for 'proof' with missing context. — Missing Context (45/100)
Expecting 'anything on the internet' for a protected animal's transfer might be an unrealistic standard, especially for private or inter-zoo loans.
Framing their motivation as an 'autistic sense of justice' and being 'the only person' who can fix it — an emotional button and confidence mismatch. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Attributing their drive to an 'autistic sense of justice' and claiming to be the 'only person' to fix it is a strong emotional appeal, not a factual claim.
Mentions a key contact at the Department of Conservation without specific job details — Anonymous Authority — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
Refers to a 'woman who works with the Department of Conservation' but can't recall her specific role or association. — It's a bit vague for such a crucial contact.
Explains avoiding personal involvement in the petition for privacy reasons — No Frame — No Frame (75/100)
The speaker clearly states their personal reasons for not wanting their name on the petition. — It's a straightforward explanation of their motivations.
Accuses zoo staff of not making a 'basic effort' to pronounce the kiwi's name correctly — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)
Uses strong, emotional language like 'sole job' and 'basic effort' to criticize the zoo staff's pronunciation. — It's designed to evoke anger, not just inform.
Highlighting the cultural significance of the kiwi and the distress of the man it was named after. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Appealing to emotion by emphasizing the distress of the man 'Paora' and the cultural importance of the kiwi bird.
Speaker claims their email to the Department of Conservation sparked widespread media attention, using a cause-and-effect frame. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Implies a direct causal link between their email and the media frenzy — but admits they never got a response. Correlation isn't causation, friend.
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →