I Was Asked to Check Out Fillmore! ...why?
Credibility score: 53/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "I Was Asked to Check Out Fillmore! ...why?" and rated it 53/100 for credibility (a BS score of 47/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-27. Its weakest claim — "The speaker argues shutting down the 'police force' will cause more crime." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 38 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 38 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 28 between 40 and 69, and 9 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
The video opens with a highlight reel preview, setting up the creator's ambition. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
He's laying out his origin story, mortal — the classic 'rise, fall, then rise again' arc. Predictable, but effective. 😈
Why this score: This is a quick montage, a dramatic setup for the creator's journey and desire for 'immortality' through content. It's not a factual claim, just a narrative hook. It previews the theme of ambition and legacy.
Original quote: “but then as I began to place lower that
following began to shrink sure the fans
I had left were devoted but I wanted
more I wanted to be immortal hey hello
how do you do Shady daggs here for a”
The creator suggests viewers requested 'Fillmore' because he's Black, implying racial motivation. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:15
He's guessing at the 'why' behind the requests, mortal, and landing on race with zero evidence. That's not insight, that's an assumption wearing a question mark. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is making a confident assertion about the motivations of his audience ('because I'm black, isn't it?') without providing any data or specific examples to back it up. It's a speculative leap, attributing a specific reason (racial representation) to viewer requests without actual proof, which could be for any number of reasons like the show's quality or nostalgia. He's presenting a hypothesis as if it's a known fact about his audience's intentions.
Original quote: “intellectuals have been requesting that
I check out the old Disney Channel
cartoon Filmore and my response to that
is why because I'm black isn't it for
one reason or another people love when
non-white YouTubers talk about shows
that heavily feature their ethnicity I'd”
Admits to not knowing much about the show, yet still reviews it. Bold. 💀 — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:30
He's upfront about his ignorance, which is rare. Acknowledging the bias is a good start, mortal. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states he doesn't know much about the show, only a few details and a clip. This transparency about his limited knowledge is a 'No Frame' moment, as he's not trying to hide his lack of expertise while still proceeding with the review. It's a self-aware admission rather than a deceptive tactic.
Original quote: “I'd say shame on you guys but honestly I can't even act like I'm not an example of this Tariq where's your review on static shot I just find it weird because filmer doesn't seem like the kind of show I'd get a lot of requests for then again I don't really know much about it I know it's a cop parody…”
Can't find an official source for the show, but proceeds with 'secondhand footage.' 🚩 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 1:02
No official source, just 'secondhand footage.' That's not a review, mortal, that's a bootleg operation. 😈
Why this score: The speaker admits he couldn't find an official source for the show and is using 'secondhand footage.' While he asks for help finding an official source, proceeding with unofficial material means the review lacks the context of the show as intended by its creators, potentially missing crucial elements or presenting a lower-quality experience. It's a missing context for the viewer about the source material's authenticity.
Original quote: “I should tell you all that while I usually try to go to an official source to get clips from I have no idea where to find the show officially It's not on Disney plus and if there's a DVD box set of it I could not tell you where you can purchase it I didn't manage to get secondhand footage though so…”
Dismisses the intro as 'not top 10' and 'goes on for a while' — pure subjective opinion. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 1:48
Declaring an intro 'not top 10' is just a feeling, mortal. Your 'top 10' is as arbitrary as my whims. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is giving a purely subjective opinion on the show's intro, stating it 'isn't going to make my top 10' and that it 'goes on for a while.' This is a personal preference and not a factual claim, falling squarely into 'Just Vibes' territory. There's no objective metric being presented, just a gut reaction.
Original quote: “lazy this intro isn't going to make my top 10 I can tell you that much there's a lot happening in good gravy does it go on for a while though I do really like the ending with the title in the Silhouettes that is legit I would love a poster of that”
Complains about not remembering Wendy Malick's other roles, despite her being 'everywhere'. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 2:33
Mortal, that's not a critique of the show — that's just your memory failing you. Don't blame the actress. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is just sharing a personal anecdote about their inability to recall an actress's other roles, despite acknowledging her widespread presence. It's a personal observation, not a claim about the show itself or the actress's career. It's just a 'vibe' of mild frustration.
Original quote: “it's weird because whenever I hear her voice I can never remember the other stuff she's been in I amdb my son is a b no no”
Critiques the pronunciation of 'president' as if the voice actor was 'assaulted'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:51
He's describing a voice actor's pronunciation with 'assaulted' — a bit much for a vocal inflection, don't you think? 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged and dramatic language ('assaulted') to describe a voice actor's pronunciation of a word. This is an exaggeration that injects unnecessary emotional weight into a simple observation about speech, making it 'loaded language' rather than a neutral critique.
Original quote: “thank you second why does she say president like that President it sounds like someone assaulted her right at that moment but she didn't want to make a scene so she just kept talking I'll turn you over to the president of”
Expresses disbelief at a student-run 'bathroom steering committee'. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 3:06
He's questioning the absurdity of a 'bathroom steering committee' — a fair point for a kids' show parody. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to a comedic element within the show, questioning the premise of a student-run 'bathroom steering committee.' This is a subjective reaction to the show's humor and world-building, not a factual claim or a manipulative framing technique. It's just a 'vibe' of humorous disbelief.
Original quote: “I can believe that schools would have steering committees run by students but one specifically for bathrooms really”
Quotes a specific statistic about bathroom usage: '432 times' per student. — No Frame (75/100)
At 3:20
He's quoting a specific, if slightly absurd, stat from the show. It's a direct reference, no tricks. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker is directly quoting a specific statistic presented within the show itself ('432 times'). This is a straightforward reporting of information from the source material, not an attempt to mislead or frame a narrative. It's a clean reference to the show's content.
Original quote: “by the time an ex- Middle School student graduates he or she will use the school bathroom facilities an average of 432 times and that's May Whitman wow”
Corrects a potential misunderstanding, stating 'Katara is not a Disney reference'. — No Frame (75/100)
At 3:31
He's clarifying a pop culture reference, mortal. A simple correction, nothing more. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is making a factual correction regarding a pop culture reference, clarifying that 'Katara' (from Avatar: The Last Airbender) is not a Disney character. This is a straightforward statement of fact, not an attempt to manipulate or frame information. It's a clean, direct correction.
Original quote: “sorry Avatar fans but qara is not a Disney reference”
Expresses surprise that the first episode isn't an origin story for the safety patrol. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:10
He's just sharing his personal expectation for the show's plot, mortal. A simple opinion. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is expressing a personal expectation about the narrative structure of the show (expecting an origin story). This is a subjective opinion about storytelling choices, not a factual claim or a manipulative framing technique. It's just a 'vibe' of personal preference.
Original quote: “I thought the first episode would be an origin story like how Phil or maybe even his partner got rubed up into being in the safety patrol”
The speaker pauses the review to identify voice actors — a meta-commentary on their own show. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:30
Interrupting the flow to flex on voice actor knowledge. It's their show, so they say. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is deliberately breaking the fourth wall to make a humorous point about their control over the content, identifying a voice actor in a self-aware, meta way. It's a comedic beat, not a factual claim.
Original quote: “scene would hey can we get these motion
sensors shut off before oeral drowns me
om M goodness I can't keep stopping the
review to point out voices that I
recognize oh wait yes I can it's my show
hi Lauren Tom aka the voice of um um um
um um Alice Kane from peeran yeah that
iconic role could you…”
The speaker claims they're 'not allowed to like' Orlando Brown and Tara Strong due to controversy. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 5:02
Playing the 'controversy' card for two actors, then immediately setting up a punchline. Predictable. 😈
Why this score: This is a comedic setup, not a serious statement about personal preference or external rules. The speaker is using the 'controversy' as a pretext for a joke, which they immediately undercut in the next segment. It's a bit, not a claim.
Original quote: “I do however immediately
recognize the voice of Phil stainless
very catchy yep that's Orlando Brown I'm
not allowed to like him because of
controversy so Boo in the voice of his
partner ingred is what about the tags
themselves the color lettering style uh
uh T Tera strong whom I'm uh I'm also
not…”
The speaker retracts their previous statement, claiming they can't 'boo' Tara Strong because they separate art from artist. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 5:35
The 'controversy' was a setup for this 'art from artist' pivot. I've seen this trick since before your grandfather tried it. 🔥
Why this score: This is the punchline to the previous setup. The speaker is playing with the idea of 'canceling' artists but then immediately backs down, claiming to separate the art from the artist. It's a comedic reversal, not a genuine statement of principle or a factual claim.
Original quote: “but I can't do it I'm sorry I can't boo
her I separate art from artist and I
love terra's work way too much”
The speaker asserts that the show incorrectly states Fillmore's 'weapons of choice' are red, black, and green markers, claiming he only uses red. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 5:59
Declaring a 'mistake' in a cartoon's lore with absolute certainty. The stakes are... low. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is making a definitive claim about a minor detail in a fictional show's lore. While they state it with high confidence, the 'mistake' is subjective within the show's universe and doesn't impact any real-world facts. It's a nitpick presented as a critical error.
Original quote: “I've got to point out this one detail
that they get wrong stainless is weapons
of choice are red black and green
permanent markers no they are not
stainless exclusively use red markers
this mistake is going to cause problems
later ingr suggests they get an expert's
opinion on the handwriting we…”
Questioning the school's 'detention' definition — it's not how it works. — No Frame (75/100)
At 7:01
He's just pointing out the obvious, mortal. That's not detention, it's a goddamn prison sentence. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to the absurdity of the school's 'permanent state of detention' for Randall, which clearly goes beyond the typical understanding of detention. It's a straightforward observation of a discrepancy within the show's premise.
Original quote: “uh what that's not how detention works”
Claiming the school is 'loaded' based on its facilities — a bit of a leap. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 7:44
He's declaring the school 'loaded' because of bidets and a holding cell. Mortal, that's not 'loaded,' that's just bad budgeting. 💀
Why this score: The speaker confidently asserts the school must be 'loaded' based on two specific, albeit unusual, expenditures: bidets and a dedicated holding cell. While these might suggest some level of funding, it's a leap to declare the entire institution 'loaded' without knowing the overall budget or other financial details. It's an assumption presented as a conclusion.
Original quote: “all right class this gool must be loaded it can afford to upgrade multiple bathrooms with freaking bedet and a holding cell exclusively for one kid”
Reacting to a character's dialogue with strong, immediate approval — pure vibes. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 7:57
He's just vibing with the character's edgy dialogue. No deeper meaning, just a fanboy moment. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is reacting emotionally to a character's lines, expressing strong approval ('holy crap I love this dude'). This is a subjective, entertainment-focused reaction rather than a factual claim or a rhetorical maneuver. It's purely about the viewer's enjoyment of the content.
Original quote: “problem un inspired emotional uninteresting unimportant holy crap I love this dude”
Declares Robin 'definitely did it' — pure speculation presented as fact. 💀 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 9:09
One quick glance and it's 'definitely.' That's not deduction, mortal, that's just a hunch with a megaphone. 😈
Why this score: The speaker immediately jumps to a definitive conclusion about the culprit based on a quick cut, presenting it as a certainty ('definitely did it') without any actual evidence or explanation yet. It's a bold declaration with zero backing.
Original quote: “oh man she definitely did”
Claims a '70% chance' for random characters being the culprit — pulls a number from thin air. 🎲 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 9:52
A '70% chance' pulled straight from the abyss. That's not a statistic, mortal, that's a vibe with a decimal point. 💀
Why this score: The speaker assigns a precise '70% chance' to a narrative trope without any basis. This isn't a verifiable statistic from any study of mystery writing; it's a subjective observation given false authority by a specific number. It's a common trick to make a gut feeling sound like data.
Original quote: “third whenever a Myster introduces a random character that seemingly has nothing to do with the crime but the story doesn't take the time to point out their innocence there's a 70% chance they're the one who did it”
States 'brushed steel is almost impossible to deface' as a 'well-known fact' — a bold claim without proof. 🔥 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 10:14
A 'well-known fact,' they say. Well-known by whom, mortal? The ghosts of architects past? 😈
Why this score: The speaker asserts that brushed steel is 'almost impossible to deface' as a 'well-known fact.' While it might be more resistant than other materials, 'almost impossible' is an extreme claim, and attributing it to a 'well-known fact' without any specific source or evidence is a classic anonymous authority move. It sounds authoritative but provides no actual backing.
Original quote: “it's a well-known fact that brush steel is almost impossible to Def face”
Calling 'disco' an interesting catchphrase choice — pure observation, no trick. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:38
Just a casual observation about a word choice — no hidden agenda here, mortal. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is simply commenting on the perceived oddity of 'disco' as a catchphrase, which is a subjective opinion and not a claim that can be framed manipulatively.
Original quote: “dude just said disco that's an interesting choice for a catchphrase”
Speculating on the origin of a catchphrase — a guess, not a claim. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:43
Pure speculation about creative choices — no grand deception, just a guess. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is offering a personal theory about why a specific word was chosen in the show. This is an interpretation of creative intent, not a factual claim or a manipulative framing device.
Original quote: “it's like they wanted to use Bingo but felt that was too generic so they chose a word that sounded a lot like it ingred and Phil go to interview the art club members each one having a weird interpretation of both art and life You just see a DOT right it's not just a DOT you know what I'm saying…”
Chiding the character for forgetting established facts — a direct criticism of the plot. — No Frame (75/100)
At 12:19
A direct call-out to the character for forgetting plot points — no trickery, just frustration. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to a plot inconsistency within the show, pointing out that previous information (Stainless using multiple marker colors) is being ignored. This is a critique of the narrative, not a manipulative framing of a claim.
Original quote: “well Phil if you were paying attention to my complaints earlier it was firmly established that stainless uses red green and black markers”
The speaker implies a motive for stealing black markers, then dismisses a confession as attention-seeking. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:30
He's speculating on motives, then dismissing a 'signed confession' as a play for attention. Bold claims with zero proof, mortal. 💀
Why this score: The speaker presents a hypothetical motive for stealing black markers ('wouldn't be odd') and then immediately casts doubt on a 'signed confession' by Tommy Howard, suggesting it's merely for 'attention.' This is pure speculation, presented with unearned certainty, without any evidence to back up either the motive or the dismissal of the confession.
Original quote: “I mean they did say that the reason stainless wanted a refill was specifically because the red marker broke but it wouldn't be odd for a person who uses black markers to try and steal more black markers you see what I got here a signed confession from Tommy Howard he wanted to be known now he is…”
The speaker claims a character's action was solely for a 'red herring' plot device. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 13:40
He's declaring the writer's intent as if he was in the room. That's not analysis, mortal, that's just guessing. 😈
Why this score: The speaker confidently asserts that a character's action (going into the girls' bathroom) 'clearly only did it so the story could have another red herring.' This is a definitive statement about authorial intent, presented without any evidence or insight into the show's production. It's a guess, dressed up as a fact.
Original quote: “okay but why did he go into the girls bathroom like this never gets explained he clearly only did it so the story could have another red herring”
The speaker argues shutting down the 'police force' will cause more crime. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 14:19
He's comparing a school safety patrol to a real police force. One's a club, the other's, well, me. 💀
Why this score: The speaker equates the school's 'safety patrol' with a 'police force,' then uses this false equivalence to argue that shutting it down would 'allow more crime to happen.' This dramatically overstates the role and impact of a school club by comparing it to a full law enforcement agency, creating a disproportionate sense of consequence.
Original quote: “also how will that solve anything even if they fail to catch this perpetrator shutting the police force down won't get rid of them it'll just allow more crime to happen”
A quick 'oops, political statement' — a classic dodge. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 14:30
Oh, a 'political statement' that just slipped out. I've seen that trick since before you invented politics, mortal. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker makes a quick, self-aware comment about making a 'political statement' then immediately retracts it. It's a common, almost comedic, way to acknowledge a potentially controversial opinion without fully owning it. It's not a factual claim, just a bit of self-deprecating humor.
Original quote: “political statement I didn't mean to”
Noticing the one glove, then dismissing it as 'suspicious' but 'not allowed to complain.' 💀 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:01
Sees the glaring clue, calls it 'suspicious,' then says 'I'm not allowed to complain.' That's not analysis, mortal, that's just giving up. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker correctly identifies a key visual detail (the single glove) and notes its suspicious nature, but then immediately undermines their own observation by saying they 'don't feel like I'm allowed to complain' because they didn't notice it earlier. This is a mismatch between a sharp observation and a self-imposed, illogical restriction on commenting on it.
Original quote: “now it doesn't really make”
Accusing the characters of trying to 'manipulate a confession' with no proof. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:44
The characters are indeed trying to get a confession with circumstantial evidence. It's a fair assessment of their tactics. 😈
Why this score: The speaker accurately describes the characters' actions within the narrative. They are indeed attempting to elicit a confession from Robin based on their deductions, and as the speaker points out, they lack concrete proof at this moment. This is a straightforward observation of the plot.
Original quote: “manipulate a”
Dismissing the 'mark on your hand' as mere 'circumstantial evidence.' 💀 — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:57
He's right, a mark on the hand is circumstantial. It's not the smoking gun they need. 😈
Why this score: The speaker correctly identifies the 'mark on your hand' as circumstantial evidence, not definitive proof. This is a sound legal distinction within the context of a crime drama, highlighting the weakness of the evidence presented by the characters. It's a straightforward, accurate observation.
Original quote: “mark on”
Pointing out the villain's classic 'monologuing' trope. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 16:10
Ah, the villain's fatal flaw: monologuing. I've seen empires fall to less. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to a common trope in fiction where the villain, upon believing they've escaped or won, begins to monologue, often leading to their downfall. It's a meta-commentary on the narrative device, not a factual claim, and is purely for entertainment value.
Original quote: “he starts monologuing”
The speaker declares the episode 'really good' before it's over. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 16:44
Declaring victory before the game's done, mortal. Bold, but stupid. 😈
Why this score: He's calling the episode 'really good' with a minute and a half left. That's not a review, that's a pre-emptive strike against reality. What if it all goes to hell in the last minute? He's setting himself up.
Original quote: “well that was a really”
Claims he was 'led to believe' it was a silly kids' show, implying deception. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 17:26
He says 'led to believe' like someone tricked him. It's a kids' show, mortal, not a conspiracy. 😈
Why this score: Using 'led to believe' suggests some grand deception, as if the show deliberately misled him. It's a cartoon about kids solving mysteries; the 'silly' part is usually the point, not a hidden agenda. He's framing his own expectations as a betrayal.
Original quote: “m was led to
believe this was a silly show about kids”
Asserts the show's primary goal is to teach a lesson, not entertain. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 17:48
He's declaring the show's 'real' purpose with absolute certainty. Who made him the showrunner? 💀
Why this score: He's confidently stating the show's sole purpose is to 'teach a lesson,' dismissing other elements like action or humor. While shows can have messages, reducing its entire existence to a single didactic goal is a leap. He's projecting his interpretation as the definitive intent.
Original quote: “cheesy action scenes No jokes somebody
wanted to teach a lesson and my goodness
gracious they're doing a really good job”
Claims the scene 'moved' him and taught a 'good lesson' elegantly. — Personal Story (60/100)
At 18:16
He's genuinely moved. Fine, mortal, even I can appreciate a good performance. 😈
Why this score: This is a personal, emotional reaction to the scene. It's his subjective experience of being 'moved' and finding the lesson 'elegant.' There's no objective claim to verify here, just his feelings. It's a valid personal response.
Original quote: “Randall guys I'm not even joking that
scene moved me it's been some time since
I've seen such a good lesson taught in
such an elegant way”
Betting money on a 'very common occurrence' without a shred of data. Bold. 💀 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 19:04
He's betting on a 'very common occurrence' but offers no actual evidence. That's not a bet, mortal, that's a guess with swagger. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker expresses high confidence ('willing to bet money') about the commonality of people being 'past their prime' or losing potential, but provides no data, studies, or even anecdotal evidence beyond his own feeling. It's a personal belief presented as a near-certainty.
Original quote: “in fact i' be willing to bet money that this is a very common occurrence it's something that hurts to think about that you might be past your Prime”
The 'awful things' YouTubers do when they 'fall off' — a dramatic leap with zero specifics. 😈 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 19:17
He jumps from 'falling off' to 'awful things' without a single example. That's not a logical step, mortal, that's a fear-mongering cliff dive. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('awful things') to describe the actions YouTubers might take after 'falling off,' but provides no concrete examples or context for what these 'awful things' entail. This plays on the viewer's imagination and fear, rather than presenting a factual progression.
Original quote: “do you know how common it is that YouTubers start off doing great but then one day wake up and find themselves having fell off and when that happens it becomes a lot easier to justify doing awful things to get back what you've lost especially if your identity relies on it”
See the full analysis with timestamps →