This instantly backfired..
Credibility score: 51/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "This instantly backfired.." and rated it 51/100 for credibility (a BS score of 49/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-03. Its weakest claim — "Top US lawyers contacting him to unredact police audio" — scored 35/100 and was flagged as dubious. 16 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 16 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 15 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of an official response. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:30
The intro is pure bait! They're promising drama and then just whispering about it. 🧐😬
Why this score: Intro Montage - This segment serves as a rapid-fire teaser of the content to follow.
- The speaker sets up immediate tension by asking, "where is the actual response?"
- It establishes the core conflict: the official statement isn't where viewers expect it (not on 'his channel').
Original quote: “where is the actual response? Is it this one? Is it this one here? The the top one. Okay. It's very quiet. You subbed to him, didn't you? Yeah, but this is it. It's not on his channel. Turn your sound way up. He whispers. Okay.”
Police are confirming Benjamin (Ben) is innocent because he stayed in his car. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 2:30
The logic here is sound, but they're framing it like a massive victory. — 'Did nothing wrong' sounds so definitive! 🙄👍
Why this score: Logical deduction based on the facts presented.
- If he didn't leave the vehicle, his involvement in the initial harassment (the package/people) is minimized or negated by police assessment.
Original quote: “like even inside of the police explaining it, they're basically verifying that Ben did nothing wrong because he didn't leave the vehicle.”
Josh stole $200k Star Wars Lego collection — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 4:30
Big number, zero receipts so far 💰❓
Why this score: No independent confirmation of the $200,000 valuation.
- Only the speaker's assertion; no police report, insurance claim, or appraisal cited.
- Value could be accurate but currently rests on unverified personal testimony.
Original quote: “One of the main questions in my video was why did I get swatted for stealing the Legos when this wasn't a mystery to the police officers and they knew that I didn't steal the Legos that Josh stole the Legos. He basically stole a $200,000 collection of Star Wars Legos.”
Redaction is purely a 'save face' tactic if audio matches perfectly and isn't compromising. — OK (65/100)
At 6:30
It's a logical leap, but it’s the most plausible explanation offered. — 'Save face' is a strong conclusion based on circumstantial evidence 🤔.
Why this score: Logical deduction from the facts presented. The speaker argues that *perfect audio correlation* combined with *no apparent confidentiality risk* points directly to PR damage control.
- This isn't proven, but it’s a highly reasoned theory rather than just 'they are shady.'
- It fits perfectly with the narrative of police embarrassment mentioned earlier.
Original quote: “And my guess is if the police unredact this footage, we will find out the answers once and for sure. If you cross referenced the audio to something that it wasn't attached to and it matched up perfectly and then the audio wasn't related to something that was confidential or private or compromising,…”
The cop must have psychic powers because he sensed the tension *before* touching him, especially since he grabbed a wrist. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 8:30
Psychic powers? Bro is leaning hard into fantasy here. Maybe it was just good training 👀🔮
Why this score: The logic leap from 'felt tension' to 'psychic power' is massive. The speaker correctly points out the grab was on the wrist (a smaller muscle group), making pre-emptive detection harder, but he jumps straight to supernatural ability instead of biomechanics.
Original quote: “However, he lunges at me extremely fast before he even touches me. So, how could he even know that I was tensing my arm before he even grabs me? Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. There's only He's also not even grabbing any muscles that you can be tensing in the first place. He's grabbing your…”
The 'L' marker on the X-ray denotes the left shoulder, despite the action showing the right arm being handled. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 10:30
Wait, so they point out a small 'L' but then immediately say there's a BIG one? Classic distraction tactic. 🙄
Why this score: Inconsistency in observation. The speaker notes a *small* L in the upper right corner (10:28) but then states the large L indicates the image is of the *left* shoulder, while the action shown is clearly the handling of Schneider's *right* arm. This sets up the whole argument.
Original quote: “Snider. In that video, a small L is visible in the upper right hand corner of the X-ray. >> I see a large L in the middle. The L indicates the image is that of the left shoulder. The video shows Lieutenant Adamson handling Schneider's right arm during the arrest.”
Chief reviewed dashcam and still claimed they ran the stop sign — Dubious (40/100)
At 12:30
Quote presented as fact with zero verification.
Why this score: The transcript offers the quote but provides no source, recording, or document confirming the chief actually said this after watching the footage.
Original quote: “The chief of police looked at this video and said, 'We ran a stop sign.'”
The police arrested the speaker instead of Josh, despite his threats, and are hiding the evidence in redacted bodycam footage. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 14:30
They're definitely stonewalling us on this! Redacting everything while claiming justification? Classic move. 🚩😒
Why this score: High suspicion based on the narrative flow. The speaker claims a clear procedural injustice (arrested instead of threat-maker) coupled with evidence suppression (redaction). This is ripe for community pushback, as indicated by comments.
Original quote: “And now he just admitted his plans to the police officers. The American Fork police should at least be arresting Josh for trying to use murder as a way to get out of court. But sadly, for some reason, they arrested me instead. >> Find you back. Am I being arrested? >> Under arrest right now.…”
The conduct was 'reckless' regarding the potential outcome. — OK (65/100)
At 16:30
It seems to be building on that definition... but we don't see the final conclusion. 🤔
Why this score: This is an incomplete snippet, but it fits perfectly with the preceding legal standard. The speaker is establishing *mens rea* (guilty mind) by claiming recklessness, which is a key element in many stalking statutes.
Original quote: “is reckless as to whether that course of conduct would cause a”
Serving papers isn't stalking and refusal counts as service in Utah — Dubious (45/100)
At 18:30
Process server rules exist but 'refusal = valid service' is not automatic — depends on method and court rules
Why this score: Utah service rules are more nuanced.
- Personal service can sometimes be deemed complete upon refusal, but this is not universal
- Many jurisdictions require additional steps or court approval after refusal
- No specific Utah statute or case cited to support the blanket claim
Original quote: “it's beyond that in my opinion. He didn't even try to engage in a way that was stalking in the first place. He's trying to serve him legal papers. Like there's no other alternative. And even the police said they were going to give it to him. Like there's so many things wrong with this. It's insane.…”
Police officer noted they could tell things from the raw footage; one person specifically said they saw nothing 'clear as day.' — OK (65/100)
At 20:30
The officer's initial assessment is key. — But saying 'didn't see anything clear as day' sounds like hedging their bets 🙄.
Why this score: Contextual evidence suggests the police *did* form an opinion (glossy eyes), but this clip shows a counterpoint from one of the subjects who felt they weren't immediately obvious. It’s subjective, not objective proof.
Original quote: “>> If we look back on the raw footage, this is what the police officer said his first interaction with us was like >> good with these guys being able to drive. >> Yeah, I think so. I didn't see anything as I didn't see anything clear as day with Tyler that I noticed.”
The fact that certain information wasn't redacted proves the whole thing is crooked. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 22:30
They think *not* redacting something means it's a smoking gun. Classic logic leap! 🚩😬
Why this score: Implied claim: The unredacted content is proof of malfeasance.
- This assumes the redactions were done to hide something damning, which isn't guaranteed.
- It’s an appeal to suspicion; they just showed us a piece of evidence and are treating it like a confession.
Original quote: “Oh my god. And this is what they didn't redact. Think about that. So they didn't redact this. Think about how totally crooked and it must be the stuff that they had to get rid of. Oh my god.”
Top US lawyers contacting him to unredact police audio — Dubious (35/100)
At 24:30
Big claim, zero names or proof offered 💀
Why this score: Unverifiable legal outreach.
- No lawyer names, firms, or evidence provided
- 'Some of the best' is vague and unfalsifiable
- Relies entirely on speaker's word
Original quote: “The third thing is unredacted the audio that makes the police look bad. Some of the best lawyers in the United States are reaching out to me right now. So eventually this is going to get released.”
The speaker claims Part 3 will feature felony accusations vs. Part 2's misdemeanors, and they are now seeing a lawsuit against the CEO. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 26:30
The drama is escalating fast! From 'misdemeanors' to full-blown felony accusations—this Patreon situation is wild. 🤯🔥
Why this score: High stakes escalation in this segment. The speaker sets up a clear narrative arc: Part 2 = misdemeanors, Part 3 = felonies. The immediate pivot to the lawsuit against the CEO confirms that the conflict isn't just verbal; it's legal action being taken.
Original quote: “Part three will be up there very soon. Part two, I'm only dealing with misdemeanors, but part three is when they start accusing me of felonies, so it gets insane. But yeah, stay tuned. crank out videos in the meantime until part three is done. But thanks for all the support and let's find Brian's…”
Patreon valuation is $800 million — Dubious (45/100)
At 28:30
No recent public valuation confirms that exact figure
Why this score: $800M figure lacks current sourcing.
- No verified 2025-2026 valuation data in public records
- Last known major funding round was years earlier at lower valuation
- Speaker presents it as established fact without citation
Original quote: “Patreon is worth 800 million. Yeah. I mean, I wonder. And also, by the way, they have to say this because if”
The speaker speculates that Jewish people might be wealthier than Mormons and questions *how* the content was removed. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 30:30
Jews vs. Mormons wealth comparison? Classic internet thought experiment 😂🤔
Why this score: Unsubstantiated speculation on economic power dynamics between two groups.
- The second part is just rhetorical doubt regarding the removal process.
Original quote: “my understanding is that the Jews might have more money than the Mormons, but I guess we'll find out, right? And uh who knows? Also, like I don't even know how they got it taken down.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →