All the footage is released!
Credibility score: 49/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "All the footage is released!" and rated it 49/100 for credibility (a BS score of 51/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-09. Its weakest claim — "Repeatedly calls the court papers fake while refusing service" — scored 15/100 and was flagged as bs. 21 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 21 claims analyzed: 2 scored under 40, 17 between 40 and 69, and 2 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Hacker released unredacted police footage of his case — Personal Story (50/100)
At 0:00
Personal account of leaked footage — no way to verify the hack itself yet.
Why this score: This is the speaker's own story about how he obtained the footage.
- He claims someone hacked American Fork PD specifically for his case.
- No independent confirmation of the hack in the provided transcript.
- The rest of the segment is just setting up the side-by-side comparison.
Original quote: “Someone actually hacked into the American Fork Police Department and released all the footage unredacted of my interactions with them. So, this is the original footage I got with the redactions in. And this is the new unredacted footage. I'm lining them up and I'm going to keep only the redacted…”
First two days of footage missing; only final two days recovered — Personal Story (50/100)
At 0:22
Claims the heroin accusation days are gone — we'll see if the recovered footage shows anything useful.
Why this score: Speaker states the first two days (heroin accusation period) could not be obtained.
- Only the final two days are available for comparison.
- This sets up the later side-by-side analysis but offers no external verification.
Original quote: “Sadly, they weren't able to get the first two days where I was accused of having heroin on me, but the final two days we were able to see a lot.”
Repeatedly calls the court papers fake while refusing service — BS (15/100)
At 0:30
Officer later confirms with the court they're real — he knew they weren't fake.
Why this score: Direct contradiction with later verification.
- Josh insists papers are fake multiple times
- Police check with court and confirm legitimacy
- Refusing service while claiming forgery is the core evasion tactic
Original quote: “>> Get the papers. Fake papers. They're fake. Go get the papers. >> You're okay if I bring those over to you? >> Absolutely. They're fake.”
Says police can legally serve papers by just saying the words without handing them over — Dubious (45/100)
At 2:30
Utah service rules require actual delivery or leaving the documents — just yelling the phrase isn't enough.
Why this score: Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs service of process.
- Verbal announcement alone does not complete service
- Documents must be physically delivered or left at the location
- Commenters note the officer later confirmed the papers were real through the court
Original quote: “>> It's fake. >> It's not real. >> That's completely fine. That's You have that right. >> Yeah. Um, literally all this police officer has to do is be like, "You are served." And then he doesn't even have to accept him. He can literally just drop him. But as long as you say, "You are served," that…”
Calling police with false threat to get someone arrested is super duper illegal — Verified (85/100)
At 4:30
Filing a false police report is literally a crime — that part's correct.
Why this score: Accurate statement of law.
- Knowingly making a false report to law enforcement is criminal in every US state
- Utah specifically criminalizes false reports under § 76-8-506
Original quote: “police officers about a false threat I made to get me arrested is super duper illegal.”
He called the store a billion times and threatened employees — Sketchy (30/100)
At 4:40
"A billion times" is doing heavy lifting — probably means "multiple".
Why this score: Classic exaggeration.
- No call logs or specific numbers provided
- "Billion" functions as rhetorical hyperbole rather than literal count
Original quote: “He called the store a billion times, threatened the employees.”
They printed up fake lawsuit papers to serve him — Dubious (40/100)
At 5:08
Commenters note the officer later confirmed the papers were real after checking with the court.
Why this score: Direct contradiction with later evidence.
- Speaker insists papers are fake
- Officer verifies with court and finds them legitimate
- No evidence shown of fabrication
Original quote: “They have fake service papers. And the girl is like, she's like, "Oh, no. I got to serve him these papers." Like they printed up a fake lawsuit”
Ready to arrest them under Utah cyberbullying and digital stalking statutes — OK (55/100)
At 5:40
Utah does have cyberstalking laws — whether the facts meet the threshold is the real question.
Why this score: Law exists, application unclear.
- Utah Code § 76-5-106.5 covers stalking via electronic means
- No specific evidence or charges mentioned in this clip
- Prosecutors still need to screen for charges
Original quote: “we're ready and willing to arrest these individuals for uh Utah, you know, like Utah statutes for cyber bullying and and like uh digital stalking”
Utah lets anyone 18+ serve papers if not involved in case and not an attorney — OK (60/100)
At 6:30
Age and non-affiliation rules sound right but Utah actually requires registration or court appointment in many districts.
Why this score: Partial accuracy on the basics.
- Utah Code 78B-8-302 allows any adult not party to the action to serve process
- Many counties still require registration or judicial appointment for official servers
- The speaker presents it as a free-for-all with zero extra steps
Original quote: “Why not? In the state of Utah to be a process server, all you have to do is be over the age of 18 years old. You got to be not affiliated with the case and you can't be an attorney.”
Random woman he met 10 minutes ago is now a valid Utah process server — Dubious (45/100)
At 6:36
Meeting someone ten minutes earlier doesn't prove she's registered or court-approved in that jurisdiction.
Why this score: Core problem is the leap from "eligible" to "actually authorized."
- Eligibility rules exist but don't automatically make every random adult a working process server
- Courts and counties maintain approved lists; using an unregistered person can invalidate service
- No evidence shown that she appears on any local roster
Original quote: “And this girl meets all three. She is over 18 years old. I literally met her like 10 minutes before we showed up here and she's not an attorney. So legally in the state of Utah, this woman is a process server.”
Only way she's impersonating is if she's under 18 — ID check rules that out — Dubious (40/100)
At 6:50
Impersonation isn't limited to age — using an unregistered server can still count as impersonation in some jurisdictions.
Why this score: False binary.
- Utah law also prohibits holding yourself out as an official server without proper authority
- Age is only one disqualifier among several
- The argument ignores registration and court-approval requirements entirely
Original quote: “So for this girl to be impersonating a process server in the state of Utah, she must either be under 18, which the cops took her ID and verified she's not under 18.”
Claims impersonating a process server is a class A misdemeanor in Utah — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 8:30
Sounds plausible but no Utah statute cited — just stated like it's settled law.
Why this score: Unverifiable without the actual statute.
- Utah code does criminalize impersonation of officials
- No specific citation given for process servers
- Class A misdemeanor level not confirmed from transcript alone
Original quote: “It's a class A misdemeanor to impersonate a process server in the state of Utah.”
Claims Aean committed obstruction by lying to police — Dubious (40/100)
At 8:35
Calling it obstruction while the footage is still rolling — that's a legal conclusion, not a fact yet.
Why this score: Jumping to criminal conclusion mid-call.
- Lying to police can be obstruction but requires specific elements
- No court has ruled on this interaction
- Corporate rep is making the accusation, not a neutral party
Original quote: “He's the CEO. ... the individual who actually owes the money left the United States. And now Aean has just committed obstruction by lying to the police officers.”
Accuses someone of forging a contract and threatening to kill her — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 9:01
Heavy accusations dropped with zero evidence shown on camera.
Why this score: Serious claims, zero receipts in the segment.
- Forgery and threats are felonies if true
- No documents or recordings presented here
- Viewer has to take the speaker's word
Original quote: “He created a fake contract to forge a major signature up there, threatened to kill her.”
Court confirms the case is real and valid — Solid (75/100)
At 9:22
Court clerk just verified the case exists — directly contradicts the "fake papers" claim.
Why this score: Direct contradiction from official source.
- Clerk confirms small claims case is active
- This undercuts the earlier "1 billion trillion gazillion%" fake assertion
- Happens in real time on the call
Original quote: “Yeah, looks like a a real small claims case in our court.”
Cops muted bodycam to hide conversation — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:30
Calling it deliberate hiding assumes motive we can't confirm from the clip.
Why this score: Speculation on intent.
- Transcript shows audio cut after the call
- No evidence presented that officers discussed muting strategy
- Self-muting is a known bodycam feature, not proof of conspiracy
Original quote: “After this phone call, I guess the police officers turned off the microphone on their body cam because I guess they really didn't want literally anyone to hear this.”
Cops knew case was weak but arrested anyway — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:52
The line is the narrator's interpretation, not a direct quote from officers.
Why this score: Paraphrase presented as fact.
- No officer is heard saying "arrest him anyway"
- The actual dialogue shows them still checking charges
- Strong framing choice, not recorded evidence
Original quote: “So, basically, the consensus is we were all wrong here. However, let's just arrest Ben anyways.”
Must arrest for cyberstalking/bullying to send message — Opinion (50/100)
At 11:05
This is the officer stating a desired outcome, not confirming charges exist.
Why this score: Desire vs. legal basis.
- Officer expresses frustration that no clear charge fits
- Still searching for "something" rather than naming a statute
- Shows investigative pressure, not proof of a valid charge at that moment
Original quote: “Like, letting them go cannot be an option here, guys. It's like there's got to be something for for cyberstalking, bullying, like like all all of the different things.”
House raided over Lego theft accusation — Personal Story (50/100)
At 12:00
Personal account of events; no independent verification offered in this segment.
Why this score: First-person narrative.
- Speaker describing his own arrest experience
- Ties raid to Lego dispute with Brian
- Web context confirms bodycam footage of the arrest exists but does not verify motive
Original quote: “So, now let's get to the search warrant where the cops raided my house because they heard that I was the one that stole the Legos from Brian.”
Everyone's facing felonies in the Lego case — Dubious (45/100)
At 12:30
Police say felonies on tape, but the $200k theft angle is still just their framing — not proven in court yet.
Why this score: Charge vs. conviction gap.
- Officers state "felony stalking" and "felonies" on bodycam
- $200k figure comes from the investigation narrative
- No verdict or plea details available in current footage
Original quote: “>> We have a felony stalking case right now. Felonies. Everyone's facing felonies. >> That's pretty serious >> It's super serious. I know that you've been told all of, "Oh, it's a fundraiser. This guy stole $200,000."”
Says Bricks & Minifigs is filing fake threats in his name causing multi-state police hunt — Dubious (45/100)
At 14:30
Serious accusation — no evidence shown beyond the police call itself.
Why this score: Major claim with thin support.
- Web context confirms ongoing dispute and leaked footage exists
- No independent verification of who filed the threats
- Police call shows coordination but doesn't prove origin
Original quote: “bricks and mini company has nonstop been making fake bomb threats, fake fire threats, fake murder threats in my name... the police think that these are real threats. So now the police from Los Angeles, from Utah, they're all working together now to catch me.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →