Anomalies in The WayBackMachine
Credibility score: 51/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Anomalies in The WayBackMachine" and rated it 51/100 for credibility (a BS score of 49/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-23. Its weakest claim — "Inviting viewers to decide if Lucas is a 'psychopath' or his parents are — framing a complex situation as a simple binary choice." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false dilemma. 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, 11 between 40 and 69, and 4 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Wayback Machine's archiving scale — setting the stage with big numbers — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
Just stating facts about the Wayback Machine's impressive scale. No spin here, just setting the scene.
Why this score: The speaker is providing factual background information about the Wayback Machine's operations. The numbers (trillion web pages, million terabytes) are verifiable and serve to establish the vastness of the archive, which is relevant for discussing 'anomalies' within it. This is straightforward, neutral framing.
Original quote: “Starting back in 1996, the Wayback Machine began archiving the internet. And at this point, it has archived over a trillion web pages and over a million terabytes of web data. Today, I want to take a look at some of the strangest anomalies hidden in the Wayback Machine.”
Introducing "Cut off my feet.com" — using an ominous name to build suspense — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:18
Using the 'ominous name' to hook you in. It's a classic suspense-building move before revealing the content.
Why this score: The speaker explicitly points out the 'ominous name' of the website, 'Cut off my feet.com,' and then immediately asks, 'So, what's the website all about? You might be asking.' This is a clear use of an emotional button, specifically suspense and curiosity, to draw the viewer in. The framing emphasizes the unsettling nature of the name to create intrigue, rather than neutrally introducing the site. It's not false, but it's designed to evoke a specific feeling.
Original quote: “Cut off my feet.com. This is a website that you need the Wayback Machine to visit cuz it's no longer on the internet. Of course, cut offmyfeed.com is a pretty ominous name. So, what's the website all about? You might be asking.”
Paul Morgan's insurance refused to cover amputation for better prosthetics. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:30
This claim about insurance refusal lacks specifics and is presented as a direct quote from the website, not an independently verified fact.
Why this score: The video states this as a reason for Paul Morgan's actions, attributing it to the website's explanation. While it provides a motive, the claim about insurance refusing to pay for a medically necessary amputation (to get better prosthetics) is a significant detail that would typically require independent verification or at least more context (e.g., specific policy terms, medical opinions). Without this, it relies solely on Paul Morgan's narrative from the website, which could be a justification rather than a fully accurate account of insurance policy.
Original quote: “But to get newer ones, he basically needs to amputate his feet and his insurance is refusing to pay for the amputation so he can get the better prosthetics.”
Speculating a connection between Paul Morgan and a sex offender based on resemblance. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:30
They're linking a person to a serious crime based on 'resemblance' and 'plausibility' — quite a leap without solid proof.
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states this is 'not 100% confirmed' and 'speculation,' yet presents it as a significant, plausible explanation for the website's abandonment. This is a classic 'confidence mismatch' where a serious accusation is floated with minimal evidence, framed as 'just a thought' but carrying heavy implications. A neutral framing would clearly separate the unverified resemblance from the actual reason for the website's closure, or simply state the reason is unknown.
Original quote: “Eventually though, and this is kind of a bad turn in the story, feels like everything on YouTube's like this now, but I did see someone point out online that a man very closely resembling Paul Morgan's profile ended up being a sex offender in the area. And so, it wouldn't be unreasonable to…”
Poorly Planned Comics is the weirdest web comic — a subjective claim framed as fact. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Calling it 'stands above the rest' for weirdness is a subjective opinion presented as a definitive statement. It's a strong claim without a clear metric.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'stands above the rest' to describe the weirdness of 'Poorly Planned Comics.' This is a subjective judgment, not an objective fact. While the comic might indeed be very strange, framing it as definitively 'above the rest' in weirdness uses loaded language to assert an opinion as a universally accepted truth. A neutral framing would be 'is exceptionally weird' or 'is considered by many to be one of the weirdest.'
Original quote: “but in terms of weirdness, poorly planned comics stands above the rest.”
Describing 'Maze' puzzles as 'extremely convoluted and complex' and 'insanely complex' — using loaded language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 6:30
Calling the puzzles 'extremely convoluted' and 'insanely complex' is definitely hyping them up. It's not just describing, it's emphasizing the difficulty.
Why this score: The speaker uses strong, evocative adjectives like 'extremely convoluted,' 'complex,' and 'insanely complex' to describe the puzzles. While the puzzles might indeed be difficult, this choice of language frames them in a way that amplifies their perceived difficulty and intrigue, rather than just neutrally stating their nature. It builds anticipation and a sense of challenge for the viewer.
Original quote: “back in 1985. And the way this book
works is each page in the book is a
different room in a labyrinth. And it's
up to you to solve these hidden puzzles
in the rooms to navigate to the next
room. And I should point out that the
puzzles in this book are extremely
convoluted and complex. And even…”
Claiming no one understands the comic – a classic 'hyperbole for effect' move. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
Using 'no one in the world' is a rhetorical flourish, not a literal statement of fact. It exaggerates to emphasize complexity.
Why this score: This is a clear example of loaded language, specifically hyperbole. The speaker isn't literally claiming to have surveyed every single person on Earth about their understanding of the comic. Instead, they're using an extreme statement to convey how incredibly confusing the comic is. A neutral framing would be 'The comic is extremely difficult to understand' or 'Many readers find the comic incomprehensible.' The chosen phrasing amplifies the perceived difficulty.
Original quote: “I don't think really anyone in the world understands what's going on at times.”
The speaker suggests analyzing Jack Master's comics for hidden meanings is a 'futile endeavor' and 'probably impossible.' — This is a strong opinion presented as a likely truth, subtly discouraging deeper analysis. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
The speaker uses strong, definitive language ('futile endeavor,' 'probably impossible') to express an opinion about the interpretability of the comics.
Why this score: While acknowledging that people enjoy analyzing Jack Master's work, the speaker immediately dismisses the value of such efforts, calling it a 'futile endeavor' and 'probably impossible' to truly understand. This framing uses strong, discouraging language to present an opinion as a near-certainty, potentially influencing viewers to abandon any attempts at deeper analysis. It's a subtle way to guide the audience's perception of the material's worth without providing concrete evidence for why it's 'futile' or 'impossible' beyond the inherent complexity of interpreting a troubled mind's work.
Original quote: “Now, people online find a lot of interest in analyzing Jack Master's work and trying to find hidden meaning within the comics and trying to solve the puzzles within them. And if you get enjoyment out of that, I think that's totally fine. But I will also say I think trying to solve the puzzles or…”
Speculating about comic creation under influence and missing parts — uses 'I think' for uncertainty. — No Frame (75/100)
At 12:30
Acknowledges uncertainty with 'I think' — fair framing for a speculative observation.
Why this score: The speaker is upfront about their lack of certainty regarding the comic's creation and missing parts, using phrases like 'I'm not totally sure' and 'I think'. This is a transparent way to present an observation that isn't definitively verifiable, allowing the viewer to weigh the speculation appropriately.
Original quote: “while he was on acid. And also, I'm not totally sure, but I think some of the comic is missing, too.”
The Wikipedia edit came from an IP address in WWE's hometown — hinting at a connection. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 14:30
Says 'many sources say' but names zero. Classic anonymous authority to add weight without proof.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'many sources say' to lend credibility to the claim about the IP address without actually citing any specific sources. This is a common rhetorical move to suggest widespread agreement or knowledge without providing verifiable evidence. A more neutral framing would be to name a specific source or acknowledge that the information is widely reported but not officially confirmed. It's steering your reaction by implying a consensus that might not be as solid as it sounds.
Original quote: “And even stranger, many sources say that this edit on Wikipedia was made by someone who was using an IP address registered to Stamford, Connecticut, where WWE is based.”
Introducing 'Fashion Avenue' as a 'creepy' and 'extremely strange' website, setting an emotional tone before describing its origin. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 16:30
Using 'creep me out' and 'extremely strange' immediately sets a negative, mysterious tone before any details are given.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged words like 'creep me out' and 'extremely strange' right at the introduction of 'Fashion Avenue.' This pre-frames the audience's perception of the website as unsettling and bizarre, even before any specific content or details are provided. A neutral framing would simply describe the website's appearance (e.g., 'a large wall of text') and then introduce its creator, allowing the audience to form their own judgment about its strangeness.
Original quote: “Fashion Avenue. Fashion Avenue is one of the first websites to really creep me out in a while. When you first visit the page, it's just this huge wall of text. And when you get to reading it, the website just is extremely strange. This website was apparently made by a woman who went by Carol who…”
Repeats specific hook model — highlights unusual fixation — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:30
The repetition of the specific hook model emphasizes the unusual nature of the desire. — It's a straightforward observation of the website's content.
Why this score: The speaker is simply relaying information from the website, noting the specific detail and its repetition. This isn't a framing technique in itself, but rather an observation of a detail that contributes to the overall strangeness of the story. A neutral framing would just state the information without the 'creeps me out' part, but even that is a personal reaction, not a manipulative frame.
Original quote: “who went by Carol who was 21 years old when she made this website and she's soon to be graduating college. And her whole thing is is she really really wants to be an amputee. Specifically, she wants both of her hands removed so they can be replaced with hooks. And on the website, she constantly…”
Claiming a blog author used 'psychological assessment tools' to diagnose his adopted child as a psychopath. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 20:30
The speaker attributes a serious diagnosis to the blog author without naming the 'tools' or confirming the author's qualifications. — This is a classic 'anonymous authority' move, even if it's the blog author's claim.
Why this score: The speaker states that the blog author 'uses psychological assessment tools to determine that his adopted child is a psychopath.' This frames the author's self-diagnosis as having a basis in professional methodology ('psychological assessment tools') without providing any details about these tools, the author's qualifications to administer them, or the validity of the diagnosis. This leans on an unnamed, unverified 'authority' (the tools) to lend weight to a potentially problematic claim made by a non-professional. Community comments also highlight this concern, noting the parents 'diagnose'…
Original quote: “Raising a psycho. So, this is somebody's personal blog that has since been removed from Bloggger's website, but you can only view it on the Wayback Machine. Now, this blog is written by a guy who alongside his wife adopted a child who they believe to be a psychopath. And by psychopath, he's not…”
The speaker acknowledges the dad's lack of expertise in psychology, using 'obviously' to frame it as a self-evident truth. — No Frame (75/100)
At 22:30
The speaker uses 'obviously' to highlight the dad's lack of professional background, which is fair and accurate.
Why this score: The speaker is being straightforward here, using a common conversational softener ('obviously') to introduce a valid and important point: the dad's self-diagnosis of his son's psychopathy is not a professional assessment. This is clean framing because it doesn't try to manipulate the audience's perception; it simply states a fact and its implication. A neutral framing would be simply stating 'The dad has no background in psychology,' but adding 'obviously' just makes it more conversational without being manipulative.
Original quote: “And by the way, I should point out that obviously I'm no expert in this field, but I think in a professional setting, the way professionals would go about actually determining what mental condition this kid has would probably be way different than how the dad is going about doing this.”
Detailing Lucas's problematic behavior from the blog — presenting it as fact without direct source. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 24:30
The speaker is recounting specific, serious incidents from a blog without directly quoting or showing the blog itself. — We're just taking their word for what the blog says.
Why this score: This is a classic 'missing context' move. The speaker is relaying information from a third-party source (the blog) but isn't showing the source or quoting it directly. We're relying on their interpretation and summary of the blog's content, which could be biased or incomplete. A more neutral framing would involve showing screenshots of the blog posts or quoting specific passages.
Original quote: “does seem to be a pretty problematic kid. They do mention Lucas having quite a few problems with stealing, lying, having no remorse for others, having no sense of danger. They also mention more specific incidents, like apparently Lucas had an issue with groping a girl at school. And also, at one…”
Inviting viewers to decide if Lucas is a 'psychopath' or his parents are — framing a complex situation as a simple binary choice. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 26:30
Framing it as 'Lucas is a psychopath OR his parents are' is a false dilemma. There are a million other possibilities for a troubled kid.
Why this score: This statement presents a false dilemma by suggesting viewers must choose between Lucas being a 'psychopath' or his parents being the problem, or both. This oversimplifies a complex psychological and familial situation, ignoring a spectrum of possibilities like trauma, mental health issues, environmental factors, or a combination of challenges that don't fit neatly into 'psychopath' labels. A neutral framing would acknowledge the complexity and avoid pushing a binary choice, e.g., 'You can read the website to understand the family's perspective on Lucas's challenges and their parenting.'
Original quote: “Go give the website a read for yourself and you can determine if Lucas is a psychopath or his parents are or both.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →