I truly don't understand why he still has his position. The sad thing is that he'll probably get promoted.
- documenting their BS claims (for your own usage, primarily)
- building trust and credibility with superiors and peers
- biding your time and eventually calling them out on BS in meetings, but only doing so when:
a) they go quite deep into the BS (as they inevitably do)
b) you have firm and credible facts/knowledge ready to use against the BS
c) you are able to pull it off in a calm manner, preferably something that could be perceived as you just asking for a clarification, but still leaves the meeting in a slightly uncomfortable state because the bullshitter's "explanation" seems so obviously fake to anyone with half a brain.
2-3 well-directed questions for "clarifications" like that can be quite lethal over time.
Anyone who is doing a good enough job of perception management is going to be better at managing perceptions from conversations better than you. They've had more practice!
You can end up looking like a person who overly cares about individual glory/not being a "team player"/trying to rain on someone else's parade.
Especially with C. People can spot disingenuous comments much easier than non-expert comments.
And easier way would be to implement something like stand-ups or demo days where each person has to own something.
Consistent underperformance should then be easily visible.
They will see you coming long before you see them. They will have previously set up their reward system with you so it's a Mutually Assured Destruction relationship.
This seems like a great idea until you realise that these bullshitters thrive together and the meeting is full of them so they are going to hang on each others claims.