Beardo Live: Fake Vs Real Pt3

This third part of Beardo Live: Fake Vs Real will discuss Beardo's livestream from the point where Kev Kerr from Kev Kerr Paranormal joined as a guest. When he joins, Stee and Dolly from Paranormal By The Sea leave the livestream. If you haven't read the previous articles regarding this livestream, I recommend you do so as there are some fantastic points discussed regarding the fake paranormal and the impact it has on legitimate investigators. 

Beardo's livestream was conducted on the 14th of August 2024, and was titled as 'Is the FAKE paranormal damaging the legit investigators? With guests'. Beardo, from the YouTube channel 'Beardo Gets Scared' arranged and hosted the livestream, and the guests involved for the portion of the livestream to be discussed in this article were Justin from the 'Paranormal Monkey Podcast', Paul from 'Ghosts On Trent', Joe Vitale from 'Entity Seven Paranormal', Kev Kerr from 'Kev Kerr Paranormal', and Kenny Biddle. 

Kev Kerr joined the livestream, and Stee and Dolly from Paranormal By The Sea left the livestream, at roughly one hour and twenty-seven minutes through the roughly three hour long video. Upon Kev joining, he introduced himself. For his introduction he said that he had been investigating for fifteen years, and had done residential investigations with the national register of paranormal investigators. He also said he investigated random locations while trying to find out if ghosts were real. He said he does this from a skeptical and scientific aspect, but also remains open-minded as he wants to find the truth regardless of what that is; whether real, psychological, or physical. 

Beardo's First Question: 

"Kev, have you ever walked out of a location and thought 'that's haunted' or potentially haunted?"

Kev responds to Beardo's question by saying there are 'a couple' he's thought need further investigation and that need looking at properly. He continued by saying he left a confidential National Trust location thinking that they didn't do enough at all. He said they were at this location for three nights, and on the third night they could just sit quietly and hear things happen. He also believed he saw a full apparition while investigating the location, and that the equipment reacted at the same time. He went on to say that they also heard footsteps which made them think someone was in that room. As a result of all this, he thought lots could be done there to test and get more data. Kev also acknowledged that he's been to other locations where it's been flat and he's gotten nothing while there. 

Personally, I think that all places which have had human history are more than likely haunted by at least one spirit. I don't think it's as simple as a place being haunted, or not being haunted. I think there are three categories: 'actively haunted', 'haunted', and 'not haunted'. I think anywhere which isn't haunted is going to be a remote countryside location, or somewhere that hasn't been touched by humans for many years. I think if somewhere is haunted, then that means there is at least one spirit present. If somewhere is activity haunted, then the spirit present actively has enough energy to 'make things happen' regarding moving objects and making noises etc. Through this logic, I think everyone has frequently visited haunted locations, but they may not have frequently visited locations which are actively haunted. 

Once Kev finished his answer, Kenny Biddle joined the livestream. For his introduction, he explained that he is the chief investigator for the committee for skeptical enquiry, and that he had been doing that job for several years. He also said he has freelanced for the skeptical enquirer magazine, and that he writes articles and produces videos where he investigates claims of the paranormal such as ghosts, aliens, ufos, monsters, and religious mysteries. He continued by saying he approaches it from a scientific and skeptical point of view, and then publishes his results. Plus, he tours, lectures, and does workshops around America. Through this, he teaches about photo anomalies and editing to add the special effects which are often used in viral videos.

World to rights' Comment:

"KEV KERR, WHAT DO YOU THINK TO DISINGENUOUS VID DESCRIPTIONS? TERRIFYING PARANORMAL. BUT NOTHIHG HAPPENS, IT'S VERY ANNOYING"

Kev answered by saying he thinks it's a requirement on YouTube for traffic, and that he doesn't think it's damaging to the paranormal as it's just one of those clickbait things that are required. He explained that when you're on YouTube, you need to massage the algorithm to get people interested and that it doesn't matter how good the content is; it's getting people into the first step. He said it's irritating but that you can look at news headlines and see that they've written that just to get you in. He further explained it's clickbait, but to the right minded person it's obvious, and that it's needed to be done. 

Beardo added by saying he's been guilty of it, and said he's put a thumbnail on a video which wasn't a blatant lie but is the closest he's ever done. He said the thumbnail was of a ouija board on fire, and the title was 'the most terrifying ouija board I've ever seen in my life, video evidence'. The then explained it was a Smug Puppy video where all the tricks could be seen, and that as a result people called him out for clickbaiting. He said he responded by saying if the Smug Puppy video was real, then it would have been terrifying, and that it did get people to watch the video. He went on to say he thinks clickbait can do good if it's an honest investigation because if you put demon in the title, and find there is no demon, then you bring that audience to your video and it shows them there aren't really demons there. 

Justin, from the Paranormal Monkey Podcast, then said the alternative is being honest and so the title would be five hours and nothing happened. He emphasised that's the reality and so he fully understands clickbait as it's trying to get people in. He also said some will call it faking, but it isn't because if the content is genuine then they're just trying to get the initial few viewers to watch the video. Justin went on to say that if no one watches the video, then no one subscribes, and everyone will only watch the fake channels. 

Joe, from Entity Seven Paranormal, then said he wonders how many times a team can go somewhere and almost die. He elaborated on this by explaining every week a team almost dies but they don't come anywhere close to that, yet will throw it into the title. Joe also claimed titling a video in that way, with that example, is a form of false advertising. Kenny then added to the conversation by saying he doesn't think there are just two extremes where you either say it's the worst place you've been, or nothing happens; he explained you could just say you've investigated so and so house. He also said he recently came across a video from the conjuring house from a few years ago, and that the title was both false advertising and deceptive due to saying they found a body when they didn't. He did admit to watching the whole video though, but that it wasn't due to believing the clickbait as he's been in the game for long enough to know clickbait when he sees it.

Kev added by saying there are ethical limits of what can be described, and that regarding the media in general; when you click on a news homepage, every headline is manipulative, and so you click on it and find out it's actually quite boring. He finished his statement by saying it's part of the whole world. Beardo agreed and said it isn't just with the paranormal, but that it's everywhere. He also said he thinks there is a difference between a lie and clickbait. Kenny added by saying if he does an hour of nothing while sitting in the dark, then he will title the video as that. Joe then said that he'll say what they're doing, and where they are, but that's it.

I agree that clickbait is incredibly annoying, and I like that the teams acknowledge that clickbait doesn't only exist within the parnaormal; but that it also is frequently used media and news outlets. Sadly it's common, but it does work as it grabs people's attention and so gets them to read the article or to watch the video. Even newspapers do it as they always put an intriguing image on the cover along with a bold and dramatic title. It's a classic sales tactic, and it isn't anything new. 

Justin's statement:

"One thing I think we haven't really talked about is the influence of these fake channels on the general public because I think it's huge. The thing is, you know, you have members of the public who don't, are not maybe fully up to speed with a true paranormal investigation or how to do things properly. They see these fake channels, they then, you know, the publics have an interest in those kinds of things, the first thing they're probably going to do is go to a ghost event company. They go to the ghost event company, and because I used to work for a ghost event company I know that people have a completely unreal expectation of what they're gonna face when they get to a location. They get there and nothing happens, and so therefore then the ghost event company feels the need to then provide them with all the gadgets, and the gizmos, and the ouija boards, and the dowsing rods, or whatever they wanna use to make it seem as if they're having a legitimate paranormal experience; but initially I think a lot of that has come from TV shows and YouTube. I do think that the fakery has had an impact on what the general public think about the paranormal"

I think that Justin makes a great point, which is why I've quoted him. I do think that the general public's perception of the paranormal has been heavily shaped by what they have likely seen on YouTube, or on TV. Even if they've never sat and watched a full video or programme, there is a high chance that they've seen one advertised; which is arguably even worse as the adverts are quite often non-stop screaming and drama. I also agree that, aside the inflated perception from the public, the ghost event companies will feel the need to manufacture experiences for people. If someone goes to an event, they go with an expectation; and so will only return if their expectation is met or exceeded. If their expectation is ouija boards, noises, and a spooky atmosphere, then the ghost company will have to provide that in order to continue selling tickets. 

Kenny responded to Justin's statement by saying he went to a paid event, which was open to the general public. During that event someone's recorder picked up someone shouting, but only Kenny had heard the shouting coming from some living people on the other side of the building. The people who hadn't heard the shouting called it a genuine EVP, but Kenny insisted it was just the people he had heard shouting. The person who was running the event then told Kenny to shut up as the people who'd caught the recording had paid to be there, and so they had to give them something. Kenny then said he left the event as it was completely dishonest and he didn't like that they were letting people leave thinking they had a genuine experience without offering any explanation as to what it could have been. 

Joe, from Entity Seven Paranormal, added by saying that he had been to events, and that when rem pods were brought out and lit up it was claimed to be paranormal. He also said that if another explanation is given then they won't sell tickets and get the word of advertisement they want in order for more people to buy tickets and show up. Paul, from Ghosts On Trent, said he works closely with an events company and before every event starts they have a chat with the group and explain the chances of seeing an apparition, or a shadow, or anything on TV is slim to none. He said they also explain to the group if they've come for that then they've come for the wrong reason, and that the pre-warn them that their expectations should be low. He went on to say that they do provide equipment, but that this is done to get the group involved, to create excitement, and to let them try new things. He did then agree that he thinks some event companies do it just to sell tickets. 

Kenny Biddle's Question To Paul:

"When you have the talk with the people on the tour, do you also explain things like the ideomotor effect, and other things like that; or is it just presented as 'here are some spirit gadgets, they could detect paranormal activity' and leave it as that?"

Paul, from Ghosts On Trent, answers by saying that they just leave it as that. Kev then added by saying at events they have to entertain in some way as they're selling tickets. He also said it can be done the right way, and that there is a team which uses gadgets but they will say what the device is actually doing. He also said if they get something, then they say it may not necessarily be a ghost and that there could be scientific answers as to what's happening. He went on to say that team finds they sell more tickets by doing it properly and giving the full picture. Kev finished his comment by saying he doesn't see the logic of event companies which fake things as there will always be critical thinkers present. 

Justin, from the Paranormal Monkey Podcast, then said things are changing and people are taking a more critical stance. He backed this up by saying legitimate YouTube channels are seeing an increase in viewers, and that some fake teams are seeing their viewers decrease. He added by saying he thinks people are tired of being duped, and that TV in the UK is responding to match that. Beardo then brought up Danny Robins as an example of that, and said he's fantastic. He also said Cairen O' Keeffe is always seen as the golden boy of the paranormal, and that he was one of the only honest people involved with Most Haunted; with Richard Felix and Phil Whyman being other examples. He said those three are the only ones he has the time of day for. 

Joe, from Entity Seven Paranormal, then added to the conversation by saying he gets messages from people that tell him they're going to such a place where other teams have been, and that it seems wild there and so ask him for advice. He said his response is to lower their expectations, and then he gets a later message saying they're upset as nothing happened and so they wanted to blame the location or location owner as they think the place is fake. Joe went on to say he thinks it isn't on the location, or the owner, but that it's on whoever put the video out which said the location was wild. 

World To Rights' Comment, Read Out By Paul:

"Am I the odd one out here? I want the 100% truth, no bullshit, none at all. I can't believe people are saying you have to say that to make people watch"

Paul clarified that the comment is clearly about clickbait, and that if they want 100% truth then YouTube is the wrong place to look. He also said to find the truth, you need to go out and get your own personal experience on an investigation, and that's how you will 100% believe in the paranormal. He added by saying any of them could go out and capture an apparition on camera, but no one would believe it aside from those who captured it. Beardo agreed and said that YouTube is an entertainment platform run by Google, and so you have to treat it as a Google search engine to a degree. He also said he's in agreement with the anger towards having to stoop to those levels in order to get viewers, and that he thinks you should just be able to say they went to a place and nothing happened. 

Joe, from Entity Seven Paranormal, added by saying that even though there are those who go out and show how the paranormal really is, it still doesn't show the complete picture of what they're doing as you can can only put so much footage into a video, plus you only have so much time at a location. He finished his point by saying even though they're being honest, it still doesn't give the complete picture. Beardo then said the only way to do it completely honest is by doing it how Justin had described it earlier in the stream. He elaborated by saying this would involve using multiple cameras, recording everything, and uploading every single camera individually through YouTube; and added by questioning who would sit through that. 

Joe responded by saying he knows no one would sit through it as what Beardo described is exactly what he does. He said he releases all of his unedited footage, and people only watch it for a minute or two. Kenny then said that it's hard to say with confidence that something is honest as most videos only show the select footage the uploaded has chosen to show; so even if they're trying to be honest, the viewer isn't getting the full story. He added by saying clickbait isn't only on YouTube, that it's everywhere, and that he hates it as he thinks there are other ways of drawing attention aside from outright lying. 

Paul, from Ghosts On Trent, followed this by saying he thinks people's attention span has lowered over the years as they've become used to tiktok, YouTube shorts, and quick scrolling. He also said due to this, the content has to be eye catching; which means the thumbnail has to be captivating and the title has to get clicks, such as what happens all over with an example being news headlines. 

Wayne Dawson's Comment:

"QUESTION - If they're is no real evidence of the paranormal, then what's the explanation for all our paranormal encounters?"

Personally, I think this is a good question and is the reason why I believe that spirits do exist. I feel that there are too many similar, yet unexplained, paranormal experiences out there for spirits not to exist as a result. Plus, I feel that if spirits do not exist as all of these experiences can be explained away, then there should be a larger push to eradicate what science would view as a false believe out of the public's mind. Instead, when we should have absolute certainty if it isn't real, we have tv programmes advertising it as real and many people going out and investigating because they believe it is real. Although, there is a possibility that there hasn't been this push because of influences such as religion and profit that can be gained.

Also, in regards to there being no real evidence, I think there can be. I just think we aren't there yet to be able to collect credible evidence as I feel people involved in the paranormal are not working together in unison as they should, teams are not analysing the numerical side of investigations as they probably should, and modern technology may not be at the level it needs to be in order to properly detect spirits. I do think we will get a defining answer eventually, but it always takes time. For all we know, us trying to comprehend spirits could be the equivalent of cavemen trying to comprehend a phone. It doesn't mean they won't ever understand it, it will just take them time; perhaps years. 

Paul, from Ghosts On Trent, answered Wayne's comment by saying their own encounters and their own experiences. Kenny said it's a big question and that it doesn't have a simple answer. He continued by saying there is lots of misinterpretation, mistakes, optical illusions, and audio illusions. As a result, personal experiences are the most profound but they're also the worst kind of evidence as people can be so easily fooled. He explained you can go to a rubbish magic show and still be amazed at some of the tricks, which means you can't rely on personal stories. He finished by saying you need to try and replicate the experience and then talk to others who may be able to explain what happened. 

Paul's Question To Kenny:

"What happens if four people witnessed exactly the same thing at the same time?"

I think this is another really good question, and I really like Kenny's response. He said: "So, if you have four people the first thing that needs to be done is you immediately have to seperate them. If you have them all together and you are getting on scene hours, or days, or weeks later; it's invalid. It's useless. I mean, you can get their story and it's a 'cool story bro', but that's all it is; a story. You need to seperate those witnesses as soon as possible before they have a chance to talk about it". Kev adds to Kenny's response by saying that he calls it a spontaneous witness statement. He describes that the second the event happens, he gives the ones who experienced it a pen and paper and tells them to to go to a different corner and write what they saw without saying a word. 

Kenny continues Kev's point by saying that the witnesses will influence each other, will fill in gaps, and will take stories or details from another person and add it to their own story. He also said he's seen it occur time and time again with studies on memory and eye witness recall where different descriptions mean different things to different people. He explained if someone says the book came off the shelf and flew across the room, it could mean if fell off the shelf not too far away, or that it catapulted off the shelf across and into another room. Kenny further said this is why you have to seperate the witnesses and ask clarifying questions. He also said a good example is when people say they saw an apparition in 'period dress' as that could mean so many things. So, if four people said they saw a shadow figure at the end of the hall then that's one story which doesn't tell you anything as they need to be separated and questioned as soon as it happened. 

Kev then said you can go to a place with history, know the history, and then you'll experience something and assume it relates to what is known about the place's history and hauntings. As a result it means nothing to him when people say it wasn't just them that saw it. Kenny added by saying youmcould have an actual physical event that four people witness, such as a shadow, but that doesn't mean it's a shadow figure or an apparition. It could just be a shadow due to light going through a window, which is why replicating it is important. He finished by saying the worst thing is when someone says they're a paranormal investigator and they fail to investigate what they claim happened. 

I absolutely agree with what Kev and Kenny have said here. Having learnt A Level psychology, I'm aware of what Kenny discusses regarding eye witness testimony. I remember we learnt about a few studies, and one I remember relates directly to what Kenny describes. It was about the impact of changing a word when asking a question. For this study, participants watched a video of a car crash, and afterwards were asked how fast the cars were going when they crashed into one another. The video remained the same for each participant, but the word 'crashed' was replaced in the question for words such as 'bumped', 'collided', and 'flew'. It was found that participants who were given the more extreme words such as 'crashed' and 'flew' gave higher speeds of impact than those who were given tamer words such as 'bumped'. As a result, the study showed the question had an impact on the participant's memory of how fast the cars were moving, and therefore of how serious the collision was. This directly relates to what Kenny said about a book flying off a shelf. 

Through learning about psychology, and the impact of things such as leading questions on memory, you learn that you really cannot trust anything you remember. This is why Kenny and Kev place such an emphasis on separating the witnesses, because they will absolutely have an impact on each other's memories without realising. This is why I always try to write down anything I experience as soon as I can; because I know the longer it goes without me documenting it, the more likely it is for my documentation to be incorrect in some way. It's also why I don't trust the human senses on an investigation. People can be fooled too easily, so if you hear something then you've only heard it if a device has picked it up; and the same goes for if you have seen something. You always need something to validate the experience, and this can also be done through multiple people experiencing something, not discussing it, and then seeing they've all written the same thing. 

Thank You! 

Thank you for reading this article! It was interesting for the teams to go in depth regarding clickbait, events companies, and eye witness testimony. These are all things I feel tend not to be discussed to the levels discussed in Beardo's livestream, and I think all of the teams involved made excellent points. As said in previous parts, this is exactly why I'm writing these articles; so that the discussion doesn't get lost within one long video on YouTube amongst a sea of videos. If you want to watch Beardo's full livestream, then you can click on the link beneath this paragraph. On Wednesday the 9th of October I will be discussing this article live on Facebook and Tiktok, and on Monday the 7th of October I will publish the next location article. Beardo Live Pt4 will be published on Friday the 11th of October. 

 

Beardo's Full Livestream

A special thank you goes to Damain, Nicolette, Kerry, GD, Gran, Chris Willcx, Nicola Jada, Nita Raveling-Hamilton, David Lee Jones, theinoculator, 1141520851813892291920, Angeles Wernicke Zapiola, Ke v, Crispinfandom, Thiago Lima, Edgar Darnell, Megzii Hughes, Jacks-and-graves, The Cornish Ghost Whispers, Beardo Gets Scared, Starlight Phoenix Paranormal, Paranormal Penny Pinchers, the Australian Paranormal Society, Codegas Codex of Curiousity, Phantom Detectives LLC, Shadow Walkers Paranormal Investigators, South Of Spooky, Don't Scare Claire, blogparanormalexpresso2stuff, Paranormal Connections, Phantom Seekers Paranormal, chatibelieveinghosts, Purbeck Paranormal Investigators, Ghost Investigations, ParanormalTruthNetwork, haunted, and Tamworth Castle for your continued support of The True Paranormal. If you want to be thanked in an article, or in the monthly appreciation post I make across social media, then please share my articles and tag 'The True Paranormal'. If I see that you've shared, then I will publicly thank you! 

If you want to follow The True Paranormal you can do so on Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, YouTube, X (formerly known as Twitter), Tumblr, and Pinterest. You can also subscribe to The True Paranormal on YouTube, or directly to this website through the bar on the left which will give you email notifications. That bar also lists all of the links which will take you to The True Paranormal's various social media platforms. If you want to contact me about your own experiences, or about anything at all paranormal, you can email thetrueparanormal1@gmail.com

A Donation Message 

If you've enjoyed this article, it would be massively appreciated if you could donate anything you can towards The True Paranormal. With your donations, I can continue to build up the database and document haunted locations, paranormal experiences, the individuals who are involved in the paranormal, plus more. If you are interested in donating, then you can do so through PayPal. My username is Daniel Carr and my paypal email is danielcarr130913@gmail.com. If you donate, I will be sure to thank you across social media and in my articles. Anything donated is much appreciated.