Beardo Live: Fake Vs Real Pt5

This article will be the final part in the 'Beado Live: Fake Vs Real' series that documents the fantastic discussions which occured within one of Beardo's livestreams. There will be one more article relating to the livestream, but it will discuss the reaction of other investigators to the stream instead of discussing the contents of the stream. If you haven't read the other parts in the 'Beardo Live: Fake Vs Real' series, I highly recommend you do so as many excellent points were raised. I will link Beardo's full livestream at the end of this article. 

The livestream in question was  titled 'Is the FAKE paranormal damaging the legit investigators? With guests'. This stream was conducted by Beardo, from the youtube channel 'Beardo Gets Scared', on the 14th of August 2024 and ran for roughly three hours. Just as in the previous part in this series, the guests involved in this portion of the discussion 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. 

Rick Dursch's Comment: 

"All: what would you consider your irrefutable proof of paranormal evidence"

Beardo began the discussion by saying he has had irrefutable proof; and that his proof is he witnessed a guy standing at the end of his bed, and that his uncle had the same experience several years later. He explained his uncle had seen the same guy, and didn't know who it was either. They later found out who it was when a photo album was opened years and years later when they were both adults, and they both recognised a guy in the album was the man they had seen. It was revealed the man was his great grandfather, and he had never seen the photo before, and it was the only existing photo of him. Beardo then said the experience was enough proof for him that the paranormal is real and that he saw a ghost. He also said he didn't know it was a ghost at the time, he was only six years old or younger, and that he thought there was a real guy in the room with him. 

Personally, I think that Beardo's experience could be legitimate from what he's described. My own thoughts on apparitions are that they will be so clear that you won't be able to recognise them as ghosts. I've worked with someone who knew I was interested in the paranormal, and they told me of an experience they had where they may have spoken to ghosts. They were standing at a bus stop, or a tram stop, at the time and two people in victorian attire approached them and said something, possibly about getting home safe. The person I worked with looked away from them for a moment and when they looked back, the two people had disappeared. I've found a few haunted locations have similar stories where people think they're interacting with another person, possibly dressed in an outdated way, only for them to later question if the person they spoke to was a ghost. It seems to be a trend, and I think it's likely more accurate than the stereotypical image of a semi-transparent figure which is only visible from the waist up. 

Kev responded to Beardo by saying he could debunk his experience by using what he knows of psychology and false memories. I do agree with Kev, and false memories are exactly why any experience should be written down in detail as soon as possible. Your memory will change over time. A good example is my retelling of the story in the previous paragraph. It may have been a tram stop, but I've possibly misremembered it as a bus stop as they are more common. The same goes for what the potential spirits said; getting home safe is fairly generic and stereotypical, and so this is likely why I remember it as that. The more accurate version is hopefully written in my journal.

Kev went on to say that irrefutable evidence is an excessive level of data in a small situation as they don't know what they're measuring. He said they have to measure everything atmospheric, visual, temperature, humidity, and radiation to see what changes at the same time as another thing across multiple different data sets in order to say it's irrefutable proof. He also said that he's found after fifteen years you  end to enjoy what you like and that you shouldn't feed more nonsense into an already fogged up system. He said you try and learn, and that you try and do what you like, and a personal experience is what you'll get. He also commented that you will never get irrefutable evidence of the paranormal on something that is repeatable, and that it's something about the human or personal experience which is required through trauma, psychology, an effect on the environment, or the environment having an effect on us. Kev continued by saying it's just part of the human experience, and as a result you will not find irrefutable proof. He also explained that evidence for Beardo isn't evidence enough for him, just as his won't be evidence for someone else. He finished by saying it's a redundant question as there are multiple answers to one question every time.

Justin, from the Paranormal Monkey Podcast, then added by saying his East Drive experience was enough proof for him. He explains this is because it made him go from thinking 'this is a scam' to 'this place might be haunted'. He continued by saying that he left East Drive after hundreds of hours with something kicking off knocking and banging in an empty room during a time when they knew where everyone was; and so he couldn't debunk the experience, and ten others witnessed it. He said it was a shared experience and not personal. He also said that outside the ten people, people likely wouldn't believe it happened as they would question the proof and how they knew no one was in the room. He finished his point by saying it's never enough for someone outside of the moment. 

I think Justin and Kev both made excellent points. Quite often I wonder what would be proof enough when it comes to investigating the paranormal; and this is why I took a more numerical approach through analysing word lists generated by the Spirit Talker app. I think as technology progresses, and as it becomes easier and more accessible to fake things convincingly, visual and audio footage will not be credible to the general public. I think the only way to prove the paranormal exists will be through identifying some sort of pattern of behaviour. Humans are creatures of habit, and I would assume this to extend to spirits in some way too. Granted, it's difficult to predict human behaviour in response to stimuli; but I believe it can be done in some capacity. If so, the same should be applicable to spirits. I don't think the proof will ever be as exciting as footage of someone walking through a wall, or of something legitimately floating across a room; it will probably be something far more boring and likely numeric in nature.

Paul, from Ghosts On Trent, added to the conversation by saying he went from kicking a ball in a car park to being called into a factory by a scared security guard, and that this led to him having a paranormal experience. He said that ever since this event, he has been searching for it and debunking things. He also said it makes him think that he was young at the time of his experience, and so he wonders if what he portrayed in his mind is actually what happened. He then said he wants definitive proof, and that's what keeps him searching. Paul touched on an interesting point regarding the mind perceiving something as different to the reality. I made a point about this in my National Justice Museum article as someone is said to have been scratched there, but I speculate that perhaps they naturally itched their arm, forgot about it, and then noticed the 'scratches' when in a heightened and spooky atmosphere while being told about murders and darkness. This could have led to his mind perceiving the scratches as far worse than they were, and it could have led to his mind making the assumption that he had been attacked by a spirit in that moment. This is why a calm and rational mind is always crucial on an investigation; but even then, the mind can always be decieved.

Joe, from Entity Seven Paranormal, continued the conversation by saying that outside of personal experiences, anything he puts out is not evidence; it's at best suggestive. He said he and Dawn heard what sounded like someone walking towards them, and that he never said it was a ghost, but he said no one was there but them. He also said they went looking, and still doesn't know what the sound was. He continued by saying the issue is not enough information as even though they had cameras, the basement and a crawl space were not covered. This means it could have been an animal, and so even though it was interesting and wierd, it was not proof. He then said that people can believe what they want, but he would be lying if they said it was a ghost. Beardo added another of his own experiences by saying he and Paul heard high heels and a woman say 'hello' three times. He thought it was a person only later to realise that would make no sense, and so he thought it was interesting. 

Justin, from the Paranormal Monkey Podcast, then said he wonders how much stuff they dismiss when it could have been genuine. To add to this point, he said he was at a hotel for an investigator training weekend and a couple of people heard a child crying out along with a man telling the child off and apologising for the child shouting. They noting this down, but didn't think anything of it, only to later find no one else was in the hotel and that there were definitely no children in the hotel. Justin then emphasised that something ordinary may not be, yet it is automatically dismissed. Again, I think this is potentially a very real paranormal experience and relates to my earlier points about how the paranormal is likely so real that people won't recognise it as anything other than ordinary. 

Kenny continued the conversation by saying it would take an enormous amount of study, and that he doesn't accept personal experiences as he knows how easily people can be fooled. He also said he's worked with magicians and mentalists, and so he knows how easily people can be fooled, and will not take anything at face value. He said optical illusions, hallucinations, and mental health issues could all be at play; and so for him personally, it would take lots of study, a controlled environment, repeatability, some kind of readings, and you would have to measure it. He also said if he experiences it then that means it's measurable by default as they know frequencies, tactile sensations, and ranges. He explained you need to get data repeatability to get more data to compare, and then you need it to be analysed. He went on to say that if an apparition appeared infront of him then the first thing he would do is poke it to see if he goes through it, if he can touch it, if he can feel it, if it's hot, if it's cold, or if it's squishy. He also said this is all to make sure it isn't an optical illusion, and that people can create ghosts by projecting images onto smoke and mist, or by using screens which are very tiny and thin which you won't see from a distance. He finished by saying it isn't as simple as having a personal experience. 

A good example of what Kenny mentions regarding illusions and effects is the Pepper's Ghost effect. This particular effect is used in various haunted house type locations, and is created by reflecting an image in a screen. It looks similar to a hologram, but despite the image looking 3D, it isn't. These kinds of effects have been used for a long time, and people have been fooled by simple tricks for far longer. As a result, just as Kenny says, you need to gather as much data as possible when you think you've experienced something and you need to test it and try to recreate it. If no further data can be gathered beyond the initial event, then the event is almost as good as not happening in the first place. 

Beardo then highlighted the fact there are six people on the panel who are all discussing the paranormal with different views and experiences, and that there were no outbursts of anger, and that no one was getting annoyed for someone having a different opinion to them. He also explained that to be the reason why he wanted to do the stream. Paul, form Ghosts On Trent, added to Beardo's point by saying they can all take stuff from it. He also said he learns from Kenny, Joe, and Kev, plus that he'd be leaving the conversation being a little more skeptical about the paranormal than he was before. Beardo hits the nail on the head for me there, as does Paul, and it's one of a number of reasons why I felt the need to document the livestream as I have done. It perfectly showed that everyone involved in the paranormal, regardless of how much you believe, can work together and have a civilised discussion and debate. I really like that Paul acknowledges the learning factor too. No one knows everything, and so by working with others it gives you an opportunity to learn from them and to teach them. I believe it's only through this kind of cooperation that the paranormal can either be proven or disproven.

Kenny then changes topic a little by saying he's bought tickets to go to paranormal events, and within thirty seconds he received an email asking why he's going to the event. He said he replies to them by saying he just wants to visit, but then they say no and that they don't need him there; plus they refund his money, not letting him go at all. He said that's a reflection on that company and that it's a big red flag to him. I think that, relating to everyone working together; if anyone refuses cooperation in this way with someone who is clearly legitimate, then the one refusing is hiding fakery. Everyone should be open to working with one another, and if not then I feel that's a clear indication that they're trying to keep something secret. 

Justin's Question To Kenny: 

"Do they think you're gonna go into conflict with them over things or how they're running their event?"

Kenny responded by saying he usually writes up his experience after an event, and that he writes it as he sees it while trying to be polite and not insulting. He also explained that he thinks they're afraid he'll write that the place isn't haunted and that he didn't find any ghosts. He said this is normal and that he doesn't ever find ghosts, but is still openly looking for them. He went on to say that he got heavily questioned by a local location that wanted to know what he was writing before he published it. He said they were even going to assign a chaperone to him for the night, which is something he doesn't understand as it isn't like he will fake things and if they're confident that stuff is happening then they should be willing to demonstrate it to him.

Joe, from Entity Seven Paranormal, said they're willing to take Kenny with them on investigations. He explained this is because stuff has happened to them that they couldn't explain, and so with Kenny there then he may be able to provide an explanation if it happens again. He also said it offers a different perspective, and that's important. He finished by saying he's fine with debunking as that's the truth, and the truth is all that matters to him. Justin added by saying more genuine channels are fully open to education, and so are learning from others along with researching. He also said he doesn't care who he's talking to on his podcast as he's willing to learn from them. He continued by saying he doesn't think the fake channels are willing to learn and be educated, possibly because they may be in it purely for the views and subscribers. Paul added by saying he doesn't think the cupcake channels are interested in the paranormal at all, and that it's all about making revenue to them as they basically make mini-films and horror films. 

I think the points about learning and education are good signs which can be used to help identify fake channels. A brilliant example I can think of is Most Haunted, and this is something I commented on while reviewing their 2023 Halloween investigation. There is a moment where Karl, one of the investigators and producer of the programme, zooms in on a fly which is on the ceiling. This is during the day, so it's quite easy to see. During this clip, Karl says he's zoomed in on the fly and that he doesn't know why aside from feeling it's 'quite ominous' and 'quite negative'. This is while the team is experiencing loud knocks, but when watching the clip I was surprised to Karl's lack of paranormal knowledge. He's been investigating the paranormal for twenty years or so, and zooms in on a fly without knowing flies are warnings of danger, death, evil, and are representations of the demonic in the paranormal. The demon Beelzebub is literally known as 'lord of the flies'. As a long serving investigator, Karl should have known this, especially as he said it felt ominous and quite negative. This means either he lied about not knowing, or he lacks paranormal knowledge; both of which are poor traits of a legitimate investigator of twenty years as he claims to be.

Kenny continued the conversation by saying he's been accused of not being open minded. He said the definition is to be open to new possibilities and new information, not to readily accept it, and so he doesn't have to accept it just because they say it happened. He said it's willingness to consider new information and to see if it's valid. If so, then he incorporates it's into his world view, and if not then he rejects it. He also said he knows enough about Beardo, Kev, and Joe to know they are open to being wrong; and he assumes Justin and Paul are the same. He doesn't see that from other parts of the paranormal community, and these parts are the definition of closed minded as they're being stubborn to their experience and believe it without question. 

Kev said as a skeptic in the paranormal, you're thought of as a cynic, and that you're always going to shut things down, say what it is, and be horrible. He also said skeptics can be seen as a fountain of all knowledge, and so if they can't explain it then it must be paranormal. He explained some know more than others, and so he will go to Kenny if he's captured something that he's unsure on. Kenny agreed, and said he's often heard 'alright Mr. Skeptic, how do you explain this'; and in response he says he doesn't know and needs time. Kenny also points out that it's up to the investigator to prove it as if they make the claim, then it's on them to prove it's true, not on the debunker to prove it's false. Justin then added a quick point that academics such as Cairen O'Keeffe are viewed as dismissible. 

Kev comments on Justin's comment by saying Cairen is known to stretch an alternative explanations too far, and that skeptics and debunkers can do the same. He said it's as though they're looking for a debunk and so their answer can debunk, but it can also do just as much as believers who go to these extents to justify something being paranormal. He continued by saying the academics can be more desperate to protect their reputation just as a believer can be to protect the paranormal. He also said to be open-minded is to be educated and recognise something they don't know instead of taking what they know and saying the explanation could be bits of things. He finished his point by saying the skeptical and debunker sides need to be held accountable when they stretch an explanation. 

There's a line in the first Sherlock Holmes film with Robert Downey Jr which I feel fits well with what Kev explains. In this film, Sherlock says to Watson: 'Never theorise before you have any data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts'. The exact quote which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote was: 'It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts'. This is applicable to Kev's point because it's what he says academics can do, along with skeptics, debunkers, and believers. The paranormal can be extremely lacking in data, and therefore everyone is probably lacking in the appropriate knowledge needed to provide an accurate explanation. Therefore, everyone can easily fall into the trap of twisting the facts to suit their own theories which are likely based in a biased belief. 

Beardo then said he has seen explanations Cairen has given, and he isn't sure they all make sense. Kev also clarified that there is lots of pressure on Cairen as he is known for being a great skeptic. Kenny added by saying both sides need to realise it isn't important to be right all the time, and that it's important to understand what's going on and to say you don't know instead of coming up with a reason. He said he's done it where he's made up explanations as he didn't want to be wrong, but has grown out of that now as says he doesn't know. He also explained that physics and biology aren't his areas and so consults those people if need be. Kenny finished his point by saying that people should work together to find the answer; no as I've already discussed in this article, I couldn't agree more with him. 

Bob Knox's Question: 

"Is faking the paranormal for believers really any different to what organised religions have been doing for years?"

Beardo responded by saying 'I think so yeah'. He also explained that churches and priests 100% believe there is God, Jesus, and more; but the fake paranormal knows there's nothing and will make rempods go off and wires be pulled. He said he isn't religious but respects people who believe it and likes to think that churches believe it too. He then explained that he isn't saying all churches are good, and that some bad things have happened in the name of religion, but it's world's apart. Joe, from Entity Seven Paranormal, added by saying certain pastors are just in it for money, and that's better way to ask the question than by saying organised religion. He went on to say there are individuals who run big churches who make lots of money on stuff they don't believe in, plus they claim to do miracles through god and cure people on stage. 

I could be wrong, but I do think the initial question was intended to ask about organised religion and not the individuals who profit from their own churches. A good example of an individual would be Peter Popoff as he did make lots of money from it, and went to the extremes of falsely telling people to throw away their medication because he had cured them. I do think the question refers to organised religion in general though, and I think it is a really interesting point. Looking at the Most Haunted team again, I do think Yvette Fielding could genuinely have a belief in the paranormal. Even Peter Popoff seems to believe he's genuinely helping people. So, looking at organised religions, how different are they from the likes are Fielding and Popoff? Organised religions profit, they affect people's world view, they also create a sense of community around something there is little to no valid proof of. As far as I'm aware, this is everything which the fake paranormal does too.

Therefore, I would say faking the paranormal is incredibly similar to organised religion; but it has a slight difference. This difference is that the fake paranormal is debunked, but religion is not. As Beardo mentions, you can see wires being pulled with the fake paranormal; but with religion, you don't have that kind of clear thing occur. For religion to be fake, you need to go way back to whoever wrote the original bibles and scriptures. They could just have been books which were taken and sensationalised, akin to what happens today with the likes of Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings, and then over the years they've been translated over and over again and people have read into them and picked them apart, creating a religion in the process. That's why religion is more muddy regarding fake or real than something such as the paranormal. It isn't 'fake' in the present day as people who preach scripture do genuinely believe it, but that isn't to say it's origins were at all honest. It's a complex topic and debate. 

Elaine Curtis' Question: 

"Why aren't we calling out exorcism and religious involvement? I've listened to a Bishop tell people they invited it by not attending mass, completely unethical"

Beardo answered the question by saying that's just scare tactics, and that it's why he doesn't get into those conversations. He also said a bishop banned him from his demonology class as he found out he was a debunker; and so Beardo believes he wasn't a real priest. Kenny said he watches that Bishop's videos on tiktok and thinks it's irresponsible, unethical, and that he's a danger to people. Joe, from Entity Seven Paranormal, then said it isn't ok and is dangerous when saying fake videos are real. Kenny also said when they say it's a demon, if the makers of the video have a belief in that then the viewer is taking advice and they're going to leave their house; and so it's irresponsible. 

I agree that religion, although a valid part of the paranormal, shouldn't be mentioned as frequently as it seems to be in regards to being an explanation. Bishops, priests, any legitimate religious figure, should not be involved in the paranormal on YouTube or tiktok. They definitely shouldn't be advising people on hauntings on a public platform. I think any who do this publicly are likely just in it for money, and so will not be legitimate, and they will not have the homeowners best interests at heart. My own beliefs are that I suspect angels and demons are simply misinterpreted human spirits who work on positive or negative energy. As a result, I think if exorcisms are brought into the conversation, then the mental health of those involved needs to be assessed over a period of time first. 

The livestream then came to a close with Beardo saying he will possibly do streams like this one once a month. Justin, from the Paranormal Monkey Podcast, said he's seen a few comments as they've talked saying how needed the discussion was, and Kenny said it was good to be able to speak freely. I absolutely agree that this livestream was an incredibly needed discussion, and this is why I've written a number of articles documenting it. I think it was so important that I don't want it to be forever lost amongst Beardo's videos, and further lost amongst every video on YouTube. Even the points themselves could easily be lost within what was a three hour long livestream; and so hopefully these articles have helped to split up the stream, highlighted certain points, and made them more accessible. 

Thank You!

Thank you for reading this article! As glad as I am to have documented this three hour long livestream, I am quite glad it's pretty much done now as it was lots of work on the same topic. There will be one more article linked to this livestream, and that will discuss the impact which the livestream has had on a few different teams. I am on holiday from the 18th of October until the 25th of October, so the articles during this time may end up being delayed. I'm currently writing this at 2:37am on Tuesday the 16th of October, so it will all depend on the progress I make on Monday the 21st's article between now and then. If all goes to plan, the next article will be published on Monday the 21st of October at around 11pm, and it will be a haunted location article. Then, if all goes to plan, the following article discussing reactions to Beardo's livestream will be published on Friday the 25th of October. If I don't get enough work done to ensure next week's releases, I will post an update on Facebook. If you want to watch Beardo's amazing livestream then you can click the link below:

Beardo's 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, Saun Evans from Lift Hills and Thrills, 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, Kev Kerr Paranormal, 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 when I am live on tiktok. If you donate, I will be sure to thank you across social media and in my articles. Anything donated is much appreciated.

Thank you very much to b0nez67, enthusiastic_bum_muncher, ssjb.17, frankiesbarbers, and niamh.gallagher10 for your amazing donations on tiktok. Anyone else I see donate after a tiktok stream has finished will be added to this thank you list.