Is There More Paranormal Fakery Today Than 20 Years Ago… or Even in Victorian Times? MUST READ!
Every generation seems convinced that it lives in an age of unprecedented deception. Today we have artificial intelligence, deepfake videos, edited ghost-hunting clips on social media, and viral paranormal stories that can reach millions of people within hours. It is tempting to conclude that fakery has never been worse.
But history tells a more interesting story.
The Victorian era (1837–1901) was arguably one of the greatest periods of paranormal deception ever recorded. Twenty years ago, television was flooded with ghost-hunting programmes, many of which blurred the line between entertainment and investigation. Today, social media has transformed paranormal content once again, making it easier than ever to create convincing evidence—but also easier than ever to expose it.
So, are there really more fakes today? Or are they simply different?
As sceptics with open minds, it is worth looking at each era fairly.
The Victorian Age: When Ghosts Became Big Business
If there was ever a golden age of paranormal fraud, many historians would point towards the Victorian period.
Several factors came together perfectly:
High mortality rates, Frequent outbreaks of disease, Wars that left countless families grieving, The rapid rise of photography, A growing fascination with science and the afterlife
Many people desperately wanted proof that loved ones survived death. Unfortunately, some individuals saw an opportunity.
Spirit Photography
One of the most famous examples involved American photographer William Mumler.
He claimed his camera could capture spirits standing beside living relatives.
To modern eyes, the photographs are clearly double exposures or manipulated negatives. Yet during the 1860s, photography was still mysterious enough that many people believed the images were genuine. Mumler even photographed Mary Todd Lincoln, supposedly with the ghost of Abraham Lincoln standing behind her. Eventually, investigators demonstrated numerous ways such photographs could be faked, although Mumler avoided conviction due to insufficient evidence.
Britain experienced similar scandals.
William Hope became famous for “spirit photography” until paranormal investigator Harry Price demonstrated that photographic plates had apparently been switched during sittings, strongly suggesting deliberate fraud.
Fake Mediums
Victorian séances were often theatrical performances.
Some mediums used:
hidden assistants, concealed wires, glowing paint, fake ectoplasm made from cheesecloth or paper, musical instruments operated in darkness, secret compartments
Many audiences genuinely believed spirits were communicating with them.
Professional magicians such as Harry Houdini later spent years exposing fraudulent mediums because they recognised stage illusions being presented as genuine supernatural events.
The Cottingley Fairies
Perhaps the most famous British paranormal hoax involved two young girls who photographed cardboard fairy cut-outs.
Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle accepted the photographs as genuine evidence.
The images fooled many intelligent people—not because they lacked intelligence, but because they genuinely wanted them to be true.
Twenty Years Ago: The Television Boom
Around twenty years ago, paranormal television exploded in popularity.
Ghost hunting moved from niche hobby to mainstream entertainment.
Programmes often featured: night vision cameras, infrared footage, EVP recordings, dramatic music, suspenseful editing, cliff-hangers before advert breaks
Most presenters never claimed outright that every piece of evidence proved ghosts.
However, television naturally rewarded exciting moments over uneventful investigations.
A five-hour investigation producing nothing interesting rarely made good television.
That doesn’t automatically mean evidence was fabricated—but editing sometimes created a stronger impression than the raw investigation might have deserved.
Meanwhile, digital photography introduced a new wave of misunderstandings.
Many famous “ghost photographs” from the early 2000s later turned out to involve: camera straps, dust illuminated by flash (“orbs”), motion blur, compression artefacts, lens flare
Unlike Victorian frauds, many of these images were probably honest mistakes rather than deliberate hoaxes.
Today: The Age of AI and Viral Content
Today’s paranormal world is completely different.
Almost everyone carries a 4K video camera, multiple editing apps, AI image generators, voice cloning software, instant access to millions of viewers
Creating convincing fake evidence has never been easier.
Neither has exposing it. Communities of photographers, visual effects artists and experienced investigators frequently analyse videos frame-by-frame within hours of publication.
Ironically, modern fakery often has a much shorter lifespan. Twenty years ago, a questionable photograph might circulate for months.
Today, it can be debunked worldwide before the day ends.
Have We Become Better Skeptics?
In many ways, yes.
The average person today understands photography and video editing far better than a Victorian audience.
People commonly ask:
- Could this be AI?
- Is there another camera angle?
- Has the original file been uploaded?
- Was this edited?
- Can someone reproduce the effect?
This level of healthy questioning simply wasn’t possible in the nineteenth century.
However, social media has also created another challenge.
Algorithms reward dramatic content.
A genuine investigation that produces nothing unusual rarely gains millions of views.
A shocking ghost video—even if fake—often does.
That creates a financial incentive for some creators to exaggerate or fabricate evidence.
Why People Still Believe
This question is more complicated than simply asking who is gullible. Throughout history, belief has often been driven by emotion rather than ignorance.
People may seek comfort after bereavement. Others have experienced something they genuinely cannot explain.
Many investigators who later exposed fraud actually began as believers. Equally, some sceptics have witnessed events they cannot easily dismiss. These experiences remind us why respectful discussion matters. Being sceptical does not mean dismissing every claim.
Being open-minded does not mean accepting every claim. The strongest investigations sit somewhere in the middle.
So… Which Era Had the Most Fakery?
Victorian Times
- Probably had the highest proportion of organised paranormal fraud.
- Fake mediums often charged significant sums.
- Many relied on the public’s limited understanding of new technologies.
- Some frauds continued for years before being exposed.
Twenty Years Ago
- Television encouraged sensational presentation.
- Digital cameras created countless accidental anomalies.
- Some investigations blurred the line between entertainment and research.
Today
- The sheer quantity of fake paranormal content is likely greater than ever because anyone can create and upload it instantly.
- AI, editing software and social media make fabrication easier.
- At the same time, independent investigators and online communities can often identify hoaxes much faster than in previous generations.
Paranormal Magazines Ending Statement.
History suggests that paranormal fakery is not a new problem—it simply evolves with technology, Victorian fraudsters mastered photographic plates and darkened séance rooms.
Television producers mastered editing and suspense, Today’s creators have AI, smartphones and global audiences, Yet one thing has remained remarkably consistent, most people interested in the paranormal are not looking to be fooled. They are searching for answers, That is why respectful scepticism remains the best approach.
We should investigate unusual claims with curiosity rather than cynicism, ask difficult questions without ridicule, and remember that exposing fraud ultimately protects genuine investigation. Every fake uncovered helps ensure that any truly unexplained evidence receives the careful attention it deserves.
After all, if the paranormal is real, then it has nothing to fear from honest scepticism. It is only deception that cannot withstand careful scrutiny.
Fallout Grows Over Warren Legacy Interview as Jason Hawes and Ryan Buell Trade Public Statements
A debate that began with questions about Ed and Lorraine Warren’s historical claims has widened into a dispute over platforming, cyberbullying, editorial responsibility and the difference between criticism and harassment.
The controversy surrounding a recent discussion of Ed and Lorraine Warren’s legacy has intensified after paranormal investigators Jason Hawes and Ryan Buell issued sharply different public statements about the programme and its consequences.
The original video featured Hawes speaking with Stevie Etay of the Truth or Demons Podcast. During the lengthy conversation, the pair examined the Warrens’ history, the origins of several well-known stories and alleged inconsistencies involving cases and objects associated with the New England Society for Psychic Research, commonly known as NESPR.
The discussion included legitimate historical questions, personal recollections, disputed allegations and criticism of how the Warrens’ legacy has been presented to the public. It also touched briefly on an uncomfortable allegation involving Ed Warren’s private life.
Following criticism of the episode, Hawes defended the programme by saying it was never intended as a personal attack or smear campaign. Buell has now challenged that explanation, arguing that Hawes gave a major platform to someone Buell accuses of engaging in repeated online harassment.
The result is no longer simply a disagreement about whether old paranormal stories withstand modern scrutiny. It has become a wider argument about how paranormal researchers investigate one another, how serious accusations should be presented and what responsibility influential creators carry when promoting controversial voices.
Jason Hawes defends the purpose of the interview
In his public response, Hawes said the programme was about determining whether historical claims still hold up when compared with documented evidence.
According to Hawes, some people are willing to accept extraordinary claims without sufficient support but become uncomfortable when researchers discover records that contradict established narratives.
“This field should always be about searching out the truth, not just taking somebody’s word for it,” Hawes wrote.
That principle is difficult to dispute. Paranormal claims should not be protected from examination because they involve respected investigators, famous families or culturally important cases. Newspaper archives, police reports, recordings, photographs and contemporary witness accounts can all help determine how stories developed over time.
Hawes also addressed the personal allegation mentioned near the end of the video. He said it was raised briefly because ignoring it could have led viewers to accuse the programme of deliberately overlooking a major part of the controversy.
There is some merit to that position. When a serious allegation has already become part of the public historical discussion, complete silence may appear selective. However, acknowledging an allegation and proving it are not the same thing. Such subjects require careful attribution, context and language that makes clear what has been established and what remains disputed.
Ryan Buell questions the guest and the platform
Buell’s response does not primarily defend the historical accuracy of the Warrens’ paranormal claims. Instead, he focuses on the conduct and reputation of Hawes’s guest.
Buell accuses Etay of having an extensive history of cyberbullying and targeting people within the paranormal community, particularly NESPR and its supporters. He also alleges that she uses an alias to conceal her identity and personal history.
These are serious allegations. In the post provided, however, Buell does not include screenshots, links, dates or a detailed chronology demonstrating the conduct he describes. His claims should therefore be reported as allegations rather than established facts.
Using a professional name or online alias is not, by itself, evidence of dishonesty. Many writers, performers, researchers and creators use pseudonyms for privacy or branding. It would become relevant if someone were using an alias to impersonate others, avoid legal accountability, conceal important conflicts of interest or return after being removed from platforms. Buell’s statement does not document those circumstances.
Buell further argues that Hawes failed to challenge the guest’s motives, research methods or personal conduct. By featuring her on a large platform and repeatedly praising her work, Buell believes Hawes gave her credibility and may have emboldened people involved in hostile online behaviour.
This criticism raises a legitimate editorial question.
Inviting someone onto a programme does not automatically mean endorsing everything that person has ever said or done. Journalists, podcasters and investigators frequently interview controversial people. Nevertheless, when an interview is overwhelmingly supportive and contains little meaningful challenge, audiences may reasonably perceive the appearance as an endorsement of the guest’s work and reliability.
Was the original discussion fair and balanced?
The programme contained several defensible lines of inquiry.
The speakers discussed changing accounts of the Annabelle story, questioned whether certain legends can be linked to police or newspaper records and examined the degree of the Warrens’ involvement in cases later dramatized by Hollywood. They also raised questions about the provenance of objects promoted as haunted.
Such claims should be investigated.
However, the programme was not a formally balanced debate. No representative from NESPR, no member of the Warren family and no historian presenting a different interpretation appeared during the discussion. Hawes and his guest agreed on most major points, and several claims were accepted without rigorous questioning.
The discussion also blended different standards of evidence.
At various moments, the speakers referred to historical articles and recordings. Elsewhere, they relied on personal conversations, unnamed sources, visual comparisons, internet searches and speculation about motives. Those sources do not all carry equal evidentiary weight.
A contemporary newspaper report may establish that a person made a statement at a particular time. It does not automatically prove the statement was true. A reverse-image search may show that an object resembles a commercial product. It does not necessarily establish the history of the exact object in a museum. An inability to locate a record may make a story doubtful, but it does not always prove that the event never occurred.
The video would have been stronger had it consistently labelled each point as documented fact, reasonable inference, disputed testimony, unverified claim or personal opinion.
Criticism is not automatically harassment
Buell is correct that cyberbullying and targeted harassment are genuine problems.
Criticism can cross a line when people encourage followers to overwhelm an individual, repeatedly tag family members, publish private information, make threats, contact employers or relatives, or coordinate efforts intended to frighten and exhaust someone.
The paranormal community’s interest in public cases does not justify attacking private individuals or grieving families.
At the same time, repeated criticism of a public organisation or influential investigator does not automatically constitute harassment. Researchers are allowed to revisit claims, identify contradictions and publish critical conclusions. Even forceful or uncomfortable commentary is not necessarily bullying.
Determining whether Etay or her associates engaged in harassment would require examining the actual posts, messages, context and patterns of conduct. Buell’s characterisation alone cannot settle that question.
It is also important to separate the researcher from the research. A person may behave poorly and still identify a genuine contradiction. Conversely, someone may be respectful and sincere while promoting an inaccurate claim.
The history of Annabelle, Enfield or any other Warren case must be evaluated through evidence, not solely through opinions about the people discussing it.
Questions about editorial responsibility
Buell criticises Hawes for apparently failing to contact NESPR or members of the Warren family before releasing the interview.
If no opportunity for comment was offered, that was a missed opportunity.
A response from NESPR would not have guaranteed agreement, but it could have clarified dates, corrected errors, supplied documentation or shown viewers exactly where the two sides differ. Even a statement that NESPR declined to participate would have demonstrated an attempt to include the organisation’s position.
Hawes was under no absolute obligation to create a formal debate. His programme is not a court proceeding. However, the more serious and personal the allegations become, the stronger the case for contacting those accused before publication.
Buell goes further by warning that someone will eventually be hurt and suggesting that Hawes may share responsibility because he helped amplify the guest.
That argument currently goes beyond the available evidence.
There is no indication in the programme that Hawes instructed viewers to threaten, contact or harass anyone. Promoting a creator may increase that person’s influence, but it does not automatically make the host responsible for every future action taken by the guest, her followers or unrelated commenters.
Jason’s responsibility would depend on what he knew, what he encouraged and how he responded to credible evidence of abuse. Those facts have not been publicly established in the statements examined here.
The significance of Buell acknowledging his own past
Buell anticipates that critics may question his authority to speak about harmful conduct because of his own widely discussed history.
He openly acknowledges that he hurt people while struggling with active drug addiction and says he faced consequences and worked to change his life. He argues that this experience gives him insight into misconduct and accountability.
Acknowledging previous wrongdoing is preferable to pretending it never occurred. It does not automatically prove that Buell’s current allegations are correct, but neither does his past disqualify him from raising concerns.
The accuracy of his claims must be judged on evidence, just as the claims made in the original Warren discussion must be judged on evidence.
Where Jason’s response falls short
Hawes is justified in rejecting the idea that historical claims should become off limits simply because they involve famous or deceased investigators.
However, his description of the programme as an examination of claims against documented evidence is incomplete.
The discussion also included opinions about character, speculation concerning financial motives, private allegations, hearsay and openly dismissive comments. At points, the tone included laughter and ridicule.
That does not mean the entire programme was a smear campaign. A smear campaign generally involves knowingly spreading false or misleading information for the purpose of damaging someone. That intention has not been demonstrated.
Nevertheless, a programme can be created without malicious intent and still be one-sided, insufficiently challenged or unnecessarily personal. Intent and effect are not always identical.
Where Ryan’s response goes too far
Buell is justified in asking whether Hawes properly vetted his guest and whether NESPR should have been contacted.
He is also justified in warning that online disagreements can become harmful when followers begin treating criticism as permission to target individuals.
But Buell’s post relies heavily on accusations about Etay’s character without presenting the evidence necessary for readers to assess them. Calling someone a relentless cyberbully is a significant claim. It should be supported with examples that distinguish research, criticism and sarcasm from actual harassment.
His prediction that someone “will” be hurt also escalates the dispute. Unless there are specific threats or documented plans that have not been included publicly, the statement risks implying a certainty that has not been established.
What is actually known?
At present, several points can be stated with reasonable confidence.
Hawes hosted a strongly critical discussion of the Warrens with a guest whose work he openly praised. The programme questioned multiple established paranormal narratives and included a serious personal allegation.
Hawes says the purpose was historical scrutiny rather than personal attack.
Buell believes the guest has engaged in harmful online conduct and argues that Hawes irresponsibly amplified her. The public statement provided does not independently document those allegations.
The video was not fully balanced in the conventional journalistic sense, and it appears that no representative from NESPR or the family participated.
There is currently no evidence in the material reviewed that Hawes directly encouraged harassment.
These facts leave substantial room between the two most extreme interpretations.
A dispute now overshadowing the evidence
The original conversation began with a worthwhile question: Do the stories surrounding the Warrens withstand examination against contemporary records?
That question risks being lost as the disagreement shifts towards accusations about personalities, hidden motives and online behaviour.
NESPR and the Warren family should be able to respond to factual criticism without being harassed. Researchers should be able to examine the Warren legacy without automatically being branded enemies or trolls. Critics who make serious allegations should support them. Defenders who dispute research should answer the evidence rather than relying only on character testimony.
Hawes was not wrong to host a critical discussion. He should, however, have challenged the evidence more consistently and made a stronger effort to include a response from those being criticised.
Buell was not wrong to raise concerns about platforming and online conduct. He should support his allegations with material that readers can independently evaluate and avoid assigning responsibility for hypothetical future harm without a clearer factual basis.
The paranormal field frequently asks the public to distinguish unexplained experiences from assumption and legend. Its leading voices should apply the same discipline to disputes within their own community.
Until further evidence is produced, neither side has established that the other acted as part of a deliberate campaign. What has been established is that the discussion was one-sided, the response was highly accusatory and the original historical questions remain largely unresolved beneath the growing personal conflict.
Editor’s note: This article reports and analyses public statements supplied to the publication. Allegations of cyberbullying, harassment and private misconduct have not been independently established within the material reviewed and are presented as claims rather than proven facts.
The Warren Legacy Under Fire: What the Evidence Shows—and What It Does Not
A recent video challenging Ed and Lorraine Warren’s history has prompted a public response from their grandson. Between accusations, family loyalty and decades of paranormal folklore, the truth is more complicated than either side’s strongest supporters may wish to admit.
Few names carry as much weight in paranormal culture as Ed and Lorraine Warren. To supporters, they were compassionate pioneers who entered frightening situations when families had nowhere else to turn. To critics, they were talented storytellers whose most famous cases became increasingly dramatic as books, lectures and films expanded their audience.
That long-running debate has resurfaced following a YouTube discussion featuring paranormal investigator Jason Hawes and researcher Stevie Etay of the Truth or Demons Podcast. The video examines the Warrens’ career, their celebrated cases and several objects associated with their collection.
Chris McKinnell, the Warrens’ grandson, subsequently published a personal defence of his grandparents. His statement did not portray them as flawless. Instead, he argued that they were imperfect people working in a field that had no established guidebook, and that later generations benefited from knowledge unavailable to the Warrens when they began.
The disagreement raises two separate questions that should not be confused: Were the Warrens good people who sincerely tried to help others? And were all the stories connected to their work historically accurate?
What the video argues
The video makes a broad case that stories surrounding the Warrens changed over time and that some claims attached to their cases and museum objects cannot be independently verified.
Among the subjects discussed are:
- The date and circumstances under which the Warrens began investigating paranormal claims.
- Different versions of the Annabelle story.
- The Warrens’ limited involvement in the Enfield poltergeist investigation.
- Alleged accidents and deaths associated with Annabelle.
- The origins of objects displayed as haunted or dangerous.
- The commercialization of the Warren name and collection.
- Serious allegations concerning the Warrens’ private lives.
The discussion includes references to newspaper articles, recordings, reverse-image searches and conversations with people connected to various cases. Some of those points are valuable and potentially verifiable. Others depend on personal recollections, unnamed sources or interpretations of incomplete records.
The video is best understood as a critical interview presenting research leads and arguments, rather than a finished historical investigation proving every allegation it contains.
Was NESPR founded in 1952?
The New England Society for Psychic Research identifies itself as having been founded by Ed and Lorraine Warren in 1952. That remains the organization’s official account. (warrens.net)
The video questions this timeline because its guest says she could not locate contemporary newspaper coverage showing the Warrens publicly working as paranormal investigators that early. She says the earliest material she found focused on their artwork, with clearer public references to paranormal work appearing much later.
This is a fair historical question, but it does not settle the matter.
An organization can exist informally before appearing in newspapers, directories or public records. Conversely, a date repeated by an organization many years later is not automatically independent proof that it was formally operating in its later-recognizable form at that time.
The responsible conclusion is that 1952 is the officially stated founding date, while the extent of the organization’s documented activity during its earliest years remains open to further research. The video does not prove that the date is false.
What happened in Bridgeport in 1974?
McKinnell’s statement refers to the widely publicized disturbances at a house on Lindley Street in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He argues that his grandparents did not manufacture the publicity: the family called for help, police arrived, the press followed and the situation quickly became uncontrollable.
The documented sequence substantially supports that portion of his statement.
Police reports reproduced in William J. Hall’s research describe officers being sent to the Goodin family home on November 24, 1974. Officers reported finding the interior in disarray, with broken dishes, overturned furniture and frightened occupants asking for assistance.
The story then attracted reporters, investigators and large numbers of onlookers. Accounts have placed the crowd outside the property in the hundreds.
None of this proves that a poltergeist was responsible.
Police eventually announced that the Goodins’ young daughter had been observed attempting to create at least one disturbance and had reportedly admitted to staging activity. Some witnesses nevertheless maintained that she could not explain everything they believed they had seen, including incidents said to have occurred when she was absent.
The facts establish that a frightened family contacted authorities, police documented considerable disorder and the case became a genuine media spectacle. Whether all the disturbances were fraudulent, misunderstood or paranormal remains disputed.
This distinction is important. Evidence that an incident occurred is not necessarily evidence that its supernatural explanation was correct.
The Warrens’ role in the Enfield case
One of the strongest factual criticisms in the video concerns the Enfield poltergeist, which inspired The Conjuring 2.
The central investigators were Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair, who spent extensive periods with the Hodgson family and produced large quantities of notes and recordings. The Society for Psychical Research credits Grosse and Playfair with conducting the long-term investigation.
Playfair later stated that, apart from a casual visit, the Warrens did not investigate the case.
That does not mean the Warrens never entered the home or had no contact with people involved. It means that their role was far smaller than the central position given to them in the Hollywood version.
On this issue, the criticism is well supported: the film dramatically enlarged the Warrens’ importance to the Enfield investigation.
Hollywood adaptation, however, should not automatically be treated as evidence that the Warrens themselves authored every fictional element. Responsibility may also lie with screenwriters, studios and the demands of a film franchise. The historical record and the cinematic story must be evaluated separately.
Annabelle: documented doll, unproven explanation
The existence of the Raggedy Ann doll known as Annabelle is not in question. Neither is the fact that the Warrens displayed it and associated it with a disturbing case.
The official NESPR account says that a medium identified the presence as a seven-year-old girl named Annabelle, while the Warrens concluded that the doll was being manipulated by an inhuman or demonic force.
Those are claims, not scientifically demonstrated conclusions.
The video argues that details changed between early newspaper reports, books, television appearances and later retellings. Changing details matter, especially when names, ages, deaths, accidents or the supposed origin of an entity are presented as factual history.
At the same time, inconsistencies do not automatically reveal why a story changed. Possible explanations include faulty memory, careless retelling, dramatization, misunderstanding or deliberate invention. Determining which explanation applies requires side-by-side examination of the original sources.
The most honest conclusion is that Annabelle’s paranormal reputation has not been independently proven, and reported inconsistencies give investigators valid reasons to question the legend. That is not the same as proving that every witness intentionally fabricated every experience.
The motorcycle-death legend
One frequently repeated story claims that a young man mocked Annabelle and later died in a motorcycle crash.
The video correctly identifies a major evidentiary problem: publicly repeated versions generally fail to provide a verifiable name, exact date, police report, hospital record or clearly identified accident location.
Without those details, the story cannot responsibly be reported as established fact.
It is possible that an accident occurred and that identifying information was withheld. It is also possible that an unrelated accident became attached to the doll through repeated storytelling. Until primary documentation is produced, the appropriate classification is unverified legend—not proven history and not necessarily conclusively disproven.
Questions surrounding museum objects
The video also attempts to trace the origins of objects described as a “fire doll” and a mysterious baboon-like figure.
Reverse-image searching can be useful. It may reveal that an object closely resembles a commercial doll, Halloween prop or mass-produced collectible. In the case of an object supposedly connected to an older tragedy, evidence that the model was manufactured decades later would present a serious contradiction.
But resemblance alone is not complete authentication.
A conclusive identification would ideally include:
- Manufacturer records or markings.
- Clear photographs showing distinguishing features.
- Purchase or donation records.
- Statements from the object’s creator or original owner.
- A documented chain of custody.
- Evidence showing when the paranormal story was first attached to it.
The video raises legitimate questions that deserve answers. It does not, based on the interview alone, establish the full provenance of every disputed object.
When real deaths are incorporated into the history of a supposedly haunted artifact, the standard of evidence should be especially high. Families and victims should not become supporting characters in a paranormal attraction without a documented connection.
Is the video respectful?
The video begins from a reasonably balanced position. The host acknowledges the Warrens’ influence and says viewers should examine facts and reach their own conclusions.
As the conversation continues, however, the tone becomes less neutral. The speakers occasionally laugh about disputed stories, use dismissive language and make broad judgments about the Warrens’ honesty and legacy. The programme does not include a representative of the Warren family or NESPR responding to the specific evidence.
That does not invalidate its accurate points. Evidence remains evidence regardless of whether it is presented gently. But tone matters, particularly when discussing deceased people, grieving families and allegations that have never been tested in court.
The video would have been stronger had it more consistently separated four categories:
Documented fact, reasonable inference, unverified testimony and personal opinion.
At times, those categories are blended together.
What McKinnell’s post gets right
McKinnell’s response is considerably more restrained than many online arguments surrounding the Warrens.
He does not demand that his grandparents be considered perfect. He acknowledges that they made mistakes and argues that modern investigators have benefited from decades of additional research and experience. He also objects to turning real human beings into flawless heroes who must either remain on a pedestal or be completely destroyed.
That is a fair observation.
Historical figures should be examined honestly without being reduced to saints or villains. The Warrens can have helped frightened people, influenced the paranormal field and sincerely believed portions of their work while also making errors, exaggerating claims or using methods that would not satisfy modern standards.
Multiple things can be true simultaneously.
However, McKinnell’s post is primarily a defence of his grandparents’ intentions and character. It does not directly answer most of the video’s documentary questions. Saying that someone had a good heart cannot establish that a particular story was accurate. Likewise, identifying contradictions in a story does not prove that the person involved had a bad heart.
Character testimony and factual verification are different forms of evidence.
So who is in the wrong?
Neither side is entirely right or entirely wrong.
The video’s participants are right to examine the Warrens’ stories, challenge inconsistent accounts and demand primary documentation. No person’s fame, family status or influence should place their claims beyond examination.
They are on weaker ground when they treat missing evidence as definitive proof of fabrication, rely on hearsay, make conclusions from visual resemblance alone or use ridicule in place of careful argument.
McKinnell is right that his grandparents were human beings rather than fictional horror characters. He is also substantially correct that the Bridgeport case became a public spectacle after the family contacted authorities, rather than appearing to have begun as a publicity event created solely by the Warrens.
His defence becomes less persuasive only if positive memories or good intentions are treated as answers to specific historical contradictions.
A legacy between pioneering and mythology
The Warrens unquestionably helped bring paranormal investigation into popular culture. NESPR continues to describe their work as an effort to investigate paranormal and demonic phenomena and assist people reporting frightening experiences. (warrens.net)
Their influence does not establish the truth of every case attributed to them. Nor do inconsistencies in some cases erase every family they comforted, every event they attended or every person who sincerely believed they had been helped.
The paranormal community does not need to choose between unquestioning devotion and total condemnation.
A mature assessment of the Warren legacy should preserve original documents, identify the sources behind each claim, distinguish films from case histories and acknowledge uncertainty where evidence is missing. Supporters should not fear legitimate questions. Critics should not present speculation as proof simply because it points in a skeptical direction.
Ed and Lorraine Warren’s legacy is neither the flawless love story portrayed by Hollywood nor a case that can be dismissed with a few online discoveries.
It is a complicated piece of paranormal history—part investigation, part personal belief, part popular entertainment and, in some places, unresolved controversy.
The truth will not be protected by placing the Warrens on a pedestal. It will not be found by knocking them from it, either.
NEW ARTICLE PUBLISHED PART 2.
When the Search for the Unknown Meets the Search for Clicks: A Respectful Look at the State of Paranormal Investigating FT: Ghosts On Trent
The paranormal community has always been driven by curiosity. Whether it’s exploring allegedly haunted locations, researching local history, testing new equipment, or simply trying to understand experiences that defy explanation, most investigators begin with the same goal: to search for answers.
Over the last decade, however, the paranormal world has changed dramatically. Social media platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram have introduced the subject to millions of people around the world. That has undoubtedly helped the community grow, but it has also changed the way investigations are presented and, in some cases, the motivations behind them.
A recent post by Ghosts On Trent has sparked discussion across the paranormal community. Their message suggests that genuine investigation is increasingly being overshadowed by entertainment, social media popularity and influencer culture.
It’s a thought-provoking point, but like most things in the paranormal world, the reality isn’t quite as simple as one side being right and the other being wrong.
The Main Concerns
Ghosts On Trent raise several important issues.
They question whether some investigators are becoming influencers before they become researchers. They suggest that popularity on social media can sometimes outweigh experience and credibility, and they express concern that paranormal events may be favouring creators with the largest audiences over those with years of investigative knowledge.
They also argue that chasing views, revenue and online recognition risks damaging the credibility of paranormal investigating. Whether you completely agree or not, these concerns are worthy of discussion.
Social Media Has Changed the Paranormal
There is little doubt that social media has transformed the paranormal community. Years ago, investigations were shared through local groups, forums, DVDs and word of mouth. Today, a single investigation can reach hundreds of thousands of people within hours. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Social media has introduced thousands of people to paranormal investigating who may never have discovered it otherwise. It has allowed small teams to reach global audiences, encouraged collaboration and opened conversations that simply weren’t possible twenty years ago.
However, social media also rewards excitement. Videos with dramatic music, emotional reactions, bold claims and eye-catching thumbnails naturally attract more attention than a quiet investigation where very little happens. Unfortunately, that creates pressure.
A completely honest investigation that ends with “we didn’t capture anything conclusive tonight” rarely performs as well as one claiming to have found undeniable evidence.
When Views Start Driving Investigations
Good investigations take time. Researching a location’s history. Learning about previous reports.
Testing equipment. Ruling out natural explanations before jumping to paranormal conclusions. None of these things make particularly exciting short videos, yet they’re often the most important parts of an investigation.
The danger is that investigators can begin feeling pressure to make every unexplained noise, shadow or equipment anomaly seem paranormal because that’s what audiences have come to expect.
That doesn’t automatically mean they’re being dishonest. Sometimes it’s simply the reality of creating content in an online world where excitement is rewarded.
Clickbait: Part of the Modern Landscape
One word that’s become almost impossible to avoid is clickbait. It’s often used as criticism, but the truth is that almost every successful creator uses eye-catching titles and thumbnails to some degree. That’s not unique to the paranormal community—it’s simply how YouTube and social media work.
Even many of the most respected paranormal channels use intriguing titles designed to make people curious enough to click. Without them, their content may never reach the audience it deserves. The important distinction isn’t whether a title is dramatic.
It’s whether the investigation delivers on that promise. There’s nothing wrong with making people curious enough to watch. Problems begin when evidence is exaggerated, speculation is presented as certainty, or ordinary events are deliberately made to appear paranormal simply for entertainment.
Perhaps that’s where the real conversation should be. Not whether creators use exciting titles—because almost everyone does—but whether the investigation itself remains honest, balanced and transparent.
Everyone Wants Their Work to Be Seen
One point that’s often overlooked is this: if someone uploads their investigations to social media, they clearly want people to watch them. That’s true whether they’re a small local team with a few hundred followers or a channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers.
People share their work because they want it to be seen. They want discussion. They want feedback.
They want their investigations to reach an audience. In that sense, everyone is chasing views.
The difference is that for many investigators, views are simply the way their work reaches people—they’re not the reason they investigate.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting your hard work to be watched and appreciated. The problem only begins if the pursuit of views becomes more important than honesty, evidence and integrity.
The Convention Debate
Ghosts On Trent also questioned whether paranormal conventions are favouring creators with the biggest online audiences.
There is some truth to the idea that popular creators help sell tickets. Event organisers are businesses, and successful events need visitors to survive. However, that’s only part of the picture.
Many event companies actually invite a mixture of guests. Alongside well-known YouTube personalities, you’ll often find historians, authors, experienced investigators, equipment specialists and researchers who take a far more scientific or evidence-based approach.
That’s because visitors attend these events for different reasons. Some enjoy hearing exciting investigation stories. Others want to learn about historical research, investigation techniques or the science behind certain equipment.
A balanced line-up benefits everyone. It allows attendees to hear different viewpoints, compare methods and decide for themselves what resonates most.
Rather than seeing these different styles as competitors, perhaps they’re simply serving different parts of the same community.
Popularity Doesn’t Equal Credibility
It’s also important not to assume that having a large audience automatically makes someone less credible.
Many successful creators invest enormous amounts of time researching locations, improving their methods and presenting investigations responsibly, Equally, having a small audience doesn’t automatically make someone an expert.
Credibility isn’t measured by subscriber counts, It’s measured by honesty, consistency, transparency and a willingness to question your own conclusions—even when they aren’t exciting.
The Importance of Critical Thinking
Perhaps the biggest danger in paranormal investigating isn’t social media at all, It’s confirmation bias.
When investigators arrive expecting paranormal activity, it’s easy to interpret every sound, shadow or equipment response as evidence, Responsible investigators challenge themselves.
They look for ordinary explanations before extraordinary ones, Ironically, doing so often makes genuinely unexplained experiences even more compelling.
A Community That Needs Every Perspective
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this debate is that every part of the paranormal community depends on the others more than many people realise.
Entertainment-focused channels introduce huge numbers of people to paranormal investigating. For many viewers, these creators are the gateway into the subject. Without that exposure, the paranormal community would almost certainly be much smaller.
At the same time, evidence-based investigators, sceptics and debunkers play an equally important role. They encourage critical thinking, test claims and remind the community that extraordinary claims deserve careful examination.
In many ways, it’s a catch-22, Without exciting investigations attracting large audiences, there would be far fewer claims for researchers and debunkers to analyse. Likewise, without people asking difficult questions and challenging evidence, investigative standards would likely suffer.
Whether people realise it or not, both sides help shape the paranormal community, Neither exists entirely in isolation.
Respect Matters
One thing Ghosts On Trent deserve credit for is that their post focused on wider trends rather than publicly attacking individual creators, Healthy discussion benefits the community, Respectful disagreement encourages better standards.
Personal attacks rarely solve anything, The paranormal world has always been filled with different beliefs, different methods and different opinions. That’s part of what makes it fascinating.
Is Ghosts On Trent Completely Right?
Not entirely, The concerns they raise are genuine, but the situation is more complex than simply blaming social media or content creators, Social media has undoubtedly encouraged some sensationalism.
At the same time, it has also helped grow the paranormal community, introduced new generations to investigating and given independent researchers opportunities that simply didn’t exist twenty years ago.
Like any tool, social media depends entirely on how it’s used, The real issue isn’t technology, It’s integrity.
The Balance
Perhaps the future of paranormal investigating lies somewhere in the middle, Creators should be able to produce entertaining, engaging content without exaggerating evidence.
Researchers should embrace modern platforms without abandoning good investigative methods, Audiences should recognise that not every investigation ends with dramatic proof—and that’s perfectly acceptable.
Paranormal Magazines Ending statement.
Ghosts On Trent have started an important conversation, and that’s something the paranormal community should welcome.
Whether you’re an experienced investigator, a content creator, a sceptic or simply someone fascinated by the unknown, credibility should always remain at the heart of what we do.
At the same time, we should recognise that the paranormal community is made up of many different voices. Some educate through historical research. Some entertain through immersive investigations. Some challenge claims through sceptical analysis. All have contributed, in one way or another, to making the paranormal more accessible than ever before.
Perhaps the goal shouldn’t be deciding which approach is “right,” but encouraging every creator to be honest about what they present. Views will always matter because they allow investigations to reach an audience. Selling tickets will always matter because events need to survive. Entertainment will always matter because it inspires curiosity.
But above all else, integrity should matter most.
If the paranormal community can hold on to that, then there is room for researchers, entertainers, sceptics, historians and investigators alike—each playing their own part in the continuing search for the unknown.
there will be a part 2 more focused on produced fake evidence and the damage,
visit PARANORMAL DEBUNKED to view all our articles like this.
Paranormal Magazine UK 