Sick Emojis Spark Paranormal Feud as Nick Groff Fires Back at Adam Berry Over Cripple Creek ParaCon
A handful of emojis appear to have helped ignite one of the paranormal community’s latest public fallouts, after Nick Groff responded furiously to Adam Berry following Berry’s reaction to the Cripple Creek ParaCon 2027 lineup.
What might initially have looked like a relatively ordinary complaint about not being invited back quickly escalated into something much more personal, with Groff accusing Berry of disrespecting both himself and his wife, Tessa Groff, before bringing years of alleged behind-the-scenes tension into the open.
But did Adam Berry actually accuse Nick Groff of getting him removed from the event?
From what we can establish from the posts circulating online, that isn’t quite what happened.
And that distinction could be important.
Adam Berry Wasn’t Happy About the New Lineup
Berry had previously appeared at Cripple Creek ParaCon and made it clear on social media that he was disappointed about apparently not being invited back for the 2027 event.
In the post being shared around the paranormal community, Berry said he was confused by the decision, pointing out that he had supported the event and believed they had enjoyed a successful turnout.
He described it as feeling like a “slap in the face” and joked that he would now have to find another event to attend that weekend.
However, the part that appears to have really caused trouble wasn’t simply Berry saying he was disappointed.
It was his reaction to who was apparently appearing instead.
Berry used sick or disgust-style emojis when referring to or reacting to members of the announced lineup — a lineup which included Nick Groff and Tessa Groff.
And Nick clearly didn’t see the emojis as an innocent joke.
Were the Emojis Aimed at Nick and Tessa?
This is where interpretation becomes important.
Putting a sick or disgusted emoji beside somebody’s name or photograph can obviously be interpreted as insulting.
If Berry intended the emojis to represent his opinion of the people appearing at the convention, it’s understandable why Nick would regard that as disrespectful toward both himself and his wife.
But an emoji is still not the same thing as a written accusation.
There is an important difference between saying:
“Nick Groff got me removed from this event.”
and posting a disgusted reaction to seeing Nick and Tessa on the lineup after discovering you are no longer appearing yourself.
The latter can certainly be rude.
It does not, by itself, establish that Berry accused either of them of orchestrating his removal.
That distinction appears to have become somewhat lost once the argument exploded.
Nick Groff Responds: “None of Us Had Anything to Do With Adam Not Being Invited Back”
Groff responded with a lengthy public Facebook statement, opening by saying:
“Adam Berry publicly brought my name and my wife Tessa Groff name into his complaint about not being invited back to Cripple Creek Paracon 2027.”
Nick then made his position crystal clear.
He said neither he nor Tessa had anything to do with Berry not returning to the convention.
Groff also said that he hadn’t even known Jason Hawes and Shari DeBenedetti were appearing at the event with himself and Tessa.
That is arguably the most relevant part of Nick’s response.
If Berry’s emojis gave followers the impression that Nick or Tessa were somehow responsible for him being excluded, Groff had every right to correct that impression.
At present, there is no evidence in the material we’ve seen showing that Nick or Tessa had any involvement in deciding whether Adam Berry appeared at Cripple Creek ParaCon 2027.
But Nick Didn’t Stop There
This is where the dispute went from an argument over emojis to a full-scale paranormal-industry feud.
Instead of simply saying, “We didn’t have anything to do with this, please leave us out of it,” Groff unleashed years of apparent frustration.
Nick accused Adam Berry and Amy Bruni of what he described as attacks, poor behaviour, false accusations and false narratives.
He wrote:
“Unfortunately, I’ve had to deal with Amy and Adam’s attacks, poor behavior at events, false accusations and narratives…”
Groff also accused the pair of subsequently portraying themselves as victims.
Those are substantially more serious claims than anything conveyed by a sick emoji.
And Groff wasn’t finished.
Why Did Amy Bruni Get Dragged Into It?
Perhaps the strangest element of Nick’s statement is that Amy Bruni apparently wasn’t involved in Adam Berry’s post at all.
Nick actually acknowledges this himself.
He wrote that Amy wasn’t part of Adam’s post but argued that Adam and Amy had worked together professionally and personally for years.
That history is clearly relevant to how Nick personally views the situation, but it doesn’t necessarily make Amy relevant to the specific Cripple Creek ParaCon dispute.
Nick’s response therefore appears to demonstrate that this wasn’t really just about an emoji.
The emoji may have been the match. There was already plenty of fuel underneath it.
Groff appears to have regarded Berry’s post as the latest incident in a much longer-running conflict involving himself, Tessa, Adam and Amy.
That helps explain the intensity of the response.
Whether it justifies it is another question.
Nick: “If You’re Not Being Invited Back… Take a Look at Yourself”
Groff then delivered perhaps the harshest part of his statement.
He suggested that if somebody wasn’t being invited back to events, they should consider whether their own behaviour might be responsible rather than blaming others.
That significantly changed the nature of the exchange.
Nick was no longer merely denying responsibility.
He appeared to be suggesting there could be another reason why Adam wasn’t invited back.
However, Nick didn’t provide evidence showing why Cripple Creek ParaCon made its decision.
Unless the organisers themselves confirm the reason, people should be cautious about assuming Berry’s alleged behaviour caused his removal.
“I Have the Receipts”
Nick finished his response with what may turn out to be the most significant sentence in the entire argument:
“I know the facts. And I have the receipts.”
That’s a powerful statement.
But receipts only settle an argument when they’re actually produced.
Nick may well possess messages, emails or other information supporting what he has alleged about previous encounters with Adam Berry and Amy Bruni.
At the time of the post shown to us, however, those receipts weren’t included.
Until they are made public, Nick’s broader accusations remain Nick Groff’s account of events, rather than independently proven facts.
Daniel Klaes Sides With Nick
Paranormal investigator Daniel Klaes also weighed into the discussion underneath Nick’s post.
Klaes argued that publicly attacking other talent or the convention itself was unlikely to help somebody’s chances of being invited back.
He wrote that there were “far more professional ways” to deal with disappointment or disagreements privately.
His point raises a fair question.
Even if Berry had every right to be annoyed, was using sick emojis against people on the replacement lineup the right way to express it?
Probably not.
If those emojis were intended as an insult toward Nick, Tessa or others appearing at the event, then it was an unnecessary public swipe.
Berry could have criticised the organisers’ decision without making the other guests look responsible for something they may have had absolutely nothing to do with.
But Did Nick Overreact?
This is where our assessment becomes more nuanced.
Nick had a legitimate reason to be annoyed.
If somebody publicly put a sick or disgusted emoji next to a lineup featuring you and your wife, it’s perfectly reasonable to take that personally.
Nick was also entirely entitled to make it clear that neither he nor Tessa was responsible for Adam not being invited back.
That could have been the end of it.
Instead, Nick’s response expanded into allegations about years of behaviour involving Adam and Amy Bruni, accusations about victim narratives, comments suggesting Adam should examine his own behaviour and a declaration that he possesses “receipts.”
In other words, Adam threw a small social-media grenade. Nick responded with the paranormal equivalent of an artillery barrage.
Whether that response was justified depends heavily on whatever history exists between them that the public hasn’t seen.
So Who Was in the Wrong?
There are really two separate questions.
Was Adam wrong to use the sick emojis?
If those emojis were aimed at Nick, Tessa or the other announced guests, yes — it was petty and unprofessional.
Those guests are not necessarily responsible for who a convention books.
Being disappointed with the organisers doesn’t justify publicly insulting other people simply because their photographs appear on the new lineup.
It also creates an obvious implication.
Followers seeing Adam react with disgust to Nick and Tessa appearing where he expected to appear could understandably conclude there was bad blood or that Berry somehow associated them with the decision.
That’s exactly the impression Nick appears to have objected to.
Was Nick wrong to respond?
No — not for correcting the record.
Nick had every right to say neither he nor Tessa had anything to do with Adam not being invited back.
In fact, making that clarification publicly was probably sensible considering Adam had made his reaction public.
But Nick’s response went much further than correcting the record.
Dragging Amy Bruni into a post she apparently wasn’t involved with and raising years of alleged incidents transformed what could have been a simple clarification into a much larger personal feud.
Those broader accusations now carry their own burden of proof.
Our Verdict
On the original disagreement, Nick Groff has the stronger argument.
Adam Berry was perfectly entitled to be disappointed about apparently not returning to Cripple Creek ParaCon.
He was perfectly entitled to question the organisers.
But directing sick or disgusted emojis towards a lineup containing fellow paranormal personalities was always going to be interpreted as a public insult.
Nick and Tessa didn’t organise Adam’s post.
They didn’t choose the emojis.
And, based on the evidence currently available, there is nothing showing they made the decision not to invite him back.
Nick therefore had every right to tell Adam to leave his and Tessa’s names out of it.
Where Nick potentially went too far was turning the dispute into an indictment of Adam Berry and Amy Bruni’s behaviour over several years.
Those allegations may have history behind them, but they are much bigger claims than the original emoji incident and haven’t been proven by the Facebook statement alone.
So, in simple terms:
Adam appears to have started this particular confrontation with an unnecessary public dig.
Nick was justified in responding — but then escalated it considerably.
And perhaps the most revealing part of the whole controversy is that something as simple as a few sick emojis was enough to expose what appears to be years of unresolved tension between some of the paranormal world’s best-known names.
The ghosts might not be fighting — but the ghost hunters certainly are.
Editor’s note: This article distinguishes between comments visible in the circulating social-media posts and broader allegations made by those involved. Claims concerning past behaviour have not been independently established and are attributed to the individuals making them.
Do Paranormal YouTubers Really Need Clickbait to Get Views?
A recent statement from paranormal investigation team Ghosts On Trent, responding to criticism of some of their YouTube titles and thumbnails, got me thinking about something that goes far beyond one channel.
Their statement inspired this article, but this isn’t intended as another piece about Ghosts On Trent. The bigger question is one that affects almost everyone making paranormal content today:
Do you actually need clickbait to succeed on YouTube?
Spend ten minutes scrolling through paranormal videos and you would be forgiven for thinking the answer is yes.
There are shocked faces everywhere. Red arrows pointing towards dark corners. Figures standing in doorways that somehow look much clearer in the thumbnail than they ever do in the actual footage. Words such as DEMON, ATTACKED, TERRIFYING and POSSESSED appear with remarkable regularity.
Then there are the titles.
“We Should Never Have Gone Inside.”
“This Was Our Most Terrifying Investigation Ever.”
“Something Followed Us Home.”
“We Were NOT Alone.”
You know the sort.
It has become part of paranormal YouTube culture, and there seems to be a growing belief among creators that this is simply what you have to do if you want people to watch.
I don’t think that’s true.
You need to give people a reason to click. Of course you do. YouTube is full of videos competing for somebody’s attention.
But clickable and clickbait are not the same thing.
And if your entire channel depends on viewers believing that your investigations are genuine, repeatedly overselling what happened could eventually cause more damage than a disappointing view count, this is way ghosts on trent may be facing the critisum which ia fair.
What Do We Actually Mean By Clickbait?
This is probably where some of the disagreement starts.
Not every catchy title is clickbait.
If you investigate an old Victorian property with decades of reported paranormal activity, there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling the video:
“We Spent the Night Investigating a Victorian House With 100 Years of Ghost Stories.”
That’s a decent title.
It tells me where you’re going, what you’re doing and why I might be interested.
Compare that with:
“Paranormal Investigation #38.”
Which one are you clicking? Making something sound interesting isn’t dishonest. You should make it sound interesting.
The problem begins when the title or thumbnail promises something the video doesn’t contain. If your thumbnail shows a black figure standing behind an investigator but that figure wasn’t actually there, that’s a problem.
If the title says:
“DEMON CAUGHT ON CAMERA”
and the big moment turns out to be a faint knock from another room, you’ve oversold it.
You may have got my click. You probably haven’t earned my trust. And that distinction matters enormously in paranormal content.
The Click Isn’t Everything
There seems to be a strange idea that YouTube only cares about getting somebody to click on a video. It obviously cares whether people click. Why wouldn’t it?
But think about this from YouTube’s point of view.
Suppose I see an incredible thumbnail and click immediately.
Within 45 seconds I realise the thumbnail was wildly exaggerated, nothing is happening and the video isn’t what I expected.
So I leave. Was that really a successful recommendation? Probably not.
Now imagine another video with a less ridiculous thumbnail. I click it, become interested in the investigation and watch for 25 minutes. Which viewer behaviour would you rather have?
This is why chasing clicks at any cost is short-sighted. A title and thumbnail have one job: get the right person into the video.
Then the video has to do the rest.
Paranormal Channels Have an Extra Problem: Trust
This is where paranormal creators are different from many other YouTubers.
If you review phones, your audience doesn’t particularly need to believe that strange unexplained events happened to you last night. A paranormal investigator does.
You’re asking viewers to examine noises, movements, possible voices and strange pieces of footage where the explanation isn’t always obvious. Trust is everything.
If I already think you’re exaggerating what happened in the thumbnail, why shouldn’t I wonder whether you’re exaggerating what happened during the investigation?
That doesn’t mean somebody using a dramatic thumbnail is faking evidence. Those are two very different accusations.
But audiences make associations.
If every video is apparently the most terrifying investigation you’ve ever conducted, eventually “most terrifying” doesn’t mean very much. If every building contains a demon, sooner or later I am going to start wondering why demons seem to keep such a reliable filming schedule.
There has to be room for an investigation where very little happens. In fact, I would argue that those investigations are important.
What If Nothing Happens?
This is probably the hardest problem for genuine paranormal investigators on YouTube.
You’ve booked the location. You’ve travelled there. You’ve filmed for eight hours. You’ve paid for accommodation, fuel and equipment.
And then…
Nothing. No footsteps. No apparitions. No mysterious voices. No doors slamming. Nobody gets touched. Nobody screams. Nothing follows you home.
Now what?
Do you upload a video where nothing happened? I think you should.
The mistake is believing that the paranormal activity has to be the story. It doesn’t. The investigation can be the story.
Give Me a Question to Follow
Rather than starting with:
“Tonight we’re at another haunted location to see what happens…”
give me something specific. For example:
“Staff working here have reported footsteps crossing this upstairs corridor for more than 20 years. Tonight the building is empty apart from us, and we’re going to see whether we can work out what’s causing them.”
I’m interested already. Not because you’ve promised me a ghost. Because you’ve given me a mystery. That mystery now has an ending whether anything paranormal happens or not.
Maybe you hear the footsteps. = Maybe you don’t. Maybe you discover a heating pipe knocking inside the wall. Maybe traffic outside sounds completely different at night. Maybe you can’t explain it.
All of those are valid endings.
This is where paranormal investigation can learn a lot from documentaries.
A documentary doesn’t need the answer to be supernatural.
It just needs a good question.
A Quiet Night Doesn’t Have to Make a Boring Video
There is a difference between an uneventful investigation and an uneventful video.
If absolutely nothing happens during a 30-minute vigil, I don’t need to watch all 30 minutes.
Tell me:
“We stayed in this room for approximately half an hour. Nothing unusual happened, so we moved upstairs.”
That’s enough. Editing does not automatically make paranormal footage dishonest.
Cutting dead time isn’t faking evidence. What matters is that, when something significant does happen, you give viewers enough context to judge it properly.
Show the original moment. Let us hear the audio. Explain where everyone was.
Try to reproduce it. Look for ordinary explanations. Then move on.
I’d much rather watch a tightly edited 35-minute investigation where the team genuinely found very little than a two-hour upload containing endless silent vigils simply because somebody believes uncut automatically means authentic.
History Can Carry a Paranormal Video
If the ghosts aren’t performing, tell me about the building.
One of the strangest things about some paranormal videos is that teams gain access to genuinely fascinating historic locations and then barely tell us anything about them.
Who lived there? What happened there? Where did the ghost stories actually come from?
When was the first reported sighting? Have different witnesses described the same thing?
Changes to the building that might explain why certain noises occur?
That is interesting.
And it makes the paranormal side stronger because now we understand what is supposedly being investigated.
Some locations have far better real histories than ghost stories.
Use them.
One Good Claim Is Better Than Twenty Random Experiments
Another thing that can make paranormal videos drag is the lack of any clear purpose.
“We’re going to use every piece of equipment we’ve brought and see what happens” isn’t much of a story.
Take one claim and investigate it properly.
Perhaps people repeatedly report a woman humming on a staircase.
Great. Put recorders on different floors. Work out whether voices carry from outside.
Check whether nearby rooms produce similar acoustics. Speak to witnesses. Try to reproduce the sound.
Now there is something for the audience to follow. Or perhaps staff say a particular door opens by itself.
Monitor the door. Check airflow. Check the hinges. Check whether changes in pressure affect it.
Film it continuously.
If it moves, investigate why. If it doesn’t, that’s still useful information. You don’t need twenty gadgets flashing in the dark when one properly thought-out experiment can carry the episode.
You Don’t Need a Fake Ghost in the Thumbnail
There’s also an assumption that a paranormal thumbnail has to look like a horror film poster.
It doesn’t.
A genuinely creepy building can make a fantastic thumbnail on its own. An empty corridor can be interesting if that corridor is central to the story.
An investigator standing at the bottom of a staircase can work. An actual frame from the investigation can work. A historic photograph can sometimes work. You could even use something very simple.
A photograph of the location with the words:
“HAUNTED?”
There’s a question immediately.
What matters is that the thumbnail represents the video you’re actually about to show me.
And there may even be an advantage to being restrained. When every other paranormal thumbnail contains glowing eyes, a screaming face and three red arrows, a simple atmospheric photograph can actually stand out.
Don’t Confuse Honest With Boring
This is important. I’m not suggesting paranormal creators deliberately make terrible titles. You shouldn’t upload:
“We Went Somewhere and Not Much Happened.”
That’s honest, but it’s also terrible marketing. You have to find the interesting part of the truth.
Instead of:
“Nothing Happened at This Haunted House.”
you could use:
“We Spent Eight Hours in This Famous Haunted House — Here’s What We Actually Found.”
Instead of:
“Quiet Investigation at Old Hotel.”
try:
“Is Room 6 Really Haunted? We Spent the Night Finding Out.”
Neither promises paranormal evidence. Both create curiosity.
That’s the sweet spot.
Stop Giving Away the Answer
Another mistake paranormal creators make is telling us exactly what we’re supposed to believe before we’ve even watched the evidence.
“Ghost voice says my name!” Well, now you’ve already told me what I’m meant to hear.
Instead, let me listen first. Play the recording without subtitles.
Ask viewers what they hear. Then explain what the investigators thought it sounded like.
The same goes for visual evidence. Show the clip.
Replay it.
Show the normal-speed version before the zoomed and slowed-down version. Let the audience investigate with you.
That involvement can be far more engaging than simply announcing:
“That’s definitely paranormal.”
If Nothing Happens, Make That the Story
Imagine going to a location advertised as extremely haunted and recording absolutely nothing unusual.
Don’t hide it. Lean into it.
“Everyone told us this was one of the most active locations in the area. We spent the entire night here and found almost nothing. So we decided to look more closely at where the stories came from.”
That’s interesting. Now investigate the reputation itself. How old are the haunting claims?
Are they all coming from one source?Did the ghost stories appear after the building became a paranormal venue? Do historical records match the stories told on ghost hunts?
Have independent witnesses genuinely reported similar things?
Suddenly your failed ghost hunt has turned into a completely different investigation.And possibly a better one.
A Normal Explanation Can Be a Great Ending
Paranormal investigators shouldn’t be disappointed when they debunk something. That’s investigating.
Suppose you’re called to a property because the owner hears a mysterious knocking every night.
You spend hours investigating and eventually discover that changing temperature causes an old pipe behind the wall to move.
No ghost.But that is still a successful investigation. You had a mystery.You tested it. You found an explanation.
That is satisfying television.
And if your audience knows you genuinely try to find normal explanations, they’ll pay far more attention when you eventually encounter something you can’t explain.
Build Trust Before You Need It
This may be the biggest argument against constantly exaggerating paranormal videos.
Trust builds slowly.
If I watch ten investigations from your channel and you’ve been prepared to say:
“Nothing happened.” “We debunked this.” “We think that was probably somebody outside.” “This recording isn’t clear enough to call evidence.” “We simply don’t know.”
Then on investigation number eleven you say:
“We have tried everything we can think of and we still cannot explain this.”
I’m going to pay attention. You’ve earned that moment. Compare that with a channel where every thumbnail has contained a demon for the previous six months. Which unexplained clip carries more weight?
So, Do You Need Clickbait to Win?
No..
Most importantly, you need to find the most interesting truthful thing about the investigation and build the video around it.
Don’t ask:
“How can we make this look terrifying?”
Ask:
“What was actually interesting about tonight?”
Maybe you captured something strange. Maybe you disproved one of the location’s best-known ghost stories. That’s interesting too. Maybe you uncovered fascinating history.
Use it. Maybe you tested six claims and every one of them failed. Tell us.
Maybe the building everybody calls haunted wasn’t particularly spooky at all. That’s still a story.
And maybe, after reviewing everything, the only responsible conclusion is:
Nothing happened.
That’s fine. Paranormal investigation isn’t supposed to guarantee ghosts.
It is supposed to investigate claims of the paranormal. If you go into every location already knowing the video needs a ghost before you’ve even started filming, are you really investigating?
Or are you producing a show that requires a particular ending? There is nothing wrong with paranormal entertainment. There is an audience for it and always will be.
But if your channel presents itself as genuine paranormal investigation, there should always be the possibility that you walk away with nothing. And strangely enough, being willing to show those nights might be one of the best ways to convince an audience that, when something genuinely strange does happen, it’s worth watching.
You don’t need to fake the scare. You don’t need to fake the thumbnail. And you don’t need to promise a demon every week.
Tell people an interesting story, investigate it properly and be prepared for the answer to be “nothing paranormal happened.”
That may not sound as dramatic.
But in the long run, it could be far more valuable.
view more articles in our DEBUNKED SECTION
Wentworth’s Shadow Figures — Has Lee Steer Found a Possible Explanation?
For years, people visiting Wentworth have reported seeing dark figures moving around the graveyard. Some describe them as black shapes darting between the graves, appearing for a second and then disappearing.
Lee Steer (I) recently posted a Facebook reel showing something that could help explain at least some of those sightings.
At the bottom of the graveyard is a road with a very steep incline. At the lower part of the road there is also a junction, where vehicles can turn left or right, while the road ahead continues uphill on a gentler slope.
That might not sound very paranormal, but at night it could be important.
Could Car Headlights Create the Shadows?
If a car approaches from below the graveyard, its headlights will shine upwards across the surrounding area.
The graveyard is full of objects that can block that light — gravestones, trees, walls, railings and vegetation. As the car moves, the angle of the headlights changes.
If the vehicle then turns left or right at the junction, those lights sweep across the area. Anything blocking them can cast a moving shadow. And those shadows can move much faster than the object creating them.
Anyone who has shone a torch across a wall has seen the same effect. Move the torch slightly and a shadow can shoot several feet across the surface. Now imagine that happening in a dark graveyard.
A shadow suddenly appears beside one gravestone, races across several others and disappears. From the right position, that could easily look like a dark figure running through the cemetery.
The Steep Road Makes It More Interesting
The incline Lee showed could make the effect even stronger. As a vehicle climbs, its headlights are changing height and angle in relation to the graveyard. A shadow could grow, shrink or change shape as the car moves.
Then, when the vehicle reaches the junction and turns, the shadow could suddenly move sideways.
That might also explain why some witnesses describe figures that seem unusually tall, distorted or almost as though they are changing shape. The object casting the shadow might never move at all, It is the light source that is moving.
Does This Mean Wentworth Is Debunked?
Not necessarily. Finding a possible explanation isn’t the same as proving every reported sighting has been caused by headlights.
But the observation gives investigators something that can actually be tested. The best thing to do would be to place cameras in the graveyard and another camera overlooking the road.
Then compare what happens when vehicles approach, climb the hill and turn at the junction. Do shadows appear in the areas where people have reported seeing figures?
Do they move in the same direction? Do they disappear in the same places? If the same type of black figure can be recreated repeatedly when cars use that road, it would be strong evidence that at least some of the Wentworth sightings have a perfectly natural explanation. And if investigators cannot recreate them, then the mystery remains.
This Is What Debunking Should Be
There is sometimes a strange attitude in the paranormal community that finding a normal explanation somehow ruins a location.
It doesn’t. Good investigating should be about trying to work out what really happened. If headlights are creating the Wentworth shadow figures, that is worth knowing.
If they explain some sightings but not others, that is worth knowing too. And if investigators recreate the exact conditions and still cannot explain certain reports, those cases become more interesting.
my Facebook post may have highlighted something people have overlooked because everyone was concentrating on what was happening inside the graveyard.
Sometimes the explanation for a paranormal experience isn’t where the witness is looking.
At Wentworth, it might be coming from the road below.
Why Beardo Gets Scared Accepting GTI’s Invitation Could Matter to the Paranormal Community
The online arguments have happened. The evidence has been questioned. Now Beardo Gets Scared has accepted Ghost Trip Investigation’s invitation to investigate alongside them. If handled properly, what happens next could be far more important than another YouTube disagreement.
There are plenty of arguments in the paranormal world.
One investigator captures something they cannot explain. A sceptic examines the footage and offers another explanation. Viewers choose sides, comment sections explode, response videos appear and, before long, the original question — what actually happened? — can become buried beneath personalities, loyalties and algorithms.
The developing situation between Beardo Gets Scared and Ghost Trip Investigation (GTI) has the potential to be different.
GTI, the UK paranormal team led by Dan Spragg and Adam Oakley, publicly invited Beardo to accompany them on an investigation, describing it as a genuine opportunity to investigate together in a transparent, open and honest way. Beardo subsequently publicly accepted the invitation.
That acceptance matters.
Because instead of continuing the discussion exclusively through edited videos, livestreams and social-media posts, two very different approaches to paranormal content now have an opportunity to meet in the place where these questions should ultimately be tested:
inside an investigation.
Why Beardo Saying “Yes” Is Important
Beardo Gets Scared has built his platform around examining paranormal evidence critically.
His own website describes an approach based around investigating claims, analysing footage using his knowledge of video editing, challenging weak evidence and attempting to separate genuine mysteries from misidentification or fakery. Importantly, his stated position is not simply that everything paranormal must be false, but that the evidence should be followed wherever it leads.
That distinction is important.
A useful sceptic should not enter a paranormal investigation determined to prove that nothing can happen.
Equally, a paranormal investigator should not enter determined that every unexplained noise, light or equipment response must be supernatural.
The interesting territory exists somewhere between those positions.
GTI describes its own philosophy as being centred around live exploration, audience involvement and allowing viewers to witness investigations and decide for themselves what they believe happened.
Putting those philosophies together could create something genuinely useful.
Beardo gets the opportunity to see GTI’s investigation process from beginning to end rather than analysing selected footage after publication.
GTI gets the opportunity to demonstrate its methods directly in front of someone who has been critical of paranormal evidence.
And the audience gets something even more valuable:
context.
This Should Not Be Beardo Versus GTI
The biggest mistake everyone involved could make would be treating this investigation as a boxing match.
It should not be about Beardo trying to catch GTI doing something wrong.
It should not be about GTI trying to manufacture an experience dramatic enough to convert him to their way of thinking.
And it certainly should not become several hours of people attempting to win an internet argument.
The paranormal community has enough tribalism already.
This investigation has the chance to demonstrate something considerably healthier: that people can fundamentally disagree about evidence while still being willing to stand in the same building, use the same equipment, watch the same rooms and examine the same incidents together.
Being challenged should not automatically be considered an attack.
Neither should scepticism.
If somebody claims that an event is paranormal, questions should be expected. If somebody offers a normal explanation, that explanation should also be questioned.
That is how investigations become stronger.
So What Should Actually Happen on the Investigation?
If this collaboration is going to mean something, transparency cannot simply be a slogan attached to the promotional material. It needs to be built into the investigation itself.
Before anything begins, GTI should explain exactly how they normally investigate. Beardo should explain what controls or additional observations he believes are necessary.
Then everybody should agree on the conditions.
There should be continuous cameras covering important areas wherever practically possible. Equipment should be inspected and demonstrated before use. Environmental factors should be noted. People entering and leaving investigation areas should be accounted for.
Most importantly, everybody should be allowed to observe.
If something strange happens, the first reaction should not immediately be:
“Ghost.”
It should be:
“What just happened?”
Then investigate it. That process does not destroy paranormal investigation. It improves it.
Because if ordinary explanations are properly tested and eliminated and something still cannot be explained, the remaining evidence becomes considerably more interesting.
Let Beardo Be Beardo — And Let GTI Be GTI
Another mistake would be forcing either side to abandon its identity.
GTI should conduct the investigation in the manner its audience recognises.
Beardo should be allowed to question what he sees.
If he believes an equipment response has a conventional explanation, he should say so.
If GTI disagrees, they should explain why.
And if Beardo witnesses something he genuinely cannot account for?
He should say that too.
There is an enormous difference between saying “I cannot explain that” and saying “therefore it was paranormal.”
That small distinction is one the wider paranormal community could benefit from hearing more often.
Unexplained should be allowed to remain unexplained.
Sometimes that is the most interesting answer available.
The Raw Footage Could Be More Important Than the Investigation
What happens after the lights come back on may ultimately determine whether this experiment succeeds.
Both sides will presumably produce content about the experience. That is perfectly reasonable.
But edited videos should not become the only record of what happened.
Where practical, the original footage surrounding significant incidents should be preserved and made available for examination. If an event becomes controversial, viewers should be able to see what occurred immediately before and immediately afterwards rather than only a dramatic ten-second clip.
Beardo should also be willing to show moments that challenge his expectations.
GTI should be willing to show moments where apparently paranormal activity turns out to have an ordinary explanation.
That symmetry matters. Transparency cannot mean releasing everything that supports your position while quietly forgetting everything that does not.
Bigger Than One YouTube Collaboration
GTI has grown a substantial online paranormal community, while Beardo Gets Scared has built an audience around questioning paranormal footage and claims.
That is exactly why this meeting has significance.
Paranormal entertainment increasingly exists in an environment where dramatic claims generate attention, sceptical response videos generate attention, and arguments between communities can generate even more.
But underneath all of that remains the question that brought most people into the paranormal world in the first place:
Is something genuinely unexplained happening?
The best way of exploring that question is not by surrounding ourselves exclusively with people who already agree with us.
Believers need sceptics. Sceptics need investigators willing to open their doors.
Investigators need people who will challenge methodology. And debunkers occasionally need to leave the editing desk, enter the allegedly haunted building and experience the unpredictable reality of field investigation for themselves.
That is why Beardo accepting GTI’s invitation is potentially important. Not because somebody is going to be proven right. Not because somebody is going to be proven wrong.
But because two sides of a frequently divided paranormal community have an opportunity to investigate the same place, at the same time, under the same conditions.
Now the challenge is to make the investigation worthy of the conversation surrounding it. Keep it civil.
Keep the cameras rolling. Keep questioning everything.
And afterwards, show us what happened — including the parts that do not fit anybody’s preferred conclusion.
Because if the paranormal community genuinely wants to understand the unexplained, that is what transparency should look like.
Paranormal magazine will be watching with interest.
Paranormal Magazine UK 