Blog Archives
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.
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.
