As anyone that has spent any amount of time working in the paranormal field- tension is rife, dividing groups and individuals. Rival paranormal groups, believers, and sceptics frequently clash over what constitutes compelling evidence in a realm where certainty is elusive. The popularity of TV shows like Most Haunted, Ghost Adventures, and Ghost Hunters has spawned a growing number of copycat YouTube groups, mimicking questionable methods and presenting dubious evidence, which sceptics rightly challenge.
These groups, bolstered by growing audiences on TV and social media, frustrate those yearning for a scientific approach, and annoy sceptics who dismiss the field entirely as a waste of time. In response, YouTube “Debunker” channels have emerged to expose fakery, flawed methods, and hold paranormal investigators accountable, offering catharsis through bluntness and humour.
However, recent scrutiny of popular paranormal channel The Ouija Brothers has exposed flaws within the debunker sphere, revealing bias, erroneous assumptions, and overconfidence. Operating in the same YouTube space as their targets has led to conflicts, toxic fandoms, and highlighted the shortcomings of content creators that remain under constant pressure to produce sensational content. This drama underscores challenges shared by both paranormal investigators and debunkers, who can find themselves subject to the same pitfalls as those they set out to critique.
This article is the first of a series which aims to explore instances where debunkers’ conduct sometimes falls short of the rational standards they claim to uphold in the paranormal debate.
The Role of the Debunker
Debunking is a critical process of examining claims, evidence, or phenomena to identify inaccuracies, misinterpretations, or deliberate falsehoods, aiming to separate fact from fiction. Rooted in scepticism, it applies scientific principles such as objective analysis, evidence-based reasoning, and a methodical approach to challenge extraordinary claims.
Within a scientific framework, dedicated debunkers perform a role like the traditional peer review stage in the scientific process. In peer review, findings are submitted to third parties with relevant expertise to scrutinise methods, verify data, and rigorously test outcomes and conclusions.
For paranormal investigators, debunking is a core skill that can be considered the essence of the investigative process. Groups unwilling to critically examine their own findings or be willing to invite scrutiny of their findings lack the credibility to be considered true paranormal investigators.
On the other hand, for a third-party observer to be an effective debunker, objectivity is essential. Unfortunately, self-styled debunkers often fall short in this regard. Personal biases, whether stemming from their own beliefs, relationships, or personal grievances, frequently influence their judgment. These biases can lead to accusations of favouritism, particularly when personal relationships or grievances with investigators are involved.
The YouTube paranormal sphere is never short of drama, and a recent example involving the popular channel The Ouija Brothers highlights many issues within the space, on both the believer and the debunker sides of the debate.
Case Study: The Ouija Brothers
The controversy began in March 2025 with the release of their “Allan’s House” video. This video showed the pair, Ste and Griff, entering the abandoned home of a recently deceased man, who had died alone and not been discovered for a significant length of time. Although the property was left open and they were not the first to enter, debunker The Side Eye Guy (SEG) speculated in his video review that they must have broken into the house to gain entry. This narrative, along with other graphic content showing apparent human remains and shots showing details by which the deceased man could be clearly identified, led to backlash against the channel, much of which mimicked the commentary in SEGs video, but also other criticism was levelled on the grounds of poor taste and questionable ethics. The pair also attempted a limited paranormal investigation, despite no claims of paranormal activity, which some viewed as exploitative.
Within days, the Ouija Brothers acknowledged the backlash. Ste, a full-time YouTuber, showed signs of distress during a heated livestream exchange with SEG. They eventually took down the video and uploaded a re-edited version, addressing some of the criticism by removing some of the more problematic content. However, more misfortune followed. On March 11th, their YouTube channel was hacked, leading to a complete takeover. The hackers deleted all content and replaced it with cryptocurrency scam promotions, resulting in the channel being taken down by YouTube for violating terms of use.
They eventually regained control of the channel on 25th March, 2 weeks after the initial attack, and chose to mark their return with a two-day livestream from 30 East Drive in Pontefract, a site renowned for violent poltergeist activity and one which the duo had visited many times before.
During the second night, while the pair was out of the house enjoying an evening meal at a nearby restaurant, a static night vision camera streaming live at the bottom of the stairs captured a toy pushchair – which had been placed at the top of the stairs and apparently had remained undisturbed for several hours – suddenly come crashing down the staircase. The pair cut their meal short and returned to the house, attempting to debunk the incident themselves live on camera, but were unable to conclusively do so. They declared the event to be unexplained but stopped short of claiming it to be genuinely paranormal.
Debunker Interpretations
Predictably, the incident came under scrutiny over the following days by debunkers and other sceptics within the community. Specific explanations offered, mostly without foundation, included:
- The pushchair was being pulled by string.
- A hidden device under the top step was being used to launch objects down the stairs.
- The electronic EMF “tripwire” seen trailing down the stairs was pulled causing the pushchair to fall (while review of footage clearly shows the tripwire doesn’t move until after the pushchair does, likely caused by one of the wheels hitting the battery pack at the top of the stairs, though proponents of this claim insist it was the other way around, i.e. the wire moves first)
- There was a third person in the house, hiding out of view at the top of the stairs, and they tipped the pushchair down the stairs.
- The video feed was not live and had been edited beforehand.
US based paranormal researcher and debunker Kenny Biddle was critical of the methodology being used. He criticised the lack of a second camera at the top of the stairs to monitor for “micromovements” caused by gravity or vibration, along with highlighting the possibility of an uneven floor causing slight instability of the pushchair, eventually leaving it to fall once a certain tipping point was reached. Of the non-paranormal explanations offered, this explanation is most likely to be accurate.
American YouTube Debunker “The Shape” went further, asserting that Ste and Griff had deliberately positioned the pushchair in an unstable position, knowing that it would almost certainly fall. His interpretation was that the incident had been deliberately staged, and his followers on social media started a fresh backlash against the Ouija Brothers. Eventually, this narrative grew to a point that it was being claimed that Ste and Griff had orchestrated everything, including the hack and takedown of their YouTube channel, to garner back sympathy following the original “Allan’s House” video.
Criticism of the Debunker Assessment
There are a few issues with the narrative presented by debunkers. Firstly, while it is possible, as highlighted by Kenny Biddle in his analysis, that the pushchair had been placed in an unstable position originally which could have eventually led to it falling, there is no evidence that this was done so deliberately. There have been many examples historically of the pushchair and other objects being propelled down the stairs by an unseen force, but attempts to recreate such incidents are not consistent, so it would be possibly unfair to say they knew it would fall. Also, with regards to orchestrating events to garner sympathy after losing subscribers following the earlier controversy, Ste and Griff have pointed out that they didn’t need to do that- the channel takedown had resulted in the loss of two weeks income so harmed them financially, and their subscriber count had actually increased following the Allan’s House controversy, so the idea that they “needed to claw back viewers” doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Other debunkers, notably Mythos (from YouTube channel MythosParanormal), MrGrey (World of MrGrey) and Beardo (Beardo Gets Scared), while sceptical, were a lot more supportive of the Ouija Brothers overall. Beardo voiced his frustration over the incident and was critical of the claims made by the Shape as well as the subsequent social media pile on.
While Kenny Biddle’s criticisms of the methodological flaws in The Ouija Brother’s approach are valid, and can be seen as constructive- it should be pointed out that the Ouija Brothers, by their own admission, are not scientific investigators, and while they do make a fair attempt to debunk where they can, they make no pretence to employ scientific rigor to their investigation setup. In this way, it is a little unfair to criticise them when they fall short in this regard.
At the same time, though, this exposes something of a weakness in the stance of some debunkers. While the Ouija Brothers have been held up by YouTube Debunkers as an example of a good paranormal investigation team, and it is indeed laudable that they have not appeared to have faked any paranormal events in their videos, they are still primarily an entertainment channel, guilty of some degree of sensationalism at least in their clickbait video titles and thumbnails (though there is some justification for doing so due to the nature of the platform).
While they may be a good example within the context of their peers (i.e. YouTube ghost hunting groups), they are far from a good example for real or serious paranormal investigators to model themselves after. Where debunkers have held them up as such, this perhaps exposes something of a limitation in the debunkers’ understanding of the field they choose to criticise. The debunkers also exist within the YouTube bubble, with apparently little awareness or frame of reference for the paranormal field outside of sensationalist TV shows and social media representations.
Furthermore, interpersonal relationships have also been highlighted. It has been noted that Beardo, perhaps the most prominent of the current crop of YouTube debunkers (at least in the UK) is friends with the Ouija Brothers, and by his own admission this colours his perspective on them and affects how he approaches and critiques their content. It has been rightly pointed out that he would be much harsher in his criticism towards another channel producing similar content that he perhaps maintains a less cordial relationship with. He has denied this to be the case, but at the same time admits he does treat his friends differently, and in this regard, he appears to be inconsistent and self-contradictory. By his own admission to some extent, he is prepared to allow personal feelings to influence his critiques and will show clear favouritism, and as such his objectivity is clearly compromised and this calls his judgement as a debunker into question.
Other UK based debunkers who are on cordial terms with the Ouija Brothers have also shown more sympathy towards them through this chain of events. It is notable that the harshest criticism has come from debunkers based overseas – The Shape and Kenny Biddle are both American, and The Side Eye Guy, while British, is based in Australia. This geographical distance could well mean that that those debunkers that were more forthright in their criticism felt able to do so because they have a more detached relationship with them.
It should of course be noted that Mythos and Beardo have both been extremely critical of other UK based paranormal channels, so geography is clearly not the only influencing factor. As an aside- MrGrey is also based in the UK, and while he is also apparently on good terms with the Ouija Brothers, appears to do a much better job of maintaining a neutral stance on internet drama, even though on the face of it he is a far more “hardline” sceptic than Beardo or Mythos. Perhaps this is because he has claimed to have a scientific background and is therefore more adept at keeping criticism non-personal.
Ultimately, this episode underscores the complexities faced by the paranormal and debunker communities on YouTube. While scepticism and scrutiny are essential for maintaining integrity- biases, personal relationships, and platform dynamics can influence the narratives that emerge. This case serves as a reminder that like investigators themselves, debunkers must strive for consistency, fairness, and accountability—lest they fall into the very pitfalls they seek to expose.
That’s All for Now…
In this first instalment, we have looked at the tensions within the paranormal field and issues that can arise when criticism is less than constructive, and how interpersonal relationships can potentially lead to bias in the debunker’s assessment. Moving forward, in the next instalment we will be looking at the pitfalls of debunking, illustrating how debunkers can often fall victim to the same cognitive traps as the paranormal investigators they criticise. Stay tuned for more insights.