The Burden of Proof

When paranormal investigators share their findings – whether through video footage, EVPs, or personal accounts – they are often met with a chorus of skepticism. The phrase “the burden of proof is on you” is frequently thrown at them, demanding that they provide indisputable evidence that what they captured is genuine, even though they are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone about anything.

However, this notion is often applied selectively and unfairly, with skeptics and YouTube debunkers failing to hold themselves to the same standard when claiming that the evidence is fake.

The Nature of Paranormal Investigations

Paranormal investigators are not claiming to possess scientific proof of ghosts, nor are they publishing peer-reviewed studies asserting undeniable supernatural occurrences. Most investigators are simply documenting their experiences and sharing their findings. Paranormal evidence, by its very nature, is often subjective and open to debate. What one person perceives as compelling, another may dismiss. But dismissing something is not the same as proving it false.

The Shift in the Burden of Proof

Skeptics often insist that the burden of proof lies with those presenting paranormal evidence. Yet, when skeptics and debunkers go a step further and claim that a piece of evidence is definitively fake, they are now making an assertion of their own. At this point, the burden of proof shifts to them. If they claim that a video is staged, manipulated, or the result of misidentification, it is their responsibility to provide concrete proof supporting that claim.

Simply stating that something “looks fake” or “could have been edited” is not evidence – it is speculation. Without substantial proof, these debunking claims are just as unverified as the original paranormal evidence they seek to discredit.

The Problem with Opinions as “Debunking”

Many self-proclaimed debunkers rely heavily on opinion rather than factual analysis. They may assert that a shadow figure is “obviously a person off-camera” without showing any proof. They may claim that an EVP is overlayed without reproducing the exact conditions that led to its capture. Often, they assert that because something can be faked, it must be faked – an illogical leap that does not hold up under scrutiny.

Skepticism is healthy and necessary, but true skepticism involves critical thinking, not outright dismissal. It requires analysing all possibilities, not just defaulting to the assumption that paranormal evidence must be fraudulent.

A Fair Standard for Both Sides

If paranormal investigators must substantiate their claims, then skeptics and debunkers must do the same. If an investigator presents a video of an unexplained anomaly, a skeptic is free to question it – but if they claim that it was hoaxed, they must provide evidence beyond personal belief. If they cannot prove fakery, then their assertion remains an opinion, not a fact.

True investigation – whether paranormal or skeptical – demands a commitment to evidence, logic, and fairness. The burden of proof does not rest solely on those presenting paranormal evidence; it also applies to those who claim that evidence is fraudulent. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.