“I’ve received letters from students who attended one of my lectures, and they now understand that there are other ways to look at ghosts and monsters. I’ve been hugged at paranormal conferences by people grateful that I was able to show them a better way to think about paranormal claims … I find it to be the most rewarding job I could ever do.”
–Kenny Biddle
Rob Palmer: One of the reasons I wanted to interview you right now was because I just found out you are in the group of ten skeptics whom have just been added to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s existing roster of fellows. Congratulations! This puts you in the same august club as luminaries such as Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Ann Druyan, Joe Nickell, Susan Gerbic, Steven Novella, Bill Nye, Ben Radford, Carl Sagan, Richard Saunders, Eugenie Scott, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and–OMG—James Randi. Did you ever envision this would happen to you?
Kenny Biddle: Yes, I did. I know that sounds cocky, but let me explain! In 2018, Joe Nickell asked if I would like to work on a few projects with him at the CFI headquarters in Amherst, New York. I geeked out, put in for some time off, and my wife and I headed up for the better part of a week. They even set up a temporary office for me! In between researching and a NERF war that absolutely was not started by me—it was me—I found myself in Barry Karr’s office. We were having a casual conversation when I looked up on the wall above where I was sitting. Barry’s own plaque was hanging there. After a minute, I proclaimed, “I want one of those. How do I get one of those? Cause I want one with my name on it.” Barry laughed (and thought I was going to steal his) but told me that people were paying attention to what I was doing, so I might get one someday. I briefly thought about stealing his, I mean … I was sure I could outrun him. I eventually decided to go the honorable route and work hard, earning one for myself. I honestly thought it would be many more years before I’d even be considered. It feels freakin’ awesome. It also inspires me to keep doing what I’m doing … to keep improving myself and looking for new ways to help improve education techniques via interest in “kooky” but fascinating mysteries.
Palmer: You write a column in this very magazine, titled A Closer Look, where you publish articles about your in-depth investigations of things paranormal. Can you give us some highlights? Favorite? Most difficult? Most surprising?
Biddle: I’ve enjoyed working on each one, because every case took me in a new direction of learning or got me in touch with some great people. One of my favorite cases involved the historical claims of “The Conjuring House,” in which I met the former owner, Norma Sutcliffe, and retired journalist Kent Spottswood (who sadly passed away not long afterward). The investigation led me through the lives of people that died long ago but were being blamed for “haunting” this famous house. With help from Norma, Kent, and others, we were able to uncover documents that proved several deaths that allegedly occurred in the house had actually all occurred miles away.
I teamed up with Ben Radford (a mentor of mine) and Celestia Ward (of the Squaring the Strange podcast) to track psychic predictions in real-time, concerning current missing person cases. Though the eventual outcome of the case was tragic, I was able to help demonstrate just how useless so-called psychic detectives are in locating missing persons. I’ve read about investigations such as this by Radford and others, such as Joe Nickell, but being personally involved with such an investigation gave me a much deeper understanding of how harmful psychic detectives can be.
Having the opportunity to work with people I’ve admired for so long is certainly a highlight of my career. And honestly, the highlights are constantly coming my way—the people I get to interact with and the mysteries I’m able to solve due to their help and advice—it motivates me to keep coming back for more every day.
Palmer: I first met you at the workshop you did at CSICon 2017. And you presented at the next two CSICons as well. How did you start down that path … doing public speaking and workshops?
Biddle: I started doing paranormal-themed conferences in my local area. As I began writing for Skeptical Inquirer, I began receiving requests from local skeptical groups, such as PhACT, the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, which was my first presentation given to such a group. Word-of-mouth led to other speaking engagements and eventually an invitation from Barry Karr to present at CSICon 2017. I don’t actively seek out speaking engagements, so when an invitation is extended, I’m deeply honored and flattered. It motivates me to do the very best presentation I can give.
Palmer: At that 2017 workshop, I learned of your transformation from an actual ghost hunter into someone who promotes scientific skepticism and rationality. Let’s talk about your previous “life” a little bit. How and when did you get involved with ghost hunting, and what got you interested in that to begin with?
Biddle: I’ve always been interested in strange things; from ghosts to Nessie to Bigfoot. I’ve always been a science fiction fan as well, so I had always hoped this world was more like the movies I grew up on. I got involved with ghost hunting in 1997, just after getting married. As a wedding gift to ourselves, we purchased a desktop PC, and I began exploring this new thing called the “world wide web.” I searched out ghosts, because that seemed to be the most accessible topic to explore in real life (a lot of “haunted” houses). I found a local group in Philadelphia and attended a meeting. Eventually I had a group of my own, which lasted a few years.
Palmer: Were you also into other fringe things such as UFOs and alien abductions?
Biddle: Yes, since seeing E.T. and Close Encounters I had an interest in aliens and UFOs. I secretly hoped “they” would come and take me away. Ha-ha!
Palmer: Did you publish anything claiming paranormal phenomena were real?
Biddle: I had a team website in which I posted the standard “ghost hunting team” things; how I thought proper equipment should be used (I was wrong), pictures of “orbs” and other photographic mistakes I thought were ghosts, and more. I even wrote an early Guide to Paranormal Investigation, which although embarrassing now, shows me how much I’ve learned and evolved since those days.
Palmer: What made you think your views on paranormal claims were mistaken?
Biddle: Ghost “orbs” were the first thing that made me rethink what I was doing. I soon realized that for something that was supposed to be so rare, there were an awful lot of ghost hunters getting photos of ghosts. It seemed way too common, and I wanted to know why.
Palmer: Tell me about your pivot point. What made you start questioning these things and start moving to the “other side”?
Biddle: Photography is what set me on the path to skepticism. I began reading photography manuals, gaining a much better understanding of how the process works: the difference between digital and film, the subtle difference a slight change in lighting can have on an image. I began to experiment with different cameras, different settings, different lighting conditions, and so on. I realized that so many of these alleged “ghost” photographs were not caused by spirits of the dead, but by dust particles, lens flare, frosty breath, long exposures, operator error, and more.
Palmer: Please tell me about your influences regarding your
skepticism and investigative nature. Specifically, who were
your skeptical role models, and who have you worked with and
learned from?
Biddle: There’s been quite a few people I’ve looked up to. My first interaction with a “skeptic” was Ben Radford, deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer. I had self-published a small booklet about photographic anomalies and a friend of mine sent Radford a copy. (He liked it.)
Through Ben, I discovered Skeptical Inquirer magazine and the work of Joe Nickell, senior research fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, who has been investigating and solving mysteries for fifty years (as of 2020). I particularly found his knowledge of early photography fascinating. I became hooked on their very detailed approach to investigating mysteries and adopted their methods as I became more familiar with them. Around the same time, I discovered Sharon Hill, who ran a website, Doubtful News, which addressed fringe topics appearing in current news. Sharon stripped away the false claims by providing the science involved. Mark Edward, a professional mentalist, has been an invaluable mentor when it came to understanding the practices of psychics and mediums, teaching me little tricks over the years whenever we had the chance to hang out. He even allowed me to attend a secret magicians meeting. Shhhhh! I’ve worked with Susan Gerbic, founder of the Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia project, on psychic sting operations. That taught me better methods for going undercover. I also must mention Mitch Silverstein, a biologist and long-time friend. Mitch taught me proper techniques for setting up and documenting experiments when we worked on a few together.
Over the years, I’ve adopted methods from James Randi, Richard Wiseman, James Alcock, Mary Roach, Maria Konnikova, Massimo Polidoro, Mick West, Carl Sagan, Elizabeth Loftus, and also Bailey and Elle Harris. I’ve been able to learn from all these wonderful and inspirational people.
Palmer: What skeptical work did you do early on (before being drafted by Skeptical Inquirer that is)?
Biddle: My earliest work included the booklet, Orbs or Dust: A Practical Guide to False Positive Evidence. It was self-published and filled with quite a few typos, but it did the job of offering solid explanations for most “ghost” photos. From there, I started the Facebook page called “I Am Kenny Biddle,” to promote science and skepticism applied to paranormal claims. A YouTube channel soon followed, and thus began my express highway to where I am now.
Palmer: How did your paranormal peers (and family) feel about your 180-degree turn-around?
Biddle: It wasn’t sudden, so there weren’t any “shocking revelations.” And honestly, I was too close with many other groups during my time as a ghost hunter. Over the years, I’ve built many strong relationships with paranormal teams and individuals. I think the secret is that I strive to treat everyone with respect and listen to what others have to say.
Palmer: What do you actually do when you’re not being a skeptic? Do the folks in your “real” work life know about your skeptical activities? (And did they know about the old you and about the change?)
Biddle: I’m pretty transparent; my work associates know what I do on my free time and most enjoy hearing about my latest adventures. I make it no secret that I was a ghost hunter, which often is a topic of discussion when meeting people for the first time. They also know that I write for SI and speak at and attend science conferences and events. It leads to many interesting conversations and makes the day go by faster.
Palmer: I know that you’ve kept in close touch and remain friendly with people who are still ghost hunters and maybe even psychics and mediums. Tell me a little bit about how THAT works.
Biddle: It really comes down to what Patrick Swayze told us in Roadhouse: “Be nice.” People are going to have different beliefs, priorities, and ways of thinking. I’m not going to ignore or avoid people just because we think differently. That approach doesn’t lead to any progress. I’d rather approach opposing views with simple respect—talk with others, not “at” them. In return, we (myself and my ghost hunter friends) have civil, engaging conversations that often leave both sides with a better understanding of each other. I think this helps me maintain a good relationship with them.
Palmer: I know you watch a lot of the ghost hunter shows and keep up with that sort of thing. Which are the best, and which are the absolute worst of these? How about other paranormal topics on TV?
Biddle: I’ll usually watch the first two episodes of a new series, just to see if there’s anything different (there never is). Most often, I’ll watch an episode if it has something to do with a case I’m working on, such as showing me interior views of rarely seen locations or interviews with those making specific claims.
As for which are the best? None of them do a good job of demonstrating proper investigative methods, science, or critical review of alleged evidence. They’re pretty much a constant stream of misinformation, bad acting, and dramatic music, with the occasional trickery tossed in here and there. As for the worst, that’s a tough one, given how they all suck. If I had to pick, in my opinion, Ghost Adventures is probably the worst. It continually spits out false claims and misinformation (many of which I’ve investigated), and is run by a leader, Zak Bagans, who seems to have been possessed so many times that I’m amazed he doesn’t have Bob Larson on speed dial.
Palmer: Have any investigations left you wondering, could some paranormal claims be real?
Biddle: I get asked this almost every week on my podcast and several times while attending public events. If I start an investigation, it’s because I think there’s enough information that when I start digging, I’ll be able to come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. Of course, there have been a few times when the trail has gone cold and I’m left without a solution. For me, I don’t—I can’t—start thinking “maybe a paranormal reason is really the cause” because I have yet to collect any data/evidence to support this type of conclusion. If I reach a dead end, that means there is missing information and I need to keep looking (sometimes for years). For the time being, the case status will be set at “I don’t know.” If I were to start toying with the status of “possibly paranormal,” then I’d be inserting an assumption as a conclusion … and that, to me, is being dishonest, because I have no data to back that up.
Palmer: One person I’ve seen you’ve written a lot of articles about is Zack Bagans. Who is he, and why the special interest in him?
Biddle: Mr. Bagans is the host and star of the television series Ghost Adventures (as well as its many spin-offs). He also operates the Zak Bagans Haunted Museum in Las Vegas. He’s well known in the paranormal community (mostly as a joke) and has a large following. I first became interested in his over-the-top claims when he released the pseudo-documentary Demon House, which focused on the Ammons family and an alleged demonic possession. Joe Nickell investigated the original case in 2014, doing an amazing job of dispelling the “demons.” However, with the release of the film in 2018, there was renewed interest in the case, and I was asked to look into it. I was able to uncover many flaws, inconsistencies, and creative editing that made the film more of a silly hoax than a serious look at an alleged haunting. (You can find an article covering this here.)
In 2018, my wife and I, along with Susan Gerbic and Mark Edward, visited Zak’s museum just prior to CSICon 2018. (You can find an article covering this here.) It was at this time that I really became interested in his claims. As the tour guides rushed us along, we stopped at the “Bela Lugosi mirror” and were told that Lugosi used that very mirror to talk to his deceased wife. I wondered who his wife was and what messages he allegedly got, so I did a search once we got outside the museum. (No phones were allowed to be used inside.) I found that Bela Lugosi was married five times but had died before any of his wives. This launched me into an investigation that got me in contact with the Lugosi family and the previous owner of the mirror. I eventually discovered there was no evidence that Lugosi had ever owned that mirror, and the other claims Bagans made about Lugosi were false. (You can find an article covering this here.)
I wrote several articles focusing on other objects in the museum, all with similar false or embellished claims. At the urging of my friend, Mellanie Ramsey, I looked into Bagans’s book A Complete Idiot’s Guide to Ghost Hunting, which was released at the end of 2019. I was able to uncover that the book was mostly a reprint of Troy Taylor’s book Ghost Hunter’s Guidebook, with several dozen articles plagiarized from just as many other authors. Eventually it was revealed that Taylor was hired as a ghost writer and took the lazy route of recycling his own book and taking articles from other people. The “red flag” was when I read the chapter on photography, which I immediately recognized (and verified) as being a word-for-word copy from Joe Nickell’s book Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. (You can find articles covering this scandal here and here.)
I’ve received word from several former employees of his museum that Bagans has since officially banned me from attending his museum. Normally, I wouldn’t care, but this is actually a shame. I wouldn’t mind sitting down with him, one-on-one, and discussing many of the topics I’ve covered (and more).
Palmer: What other activities besides writing your SI column do you do these days to promote skepticism?
Biddle: I’ve been invited to speak at events, on both sides of the “fence.” I’ve spoken at paranormal-themed events, which are usually well-received. I’ve attended skeptic, atheist, and humanist groups to talk about investigation methods, photography anomalies, and psychics. You and I even teamed up to do a presentation on psychics. I was honored to host workshops for CSICon for three years in a row (until the pandemic hit), teaching attendees skills for detecting mistakes and fraud.
I host two live podcasts every weekend; on Friday nights I host the Skeptical Help Bar, which is a casual show focused on cocktails and friendly discussions of paranormal topics. I’ve been doing this for about a year now and have received a lot of positive feedback. It’s open for discussion between people of all beliefs, and one of the very few rules is “Listen to Patrick Swayze, and just ‘be nice.’” It’s worked out really well, and I’ve gained a small following who have an endless supply of curiosity. On Saturday nights, I cohost Three Tortured Souls, a podcast with three guys with slightly different perspectives, that take a deep dive into one topic. It’s a mix of research and casual conversation, which keeps it fresh and interesting.
In addition, I’ve had several opportunities to enter the classroom. In Las Vegas, Susan Gerbic arranged for several speakers to visit a local school and speak to the classes, covering topics of critical thinking, investigation methods, and how to separate good information from bad. I’ve recently worked with several other teachers on improving lesson plans on science and critical thinking, offering improvements and experiments, to demonstrate specific points … and sharing my case files and the steps taken to solve mysteries. Working with educators is really where I want to focus on more, helping the next generations become better thinkers.
Palmer: One fascinating thing people may not know about you
is that you participated in a very well publicized sting
against a well-known TV psychic medium. You went undercover
to a public reading by Matt Fraser (of the Meet the Frasers show). This sting was covered by the New York Times Magazine
in an article about that sting and another run against TV
psychic medium Thomas John, who was caught using info
obtained by hot reading. Tell us a little about your Fraser
experience and what you learned.
Biddle: Most of that experience can be found in my article Undercover at a Psychic Group Reading. (It is here.) However, being in the audience of a professional “psychic” while having a very good understanding of both cold and hot reading techniques really filters out the “mystical magic” and left me watching almost two hours of bullshit. Fraser practiced cold reading, starting off with general statements directed at an entire row of people (twelve or more), until someone acknowledged it might be them. “Readings” were filled with questions to the attendee, with responses rearranged and repeated back to them. Much of what I witnessed that day I had already learned from Mark Edward and others, but the experience never gets old. As in, watching people so readily accept, without question, the flimflam from people such as Fraser, still amazes me to this day.
Palmer: Some in the skeptic movement have written that fellow skeptics who engage in “Bigfoot skepticism” and spend time on such topics as flat earth, ghosts, UFOs, and other “kooky” beliefs are wasting their time and should instead be working to influence the public on “more urgent” matters such as global warming or pressing social justice issues. What are your thoughts on that?
Biddle: The “more urgent” issues are certainly important topics to cover, and there are indeed a lot of people focusing on them—people that are much more qualified and have a much deeper interest in those topics. However, skepticism is not something that is reserved only for topics that you, me, or anyone else deems “more urgent” than others. When it comes to interests, not everyone is going to agree on what’s “more urgent.” Likewise, not everyone is going to pick up a magazine or click on a link that focuses on global warming, but they might be tempted if that same magazine mentions a ghostly mystery has been solved, or that a documentary demonstrates how flat-earthers were proved wrong by their own experiments. Yes, serious topics deserve serious work, but dammit, people like “kooky” shit. That’s where people like me come in.
By engaging on so-called “kooky” topics, we engage those who have an interest and belief in them. When I lay out the steps taken to solve a UFO sighting or ghostly hand in a 120-year old photograph, readers are fully engaged (even those that disagree). Readers are exposed to the ideas of skepticism: why we should challenge claims, the need to demand evidence, and correcting misinformation. Readers are also exposed to thinking critically about those “kooky” claims. In my articles, I strive to “show my work,” so the reader can follow along with the investigation process, understanding and learning how details of a mystery (claim) were systematically analyzed to come to a properly supported conclusion. By applying skepticism and critical thinking to a “kooky” topic that draws a lot of interest from the general public, I’m injecting better thinking processes to an engaged reader.
Since I began writing for Skeptical Inquirer, I’ve received feedback from people all over the world with various beliefs. Most of it is positive, pointing out that they found my articles because they were the only skeptical take on the topics they were researching. I’ve received letters from students who attended one of my lectures, and they now understand that there are other ways to look at ghosts and monsters. I’ve been hugged at paranormal conferences by people grateful that I was able to show them a better way to think about paranormal claims, which led them to improved thinking in their daily lives. So, no, I don’t find that to be a waste of time. I find it to be the most rewarding job I could ever do.
Palmer: So, finally, what’s your next aspirational
goal? What’s does the future have in store for the
awesome Kenny Biddle?
Biddle: My next goal? Wow, there are so many. I’d like to become more involved with the Center for Inquiry (I’m looking at you, Barry!). Recently, I’ve been working a bit more with teachers, from early grades to college, on improving lessons/courses involving science and critical thinking. I’d like to continue on that course, perhaps developing a one- or two-day class for schools, which would use interest in paranormal topics to incorporate skepticism and critical thinking. I have a book on photographic anomalies I need to finish. As for what else … who knows where this crazy train will take me. No matter what, I’m going to enjoy the ride.
Photo credits: Except where noted, all photos in the article are provided courtesy of Kenny Biddle.
Biddle on the Web: