Telepathy Tapes presentation taped and posted to X and YT

[Maury Markowitz]

This morning Reddit was alight with links to a video of the Telepathy Tapes people giving a live demonstration of autistic telepathy. I was almost immediately sure I knew what it was, but the video did not show a couple of important bits I would need to be absolutely sure.

Over on YT a vlogger logrolled the video here, and someone in the comments mentioned being in row three at that presentation. I asked him a couple of questions and now feel very confident in the following statement:

The demonstration in the video is a very old magic trick known as the "magician's force". Not seen in the video is a second demonstration they gave, where they had them recite a passage from a book chosen at random. This latter variation is a trick that dates to at least 1865, known as "the book test".

For those not familiar, both tricks are basically the same. You make a great show of randomizing things, but in reality force the person to choose the particular item you want them to. In the video they pick the color blue and a circle shape. I'll illustrate with the color. Before the show you make two colored cards, red and blue. You also make a "reveal", for instance a card in a sealed envelope. That card says "You chose blue!".

Now at the show you put down the two cards and say something to the effect of "point to one of the cards". If they point to the blue card, you say "great, that's our color" and hand them the blue card. If they point to the red card, you say "great, that's our discard" and hand them the blue card. Now wave your hands, and maybe a little flash powder, and have them open the envelope where it says "You chose blue!".

And the crowd goes wild.

No, really, they go nuts.

This would all be amusing if it weren't for the fact that I can't see how the kids can possibly give informed consent, and this is bordering on abuse.

 

[Bob Jase]

Where is Randi when we need him?

 

[Fin]

Interesting side note: The guy standing behind them with the beard & tattoos is Chris Ramsay, a very experienced magician, magic trick creator, a successful youtuber (he solved puzzle boxes) & more recently he's got a new YouTube channel called Area52 where he explores ufology.

 

[Mendel]

We have a long discussion on the Telepathy Tapes at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-telepathy-tapes.13951/ .

 

[Mendel]

The actual clip starts at 6:14:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0nzmMRUS4F4&t=6m14s

It's from "Contact in the Desert", a paranormal conference in Indian Wells, CA, running from May 30th to June 1st, 2025. Specifically, it was one of the "special events" scheduled for June 1st, involving Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell.


I don't have a good grasp of what is going on, but usually the "trick" is that the facilitator (the mother) is not blindfolded, knows the answer, and cues the autist to spell it out.

But that demonstration also looks like standard stage mentalism magic trick fare.

 

[FatPhil]

Warning: largely OT

No, really, they go nuts.

That was new to me - it looks like a misleading (see Penn's explanation) edit of this:

The Stratocruiser Broadcast - A famous experiment where Lesley was taken to cruising altitude in a plane above a British military base. Amongst other demonstrations, she was able to determine the personal possessions of an audience member chosen at random by the panel of judges in the studio.[10]
...
In 2014, Radiolab produced an episode on The Piddingtons,[14] and later asked Penn Jillette to comment. He discusses two of the tricks, one from the Stratrocruiser episode, and another from the Diving Bell. In the first, audience members write a short message or doodle on paper and place it into sealed numbered envelopes. Two are then selected from the audience members which Lesley correctly guesses. Jillette noted that the only reason to pick two envelopes initially was to disguise the fact that neither was ultimately used; Sydney switched the envelopes with ones containing pre-arranged messages. Had they selected only a single envelope, the audience member would have immediately noticed when Lesley announced a different answer, but with two selections, both audience members concluded they selected the other person's envelope.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Piddingtons

So they don't even end the trick with any "so, was that your card?" confirmation.

This would all be amusing if it weren't for the fact that I can't see how the kids can possibly give informed consent, and this is bordering on abuse.

Whatcha gonna do - take her non-existent licence away? I suspect the parents consent, and there's nothing that can be done. Alas, parents have the right to surround their children with woo, we've been doing it for millennia and it doesn't look like we'll be seeing that as a problem any time soon.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

The guy standing behind them with the beard & tattoos is Chris Ramsay, a very experienced magician, magic trick creator

Oh, that is interesting!

So I googled "Chris Ramsay book test" and immediately found this video:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LiUx2Pdu3A


Here he uses another variation of the book test. Here he riffles the book to "show that it's completely normal", and then stops at some random page and memorizes the word on it. To "save" that page, he inserts his pinky at the bottom of the book.

Now comes the force: he riffles the book once again, and asks the other person to say "stop". When they do, he pretends to open the book at that page, but switches to the pinky page. Trick complete.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Chris Ramsay is a card magician and has a very successful YT channel with over 7 million subscribers. At some point he started doing more videos about Puzzle boxes than card magic to the point that it seemed to me that he almost completely switched to doing that.

Then a while back, he said he fired most of his staff and was now pivoting again, this time into UFOs etc and he started a new YT channel called Area 52. He has had a meteoric rise in the UFO field.

That said, just an opinion. I don't think he would have had anything to do with any possible any slight of hand here. I'd guess he was there to film it. He has made a video on the Telepathy Tapes before on his YT channel

 

[Maury Markowitz]

That was new to me - it looks like a misleading (see Penn's explanation) edit of this:

I wonder who wrote that superbly written section of the article?

Oh.

 

[jimmyslippin]

I don't have a good grasp of what is going on, but usually the "trick" is that the facilitator (the mother) is not blindfolded, knows the answer, and cues the autist to spell it out.

But that demonstration also looks like standard stage mentalism magic trick fare.

View attachment 81243

The blue light reflecting off the transparent stencil is coming from the left side of seating area.

Here's a comment that was left on the Vetted video from a guy that claims to have been there. The way I read it, the girl seems to have performed the same "feat" multiple times (at least three?), presumably with different colours and shapes each time. That would probably rule out the circle at the center of the backdrop behind them being a cue and I think that light changing colour would be way too obvious.

The guy being so "deep in the audience" that people onstage couldn't see what he was holding... Isn't the girl reading her mother's mind? Her mother that is sitting right next to her? On the stage? Or is the mother telepathic too, and she's reading the mind of the organiser while her daughter reads hers? In any case, the room isn't that dark at all, and the organiser himself seems to believe the people onstage can see the cards he's holding up for them to see. So, bit of an odd tangent for the Youtube commenter to go off on that doesn't really jive with what is seen in the video.

It's not clear how the colour and shape selection is done. The guy above mentions the organiser had five or six of coloured cards and I assume there were as many shapes. At this point I can't see anything that would exclude the mother/facilitator from being the source of the messages. either via the ideomotor effect or deliberate manipulation. To me it does look like the stencil is indeed moving around between letter selections, just like you see in other RPM sessions in The Telepathy Tapes' paywalled videos. It could also be a rehearsed act, as I suspect is the case with Akhil and his mother's antics. If that is actually the case, then how complicated does this need to be? With only an apparent maximum of six cards in each category the possible selections are pretty limited. If the daughter has memorised all of the available possible selections then the mother may only need to guide her as far as the first letter or second letter. Maybe they are using a transparent stencil to make it less obvious that's how the routine is performed?

The OP's suggestion of a force, whether it be a magician's choice or any other type of selection force, doesn't actually seem necessary here and would just overcomplicate things for no real reason. The routine is possible without him being a stooge.

To me the three most likely possibilities are:

1) the mother is an unwitting stooge
2) the mother is a stooge
3) the mother and daughter are both stooges

 

[MonkeeSage]

Mentalist Oz Pearlman was just on Joe Rogan's podcast and he showed some excellent mentalism/cold reading. They ended up discussing the telepathy tapes and Pearlman told Rogan it was not telepathy and FC can be easily explained by the same techniques used in mentalism. Rogan was apparently so impressed with the mentalism he didn't immediately shutdown Pearlman's opinion on the telepathy tapes.

Link to interview full interview (relevant bits timestamped below):

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvGKBCM3Ps


00:16:12 - He cold reads Rogan's ATM pin code.

01:17:38 - He cold reads the name of the producer's first crush.

01:21:23 - He has Rogan pick someone "at random" from 50 of his previous show guests written on playing cards, and text them. They respond back at 01:26:42. Pearlman has Rogan text questions to them and cold reads the texter's first crush via Rogan's reactions to his questions.

01:33:43 - The producer asks if these same techniques were known/used by "witches" back in the day.

Producer: Do you think that there's people that knew this shit back in the days of witches? They figured out some of the powers, maybe? Not powers...

Pearlman: I think that a hundred percent psychics of the past used a lot of the same techniques I'm using, 'cause when I watch psychics, and I have people always tell me at certain things, they tell me like, oh, you know, I saw a psychic do this and this and this and I hear it and I go to myself, you know, I could do that same trick and I could, no offense, do it better.

But think about it. I'm doing this right now from with an ethical compass versus if I go, oh, I'm getting this and I thought about this and this is what happened with your dad. And you're like, oh my God, you know, I'm like, well, it's only 25 grand more to have a private session. Let's talk to him a little bit more. Right?

I'm not saying there's nobody psychic. I'm telling you that a lot of the psychics that I'm watching them like, I know how you're doing that.

01:42:19 - They discuss the telepathy tapes.

Rogan: Have you heard of the telepathy tapes?

Pearlaman: Yeah. So that, I know you had her in here, but that's... Have you watched the videos? I mean, come on.

Rogan: Yeah. That's wild...

Pearlam: No, no. I'm the opposite. I do not think that's real.

Rogan: Oh.

Pearlman: Yeah, yeah, no.

Rogan: Oh, really? Why? Tell me about what the videos. So can we show the videos?

Pearlman: Well, I don't know if you've got the paywall again. I don't want to controversial, but they're holding in many instances in that form of communication, the person who knows the information is holding the letters. Do you understand what I'm saying? So right now, if I had shown you a word and you're either touching somebody, right? You could get, do you know what a two person code act is?

Rogan: No.

Pearlman: So two person code act is like a mentalist thing with two people. There's a few that are the best in the world. Eddison's(?), Mind to Mind in Dubai, like a few really good ones who've done this. And what they do is they can be blindfolded in a different area and anything you hand to them, anything you say, the other person knows it. No electronics, no nothing. They just look at your credit card and they'll guess the credit card numbers. And what the way that's being done is they're communicating to each other based on pauses, based on like a million ways that you can think of. It's the best code act ever without speaking. And you'll watch it and you'll be like, there's no way they're communicating, but they are. And so it looks like telepathy, but it's not. You get them in the room of scientists, you'll fool every scientist under the sun.

What they're doing is like not bulletproof at all with the kids. And again, God bless. If I had a child in that condition, I for not one moment wouldn't want a solution. And I would want something to know that they're not, that they're in there and I could talk to them. And I don't want to speak out of turn but from the videos I've seen, I can explain that in a minute. They're, they're moving things around and positioning the letters.

If you do a double blind study where the person does not know the word that they're trying to communicate, I'm not even saying psychic, just don't tell them the word, the person holding it, and only show the word to the person who should be saying it, right?

Rogan: Right.

Pearlman: If you're the autistic child, show them the words there, I see it. and then have them type that word in. And do that for me nine out of ten times. And they've not been able to do that. That's not even psychic, that's just show me that you can type the word in that you saw. And so when you do like a deep dive on that, it's been...

Rogan: She [Dickens] offered to have someone come in with their parent and do that. Would you do that with us?

Pearlman: Sure.

Rogan: So you could like show how they're doing it?

Pearlman: I don't want to take anyone's hope away. I'm a parent. And like, again, I don't think they're making money on it. And I like...I'm very, I don't like to...again, when you ask me psychics, there's people who had real deep experiences and who is it for me to take that away? But when I watch that, and you're like talking to somebody who's a pro at doing this, same as psychics, I can see exactly how that's done.

Rogan: But what did you think about their ability to read languages that they've never studied?

Pearlman: So again, you're missing it. So that's again, the devil's in the details. It's the memory, what you remember of the story. Show me how they did that. Did either of the people there present know that language, who was doing it? And how was that being communicated? Did the end person who's moving the board around know what the meaning of the word was? Do you understand what I mean?

Rogan: Yes.

Pearlman: So like, again, you're hearing the, the CliffsNotes, the end edition, watch the video and show me something that I can't-- there was nothing I saw in that special or that, in that telepathy tapes, in the videos, that I couldn't readily explain.

Rogan: Really?

Pearlman: That's correct.

Rogan: Interesting. Very interesting.

Perlman: So could it be right? Yes. I'm not saying it's not. I'm not, again-- they could be 100% right and I could be 100% wrong. Hubris.

Rogan: Right.

Perlman: I haven't been in the room with them. I'm judging simply from videos I've seen. But as someone who is for a living pretending to read people's minds, but I'm actually reading people, I can see how it's being done.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Interesting side note: The guy standing behind them with the beard & tattoos is Chris Ramsay, a very experienced magician, magic trick creator, a successful youtuber (he solved puzzle boxes) & more recently he's got a new YouTube channel called Area52 where he explores ufology.

Oh, that is interesting!

So I googled "Chris Ramsay book test" and immediately found this video:

Mr. Ramsey has also exposed mentalism techniques used by "psychics" in past videos like this one, so he should certainly be aware.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yialEM_T2M0

 

[jackfrostvc]

Well Chris Ramsay has a friend who is a mentalist.
This guy, been on Chris's YT show a number of times and is a friend of his

https://www.youtube.com/@SpideyHypnosis

 

[Fin]

Oz Pearlman is a legend. The pin number "cold read" was almost certainly ascertained using some "pre-show" work. All the patter (talk) about him being able to work out the number due to Joe being a male, etc, is all part of the presentation & misdirection, but its not the actual method.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

The actual clip starts at 6:14:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0nzmMRUS4F4&t=6m14s

For the first one at 6:14, who "selected" the "random" shape and color? I don't understand. Was it random or was it selected?

Regardless, you can clearly see mom (who knows the answer) move the board to guide her finger to the U and E of blue. All the girl needs is a clue to the first letter (if it didn't come from board placement, it could come from anything the mom said before starting the test, and assuming blue is the only possible answer starting with B, or a clue to the entire color otherwise). After that, spelling the rest of it is a pointless endeavor (except to the audience) if all she needed was B, so the L-U-E could be unconscious ideomotor response on the mom's part.

With the circle, again mom says something beforehand "Can you tell me what shape it was?" Even if mom doesn't guide her finger to the first letter, that question could be the clue. If the test was repeated multiple times, we could see if mom uses a different question or look or touch each time. Or, of course, blindfold mom for the spelling part of the test and have her not say a word.

How on earth did Chris Ramsay end up supporting this, given what he knows about the tricks of the trade?

 

[Ann K]

How on earth did Chris Ramsay end up supporting this, given what he knows about the tricks of the trade?

You're assuming he is a "true believer" but that's not an easy thing to ascertain. Think of it this way: he does illusions to make a living. Is there any reason to think he would not support someone else's trickery to make a living?

 

[Fin]

How on earth did Chris Ramsay end up supporting this, given what he knows about the tricks of the trade?

Did he "support" it? He seems to be filming it using a small handheld device that doesn't look like a phone. I imagine, as an experienced magician who was already there at the conference for his own reasons, he was probably also intrigued by the TT claims and was possibly just on the lookout for cheating. I don't see any posts on his X overtly supporting it at all. No "well, that was real". Nothing like that. What makes you think he's supporting it? Since he is a well established magician I can totally imagine they invited him up there to add credibility.. like "we have a magician here making sure everything's above board", but I don't think that by any means makes him guilty of anything

Think of it this way: he does illusions to make a living. Is there any reason to think he would not support someone else's trickery to make a living?

If they were doing magic tricks and admitting as such, yes, we could expect he might support them. But they're making claims its legit. We can see earlier in this thread an example of him outing/exposing fake psychics. I'm not sure its wise to just assume without good evidence that he's supporting the TT claims just because here was there.

[edit]
I've DM'd Chris and asked him if he noticed any cheating or problems with the method being demonstrated

 

[Fin]

I've just realized that perhaps in saying Chris is "supporting" the TT @Charlie Wiser might be referring to (or including) the fact Chris did an episode about this including an interview with Diane Powell, over on his Area52 channel.
Chris at 4:27
"I want to start this interview with a giant disclaimer and propose that our conversation will be based entirely on the statement that psi exists and it is real. I also want to say that any speculation derived from this statement will be for the sake of thought experiments and encourage lateral thinking. [to Diane:] I know that your time is precious and I don't want to dwell on scepticism too much"

I haven't watched the rest of the episode but my initial inclination is to think he's approaching it with an open mind but that doesn't have to mean he's overtly "supporting" it. Nobody has suggested it but I wouldn't agree that simply by giving its proponents a platform & interviewing them he's supporting it. Could he just be exploring it? Maybe he's already sold on it. I don't know. I would watch the entire interview before making this post but I'm just not that interested in the TT, tbh.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Source: https://x.com/chrisramsay52/status/1868038488945492354

 

[Fin]

Yikes. Ok.. Well that sure does look like he's supporting it

 

[Charlie Wiser]

You're assuming he is a "true believer" but that's not an easy thing to ascertain. Think of it this way: he does illusions to make a living. Is there any reason to think he would not support someone else's trickery to make a living?

There are two big differences here:
1. Mentalists v psychics - they're polar opposites. Ramsay was a mentalist but is now promoting psi.
2. Kids are involved. If he's not a true believer, that means he's exploiting that child. (I don't know the age of the person on stage but the TT as a whole includes underage people.) If he is a true believer I suppose he might say it's worth exploiting the child for the good of mankind.

Given how the people involved in the TTs act toward skepticism (specifically debunking), he must've led the people on stage to believe he was not intending to debunk them. So either he lied, or he is a true believer.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Yikes. Ok.. Well that sure does look like he's supporting it

This is why I don't understand what he's doing. The best conclusion I can draw is that he wants to get more involved in the woo/believer side of things because he's realized that's where the money (or status) is - e.g. for his podcast.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Another tweet from Ramsay. He may know all the tricks to fake psychic powers but has low standards of evidence when it comes down to "real" psychic powers.

In episode two they actually do tests with Akeel in a different room. The mother is not beside.

And I do agree that more tests need to be done, but what we are seeing shows an overwhelming amount of evidence of telepathy.

Proving telepathy is nearly impossible because the bar for evidence keeps getting raised. Even when exceptional proof is presented, it's dismissed or ignored by the establishment, which refuses to take ESP seriously.

The goalposts are constantly shifted, ensuring that no amount of evidence is ever "enough." This gatekeeping stifles progress and keeps telepathy from being acknowledged, no matter how compelling the research or results.

I also understand that this conversation is going nowhere and if you don't like what I have to say, please feel free to Unfollow me. I don't think you're going to enjoy yourself here.

Source: https://x.com/chrisramsay52/status/1868095305742270845

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Regarding "tests with Akeel in a different room" - this was a chaotic scene that doesn't qualify as a test. We hear it (edited) on the podcast but there's no video of it because the cameraman couldn't get there in time. It involves Akhil calling out syllables that his mother repeats and interprets. It's not possible to rule out plain deception (such as screensharing) in this particular test.

More importantly - if this incredible feat of telepathy-in-separate-rooms was a thing, why did none of the other tests with Akhil repeat this set-up?

 

[Fin]

He may know all the tricks to fake psychic powers but has low standards of evidence when it comes down to "real" psychic powers.

The low standards part could well be true. I briefly discussed the Antonio Urzi hoax method with Chris and was surprised to see him defend Urzi's vids as possibly legit. I think the hoax method is incredibly obvious.
On the "know all the tricks to fake psychic powers" part I expect he knows a lot of them, given his extensive experience in the magic & mentalism realm, but I doubt he knows ALL of them. One thing I found in my years learning everything I could about all sorts of magic & mentalism methods, was that, maybe surprisingly to some, magicians get fooled all the time. There are so many methods, with new ones being invented constantly, that its easy, even as an accomplished performer/creator, to find stuff that still completely baffles you. Creator-magicians are also actively trying to find methods that will fool other magicians, because that's precisely their target market, if they want to sell their creations.

 

[Mendel]

00:16:12 - He cold reads Rogan's ATM pin code.

Oz Pearlman is a legend. The pin number "cold read" was almost certainly ascertained using some "pre-show" work. All the patter (talk) about him being able to work out the number due to Joe being a male, etc, is all part of the presentation & misdirection, but its not the actual method.

100% agree. Pearlman is not using cold reading techniques.
Compare:

Article:

Prior to the show, many advanced mentalists will also walk through the crowd or have confederates (or secret assistants) engage with the audience. In some cases, they may even use the audience registry to research certain individuals. All of this is done to gain as much information ahead of time as possible. Known as a "hot read", these details can be carefully inserted into a cold read to create an even more impressive showing of mentalism skill.

Source: https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/mentalism/articles/how-does-cold-reading-work/

That page explains cold reading methods in a nutshell.

The "first crush" reading of Joe's former guest isn't cold, either. I expect Pearlman has only added people to the deck for whom he could research that question; and I also expect the cards were marked so that he could recognize which one Rogan picked by seeing the back of the card. The trick is then to remember how the cards were marked, which question to ask that person, and what the answer is. But that is something he could rehearse at home: as Pearlman introduces the PIN code trick, he explains that card tricks can be rehearsed at home, but mentalism is on another level because you can't rehearse it. That's a misdirection, though: many mentalism tricks are in fact rehearsed beforehand precisely because it's much easier to guarantee success that way.

And "spell out what mom wants me to spell out" is the "trick" that these facilitator-autist pairs have "rehearsed" unwittingly; their motives are different, but the result is the same.

 

[Fin]

as Pearlman introduces the PIN code trick, he explains that card tricks can be rehearsed at home, but mentalism is on another level because you can't rehearse it. That's a misdirection, though: many mentalism tricks are in fact rehearsed beforehand precisely because it's much easier to guarantee success that way.

I agree its really just more patter, but to a certain extent its true that in generalised way, card tricks & sleights can be practised for hours and mastered alone in front of a mirror (that was my focus; I don't enjoy performing much), whereas mentalism methods err more on the side of more audience interaction & clever wording (harder to practise alone) & a lot less trained muscle-memory. Many mentalism methods do use gimmicks & sleights that require solo practise but card magic, much more so. A lot of card tricks are more like solo-performances that people can spectate. Mentalism has much more of an audience-participation focus. In that sense it does require more practise that involves interacting with people.

 

[FatPhil]

For the first one at 6:14, who "selected" the "random" shape and color? I don't understand. Was it random or was it selected?

Regardless, you can clearly see mom (who knows the answer) move the board to guide her finger to the U and E of blue. All the girl needs is a clue to the first letter (if it didn't come from board placement, it could come from anything the mom said before starting the test, and assuming blue is the only possible answer starting with B, or a clue to the entire color otherwise). After that, spelling the rest of it is a pointless endeavor (except to the audience) if all she needed was B, so the L-U-E could be unconscious ideomotor response on the mom's part.

With the circle, again mom says something beforehand "Can you tell me what shape it was?" Even if mom doesn't guide her finger to the first letter, that question could be the clue. If the test was repeated multiple times, we could see if mom uses a different question or look or touch each time. Or, of course, blindfold mom for the spelling part of the test and have her not say a word.

How on earth did Chris Ramsay end up supporting this, given what he knows about the tricks of the trade?

Yeah, alas there's not enough in that clip to even be able to judge what trickery were used, as much of the easiest trickery (forcing the selection, meaning absolutely no "magic" needs to be performed after that point) could already have been done.

And you're absolutely right - having someone who knows the answer involved in the production of the answer is just plain broken (from a hypothesis-testing point experiment point of view - not from a grift point of view, in fact quite the opposite!) Do we know if mum asks "So, what shape was it?" when it's a square, and "Tell me what shape it was" when it's a triangle, if its "Can ..." with a circle? That would be bottom shelf stuff, but still fool the majority of normies, and 100% of the credulous.

And for Ramsay, I suspect there's more money per unit effort in the grift roadshow than there is in the graft of a proper show. Having knowledge has never obliged anyone to use that knowledge for good.

 

[FatPhil]

You're assuming he is a "true believer" but that's not an easy thing to ascertain. Think of it this way: he does illusions to make a living. Is there any reason to think he would not support someone else's trickery to make a living?

Does he present his illusions as "illusions"? For me there's a hard line between those who honestly tell you they're toying with you (which indeed is true) and those who make factual statement that are false. I couldn't be him without some massive cognitive dissonance.

 

[FatPhil]

I'm not sure its wise to just assume without good evidence that he's supporting the TT claims just because here was there.

[edit]
I've DM'd Chris and asked him if he noticed any cheating or problems with the method being demonstrated

OK, he wasn't active in this year's event, but he's clearly *very* pally with them - they even have a webpage where they happily carry his publicity material:

image link: https://contactinthedesert.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/a52-podcast-graphic.png , from the above page
via: https://contactinthedesert.com/beyond-contact/speaker/chris-ramsay/
That certainly looks very /quid pro quo/ to me (even though he wasn't an active "speaker", but that URL shows you how they're treating him).
And I'd call that "support", even if it's mutual and purely transactional.

Was his ticket paid for?

 

[Mendel]

OK, he wasn't active in this year's event,

He's listed as a "special event" panelist on the program.

 

[FatPhil]

He's listed as panelist on the program.
View attachment 81294

In my defence:

CITD 2025 Panels
No appearances on panels this year.

But it appears he's properly on the grift gravy train.


EDIT: As I scanned the schedule, looking at the title of every talk, several days ago, I know I did see that, as the title of the talk was so, erm, impactful. I presume something akin to psychoacoustic masking took place, and nothing within a two inch radius of that title was noticed.

 

[Mendel]

In my defence

yeah, because this was listed as a "special event", not a panel.

 

[FatPhil]

yeah, because this was listed as a "special event", not a panel.

It's an ugly page, but indeed, it is mentioned:
https://contactinthedesert.com/beyo...live-psionics-demonstration-panel-discussion/

However, I think we can now all agree he's thick as thieves.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

On the "know all the tricks to fake psychic powers" part I expect he knows a lot of them, given his extensive experience in the magic & mentalism realm, but I doubt he knows ALL of them.

I don't know any of them really, but I can see what's going on in the Telepathy Tapes for the most part. Maybe he's become emotionally involved with the families' stories. And now he's stated his faith in the veracity of this telepathy, it's going to be hard for him to back down.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Do we know if mum asks "So, what shape was it?" when it's a square, and "Tell me what shape it was" when it's a triangle, if its "Can ..." with a circle? That would be bottom shelf stuff, but still fool the majority of normies, and 100% of the credulous.

Works best on the audience when the trick isn't repeated.

I taught my child a simple magic trick a few years ago (balls under cups, first trick I learned from my magic set at the same age) and after performing it for Dad he had a (wrong) theory about how it worked and wanted to see it again. I advised no! - he still doesn't know how it was done.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Speaking of hard to back down - see this Dec'24 thread Chris Ramsay started about Diaz's "ships of light" - "To me, these are the best photos ever taken of a UFO."

Phil posts the Mexican handblown lamps (hehe that's my graphic) that resemble the ships - and Chris Ramsay's response:

Input acknowledged. Your contribution has been noted and categorized as irrelevant. Proceeding with higher-priority engagements. (hand wave emoji)

Even if you don't agree with the debunk, at least offer a reason why instead of calling it irrelevant. He repeats the same silly answer twice more in that thread.


Source: https://x.com/chrisramsay52/status/1869580572923936819

 

[Maury Markowitz]

I imagine, as an experienced magician who was already there at the conference for his own reasons, he was probably also intrigued by the TT claims

Good point, who knows, this might be the topic of his next "fake telepath" expose.

 

[Giddierone]

Hopefully Rogan will have Janyce Boynton on to really delve into the problems of FC but this is a close second. Having someone on his show simply tell him that it's a not proof of telepathy and the podcast is deeply misleading and that Rogan is missing the trick again, is a step in the right direction.

Rogan: But what did you think about their ability to read languages that they've never studied?

Pearlman: So again, you're missing it. So that's again, the devil's in the details.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Another tweet from Ramsay....

Proving telepathy is nearly impossible because the bar for evidence keeps getting raised. Even when exceptional proof is presented, it's dismissed or ignored by the establishment, which refuses to take ESP seriously.

The goalposts are constantly shifted, ensuring that no amount of evidence is ever "enough." This gatekeeping stifles progress and keeps telepathy from being acknowledged, no matter how compelling the research or results.

Has the bar for evidence ever actually moved? Like, it's always been high but for good reason.

Exceptional proof? Where?

The establishment refusing to take ESP seriously? Isn't there quite a rich history of the establishment attempting to use psychic powers as weapons? Taking it incredibly seriously. There's books, films, everything.

The dude's a fantasist.