The Telepathy Tapes

Thanks for this, sincerely. I don't see myself as a hard core believer, but I thought the show was interesting enough to bring a discussion here to learn more about what I might be missing.

Well, for what it's worth, you did the right thing. I sure wish I had found something like Metabunk when I first fell into a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories after 9/11. It sure was a rude shock coming to the realisation many of the things I believed were unsupported by any verifiable evidence.
 
streamlines communication
It's impossible to have a productive conversation on this site then. I can't essentially be quoting the entire article and junk up the feed; but at the same time, if I don't quote every single part of a paper or article, I get responses which are already rebutted in the reference. That's if the person you're engaging with doesn't actively try to change the topic of discussion in their response to you, because know they know they lost on the previous point, but are trying to cede no ground.
 
In so many words one user (who I have no beef with) wrote "Speaking just for myself (though I would not be surprised if many other people feel this way), I'm not interested in stories and anecdotes after decades of ufology." after I suggested that I hoped others would listen to the podcast to consider the other stories and anecdotes being presented.

Ok, that was me.

I understand that it comes across as dismissive (and yeah, it absolutely is), but let me elaborate on the part about experiencing decades of ufology and paranormal stuff in general. There have been countless television series, documentaries, podcasts, books, etc. over the years that have tried to present these subjects in a serious manner but have been extremely scant when it comes to verifiable evidence and very heavy on stories and anecdotes. In the case of UFO sightings, what is captured on video usually isn't particularly compelling and has a plausible prosaic explanation, but the accompanying eyewitness accounts that are used to buttress the phenomena detail the amazing - and unverifiable - things that just happened to occur when the camera wasn't recording. But there's the original video, right? So these accounts must be true!

This is confirmation bias, and it is rampant in paranormal communities. I'm sure there are a lot of people on Metabunk who, like myself, became skeptics after initially being believers because they started to recognise this pattern. And after a while you just begin to filter this information out, or at the very least, place a lot less emphasis on it. It's not because we think everyone is lying and trying to deceive people. A lot of people genuinely believe what they claim to have seen or heard, but may simply be misremembering or have misjudged events. Take the recent New Jersey drone hysteria for instance. The overwhelming majority of these sightings captured on video can easily be proven to be ordinary air traffic when location, time and heading is available. But even in these cases, the person that recorded the video often has a misperception about what they are looking at. They see an object just above the nearby tree tops and conclude it is flying directly over the trees rather than far off in the distance. Sometimes they are people that most likely never really spent much time at all observing objects in the night sky, but are convinced that the object in the sky with FAA compliant navigation and anti-collision lights is an anomalous drone because they saw something similar - and described as such - in a video shared on social media.

That's the mindset I come to The Telepathy Tapes with. I want to see the evidence as opposed to listening to people talking about the evidence, and what I've seen and read so far indicates I would just be wasting my time listening to the podcast. I can already see that Ky Dickens hasn't put the necessary controls in place to rule out facilitator induced messaging that FC/RPM/S2C is known for. I know that even Diane Hennacy Powell is critical of the approach taken by Dickens. I can see blinding red flags in all of the sample experiment videos that Dickens put behind a paywall. I suspect deliberate manipulation of Dickens and outright cheating by Akhil's mother, who appears to have developed a sophisticated form of sign language and verbal cueing with her son.

Stories and anecdotes can't get me past that.
 
It's impossible to have a productive conversation on this site then. I can't essentially be quoting the entire article and junk up the feed; but at the same time, if I don't quote every single part of a paper or article, I get responses which are already rebutted in the reference. That's if the person you're engaging with doesn't actively try to change the topic of discussion in their response to you, because know they know they lost on the previous point, but are trying to cede no ground.

The first rule of Metabunk, is that Metabunk has rules! No one dragged you in here, or forced you to stay here. You're welcome to engage, within the guidelines. There are posting rules here for a reason. If your point is really that good, you should be willing to invest the effort to present it clearly, concisely, and assist users by pointing them directly at it, with extracts and links. (There are threads advising on how to do so, for various media, and formatting replies, etc....)

I see most users here going above and beyond, when it comes to 'do your own research' on a specific quote, attribution, article or link. BUT, if the poster gives a blanket link, with a 'Trust me bro' or 'for the love of God, just do it' approach, why should anyone actually wade through an hour long video without a time-stamp, or read a badly written, poorly referenced churnal article to uncover and extract what the poster thinks is the grand nugget of truth. I can understand some people's confusion above, about page 247 being a 10 minute read; but also bear in mind, even taking 10 minutes can be quite an ask for some of the audience. (Many shoe-horn Metabunk into busy lifestyles, as a change from the usual pressures...)

Note that people can and do take the time to dig deeper, even though if a post was a little context and content light...
You've seen Sheldrake's published data?
(There's no appendices with raw data in the link to his paper).
Sheldrake's other data also supports "morphic resonance"; not many other researchers support his findings.


Also bear in mind, there is broad spectrum of experience and interests on this site. This isn't the first time I've heard about the psychic pet, and the 'he said, she said, they said' bad science/bad faith arguments. Personally, I'm not that invested in needing to dig deeper, and I don't have a dog in this fight...
 
And by the mid '00s, Hopkins was involved with Kean:

External Quote:

On August 21, 2011, Hopkins died from complications of cancer.[3] At the time of his death, he was in a relationship with journalist Leslie Kean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Hopkins

And around it goes.

Kean was new to me with her Debrief Grusch article, and I'm just wondering whether when other media started to report on her story they sold her to us as "investigative journalist Leslie Kean" or as "Elbow-deep-in-woo-for-decades Leskie Kean"? I think it was the former. The framing's important, as if they'd have used the latter, people may have given Grusch less credibility? (Who am I kidding?!)
 
I wasn't even talking about you Charlie, there are others in this thread who mentioned being unwilling to listen to the show because of their feelings about esp experiments. I've run into similar issues on other threads but please forgive me for not quoting them here, I may be exaggerating - it's my nature and something I need to work at. I hope you have a wonderful evening.

Okay, if you weren't talking about me then consider not saying "the attitudes of folks like yourself" in a direct response to me.

Regarding those who don't want to listen to the show, maybe they don't have 6 hours to waste when they could read a summary here from people outlining the content (without exaggeration, one hopes, and with specific examples and excerpts) and engaging skeptically to figure out what might be happening - which is how Ky Dickens should've approached the topic if she wanted to get closer to the truth of what's going on with these families.
 
Last edited:
did they actually say that is why? it likely is why for a few members. but aside from Charlie, did ANYONE in this thread (i only skimmed it so this is an honest question) listen to an hour long podcast of people talking about experiments?

It's 7.5 hours plus 1 hour of videos. :rolleyes:
 
I was the kid who stared really really hard at objects and animals and people trying to change them with my mind,
Didn't we all do things like this after reading books like The Magic Finger? I know I did.

1737553844682.png
 
Okay, if you weren't talking about me then consider not saying "the attitudes of folks like yourself" in a direct response to me.

Regarding those who don't want to listen to the show, maybe they don't have 6 hours to waste when they could read a summary here from people outlining the content (without exaggeration, one hopes, and with specific examples and excerpts) and engaging skeptically to figure out what might be happening - which is how Ky Dickens should've approached the topic if she wanted to get closer to the truth of what's going on with these families.
I never said that. For some one who has picked me apart for several posts, you sure are not reading what I wrote "it can be tough here as some one asking questions about topics the forum has particular attitudes or baggage attached to."

I really feel like this is harassment at this point Charlie. Please, have a great day id like to stop with you now. Please.
 
@deirdre
"i actually do believe in mild telepathy"

Can you give examples of what you would define as mild telepathy?
I'm curious as to what you mean by that.
just the little things people dismiss as coincidence (and often is coincidence) like you start thinking of a friend you havent seen or thought of in years and they call 2 days later. you get anxious and start fretting for a loved one or friend so you call them and they were in a car accident.
the fact that 100% of the time my cat in heat would stop meowing in the middle of the night if i sang soft kitty in my head to her. you can disbelieve me all you want, but if you get stuck with a cat in heat you might want to try it!

I'm not sure about the dog at the window experiment thing, as i had a dog and i know they are good at picking up routines and at some point if you are late they have to pee so will start looking for a way out.

I've seen people under extreme emotional long term stress 'guess' some amazing stuff often enough to be freaky even for me. <all their stuff was 'useless' stuff though, like how these autism kids being able to type a number or pic their mom is thinking of is an absolutely useless skill to be focusing so much of their time on.
 
but also bear in mind, even taking 10 minutes can be quite an ask for some of the audience.
it's not a 10 minute read for most. especially if you want them to attend and absorb what they are reading. not really relevant to the complaint, but just saying.
 
I never said that. For some one who has picked me apart for several posts, you sure are not reading what I wrote "it can be tough here as some one asking questions about topics the forum has particular attitudes or baggage attached to."

I really feel like this is harassment at this point Charlie. Please, have a great day id like to stop with you now. Please.
"the attitudes of folks like yourself" is a direct quote.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that Akhil's mom is using various different cuing methods, but it's hard to assess because Ky Dickens does not always accurately describe what's going on in the audio podcast (when we can compare with video), and the video is minimal. I did want to highlight this test:

Trailer [0:13-0:23] [timestamped link]:
Ky Dickens: Let's please multiple two numbers and see if he gets it.
[Close-up of mom typing 25x36=900 into a calculator]
Mom: [looks over at Akhil on the floor] Okay, what is it?
[close-up of Akhil typing nine zero zero, which the ipad speaks]

Compare to the audio podcast which combines the live scene and voiceover - the red parts are missing from the trailer:
Ky Dickens: Let's please multiple two numbers and see if he gets it.
Ky [voiceover] Monicia types in 25 times 36 and as the answer pops up she points to her head and says: "The moment it comes here" and then she points to Akhil and says, "it goes there."
Mom: The moment it comes here, it goes there.
Ky: [edit]* Can you see it already in your mom's head?
Akhil: Yeah [+ unintelligible 2 syllables, "a-sah"]

Ky [voiceover]: The calculator is pointed totally away from Akhil, right up in Michael's camera, and Akhil is under his blanket and his speaking device is on the ground in front of him. By the way, 25 times 36 equals 900.
Mom: Okay, what is it?
Akhil's ipad as he types: nine. zero. zero.

Notes:
It does not appear that random numbers are used. From what we're shown, mom chose the calculation.

Ky makes a big deal (as usual) about how the child can't see the target, while failing to notice all the other cues that may be happening such as mom speaking 12 words before he types his answer. The camera angle makes it impossible to know if she's using her usual hand signs or other bodily cues.

*This edit is a clear edit in the audio, so some time has passed, possibly only a second but we can't know. Did mom say other things in the cut section that gave Akhil the answer?

Previous test
Right before that test is described in the podcast, Ky describes a test she came up with "on the spot" (no video): she types an 8-digit number times 4.
Ky [voiceover] I certainly don't know the answer to that. The answer that pops up is long.
Ky: Whoa, is that too long?
Mom: Yeah it's fine.

Akhil then types the answer correctly. Aside from the remarkable telepathy, the other remarkable thing is that he calculated the correct answer in his head. The second test (above, 25x36) is an easier calculation with a nice rounded answer, and less impressive on that front. But why does Ky make her calculator produce the answer before Akhil types it? If he's supposed to be figuring out the answer himself, there's no need to learn the answer until after he types it. (Unless mom needs to know, so she can signal it to him, digit by digit...)

And if he's not supposed to be figuring out the answer himself but merely lifting it from mom's head, why go through the calculation process at all? Just type any long random number for him to divine.

Ky implies she did this test multiple times. Did she use complicated calculations and did she always produce the answer before Akhil typed it? (Not that anything times 4 is that hard to do as mental arithmetic, but on an 8 digit number it would require some practice.)

Did mom ask to see the answer before Akhil typed it, or did Ky just not consider waiting until after Akhil gave the answer before asking the calculator for the answer, to check? And anyway, mom knows the answer, he is apparently taking it from her head, so there is no human calculation going on and therefore no need to have the calculator perform a calculation.

This whole test, which could have been exceedingly simple (including of course not letting mom speak or even look at Akhil while he answers), seems to be overly complicated and it's not clear what Ky is testing.

I made a previous comparison to Uri Geller's 70s testing at SRI where he pretty much ran the show - he picked the tests, he had a buddy constantly with him, he would jump up and down, create chaos, and express frequent doubts that he could do the test (to invoke sympathy so the experimenters would be on-side). Adding in Randi's Project Alpha hoax (where he sent in two young magicians to fake psychic powers during 1979-82), the experimenters didn't realize the distractions and were so fixated on elaborate ways to safeguard against cheating that they never noticed the simple tricks used.
 
Did mom ask to see the answer before Akhil typed it, or did Ky just not consider waiting until after Akhil gave the answer before asking the calculator for the answer, to check? And anyway, mom knows the answer, he is apparently taking it from her head, so there is no human calculation going on and therefore no need to have the calculator perform a calculation.

Yeah, what's the point of the calculations at all? The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that mom, or others can project their thoughts, or that autistic folks can pick up their thoughts and repeat them. There doesn't seem to be a claim that Akuil is doing math in his head, so what's the point of the rest of them doing math with a calculator.

Not trying to make accusations, but it seems like all the math is a classic magician's distraction. If mom or anybody else is supposed to be communicating telepathically, then mom and the others can dispense with all the math. Just write down or select numbers or objects to transmit telepathically. With proper controls. Oh wait, proper controls don't make for good podcast/YouTube/documentaries.
 
I'm acting in good faith and am describing things to the best of my ability but Im getting a little worn down/demoralized here.

Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. If you approach the forum with even the merest hint of a priori expectations about a phenomenon then you are bound to end up demoralized, as the whole purpose of the forum is to point out when that remarkable evidence simply isn't there. As a skeptic, I'd be the first to leap for joy if any decent evidence for psi ever was actually presented. I want to believe....I just don't see any good reason to.
 
Yeah, what's the point of the calculations at all? The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that mom, or others can project their thoughts, or that autistic folks can pick up their thoughts and repeat them. There doesn't seem to be a claim that Akuil is doing math in his head, so what's the point of the rest of them doing math with a calculator.

Not trying to make accusations, but it seems like all the math is a classic magician's distraction. If mom or anybody else is supposed to be communicating telepathically, then mom and the others can dispense with all the math. Just write down or select numbers or objects to transmit telepathically. With proper controls. Oh wait, proper controls don't make for good podcast/YouTube/documentaries.

From ep 2 [34:15]
Ky [to mom]: Have you ever asked him does he see through your eyes, or does he just know what's in your mind?
Mom: It's just automatic, he gets it automatically in that time.

She speaks almost as though her thoughts are projected to him, rather than him plucking the thought from her mind. (Which, of course, if she's cheating, would be a more accurate description.)

Ky: [immediately following that exchange] [voiceover] And to dig into this further, I came up with a new test on the spot, which ended up actually being one of my favorites. [describes the calculator test in my previous post]

So this calculator test with the irrelevant calculation step is one of Ky's favorites - and I'm going to speculate it's because it demonstrates Akhil's mathematical prowess as well as his telepathy. Or at least Ky thinks it does.

Note: Akhil types independently, is studying university courses, and clearly understands what is said to him. To me, he comes across as intelligent. On the other hand, with all the profiled kids who use facilitated communication, we have no way of knowing how intelligent they are because the evidence suggests it's their facilitators doing the talking.

Which brings me to another point that really disturbed me about the Telepathy Tapes and FC generally: the repeated assumption that all non-verbal autistic kids are super smart, able to communicate eloquently and insightfully, and telepathic. They are grouped together this way instead of being seen as individuals. And therefore that when FC is discouraged or banned it's denying these kids their rights and their gifts to the world. Surely it's more likely that non-verbal autistic kids have a range of intellectual abilities and other skills, just like the general population.
 
Ky fails to mention that mom's hand is across Mia's forehead the entire time. It certainly looks to me like she's pushing and pulling to direct Mia's movements
I find this particular video really disturbing to watch. There's a noticeable strain on the mother's face and posture, as if she's the one being tested. Dr. Powell should have immediately picked up on this and stopped the test.
You only have to consider how you hold a child's hand while walking down a busy street and think of all the micro movements and pressure changes you make to indicate for them to avoid obstacles, stop and look at something, go faster, go slower etc— which would not be visible to others— to see that physical contact of this kind is directly responsible for Mia's apparent supernatural problem solving.
 
So this calculator test with the irrelevant calculation step is one of Ky's favorites - and I'm going to speculate it's because it demonstrates Akhil's mathematical prowess as well as his telepathy. Or at least Ky thinks it does.
I'm curious what the results would be if the calculator operator made a mistake?
 
I'm curious what the results would be if the calculator operator made a mistake?
Yeah I was thinking that would be a good test of Akhil's arithmetic skills. But since he's supposed to be lifting the answer from mom's head, and mom is thinking of the wrong answer, I think they'd use that as evidence for telepathy.

A similar thing happened with the Spanish butterfly flashcard: they were amazed when he wrote MARIPOSA (the word on the butterfly image) instead of BUTTERFLY because, I suppose, mom was thinking of that word instead of a picture of a butterfly. To me, it's evidence he's receiving (somehow) the answer letter-by-letter, NOT that he's reading her mind and seeing an image of a butterfly.
 
assumption that all non-verbal autistic kids are super smart, able to communicate eloquently and insightfully, and telepathic
You are right on the money. This is called "presumed competence." It's the idea that you should assume people CAN understand and express things. I've always been taught to practice presumed potential instead, which basically means "they might be a lot smarter than my brain assumes, so I'm gonna keep that in mind and trial more complicated things so I'm not limiting them."

Most of the caregivers who seek out FC (and they do have to seek it out; it ain't covered by insurance and it's mega expensive and hard to find) have been told what their child CAN'T do for years. You don't see a lot of young kids using FC; it's often older kids or young adults. Caregivers are tired. They have possibly dealt with tons of hardcore disruptive behaviors (if a person can't communicate via language, they often communicate with behavior) for a long time, and other methods of helping their kids communicate have failed. Then they discover RPM or S2C or whatever other FC nicknames are out there, and they promise results. Quick results. Miraculous results. And so they do them.

I just want us all to consider that most of the parents aren't the problem. They're mostly just doing their best in an educational and medical system that fails autistic people again and again. Empathy is really needed here, and sometimes that's lacking in skeptical circles so just keep that in mind.
 
It's impossible to have a productive conversation on this site then.
That's false.
I can't essentially be quoting the entire article and junk up the feed; but at the same time, if I don't quote every single part of a paper or article, I get responses which are already rebutted in the reference.
Correct. And it is up to you to bring up those responses, as they become relevant / needed.

That's if the person you're engaging with doesn't actively try to change the topic of discussion
Like you did when you brought up the psychic dog kerfuffle in your failed attempt to delegitimize Wiseman?
 
at least two mirrored surfaces
There is a third shiny surface, in addition to the possible reflections from the camera lens—The letter board.

These boards are not the same on both sides. They have a glossy side - giving a reflective surface similar to smartphone turned off, and a textured side that gives no useful reflection.

In this video about facilitated communication letter boards,
Screenshot 2025-01-24 at 17.45.43.png


she first holds the board with the matt side to the camera, then turns the letter board over and we see its back side is glossy. You can make out the ring-light she's using and some details of what's behind the camera (or where the Uno card would be in the telepathy test above).
Screenshot 2025-01-24 at 17.43.39.png


Source: https://youtu.be/Kmiz4P5ofKw?si=y8esEv0_wSa_pg4i&t=220


In this shot we see Houston's mum is holding the letter board:
Screenshot 2025-01-24 at 17.39.48.png


She has the shiny side facing her and Houston and the matt side facing the camera.

We get a quick glimpse of the other side of the card here. We can see that it is like the ones in the video above—shiny on the other side.
Screenshot 2025-01-24 at 17.55.46.png


So, Houston, who is being lit from the front, could see the card over his shoulder in the reflective surface of the letter board.

If camera 1 is the fixed camera and camera 2 is the handheld camera that comes in from the right of the frame I see every single answer in that section as being derived from the following reflections:
2 seen in camera 1
4 seen in letter board
1 seen in camera 2
9 seen in camera 2
7 seen in camera 1
3 seen in camera 2
1 seen in letter board
+2 seen in camera 1
4 seen in letter board
1 seen in camera 1
3 seen in camera 2 / and or letter board
3 seen in letter board


Ky Dickens tells us on the podcast that "There's absolutely no universe in which he [Houston] can see the cue" - this appears to be false.
 
Last edited:
So, Houston, who is being lit from the front, could see the card over his shoulder in the reflective surface of the letter board.

If camera 1 is the fixed camera and camera 2 is the handheld camera that comes in from the right of the frame I see every single answer in that section as being derived from the following reflections:
2 seen in camera 1
4 seen in letter board
1 seen in camera 2
9 seen in camera 2
7 seen in camera 1
3 seen in camera 2
1 seen in letter board
+2 seen in camera 1
4 seen in letter board
1 seen in camera 1
3 seen in camera 2 / and or letter board
3 seen in letter board


Ky Dickens tells us on the podcast that "There's absolutely no universe in which he [Houston] can see the cue" - this appears to be false.
source.gif
 
Ky Dickens tells us on the podcast that "There's absolutely no universe in which he [Houston] can see the cue" - this appears to be false.
And the motivated defenses to these observations will be predictable:
• Watch the video - he isn't looking straight at any of these surfaces
• Could you read the card by looking at the camera lens, give me a break
• You're implying that he has been trained to do this"
Etc.

Arguments from incredulity. If you were neurodivergent and processed sensory input differently, maybe you too would be able to see things behind you in a room with various reflective/glossy surfaces. That's what should be investigated experimentally!
 
Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. If you approach the forum with even the merest hint of a priori expectations about a phenomenon then you are bound to end up demoralized, as the whole purpose of the forum is to point out when that remarkable evidence simply isn't there. As a skeptic, I'd be the first to leap for joy if any decent evidence for psi ever was actually presented. I want to believe....I just don't see any good reason to.
Demoralization is because I've felt like it can be combative here when I'm not looking for a fight, nor holding any particular POV as absolute. Has nothing to do with psi turning out to be unsupportable
 
@Giddierone
That's an excellent demo. I tried to recreate the scene with similar distances and a similar-size numeral. This iPhone 11 photo is zoomed in a little, with the brightness and contrast turned up a bit (the numeral was much more visible to the naked eye). Can everyone see what number that is, reversed? I used a sharpie on the back of an envelope. The numerals on the Uno cards are much more heavy/bold.

IMG_2304.jpg
 
OK, once it is mentioned I can see it, I was looking for something bigger and centered.
A bigger number would have been the intellectually dishonest way to do it! Maybe someone else can reproduce the scene from the subject's perspective and more representative numerals. I threw that together in just a couple minutes, but I was surprised how visible the 4 was (and my living room did not contain a documentary-shooting lighting rig at the time).
 
Last edited:
OK, once it is mentioned I can see it, I was looking for something bigger and centered.

It reminds me slightly of those newspaper ' can you see the cat in this image' type puzzles....and its not obvious where the cat is as one has no a priori idea of the size of what one is looking for and I think the brain tends to look for patterns in chosen sizes.

So even in this case the '4' was not immediately obvious. But if I already knew in advance the size and shape and relative position on the card of the number....as I think the guesser in the 'psychic' videos may have done...it could all have been a lot easier.
 
I tried to recreate the scene with similar distances and a similar-size numeral. T
But Uno cards are far higher contrast that your example.
The spell to communicate boards look like acrylic. I didn't have an exact match but this old plastic hard drive seemed suitable. I'm holding an Uno card on the end of a stick (around 40cm) behind my head guestimating it to be similar to what we see in the TT clip.

Can you tell me the number?

Screenshot 2025-01-25 at 00.06.44.png


The question is just how reflective are those spell to communicate boards?

The ones in these two videos suggest they are similar to my example above. You can make out crisp details in their reflections—i.e. they are sufficiently reflective for someone to make out the number on an Uno card, in a well lit room.

Screenshot 2025-01-25 at 00.12.49.png

Still from the film Spellers, mentioned up thread.
Screenshot 2025-01-24 at 19.06.00.png
 
Back
Top