The Telepathy Tapes

[Scaramanga]

Can you tell me the number?

Quiet easily visible as a reversed 7.

 

[Edward Current]

The visibility of the cards should not even be a question, particularly under the guise that this is any kind of demonstration of telepathy. The cards are unnecessarily facing toward the subject and that is ludicrous. That it's a trick exploiting a vulnerable person makes it worse.

 

[JMartJr]

Can you tell me the number?

THAT one I can see easily.

 

[tinkertailor]

Again, let's just remember that if it's FC, the facilitator is the one who has to see it. I understand the agument that's being made here with the reflective hypothesis. I understand that it looks like the communicator is looking intentionally around the room to find the solution, but I've rarely seen a FC session where the communicator is focused on the board. Joint attention (the ability to pay attention to something with another person, often via both looking at an item) is a pretty common goal for autistic folks with high support needs. It's sometimes the first thing we establish when we want to increase communication, kind of a foundational skill. These kinds of folks often struggle with this.

I honestly don't think these communicators are necessarily looking to find the letters. However, as a clinician, I often do little experiments to check if someone is responding because they know something or if there's a cue in the environment. I've had a lot of "oh, this person is getting the answer because of X" moments in the relatively short amount of time I've been working with clients in grad school. The people behind The Telepathy Tapes didn't do that, which doesn't bode well for their scientific rigor.

 

[FatPhil]

I have to admit that I cannot.

The windows are probably limitting the available contrast ratio for the reflection.
This is what I can reasonable clearly make out (seen so quickly as it's a logo for a local brewery):

but I know (a) that's not available to chosefrom, and (b) needs to be reversed anyway - so is a 4.

 

[Giddierone]

I honestly don't think these communicators are necessarily looking to find the letters.

I honestly don't know what to make of the coincidence of the subject looking at what I assume are reflective surfaces immediately before every answer. It just seems so obvious that he can physically see the cards and is registering them. He can communicate verbally and intelligibly and has what appears to be relatively good eye, head, and hand control. Aside from the few cards that I'm assuming he can see reflected in the letter board by looking down, the others he could have answered correctly without the presence of his mother.
IIRC there's a part in the TT where someone mentions the wicked sense of humour some non-speakers have, I'd be more inclined to think this is a game played knowingly rather than exploitation (at least in this case).

Question for filmmakers, what exactly is the camera person on the right of frame doing?

 

[tinkertailor]

coincidence of the subject looking at what I assume are reflective surfaces immediately before every answer

Is it the same coincidence that I see on every single recorded FC session I've ever watched? They look around. That's one of the core reasons that the scientific community says that FC doesn't work; how can the communicator be selecting words when they aren't looking at them? He's looking around at everything, not just reflective surfaces. There's a whole unfamiliar camera crew in that room, he's gonna wanna look at the weird new guys in this building. Whenever I first observe in a speech therapy session while a supervisor does therapy with an autistic client, the client always looks at the novel stimulus (me!) because it's new and weird. It's a distraction to them. Remember, they might be using using FC because that joint attention is low and other communication methods have failed the family, so they're gonna look around.

Also, some autistic folks just like looking at reflective surfaces. It might not be "I'm going to intentionally look at this camera to see the solution," it might be "wow, the light looks really cool from outside if I look at the camera just right." Autistic folks are sensitive to sensory input, often seeking it out. Visual input is a frequent sensory preference, in my experience.

IIRC there's a part in the TT where someone mentions the wicked sense of humour some non-speakers have, I'd be more inclined to think this is a game played knowingly rather than exploitation (at least in this case).

Take everything FC proponents say about nonspeakers with an iceberg-sized grain of salt. The proponents are actively trying to get people to think there is a fully competent person trapped inside an autistic brain and body so that they can sell you the key: facilitated communication. You will often see claims of extraordinary skills that emerge with FC, and the purpose of that is to legitimize FC and show that presuming competence is the only way to truly see their whole potential.

I am curious what they mean by sense of humor, too. If they are seeing a sense of humor emerge through FC, then we need to consider who the message is coming from with FC. It isn't the communicator, it's the facilitator. When a facilitator talks about how funny or smart their communicator is, I often wonder if they're just seeing their own funniness and intelligence reflected in the messages they facilitate. I imagine that giving a group of comedians a Ouija board would result in some pretty hilarious ghosts.

Am I saying that autism means no humor at all? Hell no. I love connecting with these kids through reciprocal humor. I've taught kids how to say 'fart' and 'poop' on their AAC devices (the evidence-based parallel to FC) specifically so they can be funny gross kids. I change the lyrics of nursery songs specifically because they're gonna make a kid laugh and correct me. I'm just always skeptical about what FC proponents say and I hope everyone else is, too.

 

[deirdre]

; how can the communicator be selecting words when they aren't looking at them?

what do you mean? i thought FC (never run into it myself) was a keyboard type situation. or in these clips a stencil.

and btw why the hell is it a stencil? do you know? i find the holes in the board and oddness of stencil letters rather distracting myself.

 

[tinkertailor]

what do you mean?

A lot of the skeptical community looks at FC sessions and see the communicators not really look at the board, leading us to say "hey, why the heck are they spelling something if they aren't looking at it and another person is moving the board/their hand to meet the letters?"

Joint attention is the ability to pay attention/look at something with someone else. It's a hugely important part of language, and it is often not seen in autistic individuals with high support needs (aka 'low functioning' autistic folks).

What's problematic for FC proponents are the myriad studies linking joint attention behaviors to language skills. Language skills include not just speaking skills, but also skills in comprehension and written language. If joint attention is a prerequisite for language skills in general, the severely autistic individuals who are subjected to FC are unlikely to have the skills to intentionally spell out the messages attributed to them or to understand what they've typed. This, of course, seriously undermines the legitimacy of FC.

( https://www.facilitatedcommunicatio...without-engaging-in-joint-attention-behaviors )
That's why I'm not surprised that these guys aren't looking at the board. It's why skeptics are like "why aren't they looking? how can they be spelling without looking at the letters?"

why the hell is it a stencil?

My theory is so that they can sell a very cheap stencil for really high prices: https://www.halo-soma.org/store

(That's the official RPM store. No, Idunno why they sell stencils with only portions of the alphabet on them, it's baffling)

 

[deirdre]

"why aren't they looking? how can they be spelling without looking at the letters?"

while i certainly agree that moms are very likely moving the hand or board around, i dont agree with that logic. the keyboard is in front of them..they know where the letters are. or rather it's not magic to know where teh letters are, back in the old days when there were secretaries my mom used to type up her bosses dictated letters while dreamingly staring out the window.

i had one 2 year old severely autistic whippersnapper and despite his constant movements and hardcore stimming always knew where the letters were on the table before him while gazing around. he would glance really briefly, because he was obsessed with numbers and letters, if i said "nope" after i had moved them on him. but keyboards and stencil boards dont move. (actually he even got them a few times after i moved the letters around, so obviously as his gaze moved around he was checking on his letters somehow. it never occurred to me he might be psychic, i think he just peripherally or momentarily saw the letters.

obviously joint attention would be needed at introduction to the device, but im assuming by the time "being in a study" comes into play theres no reason to assume the autistic or blind kid dont know where the letters are. seems like an odd argument to make.

 

[jimmyslippin]

while i certainly agree that moms are very likely moving the hand or board around, i dont agree with that logic. the keyboard is in front of them..they know where the letters are. or rather it's not magic to know where teh letters are, back in the old days when there were secretaries my mom used to type up her bosses dictated letters while dreamingly staring out the window.

@tinkertailor is referring to the original Facilitated Communication method, where the facilitator is holding the arm or hand of the communicator and assisting their typing. Often the facilitators are concentrating so much on the keyboard themselves that they don't notice the communicator is looking around the room at other things.

This isn't the best example, but I'm pressed for time at the moment and it's all I could find. I know there's a much better example with a male facilitator where it's painfully obvious the facilitator is responsible for letter selection.

1:29



I believe the only point that @tinkertailor was making with regard to this is that it's not at all unusual for communicators to be constantly stimulated by other objects or activity in the room, as we see with Houston between tests. So it's no surprise that we see him looking at the guy with a camera in his face, or off towards another camera guy.

 

[Giddierone]

For reference here's Katie Asher talking about Houston's supposed telepathy. [starting at 1:07:29]
There's a demonstration involving a random word generator [1:17:43] where he's blindfolded (temporarily). It seems pretty inconclusive as It appears he gives some 20 or so letters in response. It's not clear what the word is. (ENGINE?)
He then talks/spells via video chat with various people whose dead relatives he can "see".

Source: https://youtu.be/cHH6EyWR2jg?si=3NWnkoOeWPguCPU_&t=4049
[Edit - note that Houston is able to quickly take in information on the video chat, picking out people's clothing color etc. So, it seems likely that he'd be able to quickly spot the reflection of an UNO card].

 

[deirdre]

@tinkertailor is referring to the original Facilitated Communication method, where the facilitator is holding the arm or hand of the communicator and assisting their typing. Often the facilitators are concentrating so much on the keyboard themselves that they don't notice the communicator is looking around the room at other things.

i know what she is referring to.

 

[Ann K]

There's a whole unfamiliar camera crew in that room, he's gonna wanna look at the weird new guys in this building.

I think looking at the reflection of the card in a camera or other shiny surface is as least as probable as the other two mechanisms postulated: being manipulated by the mother, or actual "mind reading". It may be true that it's just interest in the unfamiliar person, but that's not sufficient reason to discount the reflection hypothesis. As with the rest of us, there's a wide difference between individuals; there's no one-size-fits-all answer.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Joint attention is the ability to pay attention/look at something with someone else. It's a hugely important part of language, and it is often not seen in autistic individuals with high support needs (aka 'low functioning' autistic folks).

That's a simple, but profound problem for FC once it's spelled out (sorry ) that way.

Just thinking back to our kids, they learn to talk, or they learn language, with "joint attention". If it's a rock, we hold or point to the rock and say "rock" with our kids looking at the rock. We both have to have our attention on the rock for the kids to understand that this thing is a "rock". I can't communicate to my kids that a rock is a rock if there busy looking at a flower. Or nowadays they'd be looking at a screen.

I would assume this is a lifelong procedure. On The Job (OTJ) training is just that, joint attention about how to do something. And am I right that language develops like this from a very young age? If so, that would create another problem for FC. IF language skills, verbal or otherwise, develop with joint attention from a young age, then it seems problematic that individuals that have never engaged in language learning thorough joint attention can later in life exhibit command of language.

Of course, if they are psychic.....

 

[deirdre]

If it's a rock, we hold or point to the rock and say "rock" with our kids looking at the rock. We both have to have our attention on the rock for the kids to understand that this thing is a "rock".

but once your kid knows its a rock, he can look at rock all on his own and know its a rock. he doesnt need to maintain joint attention once he's learned the skill.

tying shoes might be a better analogy. joint attention and looking at the laces is important when learning to tie your shoes. but once you know how to tie them you dont need dad's joint attention for the rest of your life and you dont need to look at your shoes.

 

[Giddierone]

I think looking at the reflection of the card in a camera or other shiny surface is as least as probable as the other two mechanisms postulated

Bizarrely some people online have been arguing with me that Facilitator influence is the ONLY explanation, saying that it even accounts for the subject speaking his answers.

Someone online said "There are well-known examples of FCed people who can read out loud letters as they touch them, or the words they've spelled after they've spelled them, but w/ no evidence of comprehension. (hyperlexia)"

I don't agree that this is the case for Houston. As the video above [#252] shows, he has obvious comprehension as well as some speech ability.

Here's another reflection quick test. This is what i'm assuming is a similar lens to that used on TT. It has a flat filter, so creates nice crisp reflections. Photographed using an iphone zoomed in slightly.
The camera is 1.2m away and i'm holding the same card on a 40cm stick behind me. To my eye it is clearly visible.

This speculation might all become moot if the promise of properly controlled experiments using Faraday cages is kept (see quote below). However, I suspect some obstacle or excuse for these not happening (insufficient funds, too many skeptics on the site causing a disturbance in the telepathy field creating a non-workable environment, the subjects not being comfortable enough etc, etc, will prevent this paradigm changing truth from being revealed to the world.

The documentary will culminate in groundbreaking, tightly controlled telepathy experiments conducted in university labs with multiple scientists, led by Dr. Diane Powell. These experiments—conducted in Faraday cages and designed to be peer-reviewed

Source: https://thetelepathytapes.com/donate

 

[FatPhil]

The documentary will culminate in groundbreaking, tightly controlled telepathy experiments conducted in university labs with multiple scientists, led by Dr. Diane Powell. These experiments—conducted in Faraday cages and designed to be peer-reviewed

Source: https://thetelepathytapes.com/donate

Tests conducted by Powell herself? I'm going to use my telepathic ability to see the future and predict that she wrangles the result she's hoping for out of the experiment.

 

[Ann K]

Tests conducted by Powell herself? I'm going to use my telepathic ability to see the future and predict that she wrangles the result she's hoping for out of the experiment.

That's the paradox. Only people with an interest in positive results will "experiment" in some arcane way until the cows come home, while those who think it's bunk will drift toward some other subject. There's no advantage to an experimenter in debunking the field, but a good deal of opprobrium.

 

[tinkertailor]

@tinkertailor is referring to the original Facilitated Communication method, where the facilitator is holding the arm or hand of the communicator and assisting their typing. Often the facilitators are concentrating so much on the keyboard themselves that they don't notice the communicator is looking around the room at other things

No, I'm actually referring to all iterations of FC, past and present. Whether the board is being held or the arm is being supported doesn't matter. The attention to the spelling device is still limited. My understanding is that facilitators DO know that they aren't looking, too, but instead of viewing it as a "hey, maybe this foundational skill of joint attention needs to be targeted" thing, they say that the person needs more prompts, higher support, and therefore more facilitation. FC training doesn't look at language development from a developmental and linguistic framework the same way that speech pathology does, so that's my impression of it.

I think looking at the reflection of the card in a camera or other shiny surface is as least as probable as the other two mechanisms postulated: being manipulated by the mother, or actual "mind reading". It may be true that it's just interest in the unfamiliar person, but that's not sufficient reason to discount the reflection hypothesis. As with the rest of us, there's a wide difference between individuals; there's no one-size-fits-all answer.

It absolutely is as plausible, but I'm just trying to make it clear that this doesn't have to be explained by cheating or deliberate looking towards reflective surfaces to find the number. We wouldn't have to get into the nitty gritty of whether it was as likely to be cheating or facilitator influence if the people behind Telepathy Tapes had done actual research that ruled out these things.

If it's a rock, we hold or point to the rock and say "rock" with our kids looking at the rock. We both have to have our attention on the rock for the kids to understand that this thing is a "rock". I can't communicate to my kids that a rock is a rock if there busy looking at a flower. Or nowadays they'd be looking at a screen.

Yes, this is it exactly. As we know it now, there's a tendency for less joint attention ability in autistic individuals. There are several intervention programs for communication in ASD that are specifically focused on joint attention to consider this.
I do wanna add that "autistic folks don't have strong joint attention" is far less nuanced a statement than we should be making; every person is different and we need to consider that this might just be our impression of what attention does and doesn't look like. For example, a lot of people believe that if someone isn't looking toward another person who is speaking, they aren't listening. However, we know from autistic adults that they ARE listening when being spoken to, even when they don't appear invested. So it's nuanced, but I'm simplifying this for the purposes of this thread.
If anyone is interested, I feel like this article is a pretty good representation of the broader nuanced take on autism and joint attention (it's extra credit though, not really specific to FC or the Telepathy Tapes).

 

[deirdre]

it's extra credit though, not really specific to ... the Telepathy Tapes

thank you thats what i was getting at. The kids/young adults in the videos so far presented in the Telepathy tapes are past the point of sceptics pointing to joint attention or "not looking" as proof of anything. (not that any of them i saw were 'not looking'..i certainly could have missed something as i didnt watch all videos in this thread)

and sceptics shouldnt point to that with any video really on social media regarding FC. We dont have enough history information from a video. and more importantly, we dont need extra theories...the peer reviewed studies disqualifying FC are strong enough.

 

[NorCal Dave]

and sceptics shouldnt point to that with any video really on social media regarding FC. We dont have enough history information from a video.

As I think you've said before, though I may be misremembering, it is a debunking site .

more importantly, we dont need extra theories...the peer reviewed studies disqualifying FC are strong enough.

Totally agree. However, one could argue that because FC has been disqualified multiple times in multiple studies, the presenters here have shifted and moved the goal posts. It's not FC, it's Psy and ESP, so in essence all the studies disqualifying FC are irrelevant. They're not claiming FC works, they're claiming autistic kids can read minds. I'm not buying it, but I'd assume that would be their argument.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

This speculation might all become moot if the promise of properly controlled experiments using Faraday cages is kept (see quote below). However, I suspect some obstacle or excuse for these not happening (insufficient funds, too many skeptics on the site causing a disturbance in the telepathy field creating a non-workable environment, the subjects not being comfortable enough etc, etc, will prevent this paradigm changing truth from being revealed to the world.

Faraday cages seem like overkill to me.

The irony is that the usual test for FC involves showing the facilitator and kid different targets - this usually (always?) results in the kid typing what the facilitator saw, thus disproving FC... but providing good evidence for telepathy (if you believe in telepathy).

So to prove telepathy one may have to assume that FC works, and then test only for telepathy (blindfold the facilitator, have the child use a stationary board, ensure no reflections etc.) What is a Faraday cage supposed to do here? And yes it's an excuse to not proceed at all because it's too expensive and complicated.

Keep it simple, which includes not letting mom talk and wave her hands around.

 

[deirdre]

As I think you've said before, though I may be misremembering, it is a debunking site .

yea so factual, HONEST information should be given. i understand you dont really understand the nuances of what im saying regarding the issue. so im not accusing anyone here of purposefully being dishonest.

edit add: im also not implying Tink doesnt understand the nuances, she does- as she indicated above. she just had multiple thoughts going at once and typed her original a bit too sloppily.

the presenters here have shifted and moved the goal posts.

and now youre moving the goalposts of what my original issue was. again, i dont expect you to understand the nuances, so it's fine.

 

[deirdre]

What is a Faraday cage supposed to do here?

i'm assuming the facilitator would have to outside the faraday cage right? unless im misunderstanding faraday cages.. so that would be good.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

i'm assuming the facilitator would have to outside the faraday cage right? unless im misunderstanding faraday cages.. so that would be good.

It would be good if telepathy has been demonstrated without the Faraday cage first. I'm not sure anyone (except me with Akhil & mom) has even suggested EM interference is responsible for faking telepathy here with these kids. If they go into a Faraday cage but otherwise don't change the protocol (i.e. are still using FC) then it would be useless.

 

[Giddierone]

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

You can see from this other shot from the TT trailer that the letter board is reflective enough to see Houston's hand and the yellow pencil he's holding. The camera also appears to be reflective.

 

[Ann K]

Keep it simple, which includes not letting mom talk and wave her hands around.

If the claim of "telepathy" is really believed by the facilitator/mother, she would not find it necessary to say or do anything; she would just think the encouraging words or prompts at the subject. (Yes, I know, I'm talking as if I think that's possible, but isn't that what some of the mothers believe, or claim to believe?)

 

[Mendel]

Also, some autistic folks just like looking at reflective surfaces. It might not be "I'm going to intentionally look at this camera to see the solution," it might be "wow, the light looks really cool from outside if I look at the camera just right."

In this context, it doesn't really matter why he looks there: that he does means he's probably had an opportunity to notice the reflected card.
Now, being used to the stencil, he's definitely familiar with how letters and numbers look when they're reversed, because that's what the back side of the stencil shows.

The people behind The Telepathy Tapes didn't do that, which doesn't bode well for their scientific rigor.

their lack of rigor is also apparent because they don't apply blinding in any form. They control for nothing, but they have a camera crew.
They're producing entertainment, not science.

 

[Mendel]

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

Many people feel frustrated when they're told they're wrong. It's human. And it happens even when you're actually wrong, and know it.

Nobody here is looking for a fight. (Use the "report" link under their post if you feel someone is.) We're looking for truth.

The "baggage" of this forum is a scientific approach to truth. That's why stories and anecdotes get dismissed when the evidence does not support them. And that's why we bring the history of a subject to bear when new claims of evidence arise. (Higher learning is always associated with libraries: science stands on the shoulders of others).

I understand that this is intensely annoying when you've become convinced of something in a non-scientific fashion, and now experience that you're unable to transfer that conviction to others because they won't let go of that scientific approach to truth.

I don't know of any way to make this more comfortable.

Thank you for sticking with this discussion in the manner that you have.
Many of the people coming to Metabunk to try and convince us of something have turned out to be less pleasant to converse with than you've been.

 

[Giddierone]

What is a Faraday cage supposed to do here?

Confusingly Powell seems to doubt faraday cages in this recent interview [from 53:40] saying that they don't block very low (Schumann Frequencies) frequencies and that compasses still work inside of them. She says she'd need to see telepathy experiments where even these "very low frequencies are blocked".
This just seems to be further complicating things, to the point where no actual test will be conducted.

Source: https://youtu.be/XAvod6TBiY0?si=wDwVWIGAy1hJKphp&t=3215


What's also clear from this interview is that she's believes that FC works by telepathy.

 

[analiennamed]

Many people feel frustrated when they're told they're wrong. It's human. And it happens even when you're actually wrong, and know it.

Nobody here is looking for a fight. (Use the "report" link under their post if you feel someone is.) We're looking for truth.

The "baggage" of this forum is a scientific approach to truth. That's why stories and anecdotes get dismissed when the evidence does not support them. And that's why we bring the history of a subject to bear when new claims of evidence arise. (Higher learning is always associated with libraries: science stands on the shoulders of others).

I understand that this is intensely annoying when you've become convinced of something in a non-scientific fashion, and now experience that you're unable to transfer that conviction to others because they won't let go of that scientific approach to truth.

I don't know of any way to make this more comfortable.

Thank you for sticking with this discussion in the manner that you have.
Many of the people coming to Metabunk to try and convince us of something have turned out to be less pleasant to converse with than you've been.

again, its not about me being convinced of anything or being right or wrong, when people say stuff like "well, i know you're here looking for a debunk why dont you... blah blah blah" its a dismissive attitude or at least a defensive one.

 

[Edward Current]

again, its not about me being convinced of anything or being right or wrong, when people say stuff like "well, i know you're here looking for a debunk why dont you... blah blah blah" its a dismissive attitude or at least a defensive one.

I said at one point, "I know you're looking for a debunking." Are you looking for something else? Metabunk isn't the place to look for affirmation of a severely flawed demonstration being passed off as a scientific experiment.

I don't know what "why don't you blah blah blah" is referring to. If you're going to quote someone, quote them accurately, and link to the post you are quoting. Inventing quotes to make us look like bad guys is not gonna fly.

Yes, some of us have been dismissive because The Telepathy Tapes is ridiculous and should be called out as such — but others have very meticulously tried to explain what's happening in this demonstration, from positions of professional expertise. What else do you want?

 

[deirdre]

I said at one point, "I know you're looking for a debunking." Are you looking for something else? Metabunk isn't the place to look for affirmation of a severely flawed demonstration being passed off as a scientific experiment.

I don't know what "why don't you blah blah blah" is referring to. If you're going to quote someone, quote them accurately, and link to the post you are quoting. Inventing quotes to make us look like bad guys is not gonna fly.

i thought he was talking about me. i didnt use the words "i know youre looking for a debunking" exactly but same sentiment and i did lecture him on what he needed to provide.

 

[analiennamed]

i like this place, i like you guys, i was just trying to say exactly what you said "Yes, some of us have been dismissive..." - which goes back to my original point - that as an outsider it can be difficult to bring conversations here, because there is a steep requirement for participation to match the expectations of the metabunk culture (rules, whatever). i feel bad even continuing to talk to about this - because its not relevant to the discussion on the telepathy tapes its just complaining at this point, but like a week ago i was feeling much more emo about it. this place is cool for the very reasons i'm complaining about so i am not asking any one to address anything - i just feel like i gotta wear battle armor (aka come prepared to cite every reference i make) to participate here.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

What's also clear from this interview is that she's believes that FC works by telepathy.

Thus validating (with the opposite conclusion to the scientific one) the 90s experiments where the kid always spelled what the facilitator saw in a blind experiment...? How convenient.

In T-Tapes episode 8 they talk about how the facilitator needs to "empty out" before a Spelling session (clear the mind, to prevent thought transfer when telepathy is not desired) because there is "an energetic link" between speller and facilitator. Wouldn't this put the facilitator into a sort of meditative state and enhance the ideomotor response - such as happens during automatic writing?

They also talk about the reason Spelling doesn't work with some facilitators is because the "energy signature" may not be compatible. In Episode 1 they discovered Mia could not spell with her dad holding the board. Perhaps, even with practice, he would be unable to do this if he's the kind of person who's resistant to hypnosis/meditation.

We're told (ep 8) that facilitators need to be aware of this telepathic link so they can shield their thoughts, thus ensuring the speller is only typing their thoughts. No mention whatsoever about how anyone figures out, after the session, whether the facilitator successfully cleared their mind so it can be known whose thoughts were typed. The later episodes focus heavily on the amazing spiritual messages coming from these kids, as well as communicating with the dead and diagnosing the sick, via spelling... with their moms.

 

[deirdre]

The later episodes focus heavily on the amazing spiritual messages coming from these kids, as well as communicating with the dead and diagnosing the sick, via spelling... with their moms.

to be fair i watched that bit with Houston and the group of people in that weird dark room @Giddierone linked in #252. i would say Houston was spelling on his own. but by God we need to crowd source and buy him a computer keyboard because how annoying must it be to have to speak in such slo-motion!

seriously...what the hell.

 

[Giddierone]

spelling on his own.

It was mentioned up thread I think, but FC. org have done some relevant analysis of various filmed FC sessions— including one where the subject seems fully able to spell by themselves [as I think Houston can] So why do they need a facilitator at all? [for example see the "free from physical touch" video bottom of the page on the rhs].
It's a weird mediumship double-act Houston's mother has him engage in, reminiscent of the Fox Sister's or John Edward—Houston signs generalisations and positive affirmations and his audience weep while they place orders for his mother's book.
https://www.facilitatedcommunication.org/youtube

 

[Ann K]

this place is cool for the very reasons i'm complaining about so i am not asking any one to address anything - i just feel like i gotta wear battle armor (aka come prepared to cite every reference i make) to participate here.

I felt the same when I first landed here. I just tell myself to not make any claims for which I don't have real evidence or real references, or I try to label my opinions as opinions. It becomes second nature in time.

 

[deirdre]

It was mentioned up thread I think, but FC. org have done some relevant analysis of various filmed FC sessions— including one where the subject seems fully able to spell by themselves [as I think Houston can] So why do they need a facilitator at all? [for example see the "free from physical touch" video bottom of the page on the rhs].
It's a weird mediumship double-act Houston's mother has him engage in, reminiscent of the Fox Sister's or John Edward—Houston signs generalisations and positive affirmations and his audience weep while they place orders for his mother's book.
https://www.facilitatedcommunication.org/youtube

To be fair long term care is extremely expensive, so if he needs to tell people their deceased husband is with their deceased father or with God Our Father..i'm not gonna fault him for that too much.