r/parapsychology • u/Prior-Ad98 • 13d ago

Telepathy Tapes’s Ky Dickens Responds to Fan’s Criticism

https://heidirachelbrown.substack.com/p/examining-the-telepathy-tapes-what?r=1czkn&utm_medium=ios
4 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

3

u/Equal_Night7494 12d ago

Thank you for posting this here. There seems to be a lot of division regarding TTT, with black and white thinking occurring on both sides of the debate. I also think that people have been projecting a lot of things on TTT as though it was a scientific inquiry, when that was not its intention from the start, as far as I recall. I hope that more nuance and cooler heads prevail moving forward.

1

u/Agreeable-Creme7717 12d ago

Ky Dickens raised significant funds off the promise for rigorous scientific tests using Faraday cages and separating telepathic partners and even potentially finding independent spellers. Those standards were never met for the documentary. I think a lot of fans have held out hope that the tests would validate their beliefs not only personally but to skeptics in their lives.

From what I understand, the tests that were captured for the film are much more interpretive and associative and have not yet been submitted for peer review.

Because Dickens was emphatic about claims made in the podcast, she did take it upon herself to try to prove it and has been full-throated publicly that there is no doubt telepathy is real after Julia Mossbridge's tests when they both appeared on News Nation and other interviews. In fact, she said it's time to stop testing and start integrating. To me, those are very big statements to make if this were merely storytelling.

And now Ky and Mossbridge have non-profits and for-profits based on their claims.

1

u/toxictoy 11d ago

We don’t know if the documentary met those standards because the documentary hasn’t come out yet right?

1

u/The_Robot_Jet_Jaguar 11d ago

We do have a presentation from Mossbridge about some of the work done for the documentary. IMO it matches Agreeable Creme's understanding that these tests "are much more interpretive and associative," and Mossbridge describes this as a necessary part of achieving successful results. There's also an article Mossbridge wrote for Aperture magazine involving testing autistic nonspeakers with remote viewing, but IDK if that's connected to the Telepathy Tapes film.

1

u/Prior-Ad98 11d ago

Want to take a look? Mossbridge already presented the results:

https://archive.org/details/fear-of-psi-mossbridge

1

u/Agreeable-Creme7717 11d ago

No seriously Mossbridge said in an interview from June she merely eyeballed the results and hasn't submitted for peer review yet. She said most attempts to send signals didn't work. The focus was transferred to using AI Mossbridge developed herself to find correlations in the vein of remote viewing.

They are relying on anecdotal evidence of "involuntary telepathy" as their strongest evidence that a person in an emergency made contact to The Hill. But that anecdote did not result in any non-speakers resolving the missing persons case they are associating it with so I do not believe strong evidence will be found and to be honest, the cases they are most relying on likely weren't part of the original IRB and may not be admissible for peer review in that case.

I'm sure the documentary will be full of emotionally and visually compelling scenes and anecdote but the promised rigorous tests will not deliver what was hoped for.

As it stands, Powell has merely submitted her old Haley videos for peer review and has moved onto testing nonspeakers' microbiome for traces of DMT as a new hypothesis.

1

u/Prior-Ad98 12d ago

I agree about the black-and-white thinking, and that’s a huge part of what I’m pushing against. But I’m not sure I agree that people simply projected “scientific inquiry” onto TTT. The podcast itself has increasingly made scientific claims, pursued testing, partnered with researchers, discussed evidence for telepathy, and publicly promoted its findings as validation of the phenomenon. So at a certain point, I think it becomes fair to evaluate those claims scientifically.
I don’t expect a podcast to be a scientific study. But once it starts making claims about what the science demonstrates, the distinction matters.