The Skeptic Who Couldn’t Debunk The Telepathy Tapes

Hi everyone. I'm Ky Dickens and I'm thrilled to welcome you to the Talk Tracks. In this series, we dive deeper into the revelations, challenges, and unexpected truths from The Telepathy Tapes. The goal is to explore all the threads that weave together our understanding of reality, science, spirituality.

And yes, even unexplained things like psi abilities. If you haven't yet listened to season one of The Telepathy Tapes, I encourage you to start there. It lays the foundation for everything we'll be exploring. In this journey, we'll feature conversations with groundbreaking researchers, thinkers, non speakers, and experiencers, who illuminate the extraordinary connections that may defy explanation today, but won't for long.

Becca Cramer is a nuclear engineer by training, a writer, and a mother of two. She first reached out to our team because in her own words, she was on a mission to disprove the claims made in The Telepathy Tapes. What began is a skeptical deep dive turned into [00:01:00] something much more complicated and much more human, motivated by her scientific instincts and intellectual honesty.

Becca set out to fact check every aspect of season one. She read over 100 peer reviewed studies, spoke with experts across multiple fields, and carefully analyzed everything from the eye tracking data to the scientific foundation behind the Idio motor or Ouija board effect that some people like to point to when they try to invalidate spelling and therefore disprove the telepathy.

Her intention, though, was not to validate. It was to find flaws. But what she found challenged many of her assumptions. I thought it was critical to feature her on the Talk Tracks because she did the legwork that I was hoping many journalists would've done by now. Many professional journalists who I truly believe wanna do a good job, keep pointing to old arguments about spelling that just don't hold up.

It takes someone to go through this history page by page to understand all the nuances and complexities to end up. Katherine Ellis, our series coordinator, sat down [00:02:00] with Becca to unpack what this journey was like. To be confronted with evidence you don't expect. How science sometimes fails to ask the right questions and why some phenomena may not be explainable by the frameworks we've relied on. This conversation is a reminder.

That skepticism when paired with humility and openness can be become a bridge to the truth. Alright, Katherine, take it away. 

Katherine Ellis: Becca, thank you so much for doing this and being on the podcast. I would love it if you could just briefly introduce yourself and give us a little bit of your background. 

 Becca Cramer: Yeah, absolutely. Hi, I am Becca Cramer. Uh, actually an engineer, nuclear engineer by training, but right now I'm a mom of two little kids and a writer, so I was actually doing research for a book, and that's kind of how I stumbled into all of this. 

Katherine Ellis: So Becca hears The Telepathy Tapes and she becomes obsessed with reconciling the unbelievable claims she was hearing with the concrete world.[00:03:00] 

And she really, really dove into the research in many ways. It was like she was doing an extensive fact checking on Ky and the families. 

 Becca Cramer: So that's been several months in the work. Over a hundred peer reviewed studies, read several books. I've talked to several experts in different industries. It's been, uh, quite the journey.

So for me, I'm such a diehard skeptic and truth be told, like annoying atheist who's kind of mm-hmm. How I came into this, but I have been working on that side of myself. 

Katherine Ellis: I think your first email was like. I listened to The Telepathy Tapes and I couldn't stop thinking that I need to prove it wrong. 

 Becca Cramer: I was feeling really inspired by the tapes, and I remember thinking, how has this not been like on CNN? Like we've proven frickin' telepathy people. How is this not just what everyone's talking about?

It's all I get to talk about. I mean, [00:04:00] I was recommending the podcast to everyone. Like this is the most clear cut, you know, captured footage of any kind of psi phenomena that I'd ever heard of. So I was so, um, interested. So when I, I hadn't seen it, I just hadn't really thought much about it. And then I saw that it had been, you know, widely debunked by specialists and was just shocked. But it'd been a couple months since I had listened to it, so I was like, okay, maybe, maybe I just was really wanting something to be out there, but I, I couldn't, I couldn't move past it, so I re-listened to the tapes. The re-listening was such a different experience after reading what experts were saying, and since it's audio only, you don't see them communicating.

So you don't know how, I mean crazy it is to [00:05:00] say that they're communicating through their parents. So it just seemed, it was just, it was heartbreaking and I was almost gonna turn it off. And then I hear Katie mention how Houston always finds what she hides physically. He goes and finds it. And I was like, that has nothing to do with how they're communicating.

And so it's just like little crumbs. So I kept listening and so just little crumbs like that. And then I, you know, you know, get my engineering hat on and I take notes, listen to the whole thing, watch the videos, and yeah, seeing Akhil, reading his mother's mind, Manisha from the other room. There's no, there's no way.

And I was like, couldn't believe too that experts were aware of this, and we're still saying there's a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for how this is occurring. So I was like, all right, [00:06:00] I'm gonna prove Akhil's not reading his mother's mind. And that's kind of what I set out to do. That's how it started.

And then it just kind of, it was so bizarre. It was like I would kind of get discouraged and I almost say, you know, okay. And then some big aha thing would happen. There's a few things that I uncovered. 

Katherine Ellis: And what were the big aha things along the way? 

 Becca Cramer: I'm gonna tell you a story about a horse. Okay, great. The horse, this famous horse from 1904. His name's Clever Hans. And Clever Hans was discovered to be an intelligent horse who could also read people's minds. So he would, people would travel from all over the world to meet Clever Hans and ask him, how old am I?

Or what year was I born? Or mathematical questions, truth. Truth or false questions. Scientists came to study him and the owner was like, please, like [00:07:00] my horse. He was just as convinced as anyone I. After extensive studying, they find that clever Hans, the way he communicates is he taps with his hoof. So you say how, how old?

So I'd go, how old is my son? And he would tap six times. What you don't realize, the questioner makes some subtle movement once you tap the right answer. So you know he'd tap six. I would slightly lean back. Clever Hans is a clever horse. He'd stop tapping. He's right and they definitely confirmed that and they coined this, the Idio Motor Effect, idio Motor Effect that has like turned into, I think like psi Phenomena's worst enemy because Idio Motor Effect has been assumed to be capable of, I believe, much, much more than it's truly capable of.

Um, so that movement is kind of what led Clever [00:08:00] Hans to be mislabeled as intelligent. What's interesting is the current research now, like disproving spelling, still mentions clever Hans. It still mentions idio motor effect. So I learned that that is the primary explanation for how non speakers are being controlled by the facilitator.

Somehow the facilitator's subconsciously cuing them to select the letters. But there's this big gap that occurs to what's actually humanly possible. And I wanted to understand that. How can researchers be so convinced of this idio motor effect? This isn't even terribly important, but the main study they reference this Kazuko study out of Japan was like 1997.

I. Mm-hmm. Um, but since I have a [00:09:00] physics background, I could figure out that the way this study was set up is terribly flawed. They really simplified their measurements almost with confirmation bias to kind of get the results they were looking for. But regardless, so that mean that doesn't even need to make sense.

'cause regardless of that, just this cuing theory that they're somehow being cued. It doesn't, it doesn't hold up when you really dig into it. So for the cuing theory, I think clever Hans tapping and you lean back when he said the right answer. Mm-hmm. Why can't that be true about the non speakers?

Yeah. So technically it could, if the non-speaker is scanning every option. So imagine you are the non-speaker I. I, you know, I would use my keyboard right in front of me. If I'm trying to guess what [00:10:00] someone wants me to select, I would've to scan each letter and then you sense maybe a shift in pressure an exhale, whatever.

It's a little convoluted, but let's just hypothetically say that that's possible. You would need to at least be closest to that letter to select it if you're just guessing. Mm-hmm. Which is what they're claiming is happening. So I see that, or I, you know, start to really figure that out. But then I see these proficient spellers, you've seen 'em, I don't know if I've seen any, do that level of scanning.

You know, occasionally they have to sort of get their finger oriented, but I've never seen just pure scanning in that, in that way to where it would even make cuing possible. Um. So I even kind of dug into it and all my plans to write this up, but if you look into information theory, you really can only transfer one [00:11:00] bit of information with a cue regardless of what that information, if, if it's to select or move a little over or down, whatever, one bit to get them to a letter, it would require five bits of information.

That's just impossible. That's like superhuman, superhuman cuing and superhuman sensing. Mm-hmm. But why are scientists so comfortable with these assumptions? And that's what really kept me coming back. Like if, if this is true, idio motor effect is the most fascinating thing happening in science right now.

'cause that's crazy. Right. So that's kind of where I had my other eureka moments. So this is while I was in a down moment thinking maybe this isn't happening. Um, and I'm trying to learn more just about spellers in general. And I watch [00:12:00] the documentary Tell them You love me. Uh, dare You familiar? Yeah, I've seen it.

Yeah. What this led me to find is they show footage of the tests that they use to prove. The communication's invalid? Mm-hmm. Like the double blind? Yes. So they're the, the double blind, they call message passing tests and it's this young girl, Betsy and her partner. They're sitting on a couch next to each other, bets Betsy appears calm on,

the facilitator next to her is not touching her, not controlling her arm or her hand, and they're using a letter board. They show betsy and the facilitator, a picture of a key and Betsy on her own points to the letters. KEY spells key, but then they show, they show them a picture. I can't remember what the pictures are, but assume the facilitator sees a dog.

Betsy sees a cat. [00:13:00] Betsy writes DOG. She writes dogs. She writes what the facilitator saw, but watching it in per, you know, watching it on the film, I. Betsy one is barely even looking at the board, which after hearing Akhil say that he can see through his mother's eyes made a little more sense. What if she's using telepathy and that's how she can so effectively, type what her facilitator sees.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And that would make sense. So then it was like, holy, holy crap. What's happening? So I just start going through all the studies. There's like 40 al, like almost exactly 40 studies analyzing. They're considered the robust studies of facilitated communication because they include these double-blind tests, these message passing tests.

All of these message passing tests involve showing the facilitator something or asking the facilitator something and then [00:14:00] asking the non-speaker something else. It's actually like a perfect test for telepathy. You could argue. So I'm just like. Oh, well that's not gonna help me disprove Akhil reading his mom's mind.

So I was like, I can't use any of that in this research. So I had to stick with it. And honestly it was the figuring that out. And then that's kind of when I got into like the neuroscience of it as well. It's called psychophysics and there's this, there's this study of reaction times and you know, the thresholds of perception,

human limits of detecting stimuli. This is a whole science. The people claiming idio motor effect is happening are not psychophysicists. They're speech and language pathologists who are like, this is crazy. There's no way someone could just start spelling like this. So they just [00:15:00] pick the first answer they're even familiar with, which is idio motor effects.

Which I completely get. I totally understand why scientists have made these conclusions. I don't think it's been negligence or ill will. I think that it's just the perfect storm of, you know, misinterpretation and then of course an completely new phenomena possibly that was causing lots of false negative tests that gave us a lot more confidence and idio motor effect.

Yeah, so it's all just kind of wild. Right. Yeah, I, I appreciate what you're saying about why scientists have come to the conclusions they've come to. I mean, it's certainly easy to explain this with the idio motor and sort of just leave it at that. But what's great is that there are also scientists who are digging deeper than that conclusion and are interested in exploring the fact that this form of communication is in fact authored by the non-speaker and valid.

I think that's [00:16:00] interesting what you said, that the idio motor effect could really only account for one, one aspect of cuing, like it couldn't be five different things at once. Mm-hmm.

So keeping that in mind, what would be a good way to test this, to eliminate that sort of that thought. Yeah. I think, you know, we could do more measurements like perhaps have EMGs attached to muscles and just evaluate muscle movement between pairs. I think you could. Reduce sensory potentials. So you know, like Akhil if you know, maybe sound.

But even then you only can cue in one way. Their finger has to be by the letter. So yeah, you can really show a cue cannot contain specific letter [00:17:00] information. It's just, that's just not possible. I wonder if you could study that at like how far would their finger need to be from the board before they make a selection to ensure it's not idio motor.

But to be frank, we have not ever proved that the Idio motor effect is responsible for failed message passing tests. We've never proved that we have failed message passing tests. We know idio motor effect is a thing. We assume it's idio motor effect, but that's what I was surprised by. That was like the, the Kazuko study out of Japan that was poorly designed.

That's what it was attempting to do, to show it was actual, you know, the idio motor effect. They didn't provide the muscle measurements and they used a strain gauge that didn't even tell you. What direction the force was, who the force was coming [00:18:00] from, and then it cherry picked its data at the end. So it was flawed in multiple ways, but so yeah, it's like one, we haven't even actually confirmed a false message.

Passing test does not mean idio motor effect. That's just, that was just the reasonable explanation at the time. And that was given, you know, when they thought they were overtly controlling their arms, like you said, with facilitated communication. And what I learned through the debunkings to experts, scientists, researchers, spelling is facilitated communication to them because it involves a communication partner, which they consider a facilitator.

And that's when I learned like these message passing tests. I mean, they've been anointed the gold standard, and until a method can pass one of these message passing tests, researchers almost feel like they're able to just turn their [00:19:00] heads. Did you pass a message pass? Oh, no. Message. Passing test. Okay.

Nope. Right, and I don't need to speculate why one hasn't been passed yet, but you can make a really strong case for, regardless of passing this test or not. For reasons may, we don't understand. It's just not reasonably possible to, yeah, to control the letter selection in the way they're claiming. It just isn't, and I think that's why you have so many families now that are maybe even losing a little faith in, in the scientific process because they're like, it's right here.

It's right in front of you. How. How can you tell me this is, explain that we know what this is. Mm-hmm. Like that. But I get it because they have 40 studies seemingly explaining it. But if you really dig in, they're not, they're not explaining it at all. They're just, yeah. Failing. Yeah. So, well, can you explain what [00:20:00] you mean by a message passing test?

Yeah. Like what is that exactly? Yeah. You know, for most. For rigorous scientific studies, you gotta have a double blind. The, which essentially means the, the, I'm gonna say communication partner. The communication partner and the non-speaker have to be blinded to what the other is seeing. They can't know what the question is to either or.

They can design these studies where they're still sitting next to each other. It's still respectful. It's, you know that I know that is possible. They'll do these studies and they'll show the partner, let's say one image. They'll show the partner a dog, and then they'll show the non-speaker a cat, and there's no published studies of the non-speaker, you know, saying the answer is cat.

There may be a miscommunication or something where they will answer the non-speaker. They'll answer what [00:21:00] the facilitator was asked. Yeah. I am interested in knowing what is told to the non-speaker before starting that test. Do they know that they're supposed to be typing out what they're shown? That's a really good question.

Like how is it, and I'm, and I know there's been so many that. There's probably different ways, and then you have to wonder like, well, are they, is there a gotcha moment or, you know, wording is so critical. And also the stress of mm-hmm. You know, being one, have, knowing your intelligence is being dismissed, tested, and tested.

Mm-hmm. You know, that I can only imagine how that could affect the results as well. Yeah. Yeah. I would love to know that information. And then I. I think it's also a lot of people with autism, whether they're verbal or not, have issues with regulation. And I think being in these settings where, [00:22:00] number one you can feel that the energy of the person doing the test is sort of this gotcha, or I'm gonna prove you wrong.

Mm-hmm. Um, is never an environment where someone can thrive. I mean, I always compare it to like, you know, when I used to play sports, it's like. Playing at your opponent's home is always more difficult because you have a crowd full of people discouraging you and not wanting you to succeed. And then when you play at your home, it's a crowd of people who support you and believe in you, and you al that.

That really affects you and and changes the way you perform. And then to be in a body that you don't feel connected with, that's easy to be dysregulated. You're in a strange environment. You're with people you don't know. The only person you know is your communicator, who you trust. I can see why that might not be the best way to test somebody on something like this.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Um, so I would love to see tests done where instead of trying to have [00:23:00] them conform to the way we function, maybe we go and meet them where they are and have them explain it to us. Because after spending. Time with this population, it is so obvious to, I mean, anybody who spends, spend a whole day with someone who's nonverbal and you will not walk out of it going, ah, there's nobody in there.

Mm-hmm. They don't know what's going on. It's so obvious mm-hmm. That they're in there, that they understand everything happening. You know, just my personal experience watching people spell from, you know, we've started shooting the documentary and I've seen. Some of the nonspeakers who were mentioned in season one, and I watch them move their eyes to the next letter that they want to tap on the letter board.

Mm-hmm. Now, how is that someone else telling them what to do? I see them motor planning. Oh, I wanna go for the, i, I am gonna look to the upper right now. I'm gonna, I want the A and I'm looking to the left down before my finger even goes there. [00:24:00] That could be something that's studied. Like, can we track their eyes?

Can we mm-hmm. You know, I do think there hasn't been enough taken into consideration. Mm-hmm. Absolutely. I'm glad you mentioned that. The eye tracking study, that's Dr. Joss Well's work and he, it's interesting 'cause I read them those studies and they're, they're excellent. They are rigorous, they're peer reviewed, they are not included.

In these decisions of whether or not to allow it because they don't include a message passing test. And I've even gotten to speak with a researcher that doesn't believe in spelling, doesn't accept the pro spelling research, and they're a speech language pathologist and have more than one reason to think seemingly miraculous, but.

This eye tracking study is so, it's so critical because when we get into talking [00:25:00] about what the human brain is ab like cuing, you know what the human brain is able to sense and then move toward, the eye tracking study really does show, unless the communi, unless the partner is just literally putting the board in front of the finger, you know, just overtly controlling the communication, which would be so obvious.

Yeah. You know, the only, there's no way to cue, like we said, the specific letter or even a location on the board. It's just, it's not possible. Right. So it feels like a little bit of a bad faith argument when I see reasons for what could be happening that make more sense. Mm-hmm. And the reasons interesting though, 'cause the reasons given they all.

They make sense. They add up individually. But then when you're in the reality of it and you're viewing it from as a whole picture, [00:26:00] it is not possible. So it's like these little individual parts are technically possible. Yeah. But it's what is being claimed. With a proficient speller. With a keel, the the speed, he goes to each letter.

I watched one video. Was actually getting debunked on YouTube, and I'm watching this video and he's going quickly, like less than a second to each letter. And then maybe he has to have her a second to kind of gain control and then he selects. And because Manisha's in the shot, just kind of slightly moving, they're like, see, she's controlling the communication.

And then the key here is. That's not a bad faith argument there. It's just based on studies that could very well have been impacted by consciousness sharing because there are many, many studies out there that show [00:27:00] a non-speaker can spell what their communication partner sees. When they're not touching.

Mm-hmm. And so since that has been, that is on the record in many scientific papers, two people sitting side by side. They're not touching. The one person can spell what the other person is looking at. That's freaky. They never thought. Mm-hmm. Maybe it's something else guy. They go, oh no, it's Idio Motor Effect.

'cause they were, yeah, comfortable with Idio Motor Effect. It. We studied it. They just, I, it just makes, they just never, I mean, it brings in like. Five different disciplines in science. You know, we've got physics and psychophysics and Yeah, neuroscience and a little engineering and so yeah, it's convoluted for sure.

Well, and that's what's so cool and a little bit, what frustrates me is that why can't we [00:28:00] be more comfortable with not fully understanding something instead of just quickly slapping on something that, like you said, feels comfortable or is an easy to, that I can get an conclusion to draw. 'cause to me, the study of science and math, you know, when someone is interested in that, I always think, oh, oh my gosh, there's so much I don't know.

And there's so much about the world that I wanna learn and explore. And I think that's how science came to be in general. So why as scientists or experts, are we not more open to a possibility instead of just quickly. Dismissing it or not wanting to look into it. That was really something that's been kind of eating at me is like, how is this happening?

And I learned that I really, you really have to separate it out because there's two different, there's two different claims being made and they're both, they both involve a lot of different science and they're tricky. The [00:29:00] one claim is telepathy is possible, which. Is a lot for a researcher to, to consider.

So they're gonna go for the first explanation so that that is not happening because it's a, I mean, it's the biggest paradigm shift of our of ever. I mean, it's crazy. Mm-hmm. It's why I'm obsessed with this. It's nuts. Yeah. Yeah. But so they, you know, to shift that it's like. Of course you're going to cognitively choose idio motor effect.

You're gonna land there. It's a way more comfortable place to land. I think for researchers, it's been studied. It's all the reasons I gave, and you can just land there and move on. And that's what all the debunking articles have done. They're just landing there and I'm sh that's why I'm so shocked. No one has dug in more like we're all just okay with.

This idio root, like I keep, like the emperor has no clothes. You guys. [00:30:00] This is nuts. So, yeah, I think we, you know, we start there, but to get back to like, how, why can't science, you know, why don't we be open These, these recommendations to not use spelling are coming from major scientific bodies that set the standards for education.

And the truth is, there are education methods out there that don't work and that are even harmful. It's just. I'm fortunate, but it's true. And so we have science and these bodies of researchers. To help us determine what actually works, what's safe. You know, I don't want my kid being tested out on some weird method that doesn't work or could actually hurt them.

When you provide it to the masses, it needs to be vetted and understood. And so there's this, you know, expectation of using, they call it evidence-based methods in teaching. And since you know all the [00:31:00] FC studies and the lack of. Um, double blind studies for spelling. They claim it's not evidence-based, and I totally get it.

They believe it's dangerous because when this all started in the nineties, facilitated communication, there were a lot of. Abuse allegations. And what's heartbreaking is, you know, looking back, that's not surprising. It's an extremely vulnerable population. And they used these message passing tests to determine whether or not these non speakers words were valid.

And what if they were connecting to some, I don't know, something else. Telepathy, there's just, that's what we call it. 'cause. It's what we're familiar with. Their words could have been valid. So that broke my heart to even consider. But that being used as the sole reason why this is dangerous, this is harmful.

Don't use this as a [00:32:00] parent because you could harm your family. That to me seems unacceptable. So looking at Vermont, they have guidelines in place for if any kind of allegation comes up. You just get an independent facilitator, an independent communication partner, and you can validate claims done. If that's the only thing keeping it, you know, to claim it's not safe, you know, it's the whole, um, the least harm principle in medicine and education.

You know, you have to make the least harmful assumption above all else. Yeah. Above evidence-based, least harmful assumption. From what I can see and I, I don't wanna get too, like this is not my area, but I would love to help others. That man, it sure looks like from where I'm sitting, the evidence is inconclusive, at least.

[00:33:00] Yeah. And if we can deem it inconclusive, then I think once, once it's all out there. I mean, this could be a serious human rights violation to not. Consider this and to not act. Mm-hmm. Immediately if there is any chance this is what's happening, you know, copy Vermont, put a, you know, put protection in place, get some guidelines down, but let these nonspeakers communicate and then go study more.

Go learn more. Who knows? But it feels like they're requiring them to provide, make it evidence-based. To me, it's like, no, no. If there is any chance, this is what's happening. We ethically are responsible to, to allow it, and right now, not only we, are we not allowing it, we're penalizing it. I get it. Again, like no one's [00:34:00] purposely being harmful.

I think everyone in this space really believes they're protecting these people and doing what's best, you know? And I think Akhil and everyone in The Telepathy Tapes was so brave to come out because not only are they in a fringe group of spellers, they're in a fringe, fringe group of spellers, boldly claiming telepathy.

'cause telepathy has always been the thing that would push a speller back into darkness to, no, we don't, don't talk about telepathy because the message passing tests. A failed message, passing test looks just like telepathy. Mm-hmm. And so I get why there's, it's just this huge disconnect and nobody's wrong, you know, there's no bad guy and I, from what I am seeing, it's like, wow, if we could get people to see these truths and to [00:35:00] open just a little, we could.

I mean, it could. It's like, I think like 500,000 people have non-speaking, minimally speaking autism in the us. Like it could, this is a big deal, you know? Yeah. Mm-hmm. And that's why I just can't, I can't drop it. So thank you so much for giving me a little time to tell you about. Yeah. Well thanks for having a heart for this.

It sounds like. You've been sort of called to be ingested in this, which is cool. What are your plans moving forward? I'm working on an article, I'm getting it submitted. That kind of outlines a lot of this research. So in the near term, really just getting this out there and communicating it as good as possible and maybe trying to connect the right people.

Just kind of seeing where. This, uh, crazy universe takes me. Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you for [00:36:00] explaining all the research you did and your findings and everything like that. And, you know, hopefully there will be more studies I think there are in the pipeline to help better understand spelling to communicate and potentially telepathy.

I think there are people out there who are open to researching more. They're just maybe not the people in charge of, you know, getting it in schools or having it widely accepted, but it seems like we're probably on the right path, which is encouraging. Yeah, just leading with truth and leading with love seems to be the best way forward.

Absolutely. Um, okay. Well thank you so much, Becca. This is so great. Yeah. Thank you so much for having me on and. I've been really enjoying this work and I hope I can continue. That's it for this episode of the Talk Tracks, but new episodes will now be released every other Sunday, so stay tuned as we work to [00:37:00] unravel all the threads, even the veiled ones that knit together our reality.

Please remember to stay kind, stay curious. And that being a true skeptic requires an open mind. Thank you to my amazing collaborators. Original music was created by Elizabeth Pw, original logo and cover art by Ben Kandora design, the audio mix and finishing by Sarah Ma, our amazing podcast coordinator, Jil Pasiecnik, The Telepathy Tapes coordinator and my right hand, Katherine Ellis. And I'm Ky Dickens, your writer, creator, and host. Thank you again for joining us.

‍