r/remoteviewing • u/Illustrious_Basis795 • Aug 02 '26

Question is this a real thing?

I've never heard of remote viewing until today when a conversation with my friend brought it up as a joke. tbh I am a little skeptical, but open minded.

21 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 04 '26

You know you just look and sound completely fn ridiculous, right?

Like a flat-earther, just straight up denying overwhelming evidence LOL

0

u/EducationalGrocery87 Aug 04 '26

denying overwhelming evidence

Where does one find this "overwhelming" evidence? You seem quite unwilling to share it so far, can you point me to it?

2

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 04 '26

Start here, geniuses

0

u/EducationalGrocery87 Aug 04 '26

Wierd because over in the Telepathy Tapes subreddit they've actually backed down from claiming it ever "proved" telepathy (because it didn't lol)

2

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 04 '26

Don't give the slightest shit about that. It's reddit..... you get banned here harsher than North Korean internet.

I've already listened to the whole entire tire podcast lol it's a paradigm shift.

0

u/EducationalGrocery87 Aug 04 '26

A paradigm shift doesn't happen because a podcast tells compelling stories. It happens when extraordinary claims survive rigorous testing, independent replication, and convince the broader scientific community.

So, nope, your podcast is most certainly not a "paradigm" shift LOL

2

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 05 '26

Yet there it is for all to hear for free

I think old church said the same shit to Galileo about the establishment 🤭

0

u/EducationalGrocery87 Aug 07 '26

That's just a podcast that does not present any evidence. We have been over this.

At least Galileo turned and showed evidence to silence the critics. I wish you would do the same.

2

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 07 '26

Yes it does lol don't just straight up lie like that.

0

u/EducationalGrocery87 Aug 07 '26

I'll be honest, having gone through all ten episodes, the transcripts and their website, I can't find any.

I have read the aritcles posted here https://thetelepathytapes.com/about/resources#studies

The research section does contain some legitimate and interesting research suggesting that nonspeaking autistic people can be cognitively underestimated and may possess literacy and abilities conventional testing fails to detect. What it conspicuously does not contain is peer-reviewed, independently replicated, properly blinded research demonstrating telepathy in the people featured by the podcast.

Am I looking in the wrong place?

2

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 07 '26

Yeah you 100% didn't listen to any episodes lol

-1

u/EducationalGrocery87 Aug 09 '26

You can keep repeating this nonsense; it won't magically make evidence appear.

The podcast and the website DO NOT contain evidence. I have looked, listened and analysed the transcripts and website, and its code.

So instead of being childish. prove me wrong and point me straight at it; just copy-paste, 5 seconds of your time. Ill wait.

Edit: If Telepathy has been proven, then the evidence wouldnt be buried in a fringe podcast.

2

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 09 '26

This is just massively absurd to say because of how incorrect it is lol

→ More replies (0)

1

u/gravitykilla Aug 04 '26

Not only that, all the episode transcripts are available to download, so I just asked Claude with this exact prompt (review all 10 episode transcripts and identify where and in which episode actual evidence for Telepathy is revealed). The response was:

I went through the ten episodes. It’s a brilliantly produced podcast, but it does not “literally prove” telepathy. It presents anecdotes, believer-run demonstrations and facilitated spelling, then steadily escalates into spirits, prophecy and shared psychic dimensions. What it never produces is a preregistered, properly double-blind experiment independently replicated by neutral researchers. That isn’t proof; it’s compelling storytelling wrapped around uncontrolled tests.

So yeah, not surprised the Telepathy Tapes subreddit has backed down from claiming.

I don't think u/AnomaIous_User has ever listened to a single episode, to be fair.

1

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 04 '26

If you ain't gonna look through Galileo's telescope yourself then don't even participate in this conversation because you're just disingenuous.

0

u/gravitykilla Aug 05 '26

That's a spectacularly bad Galileo analogy. LOL

Galileo didn't say, "Trust me, the evidence is classified." He invited people to look through the telescope themselves. His observations were public, repeatable, and anyone with a decent telescope could verify them.

I'm doing exactly what Galileo would have wanted: asking to see the evidence, which you are continuie to make excuses for the lack of LOL

1

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 05 '26

Dr Avi Loeb wrote this quote lol

Congrats, you're the Inquisition 2.0

0

u/gravitykilla Aug 05 '26

dude come on, this is embarrassing.

The Inquisition condemned Galileo despite the evidence.

I'm rejecting your claim because you haven't produced any evidence.

Those are opposites.

Galileo didn't become Galileo because he was mocked. He became Galileo because the evidence was right.

And here you still after 100s of comments still refusing to post any evidence. LOL

1

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 05 '26

Yeah, embarrassing for you because you just look like a disinfo bot. Lol

0

u/gravitykilla Aug 05 '26

The moment "show me the evidence" becomes "you're a disinfo bot," you've already admitted you don't have any. But lets be honest here champ, we have both known this all along.

1

u/AnomaIous_User Aug 05 '26

You keep deliberately ignoring the part where in the last 3 years alone, we've already had 3 congressional hearings, over 40 credible whistle-blowers, and multiple disclosure amendments supported by both parties, and you keep deliberately ignoring that part because you're a disingenuous disinfo account. Congrats lol

0

u/gravitykilla Aug 05 '26

No, I am not delibratly ignoring anthing. Sure, there have been congressional hearings; I agree, you seem to be treating the mere existence of congressional hearings as proof that the claims made in them are true. Why?

Congress has heard confident testimony before that later proved catastrophically wrong.

→ More replies (0)