Can humans communicate telepathically?
Some studies report small above-chance hit rates, but independent and preregistered repeats did not find them, and no design has shown that a second mind was the source. The only working brain-to-brain links are machines.
- DisputedTheoryThe ganzfeld shows a real mind-to-mind effect
- UnverifiedTheoryRhine’s card tests showed telepathy
- DisputedTheoryThe government’s remote viewers showed a real psychic ability
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryBem’s experiments revealed a real effect
- DisputedTheoryTwins can communicate by telepathy
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryBrain-to-brain interfaces show humans can communicate by telepathy
- ✓ ConfirmedFeb 2023A preregistered test designed jointly by believers and sceptics finds people guess at chance
For ninety years scientists have tested whether one mind can reach another without the senses: Rhine’s cards, the ganzfeld, the US government’s remote viewers, Bem’s 2011 experiments. Some reported small above-chance scores. Independent and preregistered repeats did not find them.
The question Can one person’s mind send thoughts or images to another without the senses, and what do the ganzfeld, Rhine, Stargate, Bem and twin studies actually show?
What the records say
The documented story holds up: 10 of 14 timeline steps are Confirmed by the records (score 93).
6 theories checked: 2 disproven, 1 unverified, 3 disputed. A theory is rated by its key claim.
A preregistered test designed jointly by believers and sceptics finds people guess at chance
confirmedCredible: it rests on a primary (tier-1) record. See the step
Down the rabbit hole
The ground line is the documented timeline. Each tunnel is a theory that branches off it; every chamber is a step, coloured by how well the records support it. The deepest chamber is the theory’s key claim. Tap one to open it.
Main timeline
Oldest first- 1934confirmed
J. B. Rhine of Duke University reports over 90,000 card-guessing trials as evidence of “extra-sensory perception”
Rhine’s monograph describes tests with five-symbol cards designed with his colleague Karl Zener. He wrote that telepathy tests “invariably fail to exclude the possibilities of clairvoyance”, so his early results could not show a second mind was involved.
T1Rhine, Extra-Sensory Perception, 1934ch. 2; ch. 3involved party: J. B. Rhine, reporting his own laboratory’s experiments - 1934–1940likely
Rhine’s claims draw some 60 critical articles, and whether other laboratories repeated his results is still argued
Charles Honorton, a parapsychologist, counted about 60 critical articles by 40 authors in those years. Ray Hyman, a sceptical psychologist, wrote in 1995 that what turned scientists against the claims was that “several scientists failed to replicate Rhine’s results.”
T2Honorton, “Error Some Place!”, J. of Communication, 1975first sectioninvolved party: Charles Honorton, a parapsychologist defending his own field’s early recordT2Hyman, review 2 in the 1995 AIR evaluationp. 3-47 - 15 Oct 1965confirmed
A one-page report in Science says brain rhythms in one identical twin appeared in the other
Two researchers, T. D. Duane and T. Behrendt, reported that alpha brain rhythms evoked in one twin were elicited in the other. Only the abstract was read here.
T1Duane & Behrendt, Science, 1965abstract - 1972–1995likely
US intelligence agencies fund “remote viewing” research and operations
The 1995 evaluation the CIA commissioned says the CIA’s programme ran from 1972 to 1977 and the Defense Intelligence Agency’s from about 1985, later under the name Star Gate. Research was done at SRI International and later at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
T1American Institutes for Research, Stargate evaluation, Sep 1995pp. 1-3, 1-4involved party: the CIA, which commissioned the review of a remote-viewing programme it had itself run in 1972–77 and was being asked to take overT2Utts, review 1 in the 1995 AIR evaluationp. 3-2involved party: Jessica Utts, a statistician with “direct experience with the remote viewing research program” she was reviewing - 1974likely
Parapsychologists start “ganzfeld” tests, in which a relaxed receiver tries to describe an image a sender is looking at
By the 1960s some parapsychologists had become dissatisfied with Rhine’s repetitive card tests. The ganzfeld puts halved ping-pong balls over the receiver’s eyes and plays white noise, on the theory that shutting out the senses helps a weak signal through.
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 5involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studies - 1986likely
The leading sceptic and the leading ganzfeld researcher agree the early results are above chance, but not on why
After a 1985 exchange, Hyman and Honorton jointly wrote that there is “an overall significant effect in this data base that cannot reasonably be explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis”. They disagreed on whether it was psi and set stricter rules for future tests. The joint statement itself was not read; it is quoted by Bem and Honorton.
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 9involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studies - 1994confirmed
Bem and Honorton report 106 hits in 329 automated ganzfeld sessions, 32% against 25% expected by chance
The paper in Psychological Bulletin reports eleven studies from Honorton’s own laboratory, run under the stricter rules, and says there is no unreported “file drawer” of sessions. It asked psychologists to take the results seriously.
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994pp. 4, 10involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studies - 29 Sep 1995confirmed
A review commissioned by the CIA finds a lab effect it cannot call paranormal, and no intelligence use
The American Institutes for Research found hits above chance in the laboratory but said the studies “have not identified the origins or nature of the remote viewing phenomenon, if, indeed, it exists at all.” It concluded continued operational use was “not warranted”.
T1American Institutes for Research, Stargate evaluation, Sep 1995pp. E-3, E-5involved party: the CIA, which commissioned the review of a remote-viewing programme it had itself run in 1972–77 and was being asked to take over - Jul 1999confirmed
A meta-analysis of 30 newer ganzfeld studies from 7 laboratories finds no effect
Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman pooled studies that followed the same rules Honorton used (Stouffer z = 0.70, p = .24). They concluded the ganzfeld “does not at present offer a replicable method for producing ESP in the laboratory”.
- Jul 2010confirmed
Parapsychologists report an effect in 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008, and Hyman replies in the same journal issue
Storm, Tressoldi and Di Risio report a mean effect size of 0.142. Hyman answered that they “manufacture apparent homogeneity” by dropping outliers, and that a well-powered test of their recipe had already failed.
T1Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio, Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractinvolved party: parapsychologists assessing their own field’s studiesT1Hyman, comment on Storm et al., Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstract - Mar 2011confirmed
Daryl Bem publishes nine experiments he says show people respond to events before they happen
In the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Bem reported more than 1,000 participants and significant results in all but one experiment. The same issue carried a reanalysis by Wagenmakers and colleagues finding the evidence “weak to nonexistent”.
T1Bem, “Feeling the Future”, JPSP, 2011abstractinvolved party: Daryl Bem, reporting his own experimentsT1Wagenmakers et al., comment on Bem, JPSP, 2011abstract - 2012confirmed
Independent teams repeat Bem’s memory experiments and find nothing
Three preregistered attempts (150 people) found no effect. A second team ran seven experiments with 3,289 people and found the average effect across all replication attempts (d = 0.04) was no different from zero.
T1Ritchie, Wiseman & French, PLoS ONE, 2012abstractT1Galak et al., JPSP, 2012abstract - 5 Nov 2014confirmed
University of Washington researchers link two brains through computers, not telepathy
A sender’s EEG signal was decoded, sent over the internet and delivered by a magnetic coil (TMS) to a receiver’s motor cortex, making the receiver’s hand press a touchpad. The authors call it “a rudimentary form” of brain-to-brain information transfer.
T1Rao et al., PLoS ONE, 2014abstract - Feb 2023confirmed
A preregistered test designed jointly by believers and sceptics finds people guess at chance
A panel of 15 proponents and 14 opponents agreed the protocol in advance; external auditors watched the data. Across 37,836 trials, people guessed 49.89% correctly against 50% chance, where Bem had reported 53.07%. “Bem’s findings were not replicated”.
T1Kekecs et al., Transparent Psi Project, R. Soc. Open Sci., 2023abstract, sections 2.1, 2.3.7, 3.2.5
Branches
Go down oneA branch is only as strong as its weakest step so far. The count is how many sources back each step.
The ganzfeld experiments
Do the ganzfeld experiments show that one person can receive images from another’s mind?
Parapsychologists dissatisfied with Rhine’s card tests adopted the ganzfeld to test the idea that cutting sensory “noise” helps a weak psychic signal. It has mostly been used to test sender-to-receiver telepathy.
- 31% Americans who say they believe in “telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses” (Gallup, 1,002 adults) as of 6–8 Jun 2005 T2Gallup, “Three in Four Americans Believe in Paranormal”, 2005
Hits came in above chance in tightly controlled, automated sessions
Bem and Honorton report 106 hits in 329 sessions (32%), with computer-controlled targets and sound-isolated rooms, and a professional mentalist’s written approval of the security.
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994pp. 9–10involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studiesThe premise: confirmedThat is what the 1994 paper reports, from Honorton’s own laboratory. Thirty newer studies from seven other laboratories using the same rules did not repeat it.
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 10involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studiesT1Milton & Wiseman, Psychological Bulletin, 1999abstractEven the sceptic agreed the effect was not selective reporting
Proponents cite the 1986 joint statement in which Hyman accepted an overall significant effect in the database.
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 9involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studiesThe premise: likelyHe did, as quoted by Bem and Honorton, while disagreeing that it showed psi. By 2010 he wrote that parapsychology still lacks “independently replicable evidence”.
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 9involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studiesT1Hyman, comment on Storm et al., Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractA newer meta-analysis finds the effect again
Storm and colleagues report 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008 with a combined probability of about 2 in 100 million by chance.
T1Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio, Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractinvolved party: parapsychologists assessing their own field’s studiesThe premise: confirmedThat is what the paper reports. Hyman says the result depends on dropping outliers and combining unlike databases; the authors deny breaking any rule.
T1Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio, Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractinvolved party: parapsychologists assessing their own field’s studiesT1Hyman, comment on Storm et al., Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractT1Storm et al., reply to Hyman, Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractinvolved party: the authors replying in defence of their own meta-analysis
- confirmed
1994: Bem and Honorton report a 32% hit rate where chance is 25%
Carried over from the main timeline (step 7). The studies came from Honorton’s own laboratory.
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 10involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studiesStartStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - confirmed
1999: 30 studies from other laboratories using the same rules find no effect
Carried over from the main timeline (step 9). Of three effects Bem and Honorton called significant that were retested, only one was confirmed.
= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - disputed
Whether a small above-chance effect exists is still argued between peer-reviewed papers
Proponents report a pooled effect in 29 later studies; Hyman says the pooling hides inconsistency. In reply the authors agree “the evidence is largely statistical” but say targets are “actually identified rather than guessed”.
T1Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio, Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractinvolved party: parapsychologists assessing their own field’s studiesT1Hyman, comment on Storm et al., Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractT1Storm et al., reply to Hyman, Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractinvolved party: the authors replying in defence of their own meta-analysis▼ WeakerStrength so far:disputed· 3 sources on this step - likely
Even the proponents say the design cannot tell telepathy from other explanations
Bem and Honorton note that if a receiver picked up the target without the sender, it would be clairvoyance, not telepathy. Honorton’s review of no-sender ganzfeld studies found a similar hit rate (29%), not statistically significant, so there was “no firm evidence for psi in the ganzfeld in the absence of a sender.”
T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 16involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studies= HoldsStrength so far:disputed· 1 source on this step - disputed
Key claim: the ganzfeld shows a real mind-to-mind effect
Peer-reviewed meta-analyses point both ways, and none shows the hits come from the sender’s mind rather than from an undetected flaw. A small statistical anomaly in some datasets is not the same as people reading minds.
T1Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio, Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractinvolved party: parapsychologists assessing their own field’s studiesT1Milton & Wiseman, Psychological Bulletin, 1999abstractT1Hyman, comment on Storm et al., Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstractT1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 16involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studies= HoldsStrength so far:disputed· 4 sources on this step
Bullshit meter
- No step is Unverified or Disproven.
- Key claim contradicted by tier 1? No. An independent 1999 meta-analysis found no effect, but later proponent meta-analyses report one, so with tier-1 records on both sides the key step stays Disputed.
Fluff meter: possibly planted
- Can’t be traced to an original record. Absent: the studies and meta-analyses are published and were read (in full or as abstracts).
- First appeared from new or anonymous accounts. Absent: named researchers in peer-reviewed journals.
- Coordinated identical wording. Not measured.
- Cited source doesn’t exist. Absent: every paper cited was opened.
- Later contradicted. Present: Milton and Wiseman’s 1999 meta-analysis of newer studies found no effect.
● present · ○ absent · – not measured. Lists signals only. It never accuses anyone.
Personal interest meter
- Charles Honorton, reported his own laboratory’s eleven studies in the 1994 paper that made the case for the effect. T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994pp. 9–10involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studies
“Has a documented interest” only, each one sourced. Never an implication of guilt.
Correlation meter
- Ray Hyman, is the main sceptical reviewer in both the ganzfeld debate (1985, 1986, 2010) and the 1995 Stargate evaluation. T1Hyman, comment on Storm et al., Psychological Bulletin, 2010abstract
- Telepathy or clairvoyance?, Rhine (1934), Bem and Honorton (1994) and Utts (1995) all say their tests could not show a sender’s mind was needed, so even their positive results are not evidence of telepathy as such. T1Bem & Honorton, Psychological Bulletin, 1994p. 16involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studies
- Patrizio Tressoldi, co-authored the 2010 ganzfeld and 2016 precognition meta-analyses, and was also an author of the 2023 test that found no effect. T1Kekecs et al., Transparent Psi Project, R. Soc. Open Sci., 2023author list
Links to other cases appear once those cases exist.
Who worked on this
This case was assembled by the site from public records. Contributions are not open yet. Nothing here is invented, so the counts are zero.
This is the first published version of the case.
Sources
- T1involved party: J. B. Rhine, reporting his own laboratory’s experiments J. B. Rhine, Extra-Sensory Perception, first published Boston Society for Psychical Research, 1934. The 1935 Bruce Humphries (Boston) printing was read as the Internet Archive’s OCR text; cited by chapter because the OCR carries no reliable page numbers.. doi.org · copy read: archive.org
- T2involved party: Charles Honorton, a parapsychologist defending his own field’s early record Charles Honorton, “Error Some Place!”, Journal of Communication 25 (1), pp. 103–116, Winter 1975. Read as the scanned copy released in the CIA’s Stargate files (CIA-RDP96-00789R003100030001-4); page breaks in the scan are unclear, so it is cited by section.. doi.org · copy read: documents.theblackvault.com
- T1T. D. Duane and T. Behrendt, “Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins”, Science 150 (3694), p. 367, 15 Oct 1965 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1involved party: the CIA, which commissioned the review of a remote-viewing programme it had itself run in 1972–77 and was being asked to take over Michael D. Mumford, Andrew M. Rose and David A. Goslin, “An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications”, American Institutes for Research, 29 Sep 1995, prepared under contract to the CIA; released 2002 as CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180006-4. Executive summary and chapters 1–2 read (pdftotext of the Black Vault copy of the CIA release).. www.cia.gov · copy read: documents3.theblackvault.com
- T2involved party: Jessica Utts, a statistician with “direct experience with the remote viewing research program” she was reviewing Jessica Utts (University of California, Davis), “An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning”, 1 Sep 1995, printed as Review 1, pp. 3-2 to 3-42 of the AIR evaluation (same CIA release). www.cia.gov · copy read: documents3.theblackvault.com
- T2Ray Hyman (University of Oregon), “Evaluation of the Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena”, printed as Review 2, pp. 3-43 to 3-78 of the AIR evaluation (same CIA release). AIR says he was chosen to represent the sceptical side.. www.cia.gov · copy read: documents3.theblackvault.com
- T1involved party: Charles Honorton, reporting his own laboratory’s autoganzfeld studies Daryl J. Bem and Charles Honorton, “Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer”, Psychological Bulletin 115 (1), pp. 4–18, 1994 (full text read, copy hosted at Columbia University). doi.org · copy read: rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu
- T1Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman, “Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer”, Psychological Bulletin 125 (4), pp. 387–391, July 1999 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1involved party: parapsychologists assessing their own field’s studies Lance Storm, Patrizio E. Tressoldi and Lorenzo Di Risio, “Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology”, Psychological Bulletin 136 (4), pp. 471–485, July 2010 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1Ray Hyman, “Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals: Comment on Storm et al. (2010)”, Psychological Bulletin 136 (4), pp. 486–490, 2010 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1involved party: the authors replying in defence of their own meta-analysis Lance Storm, Patrizio E. Tressoldi and Lorenzo Di Risio, “A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: Reply to Hyman (2010)”, Psychological Bulletin 136 (4), pp. 491–494, 2010 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1involved party: Daryl Bem, reporting his own experiments Daryl J. Bem, “Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100 (3), pp. 407–425, March 2011 (abstract read via Semantic Scholar). doi.org
- T1Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom and Han L. J. van der Maas, “Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011)”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100 (3), pp. 426–432, March 2011 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1Stuart J. Ritchie, Richard Wiseman and Christopher C. French, “Failing the future: Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’ effect”, PLoS ONE 7 (3), e33423, 14 Mar 2012 (abstract read via Semantic Scholar). doi.org
- T1Jeff Galak, Robyn A. LeBoeuf, Leif D. Nelson and Joseph P. Simmons, “Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103 (6), pp. 933–948, December 2012 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1involved party: Daryl Bem, assessing attempts to replicate his own experiments Daryl Bem, Patrizio E. Tressoldi, Thomas Rabeyron and Michael Duggan, “Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events”, F1000Research 4:1188, version 2, 29 Jan 2016 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T2Daniel Engber, “Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which means science is broken.”, Slate, 7 Jun 2017. slate.com
- T1Zoltan Kekecs, Bence Pálfi, Barnabas Szaszi et al. (30 authors, including the parapsychologist Patrizio Tressoldi), “Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project”, Royal Society Open Science 10 (2), 191375, February 2023. Its funding list includes the Bial Foundation (grant 122/16). Full text read via Europe PMC (PMC9890107).. doi.org
- T3involved party: the Bial Foundation, describing its own grant programme Bial Foundation, “BIAL Foundation opens new call for Grants for Scientific Research 2026-2027”, 9 Apr 2026. States that only projects in psychophysiology and parapsychology are eligible.. www.fundacaobial.com
- T1Christian Gaden Jensen and Adrian Parker, “Entangled in the womb? A pilot study on the possible physiological connectedness between identical twins with different embryonic backgrounds”, EXPLORE 8 (6), pp. 339–347, November 2012 (abstract read via Europe PMC). The study had “the logistic and financial support of a television company”.. doi.org
- T2Daryl Austin, “Is ‘twin telepathy’ real? Here’s what scientists say.”, National Geographic, 12 Aug 2025. www.nationalgeographic.com
- T3Susan Blackmore, “The Paranormal”, response to the 2008 Edge question “What have you changed your mind about? Why?”. Her own account of her experiments.. www.edge.org
- T3Guy Lyon Playfair (with text by Nemo C. Mörck), “Twin Telepathy”, Psi Encyclopedia, Society for Psychical Research, created 2 Mar 2015, updated 22 Jun 2026. A proponent summary.. psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk
- T1Rajesh P. N. Rao, Andrea Stocco, Matthew Bryan, Devapratim Sarma, Tiffany M. Youngquist, Joseph Wu and Chantel S. Prat (University of Washington), “A Direct Brain-to-Brain Interface in Humans”, PLoS ONE 9 (11), e111332, 5 Nov 2014 (abstract read via Semantic Scholar). doi.org
- T1Carles Grau, Romuald Ginhoux, Alejandro Riera et al., “Conscious Brain-to-Brain Communication in Humans Using Non-Invasive Technologies”, PLoS ONE 9 (8), e105225, 19 Aug 2014 (abstract read via Semantic Scholar). doi.org
- T1Linxing Jiang, Andrea Stocco, Darby M. Losey, Justin A. Abernethy, Chantel S. Prat and Rajesh P. N. Rao, “BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains”, Scientific Reports 9, 6115, 16 Apr 2019 (abstract read via Semantic Scholar). doi.org
- T2David W. Moore, “Three in Four Americans Believe in Paranormal”, Gallup News Service, 16 Jun 2005. news.gallup.com
- T3“Clairvoyance - Testing Using Zener Cards”, YouTube channel Rhine Research Center - Classic (title and view count only). www.youtube.com
- T3“Joe McMoneagle - CIA’s Project Stargate | SRS #95”, Shawn Ryan Show, YouTube, uploaded 5 Feb 2024 (description and view count only). www.youtube.com
- T3Brian Scott, “The Stargate Tapes - What The CIA Found Inside Human Consciousness”, YouTube, uploaded 17 Apr 2026 (description and view count only). www.youtube.com
- T3“A Scientist Proved That Precognition Is Real”, YouTube channel BRIGHT SIDE, uploaded 3 Oct 2022 (description and view count only). www.youtube.com
- T3“REAL TWIN TELEPATHY TEST”, YouTube channel Stokes Twins, uploaded 22 Mar 2020 (description and view count only). www.youtube.com
- T3“Michio Kaku: Telepathy Is Easier Than You Think”, Big Think, YouTube, uploaded 20 May 2011 (description and auto-captions read). www.youtube.com
- T3“Brain-To-Brain Communication Finally Achieved!”, Seeker, YouTube, uploaded 8 Sep 2014 (description and auto-captions read). www.youtube.com