You are referring to telepathic acts of a "deliberate nature" and not acts of a passive instinctive/reflexive nature.
I would think that what he refers to is telepathy in general.
Granted, all we can test is the "deliberate", and anything else would be no different from such things we interpret (for good reason) as coincidence.
His name has 3 "e"s.
There is unfortunately a large difference between 100% reproduceability and anecdotal support. It is true that no method or people have yet to be found that can reproduce telepathy 100% of the time...
Yet what is the title of this thread that you started?
Let's revisit, shall we... "Simple method to transmit thoughts that
always works."
...there certainly has been experiments where hit rates dwell above 75% of the time.
There will always be individual tests that yield such results. The chance of rolling double-six with 2 dice is 1 in 36 yet happens rather frequently (1 out of every 36, actually).
Does that mean we should take an individual event of rolling a double-six as being evidence of something remarkable.
Mankind has also demonstrated the ability to control the output of random number generators that supposed give coinflip like results.
Source where this has been shown to be anything other than coincidence.
In science we work mainly with tools and measurements. If telepathy did not rely on Humans as the instruments for now then perhaps a 100% rate could be achieved. The reason why experiments like the two I mention are not Widespread news is because we developed a "scientific method" that ignores it when there is only a probability it exists. Our scientific method only accepts 100% reproduceability. This is a flaw with the scientific method as far as I am concerned as research could benefit from looking at subjects with high probabilities of existence.
You're talking out of ignorance.
Science very much uses probability - but nothing is concluded as a scientific-fact until it is reproduceable to a rather high degree of success.
There is no flaw with the scientific method - only with your application of it, and your desire to see unscientific notions given the seal of approval from the scientific community.
I am sure you or anyone can point at failed psychic experiments and I also could produce a failed psychic experiment if I chose. This is often done by skeptics.
Yet you fail to look at the meta-analysis that concludes any successful experiment is nothing more than background noise... i.e. expected within the confines of probability.
The idea you give of transmission of a phone number is highly unlikely, and is why many experiments fail. The most successful experiments seem to be between an emotional sender and a passive or REM sleep receiver. It is hard to be emotional about a phone number, but you might sense when something bad has occurred to a loved one.
Now you're just making excuses... "oh, it's not that telepathy doesn't exist, it's because you're not capable!".
I suggest reading and trying the method I gave in the OP. There is no skin off my nose if people do not believe what I have seen and experienced since that day. I often feel sorry for those who cannot see what is right in front of them. Telepathy is not a hard thing to do. It is a hard thing to do 100% of the time with great accuracy, but it is very simple and often works.
Tried it. Didn't work. But you'll ignore the 2 million who it doesn't work for and only look at the 1 person it seems to, and through that claim some mysterious process at work, that science then ignores.
As for feeling sorry... others feel sorry for those that are irrational enough to believe that what they observe is not what it appears to be (i.e. coincidence) but something more mysterious. This thread is as laughable as your claims to consistently defy odds in lotteries, based on 2 or 3 successes some 6 to 8 year ago.