This article examines the risks created when unsupported interview and interrogation claims are repeated so often that they become accepted professional practice. Using the familiar but inaccurately remembered phrase “Beam me up, Scotty” as an analogy, it explains how instructor-to-instructor repetition can create an echo chamber in which familiarity is mistaken for proof. The article identifies three primary risks: unsupported information spreading through the profession, repetition being treated as evidence, and investigators applying methods that cannot withstand scientific, professional, or courtroom scrutiny. It argues that investigative interviewing practices should be regularly evaluated against current peer-reviewed research while clearly distinguishing research findings from personal experience, tradition, and untested opinion.