Medium to the Stars?

[Frank McLaughlin]

There is nothing special about this particular 'medium'. Everyone who has ever claimed to be a medium is a fraud, with the possible exception of those who are mentally ill - they are just deluded. Any "evidence" filtered through a TV show is not worthy of the description. They edit and broadcast only what they want you to see. This show is no more real than Big Bang Theory.

And you base this on what exactly?

 

[Garrette]

Watch the show. That's the perfect video to your point.

You don't get on weekly TV with 2 million viewers unless you can do something "that others cannot." And if it were shown that he was faking it, I would suggest to you, that would make the show even more incredible and his ability unique. (Even collusion with the TV production crew, would not be enough--the celebrities would also have to be in on the con and be able to fake emotion. Not likely).

I haven't read intervening posts since you responded to me, so apologies if I am covering ground already covered.

No. I will watch portions of a show or video you point out, but I will not watch an unspecified amount for unspecified acts you won't take the time to call out. This is far from my first venture into this sort of discussion, and I will not play whack-a-mole. That is what invariably occur if I choose my own video and explain how one or two or a dozen seemingly amazing things are not amazing after all.

So put your money where your match is: pick one or two that you find unexplainable, ones that if possible explanations short of actual mediumship are pointed out would cause you to reconsider your certainty.

As to your comment that no one gets 2 million viewers on a weekly show without doing something others cannot, you are simply wrong. How many alleged mediums have their own shows doing the same things others do? I can name four or five off the top of my head. How many talk shows of incompetent pundits populate the daytime major network schedule?

As to who would have to be in on it to make it work, you demonstrate lack of knowledge of at least two things:

1) It is not uncommon for more than the performer to be in on it, even if sometimes only tacitly

2) How easy it is to make it seem that such a conspiracy is required when in fact it is not

 

[Garrette]

I was referring to science in general, not Henry. I don't believe Henry has undergone testing. Apparently, he doesn't care whether you believe him or not.

Scientists are often the last ones to accept a new idea whether that is the age of the Sphinx, continental drift, the appearance of pre-Clovis civilization in North America, what drugs post-menopausal women should be taking, the effect of a meat diet on health, the value of Ayurvedic medicine, the fact that the speed of light may change in a vacuum...I'm adding to this Tyler Henry's ability.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman, the first step in the scientific method is that you guess. I'm guessing. Testing happens each week on TV if you think about it.

Link: John Edwards, who does basically the same thing as Henry, has submitted to a series of studies at the Univ of AZ. Three of the studies are discussed in: "The Afterlife Experiments" by Gary Schwartz, Harvard Professor of Psychology, Surgery, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry. Bonus about the book is that it makes Randi apoplectic.

This is how far I've gotten since my last post.

In reference to the highlighted part, you've picked an exceptionally poor example. Not sure I still have the book on my shelf as I grew tired of it, but I read the whole thing and in support of a discussion on this very forum dissected it to display the rather gaping flaws in Schwartz's protocol. (He's not at Harvard, btw; that's where he got his PhD, but he was never a professor there).

In fact, through an intermediary, Professor Schwartz was on the verge of accepting my challenge to duplicate the John Edward results in his book. I say "on the verge" because when I insisted that it was contingent on being under the same controls with the same laxity of analysis, he backed out.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

You've provided no evidence. You simply keep banging on the flabbergasting presumption that it must be true, otherwise it couldn't be put on television.

The evidence is the show itself. An enormous amount of evidence. You needed me to tell you that?

No...I said if the show is false, someone will come forward given the large number of people required to produce a TV show, the large number of successful, no nonsense people who are read each week, combined with the reputation of this particular production company Michael Corbett Productions. If fraud, someone will come forward. And given the nature of Henry's readings, fraud would be virtually impossible to bring off for reasons that should be obvious if you watch the show. How does he do it? He has an extraordinary ability whether what is going on is fraud or not.

 

[Garrette]

There's nothing new here. This guy is just the latest in a very long line to make such claims. No-one has ever been able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.


Scientific testing certainly does not happen.


I've never been sure if Schwartz knows exactly what he's doing and is deliberately doing pseudoscience or is simply an extremely incompetent scientist. Either way his failure to control for the Forer Effect in his experiments renders them utterly worthless.

It actually disgusts anybody with any understanding of the scientific method and even a modicum of integrity.

My considered opinion after my Afterlife Experiments episode: He may well be a true believer, but he knows his analysis sucks but will convince the true believers anyway. No one with a PhD from Harvard could misapply basic statistics as he did without intending to.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, I could be wrong, but I think he does some type of automatic drawing prior to his reading, and claims the drawing is related to the person he is 'reading'.

Thanks. Changes nothing, of course.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

This is how far I've gotten since my last post.

In reference to the highlighted part, you've picked an exceptionally poor example. Not sure I still have the book on my shelf as I grew tired of it, but I read the whole thing and in support of a discussion on this very forum dissected it to display the rather gaping flaws in Schwartz's protocol. (He's not at Harvard, btw; that's where he got his PhD, but he was never a professor there).

In fact, through an intermediary, Professor Schwartz was on the verge of accepting my challenge to duplicate the John Edward results in his book. I say "on the verge" because when I insisted that it was contingent on being under the same controls with the same laxity of analysis, he backed out.

Why did he back out? What was his objection?

 

[Garrette]

Cold reading involves--I think--reading a person's facial expressions. Henry makes a point of not looking at his subject prior to the reading while he is settling down and during the reading itself. I have not ever seen him glance up at who he is reading....he keeps his head over to the side.
....so we can rule that out since to do a cold reading one would need to be looking intensely for very subtle changes.

Have you ever seen a clip of a cold reader? It is comical when you watch. The the questions, the stopping and starting, changing mid-sentence. Henry does none of that.

The kinds of information Henry reads that makes Henry so impressive, are things not obtainable through research. His asking a woman if she had gall bladder surgery, and it turned out she had a severe gall bladder attack, not surgery. You can't look that up, and if you could, it would take an exceedingly long time to figure out say my father's name, my aunt's nickname, even if you could.
....so we can rule that out (unless there is collusion with the production company. Given their reputation I think it unlikely but I have to admit quite possible.

You are wrong about what cold reading is. Yes, I've watched cold readers. Yes, I've done cold reading. Yes, it can be amazingly persuasive, so persuasive that the subject will sincerely swear there was no way outside the paranormal I could do what I did. And frankly, I'm not all that good at it. I've seen some who are superb.

 

[fibbermcgee]

Here's what you're fighting folks. Some years ago Shermer got an audience together for the purpose of cold readings. He told them up front that he wasn't psychic, that he had studied so he knew how to ask the questions he needed and that it was not difficult and had nothing to do with speaking with the dead etc.,etc.

The show went well, Shermer said. He was surprised when several people told him that he really had "the gift" he just didn't realize it.

 

[Garrette]

Could be true, not necessarily true. I believe a reason Theresa Caputo does not have a show is because she got many people wrong, and when she did hit, the information was commonplace, so people stopped watching.

The production company could have started faking it for Theresa--obviously this stuff makes money--but faking it is a very dangerous road to go down if you are trying to attract audience to your network.

There are two kinds of Medium hits: (1) your Mother tells me you had a bicycle you loved as a child, which turns out to be true and (2) your mother kept a giant bowl of buttons on a shelf in her bedroom closet. The first does not impress. The second establishes that the ability is real and not done from a cold reading. It makes up, statistically, for dozens of misses.

If the guest's footage is unusable, I'd expect to eventually hear from that celebrity guest. Great way to enhance notoriety. Google Theresa, and you see a wall of complaints from audience members. Don't find that with Henry.

The second hypothetical has the same value as the first; it only seems not to. This is true if there is one reading only and it hits. It is even more certainly true when there are lots of reading from which the medium and/or the television company get to choose what to televise.

 

[Garrette]

And for the record, the name is John Edward, not John Edwards. While it is an easy error to make, one would not expect it to be made by someone putting forth Mr. Edward as an exemplar of good mediumship.


ETA: I've caught up in the thread now. So far I see the vague claim without evidence or example about Henry's ability accompanied by a complete lack of knowledge how magical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work and what constitutes evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Are you serious? I made a statement.

Yes, I'm serious. You're trying to cram counterclaims into your critics' mouths that they never made, and respond to those instead of the objections they actually have. Instead of imagining that your critics have made arguments that are easy for you to refute, why don't you address the actual arguments they have made?

Strawman. I never said there was.

Effectively you did. We point out that Tyler Henry's show is likely following the same pattern as other shows of the genre. But then you accuse that of being fraud, and say it would be entirely unconscionable for a reputable production company to engage in such behavior, and cite what you believe is an extreme risk in doing so. Where's the risk, if no one can hold them liable for what they're doing?

Then you go on to say that you will only accept a whistle-blower from the production as evidence that Henry isn't really talking to dead people. The straw man that you're trying so desperately to foist on your critics is the notion that unless Tyler Henry is for real, the "fraud" that he's perpetrating would be so heinous (but, I'll grant you, not necessarily illegal) that someone would be morally obligated to come forward. And since no one has, that must mean the show is genuine. Keep reading.

I said your NDA point is moot because we have overwhelming evidence from the reaction of joy and happiness in the response to the reading from the celebrities.

Apples and oranges. You are claiming that if the show were fake in any way, a celebrity guest would have spilled the beans. I pointed out that an NDA would preclude this. Further, you are assuming that the celebrities are booked on the show as genuine clients of a psychic reader, and not as paid participants in a television show. Celebrities who have agents and managers and so forth don't even make an appearance on a doorstep without a full set of contracts, riders, and NDAs in place.

As for "joy and happiness," you sort of conceded that unfavorable results could be edited out, or just not aired. But then you tried to walk that back. This is why I asked what your actual experience is in film and television production. You seem to have a childlike naivete for how programs are made and marketed.

At no point have I claimed anything was illegal.

It's a requisite premise to your argument. You said someone could disregard an NDA to disclose an occurrence of fraud. That is true only for a legally-actionable occurrence of fraud. Otherwise a contract is a contract. Simply experiencing something you didn't like or don't approve of doesn't negate an NDA.

Keep in mind that you're limiting your analysis to the premise that celebrity guests are booked as if they were ordinary public people having a private reading with a psychic, and that the only legal framework would arise from that situation. I'm expanding the analysis to include the possibility that celebrities are booked as a talent appearance, with the legal framework that implies. Since my analysis covers more possibilities, I consider it more sound.

"A crew of a magic show" can't give away proprietary information--

Yes, and a contracted participant in a film or television production can't reveal proprietary information about how the show is made. It's exactly the same thing. Again, you're focused narrowly on celebrity guests as paying customers. I'm expanding the field to include a celebrity appearance for which they are paid an appearance fee, are put under NDA, and otherwise treated the same way they would for any other appearance on a television program.

However, any celebrity can speak up and complain about a product if they have insight about fraud...

No, they cannot. If there is an NDA in place, there would have to be legally-actionable fraud for the NDA to be void. As I said, I have never done anything in film or television production that didn't require me to execute an NDA beforehand, so I would find it extremely difficult to believe that the guests booked for the show are not under NDA.

There is standard boilerplate language for disclaimers for psychic readings. It's not legal or medical advice, it may not meet your expectations, it may not be accurate, reliable, or complete, blah blah blah. I can't imagine a high-profile (i.e., a big target for lawsuits) mentalist agreeing to do a reading without at least such a disclaimer in place. That would be something agreed to privately between Henry and the guest; it wouldn't have to be publicly disclaimed.

In addition there is the possibility that the celebrities are engaged to "play themselves" on a reality show that has a clear agenda and requires them to act a certain way. Nothing in this show's scenario seems to preclude directing the participants.

I never said anything about "legally questionable."

It's a necessary premise to the argument you were making. Your argument has no teeth whatsoever unless the actions of the production rose to the level of being legally questionable. An NDA would be void only if the action the production undertook was illegal. An NDA would not stop a party to it from disclosing evidence of an illegal action. But since nothing this production is doing is illegal, the NDA holds. You cannot disregard an NDA simply because you weren't satisfied with what happened to you.

I said that any celebrity can complain about fraud or complain about the quality of the service provided. That's not covered under a NDA.

Why would you think that? Have you never heard of a non-disparagement clause?

If during the reading a celebrity notices that Henry is wearing an earpiece...

Straw man.

Right. And my argument is that if I am in a show that claims there are ghosts in a house, and I later find out that those ghosts were really not there, but artificially manufactured by a special effects team...

Another straw man.

Wait. Tyler Henry hires a research team to explore my background, has somebody come to my house, interviews me under a false pretext to gain info ("we're taking a survey"), goes to my Mom's house and interviews her, and then gives me an expensive 30 minute reading in which he uses the secretly obtained information to fool me--and in the Universe that you live in this does not constitute fraud?

Yet another straw man.

Whether such a thing would constitute fraud depends on the precise wording of the promise made to you.

How about instead I mull over your inability to follow a basic line of reasoning.

I understand your line of reasoning just fine. I'm pointing out what's wrong with it. That's the part you can't seem to cope with.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

E! is by their own definition News, Entertainment News, Celebrity Gossip, Celebrity News and is "Your source for entertainment news, celebrities, celeb news, and celebrity gossip. Check out the hottest fashion, photos, movies and TV shows!"

The E in E! is entertainment and it is intended as an entertainment channel. That is if you find celebrity gossip, celebrity news and related drivel entertainment. Nowhere do they describe themselves as providing real mediums. The reason of course is because there are no real mediums.

Crew jobs in television require long mostly boring days with bursts of frenetic activity followed by more boredom and are exceptionally well paid even for the most mundane jobs. Benefits are about as good as anyone making an hourly pay gets anywhere for just about everyone (except extras) and on set work includes catering which is almost always limitless and very good. These jobs are hard fought and jealously guarded. If keeping your mouth shut about a fraud medium means keeping a 100k+ year job (that's for 26 weeks by the way) who would say anything.

Celebrities too have vested interests. Celebrity appearances are their bread and butter and they won't tip the boat and they make far more than the crew.

The industry is small and everyone knows everyone. Loose canons don't get hired - cause issues and you might as well move to Timbuktu.

The same standards mentioned upthread about no one exposing anything about this guy could be said about Yuri Geller, the Long Island fraud Theresa something and a whole host of others. Even Ancient Aliens isn't exposed by crew. For that matter wrestling isn't either and Vince McMahon admitted it was fake. Well, technically he called it scripted.

Most of what you say about E! is true for television in general. National Georgraphic ran a documentary on the flat earth organization and their Denver conference a few months back.

People don't expose ancient aliens or WWE because in general everyone knows it is fake or that it is only suggesting possibilities (ghosts and aliens could be real, and people love thinking about it). With aliens, there is nothing to expose unless a TV channel tried to pass a body off as an alien body, then someone probably would step forward.

There is a false equivalence to suggest that no one stepping forward to claim Wrestling is fake is the same thing as no one stepping forward if there was a show that claimed a certain hospital was curing everybody's cancer. Or that a guy was faking out all these celebrities pretending to talk to your Mother. If Henry is fake some group is going to step forward, and I bet it likely a Christian group somewhere is offering good money if you do.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Yes, I'm serious. You're trying to cram counterclaims into your critics' mouths that they never made, and respond to those instead of the objections they actually have. Instead of imagining that your critics have made arguments that are easy for you to refute, why don't you address the actual arguments they have made?



Effectively you did. We point out that Tyler Henry's show is likely following the same pattern as other shows of the genre. But then you accuse that of being fraud, and say it would be entirely unconscionable for a reputable production company to engage in such behavior, and cite what you believe is an extreme risk in doing so. Where's the risk, if no one can hold them liable for what they're doing?

Then you go on to say that you will only accept a whistle-blower from the production as evidence that Henry isn't really talking to dead people. The straw man that you're trying so desperately to foist on your critics is the notion that unless Tyler Henry is for real, the "fraud" that he's perpetrating would be so heinous (but, I'll grant you, not necessarily illegal) that someone would be morally obligated to come forward. And since no one has, that must mean the show is genuine. Keep reading.



Apples and oranges. You are claiming that if the show were fake in any way, a celebrity guest would have spilled the beans. I pointed out that an NDA would preclude this. Further, you are assuming that the celebrities are booked on the show as genuine clients of a psychic reader, and not as paid participants in a television show. Celebrities who have agents and managers and so forth don't even make an appearance on a doorstep without a full set of contracts, riders, and NDAs in place.

As for "joy and happiness," you sort of conceded that unfavorable results could be edited out, or just not aired. But then you tried to walk that back. This is why I asked what your actual experience is in film and television production. You seem to have a childlike naivete for how programs are made and marketed.



It's a requisite premise to your argument. You said someone could disregard an NDA to disclose an occurrence of fraud. That is true only for a legally-actionable occurrence of fraud. Otherwise a contract is a contract. Simply experiencing something you didn't like or don't approve of doesn't negate an NDA.

Keep in mind that you're limiting your analysis to the premise that celebrity guests are booked as if they were ordinary public people having a private reading with a psychic, and that the only legal framework would arise from that situation. I'm expanding the analysis to include the possibility that celebrities are booked as a talent appearance, with the legal framework that implies. Since my analysis covers more possibilities, I consider it more sound.



Yes, and a contracted participant in a film or television production can't reveal proprietary information about how the show is made. It's exactly the same thing. Again, you're focused narrowly on celebrity guests as paying customers. I'm expanding the field to include a celebrity appearance for which they are paid an appearance fee, are put under NDA, and otherwise treated the same way they would for any other appearance on a television program.



No, they cannot. If there is an NDA in place, there would have to be legally-actionable fraud for the NDA to be void. As I said, I have never done anything in film or television production that didn't require me to execute an NDA beforehand, so I would find it extremely difficult to believe that the guests booked for the show are not under NDA.

There is standard boilerplate language for disclaimers for psychic readings. It's not legal or medical advice, it may not meet your expectations, it may not be accurate, reliable, or complete, blah blah blah. I can't imagine a high-profile (i.e., a big target for lawsuits) mentalist agreeing to do a reading without at least such a disclaimer in place. That would be something agreed to privately between Henry and the guest; it wouldn't have to be publicly disclaimed.

In addition there is the possibility that the celebrities are engaged to "play themselves" on a reality show that has a clear agenda and requires them to act a certain way. Nothing in this show's scenario seems to preclude directing the participants.



It's a necessary premise to the argument you were making. Your argument has no teeth whatsoever unless the actions of the production rose to the level of being legally questionable. An NDA would be void only if the action the production undertook was illegal. An NDA would not stop a party to it from disclosing evidence of an illegal action. But since nothing this production is doing is illegal, the NDA holds. You cannot disregard an NDA simply because you weren't satisfied with what happened to you.



Why would you think that? Have you never heard of a non-disparagement clause?



Straw man.



Another straw man.



Yet another straw man.

Whether such a thing would constitute fraud depends on the precise wording of the promise made to you.



I understand your line of reasoning just fine. I'm pointing out what's wrong with it. That's the part you can't seem to cope with.

You are writing to yourself at this point--I could not read another word cloud--because you don't address my arguments. And drop the Strawman stuff. It make me think I'm writing to a ninth grader.

 

[Garrette]

Why did he back out? What was his objection?

Sorry. Missed this at first.

Schwartz did not respond, even when I emailed him directly. The intermediary stopped responding, too. Since the lacks of response coincided with my insistence on the same protocol, i.e., nothing more strict than had been used with Edward before, that that was the reason.

 

[Garrette]

Here's what you're fighting folks. Some years ago Shermer got an audience together for the purpose of cold readings. He told them up front that he wasn't psychic, that he had studied so he knew how to ask the questions he needed and that it was not difficult and had nothing to do with speaking with the dead etc.,etc.

The show went well, Shermer said. He was surprised when several people told him that he really had "the gift" he just didn't realize it.

This is fairly common. It has happened to me, too, and as I have said I'm not really all that good at it.

 

[Garrette]

You are writing to yourself at this point--I could not read another word cloud--because you don't address my arguments. And drop the Strawman stuff. It make me think I'm writing to a ninth grader.

He actually does address your arguments, more thoroughly than most.

But to stay on that point, you have yet to present one or two incidents you feel are unassailable in regard to what Henry does.

 

[JayUtah]

The evidence is the show itself. An enormous amount of evidence.

That's braindead circular logic. That's like saying "Transvestite space chickens built the pyramids," and then pointing to the pyramids as the evidence of the chickens. What you haven't provided is "evidence that the Medium I am discussing is not fake." That is, evidence that your explanation for the observations is the best among all others.

The show is a body of observations that people set out to explain. You propose to explain the observations by saying Tyler Henry is a real medium who really talks to dead people. Okay, but the observations themselves aren't evidence that the explanation for those observations is the right one. A few observations consistent with a lady having been sawn in half is not evidence that she really was sawn in half. And we know, in fact, that it's the wrong explanation in that case.

Your critics have shown that other explanations more parsimoniously account for those same observations, and all you've got for them is denial. Henry's claim occurs against a richly embroidered backdrop of people doing exactly the same sorts of things he does, using tricks that they're quite willing to explain. They can arrive at the same observations using those methods. Plus they can show the mechanism of arrival.

This is basic propositional logic.

You needed me to tell you that?

Yes, in general people require arguments to be stated explicitly, so that they don't have to guess at what someone else is thinking.

No...I said if the show is false, someone will come forward given the large number of people required to produce a TV show...

Asked and answered.

If fraud, someone will come forward.

Unless it is legally-actionable fraud, they cannot come forward because they are under NDA. If we agree that whatever deception may be involved is not unlawful, then your argument fails forthwith.

And given the nature of Henry's readings, fraud would be virtually impossible to bring off for reasons that should be obvious if you watch the show. How does he do it?

Begging the question. You've been given countless examples of other supposedly amazing feats that have ordinary explanations, and other television shows that present those feats commercially for entertainment. And your sense of wonderment seems fueled by a colossal ignorance of what actually goes on in the world of commercial film and television production.

He has an extraordinary ability whether what is going on is fraud or not.

Most of the magicians, mentalists, and stage performers I have worked with have extraordinary ability. The question is whether Tyler Henry's extraordinary ability is that he can talk with dead people, or that he can fool people into thinking he's talking to dead people, or that he can attract enough eyeballs to make celebrities want to go on his show and play along with the whole speaker-for-the-dead gimmick.

Your argument is that Henry's ability is true mediumship, but you can't provide any evidence for that, or any argument that rises above credulity, ignorance, circularity, and question-begging.

 

[JayUtah]

[Y]ou don't address my arguments.

Yes, I do -- thoroughly, and in detail. The verbosity you're complaining about is the necessary consequence of my thoroughness. I think you just want an excuse to ignore people whom you can't answer.

And drop the Strawman stuff.

Your arguments rely heavily on straw men. If you don't want that to be the refutation, don't deploy them.

It make me think I'm writing to a ninth grader.

Has it worked for you in the past to insult people who can provide good reasons for disagreeing with you?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

And for the record, the name is John Edward, not John Edwards. While it is an easy error to make, one would not expect it to be made by someone putting forth Mr. Edward as an exemplar of good mediumship.


ETA: I've caught up in the thread now. So far I see the vague claim without evidence or example about Henry's ability accompanied by a complete lack of knowledge how magical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work and what constitutes evidence.

The evidence or example can be found in the weekly show.

Henry's claim is not vague. Perhaps mine is because it has not been established what exactly is going on--only that there it is something extraordinary.

>expect it to be made by someone putting forth Mr. Edward as an exemplar of good mediumship.

I'm not putting forth John Edwards. Tyler Henry. I did reference a study that used him as a subject. But attempt at ridicule duly noted.

>complete lack of knowledge how magical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work

Why don't you educate me as to how a magical performer can duplicate what Henry does. I'd love to see that. I predict you won't get within a hundred miles. If magicians could do what Henry does, they'd be doing it. And Henry would be out of a job as hundreds of magicians would love to be on TV in front of 2 million people.

I don't watch much TV, but I would guess different reality shows work differently. The reality show that had National Geographic interviewing at the recent Flat Earth conference is playing by a different set of rules than "Realtors who sell Hollywood mansions to the stars." And I expect Henry's production company has their set of rules. I assume their set and the Nat Geo set of rules has integrity high on the list.

BTW as long as you are giving spelling lessons on Edwards name, might I suggest that writing "how a magical performer" means that the performer is magical, not that he or she is a magician.