Medium to the Stars?

But that's just an expression of personal belief stapled to a veiled insult.

Well Steve admits his beliefs are just his opinion too. In fact there may be personal evidence of the existence of the spirit world being given in spiritualist churches every week.
 
No, it is your belief that the spirit world exists. Your actual experiences are likely the same as most people's. You just choose to interpret them to match your beliefs rather than to match reality.

Ho ! do tell me about 'reality'. Because if you truly know what reality is you have me beaten. Why don't you start by defining it.
 
Well Steve admits his beliefs are just his opinion too.

As I explained, a presumption based on a rational look at the evidence as it stands. You're just telling us what you believe and suggesting that everyone else is somehow hobbled by disbelief.

In fact there may be personal evidence of the existence of the spirit world being given in spiritualist churches every week.

We don't care. You have a whole thread nextdoor where you can talk about your personal beliefs. I don't read it because I don't care what your personal beliefs are.

Do you have something to say about Tyler Henry? Is there something about your personal beliefs -- the only thing you seem able to talk about -- that sheds light on whether he is real or not?
 
Last edited:
Well Steve admits his beliefs are just his opinion too. In fact there may be personal evidence of the existence of the spirit world being given in spiritualist churches every week.

Belief an opinion are two very different things. I have said nothing about having any beliefs. I have opinions that I have formed based on non-anecdotal evidence from studies on the topic.
 
Ho ! do tell me about 'reality'. Because if you truly know what reality is you have me beaten. Why don't you start by defining it.

Ho, indeed. Enjoy your time down that dark rabbit hole. I will not be following.

Moving back somewhat toward the thread topic - would you agree that if every person is capable of interacting with the 'spirit world' (whatever that may be) then 'mediums' as discussed in this thread are irrelevant?
 
I recognize you have many people to respond to whereas I generally just have you, so perhaps it's just that you haven't gotten to it, but did you not read my latest posts? Including my comments on the Macklemore reading? The one I talked about was a short bit that focused on a vague talk about Macklemore's dad wondering whether or not to pass on his business and then about someone "needing to remove something off the skin."

That bit was completely unconvincing.

I watched one video in its entirety--"Darren Brown fools readers and talks to the dead"--and if your point is there are magicians capable of fooling some people in an easy to work crowd environment while staring directly at the people and making a comical number of false starts, I already know this. (I did enjoy watching it, so thanks for sending).

There is a profound difference between what this magician did picking three receptive people out of a low sophistication crowd, never filling more than a few minutes of air time with each person...
Yes. The difference is that without any prep, the magicians did just as well.

Frank McLaughlin said:
....and what Henry did last night reading the Grammy-nominated Macklemore one-on-one with no false starts, his wife and manager watching and confirming on video from another room with no vague guesses (Brown: "you have lots of hats").
"No false starts?" There were misses. See below. There was also prep time.

Frank McLaughlin said:
I play piano (I'd like to think) exceptionally well. A friend, a musician, came over, sat at my piano and began to noodle around. Noise really--he does not play. My dinner guests got excited. "How long have you been playing?" "You play piano too? Wow." (He's a guitarist).

The fact that some musically challenged friends of mine got fooled by crap noodling does not change the fact that I can play--and he can't. Henry can play; Brown can't. This might not be obvious in the 2 min:40 he spent with each guest before moving on, but it sure would be glaringly obvious during a longer time duration.
This is more relevant than you think, but in exactly the opposite direction you think. You, as a musician, can tell when non-musicians give too much musical credit. By this standard, you must accept that magicians can tell when non-magicians are giving too much credit. You're giving too much credit. In this scenario you are your non-musical friends who have been fooled.

Frank McLaughlin said:
If Darren Brown is setting the bar, I need to re-evaluate Theresa Cupito. What she does is so much better than Brown, maybe she is real after all?
Utter tripe. Pick one thing Caputo does that has comparable constraints and stands up to what Brown does. You can't.


This morning I found another bit of the Macklemore reading which turned out to be about Macklemore's friend Kevin who died from an overdose. It seems convincing at first, but only at first.

Some comments:


  • Macklemore specifically asks for messages from a friend who has passed

  • Henry starts with generalities, leaving plenty of room to maneuver in case the place he wants this to go isn't where Macklemore wants it to go. He talks about a young man with a "monkey on his back" and about being shown an IV except it might not be an IV it might just mean something put in the body but it might not be that it could be just "some sort of a substance."

  • Henry talks about a female presence next to the young man he has been seeing, but only says it is the young man's sister when Macklemore answers the question "Do you know if he had a sister or a girlfriend?" by saying "Sister."

  • Henry makes only two specific statements:
    (1) The man died of an overdose because he tolerance was lower than it had been since he had been sober for a while
    (2) In the months before his overdose someone triggered the overdose by making him think now would be a good time for "him to do this."

    For (1) above, Macklemore calls it a hit at the end because the friend had been sober for 7 days prior to the overdose. I'd call it a decent cold read hit but not a great one, though Macklemore thinks it was exceptional

    For (2) above, it was a complete miss, never confirmed, and entirely contradictory to #1 which indicates it was not intentional and his later specific comments in which the young man wants his sister to know it was not intentional. This isn't just a miss, this is absolutely perfect tactics in that the reading can go either route -- intentional or accidental overdose -- depending on the reaction of the subject, and Macklemore played right into it, completely missing this part and forgetting it was ever said.

  • Then, in response to Henry's question "Does that make some sense" Macklemore tells him about his childhood friend Kevin who fit the reading.

  • Note that it is only after Macklemore says the name "Kevin" that Henry goes into his longest bit about the young man wanting something that he didn't finish to be followed through on "that other people will do in his honor, in his legacy, that they will help create some things....my name's [meaning Kevin's] going to be attached to it even though I'm not physically here."

  • At the end, Macklemore says "I have a song named after him."

    When the reading is done, when Henry isn't there, Macklemore says "All of that was extremely specific. No Googling could have been done to get any of that information whatsoever."


Now let me tell you what I did yesterday before I watched either excerpt of the Macklemore reading. I started with Wikipedia. I used it to Google some people and items listed on the Wikipedia page. I made a list of topics I would try to steer a reading to if I were giving it. Below is the list, but note first that it is incomplete in that I didn't go down rabbit holes too far to find people or businesses (finding his father's business would have been child's play if I actually followed through) and second, if I were actually going to do the reading I would prepare it in much more detail and do much more research:

Just from Wikipedia
  • Heritage (Irish), Bill Haggerty and Julie Schott
  • Gateways for Incarcerated Youth
  • Recovery Fest
  • Dave Niehaus

From searches spawned by the Wikipedia entries
  • Kevin
  • We Day Movement
  • 30/30 Project
  • Half of Us Initiative

Now remember what Macklemore said about this not being able to be Googled, and remember that this reading happened in just the past couple of days:

Note the songs it says Macklemore sang at Recovery Fest last November at this link.

Read the lyrics of the song "Kevin".

Read what was posted by Macklemore online in 2015 and which I found with a quick Google search.

Before I say anything else, what are your in depth thoughts on that, Frank?
 
Last edited:
Yea! well its my experience that the spirit world does exist, and you just don't know anything about it.

Here's the thing, if there is a "Spirit World" then that world has CONSISTENT laws, rules, and operational physics. These all should be observable under a specific set of conditions. If they can be consistently observed they can be proven to exist.

I'm not some slick TV ghost hunter, I have to work with the facts, and state only what I can prove. I had a unique opportunity when the Army closed Fort Ord in that I was handed 1,500 buildings of different shapes, sizes, and functions in which to hunt "spirits". Over 7 years I was able to search over 400 of these buildings at different times of the day, and on multiple days in this time frame. Out of 400 buildings I found 8 that I flagged for extra attention.

So right off the bat only 2% of the buildings had anything weird going on. Of the 8 buildings with "activity" only one came close to being consistent. Over those seven years I was able to identify the causes of the different activities I experienced in 7 of those buildings. The last building I'm forced to set aside due to my lack of objectivity as I was well aware of two high-profile murders that took place inside. This knowledge made impartiality an impossibility, so whatever I experienced is questionable within the context of objective research.

If I want to play by YOUR rules, I'm still left with a 1 in 400 ratio for haunted houses, and that means our TV medium should come up dry over 95% of the time. Spirits just aren't roaming in large numbers the earth like some people think they are.

And no, I don't believe in the other 5% either.
 
Now remember what Macklemore said about this not being able to be Googled
In a clip John Oliver played a guy called Matt Lauer acts amazed when Henry tells him a few facts about his late father when it would much more amazing if Henry didn't know such easily ascertained facts. So either the celebrities are extremely dumb or they are willingly playing along and the people watching and believing are extremely dumb.
 
Last edited:
In a clip John Oliver played a guy called Matt Lauer acts amazed when Henry tells him a few facts about his late father when it would much more amazing if Henry didn't know such easily ascertained facts. So either the celebrities are extremely dumb or they are willingly playing along and the people watching and believing are extremely dumb.
I saw that one. My money mostly on naive, but only on mostly and sometimes with a pinch of wilful naivete.

Years ago I made a friendly challenge to another member of this forum regarding how little he could find out about me without any help beyond what he already knew. I was astounded what he came up with.
 
Has anyone ever deliberately mislead a cold reading into oblivion?

Just understanding how it is done should make it possible to do. I have mislead psychologists into bad conclusions in grade school. I felt a need to hide my motivation for a behavior. Same basic tactics employed by him. Later I learned just not reacting to correct suggestions always lead to others that would make for very confusing conclusions.
Again, I didn't hit full on either but it was enough to throw the entire.
 
Has anyone ever deliberately mislead a cold reading into oblivion?

Just understanding how it is done should make it possible to do. I have mislead psychologists into bad conclusions in grade school. I felt a need to hide my motivation for a behavior. Same basic tactics employed by him. Later I learned just not reacting to correct suggestions always lead to others that would make for very confusing conclusions.
Again, I didn't hit full on either but it was enough to throw the entire.

I've done this in a different context. Part of Aircrew Survival Training is time spent in a POW camp setting. Interrogation of prisoners uses the same sort of cold reading techniques that psychic scammers use. During the initial interrogation I was told that if I did not cooperate, they would put out a story that I had. I reacted to a statement that my kids would be harassed at school when the story that I was cooperating with the enemy came out. The interrogator picked up on that, and it became the theme in subsequent interrogations. I was not married at the time, and have no children, so the pressure was ineffective.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone ever deliberately mislead a cold reading into oblivion?

Just understanding how it is done should make it possible to do. I have mislead psychologists into bad conclusions in grade school. I felt a need to hide my motivation for a behavior. Same basic tactics employed by him. Later I learned just not reacting to correct suggestions always lead to others that would make for very confusing conclusions.
Again, I didn't hit full on either but it was enough to throw the entire.
Yes, there are people who have done so, particularly if you expand it from cold readers to psychometric readers and the like. Personally, I have not misled a reader, but I have on multiple occasions not reacted to their statements. Without fail, the result has been the reader giving up on me.
 
I've done this in a different context. Part of Aircrew Survival Training is time spent in a POW camp setting. Interrogation of prisoners uses the same sort of cold reading techniques that psychic scammers use. During the initial interrogation I was told that if I did not cooperate, they would put out a story that I had. I reacted to a statement that my kids would be harassed at school when the story that I was cooperating with the enemy came out. The interrogator picked up on that, and it became the theme in subsequent interrogations. I was not married at the time, and have no children, so the pressure was ineffective.
Nice usage, though in real world possibly ultimately fatal. My SERE interrogations gave me multiple tactics to practice, but I didn't do this one.
 
[...] I reacted to a statement that my kids would be harassed at school when the story that I was cooperating with the enemy came out. The interrogator picked up on that, and it became the theme in subsequent interrogations. I was not married at the time, and have no children, so the pressure was ineffective.


A wonderful example of this, although in a fictional setting, is Code Name Verity, by Elizabeth Wein.
 
Nice usage, though in real world possibly ultimately fatal. My SERE interrogations gave me multiple tactics to practice, but I didn't do this one.

Yeah, I'm not sure how that would have worked out in the real world. Fortunately I never got the chance to find out, my number of takeoffs and landings came out even.

The original point I was getting around to was that a lot of people other than psychics use cold reading techniques. Interrogators, as mentioned above, also salespeople, teachers, counselors, comedians, and security personnel come to mind. Many of them probably don't even think of what they're doing as cold reading.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure how that would have worked out in the real world. Fortunately I never got the chance to find out, my number of takeoffs and landings came out even.



The original point I was getting around to was that a lot of people other than psychics use cold reading techniques. Interrogators, as mentioned above, also salespeople, teachers, counselors, comedians, and security personnel come to mind. Many of them probably don't even think of what they're doing as cold reading.



In my management career, I have used cold reading. Oftentimes, it will be when someone is having an off day. I’ll start off with something like; “Ok, something is obviously bothering you. Everything OK with the kids?” And bingo, their reactions tell me that indeed, something is going on with the kids.

Cold reading is almost entirely dependent on the reactions of the sitter. The reader only needs to come up with something that generally applies to most people. The more you know a person, the more it becomes hot reading.

If I were a medium, I think the smartest thing for me to do would be to focus on famous people to make my name. Think about it: 1)Their lives are pretty much out there in the forms of interviews, Wikipedia, lyrics, writings, etc. 2)They generally live in relatively isolated bubbles with very few people who will talk straight to them or listen to their real concerns and 3)They tend to be extroverted and a bit over the top so they will be much easier to read.

Tyler puts on a better show than someone like John Edward because he has such excellent cold/hot reading subjects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cold reading isn't a dirty trick in itself. It is a useful tool in most relationships in a lifetime.


But like anything else there are those that will abuse it. I have to agree that unless the person doing it makes a promise that endangers your health or finances drastically there is no crime in a legal sense.

Most times the mark chose to visit the reader so the act is voluntary. All the way to the bank for one of them.

Money is powerful motivation and if I could make a decent living just talking, hell yeah. It beats fixing broken cars.
 
Well....that settles it....Henry must be a fraud...reading D list celebrities!



I see you have a keen eye for this celebrity thing. I'll check with you for a celebrity rating after next week's show.
I am not sure what you are talking about. I didn't say anything about Henry. Did you confuse me with someone else.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
 
You are claiming that Corbett Stern Productions, Michael Corbett and 44 Blue Productions are committing blatant fraud in collusion with E! Entertainment by editing a TV show to provide false and misleading information to 2 million people? Interesting.

If what you are telling me is true, it is curious that not one of these celebrities has stepped forward to object to the interview editing and the final product. Just the opposite, celebrities rave about the quality of the reading if the video is to be believed.

And no one on the TV crew, the background research team, the camera operators, the film editors, the kid holding the mike boom--no one comes forward after four years of this? Maybe. Not likely.

You would agree with me that eventually some celebrity will get pissed about the reading or just decide to be honest and expose what Corbett Productions is doing? It's been four years. I'll wait.
You do know what appears on TV is not reality? Criminal Minds is not a documentary following an actual team of FBI investigators with lovely hair tracking down serial killers.

His programme is promoted as entertainment not a documentary.
 

Back
Top Bottom