Medium to the Stars?

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.

I've never heard of "Criminal Minds." I don't know what it is, so no comment there. Henry's show is decidedly NOT promoted as "entertainment." He represents what he does as real. And no one watching could possibly believe otherwise.

Can't trust TV? Right now, CNBC is representing that a Boeing plane fell out of the sky yesterday because a Boeing engine failed in Ethiopia. Boeing's stock price is down an astonishing 35 points today. If the engine isn't the source of the crash, if CNBC mis-represented the facts when they broke the news yesterday, CNBC employees could make a fortune buying the stock $35 per share below market and selling once it is revealed the plane went down from pilot error, not Boeing's fault.

You are saying I can't trust this because it appears on TV?

How about the Super Bowl? You think it was scripted? That final missed field goal, which should have been made, rendered the 3.5 spread meaningless.
 
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

Perhaps. My initial postings, I was expecting argument, got overwhelmed with attempts at ridicule and "Strawman" nonsense so I started posting too quickly. I've slowed down. I apologize.
 
How about the Super Bowl? You think it was scripted? That final missed field goal, which should have been made, rendered the 3.5 spread meaningless.

More strawman nonsense. You do realize the final score was 13-3, and make or miss that field goal didn't change the winner versus the spread?
 
Henry's show is decidedly NOT promoted as "entertainment."

Except for the part where it airs on a network expressly for that purpose. If I pick up a book from the fiction section of the bookstore,

He represents what he does as real.

Then why all the disclaimers on the web site? The same dlsclaimers as all the other self-proclaimed mediums use?

And no one watching could possibly believe otherwise.

Except, of course, all the people who disagree with you. Again, you're simply begging the question that we should believe the show because it appears to depict a legitimate phenomenon. Elsewhere, the magic show appears to depict a lady legitimately sawn in half.
 
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.

Except Henry and Edwards are not doing cold readings, which is easy enough to see if you just compare their results against someone like Derren Brown, who fakes it as part of his show. He picks an unsophisticated, young unaccomplished audience, and spends 2.5 minutes per person on his reading, getting nothing right with detail. To some extent you have to be gullible just to accept what he's trying to show. He didn't run his ad to solicit at MIT or Wall Street. There is a reason for that.

Here is a NY Times author's transcript of the John Edwards readings he observed. I've got pages and pages of this stuff, this is a sample with more to follow. See if you can explain the following exchanges by cold reading.

Note that Edward isn’t eliciting information from the audience members in these instances like Derren Brown. He’s presenting specific information that is verified only after he says it.

* * *
Edward: Did someone here study with Bob Ross, the TV artist? ... I’m getting Bob Ross. I’m also seeing a picture of a tree, shrunken down. It was big, now it’s small.
Man: My mom took lessons from Bob Ross. One of her paintings was of a tree. It was too big for the album, so I had it reduced.

Edward: Someone in your family went to a farm and drank milk straight from the cow?
Man: That was me. When I was a kid.

Edward: When they marked her skin for the IV, she said it was the closest she’d ever get to having a tattoo?
Man: That’s what she said, exactly.

Edward: And you had to be sort of the “air traffic control” for her passing?
Man: The doc told us that I would be her air traffic controller. That’s the phrase he used.

Edward: Somebody dressed up as a tree?
Man: My dad dressed up as a Christmas tree.

Edward: They’re laughing, sort of teasing you about your leg, your knee.
Woman: I took a hayride, and I fell and twisted my knee a couple of months ago.

Edward: Was there a baby’s toy buried with him [an elderly man]?
Woman: A stuffed bunny. My daughter’s.

Edward: I’m getting the name Maynard.
Man: That’s my girlfriend’s last name. I don’t know how you got that. It’s an unusual name.
 
...got overwhelmed with attempts at ridicule

If you believe you have been personally attacked, please report the posts for moderation. Otherwise don't suggest as much for rhetorical effect.

...and "Strawman" nonsense...

Your arguments rely heavily on straw men. If you don't like your arguments being called out for what they are, change your argument.

...so I started posting too quickly. I've slowed down. I apologize.

Civility is a good thing. Let's see if we can get there. Garrette gave you a detailed, dispassionate analysis of the most recent show. It suggests Tyler Henry is simply using standard cold-reading techniques, which you may not have picked up on in your initial viewings. Would you please address his analysis?
 
I've never heard of "Criminal Minds." I don't know what it is, so no comment there. Henry's show is decidedly NOT promoted as "entertainment." He represents what he does as real. And no one watching could possibly believe otherwise.

If it's on E! it's purely entertainment. The network does intense market research, and they know their viewers well, and since E! is home to the Kardashians it's not a big leap to suggest that their viewers are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

I can't wait for the crossover episodes with the Find Bigfoot guys.

Can't trust TV? Right now, CNBC is representing that a Boeing plane fell out of the sky yesterday because a Boeing engine failed in Ethiopia. Boeing's stock price is down an astonishing 35 points today. If the engine isn't the source of the crash, if CNBC mis-represented the facts when they broke the news yesterday, CNBC employees could make a fortune buying the stock $35 per share below market and selling once it is revealed the plane went down from pilot error, not Boeing's fault.

That's because it's just a news report. Someone reported a possible engine failure, and it was repeated on the broadcast. All CNBC is doing is relating the CURRENT INFORMATION, which is subject to change as more information comes forward, and then that information will then be reported.

It is up to the viewer/consumer of real-time news reporting to keep in mind that accurate information is rarely the first information reported, and the wise thing to do is withholding judgement until all the facts are in, and the investigation is completed...sort of like not believing at face value a "psychic" on the E! network.

How about the Super Bowl? You think it was scripted? That final missed field goal, which should have been made, rendered the 3.5 spread meaningless.

Not helping your case right now.
 
Someone who has never heard of "Criminal Minds," and who didn't know the score of the last Super Bowl, is lecturing us on how American television works.
 
He picks an unsophisticated, young unaccomplished audience...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

To some extent you have to be gullible just to accept what he's trying to show.

As gullible as people who don't realize Tyler Henry's show is pre-recorded and edited?

Here is a NY Times author's transcript of the John Edwards readings he observed.

Okay, you keep going back and forth over whether John Edward is on the table. If he is on the table, will you please provide the citations to the papers you alluded to, from which you claimed his gift had been validated by peer-reviewed science?

I've got pages and pages of this stuff...

I'm sure you do, but we're talking about Tyler Henry. Every time someone brings up something about Henry that you can't seem to answer, out comes John Edward. And no, I don't think you've approached Edward critically. You cited a book to support him by Dr. Schwartz, but we didn't have to press you very hard before you admitted you really didn't know the circumstances and venue of it.

See if you can explain the following exchanges by cold reading.

You claim Henry isn't using hot or cold reading. Yet Garrett has provided an analysis of Henry's Macklemore reading from the point of view of someone who is suitably trained in the technique, and has pointed out how the technique was employed. Before we go off on another John Edward goose chase, why don't you address the on-topic posts.

Perhaps you simply don't know enough about hot and cold readings to be able to dismiss it as a possibility in Henry's case.
 
Last edited:
More strawman nonsense. You do realize the final score was 13-3, and make or miss that field goal didn't change the winner versus the spread?

You can't grasp that the point was that a football game could be scripted or manipulated, and the writer I was replying to was claiming that "I can't trust what I see on TV" as a reason to dismiss Henry? My spread was 8.5, made a week before. Writing quickly I said 3.5, not worried because I figured you for a smart enough guy to get the larger point.

Perhaps football games are scripted. Perhaps CNBC slightly alters stories, to affect Boeing or other stocks prices. There is so much money to be made. That's nonsense. But so is claiming Henry is scripted. Too many people involved for Henry to pull that off.


and had the field goal been madeYou do realize that whether or not
 
Except Henry and Edwards are not doing cold readings, which is easy enough to see if you just compare their results against someone like Derren Brown, who fakes it as part of his show. He picks an unsophisticated, young unaccomplished audience, and spends 2.5 minutes per person on his reading, getting nothing right with detail. To some extent you have to be gullible just to accept what he's trying to show. He didn't run his ad to solicit at MIT or Wall Street. There is a reason for that.

Here is a NY Times author's transcript of the John Edwards readings he observed. I've got pages and pages of this stuff, this is a sample with more to follow. See if you can explain the following exchanges by cold reading.

Note that Edward isn’t eliciting information from the audience members in these instances like Derren Brown. He’s presenting specific information that is verified only after he says it.

* * *
Edward: Did someone here study with Bob Ross, the TV artist? ... I’m getting Bob Ross. I’m also seeing a picture of a tree, shrunken down. It was big, now it’s small.
Man: My mom took lessons from Bob Ross. One of her paintings was of a tree. It was too big for the album, so I had it reduced.

Edward: Someone in your family went to a farm and drank milk straight from the cow?
Man: That was me. When I was a kid.

Edward: When they marked her skin for the IV, she said it was the closest she’d ever get to having a tattoo?
Man: That’s what she said, exactly.

Edward: And you had to be sort of the “air traffic control” for her passing?
Man: The doc told us that I would be her air traffic controller. That’s the phrase he used.

Edward: Somebody dressed up as a tree?
Man: My dad dressed up as a Christmas tree.

Edward: They’re laughing, sort of teasing you about your leg, your knee.
Woman: I took a hayride, and I fell and twisted my knee a couple of months ago.

Edward: Was there a baby’s toy buried with him [an elderly man]?
Woman: A stuffed bunny. My daughter’s.

Edward: I’m getting the name Maynard.
Man: That’s my girlfriend’s last name. I don’t know how you got that. It’s an unusual name.
Did you not read my dissection of the Macklemore reading, or are you simply ignoring it.

You are correct that Henry is not doing a cold reading; it is primarily a hot reading. Edward is the opposite; he is primarily a cold reader.

You specifically mentioned the Macklemore reading. I explained it to you. Address it, please.
 
Someone who has never heard of "Criminal Minds," and who didn't know the score of the last Super Bowl, is lecturing us on how American television works.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can't grasp that the point was that a football game could be scripted or manipulated, and the writer I was replying to was claiming that "I can't trust what I see on TV" as a reason to dismiss Henry? My spread was 8.5, made a week before. Writing quickly I said 3.5, not worried because I figured you for a smart enough guy to get the larger point.
This is a complete fabrication. The spread opened up at 1 point the other way, then went up and down with New England favored by 2 to 3 points.


Forbes
A frenzied rush of New England and sharp money pushed the Pats from an opening one-point underdog to a two-point favorite, which is where the line currently stands.

CBS Sports
On the betting market, the Rams surprisingly opened as one-point favorites on Championship Sunday before sharp money streamed in on the Patriots, making them favorites almost immediately after the opening line was posted. By early last week, the Patriots were up to 2.5-point favorites, where the line has mostly stayed at sportsbooks, though Rams +3 and Patriots -2 has been available in certain spots at times as well.
 
If it's on E! it's purely entertainment. The network does intense market research, and they know their viewers well, and since E! is home to the Kardashians it's not a big leap to suggest that their viewers are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

I can't wait for the crossover episodes with the Find Bigfoot guys.

That's because it's just a news report. Someone reported a possible engine failure, and it was repeated on the broadcast. All CNBC is doing is relating the CURRENT INFORMATION, which is subject to change as more information comes forward, and then that information will then be reported.

It is up to the viewer/consumer of real-time news reporting to keep in mind that accurate information is rarely the first information reported, and the wise thing to do is withholding judgement until all the facts are in, and the investigation is completed...sort of like not believing at face value a "psychic" on the E! network.

Not helping your case right now.

Your discussion is irrelevant to my case. And I think you miss my point.

The point was that you can't decide that "you can't trust what is on TV" as an argument against Henry (who is on TV). Henry's show could be manipulated, but so could the news. He was comparing (I assume) Henry to some FBI drama. My point, and maybe I need to type slower to be more clear, is that there are shows on TV that are trustworthy (CNBC) and some that are fraudulent (Fox News). E! falls in the middle--they don't do aliens or bigfoot--and you can evaluate Henry or Sean Hannity on the merit, not on where it appears. Fox recently ran a story "Hunters Claim Bigfoot Sightings in Utah." They run a ton of UFO stories.

Most of the cable shows that can't get on the major channels run Ghosts, Bigfoot, Aliens, Stichen, Atlantis all the time. Nat Geo channel did a story on flat earth that reached no conclusion, but presented their side. You can watch on YouTube.

The argument that Henry isn't valid because he is on E! doesn't work for me.
 
This is a complete fabrication. The spread opened up at 1 point the other way, then went up and down with New England favored by 2 to 3 points.


Forbes


CBS Sports

Absolutely not. The spread was 8.5 until about five days before the game when it dropped to 8.0. That is true both on Sportsbook.com and the Vegas line as reported in the Wash Post. I got it at 8.5.
 
The point was that you can't decide that "you can't trust what is on TV" as an argument against Henry (who is on TV).

No, your point was that Henry's show had to be unequivocally factual. You've made (and discarded) several lines of reasoning attempting to show it would be legally or morally dangerous to do anything else. You've deployed and then ignored several straw-man comparisons. You seem to be the only person taking television so seriously.

Henry's show could be manipulated, but so could the news.

Apples and oranges. We know magic shows are manipulated, for example. But their producers don't come right out and say so, nor are they legally required to. I don't see mentalism as anything but a branch of magic. It's all just people appearing to do wondrous feats, according to techniques that don't seem difficult to research, comprehend, and practice. And we're entertained by watching. You keep trying to darken that scenario by comparing it to propaganda and fake news.

E! falls in the middle...

You said you don't watch much TV. How can you therefore assure us that this opinion is based on a suitable sample of programming?

...they don't do aliens or bigfoot

Straw man. They do gossip and other fan-related "fluff" surrounding celebrities and the genres of the entertainment industry in which celebrities participate. Their intended audience is people who follow the activities of celebrities. That audience would be reasonably entertained by watching their favorite celebrities interact with a medium.

The argument that Henry isn't valid because he is on E! doesn't work for me.

I deleted most of your other straw-man arguments. I left this one here because you got it wrong. Your contention is that Henry's show can't possibly be intended as entertainment. The argument is that Henry's show is probably intended as entertainment because it's on a network that specializes in entertainment. "Valid" and "intended as entertainment" aren't exactly the same thing.
 
Henry's show is decidedly NOT promoted as "entertainment." He represents what he does as real. And no one watching could possibly believe otherwise.

In order to be "read" by Tyler, you must first agree to the Privacy Policy posted on his website. In part: "The advice, information, services and other content provided on and through this Site, including information that may be provided on the Site and other content provided on any Linked Site, as defined in this Agreement, are provided for informational and entertainment purposes only."

His online/private readings are for entertainment purposes only but his show on the Entertainment channel is not? Jay Utah knows about NDA's and has brought this up numerous times. Do you think the NDA states that Henry actually communicates with the dead and you can sue him if his information is incorrect?
 
You keep offering this opinion, but you don't seem to understand how NDAs work in the entertainment industry. You seem to think they can be laid aside on a whim.

I know how NDAs work because as a consultant with access to a ton of proprietary data I sign them all the time, and I see people violate them all the time, to no consequence. Boy George trashed Henry during the reading, and most especially after the reading was over. It was aired by the production company when they could have dropped it. Presumably George had an NDA. George has not been sued.

An NDA does not affect fraud or whistle-blowing. If you tell me you can heal my cancer. I sign an NDA regarding your secret method with sesame oil, and my cancer does not go away, I can Yelp or call a press conference to my heart's content to say, "this does not work. It is a fraud."

NDA's have a very limited value--ask Donald Trump (or Stormy Daniels). If a celebrity goes public, you think Corbett productions is going to sue that celebrity, and have that fraud on Style section page one for months with all his secrets exposed in court?

Not a chance in a million and everybody knows that. Nobody is going to court, even if Henry is legit, Corbett productions would not do it. Henry or Corbett do not want that publicity.

Corbett productions is not going to provide a celebrity a platform to say "this guy is no good." It would be on national news, AND it would encourage others to come forward. What a mess.

Twenty people at NASA can keep a secret if the Moon landing was fake or if there really was something to Area 51---two hundred people cannot, whether it Henry or NASA. NDA or no. The truth comes out.

My sister saw Theresa Caputo recently and did not have to sign an NDA, and there was no one in the lobby soliciting information. Henry does hundreds of 30 minute to one hour readings of ordinary people who sign nothing.

(for the third time) The point is moot because the celebrities are gushing after the reading, obviously quite happy. If he's a fraud, we should have disgruntled people.
 
Interesting. I am the only person who did exactly what Frank requested in that I watched the video that he himself named (Macklemore) and explained how a magician could do it.

And I am the one he is ignoring.
 

Back
Top Bottom