Medium to the Stars?

You are making a lot of empty statements, none of which have anything to do with what I'm writing. I understand that you think "these people are just parasites." No need to keep writing your opinion. I got that.

And there's no need for you to keep telling us your opinion, we got that. What we're waiting for is some objective evidence to support it. In its absence we are justified in assuming that he's just another con man using the same tricks all the others do.

Claims like the ones this guy makes are trivially easy to test. There are organisations who will not only help him design and conduct such a test but give him a substantial sum of money if he passes it. The ball is in his court.
 
Why not just go for the other major point against mediums. There is no such thing as a soul or spirit. The mind is entirely an emergent property of the brain and when you die you're gone.
 
>>it appears that you cannot read. So what would be the point?

My friend reads the posts to me, and he tells me you have yet to write a single intelligent sentence that conveys information or addresses the points I raise.

My friend also tells me, you are really good at insults, but so far, no substance.
I have addressed the points you raise. All of them are unsubstantiated waffle for which you have no evidence. Tyler is a cheap carnival sideshow using well established tricks. End of story.

ETA: Please learn how to quote properly.
 
I have addressed the points you raise. All of them are unsubstantiated waffle for which you have no evidence. Tyler is a cheap carnival sideshow using well established tricks. End of story.

If that is "end of story," you should move on to those who may have something to say.

You haven't addressed a single issue I've raised, and your posts contain no evidence--just same statements repeated.

It isn't rational to push so strongly to defend something you know nothing about. To ask no questions so you can figure out what exactly is being stated before you have an opinion.

You are interested in Henry as a fraud because if he's not a fraud, your simplified world view collapses. Are you a Christian?
 
Why not just go for the other major point against mediums. There is no such thing as a soul or spirit. The mind is entirely an emergent property of the brain and when you die you're gone.

An intelligent argument for sure, and outside the frame of a Henry forum. The arguments against atheism can't be proven. I can't give you my experience, and of course you can't prove a negative.

I'll give a very short response (which runs the risk of taking us way off topic).

#1: There is an astonishing number of accomplished and saintly people from many different cultures over thousands of years who have had inner experiences that contradict what you claim. Everything from "Man and his Becoming" according to Vedanta to the writings of Saint John of the Cross to the Bhagavad Gita to Plato's cave analogy (Chapter 7 of the Republic) to the Tibetan Book of the Dead to the testimony of many thousands of ordinary people. It begs credulity to suggest that all these people are just making up the same story, for what purpose?

#2: is more complicated, but it can be represented by those who leave their bodies during surgery or near death. I've had that experience, and I had the presence of mind to document what I was experiencing--removing doubt. I got the idea to document because I was reading Sagan's "Brocas Brain" at the time. He made the suggestion on how to do it, which I followed more than once.

Anyway, thanks for an intelligent comment. One I disagree with, but appreciate. I thought this whole forum would be interesting points of view--instead I've got 5th grade bomb throwers who ask no questions.
 
If that is "end of story," you should move on to those who may have something to say.
Nope. I am content to remain so that your wild claims do not go unpunished by facts.

You haven't addressed a single issue I've raised, and your posts contain no evidence--just same statements repeated.
You have not raised any issues. Also, if you make the affirmative claim then you have the burden of proof. Nobody else does just you.

It isn't rational to push so strongly to defend something you know nothing about.
I have only one claim to defend. My claim is that I do not believe you unless and until you present some kind of evidence.

What, you may ask, is my evidence for that claim? Simple. I don't believe you.
Amusingly, you further claim that I know nothing about "it". Well, I have done cold, lukewarm, warm and hot readings with remarkable success. I packed that in because too many credules thought it was real, and that made me very uncomfortable. Some, like Blaine, trade on that. Seems too close to abuse for me.

To ask no questions so you can figure out what exactly is being stated before you have an opinion.
Lots of questions have been asked of you and you refuse to answer any of them. What would be the point of asking more? To get more non-answers?

You are interested in Henry as a fraud because if he's not a fraud, your simplified world view collapses. Are you a Christian?
And that is where the cheese slides off your particular cracker. If Henry were to be proven valid my world view would not collapse at all. My response would be "Hmmm, that's interesting. Let's investigate".

And no I am not a christian, I lost any faith I had in a magic sky fairy around the same time I found out that Santa Claus was not real.
 
#1: There is an astonishing number of accomplished and saintly people from many different cultures over thousands of years who have had inner experiences that contradict what you claim.
If those experiences can be explained without postulating the existence of the soul or spirit they do not contradict the claim. I know of none that can't. If you do, please tell us more.

#2: is more complicated, but it can be represented by those who leave their bodies during surgery or near death. I've had that experience, and I had the presence of mind to document what I was experiencing--removing doubt.
You have piqued my curiosity, as all the attempts to document NDEs I'm aware have failed. Again, please tell us more.

I thought this whole forum would be interesting points of view--instead I've got 5th grade bomb throwers who ask no questions.
We're asking the only question worth asking until and unless it is answered satisfactorily, which is "where is the objective evidence?".
 
Last edited:
And there's no need for you to keep telling us your opinion, we got that.

Except I have not told you anything about my opinion. I don't recall a single person asking. What do I think of Henry? You have no clue, right? You don't have even the most basic information from me. It is ridiculous watching people here arguing based on what Randi taught them to say without any understanding of what they are arguing against.

What we're waiting for is some objective evidence to support it. Claims like the ones this guy makes are trivially easy to test.

So what is stopping you? Go obtain that evidence if it is so easy for you. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to produce some evidence Henry uses hot or cold readings.

If appearing weekly on camera in front of a national audience and a crew of 80 with family members in front of a monitor in the next room, and the testimony of those getting the reading, if that isn't enough evidence for you to take action, I don't know what is.

In its absence we are justified in assuming that he's just another con man using the same tricks all the others do.

What others? You know of "another con man?" I'm not aware. You aren't justified in making any assumptions so far. You are making statements for which I see no evidence.
 
#2: is more complicated, but it can be represented by those who leave their bodies during surgery or near death. I've had that experience, and I had the presence of mind to document what I was experiencing--removing doubt. I got the idea to document because I was reading Sagan's "Brocas Brain" at the time. He made the suggestion on how to do it, which I followed more than once.

Oh hello. I have had the whole NDE/OOBE experience while under the knife. Would you like to compare notes? Because I am certain that will give interesting results.
 
Except I have not told you anything about my opinion. I don't recall a single person asking. What do I think of Henry? You have no clue, right?
I think I've got a pretty good idea from what you have posted so far. If your further posts suggest I'm wrong I will, of course, adjust that idea as required.

So what is stopping you? Go obtain that evidence if it is so easy for you. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to produce some evidence Henry uses hot or cold readings.
Numerous such tests of supposed psychics have been done. None were able to do any better than chance when all confounding factors (deliberate and inadvertent) were carefully and methodically eliminated. The only thing stopping such testing being done of this particular psychic is his failure to submit to it. Until he does, the default assumption (that he's using the same tricks and/or relying (knowingly or inadvertently) on the same cognitive biases) stands.

If appearing weekly on camera in front of a national audience and a crew of 80 with family members in front of a monitor in the next room, and the testimony of those getting the reading, if that isn't enough evidence for you to take action, I don't know what is.
Then I'll tell you: a controlled test under proper observing conditions.

What others? You know of "another con man?" I'm not aware. You aren't justified in making any assumptions so far. You are making statements for which I see no evidence.
Then I suggest you educate yourself about, for example, the JREF million dollar challenge. You're in the right place to do that.
 
If those experiences can be explained without postulating the existence of the soul or spirit they do not contradict the claim. I know of none that can't. If you do, please tell us more.

We're asking the only question worth asking until and unless it is answered satisfactorily, which is "where is the objective evidence?".

Nice try to establish a debate with rules that follow what you want to believe.

If a thousand people tell you they've been to London and they describe it the same way, there is a good chance London exists. And if you want to establish that it doesn't exist, a long shot--you need to go there. You've watched how many Henry shows? Which ones can we examine together. First, we'll watch several cold readers ply their trade, then we'll watch Henry on the TV shows from which you base your opinion. (Which shows were those you watched, again?)

Yes, where is the objective evidence for hot or cold readings or how Henry is able to fool so many? Should be easy you say.

I don't know how you would document an NDE unless the person happened to be hooked to an EEG. There have been some studies linking certain EEG sites to higher states of consciousness. But most of these experiences aren't NDE. Mine were not.

Because you have not been to London, does not mean London does not exist.
 
The likelihood is that the crew, at least some of them, know exactly what is going on. I’m sure they’ve signed NDAs, which is standard in the industry.

As far as cold and hot reading, this is indeed a skill that can be developed and some people also have a natural talent for it. I’ve used it myself when messing around with Tarot cards and runes. It’s not that hard to freak someone out with information “there’s no way you could have known!” There are ways to know and then there are very lucky intuitive guesses.

But the most important thing I’ve learned is that it isn’t so much the accuracy of the information you give someone (sure, it helps), it’s the connection you establish with them and the extent that you are able to convey that you are telling them something meaningful and profound about themselves. You don’t do that through the reading itself -not completely- but more by everything that comes before.

Tyler Henry is an excellent illustration of these principles in action. And I have no problem admitting he’s pretty good at it. But he is not talking to dead people.
 
You've watched how many Henry shows? Which ones can we examine together. First, we'll watch several cold readers ply their trade, then we'll watch Henry on the TV shows from which you base your opinion. (Which shows were those you watched, again?)
Highly edited TV shows as evidence? Bwahahahahaha!! Do you think "reality" TV shows reflect reality?

There have been some studies linking certain EEG sites to higher states of consciousness.
Firstly, what is "higher consciousness?" Secondly, link to those studies please.
 
Last edited:
I think I've got a pretty good idea from what you have posted so far. If your further posts suggest I'm wrong I will, of course, adjust that idea as required.


Numerous such tests of supposed psychics have been done. None were able to do any better than chance when all confounding factors (deliberate and inadvertent) were carefully and methodically eliminated. The only thing stopping such testing being done of this particular psychic is his failure to submit to it. Until he does, the default assumption (that he's using the same tricks and/or relying (knowingly or inadvertently) on the same cognitive biases) stands.


Then I'll tell you: a controlled test under proper observing conditions.

Then I suggest you educate yourself about, for example, the JREF million dollar challenge. You're in the right place to do that.

Henry would have to be insanely foolish to submit to Randi's little marking ploy in which he would take people clearly intellectually and emotionally challenged and put them through a "test."

The scientific community ridiculed Aljvarez, Wegener for years. They are now doing it to Loeb, based on what should have been obvious science. Examine the quotes from the 1970's ridiculing those who thought people were in America thousands of years pre-Clovis, and you think Henry would have a chance trying to establish inner experiences with a team of Randi nuts? All the scientific community needed to do was dig deeper, deeper than Clovis, and they got it wrong.

If you think Henry is a fraud, produce some evidence. Don't write to me about con men unless you have evidence such con men exist.
 
If appearing weekly on camera in front of a national audience and a crew of 80 with family members in front of a monitor in the next room, and the testimony of those getting the reading, if that isn't enough evidence for you to take action, I don't know what is.


You're talking about a television show here. It provides no more reason to take action than an episode of Gilligan's Island motivates anyone to jump into a search plane and try to rescue those poor stranded people.

Here's the real occult secret of the show: it's not even trying to prove the existence of afterlife spirits or promote some particular belief system. The crew of 80 doesn't care. What it's trying to do is get you to watch twenty minutes of commercials over a one hour period, many times over. Those commercials, in turn, are trying to persuade you to buy things you don't need. When you do that, the companies in the commercials and the cable company and the channel and the crew of 80 people and the pretty face hired to perform the lead role and his agent all make money.

You're not a seeker of truth, you're a fan of a television show. Nothing wrong with that. Some people watch Star Trek and then go off and dress up like Klingons with their fellow fans. Good for them. You've chosen to watch a show about the lives of celebrities (that uses a medium as its gimmick) and then go off to a skeptics message board and enthuse about how it shows life after death is really real, prove it isn't! Good for you. But you're unlikely to find many fellow fans here.
 
Nice try to establish a debate with rules that follow what you want to believe.
The rules (which are called the scientific method) were established specifically to find out what is actually true, regardless of what we want to believe. We know from bitter experience that if we don't use them we can convince ourselves of all sorts of things which aren't true.

Yes, where is the objective evidence for hot or cold readings or how Henry is able to fool so many? Should be easy you say.
Once again: the default assumption (aka the null hypothesis) is that the explanation which has been shown to be correct in every previous case where a supposed psychic has been tested using the scientific method is also the most likely explanation of this one. It would be trivially easy for Tyler Henry to demonstrate otherwise, all he has to do is submit to that testing. Until or unless he does, the null hypothesis stands.

Because you have not been to London, does not mean London does not exist.
There is objective evidence for the existence of London. There is no objective evidence for the existence of any genuine psychic.
 

Mark Edward - All Psychics Are Frauds.

If you don't do YT videos.
Don’t mistake Mark Edward for John Edward. The two men, who are not related, are both professional mediums, men who charge money for their supposed skill at transmitting messages from the dead. But whereas John Edward had a nationally syndicated television show and still plays to large crowds in Las Vegas and across the country, Mark Edward’s biggest gigs were a baby shower at Eddie Murphy’s house and Buddy Hackett’s 70th birthday party.

But what Mark Edward Wilson (he doesn’t use his last name) lacks in professional success, he is trying to make up for in intellectual respectability. In his messy yet fascinating new book, “Psychic Blues: Confessions of a Conflicted Medium” (Feral House), Mr. Edward, 61, comes clean about the tricks that he has used to dupe people since he began working the Los Angeles magic scene in the 1970s. His book is a strange mishmash of self-pity, self-justification and genuine repentance — and a compelling look at the disputed territory where entertainment meets religion, where some practitioners actually think they can practice both at the same time.

There are no new secrets revealed in “Psychic Blues.” Mr. Edward explains techniques to mimic mind-reading and speaking with the dead that have been explained many times before. For example, he describes the old-fashioned preshow screening: work the room before the show, meet a man who says his father’s name was Louis, and then, during the performance, find him in the audience and say right to him, “The name that comes to my mind is Lou. Who is Lou?” Often as not, the mark will forget that he had divulged this information before the show, and will play right into the medium’s hands.
 
Henry would have to be insanely foolish to submit to Randi's . . .

Yes, he would've been because he probably couldn't even agree to a properly controlled protocol, much less pass a controlled test of such a protocol.

But there are a number of such challenges out there and you can bet Henry won't submit his (snicker) powers to those, either.
 

Back
Top Bottom