Medium to the Stars?

[Garrette]

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.

Reference the highlighted part, you prove your ignorance of the topic yet again. As I said before, you are the non-musical people in your audience judging a talentless person as someone gifted. In this arena, you are the layman, and you have been fooled. At this point it is willingly so.

 

[Garrette]

There is no more to the argument than this: You (Frank McLaughlin) posted the Macklemore video as something that could not be done except by a real medium.

I showed how it could be done by showing that even Macklemore himself was wrong about what could be Googled.

Anything you say except in response to that is another admission that you have no case.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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?

I had surgery last year, and as I was being rushed in they had me sign a form that basically said "hey, things go wrong. we're not responsible if after this, you die. You cant' sue us. You know the risk." When I visit an Ayurvedic doctor from India, I sign a similar document claiming he isn't claiming to improve my health--which is ridiculous. That is entirely why I am there. People want to protect against being sued. Especially, a rich, famous guy like Henry who could be setup in a heart beat.

Henry makes it clear every week, and in his book EXACTLY what he is doing, and that his intention is to help people by communicating with people who have passed. It could not be more clear. Do his clients sign something so they can't sue him? I don't know.

Is this what you want to spend your time debating? Whether Henry's clients think he is providing "entertainment."

It would be nuts for Henry as a rich celebrity not to have a protecting document.

Incidentally, my sister saw Theresa Caputo and signed nothing, but she's got the same message. Just spendiing $600 for entertainment. Yeah.

 

[Pixel42]

The best scammers get away with it by making sure their marks never realise they've been scammed. Nobody is going to yell "fraud!" if they don't realise the information Henry is giving them was obtained by cold or hot reading rather than communicating with their dead relatives.

 

[carlitos]

I know how football works, I know how TV works, I know how NDAs work, I know....

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.

Why on earth would you continue to lie about something so easily checked?

Super Bowl LIII opening betting line favors Rams by 1.

Here are dozens of the biggest bets placed in Vegas. Find me one with an 8-point spread.

 

[Garrette]

I had surgery last year, and as I was being rushed in they had me sign a form that basically said "hey, things go wrong. we're not responsible if after this, you die. You cant' sue us. You know the risk." When I visit an Ayurvedic doctor from India, I sign a similar document claiming he isn't claiming to improve my health--which is ridiculous. That is entirely why I am there. People want to protect against being sued. Especially, a rich, famous guy like Henry who could be setup in a heart beat.

Henry makes it clear every week, and in his book EXACTLY what he is doing, and that his intention is to help people by communicating with people who have passed. It could not be more clear. Do his clients sign something so they can't sue him? I don't know.

Is this what you want to spend your time debating? Whether Henry's clients think he is providing "entertainment."

It would be nuts for Henry as a rich celebrity not to have a protecting document.

Incidentally, my sister saw Theresa Caputo and signed nothing, but she's got the same message. Just spendiing $600 for entertainment. Yeah.

Still avoiding discussing how the Macklemore reading was a hot one. As I said, a tacit admission on your part.

As to this specific post, it is a complete strawman. I'll leave it to you to figure out how, though I suspect you already know and simply can't address the real position we are positing.

 

[JayUtah]

His online/private readings are for entertainment purposes only but his show on the Entertainment channel is not?

I pointed this out before, but Frank ignored it. Henry has mostly the same legal boilerplate as all the other professional mediums. He can insinuate whatever he wants for marketing purposes, but the actual agreement that governs what representations have legal force is that one, right there. The thing copiously missing from that list of representations is a legally-enforceable claim that Henry actually talks to your dead relatives. That's essentially precluded by the "meet your expectations" clause. If your expectation is that he will talk to your dead loved ones, and you find out later he did not actually do that, Henry is not liable.

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?

The NDA that the cast and crew execute may not be the same as the guests'. The cast-and-crew NDA will generally forbid you from revealing anything that's not either general knowledge (e.g., how to mount a Red camera on a Manfrotto geared head), or which hasn't yet been released as public information (e.g., does John Snow die in the last season of GoT). Heavily - and legally bulletproofedly -- included in that sort of thing is any sort of innovation, technique, apparatus, method, or process that the production company identifies as a trade secret. With special respect to magic shows, this expressly covers knowledge of any method the magician might use to appear to perform a miracle, even if such a method or technique might deceive the audience. In most cases the magician's assistants know intimately how the trick is done, and they are legally enjoined from revealing it. In the particular case of Tyler Henry, that might include knowledge that he's purposely using a combination of hot and cold readings. It might include innovative and/or proprietary methods of delivering information to him during a reading. It might include knowledge that the show is scripted. In general, if the information is something that might give a show a competitive advantage in the marketplace, those who know it will be enjoined from disclosing it. They may be enjoined also from disparaging it.

It doesn't matter how many people are involved; they are all under NDA. And it doesn't matter how cold your feet are. You cannot simply break an NDA with impunity just because you are morally uncomfortable what what you see. Now if you are asked to keep secret that involves illegal activity, you may break the NDA. No contract is valid that requires you do an illegal thing, and concealing illegal activity that you know about is itself a crime. But of course nothing that Tyler Henry is doing, or any other magician is doing, is per se illegal.

The guests may or may not have a different NDA. It depends on how they are contracted to appear. If they simply appear as would any other client, then their NDA would be a simple boilerplate "don't talk about what happens behind the scenes" language. But if they are contracted as participants in a scripted dialogue, they may be specifically enjoined not to reveal that they were directed or scripted. I don't know if this is the case with Henry, but it's something that exists on other shows, and it's something we have to consider possible in this case.

 

[bytewizard]

Incidentally, my sister saw Theresa Caputo and signed nothing, but she's got the same message. Just spendiing $600 for entertainment. Yeah.

Finally, something we agree on!

 

[JayUtah]

Henry makes it clear every week, and in his book EXACTLY what he is doing, and that his intention is to help people by communicating with people who have passed.

Do you believe everything that every salesman says?

It could not be more clear.

Tyler Henry's actual terms of service could not be more clear. What he says when he's not legally obliged to tell the truth may differ.

Do his clients sign something so they can't sue him? I don't know.

Why don't you know?

Is this what you want to spend your time debating? Whether Henry's clients think he is providing "entertainment."

Yes. I would rather debate the proffered footing of Tyler Henry's show, since that's infinitely more on-topic than how many John Edward quotes you can pull up.

It would be nuts for Henry as a rich celebrity not to have a protecting document.

But the document asks would-be clients to expressly dismiss the claims he might make elsewhere. If people say one thing when there are few if any consequences for exaggeration or deception, and an entirely different thing when those statements become enforceable, what does that tell you?

 

[Garrette]

I pointed this out before, but Frank ignored it. Henry has mostly the same legal boilerplate as all the other professional mediums. He can insinuate whatever he wants for marketing purposes, but the actual agreement that governs what representations have legal force is that one, right there. The thing copiously missing from that list of representations is a legally-enforceable claim that Henry actually talks to your dead relatives. That's essentially precluded by the "meet your expectations" clause. If your expectation is that he will talk to your dead loved ones, and you find out later he did not actually do that, Henry is not liable.



The NDA that the cast and crew execute may not be the same as the guests'. The cast-and-crew NDA will generally forbid you from revealing anything that's not either general knowledge (e.g., how to mount a Red camera on a Manfrotto geared head), or which hasn't yet been released as public information (e.g., does John Snow die in the last season of GoT). Heavily - and legally bulletproofedly -- included in that sort of thing is any sort of innovation, technique, apparatus, method, or process that the production company identifies as a trade secret. With special respect to magic shows, this expressly covers knowledge of any method the magician might use to appear to perform a miracle, even if such a method or technique might deceive the audience. In most cases the magician's assistants know intimately how the trick is done, and they are legally enjoined from revealing it. In the particular case of Tyler Henry, that might include knowledge that he's purposely using a combination of hot and cold readings. It might include innovative and/or proprietary methods of delivering information to him during a reading. It might include knowledge that the show is scripted. In general, if the information is something that might give a show a competitive advantage in the marketplace, those who know it will be enjoined from disclosing it. They may be enjoined also from disparaging it.

It doesn't matter how many people are involved; they are all under NDA. And it doesn't matter how cold your feet are. You cannot simply break an NDA with impunity just because you are morally uncomfortable what what you see. Now if you are asked to keep secret that involves illegal activity, you may break the NDA. No contract is valid that requires you do an illegal thing, and concealing illegal activity that you know about is itself a crime. But of course nothing that Tyler Henry is doing, or any other magician is doing, is per se illegal.
The guests may or may not have a different NDA. It depends on how they are contracted to appear. If they simply appear as would any other client, then their NDA would be a simple boilerplate "don't talk about what happens behind the scenes" language. But if they are contracted as participants in a scripted dialogue, they may be specifically enjoined not to reveal that they were directed or scripted. I don't know if this is the case with Henry, but it's something that exists on other shows, and it's something we have to consider possible in this case.

I suspect the stronger motivations include a desire to keep one's job and to remain employable by other companies if whistle-blowing at the current job results in firing, even if legally contestable. This is compounded by what we are seeing with Frank here and which we see in so many cases. Say that I am some behind-the-scenes crew member on the show and I have no expertise in magic or mediumship but I lean somewhat toward belief in real mediumship simply because of the culture in which I grew up (I think the floor for belief in the US is about 30% while most polls show a majority or near majority of people believing in psychic phenomenon). During my work I might see things that lead me to believe the show is tilted in Henry's favor and not entirely a straight reading, but, hey, the subjects are happy, no one is harmed, and we all know show business requires bending some rules right? So what's to expose?

It needs no cackling conspiracy to remain quiet. It just requires people to be people.

 

[Garrette]

Incidentally, my sister saw Theresa Caputo and signed nothing, but she's got the same message. Just spendiing $600 for entertainment. Yeah.

Finally, something we agree on!

Note that Frank McLaughlin is not only ignoring my proof that the Macklemore reading was not as impressive as he claims; he is also ignoring my challenge to support his claim that Caputo is far better than Derren Brown. I ask again: Show me one reading by Caputo that is (a) better than what Brown has done and (b) not repeatable by a non-medium under the same circumstances.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

There is no more to the argument than this: You (Frank McLaughlin) posted the Macklemore video as something that could not be done except by a real medium.

I showed how it could be done by showing that even Macklemore himself was wrong about what could be Googled.

Anything you say except in response to that is another admission that you have no case.

First, I didn't post a Maclemore video. I recall using his name to establish that Henry doesn't just do D level celebrities. I do not recall making any claim about that specific video (Macklemore). However, I do think what went on between the two of them was valid (ie, not fraudulence), but in this case, it would be very hard to quantify. (I don't have the tape available to check it). There was nothing earth shattering revealed as Mackelmore wanted to focus on his friend, and his friend wanted to talk about the music and the drugs he took, as I remember the show.

I believe Mackemore did contact his friend, certainly that is what and his wife and his brother believe.

>I showed how it could be done by showing that even Macklemore himself was wrong about what could be Googled.

You googled every major statement Mackelmore made and found that information from reading online? Impressive.

Of course, that does not mean that Henry googled the information if you buy the claim he and his production company make that he does not know who he is reading until he shows up at the door. You are accusing Michael Corbett Productions of fraud. Fair enough, thought I'm surprised given their reputation and given your lack of evidence. I can't prove that Henry didn't know.

This has no effect on what I am claiming. Even if there is a reading that bombs, it has no effect on what I am claiming. There could be lots of people who can't connect with their deceased relatives. Maybe the relatives have moved on to the Christian heaven. Maybe they have incarnated back on earth as Hindu's teach. Maybe Henry is just having a bad day.

 

[Elvis666]

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

I'm not involved in this discussion, only lurking, but isn't this going a little far, Frank?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Note that Frank McLaughlin is not only ignoring my proof that the Macklemore reading was not as impressive as he claims; he is also ignoring my challenge to support his claim that Caputo is far better than Derren Brown. I ask again: Show me one reading by Caputo that is (a) better than what Brown has done and (b) not repeatable by a non-medium under the same circumstances.

I don't claim the Caputo Macklemore reading was impressive.

For impressive, I copied instead a small part of transcripts I have on John Edward's readings. He's been around a lot longer than Henry, and he's easier to quantify based on the type of reading he does. Plus, I documented Edwards, I have not done that with Henry. I posted the Edwards stuff earlier today, and you can tell me how it is done.

Really? Caputo can be bad, but Derren Brown was really ridiculous. I mean, common. He assembled a group of young people and spent 2.5 minutes reading three of them in the tape I saw. ("he's giving me a name, but it's not his name. Charles? Thomas?" If it is not his name, how can the subject verify it?"

BTW, Derren was working a crowd of kids HE ASSEMBLED based on, we don't know what. Theresa, as bad as she can sometimes be, works in a public forum where anybody with the $$ can show up.

The Darren reading was really ridiculous so my point was even Theresa is heads and shoulders better than that. Anyway, I've posted a small sample from Edward, as that is what I have. I have lots of Edward exerpts, which I post as I get time.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I'm not involved in this discussion, only lurking, but isn't this going a little far, Frank?

>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.

Don't send me attempted ridicule, and you won't have to deal with my going a little far.

 

[bytewizard]

I'll play along and pretend Henry does communicate with dead. If Henry can really talk to the dead, how about solving some open murder investigations or clearing up missing persons cases?

Henry tells people that their dear departed family members enjoyed making turquoise jewelry or some other mundane thing. Wouldn't it be fantastic to watch Henry/dear departed/ghosts actually name the person that killed them. Something like Henry saying "The coroner said I had a stroke, but guess what! Remember my chef friend Kim? Remember that rare blow fish sushi he served me? He poisoned me!

Now that would be a cold reading.

 

[JayUtah]

However, I do think what went on between the two of them was valid (ie, not fraudulence)...

You keep inflating the language. I gave you a fairly lengthy analysis on what constitutes fraud. You have predictably ignored it.

I believe Mackemore did contact his friend, certainly that is what and his wife and his brother believe.

You're not really addressing the analysis. You're just saying that you persist in your belief despite evidence to the contrary.

You googled every major statement Mackelmore made and found that information from reading online? Impressive.

No, he showed that what a skilled and motivated person can find out about a celebrity using ordinary means exceeds what the celebrity himself thinks possible. This casts doubt on the central premise behind Henry's readings, and all similar readings, which is that we must consider supernatural means if we dismiss natural means of discovery as supposedly impossible.

...if you buy the claim he and his production company make that he does not know who he is reading until he shows up at the door.

I don't.

You are accusing Michael Corbett Productions of fraud.

No, he isn't, and you seem to know less about fraud than you do about the television industry. But you keep frantically trying to shove those words in other people's mouths, apparently to make it seem like they're making a serious allegation. He's done nothing more than accuse television mediums of being typical mentalists, and the show of nothing more than exploiting interest in that.

...thought I'm surprised given their reputation and given your lack of evidence.

He doesn't lack evidence. He showed that it's possible to obtain supposedly hard-to-find information regarding a celebrity using ordinary means. It's reasonable to propose that the production company employed similar means. It's neither an accusation of fraud nor a proposition devoid of evidence.

This has no effect on what I am claiming.

Of course it does. It cuts off at the knees every premise to your argument.

Maybe...
Maybe...
Maybe...

You're full of alternative explanations for hypothetical cases in which Henry fails, but you don't seem willing to accept any alternative explanations for his success. I agree all those are possibilities should Henry fail. Why has it been so hard for you to consider other explanations for his success? Why do you fall all over yourself dismissing them with inflationary straw men and fanciful guesses about how to produce a TV show?

 

[Garrette]

First, I didn't post a Maclemore video.

I never said you did.

I recall using his name to establish that Henry doesn't just do D level celebrities. I do not recall making any claim about that specific video (Macklemore).

You recall poorly. Here is what you said:

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...

....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").

Not just a comment about celebrity types, which is entirely irrelevant, but a statement about comparative quality.

And this is exactly what I said in my first post (or soon after): you're going for whack-a-mole. "Yeah, maybe that one isn't that good, but I didn't say it was the best."

However, I do think what went on between the two of them was valid (ie, not fraudulence),

I know you think that, just like your non-musical friends thought your other friend was musically talented. You are the magical no-talent in this case.

but in this case, it would be very hard to quantify. (I don't have the tape available to check it). There was nothing earth shattering revealed as Mackelmore wanted to focus on his friend, and his friend wanted to talk about the music and the drugs he took, as I remember the show.

I believe Mackemore did contact his friend, certainly that is what and his wife and his brother believe.

Just as your friends believed your other friend was musically talented.

You googled every major statement Mackelmore made and found that information from reading online? Impressive.

It is, actually, given that (1) I did it before I watched the Macklemore video and (2) Macklemore said it couldn't be done.

Of course, that does not mean that Henry googled the information if you buy the claim he and his production company make that he does not know who he is reading until he shows up at the door.

I don't.

You are accusing Michael Corbett Productions of fraud.

I'm not the one having the legal discussion with you, and I won't go down your side track of parsing things that you change definitions on midstream.

Fair enough, thought I'm surprised given their reputation and given your lack of evidence. I can't prove that Henry didn't know.

That's correct; you can't.

Option 1: The laws of physics are not as we know them, and something that has repeatedly failed when tested under laboratory conditions is now suddenly true.

Option 2: Television shows and television star hopefuls are shady in what they are doing and how they present it.

Frank McLaughlin: Option 1, of course.

This has no effect on what I am claiming. Even if there is a reading that bombs, it has no effect on what I am claiming. There could be lots of people who can't connect with their deceased relatives. Maybe the relatives have moved on to the Christian heaven. Maybe they have incarnated back on earth as Hindu's teach. Maybe Henry is just having a bad day.

A further retreat.

Initial claim: Tyler Henry is the real deal when it comes to medium because television shows wouldn't televise it otherwise, I'm expert enough on NDAs to know they wouldn't keep people quiet, Gary Schwartz proved it with John Edward, and Derren Brown isn't as good as Caputo, and lay people misjudging the talent levels of musicians doesn't apply to lay people and mediums.

Revised claim: Tyler Henry is the real deal, but I never said anything serious about Schwartz or Edward, and I won't show you anything about Caputo, and I'll ignore the musician/medium thing, and I'll demonstrate that I'm not so smart about television shows as I thought.

Revised claim: Tyler Henry might be wrong sometimes, but it doesn't prove anything.

 

[carlitos]

---edit--- deleted repeated stuff from Garrette.

I don't claim the Caputo Macklemore reading was impressive.

Not impressive, just "no false starts" and "no fake guesses."

 

[carlitos]

Apologies for piling on. I'm frankly incredulous that this poster is denying what he posted a page ago, and denying facts about the freaking Super Bowl that took place a mere 5 weeks ago.