Medium to the Stars?

[arthwollipot]

Or we are talking a serious show that you claim is entertainment.

Entertainment and serious are not mutually exclusive. There are many serious shows that are nonetheless entertaining.

I think the defining criterion you should consider is this: If it's on TV, it's entertainment.

 

[JayUtah]

The guy is reading perhaps 25 people a week--most of whom are not signing NDA's

But they are agreeing to the terms of service, which clearly label his service as entertainment. No cause of action there. Do you think the celebrity guests are under a different terms of service? If so, what evidence makes you think that?

Plus, this is just another straw man. You told us someone from the production -- who are under NDAs -- would spill the beans. There is, of course, the scenario in which the production crew goes to great lengths to make sure the celebrity guest is suitably fooled.

...the information comes out regardless.

Presumes that anyone associated with the production is as morally outraged as you are. Do magician's assistants freak out when they realize they are not actually being sawn in half?

I can disclose improper information gathering at my firm...

Probably not unless it's illegal. Again, the legal definition of things applies when it involves release from a contract. You don't get to break an NDA just because your personal moral beliefs are offended.

...or my opinion of their business practices...

Only if you don't actually disclose what they are. If you say "I'm outraged by my company's business practices," you are legally okay, except that more and more companies are also requiring non-disparagement clauses. I don't tend to agree with that, but here we are. If you say, "My company does X, and I'm outraged by that," and X is not illegal, you may very well run afoul of a non-disclosure agreement.

An NDA isn't stopping anyone, and that's assuming the celebrities sign. That hasn't been established.

I asked you several times what your experience was in the field of film and television production. Since you didn't answer, I can reasonably assume that you didn't in order to avoid the dilemma between having to give a truthful answer that undermines your argument, and telling a lie that you rightly feared might be exposed. Hence the reasonable conclusion -- borne out by considerable evidence in this thread -- is that you don't have the faintest clue what happens on a television set.

No one sets foot on a television set without signing some form of NDA.

I have no idea there is a separate definition of fraud, and you say I "retreat" because I use a word as defined in a dictionary. Really, the level you go to to try and score a point.

The dictionary definition of fraud is not the legal definition. And the legal definition of fraud is the only one that matters in the context of determining the applicability of an NDA. As I pointed out, I gave a fairly thorough analysis of the legal aspects of fraud as they would apply to a mentalist's show. You didn't seem to have much to say about that, so I can assume you really don't care about the legal particulars. In any case, if you believe the dictionary definitions have legal effect, you're in for a rude awakening.

Once again you isolate and mis-state my arguments. First no one pays attention to an NDA if you are exposing something...

The NDA is intended precisely to prevent you from exposing whatever it says not to disclose. That's exactly what the D in NDA means.

...happens all the time

Cite a documented example.

Henry's company isn't going to take anyone to court over an NDA because to do so would ruin Henry whether he is real or fake...

Enforcing an NDA is precisely intended to recover damages that arise from a secret being exposed. If someone goes public with what he has learned under NDA, and the other party suffers substantial damage because of it, they may sue for breach of NDA and recover suitable damage. The NDA creates a liability in exactly the situation you envision.

Third, the people who have readings are gushing afterword so the NDA is meaningless.

What about the ones who don't gush, and who are prevented by an NDA from disparagement? And you never see them?

Fourth, it is easy enough to leak information anonymously.

But not with effective credibility. If someone is not willing to associate his identity with the report, so as to authenticate the information, then Henry and his show can simply dismiss it as sour-grapes criticism and continue on as usual. As we have seen, the true believers won't care.

Further, it is not as easy as you think to leak confidential information. There are techniques, which I will not disclose, that allow me to trace the source of leaks in my company to the person who most likely leaked it. Those techniques are fully in place also in the entertainment industry.

Fifth, an NDA keeps you from disclosing trade secrets, not your displeasure with the reading or your revelation that he did something inappropriate without your permission.

A non-disclosure agreement prevents you from disclosing whatever you agreed not to disclose, and may also include non-disparagement agreements. Celebrities generally appear for a fee. That fee is consideration for binding the celebrity to conform to desired behavior. You are mind-bogglingly naive about how these things work.

I think it is evident in Henry's manner, behavior and effect on other people that he is not engaged in fraud. Whether he is effective, we can debate. That he is sincere, and well-intentioned of that there is no doubt. I believe it to be self-evident.

Begging the question, as usual. Not all fraudsters are the mustache-twirling straw men you demand.

 

[JayUtah]

Stormy Daniels signed an NDA.

Stormy Daniels signed an NDA that required her to conceal knowledge of an illegal campaign finance violation. It was tried in court and rightly dismissed. She did not simply ignore the agreement; she had it annulled. And that is not a typical NDA and therefore a straw man. Ordinary NDAs are eminently enforceable.

Boy George was dissatisfied with his reading.

Dissatisfaction is not the same as fraud.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I am actually a very knowledgeable magician and mentalist, and I do not exaggerate when I say that my library of books and effects exceeds that of many professionals I know. I've also said that since I am both a poor performer myself and since I do not do this as a profession, I will never know enough to actually be considered expert. Were I in academia I'd say I had my PhD but had done no original research or publications.

I say that to sound less pretentious when I say the following, which I remind myself of when I am fooled by magicians and when someone asks me how something was done:

Don't ask how the magician did X. Ask how the magician appeared to do X.

I have stood in front of Doug Henning, Ricky Jay and that guy with the impossibly good magic show in Lahania, and I've had my mind blown by magic. I understand the difference, and I understand--say what you want, say Henry is a fraud--Henry is certainly no magician, and he certainly isn't doing a cold reading. That's obvious from the videos.

You don't find expert magicians at age 17 when Henry started or even at age 20. It takes years to master the craft.

If you are ever in Lahania, check out Warren and Annebelle's. I told Warren he was almost as good as Ricky Jay, and he went crazy, because he was much better. He then performed two tricks in front of me that were absolutely astonishing. I actually experienced shock. I said, "Okay, you are better than Ricky Jay."

The universe is filled with people who have special abilities, can do things others can't--not in defiance of the laws of physics, but using laws we don't know. How did the Egyptians move two 1000 ton stones, the Colossi of Memnon, 420 miles overland, people who did not have the wheel? Two pieces, each 60 feet tall. There is no American crane that can lift 1000 tons or even close. You certainly could not use ropes.

 

[JayUtah]

It takes years to master the craft.

You seem so willing to make authoritative declarations about things you don't know anything about.

The universe is filled with people who have special abilities, can do things others can't.

Yet you can't seem to extend this to people who might have mastered the well-known reading techniques at an uncommonly early age.

The rest of your straw men are disregarded.

 

[arthwollipot]

How did the Egyptians move two 1000 ton stones, the Colossi of Memnon, 420 miles overland, people who did not have the wheel? Two pieces, each 60 feet tall. There is no American crane that can lift 1000 tons or even close. You certainly could not use ropes.

Wet sand.

 

[Pixel42]

Here are the hits Derren Brown got in the first of the three short readings he did in the demonstration of cold reading which Frank McLaughlin has described as "comically bad":

The deceased is a young man to whom the subject was very close
He died on their anniversary
They parted before he passed on
He was reserved but good natured with a dimply face
He had issues with her ex-husband Charles
She's lonely and has a silly pet

The subject was extremely impressed, remarking that Brown knew specific things he couldn't have known about the one who passed away.

The other two subjects were equally impressed with their readings. All three would have gone away without complaint, let alone making accusations of fraud, if Brown had kept up his pretense of being a genuine medium.

Note these were ordinary New Yorkers who had responded to an ad offering readings. They were not celebrities, and Brown had no team of researchers digging into their past before he met them, so this was pure cold reading.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There is no American crane that can lift 1000 tons or even close. You certainly could not use ropes.

How disappointing for you, I used to work for a crane company in the UK and nearly two decades ago we had several 'thousand tonners'. The largest crane in the UK at the moment is the SGC 250 with a maximum capacity of 3,000 tonnes.

 

[Pixel42]

Of all the ways people manage to convince themselves of nonsense the "I can't explain this therefore nobody can" reasoning is the most ignorant and the most arrogant. "I can't explain how the pyramids were built therefore it must have been a civilisation greater than ours". "I can't explain what I saw in the sky therefore it must have been an alien spaceship". I can't explain how a medium gave a convincing reading therefore he must have been talking to the dead". The idea that there might be plenty of people who know more than they do and can explain all these things without resorting to woo is angrily rejected when suggested. Truly this is the age of the know nothing know it all, when the wilfully ignorant expect their uninformed opinions to be given the same consideration as those of experts who have spent decades studying their subjects.

 

[Garrette]

I have stood in front of Doug Henning, Ricky Jay and that guy with the impossibly good magic show in Lahania, and I've had my mind blown by magic.

Wonderful. How do you differentiate your reaction from the non-musicians who had their mind blown by your minimally talented friend? Is it simply that you are special and cannot possibly be taken in by a fraudster?

I understand the difference,

The difference between what? You responded to my post in which the only possible thing you refer to is the question to ask when trying to determine magical methods. Perhaps you mean the difference between the seemingly supernatural and the actually supernatural. If you understand that difference then I ask again how you do it. So far, as with every person of your ilk who comes here to educate us, it has boiled down to the fact that you can't figure it out therefore it's real. But even that's not true because that's only how it starts. It morphs, without being acknowledged as having done so, into ignoring the explanations so you can insist it's real anyway and not have to admit you were fooled.

and I understand--say what you want, say Henry is a fraud--Henry is certainly no magician,

In the strictest sense you are correct; he is a mentalist in the professional parlance. I was using the more common term even though incorrect. I'm happy to change it. What he also certainly is not is a medium, if the intent is to indicate he actually communicates with the dead.

and he certainly isn't doing a cold reading. That's obvious from the videos.

He is doing both hot and cold reading which I demonstrated and which you refuse to address. The refusal is its own admission that you have no case.

You don't find expert magicians at age 17 when Henry started or even at age 20. It takes years to master the craft.

First, Henry isn't an expert. He's a confident charlatan who has adopted the same methods as others and employed them at a just-good-enough level because that's all it takes. Again, you proved the point with your musical anecdote.

Second, what a ridiculous claim, disproven by your own examples. When did Ricky Jay become the youngest magician on television? How old was Colin Keys when he nearly won America's Got Talent? (For the record, Ricky Jay was not expert when he first appeared on television, but he was good enough to fool savvy adults. And Colin Keys is no expert, either, but he is better in his field than Henry is in his).

Third, you have demonstrated that you lack the qualifications to determine someone's expertise in either magic or mentalism.

Fourth, there is a difference between being an expert in a profession and being successful on television.

If you are ever in Lahania, check out Warren and Annebelle's. I told Warren he was almost as good as Ricky Jay, and he went crazy, because he was much better. He then performed two tricks in front of me that were absolutely astonishing. I actually experienced shock. I said, "Okay, you are better than Ricky Jay."

Again, you do not have the qualifications to make that judgment, regardless that you have "stood in front of" Ricky Jay. Would you like the list of great magicians in front of whom I have stood? Shaken hands? Spoken with? Asked advice from? It doesn't qualify me to say Lance Burton has better skills than David Copperfield, regardless how large my ego is.

The universe is filled with people who have special abilities, can do things others can't--not in defiance of the laws of physics, but using laws we don't know.

The earth is filled with people, not the universe.

How did the Egyptians move two 1000 ton stones, the Colossi of Memnon, 420 miles overland, people who did not have the wheel? Two pieces, each 60 feet tall. There is no American crane that can lift 1000 tons or even close. You certainly could not use ropes.

All of which is entirely irrelevant and is the last refuge of the defeated argument: "You can't explain X therefore Y is supernatural!" Never mind that we can actually explain X.

I know nothing of Memnon and will not follow you down that rabbit hole, but my father -- while never a crane operator himself -- has quite a bit of experience working with them, so I'll add to what has already been said in disproving your claim. These cranes are in Texas. The larger one can lift 3,500 tons at max capacity. Not that cranes would be needed for moving any large item in ancient times. I don't know about Memnon, but I know enough of the pyramids to know how such things can be done.


I may be done with this thread, though I won't promise. The topic interests me, and I'm a sucker for chiming in when bored, but I will say that I know that the only things left to learn here will be from people who are not you.

Despite how high a regard in which you hold your own abilities, you have demonstrated the very pedestrian nature and limitations of nearly every supernatural supporter I have met here and in real life. You refuse to get specific; you demand of others what you will not do yourself; you expect us to make your case for you; you claim an expertise that you demonstrably do not possess; you refuse to acknowledge any error; and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in your argument that is remotely new or convincing.

 

[Garrette]

Forgot to add: Warren may well be better than Ricky Jay, I don't know. I doubt it, but it's possible. Ricky himself will admit to knowing people better than he is, and the two most prominent are amateurs who have never performed for money in their lives. But I doubt it for at least a couple of reasons. First, your incredible lack of qualifications to make the judgment. Two, despite it being possible, it's highly unlikely.

 

[Garrette]

Of all the ways people manage to convince themselves of nonsense the "I can't explain this therefore nobody can" reasoning is the most ignorant and the most arrogant. "I can't explain how the pyramids were built therefore it must have been a civilisation greater than ours". "I can't explain what I saw in the sky therefore it must have been an alien spaceship". I can't explain how a medium gave a convincing reading therefore he must have been talking to the dead". The idea that there might be plenty of people who know more than they do and can explain all these things without resorting to woo is angrily rejected when suggested. Truly this is the age of the know nothing know it all, when the wilfully ignorant expect their uninformed opinions to be given the same consideration as those of experts who have spent decades studying their subjects.

Exactly. I would emphasize the willfully ignorant part because, as we have seen with Frank here, they actually can explain it; they are given explanations and dismiss them rather than admit they might have been fooled. I would also add the arrogance of claiming an inability to be fooled. I can't remember his name now, but there is one famous paranormal proponent (not practitioner) who said outright what many people here have implied: "I know all about confirmation bias and cold readings and the like, therefore they can't fool me, and I don't have to control for them." That's a paraphrase, of course, but it's the position held.

 

[Darat]

Frank McLaughlin - can you explain using one of the clips what you find so compelling?

 

[Garrette]

Frank McLaughlin - can you explain using one of the clips what you find so compelling?

Good luck. Perhaps he will respond to this request from you when he has refused to do so from others, especially me. He sort of hung his hat on the Macklemore video but backed away -- as I predicted -- when shown it wasn't as impressive as he thought. Now he says it doesn't hang on just one video but on the totality. Of course, he won't explain anything about that, either.

 

[kali1137]

Of all the ways people manage to convince themselves of nonsense the "I can't explain this therefore nobody can" reasoning is the most ignorant and the most arrogant. "I can't explain how the pyramids were built therefore it must have been a civilisation greater than ours". "I can't explain what I saw in the sky therefore it must have been an alien spaceship". I can't explain how a medium gave a convincing reading therefore he must have been talking to the dead". The idea that there might be plenty of people who know more than they do and can explain all these things without resorting to woo is angrily rejected when suggested. Truly this is the age of the know nothing know it all, when the wilfully ignorant expect their uninformed opinions to be given the same consideration as those of experts who have spent decades studying their subjects.

Exactly this! I dropped out of active participation because there is no reason to give logical explanations to someone who will refuse to accept any of them. Already professed belief in reincarnation, heaven, ect… there are simply too many woo hurdles to overcome for one thread. However, I do want thank all of you who still have the patience to try because I am learning a lot.

 

[JayUtah]

Not that cranes would be needed for moving any large item in ancient times. I don't know about Memnon, but I know enough of the pyramids to know how such things can be done.

Frank's straw man suggests that the Egyptians would have contemplated moving and placing a thousand-ton object as a lift. And he suggests that a similar operation also would be contemplated as an overhead lift. The no-crane argument is a red herring. NASA's crawler-transporter can move 8,000 tons, and -- with the aid of a ramp and some impressive hydraulics -- lift its load to the top of the elevated pads at Launch Complex 39.

And this typifies all his dismissals of alternate explanations: "It can't have been done this one particular common way, therefore it must be supernatural."

And it's valid to say that the Egyptians didn't have hydraulics or Diesel-electric motors either. But the point is not the progression of harnessing power over time. The point is the qualitative shift of genres of machinery. Okay, so the method of heavy overhead lifts was not available to the Egyptians. What was? Balance-beams? Ramps? Blocks and tackle? Sheesh, I've moved 500-lb pianos by myself using what amounts to a couple of roller skates.

 

[Garrette]

---snip---

If you are ever in Lahania, check out Warren and Annebelle's. I told Warren he was almost as good as Ricky Jay, and he went crazy, because he was much better. He then performed two tricks in front of me that were absolutely astonishing. I actually experienced shock. I said, "Okay, you are better than Ricky Jay."
---snip---

While it is only germane in a sub-specialty sort of sense, I feel a need to add this to my earlier comments on why I do not accept your judgment that Warren is better than Ricky Jay, aside from the facts that you aren't qualified to make such a judgment and you saw each once.

You haven't defined "better." Lest you think I'm nitpicking, I suggest you do a bit of research on what Ricky Jay would consider better and then also ask Warren what he considers better. I've repeatedly said I'm not a good magician or mentalist, and I'm not, but I'm a lot better than some magicians I know who make money at it, even some of them whose technical skill is far beyond what mine will ever be.

Is David Blaine better than Jeff McBride? From a technical standpoint, especially with cards, Blaine isn't even in the same league as McBride but Blaine brings the sort of wonder that Ricky Jay admired. If Tyler Henry has a skill it is the same skill that Blaine has but which Henry uses to exploit his subjects: he knows how to tap into their feelings.

 

[Garrette]

Frank's straw man suggests that the Egyptians would have contemplated moving and placing a thousand-ton object as a lift. And he suggests that a similar operation also would be contemplated as an overhead lift. The no-crane argument is a red herring. NASA's crawler-transporter can move 8,000 tons, and -- with the aid of a ramp and some impressive hydraulics -- lift its load to the top of the elevated pads at Launch Complex 39.

And this typifies all his dismissals of alternate explanations: "It can't have been done this one particular common way, therefore it must be supernatural."

And it's valid to say that the Egyptians didn't have hydraulics or Diesel-electric motors either. But the point is not the progression of harnessing power over time. The point is the qualitative shift of genres of machinery. Okay, so the method of heavy overhead lifts was not available to the Egyptians. What was? Balance-beams? Ramps? Blocks and tackle? Sheesh, I've moved 500-lb pianos by myself using what amounts to a couple of roller skates.

But you got the roller skates from aliens, right?

 

[carlitos]

Exactly this! I dropped out of active participation because there is no reason to give logical explanations to someone who will refuse to accept any of them. Already professed belief in reincarnation, heaven, etc… there are simply too many woo hurdles to overcome for one thread. However, I do want thank all of you who still have the patience to try because I am learning a lot.

Same. Plus he's a proven liar about the Super Bowl, of all the weird random things. The inability to admit even one simple error means that there is likely no hope here.

I so resent people that have arguments from incredulity about the pyramids or Stonehenge or whatever. It's such arrogance, that our ignorant forebears couldn't have achieved something great with primitive technology.

Best of luck, Garrette.

 

[8enotto]

Frank, this is a serious question. I am not picking on you I just want to understand your ideas.


What would it take to shake your beliefs to the roots? What errors could a medium make to cause doubts?