Medium to the Stars?

[Pixel42]

If it were "trivially easy," Henry would not be making a living because others would copy his technique.

There are unfortunately plenty of people making a good living out of exploiting the gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills of the average punter, conmen are everywhere. I get phoned by one or two every day.

Successful TV mediums are a small subset, probably because there are relatively few slots available for them to fill, though I'd like to think a factor is that even most conmen have sufficient integrity to draw the line at taking advantage of the desperate bereaved. They really are absolute scumbags, the lowest of the low. They all copy each others techniques, though most originated in stage magic.

 

[JayUtah]

...even most conmen have sufficient integrity to draw the line at taking advantage of the desperate bereaved.

Which is why it's more morally acceptable to do it as entertainment, using celebrities who can be treated as contract performers. The producers would be in a more briny pickle if they had actual desperately-bereaved people on, and Henry blundered into something.

 

[xterra]

Successful TV mediums are a small subset, probably because there are relatively few slots available for them to fill, though I'd like to think a factor is that even most conmen have sufficient integrity to draw the line at taking advantage of the desperate bereaved. They really are absolute scumbags, the lowest of the low. They all copy each others techniques, though most originated in stage magic.

I'd like to think so also, but I don't believe they do have such integrity. No more than people who rob the houses of mourners while the mourners are attending a funeral.

Which is why it's more morally acceptable to do it as entertainment, using celebrities who can be treated as contract performers. The producers would be in a more briny pickle if they had actual desperately-bereaved people on, and Henry blundered into something.

In fact such people do attend these shows. Whether the medium fakes it or actually contacts with a deceased person, the effect on the bereaved person is the same, to the extent that the person believes the medium. Calling it entertainment is merely a means of skirting, or evading, or avoiding the limits of legality. This has nothing to do with morality.




EDIT again - Jay, did I misunderstand? Are all the people in the Tyler Henry show in front of the camera actors? If so, then the morality question is not pertinent, as you indicated.


However, the free advertising for Tyler Henry brings him people who are desparately looking for contact with 'the other side,' and when he does a private reading for them surely he doesn't say to them, "You know, this is just for entertainment."

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I guarantee you that if something happens while shooting a television show that was unexpected and not ultimately wanted by the show's producers, it will be edited out.

Editing out one or two bad celebrity guests has no effect on the claims I am making, and I see no reason to assume that shows are being edited out entirely or that Michael Corbett of MC Productions is engaging in fraud. Corbett has a considerable reputation in Hollywood. I would be surprised to learn he concocted this whole thing to make money ripping people off. If fraud, Corbett is taking a huge risk.

"Tyler [gave me a reading] and tapped right into two people I knew who had committed suicide and gave me horrifyingly shocking details about who they were and how they died — things that could not be researched in any way," Corbett told TV Insider. “By the end of the reading I was a firm believer and knew I had to create a TV show for him.”

Why? Do you understand that NDAs are as common in the entertainment industry as bottled water?

An NDA has no meaning when fraud or whistle-blowing are involved, and generally--I sign them all the time--they pertain to proprietary confidential information, not to dissatisfaction with a product. I can't steal my company's customer list or tell Pepsi how Coke is made. I can say that Coke is secretly made using unfiltered water if I have that information.

Of course this is a strawman argument since the celebrities Henry reads are gushing once the reading is over. "Overjoyed with Henry" is how I would describe it. (Except Boy George, but his manager and assistant stated the reading was spot on).

And you're suggesting that the reason we don't find this for Henry is that he's really the clairvoyant he claims to be. You're ignoring all the other reasons that have to do with how television programs are known to be made.

The idea that a very successful television production company of high reputation would engage in massive fraud using a kid (who could be volatile) who has little to no skill (according to you) when they have so much to lose in the industry, the argument makes little sense.

The idea that hundreds of people are participating in this fraud, cameramen, video editors, background researchers, the celebrities--and nobody steps forward, that argument makes little sense.

The best argument that the Moon landing was not a hoax is that there is no way hundreds of NASA employees would all agree to participate in such a blatant deception with not a single NASA employee stepping forward to provide justice or confess to the lie. Ditto 9-11.

I'm waiting for somebody in involved with MC Productions to step forward--Henry's read some 50 celebrities--and until that happens, I don't think you have an argument.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I'd like to think so also, but I don't believe they do have such integrity. No more than people who rob the houses of mourners while the mourners are attending a funeral.

However, the free advertising for Tyler Henry brings him people who are desparately looking for contact with 'the other side,' and when he does a private reading for them surely he doesn't say to them, "You know, this is just for entertainment."

The more overriding issue is whether a very successful TV Production company with a reputation to uphold and a relationship with E! to save, would bother committing massive fraud with a young kid who could turn on them at any time. If there is fraud, somebody will come forward.

Henry's waiting list two years ago was 15,000 people for a 30 minute session. He does not need publicity.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

There are unfortunately plenty of people making a good living out of exploiting the gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills of the average punter, conmen are everywhere. I get phoned by one or two every day.

Successful TV mediums are a small subset, probably because there are relatively few slots available for them to fill, though I'd like to think a factor is that even most conmen have sufficient integrity to draw the line at taking advantage of the desperate bereaved. They really are absolute scumbags, the lowest of the low. They all copy each others techniques, though most originated in stage magic.

From my point of view, the person with the least critical thinking skills is you. You seem trapped in the Randi box. Time will tell--unless of course you think hundreds of people will take Henry's secret to the grave.

 

[bytewizard]

It's not fraud because Henry and company explicitly state that it is for entertainment purposes only. It definitely is entertaining to know there are 15,000 suckers waiting to pay this fraud entertainer.

 

[xterra]

Frank, I refer you to a very long thread in which the OP could not accept the evidence that her favorite medium is a fake. Just dip into it here and there.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248380








Edit, Bytewizard, why do you have a picture of me as your avatar?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

It's not fraud because Henry and company explicitly state that it is for entertainment purposes only. It definitely is entertaining to know there are 15,000 suckers waiting to pay this fraud entertainer.

Neither Henry or Michael Corbett productions state that it is for entertainment purposes only. Henry makes it clear what he is doing.

 

[JayUtah]

I see no reason to assume that shows are being edited out entirely or that Michael Corbett of MC Productions is engaging in fraud.

Straw man. Neither of these claims has been made.

An NDA has no meaning when fraud or whistle-blowing are involved...

There is nothing illegal about scripting or rigging something that is then presented as reality television. Yes, any contract is void if it requires a party to do something illegal. There is nothing illegal about what's happening here. It's no different than the stage crew of a magic show being enjoined from disclosing their knowledge of how the trick was done. That such a show appears to saw a woman in half -- but really doesn't -- isn't fraud.

What is your actual experience in commercial film and television production?

...they pertain to proprietary confidential information, not to dissatisfaction with a product.

Not applicable to this situation. The talent booked for a production is expected not to disclose proprietary information regarding the production that he or she may learn while participating. This is standard in film and television production. There is nothing at all legally questionable about these agreements.

The idea that a very successful television production company of high reputation would engage in massive fraud...

Nothing about this constitutes fraud.

The idea that hundreds of people are participating in this fraud, cameramen, video editors, background researchers, the celebrities--and nobody steps forward, that argument makes little sense.

There is no fraud. There is only a fairly ordinary television production with a star and booked guests, all under fairly standard NDAs.

I'm waiting for somebody in involved with MC Productions to step forward--Henry's read some 50 celebrities--and until that happens, I don't think you have an argument.

My argument is that Henry's show is produced the same way every other reality television show is produced, including many others that allege supernatural or magical content. And no, you don't get to dictate what will be the only event that refutes you, especially when that dictum is based on your wrong assumption that scripted television constitutes fraud.

Your argument is the puerile notion that it can't be put on television unless it's true. I'll leave you to mull over the asinine naivete of that insinuation.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Frank, I refer you to a very long thread in which the OP could not accept the evidence that her favorite medium is a fake. Just dip into it here and there.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248380

Ahhh...just like you cannot accept the evidence that the Medium I am discussing is not fake. Got it.

The one difference perhaps is that the OP looked at the evidence. I doubt you've seen the show.

 

[Pixel42]

It's not fraud because Henry and company explicitly state that it is for entertainment purposes only. It definitely is entertaining to know there are 15,000 suckers waiting to pay this fraud entertainer.

And of course these scumbags' greatest protection is that the people they fool stay fooled, and so never complain.

 

[8enotto]

Frank, Penn and Teller said it best.

Follow the money. Right now he is a good source of it. It doesn't matter he is truly gifted or a flaming fraud as long as his product brings in the money.

Not to anyone backing him in making his show. He stops making them money and he will be back in a Bronx apartment looking like a gypsy.
Hawking his wares to the locals for rent money.

 

[JayUtah]

...committing massive fraud...

Nobody's committing fraud. Legally-actionable fraud has a precise legal definition composed of several elements, all of which must be proven. Unless you can show that the legal definition is met by the scenarios posed by your critics, quit bashing away at the straw man.

If there is fraud, somebody will come forward.

Straw man. Nothing about this constitutes fraud. The watershed event you're foisting as the sine qua non of refutation is predicated entirely on your own imagination. And that's why it hasn't happened.

 

[JayUtah]

Ahhh...just like you cannot accept the evidence that the Medium I am discussing is not fake. Got it.

You've provided no evidence. You simply keep banging on the flabbergasting presumption that it must be true, otherwise it couldn't be put on television.

 

[bytewizard]

Edit, Bytewizard, why do you have a picture of me as your avatar?

I like your hair.

 

[Steve]

Ahhh...just like you cannot accept the evidence that the Medium I am discussing is not fake. Got it.

The one difference perhaps is that the OP looked at the evidence. I doubt you've seen the show.

There is nothing special about this particular 'medium'. Everyone who has ever claimed to be a medium is a fraud, with the possible exception of those who are mentally ill - they are just deluded. Any "evidence" filtered through a TV show is not worthy of the description. They edit and broadcast only what they want you to see. This show is no more real than Big Bang Theory.

 

[JayUtah]

Neither Henry or Michael Corbett productions state that it is for entertainment purposes only.

This is pedantically true. But they specifically make no warranty that the information provided will be accurate or reliable, or will meet the subject's expectations. One of the elements of the tort of fraud is the idea of reasonable reliance. That would be entirely precluded by such a disclaimer.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Straw man. Neither of these claims has been made.

Are you serious? I made a statement.

There is nothing illegal about scripting or rigging something that is then presented as reality television.

Strawman. I never said there was.

Yes, any contract is void if it requires a party to do something illegal. There is nothing illegal about what's happening here. It's no different than the stage crew of a magic show being enjoined from disclosing their knowledge of how the trick was done. That such a show appears to saw a woman in half -- but really doesn't -- isn't fraud.

Ahhh....you are going to word cloud me. Let's revisit some of what I said.

I said your NDA point is moot because we have overwhelming evidence from the reaction of joy and happiness in the response to the reading from the celebrities. An NDA isn't why they don't step forward--they don't step forward because they are happy with the product. The NDA is irrelevant.

At no point have I claimed anything was illegal. "A crew of a magic show" can't give away proprietary information--you can't tell Pepsi how Coke is made as I said.

However, any celebrity can speak up and complain about a product if they have insight about fraud, Coke is using dirty water was my example.

I never said anything about "legally questionable." I said that any celebrity can complain about fraud or complain about the quality of the service provided. That's not covered under a NDA. If during the reading a celebrity notices that Henry is wearing an earpiece and is on the phone secretly with the celebrity's mother, speaking up to complain would not violate an NDA because the technique in use was different than what was agreed upon.

>My argument is that Henry's show is produced the same way every other reality television show is produced, including many others that allege supernatural or magical content.

Right. And my argument is that if I am in a show that claims there are ghosts in a house, and I later find out that those ghosts were really not there, but artificially manufactured by a special effects team in order to fool 2 million television viewers, I can speak out with impunity. Perhaps not about how the ghosts were manufactured, but the fact they were not there.

>Nothing about this constitutes fraud.

Wait. Tyler Henry hires a research team to explore my background, has somebody come to my house, interviews me under a false pretext to gain info ("we're taking a survey"), goes to my Mom's house and interviews her, and then gives me an expensive 30 minute reading in which he uses the secretly obtained information to fool me--and in the Universe that you live in this does not constitute fraud?

>I'll leave you to mull over the asinine naivete of that insinuation.

How about instead I mull over your inability to follow a basic line of reasoning.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

This is pedantically true.

In other words, it is true.

But they specifically make no warranty that the information provided will be accurate or reliable, or will meet the subject's expectations. One of the elements of the tort of fraud is the idea of reasonable reliance. That would be entirely precluded by such a disclaimer.

Henry's production company? My doctor makes no warranty that the information provided will be accurate or reliable. Ditto my car mechanic.