Medium to the Stars?

[Frank McLaughlin]

Yes, I do -- thoroughly, and in detail.



Your arguments rely heavily on straw men. If you don't want that to be the refutation, don't deploy them.



Has it worked for you in the past to insult people who can provide good reasons for disagreeing with you?

I missed the part where you had good reasons for disagreeing. I think those reasons do exist, just that you haven't found them yet.

 

[JayUtah]

I missed the part where you had good reasons for disagreeing.

They're in the posts you seem to be saying you lack the patience to read.

 

[JayUtah]

The evidence or example can be found in the weekly show.

Circular reasoning. An observation is not evidence of the truthfulness of some hypothesis that was formulated to explain it.

...only that there it is something extraordinary.

To people who aren't accustomed to the techniques that pertain to some given field, many feats in that field could be considered "something extraordinary."

I'm not putting forth John Edward.

Except that you did, then walked it back, then walked it forward again and chided all the other readers for not reading scientific studies regarding Edward's ability that you refuse to cite.

Why don't you educate me as to how a magical performer can duplicate what Henry does.

Why were all the previous examples insufficient?

I don't watch much TV...

And from that I infer that you really have no idea how television programs are made. Hence your authoritative-sounding declarations of what would follow if the show were not about really talking to dead people are just so much hot air.

I assume their set and the Nat Geo set of rules has integrity high on the list.

Begging the question.

 

[Garrette]

The evidence or example can be found in the weekly show.

Apparently not since you can't seem to find any of it. Assume I follow your path for a moment, will you be okay with me presenting a miss as something to debunk and then accepting I have debunked it? Maybe not a miss but one of those generic cold reading statements you mentioned; if I debunk that will that be sufficient?

I doubt it. You will accuse me of having cherry picked. I'm trying to avoid that. It's the whack-a-mole game I repeatedly run into and which you are trying to force on me here. You have two options in presenting evidence, and repeating versions of "watch the videos" isn't one of them:

1. Pick one or two or three hits you say cannot be explained except by real mediumship

2. Admit that just one or two or three hits is insufficient evidence but rather the totality of the hits is the proof. In which case you face the much harder task of showing your work in how you arrived at the implied statistical conclusion

To put it in other words, suppose I watch the videos, even all of them, and I come back here and say "He's a fraud. Watch the videos for proof." Would you accept that?

Henry's claim is not vague. Perhaps mine is because it has not been established what exactly is going on--only that there it is something extraordinary.

Precisely. It has not been established what is going on.

Which actually leads to a third option: Rather than tell me what the most impressive hits are or what the statistical calculations are, tell me what the protocols are. Tell us the test conditions, precisely. Hand-waving references to what the audience might do in regard to fraud you have not established are not sufficient.

>expect it to be made by someone putting forth Mr. Edward as an exemplar of good mediumship.

I'm not putting forth John Edwards. Tyler Henry. I did reference a study that used him as a subject. But attempt at ridicule duly noted.

You're not putting him forth now because others have pointed out the flaws in Schwartz's study but you did put him forth before, and you misreported the name repeatedly. And, yes, it was mild ridicule, and well earned. Far more well earned than the aspersion you have cast at your critics here.

>complete lack of knowledge how magical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work

Why don't you educate me as to how a magical performer can duplicate what Henry does. I'd love to see that.

When you show me what he does, i.e., your claim, I'll be happy to. Of course, you'll have to reconcile that with this statement of yours:

"it has not been established what exactly is going on--only that there it is something extraordinary."

I predict you won't get within a hundred miles.

Then you have no reason not to pick the best instances of what he does. Whatever that is.

If magicians could do what Henry does, they'd be doing it.

They do, just not as a fraud. Do you know the name Ian Rowland? He's only one of many who do this kind of thing for a living but again, not as frauds.You should see the names on the magic and mentalism books in my library or the list of such performers I've seen.

And Henry would be out of a job as hundreds of magicians would love to be on TV in front of 2 million people.

Not as frauds, no.

I don't watch much TV, but I would guess different reality shows work differently.

Your guesses count for little.

The reality show that had National Geographic interviewing at the recent Flat Earth conference is playing by a different set of rules than "Realtors who sell Hollywood mansions to the stars." And I expect Henry's production company has their set of rules. I assume their set and the Nat Geo set of rules has integrity high on the list.

As do your assumptions.

BTW as long as you are giving spelling lessons on Edwards name, might I suggest that writing "how a magical performer" means that the performer is magical, not that he or she is a magician.

What mainstream dictionary are you using that omits my usage? Merriam-Webster does not, nor does OED.

When I err, I'll take corrections and admit it, but I suggest you check a bit more before attempting it next time.

 

[xjx388]

Are you serious? I made a statement.







Strawman. I never said there was.







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.

I’ve thought about this and I agree: this is fraud, plain and simple. He is presenting himself as someone who can commune with the dead. He makes no disclaimers on his show that it’s “for entertainment only.” Now, anyone with half a brain and a minimum of scientific understanding knows that communing with the dead is impossible. Therefore he is perpetrating a fraud. So is his production company and E!.

The problem is that, as you say, his clients aren’t likely to sue him because he has fooled them.

Now here you are, trying to convince us that he’s for real. You have been fooled as well. No one here can help you with that, unfortunately. Your protestations that, “a reputable production company wouldn’t engage in fraud,” hold no water. It happens all the time. Bernie Madoff had no problem engaging in fraud and he had a wonderful reputation for decades. And because this touches on the subject of belief and First Amendment protections, there are significant protections for this particular kind of bull caca. Tyler, et al, are basically free to engage in their deception.

IMO, what they are doing is rather sick. “Grief Vampire,” is a great term. But it’s a free country and you are free to believe whatever you want. I would love for this to be true. I would love to hear from my dad again. But I’m not naive enough to fall for some huckster who presents a “message from beyond,” because I know that such a thing is impossible. I know that every other medium has been shown to be a fraud. I know the techniques they use and my own emotional vulnerabilities and biases. I won’t be fooled.

But you do you, Frank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Garrette]

And because I was bored, I watched the reading of Sofia Vergara. A very obvious mix of both cold and hot reading. The funny bit was it wasn't the hot reading part that Vergara picked up on, but it's obvious what Henry was going for.

And there you have it, Frank. I've watched a video. It's proof he's a fraud.

Or is it not sufficient for me just to claim it?

 

[Steve]

And you base this on what exactly?

Reality.

 

[MEequalsIxR]

[snip]

There is a false equivalence to suggest that no one stepping forward to claim Wrestling is fake is the same thing as no one stepping forward if there was a show that claimed a certain hospital was curing everybody's cancer. Or that a guy was faking out all these celebrities pretending to talk to your Mother. If Henry is fake some group is going to step forward, and I bet it likely a Christian group somewhere is offering good money if you do.

The fact is TV production costs money. For one minute over eight hours everyone on set gets a bump in hourly rate and then catering has to be provided every so many hours. Guests (celebrities) are paid a day rate usually and over eight hours more money. So to keep costs in line there is a shooting schedule and certain things have to happen at certain times. NOTHING is left to chance. Host talks to guest for x minutes and out of that y minutes is edited out for z minutes of screen time. It may look like two people are talking but in fact the conversation has been scripted in some way - possibly a general idea this and this this will be covered or possibly word by word but no one speaks without having some idea in advance of what will happen. The one exception is news interviews but sometimes even those have a general format.

The celebrity guests (I am not so sure why being a celebrity is important or impressive but that's another discussion) are paid for an acting gig. The production company calls the agency said celebrity is represented by and arranges a contract and a rate. If that person has to be flown in than those arrangements are negotiated as well. The person knows in advance what the gig (paid job) will be and what is expected. Just the same as when some celebrity endorses a product. They may not use it they may not even like it but they are paid to hawk it and that's what they do.

It is a paid job. They can accept it or reject it but once accepted they are paid to provide a service and that service is to look surprised, impressed and convinced. Possibly even gushing ad nauseum about how wonderful it all was. That is how celebrities make a living and most make a very very good living. Few people who make millions a year would be willing to give that up to object to some aspect of a paying job. They might not come back next time but they will give the performance they were paid for.

As is right. You pay someone for something you expect that something.

Plus it puts their face in the public spotlight and they are perceived as relevant. Who cares about some celebrity no ones heard from in two years.

 

[wasapi]

And because I was bored, I watched the reading of Sofia Vergara. A very obvious mix of both cold and hot reading. The funny bit was it wasn't the hot reading part that Vergara picked up on, but it's obvious what Henry was going for.

And there you have it, Frank. I've watched a video. It's proof he's a fraud.

Or is it not sufficient for me just to claim it?

I seemed to have missed anyone as well known as Vergara. I believe the fact someone in her family was murdered, a fact I believe is easily known.

 

[Garrette]

Watched the Macklemore reading, too. That was less impressive than the Vergara one.

Yes, Frank, I could duplicate this, probably do better. The caveat is that it is under the same conditions, i.e.,
-My subject is famous
-It is done in their home
-I get to edit the video
-I have as much notice going in as Tyler Henry does
-The crew, subject, and subject's family observers are placed under whatever
restrictions they would be if Tyler Henry were doing the readings

If this man is not a fraud then he is indistinguishable from one. I've done better completely cold, and as I will say again, I'm not really that good.

 

[Garrette]

I seemed to have missed anyone as well known as Vergara. I believe the fact someone in her family was murdered, a fact I believe is easily known.

That's the hot read he was trying for but Vergara didn't bite. Instead she fit her aunt in as the hit and was astounded at the supposed miracle of her dying from a knee operation. What really happened is that he started out saying "leg swelling" OR "fluid retention." It was only after her reactions that he combined the two and never said anything about an operation.

 

[MEequalsIxR]

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.

Not fraud it's entertainment.

TV production companies are in the business of producing television - it's produced content. There is always a person behind the curtain pulling the levers and you're not supposed to notice or acknowledge them.

Produce means cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.

 

[Garrette]

I could do the bulk of what is shown of Tyler Henry's readings simply by using Wikipedia, Facebook, and Twitter. Throw in either a time-consuming electronic search of public records of the subject, family, and associates, or a less time-consuming paid searches of those for $10 a pop, and I could exceed what Henry does.

Heck, I could do a fair amount of what he does without any hot reading at all. Cold reading will work when I control the editing.

 

[Axxman300]

I don't know if I qualify as a ghost hunter because I don't believe in ghosts. And never did.

In my book you'd be well qualified.

Ghost and Psychics are not only cut from the same Victorian Era cloth, they share the same office. A lot of good science applied badly has gone under the bridge since the 1850's and no honest researcher can claim there is certifiable evidence for the existence of ghosts or psychic abilities of any kind.

Relative to this thread, in my experience what is considered psychic ability is just advance deductive and perceptive skills. I worked in retail sales for 20 years, and there were guys I thought were psychic. When I'd joke about it they'd tell me they could "read" people by their clothes (especially shoes), jewelry, language skills, and basic body language. I'm talking about salesmen who could sell you the shoes on your feet for twice the price and make you feel like a shrewd buyer. Leaning to read women's jewelry took practice, but things like charm bracelets and pendants can tell you a lot about their personal lives.

Point is that with a little study of human nature, body language, and accouterments anyone could could do a "Cold Psychic Reading".

 

[Axxman300]

WOW! 3 hits out of 4! Just uncanny. How much do I owe you?

I didn't even mention the junk drawer in your mother's kitchen.

 

[Garrette]

In my book you'd be well qualified.

Ghost and Psychics are not only cut from the same Victorian Era cloth, they share the same office. A lot of good science applied badly has gone under the bridge since the 1850's and no honest researcher can claim there is certifiable evidence for the existence of ghosts or psychic abilities of any kind.

Relative to this thread, in my experience what is considered psychic ability is just advance deductive and perceptive skills. I worked in retail sales for 20 years, and there were guys I thought were psychic. When I'd joke about it they'd tell me they could "read" people by their clothes (especially shoes), jewelry, language skills, and basic body language. I'm talking about salesmen who could sell you the shoes on your feet for twice the price and make you feel like a shrewd buyer. Leaning to read women's jewelry took practice, but things like charm bracelets and pendants can tell you a lot about their personal lives.

Point is that with a little study of human nature, body language, and accouterments anyone could could do a "Cold Psychic Reading".

One of the more unintentionally insidious aspects of this is that there are people who are naturally adept at such things without realizing it and who have gotten into the psychic schtick with full sincerity.

 

[JayUtah]

He is presenting himself as someone who can commune with the dead.

Making a claim he knows to be false does not by itself constitute fraud in the legally-actionable sense. More is required. But if we're not going by the legal standard, then I agree a common-sensical label of fraud could easily be applied.

He makes no disclaimers on his show that it’s “for entertainment only.”

Such a representation would need to be made only to prospective participants. And while the language "for entertainment purposes only" appears in the boilerplate that many mediums use, it does not strictly have to appear. It's just a shorthand that covers a lot of ground amounting to "Don't take this seriously." To apply for a private reading with Tyler Henry, you previously had to agree to a sort of terms of service which was disclaimed out the wazoo. It boiled down to his not being responsible for the consequences of any advice he gives, your understanding that he's not qualified to give advice that would ordinarily require licensure, your not taking his claims as complete, accurate, or reliable, and his not promising to meet any expectation you might have. That latter part means that if you expected to commune with dear departed Aunt Gertie, and instead just got a redux from the PI's report, you had no basis for a legal claim. If he required that agreement before, it is reasonable to suppose he requires it now from the people he reads on his show.

Therefore he is perpetrating a fraud. So is his production company and E!.

While IANAL, it is fairly easy to look at the elements of legally-actionable fraud and test them informally against this scenario. Here are the elements of it where I live, in Utah.

1. A statement must be made which is (a) factually false, (b) known to be false by the person making it, or made with reckless disregard for the truth, (c) about an important fact.
2. The alleged fraudster intended that the person(s) to which the statement was made would rely upon it.
3. The person reasonably relied upon it.
4. The person suffered damages as a result of relying on the statement.

To prevail in court, these generally have to be argued particularly. This language is abridged from Utah's civil code, so the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence.

Now in the case of the person Henry is reading on the show, we presume his former standard disclaimer applies. Element 2 is clearly precluded by the terms of service. Element 3 is mostly precluded, because a reliance that ignores all the warnings in the terms of service is not reasonable. Since you have to prove all the elements, the claim would fail.

And if the celebrity appears as a contracted appearance, that sidesteps the notion of fraud altogether. The celebrity agrees to participate in what is essentially a theatrical performance.

The viewers of the program probably wouldn't have standing to bring action, because the particularity requirement defeats it.

If I watch a television show where Person A pretends to contact the deceased father of Person B, and I am not personally associated with either A or B, then the deception fails to be about an important fact. I'm merely a spectator. I have no dog in the fight -- dead or alive. I may be intensely interested, but I imagine that has a limited legal effect and would run afoul of various reasonableness tests.

In some jurisdictions, pleading intent can be done generally. I don't have to prove that E! intended specifically that I, JayUtah, rely upon claims made by Tyler Henry. It's exempt from the particularity requirement. I can just prove a state of mind generally. But the general state of mind I would have to prove is that E! intended its viewers to rely upon the claim that Henry really talks to the dead, to the effect that legally cognizable damage occurred. "Relying" upon the claim simply to make time to watch the show, for example, doesn't count.

I would also have the burden to prove that reliance upon supernatural claims -- made on a network that bills itself as entertainment, gossip, and so forth -- was in fact reasonable. That doesn't sound easy. Compare that to a false evacuation order broadcast on television under a well-known news organization banner. That would be a better example of reasonable reliance that would approach fraud.

As a viewer, there are only a limited number of ways I can sustain legally cognizabale damage as a reasonable consequence of reliance upon Henry's claims of necromancy. The claim "I can speak to the dead" is legally different from the claim "I can speak to your dead father" in terms of particularity. In the hypothetical case of the evacuation order, damage to my property or injury to my person incurred during a hasty (but unnecessary) flight from the city would be legally cognizable damages. Under Utah law I could also recover for emotional distress, but as a separate cause of action not covered by fraud.

I think you'd have a hard time proving fraud here, but it certainly seems like fraud.

 

[Steve]

Complete lack of knowledge howmagical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work
.

Magical performers do not exist. Performers are just ordinary people.

 

[wasapi]

It is interesting to me that the well known male mediums on TV, including this guy, want to project a non threatening image. A guy down the street persona. It is a schtick they have.

This guy, Tyler Henry, projects an innocent, fresh-behind-the-ears, mama's boy. Yes, he lives with his mother. And yes, he came out as gay. Oh the shock. So over all, the kind of sweet, young, shy, fresh-face young man is someone to trust!

 

[8enotto]

Hot reading the medium, funny.

He does seem to be carefully picked to present an image.

The ones on the late night programs here in Mexico are not pretty boys but older fat guys using big screen TVs as set backdrop. Pretty stern looking some of them.

The rest is the same cold reading but slightly more vague as they're over the phone. Or plants to convince us to set up a reading in Mexico City .