Medium to the Stars?

The version I first heard, maybe a couple decades ago:

Why are they called mediums?
Because they are neither rare nor well done.
 
"John Dixon, Frontier Psychic." He roamed the Old West, his mission to shoot all the bad guys before they commit a crime, helped by Grubby Hayes, the Psychic's psidekick. This week's adventure: the Frontier Psychic vs Billy the Toddler, a fast-paced shootout in a nursery while Grubby is accused of playing Seven-Toed Pete with a stacked Tarot deck.

Now we need a sponsor.
 
"unsinkable rubber ducks"

Even if one were to prove Tyler Henry is using hot and cold reading–exposing Henry's "clairvoyant medium" act as a scam– it's highly likely he and his show will continue with business as usual.

I would think it possible that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could make it a requirement to substantiate psychic claims with a "reasonable basis" standard.

No psychic, medium, clairvoyant medium, or psychic/medium, has ever been scientifically proven to have the powers they claim. Their claims have not been substantiated; there is no "competent and reliable scientific evidence" for claims such as taking to the dead.

So are Tyler's "clairvoyant medium" claims unfair, false, unproven, and deceptive? Does that constitute false advertising?

"These are unsinkable rubber ducks!"

Nothing has changed much over years to curb psychic, medium, or faith healing claims. In 2006, James Randi wrote an article that described exposing faith healer Peter Popoff. Randi wrote: "Consider the televangelist Peter Popoff, to whom I will refer again, up ahead. Despite a nationwide, definitive, devastating, exposé we did of his scam on a major US television show, an event that was picked up and featured by all the media, he was soon back in business again, and is still working his racket and raking in the money! These are unsinkable rubber ducks!"1
I think it is important to prove if Tyler Henry (and others like him) are using hot and cold reading strategies and tactics.

Mass media companies give people like Tyler Henry a platform on which to stand.


1. Randi, James. "ANOTHER QUESTION TO PONDER." 4 Aug 2006. archive.randi.org.
 
Yesterday, channel surfing (hey, I'm retired), I came across Henry's "show" again. This time, I really noticed just how much he is doing bad, bad cold-reading. And later, hot-reading.

The first show had Henry go behind the stage of some drag queens. They were all still in make up, wigs, drag, and already believers the way they gushed to and about them. The drag queens were all probably 50ish and his first question was, "whose mother has passed?" Ah, one of them has make-up running down the face from the tears of emotion. Of course, mom was "passed on".

Mom, says Taylor, "didn't always approve of the lifestyle you chose for yourself." Wow, Taylor. Must be good, she's sobbing away.

Next segment. Celebrities in a mansion. Lots of flashy, gaudy jewelry. I have no idea who they are. I think they are involved with hip-hop or other music that I don't like. But oh, was Henry ever impressed.

Hot read. This couple not only have had many details of their lives made public, but they TOLD Henry details and what they wanted to hear.

OK. I admit that I enjoyed the segment with the drag queens. I laughed through the whole thing. Louder as I watched the ones makeup all run off by her tears.

Perhaps I'm easily amused. But hey, it's entertainment. And that is what Tyler Henry is, an entertainer. Pure and simple.
 
I watch Extranormal and Tercer Millennia with Jaime Maussan for the same reasons. Ghosts, demons, mean crypto fauna and aliens of all types with the usual "you decide" following flimsy investigation.

A load of bollocks at best but so funny they try so hard to disguise the predictability of Ancient Aliens.


Sure it's all crap but I try to pick apart the head games they play so often.
 
Henry does not cold read

wasapi said:
Yesterday, channel surfing (hey, I'm retired), I came across Henry's "show" again. This time, I really noticed just how much he is doing bad, bad cold-reading. And later, hot-reading.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you've never actually seen Henry's show or a cold reader at work. If you have, you saw what you wanted to see, not what's there.

Henry doesn't "cold read." That's obvious if you watch him work. He doesn't look at the person he's reading, rather scribbles on a paper, talks non-stop and only then engages who he's reading.

Further, a cold reader has a continuous start-stop speech speech pattern and they ask a lot of questions so they can "cold read."
"You have three sisters who---I mean two sisters, yes?--did one pass? What then happened? Ahhh...one sister was adopted."
Henry does none of this. That is not to say, he doesn't ask questions to try and zero in on what he's seeing or feeling. But if you watch a cold reader, the two processes are dramatically different. Also, cold readers tend to pick gullible audiences, or emotional audiences. I've seen the technique many times and it's usually not done in front of MIT graduates or Wall Street bankers.

wasapi said:
The first show had Henry go behind the stage of some drag queens. They were all still in make up, wigs, drag, and already believers the way they gushed to and about them. The drag queens were all probably 50ish and his first question was, "whose mother has passed?"

Mom, says Taylor, "didn't always approve of the lifestyle you chose for yourself." Wow, Taylor. Must be good, she's sobbing away.

Next segment. Celebrities in a mansion. Lots of flashy, gaudy jewelry. I have no idea who they are. I think they are involved with hip-hop or other music that I don't like. But oh, was Henry ever impressed.

OK. I admit that I enjoyed the segment with the drag queens. I laughed through the whole thing. Louder as I watched the ones makeup....
Click to expand...

Made you feel good to mock drag queens, did it?

I don't have to be psychic to know that Taylor's Mom never said what you quote him as saying, and in fact, most dishonestly, you made that whole section up.
 
Last edited:
Ernie M said:
I would think it possible that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could make it a requirement to substantiate psychic claims with a "reasonable basis" standard.
Click to expand...

You are seriously proposing the FTC should censor the claims people make that you don't accept? Bye First Amendment.

Ernie M said:
No psychic, medium, clairvoyant medium, or psychic/medium, has ever been scientifically proven to have the powers they claim. Their claims have not been substantiated; there is no "competent and reliable scientific evidence" for claims such as taking to the dead.
Click to expand...

In fairness, no one has disproven Henry's claims or established that he hot or cold reads--and the evidence is against it.

In fairness, when Neils Bohr was getting on a bus in Copenhagen, thinking about his daughter, and quarks and much of quantum mechanics, came to him, no one had scientifically proven his claims. You'd have the FTC on him, I guess.

The resulting "action at a distance" was ridiculed initially, as was moving tectonic plates.

Giordano Bruno was burned alive because he said the lights in the sky were sun's, just like ours. I have no idea where he got this from, a psychic call--but he was right.

You seem to be arguing that because some religious guy (Popoff) was spouting nonsense, anything you can't explain is also nonsense. That's not a valid argument.
 
Last edited:
the Sphinx said:
I've seen the technique many times and it's usually not done in front of MIT graduates or Wall Street bankers.
Click to expand...

Actually smart people can be the easiest to fool because they think they can't be fooled.

Do you know where you are?
 
You screwed up the quote function, forgive my joke.

The "psychic" is the one making the claim. They should support it with evidence. Why has no psychic ever done this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom