Medium to the Stars?

Truth is not a popularity contest.

Belief <> fact.

I agree; good point.

However, if 80 people tell me that they have been to NYC, and they give a somewhat convincing description of what NYC looks like, I'd be inclined to first go there myself to see or to consider that there is a chance 80 people know something I don't know, but might find interesting.
 
You were not required to sign an NDA stopping you from exposing fraud.

There's no evidence that fraud, in a legal sense, is occurring. As you failed to note, the show's web site clearly disclaims it as entertainment. If the participants and audience are entertained, then no loss or injury has occurred. And specifically, no reliance was intended.

I sign NDAs all the time and they are #1 Impossible to enforce;

The NDAs I sign, and which I make others sign as a condition of employment by me, are entirely enforceable, and I have enforced them in court and won.

#2 Are never valid over one year unless national security is involved;

No such rule exists in the United States. An NDA is valid for the term spelled out in the agreement. My standard term is ten years, but some obligations are forever. In a dispute, a court would decide each case in which an alleged disclosure prior to the term is protecting actual proprietary information, but the defendant has the burden of proof since that's an affirmative defense.

#3 Don't cover fraud.

Fraud has a special legal definition, and only that definition matters when considering whether an NDA is conscionable. If the covered activity involves simply fooling someone without injury or loss, then an NDA protecting such activity is entirely enforceable.

#4 It is easy to disguise where the exposed TV information originated.

And it is just as easy to find out who spilled the beans.
 
Why would they need to tell every member of the crew what was really going on?

You would not need to tell anybody. It would be obvious what was going on, maybe not to everyone, but to say 50 people who matter in producing the show. Also, you have 30 people a week who are getting read. You'd think some would be less than enthusiastic, or even hostile. Especially those who expressed extreme skepticism going in.
 
I don't need to watch him "do what he does". He isn't the first to pull this con and he won't be the last. There is nothing special about him in that respect. Just because this one seems to have struck your fancy means nothing to me. Although you seem to also be enamored with John Edward. Until any one of them submits to an actual test and proves the ability, I will continue to remain unimpressed. I do not get my "facts" from scripted/edited tv programs.

You can't explain it so you lump it in with people "who pull this con" and then you walk away, none wiser.

Fair enough.
 
You make my point. We're not discussing leaking a show in advance. We are talking about exposing fraud. ("Hey, I know how Henry does his reads.")

You were not required to sign an NDA stopping you from exposing fraud. I sign NDAs all the time and they are #1 Impossible to enforce; #2 Are never valid over one year unless national security is involved; #3 Don't cover fraud. #4 It is easy to disguise where the exposed TV information originated.

Because they weren't concerned about fraud and there wasn't any. They dug up fraud, they did NOT commit or try to commit fraud.

We would have been fired if anyone leaked an upcoming show that was still in development or production. Nobody at all was worried about anything else, so your point is moot here.
So at least one, which was my point. You're guess at none was completely and utterly wrong.
 
Last edited:
So you only want to be exposed to ideas and opinions that you already have?

No one made that argument. The argument is that a statement purporting to be fact should be established by objective, verifiable evidence. You aren't doing that. You're simply repeating your claims and beliefs as if they have evidentiary value. Much of what you're asserting as fact is provably false.

You only want to consider "true evidence?"

Yes. Which is to say, evidence that has probative value obeys certain rules such as being objectively observable and independently verifiable. The probative value of a statement proffered in evidence is proportional to how well it can be tested according to additional observation, experiment, or disclosure.

Really? You come here to learn what you already know?

There is nothing about desiring evidence that presumes the listener wishes to remain unconvinced. The readers here are simply stating the criteria by which they are willing to accept new information as a true statement. These are reasonable criteria. If, instead, you are unwilling or unable to provide evidence, then it is likely the reader will be unconvinced of your claim, especially if the knowledge the reader already has is supported by evidence.

Here there is plenty of evidence that mentalism involves trickery and other discoverable techniques designed to fool people into believing the practitioner has special powers. In many cases there is compelling evidence that such trickery has been used, even by well-known practitioners. In contrast there is no evidence at that same stature that any mentalist actually does possess the claimed powers. Absent any particular new evidence in some individual case, the null hypothesis is that for which evidence exists: that the practitioner is using the same methods used by others similarly engaged.

You're simply arguing that people should lower their standards until your desired belief passes. People are rightly refusing to do so.

There was a TV show in the 1970's called "All in the Family," featuring Archie Bunker. You might check it out. See yourself.

I'm old enough not only to have watched the show on television when it aired, but to have once visited the set. What does that have to do with your claims in any way?
 
You would not need to tell anybody. It would be obvious what was going on, maybe not to everyone, but to say 50 people who matter in producing the show.

How many commercially broadcast televisions shows have you personally been involved with producing? I want a number, if you please.

Also, you have 30 people a week who are getting read. You'd think some would be less than enthusiastic, or even hostile. Especially those who expressed extreme skepticism going in.

Do you think reality TV shows don't prescreen their guests and audiences?
 
He passes that test every week his show is on the air.
A properly blinded, scientifically rigorous test? I don't believe you. If he could pass such a test it would be headline news.

Didn't John Edwards agree to be blind measured at the Univ of AZ?
Whatever he did or did not agree to, no such tests were done there.

I've had people tell me things they could not possibly have known.
Still waiting to hear your best example.

One "hit" is worth how many misses in your mind?

The hit rate has to be statistically significant. That means (a) determining what the chance hit rate is, and then (b) demonstrating, under scientifically rigorous conditions, that the actual hit rate is significantly greater. It's not a matter of opinion, it's determined mathematically.

For example Henry produces, say, five readings for five people under controlled conditions which preclude hot and cold readings. Each subject is given copies of all five readings and asked to pick out the one they think is theirs - the one that has the most hits, the one that resonates with them the most. If all that's going on is the Forer Effect then all will find all the readings roughly equally accurate, and they'll only pick out the one that's actually theirs as often as would be expected by chance, i.e. one time in five. But if the psychic is genuine then they'll be able to pick out their reading much more often than that. You'd only need to run a few such tests for a genuine psychic to reach a statistically significant hit rate.

No psychic has ever passed such a test.
 
I agree; good point.

However, if 80 people tell me that they have been to NYC, and they give a somewhat convincing description of what NYC looks like, I'd be inclined to first go there myself to see or to consider that there is a chance 80 people know something I don't know, but might find interesting.

Visiting NYC is a mundane claim. Millions of people have done it.

Conversing with the dead is an extraordinary claim. No one has ever passed a well controlled test.
 
So you only want to be exposed to ideas and opinions that you already have? You only want to consider "true evidence?" Really? You come here to learn what you already know?

You have a strong opinions about Henry's show, but "it isn't going to work" to get you to actually watch his show? Really? There was a TV show in the 1970's called "All in the Family," featuring Archie Bunker. You might check it out. See yourself.

Yes, I want true evidence - hard to believe that someone would want real evidence when they can just fill up on BS? I see your problem. I learn new stuff here every day but listening to folks who know a lot more than me - not by posters who come with personal beliefs with no evidence to back them up.

All in the Family - I am old enough to have watched the show so cute way to try and sneak an insult in - again without facts or knowing anything about me. Just because I don't believe tv is real doesn't make me a bigot or a racist. Besides, I am Native American and doubt very much that Mr. Bunker would have let me in his club. But going by the logic of your posts, guessing you believe they are a real family and it was the original reality tv.
 
He passes that test every week his show is on the air. Didn't John Edwards agree to be blind measured at the Univ of AZ? And rather than note the "hits," during readings where his back was turned, they went after the scientist who conducted the study, ignoring Edwards "hits."

I've had people tell me things they could not possibly have known. One "hit" is worth how many misses in your mind? Someone says "you have a wooden jewelry box and inside that box is a note from your Mom, before she died. It isn't just a hit, it is the perfect hit and the guy on TV gets clearly emotional and this happens week after week. The psychic could have said something else that lacked emotional resonance ("there is a baseball in a drawer"), but didn't.

So maybe the next few "reads" are wrong. What are the odds for the wooden box with a note from my Mom? How do we calculate that? One in five hundred? (Meaning if you had 500 guesses, you'd hit upon wooden box and note from Mom and that resonating emotionally with me by pure chance.

A few weeks ago, I read a Gallup poll that suggested 38% of adults in US believe they have communicated with a departed loved one (up from 28% 20 years ago).

Okay, lets argue this from the other side of the fence.

I'm a veteran ghost hunter. His show is 100% fake.

Why?

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is 100% reliable on a daily or weekly basis. I was lucky to work with a guy who was an honest psychic. He used psychology more than woo, but he'd gone down that rabbit hole. He never claimed a success rate higher than 30%, and that was with the easy stuff. He could never perform under any kind of controlled situation which is why I don't believe in psychics.

TV shows are 100% controlled environments.

If a psychic can perform on TV then he can do it in lab too. This has not happened.

I can tune into a half-dozen TV shows featuring ghost hunters and I can testify that they're all crap. At least the first season of "Ghost Hunters" had a number of episodes where they found nothing or debunked the claims. But they stopped doing those kinds of episodes by the third season. No ghost hunter is as lucky as the TV guys seem to be. Plus they've moved the goal posts by adding technology that looks great on screen but does nothing.

So go the ghost hunter shows so go the psychic shows.

Crap-ola.
 
Okay, lets argue this from the other side of the fence.

I'm a veteran ghost hunter. His show is 100% fake.

Why?

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is 100% reliable on a daily or weekly basis. I was lucky to work with a guy who was an honest psychic. He used psychology more than woo, but he'd gone down that rabbit hole. He never claimed a success rate higher than 30%, and that was with the easy stuff. He could never perform under any kind of controlled situation which is why I don't believe in psychics.

TV shows are 100% controlled environments.

If a psychic can perform on TV then he can do it in lab too. This has not happened.

I can tune into a half-dozen TV shows featuring ghost hunters and I can testify that they're all crap. At least the first season of "Ghost Hunters" had a number of episodes where they found nothing or debunked the claims. But they stopped doing those kinds of episodes by the third season. No ghost hunter is as lucky as the TV guys seem to be. Plus they've moved the goal posts by adding technology that looks great on screen but does nothing.

So go the ghost hunter shows so go the psychic shows.

Crap-ola.
OK I'm not judging what you used to believe, but as a retired spook chaser you've probably heard these questions before and I'd like to get an answer from a neutral source.
I lived in a house built in 1861 by a county magistrate in a small-ish sized central Ontario town for 11 years. At least 21 people died in the house according to newspaper and town records including 3 children from Spanish Flu. Now this house had been renovated several times and a heating and cooling pipe ran under the stairs from the first to second floor. I happily discovered that at times, you could walk up or down the stairs and they flexed. Two seconds later they relaxed with a creak. It was like it was right behind me. So unmindful of the town crazies, I demonstrated how a spirit walked up and down the stairs at night.
Well they went crazy bringing over FLIR cameras, magnetic field detectors, movement sensors and cameras and a raft of other junk. All of a sudden it was ghost central there. But it all fell apart when I asked them some hard questions they refused to answer such as:
How can you tell a normal everyday magnetic field from a ghost magnetic field?
How can a FLIR camera tell the reading is from warm or cold air and surfaces rather than a ghost?
Are you aware a 140 year old house creaks and groans all the time every season? The floors always groaned in every room. No sneaking around that house.
Finally, how can anything detect a ghost when nobody knows what they are or even if they exist?
Any answers you may have given? They brought over an empath who moaned and cried throughout the tour about the lost souls in the house needing their freedom. I asked her to name some and no luck. Apparently they can talk to relatives but nobody else and their earthly names are a secret. So I said how many and again evasiveness and vagaries. "Many" was the main response.
All in all I had a fun time but they sure were annoying announcing a new spirit every time the house creaked. It is a very well built manor style house that has been maintained very well over the years. No hidden alcoves or secret spaces to be found. I looked. :D
It got rather comical listening to the believers try to justify the paradoxes.
 
Winner! Even if an NDA turns out to be unenforceable, people who blow the whistle on their employers rarely work in the industry again. They may be blowing the whistle on something that's a legitimate concern, and the employers may very well get in trouble because of it. But they still get blackballed. There is so much competition for jobs in the film and TV business (especially the union ones) that no one is going to risk being blackballed for "outing" a show that's basically just good fun for those who enjoy such things. There is no "fundamental honesty" in a film crew that's going to create some vexing moral dilemma.

The Sphinx keeps bringing up the crew. While I’m sure that NDAs are part and parcel of the industry, I’m also pretty sure that every member of the crew is simply interested in the specific job they are doing.

Imagine asking crew members one by one, “is Henry really a medium?”

“I do make-up.”
“I’m a sound guy.”
Etc.

Why would any of the crew give half a **** if anything was real? They do their jobs, which generally don’t involve existential navel-gazing.
 
The Sphinx keeps bringing up the crew. While I’m sure that NDAs are part and parcel of the industry, I’m also pretty sure that every member of the crew is simply interested in the specific job they are doing.

Imagine asking crew members one by one, “is Henry really a medium?”

“I do make-up.”
“I’m a sound guy.”
Etc.

Why would any of the crew give half a **** if anything was real? They do their jobs, which generally don’t involve existential navel-gazing.

Yes, I'm puzzled as to why the Sphinx thinks any of the crew are either privy to, or interested in, the details of Henry's act. Why would they know or care how much he googles about his guests before they arrive?
 
Well they went crazy bringing over FLIR cameras, magnetic field detectors, movement sensors and cameras and a raft of other junk. All of a sudden it was ghost central there. But it all fell apart when I asked them some hard questions they refused to answer such as:
How can you tell a normal everyday magnetic field from a ghost magnetic field?

Answer: You can't tell. Why? Because in 140 years of paranormal research, some actually conducted by scientists who know how to work Tri-Field Meters, there has been NO consistent data to even suggest fluctuations in certain spectrums of the magnetic field is paranormal. Between geology and meteorology alone you have dozens of reasons why your cool box is lighting up or spiking or whatever the cool kids call it.

And you need access to a ghost to test your equipment on...so you see the problem.

How can a FLIR camera tell the reading is from warm or cold air and surfaces rather than a ghost?

I don't know how to work a FLIR and my guess is most "paranormal researchers" don't either. The good FLIR cameras start at $3,000 (US) and they're used in construction, automobile maintenance, and some of the better cameras are used to detect gasses. If I was to shell out that kind of cash I would at the least use the "black & white" filter instead of the full color setting because while they suck at spotting non-existent beings they are great at finding rodents, bats, raccoons, and other creatures who live under homes.

The problem with the full color spectrum is that confirmation bias sets in quickly and that leads to false interpretations.

The biggest problem? Let's say there is a real phenomenon; it would have to be weak on every level, and this would require super sensitive FLIRs with big lenses like you find on military vehicles. I have no idea how much they cost but I suspect they're beyond most people's finances. So the average ghost hunter is bring a spray bottle to fight a forest fire with the low-end FLIR.

Are you aware a 140 year old house creaks and groans all the time every season? The floors always groaned in every room. No sneaking around that house.

Yup. I love old houses. Concrete buildings with steel frames have their own chorus of blood curdling sounds.

Finally, how can anything detect a ghost when nobody knows what they are or even if they exist?

BINGO.

A great example is the smoke-detector. A device that registers smoke where there shouldn't be any smoke, and does so long before the smoke is seen or smelled. They were a big deal when first introduced, and they were tested over and over. Today in the US the base smoke detector starts at $10, but in many cities you can get one for free from the local fire department. In California we are required to have a combination smoke and CO2 detector.
(CO2 is a leading cause of people seeing and hearing ghosts BTW).

To test any equipment you need a test subject. Nobody has access to a real ghost so nobody can definitively claim any of the cool gadgets work. Working this side of the fence I've always been amazed at how inconsistent these devices are in relation to the claimed real-time activity reported. There is zero correlation between readings on any device and the weird things that sometimes occur.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn: Ghosts aren't real, or if they are then none of the technology being used is effective beyond draining your checking account.

They brought over an empath who moaned and cried throughout the tour about the lost souls in the house needing their freedom. I asked her to name some and no luck. Apparently they can talk to relatives but nobody else and their earthly names are a secret. So I said how many and again evasiveness and vagaries. "Many" was the main response.

I would never work with a psychic. Maybe a dog just because I like dogs and they're more useful than psychics because they can sniff out rodents.

The funny thing is that the most "active" places I've ever encountered were locations where nobody died. These places drove me to figure out why this happened. From these places I learned about the power infrasound caused by air-flow through the large empty building and how it works with your mind.

Creepy stuff but not paranormal.

The most comfortable room I've ever stood in was one where a Sergeant blew his brains out back in the 1980s.

All in all I had a fun time but they sure were annoying announcing a new spirit every time the house creaked. It is a very well built manor style house that has been maintained very well over the years. No hidden alcoves or secret spaces to be found. I looked. :D
It got rather comical listening to the believers try to justify the paradoxes.

Goal-Post moving. Worse, it sounds like they were feeding off of each other reinforcing their delusion.

I'll state my position again: The question isn't if ghosts are real, the question is why do honest people see or hear them?

The first question cannot be answered. The second question can and the many answers are fascinating. It's not sexy like a TV psychic but still cool.
 
Answer: You can't tell. Why? Because in 140 years of paranormal research, some actually conducted by scientists who know how to work Tri-Field Meters, there has been NO consistent data to even suggest fluctuations in certain spectrums of the magnetic field is paranormal. Between geology and meteorology alone you have dozens of reasons why your cool box is lighting up or spiking or whatever the cool kids call it.

And you need access to a ghost to test your equipment on...so you see the problem.



I don't know how to work a FLIR and my guess is most "paranormal researchers" don't either. The good FLIR cameras start at $3,000 (US) and they're used in construction, automobile maintenance, and some of the better cameras are used to detect gasses. If I was to shell out that kind of cash I would at the least use the "black & white" filter instead of the full color setting because while they suck at spotting non-existent beings they are great at finding rodents, bats, raccoons, and other creatures who live under homes.

The problem with the full color spectrum is that confirmation bias sets in quickly and that leads to false interpretations.

The biggest problem? Let's say there is a real phenomenon; it would have to be weak on every level, and this would require super sensitive FLIRs with big lenses like you find on military vehicles. I have no idea how much they cost but I suspect they're beyond most people's finances. So the average ghost hunter is bring a spray bottle to fight a forest fire with the low-end FLIR.



Yup. I love old houses. Concrete buildings with steel frames have their own chorus of blood curdling sounds.



BINGO.

A great example is the smoke-detector. A device that registers smoke where there shouldn't be any smoke, and does so long before the smoke is seen or smelled. They were a big deal when first introduced, and they were tested over and over. Today in the US the base smoke detector starts at $10, but in many cities you can get one for free from the local fire department. In California we are required to have a combination smoke and CO2 detector.
(CO2 is a leading cause of people seeing and hearing ghosts BTW).

To test any equipment you need a test subject. Nobody has access to a real ghost so nobody can definitively claim any of the cool gadgets work. Working this side of the fence I've always been amazed at how inconsistent these devices are in relation to the claimed real-time activity reported. There is zero correlation between readings on any device and the weird things that sometimes occur.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn: Ghosts aren't real, or if they are then none of the technology being used is effective beyond draining your checking account.



I would never work with a psychic. Maybe a dog just because I like dogs and they're more useful than psychics because they can sniff out rodents.

The funny thing is that the most "active" places I've ever encountered were locations where nobody died. These places drove me to figure out why this happened. From these places I learned about the power infrasound caused by air-flow through the large empty building and how it works with your mind.

Creepy stuff but not paranormal.

The most comfortable room I've ever stood in was one where a Sergeant blew his brains out back in the 1980s.



Goal-Post moving. Worse, it sounds like they were feeding off of each other reinforcing their delusion.

I'll state my position again: The question isn't if ghosts are real, the question is why do honest people see or hear them?

The first question cannot be answered. The second question can and the many answers are fascinating. It's not sexy like a TV psychic but still cool.
Thanks, much appreciated. I have had many long and frankly ridiculous discussions about ghosts and psychics with believers. When I pointed out different explanation by different people, most times they just said everyone is right and it depends on personal experience.
One thing I forgot. We had a wall mounted lamp in the main hall upstairs. When you walked right beside the wall and leaned on the wall, the lamp would shift from 90 degrees from the wall to about 60. I made them crazy doing that on purpose on the other side of the wall in a bedroom. It was on a swivel as it was a very old fixture I refurbished.
I've bookmarked your post for future reference.
 

Back
Top Bottom