ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th March 2019, 07:37 PM   #81
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,967
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Tyler Henry doesn't do anything that can't be duplicated by someone pretending in order to fool someone. None of them do.
A quick reading for everyone in this thread:

You are uncomfortable with your finances.

You are worried about your health, or the health of a friend, or the health of a loved one, or pet.

You've been thinking about making a major purchase (car, boat, TV, vacation home, etc).

You miss a recently passed loved one.

You've been concerned about your diet.

I want my TV show. I'll do it for half.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 08:16 PM   #82
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,367
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
A quick reading for everyone in this thread:

You are uncomfortable with your finances.

You are worried about your health, or the health of a friend, or the health of a loved one, or pet.

You've been thinking about making a major purchase (car, boat, TV, vacation home, etc).

You miss a recently passed loved one.

You've been concerned about your diet.

I want my TV show. I'll do it for half.
How do you know all this about me??? We have never even met!!
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 09:04 PM   #83
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,508
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
As far as television goes, if you believe anything without proof you're a fool. There are a bunch of ghost themed, and ghost-hunting shows that have migrated to the Travel Channel, and as I ghost hunter I don't believe any of them.
Best one I saw was on Ghost Hunter International. The team was called in to a castle in Romania, which was supposed to have previously belonged to Vlad Țepeș aka Vlad the Impaler. The place was now a hotel, and the proprieter wanted them to find out if there were ghosts in the place because apparently tourists were reluctant to stay there. The result? Of course they found no ghosts. Just like the person who was paying them wanted.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 09:06 PM   #84
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,508
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
How do you know all this about me??? We have never even met!!
It's uncanny. He knows things I've never told anyone!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 09:42 PM   #85
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I'm sorry, I'm a ghost hunter...
I don't know if I qualify as a ghost hunter because I don't believe in ghosts. And never did. But back in the day, Josh Warren asked me to be a sort-of on-staff photo analyst. That's back when I didn't charge for it. And I told him up front, "I don't believe in ghosts." And his retort was that my analysis would therefore always either be a scientifically-based proposition or "I don't know." Nothing he could have said would have made me more honest.

Quote:
As far as television goes, if you believe anything without proof you're a fool. There are a bunch of ghost themed, and ghost-hunting shows that have migrated to the Travel Channel, and as I ghost hunter I don't believe any of them.
The vast majority of "reality TV" is scripted, art-directed, packaged, and produced just like any other television experience. I know this from experience. Even Josh sold out.

Quote:
I like Penn & Teller more because they show how the tricks are done (which made me respect magicians that much more).
I had the privilege of hanging out with those guys in the pre-******** days, before they got really famous. I had a long conversation with Teller about misdirection and how people essentially just see and believe what they want to believe. This was back when I was working heavily on the Apollo hoax stuff, where misdirection was the underpinning of the fake photo analysis that gave those hoax authors so much ammunition.

Quote:
The bottom line is that science sided with Randi, not Schwartz.
The bottom line is that Schwartz ran away from science, precluding any involvement by Randi by accusing him of being biased against him. No, I do not consider Schwartz a credible authority. Not because he spurned James Randi, but because he knowingly sacrifices science on the altar of personal fame.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:50 PM   #86
MEequalsIxR
Muse
 
MEequalsIxR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 534
E! is by their own definition News, Entertainment News, Celebrity Gossip, Celebrity News and is "Your source for entertainment news, celebrities, celeb news, and celebrity gossip. Check out the hottest fashion, photos, movies and TV shows!"

The E in E! is entertainment and it is intended as an entertainment channel. That is if you find celebrity gossip, celebrity news and related drivel entertainment. Nowhere do they describe themselves as providing real mediums. The reason of course is because there are no real mediums.

Crew jobs in television require long mostly boring days with bursts of frenetic activity followed by more boredom and are exceptionally well paid even for the most mundane jobs. Benefits are about as good as anyone making an hourly pay gets anywhere for just about everyone (except extras) and on set work includes catering which is almost always limitless and very good. These jobs are hard fought and jealously guarded. If keeping your mouth shut about a fraud medium means keeping a 100k+ year job (that's for 26 weeks by the way) who would say anything.

Celebrities too have vested interests. Celebrity appearances are their bread and butter and they won't tip the boat and they make far more than the crew.

The industry is small and everyone knows everyone. Loose canons don't get hired - cause issues and you might as well move to Timbuktu.

The same standards mentioned upthread about no one exposing anything about this guy could be said about Yuri Geller, the Long Island fraud Theresa something and a whole host of others. Even Ancient Aliens isn't exposed by crew. For that matter wrestling isn't either and Vince McMahon admitted it was fake. Well, technically he called it scripted.
__________________
Never trust anyone in a better mood than you are.

It's a sword they're not meant to safe.
MEequalsIxR is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 09:52 AM   #87
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
If this guy had the ability he claims to have it would be trivially easy for him to prove it, he would have done so, and we would not be having this discussion.
This isn't true at all. It should have been ridiculously easy to establish the existence of many pre-Clovis civilizations in North America but science could not see it because they didn't want to.

As far as "trivially easy." It is. It is on each week, and yet you can't see it.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
People are very easy to impress with the simplest of tricks.

Accomplished, successful people in danger of looking foolish, being asked to accept something that goes against everything they have believe for most of their life---those people are very difficult to impress.

A hit rate statistically greater than chance, achieved under controlled conditions, is the only type of proof. No-one has ever done it.
The "hit rate" is an almost useless measurement. If I tell you your mother will die at 3pm tomorrow and she is hit by a bus and it happens, the fact she got eight other things wrong is irrelevant. The one hit she got establishes the ability.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 09:54 AM   #88
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,861
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
The "hit rate" is an almost useless measurement. If I tell you your mother will die at 3pm tomorrow and she is hit by a bus and it happens, the fact she got eight other things wrong is irrelevant. The one hit she got establishes the ability.
I've tried that logic before. It doesn't work; the casino still wouldn't pay up.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:02 AM   #89
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
The paranormal and tv share something. Neither is science in a pure sense. One not at all. Both use (or try to use) it in various ways.
Tv shows are normally pre planned to prevent the disaster that could ruin a source of advertising revenue.
You make a valid point that if Henry had a disastrous reading, and nothing resonated with his subject, E! might choose not to air it for fear of damaging future shows. Even Ted Williams hit only 400.

It is possible he could have off nights, but you wouldn't know that from the show.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:18 AM   #90
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR View Post
The E in E! is entertainment and it is intended as an entertainment channel.
Well, sure, but by that same token John Oliver is entertainment too. If we say that John Oliver is intended as comedy but also provides factual information, we have to allow that Tyler Henry is intended as entertainment but also shows real clairvoyance.

Doing a thing has one connotation. Doing that same thing for an audience can have an entirely different connotation just by virtue of the audience being present. This is what undercuts the argument that Henry wouldn't be successful in Hollywood on a weekly television show unless he could really do what he says he can do. We have to keep the two disconnected. One can be successful in Hollywood doing literally anything, so long as people will watch or participate in it. The merits of the thing they're doing have to be studied separately from the fact that it attracts an audience.

Quote:
The reason of course is because there are no real mediums.
And people don't really saw the lady in half either.

There are quite a number of ways to fake sawing the lady in half, or appearing to inflict other bodily trauma without really doing so. They're well known, so much so that one hardly has to delve into the tricks of magic to discover the age-old ones. They've become such a meme that there is a whole derivative branch of magic -- Penn & Teller do this a long -- based on pretending to use the old tricks but really using something entirely innovative.

And for TV magic, when the announcer says, "No camera tricks were used," what he really means is that all the camera tricks were used. The studio audience is completely in on it, too. Netflix's Magic for Humans is probably the worst-case example. It's a working-strong production that claims to use raw footage and no actors. Except that they skimped and used a second-rate VFX house. And by the second episode they're making factual claims that can easily be verified as false. It's so bad people are wondering if it's a Poe.

The point is that if someone comes along and says he's really sawing the lady in half, the history of such claims makes working strong here a non-starter. He may have a novel approach to the trick, and that's worth seeing, but he's not really doing what he claims to do. Same with Henry. He may have a novel approach, but he's not really talking to the dead. The history of such claims puts an elphantine burden of proof on Henry (and his defenders) to show he's not faking it.

Imagine having to prove that someone is cold reading. We can ensnare hot-readers pretty easily by the honeypot method. But if you're really good at cold reading, you're not doing anything more than having a conversation with someone who then subjectively concludes that you've met her standard of proof.

Quote:
...on set work includes catering which is almost always limitless and very good.
A poorly-guarded craft services table is a guaranteed diet-buster. I had a sumptuous breakfast every day for a week simply by letting Aquabats use my offices as a location.

Quote:
If keeping your mouth shut about a fraud medium means keeping a 100k+ year job (that's for 26 weeks by the way) who would say anything.
Which, sadly, has been a major factor in the #MeToo phenomenon. Those jobs are so hard to get and keep -- especially in Hollywood -- that the thermostat get set pretty high for the amount of illegal and unethical harassment people are willing to endure in them. The question is always asked, "Why didn't they come forward?" And the answer is that for each person who decides to make trouble over the star commenting on their bodily structure, there are about 2,000 others who will take the same job without complaining.

Quote:
The industry is small and everyone knows everyone. Loose canons don't get hired - cause issues and you might as well move to Timbuktu.
The biggest problem I had branching out from STEM (as close to a pure meritocracy as you can get) into entertainment was figuring out that entertainment is almost entirely a relationship industry. It's not what you can do, it's who you know. Tyler Henry gets work probably as much for being an attractive, likable guy who gets along with the establishment as for any purported psychic ability he has. I've gotten design gigs without the people even seeing my portfolio, just on word of mouth and my knowing where to take the production designer for good local microbrews.

It doesn't matter whether the celebrity guests believe in clairvoyance, or whether they need to be put under NDA or follow a script. They don't have to take the gig. But if they do, the gig is the gig. You do what you're supposed to. Tyler Henry might be the flavor of the month, but if his show is where the eyeballs are right now, and you want those eyeballs on your face, you play along. If you pull a stunt, or decide to get all skeptical and blow the gig, all the booking agents know about it by the next day.

And in my town, there's only one credible talent agency for actors that get the big film and stage roles. If that agency drops you because you misbehaved at a gig, your career in my town is pretty much nonexistent after that. There is a great incentive for the guests to go along with the gist of the show whether they personally believe in it or not.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:20 AM   #91
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
You make a valid point that if Henry had a disastrous reading, and nothing resonated with his subject, E! might choose not to air it...

It is possible he could have off nights, but you wouldn't know that from the show.
That goes without saying. Editing a show to tell the story you want to tell, from whatever footage was captured during the shoot, is the rule. There's no "might be" about it. If a guest's footage is unusable, it's not used.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:26 AM   #92
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I dismiss Schwartz's results as either faked or simply incompetent because my understanding of the scientific method tells me that's what they are.

Not until he submits to tests performed using the scientific method. Until then all we see is an entertainer's act, to be taken no more seriously than the performances of David Copperfield.
Scientists speculate pre-scientific method all the time. Continental drift was ridiculed for forty years. There was no peer reviewed testing, just one man's observations. Read Enrico Fermi's ridicule of the idea of aliens in the 1950's--there was no proof. We now know there are tens of thousands of earth-like worlds and evolution produces sentient beings in all kinds of conditions.

Somebody had to think up "dark energy" and have many informal conversations years before there was a speculative shot at the mathematics.

You'll never get to exciting discoveries or new, fantastic ideas if you insist on having everything put into concrete for you.

Can you link to the specific Schwartz papers that lead you to reject his results?

>Not until he submits to tests performed using the scientific method

Can you send the list of scientists who have offered to conduct a "scientific method" review of Henry? I think that list is zero.

The Univ of AZ offered to test John Edwards, and he accepted. Have you looked at those studies?
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:33 AM   #93
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,275
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
A quick reading for everyone in this thread:

You are uncomfortable with your finances.

You are worried about your health, or the health of a friend, or the health of a loved one, or pet.

You've been thinking about making a major purchase (car, boat, TV, vacation home, etc).

You miss a recently passed loved one.

You've been concerned about your diet.

I want my TV show. I'll do it for half.
WOW! 3 hits out of 4! Just uncanny. How much do I owe you?
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:36 AM   #94
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
This isn't true at all.
All Henry has to do is demonstrate a hit rate better than chance. Test protocols to do that are relatively simple - there are several in the challenge applications subforum I already pointed you to. Henry just needs to produce readings for a small number of people who he has not had the opportunity to research and without actually interrogating them to obtain information. Each of the subjects is then giving copies of all the readings and asked to pick out the one they think is theirs - the one that resonates with them the most. If more subjects pick out their reading than would be expected by chance - the success criteria is set in advance - the test has been passed.

Quote:
As far as "trivially easy." It is. It is on each week, and yet you can't see it.
What's demonstrated each week on TV to be trivially easy is fooling people into believing things they would like to be true but aren't.

Quote:
The "hit rate" is an almost useless measurement. If I tell you your mother will die at 3pm tomorrow and she is hit by a bus and it happens, the fact she got eight other things wrong is irrelevant. The one hit she got establishes the ability.
No, anecdotes are useless as evidence. Even highly unlikely coincidences do happen occasionally. A repeatable hit rate significantly greater than chance is the only reliable indication of a genuine paranormal ability.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:41 AM   #95
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That goes without saying. Editing a show to tell the story you want to tell, from whatever footage was captured during the shoot, is the rule. There's no "might be" about it. If a guest's footage is unusable, it's not used.
Could be true, not necessarily true. I believe a reason Theresa Caputo does not have a show is because she got many people wrong, and when she did hit, the information was commonplace, so people stopped watching.

The production company could have started faking it for Theresa--obviously this stuff makes money--but faking it is a very dangerous road to go down if you are trying to attract audience to your network.

There are two kinds of Medium hits: (1) your Mother tells me you had a bicycle you loved as a child, which turns out to be true and (2) your mother kept a giant bowl of buttons on a shelf in her bedroom closet. The first does not impress. The second establishes that the ability is real and not done from a cold reading. It makes up, statistically, for dozens of misses.

If the guest's footage is unusable, I'd expect to eventually hear from that celebrity guest. Great way to enhance notoriety. Google Theresa, and you see a wall of complaints from audience members. Don't find that with Henry.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:47 AM   #96
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Can you link to the specific Schwartz papers that lead you to reject his results?
I already linked you to an article that describes in detail the shortcomings of his experiments. Have you read it yet?

Quote:
Can you send the list of scientists who have offered to conduct a "scientific method" review of Henry?
The JREF Million Dollar Challenge may have been wound up but there are still other prizes available to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal ability under controlled conditions. All he has to do is apply.

There's a list of them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...the_paranormal
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 8th March 2019 at 10:49 AM. Reason: Better link
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:48 AM   #97
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Can you link to the specific Schwartz papers that lead you to reject his results?
Again shifting the burden of proof.

Unable to present any statistically controllable results for Taylor Henry's ability, you changed the subject to argue that other popular mediums had allegedly been scientifically validated. To support this, you cited a book written for a lay audience and published in the popular press. When challenged regarding the reliability of such an offering, you backpedaled and tried to declare the topic irrelevant.

Come on, now. It's either relevant or it's not. If it is, then you have the burden to lay the foundation for Schwartz' results, and in this case to address all the reasons already given why his book is not credible. If it's not relevant, then drop the subject and stick with Henry.

Quote:
The Univ of AZ offered to test John Edwards, and he accepted.
No, "the university" did no such thing. One faculty member at the university did, the one who has a side gig writing popular books that purport there to be scientific evidence for the paranormal.

Quote:
Have you looked at those studies?
Have you cited them here?

Last edited by JayUtah; 8th March 2019 at 11:09 AM.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:52 AM   #98
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Could be true, not necessarily true.
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.

Quote:
If the guest's footage is unusable, I'd expect to eventually hear from that celebrity guest.
Why? Do you understand that NDAs are as common in the entertainment industry as bottled water?

Quote:
Great way to enhance notoriety.
No, a great way to ensure you never work in the industry again.

Quote:
Don't find that with Henry.
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.

Last edited by JayUtah; 8th March 2019 at 10:54 AM.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 11:22 AM   #99
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
All Henry has to do is demonstrate a hit rate better than chance. Test protocols to do that are relatively simple - there are several in the challenge applications subforum I already pointed you to. Henry just needs to produce readings for a small number of people who he has not had the opportunity to research and without actually interrogating them to obtain information. Each of the subjects is then giving copies of all the readings and asked to pick out the one they think is theirs - the one that resonates with them the most. If more subjects pick out their reading than would be expected by chance - the success criteria is set in advance - the test has been passed.
I don't think Henry cares whether you believe him or not. Edwards took you seriously, and what did he get for his trouble? He underwent three studies at the Univ of AZ, but you reject those as insufficiently scientific. Were you going to link me to the papers you used in determining the Edwards study was inadequate?

>What's demonstrated each week on TV to be trivially easy is fooling people into believing things they would like to be true but aren't.

If it were "trivially easy," Henry would not be making a living because others would copy his technique. There are millions involved. And are you claiming that Corbett Stern Productions is involved in blatant fraud? This is surprising considering their reputation in the TV industry. Can you think of a reason why an established TV production company would risk everything on one show?

And why is E! sticking with Henry when what he does is "trivially easy?" They could save a lot of money, getting any magician off the street.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 11:35 AM   #100
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
I don't think Henry cares whether you believe him or not.
Why would he, as long as the show is popular? You're conflating the popularity of the show with the factual validity of the claims it makes. We aren't.

Quote:
Were you going to link me to the papers you used in determining the Edwards study was inadequate?
You're the one alleging that John Edwards' skills have been validated in a peer-reviewed scientific study. But you've provided no citations to any such study. You have referred only to a book published in the popular press, written for a lay audience. Do you intend to ever provide those citations?

Quote:
If it were "trivially easy," Henry would not be making a living because others would copy his technique.
This assumes that the reason he gets to be on TV is because he can actually do what the show claims he can do. As we discussed, there are many reasons why some people get television shows and others do not, and very little of it has anything to do with the nominal merits.

Quote:
And are you claiming that Corbett Stern Productions is involved in blatant fraud?
No one has made that claim.

Quote:
This is surprising considering their reputation in the TV industry.
You don't seem to be able to demonstrate much expertise in what happens in the TV industry.

Quote:
Can you think of a reason why an established TV production company would risk everything on one show?
I don't see that they're risking anything except mild embarrassment. I gave you other examples of television programs in the reality-TV genre that purport to be real, but are easily shown to be staged and/or scripted. Do you see them being held legally liable or shutting down?

Last edited by JayUtah; 8th March 2019 at 11:49 AM.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:22 PM   #101
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
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.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:53 PM   #102
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
...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.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:02 PM   #103
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 3,251
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
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.


Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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."
__________________
Over we go....

Last edited by xterra; 8th March 2019 at 01:29 PM. Reason: grammar
xterra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:46 PM   #104
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.”

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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).

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:52 PM   #105
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
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.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:58 PM   #106
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
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.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:59 PM   #107
bytewizard
Master Poster
 
bytewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: In the woods
Posts: 2,023
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.
bytewizard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:01 PM   #108
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 3,251
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...d.php?t=248380








Edit, Bytewizard, why do you have a picture of me as your avatar?
__________________
Over we go....

Last edited by xterra; 8th March 2019 at 02:02 PM.
xterra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:02 PM   #109
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by bytewizard View Post
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.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:04 PM   #110
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
The idea that a very successful television production company of high reputation would engage in massive fraud...
Nothing about this constitutes fraud.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:06 PM   #111
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
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...d.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.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:06 PM   #112
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by bytewizard View Post
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.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:06 PM   #113
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,054
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.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:09 PM   #114
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
...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.

Quote:
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 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:11 PM   #115
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
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.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:14 PM   #116
bytewizard
Master Poster
 
bytewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: In the woods
Posts: 2,023
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Edit, Bytewizard, why do you have a picture of me as your avatar?
I like your hair.
bytewizard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:19 PM   #117
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,367
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
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.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

Last edited by Steve; 8th March 2019 at 02:21 PM.
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:49 PM   #118
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
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.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 02:56 PM   #119
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Straw man. Neither of these claims has been made.
Are you serious? I made a statement.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
There is nothing illegal about scripting or rigging something that is then presented as reality television.
Strawman. I never said there was.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:08 PM   #120
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
This is pedantically true.

In other words, it is true.
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.