Medium (Tyler Henry) Reduces Skeptical Young Men to Tears

I get great joy in watching the lights go on especially if the dim bulbs are inside young, skeptical souls. Here are the Try Guys, all cocky and sure of themselves, and Tyler Henry handing them their comeuppance.

20m, worth the watch.

I get great joy in watching the lights go on especially if the dim bulbs are inside young, skeptical souls. Here are the Try Guys, all cocky and sure of themselves, and Tyler Henry handing them their comeuppance.

20m, worth the watch.

It's interesting that there appears to be no interest whatsoever in discussing Henry. The same for a post on his TV show that I entered a while ago under Other Topics, What Are You Watching. I wonder why. Are even most proponents embarrassed to admit to watching a TV psychic medium? 

Watching him and his clients in some of his more memorable sessions is an eye opening experience, except of course to closed-minded knee-jerk materialist skeptics. Of course the Internet has a host of scathing "debunkings" of him and his show, but nobody can really plausibly claim the show is faked. The information he comes up with is almost always nothing that could be generated by Googling on the Internet, in fact is often not known to anyone but the client and his family. Sure, faking the show would be remotely possible, but it would have to be a scripted production with good actors playing the very convincing roles of the various minor entertainment celebrities. Not anywhere near plausible.

It's interesting that there appears to be no interest whatsoever in discussing Henry. The same for a thread on his TV show that I posted a while ago under Other Topics. I wonder why. Are even most proponents embarrassed to admit to watching a TV psychic medium? 

Probably. I certainly feel a little wary and tend to avoid celebrity psychics. A couple, over the years, have impressed me - one being Gordon Smith (the "psychic barber") but he only became a celebrity due to a couple of documentaries about him (the BBC one being unusually positive - for the BBC). 

I watched the video above and I feel that it is not made clear (or perhaps I missed it) whether Tyler knew in advance that he was going to be challenged by these "Try Guys" and therefore whether he had opportunity to do some research in advance. I'm assuming not specifically but then do we know whether he or his agent were given any clues in advance about who would be involved? I've never heard of the Try Guys but are they well known in the USA? If so, even without naming them it might be a reasonable guess if Tyler was told something like "we have some skeptics who'd like to challenge you".

It's interesting that there appears to be no interest whatsoever in discussing Henry. The same for a post on his TV show that I entered a while ago under Other Topics, What Are You Watching. I wonder why. Are even most proponents embarrassed to admit to watching a TV psychic medium? 

Embarrassed? Don't know. Unwilling to discuss celebrity mental mediums? Absolutely.

Probably. I certainly feel a little wary and tend to avoid celebrity psychics. A couple, over the years, have impressed me - one being Gordon Smith (the "psychic barber") but he only became a celebrity due to a couple of documentaries about him (the BBC one being unusually positive - for the BBC).

If it makes no difference if the mental medium is widely known or relatively unknown then isn't the criteria for credibility in the quality (primarily the evidentiality) of the message?

If it makes no difference if the mental medium is widely known or relatively unknown then isn't the criteria for credibility in the quality (primarily the evidentiality) of the message?

I found him credible because the BBC seemed to start out wanting to expose him and ended up with a certain amount of - perhaps grudging - respect for his talents. At the time he was still not charging and still had a day job as a barber. Later, because he became well known, he wrote books which sold well and he became something of a celebrity himself. I believe he continued to refuse to charge for his readings, however.

As for others, perhaps it is a prejudice but I am so very wary of people who seek the limelight, hire theatrical agents and generally treat the whole thing as a celebrity vehicle. Granted, if they are good then it should be clear but show business has a habit of playing on the vanity of wanna-be celebs.

Probably. I certainly feel a little wary and tend to avoid celebrity psychics. A couple, over the years, have impressed me - one being Gordon Smith (the "psychic barber") but he only became a celebrity due to a couple of documentaries about him (the BBC one being unusually positive - for the BBC). 

I watched the video above and I feel that it is not made clear (or perhaps I missed it) whether Tyler knew in advance that he was going to be challenged by these "Try Guys" and therefore whether he had opportunity to do some research in advance. I'm assuming not specifically but then do we know whether he or his agent were given any clues in advance about who would be involved? I've never heard of the Try Guys but are they well known in the USA? If so, even without naming them it might be a reasonable guess if Tyler was told something like "we have some skeptics who'd like to challenge you".

On his show Henry claims that he never knows who he is going to "read" ahead of time. Of course this could be a lie, and he could really get together with his prospective client to get all the information, before the TV interview. Of course, the minor celebrity clients could be faking the interviews mainly for the PR exposure. But I don't think so, because the interactions and reactions of the clients (who are generally singers and entertainers not actors) are so convincingly real.  And the information is such that "cold reading" is not a possibility, and neither is looking it up on the internet or hiring detectives. And the costs would dictate against the possibility that the show is entirely scripted with paid actors.

On his show Henry claims that he never knows who he is going to "read" ahead of time. Of course this could be a lie, and he could really get together with his prospective client to get all the information, before the TV interview. Of course, the minor celebrity clients could be faking the interviews mainly for the PR exposure. But I don't think so, because the interactions and reactions of the clients (who are generally singers and entertainers not actors) are so convincingly real.  And the information is such that "cold reading" is not a possibility, and neither is looking it up on the internet or hiring detectives. And the costs would dictate against the possibility that the show is entirely scripted with paid actors.

Although widely ignored, those who saw Teresa Caputo live could vouch for the validity of her TV mediumship from her platform mediumship (live) tours.. Henry is beginning the same path, and his validation, for those who need or desire it, can be had by attending (or watching videos) of his platform mediumship.

As you say, it is unreasonable to the nth degree to carry the belief that Henry stages his TV show and that his mental mediumship is invalid.

On his show Henry claims that he never knows who he is going to "read" ahead of time. Of course this could be a lie, and he could really get together with his prospective client to get all the information, before the TV interview. Of course, the minor celebrity clients could be faking the interviews mainly for the PR exposure. But I don't think so, because the interactions and reactions of the clients (who are generally singers and entertainers not actors) are so convincingly real.  And the information is such that "cold reading" is not a possibility, and neither is looking it up on the internet or hiring detectives. And the costs would dictate against the possibility that the show is entirely scripted with paid actors.

I don't think I was suggesting it was a set up arranged between Tyler and the guys - no, not that. I was more concerned about how much information he had ahead of their meeting. I've been to a few platform readings (but never been selected from the audience) so, failing the obvious fraud of plants in the audience, I have been somewhat impressed. However, TV is so much more open to question: selective editing and off camera clues, perhaps. 

I've seen selective editing from the other perspective - with skeptical TV documentary teams doing hatchet jobs on controversial figures. I remember the BBC Horizon having to make a public apology to Graham Hancock for a scandalous character assassination of him on a Horizon episode, years ago.

As I have explained, it isn't tenable to claim that Tyler Henry is a fraud - what he does is genuine. The main question in my mind is whether the extensive personally meaningful information that he comes up with is actually from the deceased, or whether it could be coming from telepathy and clairvoyance by the medium combined with subconscious role-playing by him of the personality of the deceased. In other words subconsciously enhanced "super-psi". Of course, this question has been at the forefront since the early days of psychical investigation. Much, but not all, of the information can be explained this way, but I tend to reject the super-psi hypothesis for a number of reasons. Unfortunately it is always lurking in the background.