I don't think there can be any agreement as Henry is looking at this from the "I am a body/mind" perspective whereas you look at it from/as awareness itself.
As long as one believes to be a body/mind one will of course think that the observer - in this case the body/mind - can be observed.
I see the body thus I see myself (=the observer) seems to be a very valid argument (and every other idea is seen as crazy mumbo jumbo).
That the body is actually being observed/experienced (and that it is not an observer in itself) can be found out via investigation into ones own direct experience (and of course via interpreting this experience conceptually) ... I guess it depends if one is inclined to perform this investigation or not... anyway... nothing lost, nothing gained either way (besides a few beliefs).
It is quite obvious to me that the body/mind is being observed - that all that is experienced is only arising in awareness and that this awareness is the only (no)thing that ultimately can be the "Self" (even this Self is not a personal self). I find it quite strange that people actually believe they are a constantly changing set of beliefs (or even a decaying body) instead of the only (no)thing that is actually constantly here/now.
Why believe in ones self being a thought up character with all its made up problems, when in reality there is only awareness?
Why identify with the transient if the permanent is always present here/now?
It doesn't make any sense to me... but hey... it seems to make sense to 99.99% of humanity... and they must be right