Show Is Fake
Everything is rehearsed, they are all actors.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Lisa Williams: Life Among the Dead (2006) Discussion > Show Is Fake
It is fake. But, not becaue they are actors. Just look up the technique on how to do this. You have to use very simple minded people to trick them. Remember that one guy who used to be on TV talking to the dead...it is the same sort of trick.
-------------------------------------
IMDb never adds my trivia information, damn it!
She looks like an honest woman
shareThat is the whole point though...
-------------------------------------
IMDb never adds my trivia information, damn it!
If she's a fake,if she's an actress,she's an awfully good one because I find her to be very convincing.And I don't think of myself as a simple minded person.
share2 words
john edward
[deleted]
There's no such thing as ghosts... That's why it has to be fake. When you die you're eaten by worms. The end. Sorry.
share[deleted]
Nothing happens to your spirit because there's no such thing as a spirit. There is a body which contains a brain. The mind is an emergent property of the brain. If you don't think so, explain brain damage. Does the spirit just take a nap in these cases? Did Terri Shiavo wake up in heaven miraculously cogent again? Or is she wandering around the halls of some spooky mansion with the intention of making Lisa Williams famous? It's all fairy tales. Williams may be a nice person but she MUST be a charlatan, since there is no such thing as ghosts!
share[deleted]
Prove she is a charlatan.Your argument is a common fallacy. It often crops up with people of faith. Faith depends on belief in the absence of proof or evidence. stephendedalus82 doesn't have to prove there are ghosts, that people do not possess spirits, or that psychics are charlatans.
The burden of proof rests on the claimant of the extraordinary, not the rest of the world. If someone claimed that invisible pink unicorns existed, the burden of proving their existence would rest on the claimant. Scientific evidence is reproducible by others. We call this The Scientific Method.
The same was true of the atom. The proof of its existence was the burden of the claimant this extraordinary object, not the rest of the world. Eventually, a theory was offered which could be proven and reproduced by others, although it took nearly a century before we could actually observe an atom.
We do not have to prove our faith. Proof and evidence having nothing to do with faith, though faith often precedes scientific theories.
Why do you even come here or watch the show if you don't believe. Just to harass the rest of us.I like watching Medium. I never miss a show, but I do not believe in ghosts or psychic abilities. I don't think anyone should be banned from watching the show or participating in this forum because we lack faith in the super natural.
share
I'm not sure why I'm bothering, because your ego won't read much of this, but generally you would be thrown out of the scientific community before very long. We know that one way to prove whether something exists is to go through the back door and first find absolute proof it doesn't. It saves time that way. Most of us learned this in Science 101.
People like you are dangerous - speaking as if you have educated authority and thereby affecting others with just your own opinion. And this only because your competitive spirit hates losing.
The show Medium is entertaining, sure, but it is based on a real woman's life. You, as I was, need to see things before believing them. That's ok and there's nothing wrong with that. But don't say something isn't true (or exists) just because y-o-u don't believe it. The arguement here is whether Lisa Williams is a fake or not. The general public will NEVER know for sure because of the nature of TV: ratings, editing and the money that makes the world go around (must sensationalize!) however, until you, a family member or friend has a paranormal experience that goes beyond a shadow of scientific doubt, you will never be able to comprehend that what Lisa can do is an absolute certainty.
I'll say it. I know for sure, with roughly 99.9999% certainty, that Lisa Williams is a fake. The only way she couldn't be a fake would be for reality to differ so radically from what science has shown it to be that we'd have to rethink almost everything else we know about the natural world. That's why the burden is on you, not us.
The only problem here is your lack of understanding of scientific reality, not anyone's attempts to force his opinion. Or are you perhaps a relativist and believe that opinions are truth and, hence, there is no truth?
I think it's time for you to just go away.... Best of all, why don't you be the first to prove you can communicate from the other side.
share[deleted]
My universe isn't tiny. It's vastly enormous. It's much more vast and interesting than any anthropocentric fairy tale humans with limited perspectives the centuries over have ever dreamed of. And I know this because of science. Without the scientific method, you can apply any arbitrary model of reality on the universe. And someone else's Zeus is just as plausible as your God of Abraham. Someone else's certainty that there are little demons in your nose causing you to sneeze is as solid as your certainty that ghosts exist and communicate with well paid television personalities.
Your definition of genius, I think, is apt. The great scientific geniuses had the greatest imaginations. But they didn't color their thoughts by admitting every manner or irrationality in. The fraud, in matters of religion and the paranormal, always asks just what if science isn't advanced enough. That is truly nonsense. Anything that humans can perceive is in principle able to be studied using the scientific method, because all it is is a set of rules for observing reality and describing it in a way that is verifiable If some phenomenon is outside this realm, then it most likely doesn't exist, and if it does we can never understand or even perceive it.
A rational person simply has no reason to believe any of this paranormal nonsense until someone presents evidence in its favor. Do that and we'll reexamine our thoughts on reality. Refuse to do it and we'll rightly go on considering them all charlatans. The burden of proof here is not on the scientist. It is on those asserting the existence of something totally implausible. That requires extraordinary evidence, not the zero evidence that so far exists.
[deleted]
I don't care what your IQ is; you're still wrong.
share[deleted]
Open minds are great. But let's not open them so much our brains fall out. What you propose here is nothing short of lunatic fantasy, and pardon me for calling you on it. It's nonsense. You can figure this out for yourself by reading a few books about science. In the mean time, save your pity. We have all been dead for billions of years before we were born. We will return to that state of unconsciousness when we're done living. I can think of nothing more comforting, incidentally.
Maybe some day those who believe in unscientific fairy tales and who follow the money-grubbing frauds like so many hazy-eyed sheep will realize just who's arrogant and who is humble. After all, humans aren't special. Why aren't there ghosts of beetles and gnats and bacteria annoying us daily? All I ask is a coherent hypothesis about all this stuff. But you refuse to offer one and instead offer the entirely insufficient cop-out of denying that science has access to these phenomena (but you apparently do--how humble!) Yes I'll hope, but I won't hold my breath.
[deleted]
Do you honestly think that all scientists are so overcome by their own bias that they wouldn't investigate something that, were they to prove it to be true, would make them rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams? Proving evidence of the afterlife would be one of the greatest--no, the absolute greatest--scientific discovery of all time. Scientists don't gain anything by proving the status quo. They succeed by proving new theories.
But something as extraordinary as life-after-death, because it differs so completely from the current understanding of reality, requires extremely extraordinary evidence. And, much to the contrary of what you say here, millions of people for millenia have been trying to prove life after death. Some do it more scientifically than others. The only problem is, no one has ever been successful. No evidence has ever been delivered. Nothing has been proven except that most, if not all, mediums are frauds. How arrogant of you to assume the existence of something while lacking any evidence, and then accusing people of having bias who are simply being rightly skeptical.
You are confusing skepticism in the face of no evidence with personal bias (infecting all scientists in the world, apparently). If evidence does come down that meets the high bar of science, I and every other rational person would be forced to accept it. But given what I know about reality, I'd be willing to make a pretty substantial wager against it ever happening.
yes, and even Thomas Edison believed in spirit communication. Near the end of his life, Edison was in the fears works of designing a device called the Spirit Apperatis. He died before it was ever completed. When Edison was on his death bed, the last words he muttered before he died were, "It's so beautiful over there". Anyone who ever knew or worked with Edison, knew that the man who was such a genus, who brought us working electricity and who invented the light bulb and the gramaphone, would never say, "It's so beautiful over there", unless he really believed it or could somehow see into another world with his own eyes.
I believe that another world opens up at the moment of our death or leading up to it. A lot of people who are on there death beds and are contaus seem at such peace and are suddenly not of afread of dieing. Some people have a look of peace after they die, its like their spirit left there body and found a peaceful place.
I like my tea on ice!
Exactly, merfwriter. My mother suffered with breast cancer and died in June 2001. My brother said her last words were, "It's so beautiful." I believe that she found peace and that she was ready to let go. As sad as mom's passing was, her saying those three words continue to help me cope with her death.
Just my two cents worth.
She died of an overdose of morphine. That's how most cancer patients die. Opiates, and morphine is an opiate, are well known for producing beautiful visions.
shareI've had morphine after surgery and opiates for pain and have never had any sort of vision.
What about just having experiences where you know something you shouldn't know or know what is about to happen? Is that BS too?
say tunnel vision, or narrow mindedness. it's best to just let it go and let everyone believe what they want.
shareI very much disagree. In a world where everyone believes what they want regardless of evidence, we get religious fanaticism and all of its nasty consequences alongside the ostensibly less dangerous nonsense that believers in ghosts believe. I don't understand why people who make empirical claims about reality that are demonstrably false think that such belief is beyond challenge or questioning by the rational. Well, it's usually because once the questioning begins their worldview starts to crumble, and hanging on to their fairy tales is more important than maturely examining reality.
share[deleted]
I don't mean to ridicule the people with irrational beliefs, just the beliefs themselves. There are plenty of perfectly intelligent people who believe in things for which there is no evidence. I do think that being rational requires proportioning belief to evidence.
I don't think such belief is beyond question either; that's my whole point. Everything is subject to question. But it's not my burden to disprove life after death. First, you can't prove a negative. Second, it's an extraordinary claim that lacks any and all necessary evidence to substantiate it. Therefore the burden of proof is on the person asserting its existence. The rational position is to believe only in proportion to the evidence available. Since there is none, one must not believe at all until there is.
Keeping an open mind seems like a very nice, rational stance. But one does not apply the rule equally. One does not keep an open mind about unicorns or gnomes in your sock drawer. These things lack evidence exactly as life after death lacks evidence, so why "keep an open mind" about the latter but not the others? It can only be because you have some desire for it to be true. Just as religious people have a strong desire for heaven to exist. Desire doesn't make it real. Being honest with oneself means refusing to believe in things for which there is no evidence. And whatever your personal experiences (there always seem to be personal experiences in these cases), they are not proper evidence. You may have interpreted them as such, but imagine growing up in a society that never believed in ghosts and wouldn't understand the concept, and then having those same experiences. You would surely interpret them differently. My house makes all sorts of weird noises. If I believed in ghosts, I might be prone to interpret the noises as the rattlings of the dead. But since I know that ghosts aren't real, I'm free to seek out natural explanations for them. That's the beautiful simplicity of science and reason. It unclutters the mind.
[deleted]
Exactly.
share[deleted]
Wow, that's all you think you are.... your physical body? I don't know whether she's real or fake.... but we all have a spirit and a body. Your spirit is energy, your body is matter.
sharePeople should keep their skeptical crap to themselves until they have some actual proof.
shareI feel so incredibly sad for the people who feel that this is fake simply because "ghosts can't possibly be real". What dull people you must be.
shareIt is called "cold reading".
Anyone who "believes" in this is simple-minded.
Yeah right, "cold reading". I've seen people do cold readings and its laughable. What she does is not cold reading.
"There's a young child, and I keep getting this aching pain in my head, like a blunt object was taken to my skull".
The woman had lost her 11 year old boy from a head injury. That would be literally impossible for the first words out of Lisa's mouth to be that accurate if she was simply "cold reading".
Unlike John Edwards, who is in fact a charlatan, Lisa is able to give specific names and events without going through pantomine like Edwards, who doles out numbers and letters until he hits on something. She does this in cold readings to people on the street on her show.
Either both she and these people are fantastic actors (because you really can't tell if they're acting), or she is in fact psychic.
"First you ask if you can be red, knowing that I'm always red."
If you don't believe in this kind of thing, then you are probably going to think she is fake. I believe (or want to) because my spouse was killed 3 years ago and I would love to know anything about him since he died. Before he died I didn't pay attention to things like that. Now I notice strange noises, the phone ringing daily and nobody is on the other end, just many strange things happening throughout the day, every single day. I also want to believe that when I dream about him that he is in some way communicating with me. My kids notice them also. I think we are just looking for any sign now that lets us know that he is around. It is extremely reassuring to my family to believe he is not completely out of our lives and we can live our lives with the feeling that he has not totally abandoned us.
sharethe show is not a fake!!!! She is the real deal folks. I worked on the show.... and she is as real as it gets!!!!
shareWell she is the first one that actually seems to be the real deal. As for ghosts they are real in my book. Everyone has a spirit.
You can't change who people are without destroying who they were.....~The Butterfly Effect~
If you worked on the show, can you tell us if you heard any buzz to the show doing more than just the first 6? The finale was last night and I'd love to see more episodes!
shareI total believe this is really why make a show that is fake there is no point. I am a believer of the dead i think in some way it is all real. I hope this airs in the UK cause i would love to watch. I can only find clips on Lifetime.
share(To All)
Do a little research on Harry Houdini and his efforts to find someone (anyone) with a true gift in this area. (Don't bother with the movies - severely fictionalized)
After his mother died he began to search for a true medium with a belief that it was possible to communicate with the dead in some way. So no one had to convince him they only had prove that they could do it. After six years of seriously seeking out these people he was unable to find even one who wasn't a failure or a fraud.
And he went to his grave with a promise to his wife that if it were possible for him to contact her, he would. They even had code words so that she could be certain that it was him. She attempted to contact him through mediums for ten years after his death with no success.
So here's two people who truly believed it was possible and had a strong desire to succeed and yet they could not communicate beyond the grave.
Also: Great videos to watch are Penn and Teller's *beep* "Talking to the Dead" first airing on HBO 24 Jan 03, "ESP" 28 Mar 03. They're both a hoot!
[deleted]
Saying something isn't real because there is no proof it exist (or saying something is real because there is no proof it doesn't exist) is known as the fallacy of ignorance. Saying something isn't real because you know it couldn't possible be true, therefore it isn't, is known as the fallacy of the lack of imagination. Just because science can't prove it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Science cannot prove conscienceness (or subconscience), morality, wisdom (different than knowedge),intuition, or the mind-body connection, but we all know it is there. I have also been informed by friends who are Professors and have PH.Ds at local colleges and Universities (in philasophy & biology) that the acedemic world is filled with elitists who do not want to be wrong. My philasophy professor often would make fun of them (such as saying that can't utter these "dreadful" words: I don't know) and I have been told to prepare yourself if you are submitting work for peer review, because no matter what you do it on, your work will be "shred" to pieces. This is just proof to me that most scientists are stuck in a paradigm and don't want to be wrong on anything.
Loving Jesus allows me to hate you...
I bless you in the name of the Father, Son, and Yog-Sothoth!
It has been very interesting reading the different perspectives of each person in this thread. Some of you believe in ghosts, others do not.
Empirical research is naturally research that bases findings on direct (or indirect) observation as its test of "reality." However, reality is subjective to each individual. For example, a person that has been blind from birth may not be able to see the sun or stars in the sky, but that does not mean they are not real. So to take this one step further, as humans we are limited to the senses we have to perceive what each of us believe to be reality.
Some people claim to have seen or spoken to ghosts. Others claim they have seen UFO's and aliens. Do they believe it? Yes! Is it real? It is to that person. People that have "near-death" experiences truly believe in the visions they see, and yet some say that the experience is just a drug induced hallucination. But, is not what we believe to be "reality" simply the perception of any event?!
One day perhaps we humans will be able to use a greater portion of our brain and see beyond the finite limitations we have today. Maybe there are dimensions beyond the three we accept today and ghosts exist there. Perhaps echoes of alternate time periods exist on other planes. With the science of today, we cannot prove or disprove these theories. However, it does not negate their possible existence.
It is also interesting how arrogant we are today to believe our knowledge of science is so advanced. We think we can do almost anything and understand so much. IMHO, we know very little and we have only scratched the surface of the unknown wonders of the universe.
It is truly impossible to understand the infinity of our universe with a finite mind. So is Lisa Williams real or a fake? The point is moot. Is she entertaining to you (which is the point of a TV show)? Obviously, she is if you enjoy watching the show!
Wow-
I had no idea Lisa could set off such a debate...
I worked on the show, she's real.
Nothing is staged and they are real people that she has never met. The show is shot in real time; there are no re-takes, no script, no preset agendas. Camera rolls and that's it.
Logistically, the show is the hardest Locations work that I have ever done. I assure you that it is all real, Lisa is not a fake, and you should watch the 2nd season.
Regards,
John Brown
[deleted]
"If you were shown proof, would you believe in the paranormal?"
YES! That's the whole point of science. Rational people believe in things exactly proportional to the evidence in their favor. Since there is no evidence whatsoever in favor of ghosts, rational people can't believe in them.
Hiding behind an inability to measure (and hence the "special" powers of select people, such as Williams) is simply the clearest evidence of fraud there is.
Come on people. Harry Houdini exposed this nonsense long ago.
You have no faith. Faith is what makes people believe. Clearly you are an atheist, the worst kind of people out there.
share[deleted]
While I agree with your statement that there are good and bad people who are religious and who are atheists, I find your final declaration patronizing and insulting. There is nothing dull about appreciating the wonders that science has uncovered. Dull are the anthropocentric fairy tales of religion that discourage, even forbid, rational wonder. Believing in nonsense is not open-minded. Or perhaps you can tell me which version of religion it's best to believe in so that life isn't so dull? My life is more full as an atheist than it ever was as a believing Christian. That's because my atheism allows me to learn about the universe (to the best of science's abilities thus far) without having to compare every wondrous fact with the ancient desert tales in a dusty old book. All atheism is is skepticism. Belief in proportion to evidence. It's the lack of arrogant certainty that religion offers. All I ask of you is to provide some rubric, other than science and reason, that tells us which things "that can't be currently measured or sensed" that we should believe in. It seems to me it simply opens the floodgates to all irrational belief, leading just as easily to ghosts and goblins as it does to religious terrorism and hatred.
shareWhat an interesting debate! Stephanie is outnumberd (and my joining the conversation isn't going to change that), but she has argued her points well and stood her ground. All things considered, I appreciate this has been a fairly high-minded debate (though frustration did slip through in a couple of instances). Thanks to all!
I'm not looking for a fight (honestly). I just wanted to point out that talking to the dead and the possibility of ghosts is a "contradiction" not a complement to traditional Christianity. As a person of faith, I have to keep my mind open to entertain the possibility that psychic phenomenon exists. I really don't trust TV psychics, but I am endlessly fascinated and intellectually curious.
With respect Stephanie, I think you have slammed the door too tightly. There was a study at the University of Chicago, released in June 2005 that 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. ---This doesn't prove anything of course. I suspect every human being wants to believe that there is permanent about his or her own existence. Perhaps these scientists are allowing their faith to overshadow their rationality. Maybe the study was flawed or biased (this is common). I just think you're over-stating the conclusiveness and unanimity of scientific opinion.
If pscyhic phenomemon exists it challenges both your beliefs and mine. I remain doubtful and curious. (Sorry to gang up on you).
Peace...
I dont think..... so many people hurt bad really bad and she allows them to grieve with closure even if you think its fake maybe some one else may need her it sounds like you are angry or just didnt loose anyone in your life that was that important.....shes an asset to this world and helps people through the hard times through the media
idiots.
NO ONE CAN TALK TO THE DEAD ITS IMPOSSIBLE.
[deleted]
Its not about anyone having close minds. Its about if she is full of *beep* Are we suppose to believe everyone nut job with a tv show? Some of us prefer to have more evidence then believing every piece of crap out there.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
[deleted]
She has to prove its not bs. She can't so I will take the more logical choice. Someone profiting on a some so called sixth sense doesn't need to be opened. Its usually bs and thats the trend. To give these people any credence is ridiculous. They prey off the weak and so open minded to anything without proof.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
[deleted]
If you want to believe every tv psychic out there then go ahead. Go give John Edwards and the rest of them all your money. Then go sign up for a get rich quick scheme if you want. You would think with all these psychics running around there would be a ounce of proof.But there have been plenty of experiments using psychics. Even the psycho nazi doctors experimented with the occult and psychics. Also the CIA and US military did also getting the idea from the kgb. But they lead to absolutely nothing.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
[deleted]
If she was really she could test it in a lab environment. There has been studies on this phenomenon ranging for 100s of years. And each time these so called psychics have been all proved to be bs. Do I believe there are things beyond the physical world? Well of course. Do I believe that so called psychics like Lisa Williams are full of sh it? Yes I do and they use people like you to pad their bank account. Believe what you want but don't be stupid enough to believe in people.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well it is true. Its easy to accept bs when you're not really even willing to accept any tests. How sad you do believe in people. I put my limits at tv psychic's or others claiming they can talk to the dead. Why is it they always have a tv show? The first thing anyone should do is doubt them.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
[deleted]
Well if any tests are performed that proves she is full of *beep* You will just say the scientists were bias. So cut the bs.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
More proof that Lisa Williams is a fake shrew.
http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200706/20070611/slide_20070611_350_106.jhtml
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thats because you want to believe in bs.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
"Lisa says that the reason that she was unable to read Laura is because Laura was blocked off to the experience."
Ugh, that is such a BS answer. 'She wasn't a brainless moron willing to go along with whatever I said, so I couldn't read her.'
Good find, that's pretty decent proof.
"The closest shave you will ever know..."
--Official Bleeder--
[deleted]
I don't want to get into an argument with anyone here, but this is what I think. I think that Lisa Williams is in fact the real deal, however that is not to say that I beleive everyone who claims to be a "medium" and "talk to the dead." I do beleive that certain people possess psychic gifts and such, but those people are very few and far in between. There is a show coming up on Lifetime that takes a bunch of alleged "psychics" and tests to see if their "powers" are real. I'll be very interested to see if they find an actual psychic in the whole lot.
The point is... Newbie is my drunk baby.
[deleted]
I'm tired of this debate. Obviously no one is going to change their opinions no matter what the other one says. vup, you don't have to defend your beliefs to anyone. Just ignore what they say. Have you ever had a paranormal experience? I have heard some really creepy stories.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
i agree shes sweet and down to earth and how ppl who have investigated her say shes the real deal
Lexxi*s new baby is the puppy named MAX!!!
As an indifferent party, ie, can't say real or fake...what does it matter? The show is entertaining, Lisa is entertaining, and the people she gives readings to appear to be genuinely impressed. Regardless if they are actors. At the end of the show, it states that the show is for entertainment purposes. If someone believes and find solace in the apparent abililities of Lisa Williams, why would anyone try to discount that or make them feel bad about it. To me, it would be like going to someone's funeral where someone states that the departed is in a better place and someone else says, " oh no, they are just worm food now." Faith gives people hope. Faith allows people to see a reason for this life. I am not religious in any way, but I certainly respect anyone that is. Why would anyone come down on someone for having a belief? No one has the right to say that their belief is the correct one, regardless if they truly believe that theirs is the right God, belief, faith, etc....None of us will know until we are dead.
shareI agree with everything you said davidboyce1. Most people like to go around saying that faith is illogical and can't be proven by fact and that's true, however I think those people also have faith, just shy away from it.
We're human and have feelings and emotions that can't be proven by fact and are illogical, but we don't say that they don't exist or aren't valid human characteristics.
So if life after death can't be proven or sounds illogical why can't people accept it anyway like they do other things? Or who is to say Lisa Williams can't talk to dead?
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out." - Bill Hicks