John Edward.

Does John Edward really have a special ability to talk to the deceased relatives of others? or does he just cold read? what do you guys think?

[Silver]

Idk, I used to watch his show when he was first on years ago and I liked him, BUT, I also think he is probably a good example of a "mix" of cold reader and true psychic, I mean who's to say that you can't have a mix? I've heard people say we are ALL psychic, some let it lie dormant and others have discovered that they seem to have a few psychic experiences.

Edward claims to be a psychic medium but what does that mean?

I know what a psychic is. I know what a medium does. But why confuse the issue by describing oneself using both words? And it's not "....a special ability to talk to the deceased relatives of others" if one is a medium - that's what 'mediums' do!

If he's a psychic then there's no telling whether he's speaking to discarnate family (or friends) of an enquirer, or psychic-reading them.

If he is an (evidential medium) he should give clear evidence about whom he claims to be communicating with.

I'll leave you to decide what you think he is and what he does...

I've seen the show but nothing really seemed amazing about it, he was always just half correct at best.

I read some of one of his books a few years ago too, the stuff in that seems pretty unreal, but it could just be that. UN real. you can say whatever the hell you want in a book and claim it to be truth.

I'm leaning towards him being a fake. however I think there really are people out there who can actually communicate with the dead.


Also whats the difference between a psychic and a medium? lol, I always figured it was just 2 different words for the same thing.

[Native spirit]

Everybody i psychic it depends how aware you are of it and how you use it, a psychic reader will pick up on the energy of the person, and voice vibration in some cases,

A medium has the ability to speak to spirit.they higher their vibrations to meet the vibration of the spirit.

i read both ways mediumystic and psychic. i have seen many mediums in my time and very few have come up to my expectations. cold reading does come in to it by some but not all,

Namaste

Originally Posted by WhiteDevil

I've seen the show but nothing really seemed amazing about it, he was always just half correct at best.

I read some of one of his books a few years ago too, the stuff in that seems pretty unreal, but it could just be that. UN real. you can say whatever the hell you want in a book and claim it to be truth.

I'm leaning towards him being a fake. however I think there really are people out there who can actually communicate with the dead.


Also whats the difference between a psychic and a medium? lol, I always figured it was just 2 different words for the same thing.

"Also whats the difference between a psychic and a medium? lol, I always figured it was just 2 different words for the same thing." What you've described is commonplace and people don't understand that they are not the same.

However, because this happens so frequently the old meaning of medium is disappearing fast and it's not uncommon for even practitioners to misunderstand what they do or use the wrong description.

Throw into the pot the word 'reading' and we're in a minefield of misunderstood and misused terminology.

No wonder the 'professionals' can make a comfortable living without those they serve understanding what they're getting.

[Roselove]

he gets his psychic info from spirits my guess is.

having read and watched John for a number of years, personally I don't believe he DOES cold read. I've seen Colin Fry cold read, as has Derek Acorah.

A 'cold reader' uses his OWN thoughts, putting their own interpretation into a read, watching body language, voice changes etc, allowing ego to get in the way. it's been openly admitted that Sylvia Brown is a cold reader. Apparantly her hubby blew the lid.

A MEDIUM will follow CERT ..
COMMUNICATOR
EVIDENCE
REASON
TYING IT UP.

COMMUNICATOR. The Spirit 'person' that is communicating with the Medium. This is usually someone known to the sitter although sometimes it can be a distant relative who acts as a vibrational bridge for the sitter's closer contacts enabling recognition of Spirit by descriptions. Age, height, hair colour, scars, dress, illnesses, passing conditions etc.

EVIDENCE. Past memories, current situations, health issues, thoughts that only the sitter knows about.

REASON. The reason for the message ie, asking for forgiveness, to bring support, giving thanks etc.

TYING IT UP. This is tying all the information gained together, proving without doubt that Spiirit Communication has taken place.

A PSYCHIC on the other hand, doesn't communicate with the Spirit of a passed loved one but actually with the spirit of the sitter. Everything we are now, ever have been or ever will be in the future is all contained within the 'aura' .. but to my mind the information comes through on a lesser vibratation.

@mac .. you ask what a psychic medium is ...
a psychic medium starts off on the lower vibrational level, reading the 'sitter' themselves then raising to attain Spirit Communication.

A Spiritual Medium is one who links straight into Spirit without reading the sitter first.

Hope that helps a bit
Jue xx

"@mac .. you ask what a psychic medium is ...
a psychic medium starts off on the lower vibrational level, reading the 'sitter' themselves then raising to attain Spirit Communication.

A Spiritual Medium is one who links straight into Spirit without reading the sitter first."

Thanks, Jue.

I follow what you've explained but that's a distinction without a difference in my mind. Provided that the eventual outcome is evidential mediumship, the mode of getting there is of little consequence to my mind so why even mention being a psychic medium?

I have to ask this. If a sitter/enquirer is there for an evidential sitting, what value would psychic information gained from the enquirer have? It's only for the practitioner to become 'tuned in' and I hold concerns that certain practitioners will substitute auric reading for evidential mediumship, with the sitter unaware of what was happening.... I make these points generally as I know you understand them already.

I wonder how many practitioners titling themselves 'psychic mediums' would agree with your definition or will address my concerns?

And I wonder how many 'psychic mediums' are primarily psychic/auric readers with little, or no, evidential mediumship in their repertoire?

I follow what you've explained but that's a distinction without a difference in my mind. Provided that the eventual outcome is evidential mediumship, the mode of getting there is of little consequence to my mind so why even mention being a psychic medium

There's every difference mac. With BRITISH law being the way it is, one of the policies of the SNU is that the MEDIUM states whether they are working psychically or mediumistically. For instance, if using any form of 'tools' ie tarot, crystals etc and spirit communication is established, then whatever means must be laid aside and the client informed.

I have to ask this. If a sitter/enquirer is there for an evidential sitting, what value would psychic information gained from the enquirer have? It's only for the practitioner to become 'tuned in' and I hold concerns that certain practitioners will substitute auric reading for evidential mediumship, with the sitter unaware of what was happening.... I make these points generally as I know you understand them already.

Unfortunately, that is what gives the genuine Mediums a bad name. I've seen it sooo many times when a new reader tries to offer evidential mediumship when it is purely a psychic reading. I've seen it happen in church too during a platform demonstration.

But to be honest I think this is where the newbies are falling down. They jump in with both feet first, excitement takes over that they can actually get things right but can't differentiate between the energies - and it takes a LOT of work, training, acceptance and trust. To me, PSYCHIC awareness is paramount in a Mediums' development. Not just to help build confidence, developing their senses, trust, intuition etc but also in that energy recognition and vibrational change process.

I wonder how many practitioners titling themselves 'psychic mediums' would agree with your definition or will address my concerns?

Well, I suppose it's down to each individuals perception, and how much the agree or disagree with either of us lol.

And I wonder how many 'psychic mediums' are primarily psychic/auric readers with little, or no, evidential mediumship in their repertoire?

Again this comes down to their own training (or lack of in some cases) and ego. From a different perspective though, one must also recognise that everyone is at their own level - and we've all had to start at the beginning :).