RS: I am a boy for now. Seal boy for now. Boy you’re fair/your affair, do ya. Him, affair with a man 

FS: I bless each ¹[one of you from my hear]t. ³[I will pray for you] [and your families], and I ask each ²[one of you please] to re[member to pray for me].

I am a  [from my hea]rt  I am comes from [m my hea]; [a] comes from fr[o]m; there is a slight fricative sound from /f/ but this may be accepted as extraneous.

boy for now  [one of you]  /b/ is perceivable on release of FS [you]; [oy] comes from FS [you]; [for] comes from [of]; [now] comes from [one]


Seal p[lease] An unreleased /p/ however can be heard.

boy [you] /b/ can be heard from the release of [you].

for now [one of] as set out in first reversal above.


Boy  [you]  There is an approximation of /b/

you’re/your  f[or y]ou   This creates acceptable perception of the word.

fair/affair  [pray f]or  /p/ disappears in the FS producing an appropriate articulation of the word. Also, [affair] can be appropriate as a shorter RS [you’re] is acceptable. If [fair], [you’re] has a small rising intonation at the end; if [affair]. The rising intonation becomes [a].

do ya  [I will]  [ya] comes from [I] and [do] rom [will] with /w/ providing the rounded vowel. [l] can actually be heard at FS [ll]. There are perceptual similarities with /d/, but of course, this does not mean that it is /d/.


Him  [me] /h/ is easily perceived here. Beginning a sentence with an object pronoun is not normal grammar. One could offer reasons for this, which are not necessarily accurate. For example, as Reverse Speech appears often to be different subconscious aspects communicating with each other, [him] may be a reply to another aspect of the person that we cannot hear, and indicating that the ‘voice’ is talking about ‘him’.

affair  [pray for] [a] comes from f[or]; a bilabial /p/ can still be perceived, but it is decayed, and a general sense of [with] occurs.

with a  rememb[er to]  /w/ comes from t[o]; sense of [th] occurs at /t/. and [a] comes from [er].

man  re[memb]er   There is no /n/. I have taken licence here to cut it at the onset of /m/ to give some sense of [man]. Ordinarily this should not be done, however, on the chance that it is ‘meant’ to be [man] I have done so; but of course, I cannot then claim that it is. Following this are two more syllables which may represent a further short statement, however, has fallen into gibberish. This begins with /m/. And as /n/ can be assimilated to a following [m], I have offered the possibility of [man].


There is another language sounding section. It sounds generally like ‘mafia’ however, there is an /r/ evident so that it is really like ‘ma free ya’.

Sin/Seen  fam[ilies]  /n/ perception comes from the alveolar /l/. Perception of the length of the vowel will cause one either to hear ‘seen’ more or ‘sin’ more.

mafia/ma free ya [maf] comes from [fam]; Interestingly, /n/ in [‘an] disappears in RS and what is left is [a] and [y] [an y’]. However, an /r/ is perceivable as well.



A reference to ‘boy’ is obvious here. The first voice refers to itself as a boy. The second one refers to boy in the 3rd person. The third reversal refers to boy in the 2nd person. Seal can mean hide away, protect, don’t let out. The final reversal refers to ‘him’. In light of ‘boy’ in the other 3 reversals, this could refer to ‘boy’. It may mention ‘affair’ twice, but at least once. If twice, it is used with ‘boy’ and it is used with ‘him’. It connects ‘boy’ to the affair, and the affair with a man (If indeed, it is meant to be ‘man’, and this is not necessarily so).



RS: ¹Shake your dick now; I fell. ²I fuck in the ark now/no. ³We fucks dick. 

FS: You are concerned about your children’s ¹[welfare and education]s. You worry about the future of the planet and ²[what kind of a] world we will leave for future generations. But today and every day I would as³[k each of you] whatever your capacity to care one another. Be close to one another.

Shake edu[cati]on

your ed[u]cation  [y] is produced in the articulation of FS [u].

dick [ed]ucation /k/ is perceivable here

no(w) [an’]  The /w/ does not occur and this is a shortened word.

I fell  [welfare]  [ll] comes from /w/; FS /l/ disappears leaving /f/; [I] comes from [are].


I fuck  [of a] Again there is perception of /k/ here.

in the ark now  [what kind]  in the comes from [nd]; ark comes from [ki]; now comes from the alveolar articulation, the vowel and /w/ of [what]. There is a short pause before the final word. It may be that I would be inclined to drop it out and keep ‘I fuck in the ark’; however, the intonation of ‘ fuck’ indicates that it is not the final word.


We  [you]  /w/ comes from the rounded FS vowel, and [e] comes from the high front vowel from [y].

fucks  ea[ch of]  Yet again /k/ is evident! The sibilant sound comes from [ch].

dick  as[k eac]h /d/ comes from the alveolar position of the tongue at the start of [ch].



/k/ occurs in each statement when the FS sounds would not ordinarily produce the sound. There appears to be a sexual theme running through these reversals. If ‘I fell’, this may indicate a weakness in control of desire. If ‘ark’, this may represent a coming together of diverse peoples to be saved and (hopefully) start a new life together. Verb agreement is incorrect in the final reversal with ‘fucks’ rather than ‘fuck’. Perhaps this is not necessarily a problem as verb agreement is a major issue affecting many English language speakers as a non-native language who are lacking in fluency. The last reversal has a different voice characteristic while the first two sound more like the Pope.


RS: ¹Siena grow seen issue; ²They(‘ll) lie ‘n they must go/They’re lyin’ a/in Moscow/They lie in a Moskal; ³The owl grow. 


FS: Many of you have come to this city from countries the world over; as such you are a microcosm of the peoples ¹[which this organis]ation represents and seeks to serve. [Like so many other] people ³[worldwide] you are concerned about your children’s welfare and educations.

Siena  org[anis]ation    The diphthong in the FS creates the diphthong in reverse.

grow  [org]anisation

seen  [this]  The alveolar the Pope articulated for [th] produces /n/

issue  [which]  The Pope produces a short syllable through over articulation of [ch] producing the [i].


They’re/They’ll/They  [oth]er  The release of FS [o] produces perception in reverse of [th] or [d]; close examination reveals that there appears to be /l/ as the final before the [l] initial of the next word. However, the [r] will assimilate towards [l] as the articulators are preparing to produce [l], so [they’re] is also appropriate.

lyin’ a/lie in a/lie an’ they  m[any oth]er  In the FS, [th] sounds like [l]. In [lie an’ they] they [th] can assimilate to the /n/ before it, so this is viable. At the slowest speed [a] can sound like [in] where the /n/ would have assimilated to the following /m/ (in Moscow).

must go/Moscow/Moskal  [like so m]any  At normal speed the /l/ is most evident, but at the lower speeds it is easily perceived as /w/. Moskal is a derogatory term for Russians known by East Europeans and Russians themselves.


Discussion of this reversal

They/They’ll lie and they must go

They’re lyin’ a/in Moscow

They’ll/They/There lie in a Moskal


With Moskal being a name for people, [a] before it would be incorrect grammar. Moskal is also a term less likely to be known. With Moscow, it would be grammatically correct if it is [in], however that is not so evident at the two higher speeds. The first alternative provides the most accurate grammar.


The  worldwi[de]

owl  world[wi]de The [ld] may help to give perception of final [l].

grow  [worl]dwide /g/ is perceivable perhaps from the lowering of the soft palate at [rl].


There is another possible reversal – ‘n  that’s okay – however, this may not be the case, and I have not included it here.


Overall discussion

Siena may refer to the central Italian city. There is an issue associated with Siena and growing. Perhaps this is associated with the spread of refugee camps to areas such as this from the south to central Italy. The owl is a metaphor. There are different meanings attributable to the owl. For example, growing of the intellect, the ability to see things, to see through deception, or a symbol of change and transition. If the owl growing is associated with the issue in Siena growing (refugees), then it could either the increasing ability to see what is happening from all this, or that it represents a change in life as we know it. In the other reversal, some lie, and therefore they must go (If this version is correct).



RS: Havana now. 

FS: to care [one another]. Be close to one another. Respect one another. And so embody (…?) (your?) service this organisation’s ideal of a united human family …

Havana  [another]  no /h/ but this is quite normal for a South American speaker. /v/ comes from [th].

now  [one].


Only 2 words, so this increases possibility of coincidence. The UN speech was at a time when Obama was looking at reinstating relations with Cuba. This reversal fits into the FS words of a united human family.


RS: Sit search for deep; send it dumb  

FS: Working not only for peace but in peace; working not not only for justice [but in the spirit of justice].


sit  jus[tice]

search  [jus]tice

for deep  s[pirit of]


send it  [in a s]pirit  Unreleased /t/ can be perceived at the beginning of [in] after the release of /t/ in [but]. The position of the tongue and contraction occurring allows perception of this. The lack of obvious /d/ is not an issue here.

dumb  [but]  /m/ can be perceived here.


There is a clear bilabial at the end of the final word. One may hear ‘down’ in a general listening, and consider it with the word ‘deep’. However, in FS not every phoneme is perceivable as belonging to the word the speaker is saying. Perhaps it is meant to be ‘down’.

One may apply a range of interpretations here. For example, the conscious searching for deeper meaning may cause an aspect of ourselves to remain hidden and silent, uncommunicative. Or a search for peace and justice will cause some part of ourselves to become dumb.


Audio soon

I have taken clusters of language-like words from the reversed speech of a participant at a Reverse Speech seminar and presented them here with an examination of the linguistics and discussion of possible meaning. That I have documented reversals, does not mean I believe that they are real. Some of them could be heard in different ways, and some are not sound enough phonemically. It is look at what someone might hear, document and present as Reverse Speech, and an exploration of what may ‘pass the grade’ as Reverse Speech. 

RS: in/and that fuck the raper

FS: I get moved how um people can so down and they (,,,?) just becomes ah joyful and happy and they see different their skin changes and they become [happy and confident ‘n] it it just moves me to see when ….

The raper is from [happy an]. Articulation of [y a] produces /r/ before articulation of /n/ occurs in the FS. /n/ produces an approximation of the. Fuck comes from [conf]ident where /n/ is greatly decayed. A northern English vowel (note: speaker is originally from Yorkshire). In/and that comes from confi[dent ‘n i]t.


This is fairly sound linguistically. Obviously the reversal is negative. Whether there was a raper is something that needs to be determined (and whether it has something to do with the potential words nigga/Muhammed, looked at below). Her positive words are almost like a defence against something negative in her psyche.


RS: Watch me kill one day

FS: [Yeah, I work in Tro]pic and I’m the senior manager in Tropics.

[o]ne comes from [I w]ork, and a sense of a possible /n/ comes at the onset of I in the FS where the energy ramps up. /d/ can be heard but it is uncertain whether there is some influence from David Oates’ words. Kill comes at [work]. The i[n] lacks any clarity and so [m]e is assumed here. Watch comes from [tro]. The rounded vowel combined with the mouth moving towards /p/ produces /w/. tro[pic] produces pek, but we can assume the reversal begins after this.


Interestingly, David Oates says in reverse after this “Oh, right”. The statement is quite clear, but considerations are: 1) accepting the ambiguity at [m]e 2) there is a syllable – kep (tro[pic]) – at the beginning, and has been removed; however, it does not seem to be the start of the reversal 3) that the /d/ in day is from the speaker and not David Oates.


RS: I have/had this attack

FS: It’s not about money it’s not about possessions it’s not about anything li[ke that, it’s abou]t changing people’s being

The speaker’s emotions produced the /h/, allowing for perception of [I ha]. One can hear hab as the FS sound is also /b/. Internal grammar construction makes one hear have or had. One can get a sense of [th] from the constriction at the release of /a/ and onset of /b/ in [ab]out probably combined with the hiss noise of the audio. Attack comes from li[ke that i]t’s. The [th] is decayed and /k/ is heard.


It’s a short reversal, and /b/ does occur at have/had. A very light [th] is not an issue as this can occur in FS.  Otherwise, the stress pattern is appropriate. Based on this, one will need to decide if there is enough that is right about it. Assuming accuracy, one would have to consider whether it is a negative emotional/psychological event that occurs or occurred to her, or if it is a physical one, and in this one may tie it into other reversals documented here.


RS: I kiss Noah. See a loss, some deliverer I want …

FS: Um what’s stopping me from be[ing who I really my soul is I want to ge]t everything you know I just …

I kiss – t[o get]  /o/ gives sense of I; /k/ from /g/ and /s/ from sibilance of /t/ is reverse.

Noah – [I want] /n/ from /n/; [oa] comes from [I wa]

See a loss – [soul is] [see] from [is]; [a] from release of /l/ moving towards [i]; [loss] from [soul].

some – [my s]oul

deliverer – [I really] /d/ is perceived the release of [y]; sense of /v/ comes from release of I and onset of /r/; sense of an extended [er] comes from including enough of I

I want – [ing who I] The remaining part of I (not utilised in the [er] above goes toward producing RS I. /w/ comes from the rounded vowel in who, and /n/ comes from [ng].


There is a sense of all of the words documented. Interestingly, there is kiss Noah and deliverer. This indicates a strong desire for someone to help her and guide her. The reversal would then be a response to the consultation with David Oates.


RS: You had me head swimming – that’s true/two –then head him off – Australian on eggs will beat my egg through 

FS: I work in Tropic, and I’m a senior manager in Tropics and sell (vegan) skin care and make up which I just [love getting on people’s skin and they learnt it from me (?) it just and it moves me when I] can see them change and transform.

(a) RS: you had me head swimming 

FS: and it moves me when I]

You had – whe[n I]  The emotionality and duration of I creates an aspirated /h/ and sense of /y/ allowing perception of the two words.

me – m[e wh] The /w/ produces perception of /m/

head – [me] The speaker’s emotionality creates the /h/. Sense of unreleased /d/ occurs at the onset of FS /e/.

swimming – [an’ it moves]  swim comes from moves with /v/ allowing perception of /w/ (but also /l/).  ing comes from a[n’i]t.

(b) RS: That’s true/two  

FS: it just

The articulation and release of /t/ in jus[t] in the FS allows a sense of [th] and the ju[st] allows a sense of tha[t’s]. The [j] permits a sense of [tr]ue, however, there is no /r/,  and therefore this is uncertain. It may just be gibberish.

(c) RS: then head him off 

FS: from me (?)

then head comes from the unknown words. But what the sounds can be perceived to be in the FS naturally produce the RS words.

him off comes from [from me]

(d) S: Australian on eggs will beat my egg though 

FS: [getting on people’s skin and they learnt i]t

Aus – learn[t i]t /t/ produces /s/

tra – l[earn t]o – however there is an /n/ in the RS rather than /t/ and /r/ is not evident on closer listening. This is not accurate for the sounds.

lian  – [nd they l]earn [th] disappears; /a/ is pronounced rather than a schwa (unpronounced vowel) usual in the word.


on eggs – [skin a]nd  The vowel is indicative of eggs, however the softness of the consonant could make it ex or even aches. 

will beat – [people]’s  /t/ can be perceived at /p/. /w/ can be perceived at [le].

my egg – [getting on] /m/ is perceived at /n/; [y] comes from /o/ + /i/ ) [ng] disappears and /t/ is glottal like and cannot be heard in the RS); egg is from [ge]tting. 

through – [love] – frication from /v/ gives sense of [th]. 


Of course, this is one way to hear it. It is clear the first statement comes at “You had me head swimming”, then there is a quiet comment which can sound like That’s t(r)ue without the /r/, but could be something else or nothing.  This is followed by Australian, which is not precise being more like Ausnalian, and the rest may start with this word, but then again may not. You had me head swimming may be a reaction to the situation she has found herself in, speaking to David Oates about herself in front of people; the fact that Oates is Australian make the closeness to ‘Australian’ interesting. Perhaps there could be a connection between head swimming and beating her eggs through, signalling the perceived effect of the therapeutic demonstration with Oates. But, it is easy to find meaning in things, isn’t it!


RS: Yeah, this is (zh) the end of my bills. Soul wake up

FS: I want to be able to just not [to worry about money and just to be] financially free again [like I was].

this is (zh) the – mon[ey and just t]o  this – sense of [th] in this comes from release of t[o] in the FS and /s/ from [t]o; sense of the comes from part of [ey] and [an’]; sense of is comes from ju[st]; there is a noise syllable (zh) at [j]ust.

end of my – [about money] /b/ disappears in the RS as does /t/ which had assimilated to /m/ anyway in the FS, therefore m[y] occurs at [about] and  /m/ comes from /m/.

bills – [to worry] an indeterminant sound occurs at the FS release of /y/ allowing some impression of a possible /b/; /ll/ comes from [worr] and /s/ comes from [t]o.

Soul – [was] /w/ creates sense of /l/

wake – li[ke I] Movement of I towards /w/ in the FS produces /w/

up – [li]ke This sounds like ‘out’ rather than ‘up’.


There is a syllable of noise (zh). If the reversal was started later, it may still be heard as This is the end …. where (zh) represents is. ‘up’ on closer listening is like ‘out’, which in the phrase does not make sense. One would have to decide whether it is meant to be ‘up’.


RS: We’re ready Edward, look you for (the) Alice, Alison

FS: an’ to let, to let (other?) people would be a real gift

We’re – [real]  soft /l/ produces /w/ in RS

ready – b[e a r]eal /d/ comes from transition of FS /e/ to /a/ where the tongue is high and forward.

Edward – [would be]  /d/ can be perceived at [d b]; /w/ comes from the rounded vowel w[oul]d; /d/ can be perceived at [w]ould. [w]ould can even be perceived as hard /l/ in the FS, so this is probably why /d/ can be perceived.

look – peo[ple]  A stop /k/ can be perceived at /p/.

you – p[eo]ple high front vowel allows perception of /y/, and movement of vowel toward /p/ in the FS allows for y[ou].

for (the) the strong frication allows /p/ to be heard as /f/. There is a strong frication occurring at the, so I have just made an assumption that it represents the.

Alice – [to le]t There is a pause between Alice and Alison where an unreleased /t/ occurs. Although nothing can be heard, one could also make an assumption that it is Alison.

Alison – [an’ to le]t


Of course this is one way to hear it, and most likely incorrect at that. What else could it be? If /l/ in look is /b/ (which is easy to project into it as) it would be book. The reversal could also be heard as We’re ready. It will/would book you for the Alice … In this case one may claim that the speaker has been thinking about going to Australia, and in light of being interviewed by David Oates, an Australian, the desire has come up.


RS: Put the self-pride, souls in there, Earls and it numb it, nurse, she/you can’t (there she can’t) solve the wrecker

FS: I was very abundant and then um [I kind of lost my passion and lost and went into a dark place (laughter)]. And um I want people to be walking around happy and joyful.

put the – [laughter] this comes at the laughter, could be heard as with the, also. If this is ignored, the reversal begins at self-pride

self pride – [dark place] /p/ can be perceived at FS /k/. /r/ is not really there, so it is assumed. The /f/ is not particularly evident, and it can sound like sell.

Earls – [to a] /t/ provides the sibilant as is typical in RS.

an’ it – wen[t in]

numb it – [an’ wen)t a[n] gives a sense of /m/.

the soul – [lost] /t/ produces sense of the.

in there – [and]

nurse you/she can’t/there she can’t – los[t my passion] – this gives an approximation of nurse. Continuation of /sh/ + vowel allows for some sense of she, but perceived rounded can give impression of you with the sibilant fully part of nurse. Alternatively, nur is meant to be there. With can’t, [c] may be perceived from release of m[y], although this could also be /p/; /m/ may be heard as /n/, and natural ending of can’t can be heard with FS /t/.

solve – o[f lost]

wrecker – [I kind o]f  [nd] decays to /r/; rounded [o] produces /w/.


Where there is /n/ for [th] in there, it can be acceptable (within reason). Most of the words are reasonable, though /f/ and /r/ is a problem for self-pride, there is some issue around nurse she/there she occurs, so we can’t rely on those being there. If there is anything in this, we see aspects of her psychology – self-pride, souls, Earls, numb it (self pride or souls?), solve the wrecker. Earls only makes sense if it is accepted as a metaphor for a leading aspect of the Self.


RS: an’ if it’s (a) certain nigga, Muhammed

FS: I’d be singing down the street singing (?) [with my handbag and just skippin’ a]long

an’ if it’s comes behind [skippin’a]long. The stop effect of the FS /p/ disappears, allowing perception of /f/. /k/ can be heard in i[t]’s, however, similar acoustic cues allow for some perception of /t/. The sibilant /s/ is longer than normal. It is possible to perceive [a] following. The reason for this is between the /s/ of it’[s] and [c]ertain at jus[t] skipping -though it continues to be a sibilant, intensity drops, emulating someone who doesn’t bother releasing /s/ in order to articulate /a/. certain comes from a[nd just]. The stop component of the affricate [j] allows for /t/ perception. Nigga comes from handb[ag an]d, where the extended /n/ in the FS allows for a separate perception of /n/ from certai[n]. The vowel tends to fall into a diphthong /ei/ and the final syllable [ga] tends to have higher stress, so the word may sound a little odd. The stress pattern is interesting, however. The extended /s/ in it’s can occur when someone is hesitating for a moment. Certain drops in intensity as if the speaker knows they could be saying something wrong. The higher stress on ni[gga] could be an intonation pattern to indicate the speaker is saying something important and you should listen. Muhammed comes at [with my handb]ag. The [nd] assimilates to the [b], and in reverse sounds like /m/. Muhamm[ed] occurs at [with]. Close listening will give a perception of thid, where the /d/ occurs at the ramping energy for w[i[th so that perception of a stop alveolar occurs. A general listening glosses over the wi[th].which occurs straight after the mid /m/, however, it is still there.


In it’s, /t/ could be /k/. Nigga, although phonemes are there, is articulated a little strangely, and there is a [th] after the mid /m/ in Muhammed, which can get ignored quite easily. These are the issues with it. That known, one would then need to decide whether there is a reversal occurring or just coincidental sounds.


RS: Slip I hang a (spirit/skirt?), and/in lightning

FS: I’d be just si[nging down the street singing (hapils??)] with my handbag and just skippin’ along ….

Slip is behind the unknown FS words which sounds like ‘pils’. I hang a is behind s[inging ha]pils. RS ng is at FS ng. I comes from h[a]. What I noted as skirt/spirit is behind streets. The final ts in streets produces the /s/. There is sense of an ambiguous stop consonant from the release of the vowel str[ee]ts; one could hear it as /k/, /p/, /t/, or even a /y/ with a hard onset. The final /t/ is produced by the [st]reets, and the /r/ comes from FS . One could project different things into this. Sense of and/in comes from dow[n the]. Sense of lightning comes from si[nging down]. However, it is actually like the sounds for nightding; it is just easy to project the required sounds into it.

There are sounds that follow this, but occur at a different tempo. If they were included it would sound something like an’ nigh ding a slipper with sl a bit distorted.


This is clearly messy and quite inane, and should go into the gibberish bin.


Byrne and Normand. (2000). The Demon-Haunted Sentence: A Skeptical Analysis of Reverse Speech

The authors make claims that can lead readers to believe that David Oates is a shyster, fraudently profiteering from his claims. For example:

  • ‘His company … is dedicated to profiting from his discovery’.
  • A ‘reviewer’ of David Oates’ book, Susan Brombacher, concluded ‘that (Oates) seems more interested in making a profit than educating others.
  • ‘The Reverse Speech Web page contains a plethora of merchandise and services available to consumers at considerable prices’.
  • ‘ ….. those who pay (David Oates) a hefty sum and go through his training can then serve as expert witnesses and command hefty sums themselves’.

It is my suggestion that researchers like Byrne and Normand drop the fact that David Oates makes an income from Reverse Speech, and avoid the urge to use this as a method to discredit the man and the phenomenon.

The attention given to the fact that Reverse Speech is an income-producing enterprise takes away from the necessary argument concerning its genuineness, appears as small-mindedness, and smacks of academic ‘poor form’.  They would do well in ascertaining whether real speech exists, and what it is that is producing it.

The authors write:

“The person trained to hear reverse messages could intentionally or unintentionally report that speech contains hidden incriminating evidence. Many people are not prepared to refute such contrived evidence”.

The authors state that the potential for harm is enormous if Reverse Speech is accepted in places such as a court of law. I agree that it is problematic. It is easy to error without sound skills. This goes for any use of Reverse Speech. A certain perceived stress pattern and the existence of some phonemes can cause the listener to hear a phrase even though other phonemes are incorrect, ambiguous or missing. The ambiguities can mean that it lacks evidence as the documented reversal, and could easily be heard as something else, or nothing at all. Of course, in normal speech, all kinds of processes occur – phoneme assimilations, elision, dropped phonemes and so on – one needs to work with a knowledge of language and its processes and what might be viable within a reasonable set of limitations. After an informed analysis leads the analyser to believe that the reversal indeed represents the sounds of language, it needs to be ascertained whether it is genuine unconscious language rather than just coincidental language-like sounds. Next, what/who the language refers to would have to be identified through a cogent interpretation. What aspect of the person is the ‘voice’? Is it an aspect that represents normal conscious thinking or how he/she views events and those around them? Or is it a denied aspect of the self? Or is it an aspect that communicates at a deeper, more profound level? When the voice uses personal pronouns, such as ‘I’, ‘he’ and ‘you’, who is this entity referring to? Is it the speaker himself or a third person, and if so, who is that third person?  Does the reversal refer directly to the spoken forward speech, or is it the indirect result of a trigger from the forward speech, and refer instead to events or memories of the further past?

The authors apply to Reverse Speech circumstances and conditions which can result in misunderstood and misinterpreted language. For example, they refer to B.F. Skinner’s verbal summator. The authors state:

“The verbal summator consisted of a phonograph (or tape) of random vowel sounds that were grouped together in such a way as to not produce any systematic phonetic groupings. These random phonetic sounds were arranged into patterns that approximated common stress patterns in everyday conversation’.

After such strings of nonsense syllables were arranged, they were played for subjects at barely audible volume levels. After repeatedly listening to these sounds, subjects reported “hearing” the phonograph or the tape “say” things. These sentences, or sentence fragments, did not actually exist and, as such, were considered to be utterances that were already strong in the subject’s repertoire. Put another way, they were “projecting” their own thoughts onto the sounds they were hearing”.

The authors go on to add, “phonemes may sound similar to a meaningful phrase but are really sound salad’. A listener expecting to hear a certain phrase will likely do so”.

Quite true, we project into the signal to hear language, and even more so when there are issues of low audibility, background noise, or audio noise occurring. Masking effects cause the listener to hear a particular utterance that is not there. However, it is not only in Reverse Speech that this can occur; it also occurs in normal speech. Projection into sounds and priming or prompting are issues that affect the hearing of speech whether it is forward or backward. However, Reverse Speech is at a distinct disadvantage compared to normal speech. Here is why:

  • When listening to normal speech, we know it is real language (unless someone has played a trick and recorded noises from a dog that mirror a human stress pattern, and used masking noise over it!). With Reverse Speech, speech needs to be identified from non-speech. This means recognising what sounds reasonably constitute language. It also means being able to recognise a structure that sounds like language as genuine or simply coincidental.
  • The analyst needs to identify the beginning and the end of the reversal. Identifying only some of it can alter how it is interpreted overall, or it can result in completely different words due to how it has been ‘cut’ from a longer utterance. The same thing would occur in normal speech.
  • People are not used to hearing Reverse Speech and, much like hearing an accent or language style one is not used to, it can lead to difficulties in comprehension.
  • We do not understand the mechanisms by which it occurs.

These issues do not mean that Reverse Speech is not a real phenomenon. But it does mean that there are considerable challenges associated with it – many of the difficulties that can occur with normal speech in a comparable situation. Because of the inherent challenges of Reverse Speech, those who investigate it ought to possess appropriate linguistic skills.

In reference to papers such as Byrne and Normand, I suggest that anyone who seeks to offer a critique of the existence of Reverse Speech, do so by first identifying whether there are grammatically-acceptable, linguistically-viable utterances in reverse that are significant in number. I have yet to see a critical study that addresses this basic first point of consideration. From the recognition of the large number of utterances in reverse which are of interest linguistically, one then needs to show whether they are simply coincidental sounds and have nothing to do with an awareness at some level of consciousness. An honest appraisal of the not-insignificant amount of material available that is arguably linguistically-viable, as well as grammatically and syntactically acceptable, should then lead to the question of whether an act of intelligence/awareness can or does produce it. Of course, we are unable to demonstrate scientific evidence of this at this time. Nevertheless, psychology has increasingly become more comfortable with the existence of the unconscious and the subpersonalities that act upon the person. Of course, it is quite a jump to a consideration of the unconscious aspects of a person communicating via the reversed sounds of the speaker. Perhaps in time, further understanding of the mysteries of the brain and the unconscious will lead toward more consideration of the phenomenon.

Byrne, T & Normand, M. (2000). The demon-haunted sentence: A skeptical analysis of Reverse Speech. Skeptical Inquirer (24)2. Retrieved from haunted_sentence_a_skeptical_analysis_of_reverse_speech1

This is an examination of Reverse Speech from a volunteer participant at David Oates’ seminar in 2017. The participant produced between 2 and 3 minutes of (FS) language. I have documented examples of what appear to be language. Some words are clearer than others.
There are a number of issues in identifying language. First of all, you have to be able to recognise what is actually said. If there is any audio quality issues, it becomes harder to identify, often resulting in a wide range of examples from different listeners. Noise, whether it is background or technical noise can result in masking of phonemes. In this audio there is some noise occurring.
In addition, all too often, what people consider to be ‘all there’, is actually not all there. There is some there – such as a certain number of acceptable phonemes, syllables etc – and the rest is projected into. That said, in normal speech one can record and listen to sections and the phonemes belonging to the words said are not all evident. We combine internalised grammar and context to understand what is said.
Secondly, when it comes to Reverse Speech, even if the reversal is (reasonably) phonemically and prosodically appropriate, it does not mean that it is language. In all the billions of words that are spoken each day in the world, if you reverse sections, there will be what sounds like language occurring. That does not make it language. Shorter reversals are more likely to be coincidental than long(er) reversals. Furthermore, we humans are quite adept at putting some kind of interpretation into something, valid or not. If Reverse Speech is genuine, it is only the longer reversals that are linguistically reasonable that will influence a broader group of people.
In the reversals below, I do not claim that everything is there linguistically as some of it is ambiguous, and I do not claim that everything is genuine as speech reversals.
RS: Save us your winter; I look mud 
FS: Let say I have I have an assignment to do, I wouldn’t kind of leave it for the last minute, I would do it and then not hand it in, that’s the sort of person I am, and it’s almost like I’m I’m not sure whether I’m afraid of success or that I don’t feel [that I’m good enough. I don’t know which it is].
Save us your winter
Save us comes from whi[ch it is]. FS /t/ transforms to /v/ and [ch] produces the sibilant in us. your comes from wh[i]ch extending to the [w]. Winter comes from I don’t know, with /w/ from kno[w], /n/ from do[n’t tkn]ow and /t/ from [d]on’t.
I look mud
The very slight /f/ in enou[gh] is not considered as part of the RS. I comes from en[ou]gh. /l/ comes from e[n]ough, while goo[d] is not part of the RS. /k/ comes from [g]ood. Mud comes from that I’m with the /t/ glottal and not part of the RS.
Negative imagery occurs here, the winter and the mud produced by it. I look mud may be considered as representing ‘I look at mud’ or ‘I look like mud’. This is negativity or self-sabotage.
RS: Universe the whole we deserve – will catch the sun 
FS: I love writing, I love uh academia, I’m not no [most successful person in the world, but ummh] I’m still hanging on in there trying to respond to my calling which I haven’t responded to yet.
Universe occurs behind bu[t ummh. The /m/ is extended in the FS allowing perception of /u/. /m/ can be perceived as /n/. The release of [u] in the FS just before /m/ can give perception of /v/. /t/ produces /s/. You know that’s is an alternative in place of universe
the whole occurs behind [world b]ut. Elison of /d/ occurs in the FS/. /b/ produces an indistinct fricative which allows perception of the. We comes behind [in the w]orld, with in and the disappearing into a vowel-like sound. Deserve comes behind person. /n/ is perceived as /d/; however, /p/ can still be heard, so deserve is uncertain, and an assumption is made. This is the end of this section.
will catch the sun
Will comes behind succe[ssful], with /ss/ and /f/ disappearing in the RS. Catch occurs behind su[cce]ss; a /k/ sound can be perceived on the release of the /e/; [cc] produces a sibilant, however, tch is poorly produced. The sun comes behind [most su]; /m/ can be perceived as /n/; the is represented by su where a ‘ts’ sound is produced in reverse.
This documentation of course is a possibility, but only one. If there is any accuracy, then it appears that the speaker believes at some level that he should soar to great heights. This is probably an egoic aspect of himself; one that is different to the previous reversal about winter and mud.
RS: Let’s get August hot/pat; take my call  
FS: I think that I have something within me that sabotages [that particular objective], and any other objective however sim[ple or complicat]ed, um, I’m not more …
Let’s get August hot/pat
Let’s comes behind objec[tive]; /l/ is one possibility, but other phonemes as well. And, /t/ transforms into /s/ as is typical in RS. Get is behind ob[jec]tive. August is behind par[ticular]. Hot/pat is behind [that p]articular. /p/ is possible, however it may be meant to be /h/ in the RS. The vowel is unrounded. This word is uncertain.
Take my call
Take is behind compli[cat]ed. My is behind c[omp]licated. There is some /p/ influence on the /m/. call is behind sim[ple or c]omplicated.
Words are reasonably sound examples, except for hot/pat and the ambiguous /l/ in let’s. August seems to be potentially positive for him, regardless of what the last word is in the first statement. There is either a desire for someone to listen to him, or alternatively, his own unconscious is telling him to listen to it.
RS: Wolf colours gonna win it (Wolf, I’m a fool, win it). Silver fuck on mm outside the boxer 
FS: If one is successful and one feels like one isn’t good enough, [then you’re gonna feel like a fraud] well I feel like a fraud; I guess that’s the obvious answer [and it’s probably the answer that I’m not comfortable with]. Because it then leads back to not feeling good enough.
Wolf colours gonna win it or Wolf, I’m a fool, win it
Win it comes from then you. Wolf comes from [frau]d. The section with colours gonna or I’m a fool is indistinct. This comes behind gonna feel like. One may hear one or both versions, or something else entirely. What a person documents can be very easily something else, especially when the audio is not clear quality. The phonemes of the 2 versions are very different.
Silver fuck on (mm) outside the boxer
In silver, /s/ is perceived from the frication of wi[th]; sense of /l/ is from [w]ith, and /v/ also comes from the /w/ producing an approximation in reverse; er comes from the indistinct sounds of comf[ortable]. In fuck, /f/ comes from com[f]ortable, and /k/ from [c]omfortable. On comes from [no]t. mm comes from that I’[m]. In outside, out comes from [that I]’m/t/ is glottal and disappears in the RS. /s/ is from an[s]wer, a[n]swer disappears in the RS, /d/ is assumed as asimilated into the following [th]. The comes behind proba[bly th]e. This /b/ disappears in the RS. /b/ comes from pro[b]ably. ox comes behind it[s pro]bably. er comes from [i]t’s.
It is unknown what the sounds in the middle of Wolf … win it is, and I can only guess. If colours is there, it is the colour of the wolf that will win it or lead to success. The other statement mentions a colour, silver, as well as a boxer. Perhaps his wolf needs to be silver, and in the image of a boxer, he will be able to fight for what he wants to achieve. So the boxer and the wolf are silver. Fuck on may be a term which means do it, get on with it. Note – I perceived the possibility of colours before I heard the other reversal with the colour silver. Nevertheless, it is indistinct and can be easily heard as something else, or it’s just gibberish.
RS: Save the wolf. Scandals, the laws they depart 
FS: … leads back to not being good enough, and being successful, and treating like a [fool for being] successful. [So I think it’s all interrelate]ed.
Save the wolf
Save the wolf occurs behind [fool for being s]uccessful. The /v/ is more a /b/. The frication at f[or] gives some perception of the. Wolf comes at fool.
Scandals, the law they depart
Scandals occurs behind in[terrelat]ed. Initial /s/ occurs at interrela[t]ed. Between the [at], a /k/ sound or /t/ can be perceived, which here provides the [c] in RS. The /n/ occurs at interre[l]ated; sense of /d/ occurs between [el]; /l/ occurs at inte[rr]elated. Final /s/ occurs at in[t]errelated.
The laws occurs behind it[‘s all in]terrelated, with [in] representing the and [‘s all], laws. They occurs at th[ink]. Depart occurs behind [so I th]ink; /d/ at [th]; /p/ can be perceived from the release of so [I] think, which in reverse provides ramping up energy. /t/ occurs at /s/.
The /v/ is somewhat imprecise as it is more like a /b/ and the fricative noise would need to be accepted as ‘the’. But even if it is strongly perceived a /v/ even on close examination, it would have to be language rather than coincidental sounds. The problem with short reversals like save the wolf  this is the chances of coincidence are increased than if there is a reasonably clear longer reversal.
RS: Seeking my (help?), assist my mother cope  
RS: And the only way for me to come out to release my books to the publishers and then that would expose me and I’d have to come out and represent [my book but I’m I’m just very uncomfortable to do so].
Seeking my help
In seeking, the /s/ has some voicing, /k/ lacks aspiration, and [ing] is perceivable from uncom[fortable] in the FS, which is actually partly indiscernible in the FS, sounding like ‘uncommon’ ( Of course, this brings up an issue for RS. If the word was in the reverse speech, one might document it as ‘uncommon’ or something else, and not ‘uncomfortable’). I am making the assumption that the RS word is seeking. Note: One may just hear ‘seek’, however, there is an extra syllable there that is harder to hear. My comes from unc[om]fortable.
The word following is harder to ascertain. There is a light /k/ sound from un[c]omfortable, however, it appears to become extraneous to the RS and is not the start of the word. The word appears to start as the sound ramps up on the release of very in the FS, producing an ambiguous initial. The initial may be heard as /h/ or /g/ or even something else. This first part ends at the end of the word. The question is exactly which sound it ends at. In the FS, at ju[st v]ery, there is frication. If the word is ended just before that frication begins, it can sound like help or here (assuming a /h/ initial). If the word ends at just [v]ery, it can sound somewhat like health with the labiodental representing the dental phoneme.
Assist my mother cope 
If the word is help, the beginning of the 2nd statement could be assist, behind FS just. /m/ in my and mother come from the repeated I’m. The consonant sounds in cope are from [b]oo[k].
I may be perceived at s[o], at the start. It is slight, and in the context and grammar structure I am treating it as extraneous, and have removed it. Also, I have taken some licence to cut out the last syllable which makes it sound like ‘copa’. I have found from time to time that there is a vowel-like syllable at the end which when removed creates a viable reversal of length. If one heard it all one may hear it as ‘motherfucker’ with a northern English [u]. However, it is more appropriately /k/ then /p/ rather than /f/ then /k/. It would be amiss to claim that that is what it said. It is just a possibility.
RS: Score (mummy?) night, in various towns  
FS: In order to do that s [I have to ummh, I hand in my books], get them published and that will compel me to come forward, because I’m I’m kind of a believe it or not a bit of a (?) recluse; I’ve had to be by myself.
Score (mummy?) night
Score comes from b[ooks]; mummy from [in my b]ooks. Although characteristics of /b/ still occur, /m/ should be acceptable. The /mm/ is really /mn/ from i[nm]y. The word is not well formed, although sounds much like it on a general listening. Perhaps one may perceive it as money instead of mummy. Night is from I [han]d. The minor constriction that occurs after I makes for a sound perception of an unreleased /t/ as the final.
in various towns
in occurs at u[mmh]. /m/ can be perceived, however /n/ may be reasonable here. Various is behind [to u]mmh. /v/ can be perceived on the release of [u]mmh; /r/ occurs at the release of to and onset of u. /s/ occurs at /t/. towns occurs at [s I have]. /t/ perception occurs at /v/; /n/ perception occurs at the onset of I. There is an /s/ sound that occurs, which provides the end of towns, but I do not know whether this is from the speaker or someone else.
Discussion                                                                                                                                                 If it is ‘mummy’ it may refer to older women closer to the age of the speaker. If so, perhaps there is a desire, or an actual activity occurring around this. Of course, the sounds would have to represent ‘mummy’, and then any interpretation would have to be worthwhile.                                                                           __________________________________________________________________________________
RS: Gotta be wri(k)ing the fat number for (Matt?). Here’s our villa. Her villa.  
FS: I’m from an African-Caribbean background. I love writing. I love uh …
Gotta is indistinct – /g/ comes from bac[kg]round, however. Be is behind Cari[bbean b]ackground with consonant phonemes disappearing in [bbean] leaving [e], and /b/ is from [b]ackground. Writing comes behind Af[rican Car]ibbean. [rican] is indistinct in the FS, however, the combination of lowering the velar at /r/, the general vowel sound that is produced and the /n/ produces perception of ing. Perception of /k/ occurs at /t/, but I will assume that the word is writing. Number comes behind f[rom an]. Fat comes behind [Af]rican (/t/ assimilates with /n/ following). For (Matt?) comes behind [I’m f]rom.
Here’s our villa
Villa comes behind I love. Our comes behind [wri]ting. Here’s comes behind wri[ting]. It could be heard as ‘he’s’ or ‘his’, but is not grammatically appropriate.
Her villa
Villa comes behind I love. Her comes behind uh.
There is an assumption of /t/ on the end of Matt. However, unless there is a Matt that can be associated with this, which is probably not the case, it is just gibberish, and should be ignored. If there is anything in this, fat number may refer to a sizeable amount of money, and villa associated with it. Of course, ‘I love’ probably produces ‘villa’ most of the time, and should only be considered in an appropriate context. This may or may not be the case here.


RS: We’ll test the sin/scene outfit 

FS: [If one is successful] and one feels that one isn’t good enough, then you’re going to feel like a fraud.

We’ll test comes behind su[ccessful]. Behind [ssf] there is fricative noise which allows perception of wolf, although I am uncertain as to this for the reason that the syllable is weak in comparison to the following syllable/word, and it is possible the fricative noise may be extraneous in the RS. That said, there is no guarantee that it is we’ll or will. Test comes at su[ccue]ssful. /t/ comes from the reverse of the release of the [e]. Sense of st comes at the stop and sibilant created at [cc]. The is assumed from [s]uccessful; however can be perceived as to on closer listening. Sin/seen comes behind if o[ne is]. Outfit comes at [if o]ne. ou[t] assumed as a glottal, and /t/ assumed as a final.


It does not mean that what sounds like language is language, and here, this may constitute coincidental sounds. It is quite easy to provide an interpretation though, regardless. So, I will do that. Outfit is something one wears like the way one wishes to appear. In the FS, he talks of being concerned of feeling like a fraud if he don’t feel good enough. Sin outfit, that is wearing sin would be connected with fraud, while scene outfit may suggest to the speaker that he needs to try out playing a role, much like an actor, and not be so concerned about feeling like a fraud.

Here I present and discuss a number of reversals from the Ramseys that have been documented by others and are accessible on the internet.

RS: I done it. It’s a show you’re running  

FS: to ah to immediately look [you know the directions], [and I know] there are other directions being looked at

done it [and I] – ramping energy gives a sense of /d/, and final gives a sense of unreleased /t/. This is reasonable.

I – There is no certainty as to where the reversal begins. Cutting it at this point is a bit opportunistic. One can cut it at [oi] so that there is some resemblance to I. One could cut it at another point so that it may sound like who done it  It can be cut at another point to sound a bit like boy done it. The sound is actually /w/ from ‘know’, not /b/, but perception can allow one to hear /b/. The sound just before it can be cut to sound like The boy done it or Have I done it? Actually the change in acoustic energy indicates that the reversal may begin around this point.

What this begins with, therefore, remains a question.

It’s a show you’re running – this is a possibility; it could also be See a show you’re running 


RS: This is a plan 

FS: They didn’t even [ask, I just said] come

This is a [I just said] – This is possible, however it can just as easily be something else such as death/that is a, or death/that to the – however, the audio quality seems to mask /s/ sibilants.

Plan – this is possible, however it could also be plant 

Following on is

of India 

This section is quite clear. Is it part of the reversal either intrinsically, or added to it? (It almost sounds like it is added as an afterthought). Or does it represent coincidental sounds? If it represents coincidental sounds then one needs to realise that what sounds like language is not always language. The only sentence structure that would make sense with these words is This is a plant/plan of India or even, strangely enough – Death is a plant of India  

There is too much ambiguity to offer likelihood.


RS: And I planned the note 

FS: Patsy Rams[ey, Jonbenet’s mother]

And I – if you start at the beginning of the FS section there is: an’ (th)en I

Plan the note [Jonbenet] – It is possible that plan and note are there, though audio quality excludes any certainty. There is a syllable in the middle; this is documented as the. It is the /b/ in Jonbenet. It can be heard as /m/ in reverse on close examination. So, if the words are plan and note, it sounds something like planemnote. and as /m/ can easily be heard as /n/, then planennote, and then the double [nn] can easily be heard as planenote. This middle syllable is what is assumed to be the. The [ed] is only assumed, as evidence is lacking. However, if [ed] is assumed to be the middle syllable then maybe it is planted, as in I planted note (without the). But the /t/ then will have to be assumed. On top of all this, phoneme ambiguity means that there is no guarantee that it is even plan or planted. /pl/ can also be heard as /t/, for example.

Audio quality reduces any confidence in this reversal.

The reversal doesn’t end at this point, there is a word following that sounds something like did as a kind of confirmation:

An’ (th)en I planted/plan the note, did


RS: I’m the only one  

FS: I can’t believe that we have ever [knowingly met] anyone that can be this vicious

I’m the only one [knowingly met] – this appears to be sound

This is reasonable.

There does seem to language either side of the section, however.

Going in reverse:

And now mean it 

But even before this, there are words that sound similar to So ships are leadin’.

Remember you with …… (the ending resemble ‘villamaker’, but seem to be falling into gibberish).

So, what constitutes language here?


RS: I struck her head 

FS: It was the [day after Christma]s so I was going to go visiting

struck her – aft[er Chris]tmas – There is no /t/ in struck. The /r/ has an elevated intensity almost giving it the quality of a hard consonant. The sounds are similar to suckter. It is easy in this case to project the /t/ into the sounds to give struck

head – the /f/ in after can still be clearly heard making it sound similar to fed

Following on is what appears to be just do it tomorrow/let’s do it tomorrow 

A missing phoneme, addition of another, and a phoneme replacement makes it unlikely.


RS: I’m that person/seen that rape 

FS: at least two people on the face of [this Earth that know]

I’m that [that kno]w – The /th/, /t/ and /n/ remain clear in the RS. This means that there is an /n/ followed by a /d/ sound followed bt /th/ sounding something like an death. In the audio, note that there is an ‘ooh’ sound first.

person [this Earth] – sounds like the word, except that the final sound is a /d/ if cut out the right point, or /th/ if completely included.

Replaced phonemes makes this unlikely.

After ‘pers’, there appears to be the start of a second reversal as it changes speed at this point.

Said to save the law 

Peo[ple on the face of this] Earth

to save the law appears sound; however the first word could be something else.

RS: seen that rape

This is appropriate. However, it may be that the reversal starts earlier. Also, it sounds like ‘callous you’ following, possibly ‘careless’ but more like ‘callous’.


RS: we now fool you 

FS: we will find you

This is reasonable, although, the short vowel and its articulation can produce full instead of fool, although full makes it nonsensical.


RS: We’re lyin’ in their defence 

FS: There’[s never been any other] projection, any other source

We’re could also be you’re.  /l/ in ‘lyin’ can be perceived easily on release of /o/ and onset of /th/ in ‘other’. However, there is an evident /th/ or /f/ which occurs. If this was included we would end up with something like thyin/fyin/thain/fain.  In some way the th/f sound needs to be included. It could be You’re/We’re fine with an intonation change giving fine a double vowel, or it could be Worth lyin’. With defence, the /d/ is perceivable in the ramping up in reverse of the /v/ release, while the onset of /v/ disappears in the fricative noise. The /f/ occurs in the ramping up energy of the release of /n/, and /n/ occurs at /n/ in ‘never’. The poor audio quality may have contributed a little to this.

We have here, ignoring audio quality, a statement with very good prosody, but a /th/ or /f/ alters the reversal. Alternatives are – Worth lyin’ in their defence, and You’re/We’re fine in their defence


RS: Sliced her up; rapist 

FS: [To sit there] [by ourselves]

Sliced her up [by ourselves] – this is there

(Her) rapist [to sit there] – There is her at the beginning. Although one can perceive /p/, the sound is actually /th/. The audio may increase perception of a stop consonant. Although there is /t/ in ‘to’ in the FS at the place of the final in rapist, it presents a disjointed noise. Nevertheless, it is reasonably there.


RS: Our rape hurt 

FS: [that er care abou]t us

Our is oh on close examination, but addition of /r/ helps to give a perception of our. The documented reversal has left the /t/ from the FS  ‘about’ as the initial, making it sound like though (but addition of the /r/ once again changes perception of the vowel to one in thou). The /t/ is actually the ending of a prior word that is not included – said. 

/k/ occurs as in rake. Perception of /p/ occurs on release of [er] in the FS. This has the ability to drown out the /k/ allowing perception of rape. A /t/ does occur at the end allowing perception of hurt.


In the wash up, it is possible there was planning involving (or the note planted). It is possible they are not being truthful – running a show, and perhaps lying in some others’ defence, and perhaps being fooled. I’m the only one’ could refer to something else rather than pointing the finger at Patsy as the murderer, and striking her head and being that person lack the efficacy to be acceptable.

I’m often gob smacked at what is being played publicly as speech reversals. Here I give an example. A guest on a radio show is presenting some of his reversals. He has a particular interest in finding reversals on Shiva and Nazi. There is no certainty that any include Shiva. Any reversal with Nazi either is not there or highly dubious. These here represent the majority of reversals played. Not one of them is accurate. This makes any discussion of the meaning of these invalid.


Documented RS: We hail Shiva over apartment

FS … mi[ssion is possible, obviously if you’re] dealing with

We hailobvious[ly if you’re] [we] sounds like [y’re]. If /y/ is removed it sounds like [re]. The FS /f/ disappears substantially and is most likely not part of the next word, which seems to be [tail]  

Shiva [obvious]ly /b/ has frication alongside /v/ in the FS. It may be heard as /va/ in RS, but also [the]. The sibilant is substantially an /s/ rather than palatised. It resembles ‘siva’ or ‘see the’  

over apartment – [ssion is possible o]bviously

over [ible o]  – can sound roughly like [over], can sound roughly like [all the] too.

apartment [ssion is pos]sible  The release of /s/ may create some sense of a stop consonant – here it was documented as /p/, but also could be /t/. FS /p/ is silent. The movement from /s/ to /p/ in the FS [s – p] has created some sense of a mid /t/ in the RS word. For [ment], this comes from [ssion i]s where the release of the vowel /i/ and the onset of /s/ creates a perception of /d/. The remainder sounds like [ench] from [ssion i]. There is no initial /a/ in the RS word.  

So, overall it sounds something like – yre tail siva all the(?) part-dench, which is gibberish.  


Documented RS: Position, I’m ashamed of Hitler war

FS: [public information which is of] course the easiest …

Position[ion which is of]   /n/ comes from /n/. RS /s/ comes from i[s]. RS [ti] comes from FS [ch]. FS /w/ rounds the vowel [io] somewhat. Perception of /p/ comes from FS /f/, though /f/ can still be perceived. It roughly sounds like ‘position’. 

I’m ashamed ofin[formatio]n  The closest pronoun is probably ‘we’, and there is no /m/. There is no /a/ in front of [shame] unless the first syllable is accepted as /a/ and there is no pronoun. The way the speaker utters ‘information’ where the final vowel [io] is released and before the onset of the final phoneme /n/, there is a gap which resembles /w/. ‘Shame’ comes at [mati] and sounds like it, but more precisely it is ‘shiem’. Although [ed] can be slight, there is no indication of it here. ‘Of’ comes from FS [fo].  It resembles ‘we shame of’

Hitler war[public in]formation

So, we have something like We shame of nikdo/tikdo wa(r?)


Documented RS: Send a dog Shiva

FS: … assessme[nt that this was an S]A eleven

Shivaassessme[nt that this]  /sh/ is /s/ from thi[s]. /v/ is an ambiguous sound, which is closest to a dental/alveolar /th/ or /d/ but takes on some labial quality like /p/. It sounds like there is an unreleased alveolar ending such as /d/ or /n/ from the ending of ‘assessment’ in the forward speech. So, it sounds something like sithid/sipid or sithin/sipin. 

dogthis [was] – The vowel s strongly articulated with strong ramping up energy and ramping down energy. The strong ramping up energy at the release of FS /s/ and the start of the FS vowel /a/ gave the impression of /d/. The ramping down of the vowel combined with the release of FS /s/ and onset of /w/ gave the impression of a consonant (in this case the /g/).  

Send a[an S] – no /d/ but approximates words. I think the reversal may have been presented as ‘the dog’.

This is unlikely to be reversal.


Documented RS: I begone, Shiva might murder ill

FS: … only I don’t have original declassification …

I begone – origi[nal decla]ssification Sounds like ‘a-pigone’, but approximates documented words. 

Shiva – [orig]   /v/ is /r/. Vowel /i/ is short. 

might – [have]  Initial most like /v/. Aspirated /h/ ending only. 

murder – [y I don’t]  a light/n/ can be perceived followed by [oi], then /d/, and then /ai/ from [y I]. 

ill – on[ly]  This can be perceived from [ly], however it continues on to sound like ‘illa’.

This is gibberish.


Documented RS: Share with her sin it’s healthy

FS: it points in a certain direction

Share with[directi]on closest sounds are ‘charit’ 

her sin  – i[n a cer]tain  – can sound like documented words ‘er sin’.

it’s healthy[it points i]n it’s comes from [ts i]. ‘healthy’ is roughly ‘nel-ty’ with FS /n/ at /h/.  

So, it comes out something like Charit (h)er sin it’s nelty  


Documented RS: That’s nazi

FS: … how we believe it; sometimes you can’t ….

That’s some[time]s  This sounds something like ‘me-at-e’  

nazi [it some]times FS /m/ can sound like /n/. Ending is like ‘ast-e’ 

There is obviously nothing there.


Documented RS: The nazi him assassin

FS: an assessment based on a b …

The nazib[ased on]  approximates nazi except that primary stress is on 2nd syllable. ‘The’ sounds something like [ra] (if labial influence from /b/ is not included, which is a different syllable). 

him [ment ba] Sounds something like ‘ibnin’. This also includes what has been documented as /a/ in [assassin]

assassina[n assess]ment This can be isolated. However, in reality there is no initial /a/. Only ‘ssassin’ is there. 

Overall, it sounds something like rana seebnin sassin  


Documented RS: We that/they’ve killed them first we know

FS: [When you start from a place of you] have …..

We that/they’ve killed[place of you]  [we] comes from FS [you]. /th/ may be heard from FS /f/. It may sound like ‘this’ when isolated, but the sibilant disappears in a general listening to be replaced by a /t/ burst to produce [till]. Before [till], it sounds like [the]. The FS /p/ is silent.  

them first – [start from a] place  The FS two /t/s disappear to permit [firs] without a /t/ ending. RS /m/ occurs from FS /m/. /th/ may be perceived from the ramping up energy of the vowel /e/, however this is ambiguous and it could also be heard as /c/, and the word [come]. 

We know[when you]  There is /y/ following /n/ and the vowel sounds like /o/ as in ‘yo’.  

Overall the string sounds something like we the till/come firs(t)/we knew/nyo, which is dubious.


Documented RS: And I’ll share venom

FS: we’ve said, uh, what our assess[ment is; very strong] assessment publicly …

And I’llvery str[on]g   ‘and’ can be isolated, but whether it is a separate word and reversal beginning is questionable. ‘I’ is possible, but no indication of [‘ll’] – the vowel /o/ is too short and it moves straight to /sh/.

share –  [very str]ong  /sh/ comes from [str]. FS /v/ can be perceived as /d/ to produce ‘shared’. The The FS /v/ does not belong to the word following (venom).

venomasses[sment is] /n/ and /m/ are perceived from the FS sounds. The initial /v/ is /z/ from i[s]. It also sounds like the /s/ on the end could belong with it as well.  

The final word is gibberish.


Documented RS: August hell

Augustlo[gical]  au can be perceived from [al], /g/ from FS /c/, and ending /sh/.

hell[lo]gical   [ell] can be perceived without /h/

The problem with this is the poor stress structure with the 3 syllables going weak – stronger – strongest combined with the fact that it is only two words. Although there is an approximation of phonemes, this is gibberish.


Documented RS: Don’t want to feel a villain

FS: ab[solutely believe that it wa]s …

Don’t i[t wa]s  The ending may be perceived from the FS /t/, and RS /d/ may be heard from the strong ramping up energy of the FS vowel /a/.

want to[that i]t was  RS /w/ actually comes from the movement of /i/ to just before the onset of /t/. RS /n/ is /d/. Final RS vowel is like /i/. There is /th/ at the end which gets lost in an overall listening with the following /f/ in ‘feel’. So what can be perceived is ‘whati(f)’

feel ab[elieve]

villain ab[solutely b]elieve  No /n/ occurs as a final phoneme; the ending is an /s/. The initial is ambiguous and has been documented as /v/.  

Overall, it sounds like ‘Don’t wadda feel a villoos’. There is lack of evidence for ‘villain’.  


Documented RS: Garden of evil, hell

FS: But look, we have endeavoured …

Garden of – ha[ve endeav]oured – /n/ occurs. FS /d/ has become a sibilant /z/ sound rather than /d/. Initial is /v/ from the FS phoneme rather than /g/. This sounds like ‘vaz’n’. RS [of] sounds like [ev] from the FS [ve e]ndeavoured. 

evil [look we ha]ve   In the FS section [we ha]ve, The vowel moves from /ei/ to a rounded vowel [eiyou]. /k/ may be perceived from the FS [k] but this sound is ambiguous and can sound like other phonemes. Broken down into sounds, it can sound like ‘eiyou(k?)’l’.The mind can be tricked into hearing the word ‘evil’.  

hell[but]  FS /t/ disappears leaving a very small amount of aspiration. The final sound is ambiguous and can be heard as /b/.    

This is gibberish.


Documented RS: So we warn you girl    

FS: assessment right, we know where it was fired from

So we[where it was] /t/ disappears leaving an approximation of [so]. RS /w/ belongs to [so] through rounding of mouth, then a vowel sound [er] occurs rather than /i/ in [we]. The /w/ in [where] creates an /l/ ending. The closest language is so earl  

warn you[we know]

girl[right]  The initial consonant is ambiguous. Not like /g/, more like /d/ or /b/. A diphthong vowel occurs /e-a/, then /r/, curling of the tongue may give some sense of /l/ at end. This is gibberish.  

A language-like string occurs – So earl warn you   


Documented RS: Know we did it

FS: [I didn’t say one] hundred percent.

Know[one]  /w/ from /w/ beginning of [one]. /n/ from /n/.

we –  didn’t [say o]ne  /s/  assimilates into /t/ that follows. With [ay], /w/ can be perceived through the /y/ as voicing moves to the /w/ sound in [one]. Vowel is closest to vowel in ‘we’re’.

did it[I didn’t]  [dn] disappears leaving /t/ and /d/. Some may perceive /t/ as /ch/ as there is some frication. Vowel ending /a/ occurs.  

Sounds like know we’re tida, but word-wise closest would be ‘know were cheater’ (no Americaan /r/).


Documented RS: Man that sell crucify thief

FS: … bragging about [the attack that took place then] walking back from it …

Man that[and then]  RS /m/ is either /n/ or it is a tap /r/ (where the tongue taps the alveolar ridge at the same place as /n/ , otherwise the rest is OK. 

sell[place] This is OK, /p/ is silent

crucify [cruc] occurs at [took]. [i] has /t/ before it as in [ti] from the /t/ in FS [that]. The /th/ tends to disappear. [fy] occurs at a[ttack]. The place of /f/ is ambiguous and may be perceived as /k/, /f/ or /p/. It sounds like crucify with a /t/ in it. 

thief [the at]   RS /th/ perception has occurred from the strong ramping up energy of the vowel combined with /s/ frication as articulation in the FS moved toward /t/. The final consonant may be heard as different things, /f/ is one of them.

This is imprecise.


Documented RS: All ashamed to call murder

FS: we again continue to [gather more information and call] ah on on Russia …

All – c[all]  Sounds like orkh  

ashamed – in[formation an]d  /n/ occurs after ‘orkh’. Another /n/ can be perceived after this [n an]. RS [ed t] is probably not there. It sounds something like ‘nanshamer’

call – m[ore n]  May perceived as [c] but there is ambiguity and one may perceive it as /p/. There is /r/ in it.  

murder – g[ather m]ore  This is OK.

This is imprecise.


Analysing speech reversals can be interesting as Reverse Speech is still a mystery. I have amused myself by doing this with a Trump reversal which is on YouTube

Documented RS: I’ll see in the lawsuit    

FS: do solemnly swear

Breakdown of phonemes and syllables

lawsuit – [do sol]emnly   Language clearly follows FS phonemes

see in the – sol[emnly s]wear

  • Perception of ‘see’ comes from [y s].
  • Perception of ‘in the’ has come from [emnl]. The two syllables come from the movement from [em] to articulation of /l/. Of course, /n/ is silent in ‘solemnly’.
  • It is possible to perceive [n] as articulation moves through /l/ to onset of /m/ in the RS. The articulation of [l] on the alveolar ridge helps give perception of a short ‘in’, although /l/ can still be heard as well.
  • A close listening reveals the sounds as ‘seal mo’. The /l/ is quite clear, and ‘the’ is ‘mo’. As /m/ may be perceived as [n] sometimes, this perhaps has helped give the perception of ‘the’, Of course even in FS, ‘the’ is not always articulated clearly and can sound like different things on close examination.  
  • So, primarily the issues to consider in this section is the existence of an /l/ and the ‘mo’. In an overall listening it can certainly sound like the documented reversal; this is helped by the low energy of /m/in ‘mo’, as well as its prosody and duration of perceived syllables (apart from documented recorded ‘I’ll’).

I’ll – s[wear]

Consideration of ‘you’

Now let’s take for argument sake that it is meant to be ‘see in the’. One may wonder if there is a short ‘you’ also, to make ‘I’ll see you in the lawsuit’. One can ‘project’ its existence into it. In natural speaking small words can be shortened and spoken very quickly and be missed. I’m not claiming it is there. I’m not trying to prove that it is.

Let’s assume ‘the’ is meant to be there …. To consider ‘you’, we need to focus on the ending of ‘see’ where there is some issue. An /l/ can be heard whether it is isolated with ‘see’ (‘seal’) or isolated slightly later (‘iln’). But, as the vowel moves toward /l/, is this meant to represent ‘you’? If we isolate ‘seal’ we hear the diphthong vowel with the short /i/ first, and a rounding from the ‘al’. Isolating the section from slightly before the rounding, and capturing the end of /i/, we can hear something quite similar to ‘you’. Yet, it is still easy to perceive the /l/. We can isolate sounds in different places and hear different words, which are not real, so we need to be careful. After this, /n/ can still be perceived in the release of /l/ and onset of /m/.

So, can ‘you’ be there? Or is /l/ meant to represent ‘in’? Or, is it ‘seal’? We can miss something subtle entirely, or we will put it in there because it makes sense to the grammar in our brain. What we need to do is look for indications that it is, in fact, there.

So, in the wash-up I certainly couldn’t say it is there. Like in FS, not all sections of language come out clearly and can sound like different things on close examination. I believe in examining for all possibilities.

Could the reversal say something else?

Within in this reversal one may hear ‘seal my loss’/’see in my loss’/’see in the loss’.

We need to look at where the reversal begins and ends. As ‘I’ll’ does not naturally sound like the beginning of the reversal as it has been documented in the recording (different time duration relative to the rest, for example), we either begin it at ‘see/seal’ or assume it is ‘Her, I w’ll’ or ‘hurl’.

If we assume the documented ‘see in the’ without ‘you’ is correct, then we have ‘Her, I w’ll see in the loss/Hurl. See in the loss’. However, phonemically it is also, ‘Seal my loss’, but may be ‘See in my loss’. The rounded vowel after [m] is not really an issue, and could be ‘my’. However, we need to see where the ending of the reversal lies. The last part, ‘suit’, does occur naturally as part of this reversal, so it does seem to end at ‘lawsuit’. So, we get something like ‘Seal my lawsuit’.

If ‘Her, I w’ll’,  then ‘her’ is identifying a woman, then saying what he will do. If it were ‘hurl’, it may represent disgust, or fear and anxiety (see commentary about other reversals below).

A general listening does give a perception of ‘in the lawsuit’. And that is how we interpret what people say as we listen to them speak – overall, big picture listening.  We would have to assume the alveolar articulation of /l/ is meant to be /n/ (and there is some perception of /n/ in the release of /l/ and onset of /m/), and the /m/ is meant to be /n/ to produce ‘the’. Of course, in natural speaking, when the previous word ends in /n/, the /th/ quite naturally takes on /n/ characteristics.

But because of the two issues, we should consider alternatives as well.

Her, I w’ll see in my lawsuit/Hurl. See in my lawsuit/Her, I w’ll seal my lawsuit/Hurl. Seal my lawsuit/  

One more thing I will add here. The lawsuit has been applied to the one publicly occurring at the time of writing this – the overturning of Trump’s migrant ban and Trump’s legal counter. However, this occurred at the time of inauguration, and I understand there had been other lawsuits occurring from Trump’s business activities, then. One does not have to see it as predictive and applying to the current issue. This is like people interpreting the words of some prophet or psychic from past history as pertaining to occurrences in their generation. But of course, at the same time, it is quite easy to see Trump entertaining future lawsuits from his actions that would come. Perhaps he was thinking about Hillary! It just doesn’t mean it is a psychic occurrence.

What about other reversals with it, and other voices?

Because it’s great fun investigating the possibilities of RS, let’s take a look at language-sounding pieces aside the reversal.

Before the reversal (in the RS direction, after in the FS direction), we may hear something like:

Ill of fear, flow our/out (Dad)?  

[that I will faithfully]

Ill – faithfu[lly] – closest to ‘ill’; lack of /h/ for ‘heal’. ‘Ill’ more appropriate anyway.

of – faith[fu]lly

fear – f[aith]fully  [th] can be perceived, but [f] can also be perceived as an alternative.

Flow out – tha[t I will f]aithfully   Sounds follow the FS phonemes clearly.   

What may be heard as ‘Dad’ is not natural with the previous words in stress/amplification/pitch etc, and it could be counted as gibberish. If not, perhaps Trump’s unconscious added his father to the mix.

So we have something like:

Ill of fear. Flow out.

Before the above example in the RS direction (last in the FS direction) is:

Weak, you’re sca ….   

faithfully [execu]te

weak – exe[cu]te   rounded vowel and [c] produce ‘weak’.

you’re sca … [exe]cute  [ex] produces ‘sca …’ and [e] produces ‘you’re’.  

You will notice the great difference in voice type between ‘Ill of fear. Flow out’ and ‘Seal my lawsuit’/’Seal in the lawsuit’. ‘Seal my lawsuit’/’See in my lawsuit’ is Trump’s normal voice, while the other one is very different. Because it is Trump’s normal voice, we could assume it is an aspect of Trump that is part of his ego self, that is, part of the personality that creates Trump’s outward identity. ‘

I have found that one may hear a series of reversals that flow directly on from one to another, like a conversation occurring between selves. One ‘voice’ can quickly take over from another without pause between. In this case, the first voice did not get to complete what it was saying – which possibly was ‘Weak, you’re sca[red]’. There is a sibilant-like sound occurring at the beginning from the [t] in ‘execute’, however, this can be seen as an extraneous sound, and therefore the reversal begins at ‘weak’. The second voice, took over with ‘Ill of fear; flow out’.

Should we follow the FS direction or the RS direction for sequence of reversals? If the interrupted reversal is genuine, then it must have come first at least in relationship to the one immediately following I the RS direction. The first one to occur in the FS direction – ‘seal etc’ may have come first in the RS, especially if ‘Dad’ and/or ‘hurl’ is gibberish. If these are not gibberish, then one may consider a sequence from start to finish in the RS direction. This brings up the question of how long can reversals occur continuously in the RS direction? Probably several seconds anyway as this is how long ahead our brain can be formulating what is going to be said ahead of speaking.

There is a relationship between the two reversals – weak, scared, ill of fear. These then, would be different aspects of Trump , fearful of the situation he is in. Does ‘ill of fear’ mean that he feels ill because of fear, or that he is sick and tired of fear? If the first ‘voice’ was telling him that he is weak and scared, the next ‘voice’ may have hit back, interrupting, saying that he is sick and tired of fear and he is going to let it ‘flow out’, whether he means the fear flow out and leave him, or that he will exude confidence and lack of fear to the public. That is one interpretation.

In the wash up, listening to the whole utterance, the brain easily follows the articulated /l/ as ‘in’ because /l/ at the end of ‘seal’ is a hard /l/ and there is some perception of /n/.

Weak, you’re sca …/Ill of fear, flow out (Dad)/(Her I w’ll/Hurl) see in my lawsuit/see in the lawsuit/seal my lawsuit