RS: Sell poof, they’re our guest – The machine, are you worse? – He’s/his kiss a crime, he’s/his kissin’ a no-no – At least I warn/won you/At least I wind you up

FS: But [we know what he doe]sn’t, that [when women succee]d, A[merica succeed]s. And [so we are unleashing the] power of women to [take our rightful place] in our national life.

These reversals come behind 9 seconds of forward speech. They are featured from the last in the FS to the first.

Sell poof, they’re our guest [take our rightful place] – Some may interpret the first word(s) as [tell] or [See a poof]. I believe [sell] is the likeliest. The pronoun seems to be [they’re]. It can sound like [are] following, however, with [they’re] it is likely to be [our]. Perhaps this refers to Pete Buttigieg who was to give a speech the following night. ‘Taking our rightful place’ also can be associated to people such as LBGTQI. Note that there is a reversal below that possibility indicates same sex attraction by Pelosi.

The machine are you worse [so we are unleashing the] – Following the FS, we may interpret it as ‘unleashing the machine’. But, interestingly, Pelosi said ‘are you worse’ in a somewhat robotic fashion. But what does ‘are you worse’ refer to – if a gay person like Buttigieg, then there may be judgement over his sexuality (note next reversals), or if it refers to ‘the machine’, does it mean that unleashing the machine is worse?

He’s kiss a crime, he’s kissin’ a no-no [when women succee]d, A[merica succeed] Although /h/ is not obvious, I assume [he’s]. However, in light of the constructions of the two clauses perhaps it is meant to be [his]. So in interpretation, we can interpret it as ‘his kissing (men) is a crime. In the following clause, either he’s kissin’ someone who is a ‘no-no’, in other words, gay, or ‘his kissin’ is a no-no’. So, we see that although someone is open and supportive of gay people, there can be subconscious artefacts that oppose this.

At least I warn you [we know what he doe]sn’t [warn] could be [won]. In addition there is a word following which is like [up]. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it belongs to this reversal string. However, if it does, perhaps the word is meant to be [wind] – [At least I wind you up] – as in she wants to wind up Trump. The vowel is imprecise, but the /d/ in [wind] could be dropped in normal speech. I will assume At least I warn you


I have first presented 3 reversals in the 9 second forward speech section. However, there are other potential reversals which seem to relate to the topic. These reversals are presented in the second and third audio below.

The reversals appear to relate to a sexual internalisation which may have been real or imagined by the subconscious. The reversals indicate a desire to kiss somoene, if ‘that girl’, then another female. There is also a fear of it as either taboo, or that she would get into trouble – (r)ub it off, on the face know we kiss.

RS: Hurry, clash – On the face, know we kiss – wan(t)o pash

FS: by [championing a w]oman’s right to choose and defending Roe v Wade. [Securing safe and a]ffordable [childcare]. Preserving social security and passing equal pay …

RS: Hurry clash – rub it off – on the face know we kiss

rub it off comes behind [affordable]. There is an /l/ rather than /r/ however. /f/ may not be so obvious at the end, however, at this position, there is an /f/ in the FS. So, it is possible that this section, which is separated from other sounds is three statements long.

RS: This girl – wan(t)o pash

Separated by 2 syllables of gibberish, it may be that the first part says ‘that girl’, though it is somewhat ambiguous.


RS: He loosed Chirac the mystic God – They test for laugh/lab.

He killed her wolf, they they test for laugh/lab

Joe Biden’s faith in [God gives him the courage to lead]. Joe Biden’s love gives him the strength to persevere. Joe Biden is the president we need right now – [battle tested, forward looking], honest and authentic.

He loosed Chirac the mystic God [God gives him the courage to lead] – This sounds like she is saying that Biden ‘loosed’ an inner (Jacques) Chirac, who her subconscious considered a ‘mystic God’.

They test for laugh/lab [battle tested] Hard to know what this is about. Though, Biden ‘loosing’ his inner Chirac the mystic God is somewhat amusing.

He killed her wolf [forward looking] [wolf] is ok, however, the construction of the rest is dubious, although it sounds like it on a surface level. Perhaps these are just coincidental sounds.


RS: It’s dark, come outside the zipper – I could see that/Dad; Soon/Sin cried the dark, could we stunt

In that spirit we come together now; [not to decry the darkness], but to light a way forward for our country – [that is the guid]ing [purpose of House Democrats].

Pelosi talks of darkness and light. She mentions [dark] twice in reverse behind different words; actually even ossibly three times behind different words, except that one was [dyark].

It’s dark, come outside the zipper – I could see that/Dad [that is the guid]ing [purpose of House Democrats]

We may have come outside, it’s dark (inside), but there is a sexual nature with [come outside the zipper] – either in putting herself in front of a zipper, or with the penis outside the zipper, ejaculating. Her subconscious states that she could see either ‘that’ or ‘Dad’. There are two syllables of possible gibberish separating the two parts. This is where [dyark] occurs.

Sin/Soon cried the dark, could we stunt [not to decry the darkness] This is either [sin] or [soon]. The vowel is short and comes at [ness]. Although [soon] has a long vowel, in speech, it can be quite short, and there can be some roundedness occurring from the unstressed vowel in FS [ness]. Either could be considered. However, [sin] is probably more relatable. I assume [stunt] rather than [stun], though it is possible.

We see something hidden in the ‘dark’ spaces of Pelosi that could be related to something of a sexual nature.


RS: Story helped saved it

RS: Fuckin’ asthma – story helped save it

FS: To win the vote, women marched and fought and never gave in. We stand on their shoulders, charged with carrying forward the unfinished work of our nation [advanced by heroes], [from Seneca F]alls, to Selma, to Stonewall.

Story helped saved it [advanced by heroes] Mentioning these three locations (which have stories behind them) either helped ‘save’ her line of speech, or helped save the work of these women.

Fuckin’ asthma [from Seneca F] This seems unrelated to the other reversal. Lack of [th] in [asthma] is not really an issue as that is typical in FS.


History – He know we’ll wreck it

[He know] does not have the verb matching the pronoun in number. Message is still clear, however. But, perhaps it is meant to be [you]. With the other word, it can sound like [we], however, it seems the [‘ll] is likely to be there. A pertinent reversal seeing the attacks on history.


Multi reversals in this section

Nearly have an affair – warn her or Nearly havin’ a fail – warn her/Say [h]ello [to] you rat/A demon/See the lock on it, face soul/We fitter

Nearly have an affair – warn her or Nearly havin’ a fail – warn her 

I kept [have an]/[havin’] together as the /v/ naturally links the two words. The same with [warn her].

[Nearly have an affair – warn her] may refer to Trump or not. On closer listening the word is more [fail]. If so, this may be Ocasio-Cortez’s subconscious reacting negatively to her efforts and desires to warn her. However, the end of [affair] can be influenced by the following sound in speech, and one can suppose that the /w/ in [warn] has influenced the word to sound like [fail]. Therefore, we can consider both alternatives.

Say hello to you rat This is not a good reversal. In normal speech, sounds can often become altered as the speaker articulates and they interplay with each other. Nevertheless, one has to decide if there is too much wrong with it compared to right. [Say] is closer to [see]. No /h/ on [hello], but this is probably not an issue. There does appear to be an extra short syllable after [hello]. This is a change in vowel sound after [hello] like [ee]. On a surface listening it can give one the impression of [to] although it doesn’t actually say [to], or one can gloss over it completely and just consider it as [hello you]. The effect of the potential extra syllable changes what she is saying – from telling someone to say hello to saying hello to that someone. With [rat] one may perceive a final /p/, however, /t/ is also perceivable and is closer to the FS sound it comes from.

[Say hello to you rat] may refer to Trump as may [a demon].

She states [See the lock on it, face soul] when she refers to an economy that rewards explosive inequalities of wealth for the few. With [we fitter], this suggests that she believes that she and her group will be better to lead.


Hurry, fi(ght) for color/See a crowd

/t/ on the end of [fight] is not clear, but this may be ok. Straight after she states [hurry, fight for color] see says ‘out of a love for all people’, in Spanish then in English, which indicates that she is referring to those of ‘color’ only. [See a crowd] indicates that she has an audience for it.


He’s your comet/Makes you sow, carrot say it’s ti(m)e to grow.

She is talking about the grassroots campaign that was organised. She endorses Sanders in this speech (as per DNC requirements). Pehaps if [comet] is a positive metaphor, then this refers to Sanders. The closest word at the end of the next section is [sow] as in female pig, so I will assume that. Carrot has a bit of a /w/ in it but it is ok. It is interesting that she refers to ‘grassroots’ in the forward speech, as it refers to ordinary people growing something from the soil. The reversals seem to connect to this idea. – time to grow [carrots] and even perhaps [sow] as an animal that may seem fertile and productive yet gets down in the mud and dirt. Note that there is /n/ instead of /m/ in [time], however I still consider this worthwhile for consideration.


High crime of a states, the gun neither

[a] is ungrammatical before the plural [states]. It can sound like [either], however on closer investigation, it seems there is [n] both for [gun] and [neither].

Immediately after 911, Bush states in reverse:

You must see sober. Bush had given up alcohol previously. It is likely that Bush realises he needs to be clear-headed in order to face the challenges ahead. This may have triggered the association with lack of clear-headedness and drinking or the need to be clear-headed and the need to stop drinking, which would still lie in the subconscious mind. It depends on how one interprets the interaction of the subconscious with the conscious mind. One may view it, alternatively, as the subconscious providing a warning in the form of an analogy.

(Nov 7 2002) Bush made a sarcastic comment about all the advice he was getting. In reverse he stated:

Be law. They shoot Powell   (referring to Colin Powell).

(October 11, 2001). Bush talks about repairing the Pentagon after the damage from 911. He says in reverse:
Sure, after we move it. This could indicate a desire or intention to relocate certain operations of the Pentagon elsewhere.

(December 12, 2001) Bush was having trouble with the Senate at this time, and if I remember correctly, with some fairly new Senators. He states in reverse:

Senate. They’re all first year losers.

On October 4, 2002 a Democrat Congressman gave the following reversals when Congress was discussing what to do with Saddam Hussein.

In this one he is likely to be referring to George Bush – The lyin’ dickhead. And they all throw up. Hurl in it. The speaker uses two words that mean to vomit, show disgust – throw up and hurl.

He also stated in reverse – They’ll see a war.

(January 27, 2002) Terrorist you bet was in Tehran.

FS: America must [not rest until every terrorist] group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

(September 13, 2001) Two days after 911, Bush states in reverse:

I heard Libya

In October 2001, An interview with a Taliban spokesman asked if he thought the USA would ever catch Osama Bin Laden brought this reversal:

Warn Libya   

Bin Laden spoke in Arabic and produced English in reverse. He spoke English to a degree. In this reversal (I have it as December 2001 release), he said in reverse:

Why Libya?

(September 2002). Bush was asked if he thought Bin Laden was dead. He replied with this is reverse:

One of our raids annulled him.  We have the word ‘annul’ in the past tense form, which means to declare invalid, no longer having legal existence, but also, simply to do away with, put an end to, or reduce to nothing. Then we have the word ‘raid’. Is ‘annulled’ a way of saying he was killed’, because we have ‘raid’? If so, then the subconscious is not giving the actual truth, as we know now that Bin Laden was killed much later. He was killed by a raid, however. Yet it is in past tense. Is Bush’s words/thoughts simply triggering associated desires held in his subconscious mind? It is quite reasonable to assume that having a U.S. raid take him out would be the ultimate outcome for Bush. This is informative. People have called Reverse Speech. ‘the ultimate truth detector’. If that were so, then Bin Laden had been taken out and the information hadn’t been shared publicly. But this is not so. Therefore, it is only a ‘truth’ held by the subconscious. It is not a manifested reality. Of course, subconsciously held thoughtforms can cause the owner to manifest those beliefs in the external world, but it does not mean this will occur. Nevertheless, it actually did occur, eventually, but not under George Bush’s watch. That said, the word ‘annulled’ doesn’t actually mean ‘killed’. One might argue that by September 2002, Bin Laden’s ability to influence and direct had been severely handicapped. He would have been on the run, travelling through mountainous territory. due to U.S. operations against him. So, it could be accurate that Bush didn’t know whether he was alive or dead, but he knew that his ability to act was removed.

An amusing reversal by Bush on October 2, 2001:

Oh shit

FS: Gotta make sure demand for US products [stay strong].

FS:   It’s almost like his heart wasn’t in what he was speaking about, and the problems around 911 were occupying his mind.

Bush in his 2004 election debate was speaking about those harboring a terrorist were equally as guilty. He states:

Iraq we roll/we’re rollin’ ‘n they blast the terrorist. The months of September/October/November 2004 saw the US launch heavy assaults against Falluja. The reversal indicates an aggressive push by the US to defeat the militants. Terrorist, though not a precise descriptive word is a likely word of association.

Oct 12, 2002, Bush was talking about a final agreement with Congress. The day before Congress had conditionally approved military action against Saddam Hussein. In reverse he appears to state:

And you goin’ off/go now to talk to Chirac.

FS: And I look forward to signing this good piece of legislation if and when it gets to my de … [Congress is close to a final agreement]

Gaining the support of Jacque Chirac, President of France would have been a priority for Bush. If /f/ is considered to be extraneous frication, the reversal would be [go now].

Tell why I’ll sign it.

FS: … deal with threats before it’s too late. [And that’s why I went] into the United Nations the other day.

I don’t have the date for this anymore. I assume it is 2002 when Bush was garnering support for invading Iraq.

(January 25, 2002) Bush is with a lady in the White House, making a joke about a painting. He says in reverse:
Hide the wanker. Mama. This may refer to subconscious embarrassment over his words. There may also be a mother connection. The word [thing] seems to occur before it as in [Thing hide the wanker. Mama] (I haven’t included it here). Perhaps this refers to a subconscious memory of not wanting his mother to catch him ‘wanking’ his ‘thing’!

Gonna fuck myself (July 11, 2002)

FS: this is probably not to your liking by the way, you love those court [fights, I’m confident] it makes great cover and great stories.

Perhaps he is worried about a negative press reaction.

A peek at the elicits in the car, will bomb. (October 2001?)

FS: [The Iraqi regime] bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed [mobile weapons facilities to keep a step a]head ahead of weapon’s inspectors.

Behind ‘The Iraqi regime’, there is [amnesia we carry]. Bush produces this in the sounds of the phrase. Here he is in October 2002 producing the reversal exactly the same:

FS: … by taking these steps and by only taking these steps, [the Iraqi regime] has an opportunity to avoid conflict.

Abdullah Abdullah was a senior member of the Northern Alliance and Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time of 911 and the overthrow of the Taliban. Early in the campaign against the Taliban and Bin Laden, there was frustration that the Northern Alliance, supported by the U.S. was ineffective. Abdullah Abdullah gave the reversal below in a media conference. It is a very long reversal which is continuous. The reversal states:

They blew it up at night. Powell wasn’t there. That is not right. Then they give us this stuff.

Powell, of course, was Colin Powell, Secretary of State at that time. By this reversal, it appears that Abdullah was frustrated himself about apparent level of support and equipment that the Northern Alliance was getting from the U.S.

Here it is again, stretched: 


This is a reversal from Yasser Arafat, the PLO Chairman. I don’t know the year of this one. He states:

Men are cobra and the bomb us


I discovered in the late 90s that people speaking in a different language who had a level of English knowledge could give reversals in English. This is now accepted in Reverse Speech. I found many on Bin Laden, for example. Here are some from Muammar Gaddafi from 2003. I found him to be most amusing in his reversals. The first one states:

Fuckin’ laughing man. In this reversal he sounds as if he were stoned!

In this one, he states:

I’m a beautiful person.

Here he may refer to George Bush.

He has buffalo look. He’s an American. I hear your horsey. This appears to be a reference to a cowboy stereotype.

Perhaps in the next reversal, Gaddafi refers to the 1986 attempt to get him by the US/UK.

My hunt was a silly lesson


Condoleezza Rice was George Bush’s National Security Advisor during the campaign against Al Qaida in Afghanistan.

Here, she states in reverse:

North people we had deal, Bin Laden shot.   I believe this is from November 2001. North people would refer to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. In her forward speech she talked about surrounding and destroying Al Qaida members who were on the run. Clearly, she wanted action from the Northern Alliance regarding Bin Laden.


Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence in the Bush era. In October 2001 he was talking about giving support to forces that opposed the Taliban. He produced a reversal indicating frustration at the ineffectiveness of current forces.

They cannot kill in any force. See that pressure.

In October 2001, talking about terrorism, he stated in reverse:

Call police. Make your break snake.

This probably means use authority and force to hunt down Al Qaida/Taliban, or individually, Bin Laden, daring the ‘snake’ to break out from hiding and make a run for it.

November 17 2001, Rumsfeld again used ‘snake’. He was speaking about the problems of releasing foreign fighters where they would destabilise other areas. He stated in reverse:

Snake fightin’ on.

October 2001, Rumsfeld referred to General Richard Myers, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs in 2001, in reverse. Rumsfeld was explaining some confusion about where an attack was coming from, saying it was actually AAA from the ground, not fire from above. He stated:

Myer in muff.  Although his name actually ends in /s/, the reversal is still worth noting. From this we get the idea that he believes that Myer messed up.

January 2002 Rumsfeld talks about using Afghan’s in the fight against the Taliban, and where not U.S, forces. He states in reverse:

You fuck it up. Once again, we see an ineffectiveness in operations.By this time Bin Laden had well and truly disappeared.

December 2001, Rumsfeld was talking about operations against terrorists. He stated in reverse:

His sex is ’91. This could refer to George Bush, and what ‘gets him off’ is the success of the 1991 Gulf War under his father.


Here are some from General Richard Myers, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Bush administration. These reversals came from the later period of 2001, in the early days of the Afghanistan campaign.

Giving an operations update, he sates, See you lost the 4. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember finding this in the morning, and then hearing on the news later that day that 4 soldiers were killed.

Talking about the latest on fighters in the caves, he states in reverse, I heard there’s a fire, who’s missin’

Giving another operations update about satellite imagery, he states in reverse, And I had missed it (Note above Rumsfeld’s comments of Myer in muff, and you fuck it up).

Another one – So we hit him first.

Showing an image of a hit on a terrorist training camp, he seems to state Terrorist you know they hit. Overall, a bit ambiguous. Of course, ‘terrorist’ can sound like ‘tourist’ here, however, the second syllable can drop out to a degree in forward speech. (Yet, one could entertain that he indeed is saying ‘tourist’ and he is talking about intel on a possible attack on a tourist area).


A speech reversal from Kate McCann, the mother of missing Madeleine McCann, was played on a radio show recently and declared as being a ‘nice and clear’ reversal. The reversal accuses Kate McCann of beating Madeleine and killing her. However, the reversal is incorrect.

The documented reversal is:

Slay with fists Madeleine

Here is the audio 

Although Madeleine is imperfect, I will assume that her name is there. I wish to address [slay with fists].

  1. There is an /f/ in the FS; however, the sound largely disappears and there is mild frication in its place and also a velar quality of a [k + h] type. Rather than [fist], it is more like [kissed]. There is no concise /k/; however, the frication and aspiration combined with the ramping up of the vowel lends perception of /k/.
  2. It is not [with], but [we] as the mild frication at the FS /f/ fails to produce [th] perception.
  3. Slay is [slow] articulated with a very English vowel sound. 

Therefore, we would have [slow we kissed Madeleine], clearly a very different meaning to the documented version.




Preservation of primary phonetic and acoustic cues of phonemes trigger their perceptual identification. Time reversal of speech both preserves and alters phonetic and acoustic features of speech signals. Invariant features such the power spectra of a signal are usually maintained whilst properties such as duration and the shape of the temporal envelope, as well as finer details of the acoustic spectrum are altered (Grataloup, Hoen, Veuillet, Collet, Pellegrino and Meunier, 2009). Non-continuant speech sounds are more susceptible to altered perception in reversals as assymetry typically occurs in the shape of the temporal envelope. This is the case in stop bursts, abrupt vowel onsets, and ramping (smooth increase in amplitude) and damping (smooth decay) of signals (Pellegrino, Ferragne and Meunier, 2010). Time reversal of these features alter the characteristics of the speech signal, permitting perception of alternative phonemes, and even the addition of phonemes to the speech signal, or the omission of phonemes from the forward speech.

One study has been conducted that investigates the preservation of phonetic cues in time reversed speech and the perception of reversed phonemes. Pellegrino, Ferragne and Meunier (2010) conducted an experiment which required four phoneticians to listen to pseudowords that were recorded and played in reverse, and phonemically transcribe what they heard. The results of the study showed that around 25% of the original segments from the forward speech were exactly retrieved in reverse. The experiment also demonstrated that certain phoneme types were more likely to be distinguished than others. Fricatives (e.g. /f, v/) liquids (e.g. /l/) and nasals (e.g. /n, m/) were identified at a rate above 90%, and vowels at close to 90%. The authors suggest that the high rate of identification likely reflects the invariance of continuant waveforms preserving a high level of perceptual cues permitting perception. Rhotics (e.g. /r/) and voiced stops (e.g. /b, d, g/) were identified at an intermediate level (66.7% and 61.8% respectively). Listeners, however, were inaccurate with unvoiced stops (e.g. /p, k, t/), with a rate of only 9.4%, as well as schwas (mid central neutral vowel /ə/).

The ones that were not correctly recognised were identified as phonemes having alternative place and/or manner of articulation. 30% of unvoiced stops were transcribed as fricatives. 25% were identified as stops, which also included other stop types such as glottal stops or unreleased voiced stops. 28% were heard as a cluster; for example, a final /t/ in the natural speech was heard as an /sn/ cluster. The authors suggest that the /n/ arose from the ramping of the vowel in the time-reversal signal. 7% were transcribed as a sonorant (r, l, m, n, w, y) while 10% of the stop segments were not detected.

The findings of this study suggest that not only are speech sounds from the forward speech heard in reverse, sounds that are not in the forward speech are also perceived as phonemes.

These perceptions are typical in Reverse Speech. Although many phonemes from the forward speech are perceived, others are heard as alternative sounds, and this is certainly the case with unvoiced stops. They can be perceived as a phoneme with a different place of articulation (e.g. /t/ → /k/ or different manner of articulation (e.g. /t/ →/s/, /p/ → /f/). An alveolar stop and alveolar /l/ can convert into another alveolar consonant; for example, /t/ or /d/ may be perceived as /n/ or vice versa. Others may be heard as allophones (different variation of the one phoneme; e.g. /t/ → /ʔ/ or unreleased /t/), or a similar phoneme such as an alveolar tap /ɾ/. Phoneme addition can occur such as /t/→ /st/. Stop bursts can disappear when reversed, lost in the vowel sound that came before it in reverse, resulting in perception of an alternative phoneme, an unreleased allophone, or omission altogether. Omission of sounds from the forward speech is a common occurrence. Light articulation of consonants or the strong frication of vowels next to a consonant may result in non-recognition of the consonant.

Some sounds in time reversed speech are highly ambiguous and may be heard differently by different listeners. Alteration of phonemic cues through reversing or degrading of the sound through audio noise or poor audio quality contribute to ambiguity. In this case, one’s grammatical and lexical knowledge comes into play in phoneme selection, projecting the desired phoneme to produce meaning.

Reverse Speech is very much about the perception of speech sounds and finding meaning though the building of strings of language that make some grammatical and syntactical sense. But of course, this is very much the case for normal speech as well. We turn the sounds uttered by another into coherent meaning. When listening to speech, we cannot actually perceive each individual speech sound. We assume that they are there. However, if we were to examine the individual segments of spontaneous forward speech, we would find that not all phonemes of the heard words are recognisable; they may sound different or be missing altogether. Yet, there is ample remaining of the speech signal to perceive a coherent string of words. The rest is projected into it.

So, we can now see that Reverse Speech is composed of perceivable phonemes and segments. Not covered by Pellegrino et al. is whether the segments produce lexical information. It can be easily proven that they indeed do. However, to perceive strings of language correctly, one needs to operate within linguistic possibilities and parameters. This entails examination of phonemes and segments of reversed speech as well as comparing them to the information in the forward speech. This means understanding linguistic processes. This also means knowing that some speech sounds in forward speech can be heard differently to the sounds which normally make up words.  It is important to know what is wrong with the string of words just as it is important to know what is right. This helps to set reasonable linguistic parameters for what can be accepted as linguistically viable. There are innumerable examples out there in ‘Reverse Speech World’ that are obviously not what they are claimed to say. There are also many that can sound like what they are attested to be, yet still lack the necessary evidence for it.

Yet, strings do occur that mirror acceptable language. Nevertheless, proving that they are anything but coincidental is another matter. Every day, there are perhaps trillions of strings of language produced by speakers around the world. Quite naturally, ‘words’ will appear that are purely coincidental, even if they are a grammatically acceptable string of two, three or four words which are composed of perhaps one or two content words and one or two particles. One can shake these in front of linguistics all day and get a response like “that’s interesting, but no cigar!”, even if they did seem to have some meaning regarding the speaker and what he was saying. For attention to be garnered, linguistically viable strings that are much longer need to occur; say, a minimum of 7 words in length with ample examples of ones that are more than 10 words and even as long as 15 -20 words.

Funnily enough, they exist.


Grataloup, C., Hoen, M., Veuillet, E., Collet, L., Pellegrino, F & Meunier, F. (2009). Speech Restoration: An Interactive Process, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 827-838.
Pellegrino, F., Ferragne, E., & Meunier, F. (2010). 2010, a speech oddity: Phonetic transcription of reversed speech. Interspeech 2010, 1221 – 1224.

Other links

Investigation of audio samples related to Deorr Kunz case – Vernal Kunz and Jessica Mitchell

Jessica Mitchell 911 call – Deorr Kunz

Isaac Reinwand July 2016

The reversal set is 19 words long coming as a series of statements typical in RS. Almost all is acceptable linguistically, however the [v] is really an [n] with some frication, and there is an evident [l] in [you up] which makes it sound like [heal up] on closer listening. The fact that there is only 2 or 3 phonemes out of over 60 that are ‘out of kilter’ perception-wise makes the reversal set worthy of consideration. In FS one can perceive phonemes that are not ordinarily a component of the word, and therefore consideration ought to be given to RS in the same way. In addition, if there is a ‘voice’ communicating in the reverse of the speaker’s words, then it stands to reason that not all of it will be heard clearly and precisely. One needs to weigh up what is right about the reversal and what is dubious in order to determine its worth.

If any of the statements are genuine, then we may see Jessica (spoken as in the 3rd person) being viral – the mother everywhere looking (FS ‘crazy Mom status’).  The desire to find and be with her child – ‘pick you up honey’ and ‘Mommy’s here’. And, the deadly mountain and ice associated with a mountain. Alternatively, ice refers to the drug, almost like an entity itself speaking (‘said’).

RS: May answer the others. She came [v]iral. Pick you up honey. Kill said ice. Mummy’s here. Kill mountain here.  

FS: I hear little kid voices [or anything I am like] [crazy Mum status like you know following people around making sure that it’s not him].

may [him]  It may sound like they but I will assume that it is may.

answer – i[t’s not]  The /t/ in no[t] is not articulated in the FS and does not occur in the RS. [t’s] produces RS [s] and contributes to the RS [er]. The [er] is weak and articulation moves quickly the [th] in the next word. This can also happen in the FS. Not the un-American like [a] in answer. One should not assume that an American speaker will always produce American pronunciation in reverse.

the others [sure that it] [the] takes some of [it] and FS [th] disappears. [other] comes at [ure tha]. The RS [s] actually disappears into the [sh] in [she] in the next reversal as it would naturally in FS.

she – mak[ing s]ure [ng] disappears in the RS

came [mak]ing

[v]iral – peop[le around] At [nd] one there is [n] or [m]. As phonemes in FS don’t always sound like what is intended, I have included this as a possibility.

pick [peop] [k] perception occurs

you up [following] [f] is perceived as [p], [y] comes from [i], FS [ng] disappears. There is an [l] occurring in the RS from the FS [ll] therefore this is imprecise.

honey [you know]

kill [like]

said ice [status] [st] becomes [c]

mummy’s – cra[zy] mum

here – [cra] [c] becomes an aspirated sound which adds to perception of [here].

kill  [like]  [like] typically produces [kill]. Here the vowel is produced a bit lower but is still acceptable.

mountain – any[thing I am] Vowel diphthong a bit imperfect but reasonable, [t] occurs at palate closure after RS [ng] and before [I] moving straight th [n], which is quite normal. FS [th] assimilates with the [n].

here [or any] [n] is weak in the FS and disappears in the RS.


My wash, my sheet, now some food; who’d believe but I gotta tan 

FS: I have so many things in life I want to do with my son teach him, to show him and I’m not giving up on that that I’m go’nna be able to do that.

my wash [show him]

my sheet [teach him]

now some food [do with my son] now some comes at [my son]. [w] is cut short, but in normal speech with a word following, that would be normal. Alternatively, it may be heard a nurse him, with food a separate addition. The fact that there is no pause may be acceptable, as RS is often a series of short comments that may have no pause between them. This would make it my wash, my sheet, nurse him, food. Food comes at [do with], with the [w] continuing the rounded vowel, and FS [th] perceived as [f].

who’d believe – b[e able t’do] who’d comes from [do]. [le t’] practically disappears leaving [e ab]. Perception of [l] comes from the transition in [e a]. [v] assimilates to the [b] in [be], which is acceptable.

but I – g[onna b]e [b] comes at the onset of [b] in the FS. Sense of [t] comes at a tap like sound at FS [n]. I comes at FS [o].

gotta – th[at I’m g] There is some influence of the [m], however, this is an adequate representation.

tan – o[n that] – [th] disappears in the FS, leaving [n]. /t/ unaspirated. More like Latino accent.


These two reversals may indicate subconscious processes as regard to freedom and responsibility.

He talks about wanting to do things with his son in the FS; his reversal, however, lists chores – washing and feeding, or, washing, nursing him, feeding. The 2nd reversal may indicate a desire for a different identity and reality. The 2nd reversal reveals elements of a Latin/Spanish accent (note the unaspirated [t] in [tan]) – a fantasy of a cool Latino with a tan. The reversal seems to continue to another statement; however, the first part is gibberish, but the last part may be heard as be gun runner, though /r/ is not precise. This simply continues the fantasy of the Latin with a tan. 


Source now for money through mou[se]/mou[th]/threw him out. They both lie

FS .. all [thought/felt the time we were seen on f on soc]ial media and everything well it was everyth ..  money this money that and, no … um I work every day, every day, um I just want it’s nice to know people out there don’t …

source now – on f[on soc]ial The addition of the [f] in the FS actually adds to the strength of now.

for money – s[een on f] The [f] provides the RS [f]. Here, Vernal was probably going to say “Facebook”, but stopped at the initial sound. The [n] provides reasonable perception of [m].

through mouse – [time w’were s]een FS [we] becomes a slightly longer [w] in [were]. This provides the rounded vowel in through, with FS [s] providing frication to perceive [th]. The final sound in mouse/mouth is cut short probably due to the continuation of the reversal, and therefore this creates uncertainty over the ending. The ending comes at [t] in the FS. The ending can sound like [t]; however, in the reversal construction, this would not make sense unless it was ‘threw him out’.  The duration of the sound is cut short, and therefore the sound is not properly perceived. The next statement begins with [th] in they, so perhaps the [th] in mouth is cut short or even [s] in mouse. Vernal is speaking about social media. One could entertain different possibilities here.

They both lie – [all thought that] Lie comes from [all]. Notably Australian sounding. [b] comes at the release of the vowel in [thought] creating an rapid, explosive labial like sound in the reverse. They comes from the [th] in [that].


The ending of mouse/mouth is a question mark. One needs to decide whether they refers to external actors, or whether it is a semi-autonomous aspect of self referring to Vernal and Jessica. If the latter interpretation is correct, and the word is mouse, then this can show that they indeed attempted or had the intention to source money over the internet (perhaps to raise funds to aid the investigation, for example). If mouth, then this would show an alternative means of accessing funds. If threw him out, it could mean anger over another seeking money.


Nurse he’s really dead 

FS: Daddy loves you son and I’m not giving up hope.

nurse [son]

he’s – love[s you]

really – Dadd[y love]s

dead [Dadd]y


This lies behind ‘Daddy loves you son’. This would indicate a part of him that believes that his son his dead. If nurse is valid, perhaps it indicates a desire to hold him.

It would be quite normal that the parent of a missing toddler that cannot be found would entertain thoughts that he is no longer alive, but at the same time hold some hope. To claim that he consciously knows this with ‘dead certainty’; that is, he knows what happened to the child, may be erroneous. What comes from reversals is not always going to be known consciously.

This is an assessment of language-like speech in the reverse speech of Burke Ramsey and the police interviewer during Burke’s police interview as a child.

The examples here represent words that can be perceived, however, in alternatives can be heard in some cases. Therefore, there is no certainty with the offerings presented here.

In situations where there is a reduction in audio quality the possibilities of hearing language not present increases. This is true for forward speech, as it is for reverse speech.

Comprehension of normal speech is aided when applying one’s internal grammar and knowledge of context to the discourse, and by the typically longer examples of speech. The benefit of context and longer sections of speech is not as available in reverse speech as it is in normal speech.  Context and knowledge of the speaker is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can help identify language and meaning, but also create biased expectations and projections into the sounds. Furthermore, reverse speech is not always clearly associated with what is being spoken about in the forward speech.

Although there are linguistically excellent examples of reverse speech, many have inconsistencies phonemically and phonetically. On the surface level they may sound quite accurate, but a closer listening can show that this is not the case. However, if one listens closely to extracts of forward speech one will often hear phonemes that perceptually don’t match the proper phonemes of the word spoken, and the word itself can be quite distorted. Of course, it is things like our internal grammar, the syllable length, key audible phonemes and knowledge of context that help us to ‘reconstruct’ the word and understand what the speaker is saying.

One can opine that reverse speech will often suffer some distortion as it comes in the reversed sound of forward speech uttered consciously. What level of imprecision in sounds is acceptable is something the reverse speech listener will have to decide for himself. However, this can be the difference between what is reverse speech and what is gibberish. Unfortunately, many who are doing reverse speech are not aware of those flaws; this can then make it difficult to judge its level of appropriacy.

Understanding how speech sounds, syllables and words interact with each other in forward speech, and recognizing the effect of audio speech sounds, can help us to reduce errors in reverse speech recognition. Linguistic knowledge is important in ascertaining possibilities and parameters within which to operate.

Forward speech dialogue

BR: I was like laying in bed with my eyes open all night. So I was thinking of what might have happened.

PI: Did you hear Mum and Dad talking?

BR: I just heard Mum like going sicko/psycho.

PI: Going psycho?

BR: Yeah, like go like, you know

PI: Did you go down to see what’s going on?

BR: (?) down, and stayed in bed


BR: Our murder/mother walked around, (the) then they hear the threa[t] [I was like laying in bed with my eyes open all night]  

our mother/murder (op[en all night])

our (n[ight]_ FS [t] does not occur in the RS. There is no evidence of any articulation towards the high front vowel in [I], and with the time period extending a little longer than a shortened cut [I] that could occur before consonant, I won’t claim [I] as a possibility.

mother/murder (op[en all n]ight) [m] comes at [l n]. [rd]/[th] occurs at FS [n]. It sounds most like murder, however, audio quality could mask sounds, and [mother] should be considered possible.

walked (eye[s op]en) The labial [op] gives a sense of [wa]. The FS [s] provides the [ed] ending (this can occur in RS).

around ([m eye]s) [m] can be heard as [n]. [r] can be heard around [y].

(the) then they (lay[in’ in bed with]) FS [b] disappears. At slower speeds one can hear a short syllable before [then] from [with]. It sounds most like [the], and I will accept it as a mis-speaking that often occurs in FS. In [then they], the [in’ in] provides a lengthened [n] which gives [n th]. This then follows normal assimilation of [th] adjacent [n].

hear [lay] some aspiration occurs, and [r] is perceived at [l].

the [like] the alveolar [l] dominated allowing a sense of [t]. Of course, audio quality aids this as well

threa[t] [I was] the fricative of the [s] gives a sense of [th], and the [w] gives a sense of [r]. There is a ;ack of evidence of an unreleased [t] final.


BR: She walks, it’s a walk/this walk. My Mom the/was shit [I just heard Mum like going sicko]  

If this reversal has an association with the previous one, then [murder] may meant to be [mother]. interesting that it mentions ‘walk’ again. Also, see reversal below from the Dr Phil interview in 2016.

she walks [sicko] Before [w] it sounds like there is an [sh] occurring – he produces some vocal noise, however, it is likely the audio is lending something to it. [w] comes from the rounded vowel. [s] comes from [s].

it’s a walk/this walk [it’s] comes from the lengthened [s]; [a] comes from the vowel in [ing]. It may also be [this walk]. [w] comes from the rounded vowel [o], and [k] comes from [g].

my mom  [mum like]  [like] simply sounds like fricative noise. I have assumed [my] here. A general hearing gives one the sense of [my mom].

the/was shit [I just heard] It could also sound like [momma] at this point, however, there is a new word beginning after [mom]. This point is at the end of [heard], and is most like [the], however, [was] is a possibility. The [sh] comes from [j]ust]. An unreleased [t] final is assumed here.


PI: it’s all this [d]enied bullshit [did you go down and see what’s going on?]  

There is no obvious [th]is or [d]enied; however, in spontaneous speech, some elision of these sounds is possible.

it’s all [what’s]

this [see] Elision occurs at [th] with a labial approximate in its place. The failure to articulate [th] would occur in FS.

denied [down] The double syllable effect in [dow-n] give some sense of [denied]. There is no initial [d]; however, assimilation to the preceding [s] is quite possible.

bullshit [did she go]  A sense of [b] is possible on release of FS g[o].. The [g] is silent and di[d] is silent. [ll] is not there, however, in spontaneous speech this is possible.

Before the beginning of this reversal is a word that can sound like [murder

murder  [going on] This can be heard in different ways, therefore there is uncertainty. Sense of [m] is at [n]. Sense of [r] occurs around [ng]. Sense of [d] occurs at the release and onset of FS [o] and [i] respectively. [er] occurs at [o]. The [g] is silent.

One has to separate it from the following sibilant sound to get a better sense of it.


BR: Nervous, cried [… down, and stayed in bed]

Nervous [stayed in bed] [nerv] comes at [n bed] with FS [d] providing the alveolar alternative of [n], and [b] providing sense of [v]. [s] comes at [st].

cried The initial is ambiguous. It may simply be [n], however, [c] is presented as a possibility. A sense of [r] occurs at [w].  [d] occurs at [d].


I have included here one from Burke’s 2016 interview with Dr Phil.

RS: Mom out there. Remember answer  

FS: The [first thing I remember is my Mom] bursting in my room really frantic saying like oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, running around my room looking for Jon Benet.

There is no [b] in “remember”, however I think this does not exclude it as the documented reversal.

This could either indicate coaching from his parents when he was a child, or refer to a self-rehearsed response to his mother. Note that other reversals may refer to his mother walking around while he was in his bedroom.


One gets from this the sense of someone (Mom?) walking around. Using the word [shit] with [Mom] could either refer to her feeling ‘pyscho’ at JonBenet missing, or alternatively, Burke’s unease that she was walking around that night. He does seem to say that (he?) is [nervous].

These are reversals from Al Gore’s CNN Town Hall interview in July 2017 promoting his new book.

RS: Alps, they’re all with snow 

FS: … storms getting stronger and more destructive. [Watch the water spla]sh off the city. This is global warming

Alps [spla]sh

they’re all with [the water s]  [they’re] comes where the [s] in the next FS word joins onto [er] creating a fricative sound – there is a natural assimilation of the [th] with the [s] from [Alps]. [all] comes at [wat][ll] from FS [w], the weakly articulated [t] disappears in the RS. [w] is from the release of FS [w]. [th] is from FS [th]

snow [watch] [t] stop produces [n] stop in RS; [ch] produces appropriately sibilance of [s].

Although Gore is speaking of storms, Gore’s subconscious seems to remind him that rather than ice/snow melting, there is plenty of it in the mountains still.


RS: Why heed/did that rot  

You know without violating the privacy of those conversations I’ll just say that uh, [I I did have] reason to believe he might stay in.

why [have] A sense of [w] occurs from FS [v]

heed/did  [did] There is a tap consonant from the final [d] in FS [did]. This can be heard. At the same time, the [h] in [have] tends to dominate helping to give a sense of [heed] even though there is a tap there. If this is not the case and the [h] should be ignored, it may be [did].

that  [I d]id The contraction that occurs between [I I] in the FS gives a sense of [t] final, [th] comes from [d]

rot [I] Gore articulates an [r] in the FS thus producing the initial of the RS word, the contraction of the palate helps gives a sense that there should be a [t] final.

This reversal occurred at the point Gore stumbled a little in his speaking (uh, I, I …). It is interesting that an [r] occurs at [I] to produce [rot]. Gore, trying to formulate his words probably ended up with a cross between [Urr] and [I] before he repeated [I].

What is the rot? Did he reasonably believe that Trump would stay in, and his subconscious asking either why he paid attention to the belief or why he should believe Trump?


This one is made up of several comments which are language-like. This is analysed and discussed below to decide what of it has import.

RS: They’d made the sell, no city, it’s in the shamer(?), sign here Bori(s), I take it, (?) the moral rot  

FS: … virtually every nation in the en[tire world agreed to get to zero greenhouse emissions, it is unprecedented].


made the [eden] perception of [m] occurs, [de th] comes from the FS [d].

sell [prec]edented [p] disappears enough to leave [sell]; fricative noise from the audio occurs which may give a sense of a consonant such as [th] or [f], however, this noise should be ignored.

no city [it is un]precedented

it’s in the emiss[ions]

(chamber?) [emiss]ions The sounds produce shamer or shimmer, however, perhaps it is meant to be chamber.

Sign here [greenhouse] [g] disappears in the RS.

Bori(s)  rounding of vowel in the FS at the end of [zero] gives a sense of [b] initial. The sounds produce [boriz].

I take it [to get to]

(?)  [gree]d This comes out as gibberish, sounded something like e-oo. Perhaps it is a highly distorted heal

the [a]greed The release of [a] before moving to [g] gives a sense of [th].

moral [worl]d The ending of [rl] appears to give a sense of a bilabial.

rot [to our]

There is a highly distorted word that perhaps may be meant to be heal to make heal the moral rotBoris seems pretty meaningless. No city may be informative, or not. Key statements here seem to be They’d made the sell/sign here/I take it, as well as the moral rot. From these comments we can consider that the sell had been made to the world, getting others to sign up, as well as Gore taking the benefit.  Note in the following reversal below he states hurry give. The moral rot may refer to a belief that those who do not subscribe to Gore’s views are part of a moral rot. If no city has any meaning here, perhaps it is a connection to cities and pollution.


RS: hurry give  

FS: And by the way the two degree [figure] is just it’s not a you know a scientific threshold, it’s just sort of a compromise.

hurry give  [figure]

We should be dubious about short two word reversals by themselves as the coincidence level is high. It is worth including, however, in view of a potential bigger picture with other reversals.


RS: But they gather skin my dear; soon they’ll walk, give me sword            But they gather skin my dear; soon they’ll walk on me sword  

FS: fossil fuel age is ah i is in a transition now but that does not absolve any of us from our duty to look after you and your neighbours and and [those in the coal industry to make sure they get the] training and the opportunities …

they  g[et]

gather  s[ure they g]et

skin  [make s]ure  Perceiving [n] at [m] is possible here, perhaps aided by the nasalisation of the sound.

my dear  indus[try to m]ake  [m] occurs at [m]. Here we are looking at the FS articulation and release of [m] creating some nasalisation in the word [make] to produce a possible [n] in [skin]. For [my], we have the FS onset of [m] creating the [m] in [my]. [dear] comes from [ry t]o with [t]ry creating slight frication at the end which can be ignored.

soon they’ll  coa[l indus] [soon] comes at [dus] where [d] creates acceptable [n] perception; they’ll occurs at [l in]. Of course the initial is [n], and this is not a good representation of the word, however, there will be some assimilation of the [th] to a final [n] in the previous word. [‘ll] comes at coa[l].

walk  [coa] Rounded vowel gives sense of [w].

(g)ive me [in the] There is a [th] rather than [g]; the [n] does give an [m] perception, so that it sounds like [thimme] with the second syllable holding the stress. We can accept a loss of [v] for [m]. A general listening can also give a sense of [on me] as in [walk on me sword]. This reduces the efficacy of the reversal.

sword  [those]

There are two other reversals behind the FS. These follow each other – In the FS you do drama is first and in RS it is second.

RS: you do drama  

RS: solve any loss 

The sounds at [thimme] is  a question mark, and [soon they’ll] is a little iffy. The remaining language represents the words appropriately.

Gore is addressing a female about what would happen to the coal miners in her state (my dear). Interestingly, the term ‘gather skin’ is used in reference to the widely popular game Counter Strike Global Offensive where players gather skin or inventory such as weapons to use. As a weapon, Gore mentions his ‘sword’. He states that they gather skin or accrue weaponry and inventory to aid them. There is an issue at the point of [thimme] and this creates confusion. In the first version above one possible interpretation is that ‘gather skin’ is the training and opportunities for coal miners in transition (soon they’ll walk)  [Give me sword] may then refer to having the weapons to fight the fossil fuel industry. Alternatively, the fossil fuel industry ‘gathers skin’ and they may ‘get away’, hence the need for the weapon to fight them. If it is meant to be [on me], perhaps he is suggesting that the coal miners will commit ‘suicide’ so to speak on his sword.

Gore is good at sounding dramatic; he even sounds evangelistic in his video documentaries. Being dramatic is a tool he uses to sell his product.


RS: There/Their apprentices know we’re all going to cry dumb, bring attack  Their/They’re apprentices, now we’re all going to cry dumb, bring attack  

FS: all faith and traditions to read La Dolte the encyclical from Pope Francis which really address the question you’re [asking here my daughter Karenna Gore runs the Centre for Earth] Ethics here at Union Theological Seminary, and she was part of a study group, multi faith reading that …

their  [earth]

apprentices [is the centre for]  [th] assimilates to [s] – [s th] – in the FS leaving [ces] from [s the c]entre. [nt] comes from [n], [ppr] comes from [re f]or where [f] creates perception of [p]. [a] comes from f[or].

know/now we’re all  Karenna G[ore run]s  [n] is from [n], [w w] is from [r]uns, [‘r] is rom o[r]e; [all] is from [o]re.

going to K[arenna G] produces acceptable form of the words.

cry dumb  [my daughter C] [cry] from d[aughter C], and [dumb] from [my d].

bring attack [asking here m]y  [bring] is from [g here m], [attack] from [askin]g [sk] creates sense of [tt], and sense of [ck] comes from pre-articulation of [a]sking.

His daughter’s study group may be the trigger for  apprentices. The pronoun we is used in regard to crying dumb. Cry dumb may be like the phrase ‘cry innocent’ in the sense of proclaim innocence or proclaim ignorance. It would need to be decided whether Bring attack means they (will) bring an attack on others, or others bring attack on them.


This reversal is often played on the Reverse Speech circuit. The claim is that it was found a couple of weeks before the US went into Iraq.

Forward section: Bush: “… will help that nation build a just government after decades of brutal dictatorship. The formal leadership of [that government is for the Ir]aqi people to choose”.
The issue with this reversal is the chosen beginning point, which is incorrect, and as a result the first two words documented are incorrect.

For a start, we will is not evident. We will occurs behind [for the Ir]aqi. There is an obvious [r] at [w]e, and there is [th] which produces a [d]/[th] sound around where [w]ill begins. Where it has been cut at the initial makes it almost sound like there is a [p] as in the word [pray]. Cutting at the wrong position can create a sound and even a word that is not there. An example is if one starts a reversal at the onset of a FS [s], it will typically sound like [d] in reverse.

Secondly, listening to the seconds before this reversal, one can hear another phrase, which sounds like Swish little baby carried I will refer to this as the first reversal, and the documented reversal as the second reversal.

The documented reversal is begun at the point of [rr] in carried.Therefore, the correct beginning of the reversal will need to be ascertained. One may hear that either carried or carry is the natural ending of the first reversal. It needs to be ascertained whether the second reversal begins with the [d] from FS [th]e (so that the final word of the first reversal is carry), or begins after it (so that the final word of the first reversal is carried). An overall listening can give the sense that the end is carry and the second reversal begins with [d]/[th] at the point of [th]e in the FS. However, closer examination shows that the [d] sound may actually belong to the end of the first reversal (as in carried), although in a general listening it may sound like the beginning of the second reversal.

The second reversal, if it does not begin at [th], begins at the FS word [for]. The rounded vowel gives a sense of [ou] in you, and the movement toward [th]e at the end of [for] helps to give some sense of [y] as the tongue is moving toward the front of the mouth and is fairly high. The next question is [f]or. With [f] one can assume you’ve. But we have a grammar dilemma with the word sit. You’ve would make it present perfect and sit ought to be sat (past participle), which it is not. Alternatively, one could assume that the [f] has weakened substantially in the RS and has simply assimilated with the [s] in FS [is]. This is possible, and would make the word you’ll. Yet, one can still perceive [v]. This does not mean it is not meant to be [‘ll]. In normal FS, not every sound representative of the speaker’s words will sound exactly that. Nevertheless, [v] can still be perceived.

Of course, if the FS [th] was included, it can sound like they’ll, and in fact a general listening gives that; however, the second reversal beginning without pause and starting with a vowel can help to create the sense of a [th]/[d] beginning, but in fact does not.

Therefore, in this case, we would have You’ll sit in Baghdad or You’ve sit in Baghdad (if one accepts the grammar error)   However, one might continue to consider they’ll/they’ve sit as a possibility.

Little baby carried possesses some unity as a phrase but with swish, this word would have to sit alone or be discarded as gibberish. Swish little baby by itself is rather odd.

Carried, however, has an amplitude that is similar to You’ll sit in Baghdad rather than Swish little baby, which is softer (You can hear that in the audio above). If we include swish, we may have to see carried as a one word statement that follows, that is, written with a comma before it – swish little baby, carried – you’ll/you’ve sit in Baghdad. If we ignore swish as gibberish, we have little baby carried.

There does appear to be a word following Baghdad. This is rubbish. I am unsure as to whether it is part of the clause or just gibberish. There is [v] from FS [of] in the FS where the [r] is. However, [r] is arguably acceptable here.

This word, though, runs directly into the gibberish following, which is a mark against it.

You’ll/You’ve sit in Baghdad rubbish 

If the pronoun is you, is this Bush speaking to himself? Or, is he talking about an external other, and doesn’t refer to himself? We could consider things will turn into a mess for him/his administration, assuming this is the meaning of rubbish, rather than actual physical rubbish. If it is they, we could consider that he is speaking about US forces.

There is another possibility for rubbish – that it is not the ending of the reversal, but a separate statement from a conflicting aspect of Bush’s subconscious, one that is expressing strong disagreement with sit in Baghdad.

And the meaning of the first reversal? Besides an interpretation of a desire to be nurtured, it could also mean being left holding (carrying) the baby, which means having to deal with it because others won’t take responsibility.

Here is the whole lot from beginning to end