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 may 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 to show disgust.

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

(October 8, 2001) Bush is talking about bringing Al Qaida to justice. He says in reverse:

Get undesirable. Sit tight. It will be in Africa.  It is assumed that intel was indicating a lot of activity in Africa.

(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.  This is informative. 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 it then simply bringing up an associated memory of another raid which killed a target? Alternatively, it is a claim that either 1) Bin Laden’s effectiveness and ability to lead operations has been greatly damaged. or 2) he pretty much had no rights anymore. Yet, it states: ‘One of our raids’ …

An amusing reversal by Bush on October 2, 2001:

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

December 31 (2001 or 2002) Talking about the war on terror, he seems to state in reverse:
Our killer. Worry he mucks it. (I assume the word is ‘mucks’). Perhaps this refers to assassins hired to take out Bin Laden.

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

Irag 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 revers he appears to state:

and you go now/goin’ off to talk to Chirac. Gaining the support of Jacque Chirac, President of France would have been a priority for Bush. ‘go now’ can also sound like ‘goin’ off’. However, the sense of meaning doesn’t change.

(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.

In the coming weeks I will upload reversals that some may agree are quite fascinating. It is reversals like these that keep me interested in Reverse Speech. Keep checking in. Brett

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 lack of support and the type of 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 anymore. 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. 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).







Here I will investigate speech reversals on Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh documented and posted on David Oates’ Reverse Speech website.

I have first added Blasey Ford reversals, and will add Kavanaugh’s later. Audio will be added soon.


There are three reversals with the word [scum].
FS: They seemed to be having a very good time. [Mark seemed ambiv]alent at times ..
RS: Oh it makes me scum 
oh it – am[bival]ent – There is a /v/ from the FS which is heard in reverse in between the documented words. [Oh] could sound like [all] with the FS /l/. The final sound is ambiguous.
makes – [d am]bivalent – At FS /d/ there is an ambiguous sound (something like a glottal sound + /t/) which has been interpreted as [kes]. 
me – s[eem]ed This is ok
scum – [Mark s] There is an obvious /r/. Obviously [crum] is the normal reverse of [Mark] when the /r/ has been articulated. The /s/ appears disconnected from the word as in [s-crum]. 

This is messy.

The beginning of the reversal can appear to start earlier as:
That smell of ‘im/(i?) – a[mbivalent at]: The main issue is that the /m/ is an /n/ as in [snell]. [that] is from [ta t]; [of] is from [va]; [‘im] is from [bi].
For any of this to actually be genuine language, distortion of phonemes would have to be accepted. So, is this possible? If Reverse Speech is real, a logical assumption is that the subconscious cannot control all of the sounds in the forward speech, and therefore some of it will be distorted. Distortion of sounds happens in forward speech; greater distortion would therefore happen in Reverse Speech. So, for example, in this case, is the subconscious producing [That s(m)ell of it/‘im makes me ??] Of course, there is the /n/ in [smell]. An overall listening also gives one the sense of [it] rather than [‘im]. The final word is terribly distorted. Was the subconscious actually attempting to express itself through speech? Blasey Ford would be reacting to the thought of Kavanaugh being so close, or the fact that she is dealing with sexual assault issues is creating pressure and stress for her.
Genuineness in situations of distortion is something I will continue to explore. But, if that is the case, who has the level of competency to know? One would need to possess an appropriate level of linguistic capability and knowledge, a deep understanding of the character and nuances of Reverse Speech, and very good intuition to boot.
FS: I can’t give the exact date and um, I would like to be more helpful about the date and if I knew when Mark Judge worked at the Potomac Safeway then I would be able to be more helpful in that way.
RS: You must go with that scum 
you must – Po[toma]c – This approximates the words.
There are extra sounds at low volume which are not included in the reversal which are behind [d at the P]. They sound somewhat like [with this] or [put this] or [with the] or [put the] behind FS [at the P]. 
go – [work]ed – There is /k/ in the FS, however, the initial sound is ambiguous and can sound as /h/. There is also an /r/. It is a messy word. 
with that – [Judge w]orked – sounds something like [wis dash], though the shortness of the final sound [sh] can pass as /t/. A final could be influenced by an /s/ initial in a following word. However, in this case, there isn’t, as explained next.
scum – [Mark] There is no /s/ initial. Any sibilance is disconnected from it. /r/ occurs. [sh] occurs at the end of the previous word and is not part of the beginning of this. It goes something like [wis dash k krum]. The documenter also didn’t cut the extraneous sounds [ni] off of the end.

There is no value in this.
FS: I provided the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge
RS: They’re scum 
they’re – [Jud]ge – could be [they], [there/they’re] without articulated /r/. If the sibilant is added here and not to [scum], it could be [there’s] (once again without the American /r/). 
scum – [Mark J]udge – There is a sibilant; however, there is some disconnectedness from the [c], and it seems more linked to the previous word. The rest would be [crum]. There is also an obvious /r/. Also, the documenter once again did not cut the extraneous sound [ni] off the end.

This is gibberish.
Here are three reversals with the word [force]
FS: By the time of the confirmation hearings I had resigned myself to remaining quiet.
RS: force him 
Tends to produce the words. Some ambiguity in the final consonant, probably as a result of the ending of the FS word [resigned].

FS: … to allow the Senate to consider Mr Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family, or anyone’s family vulnerable …
RS: force him 
force him – [myself] The FS word easily produces sounds like the reversed words.

FS: Apart from the assault itself these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life
RS: forced it 
forced it – [itself] The FS word creates the two words. A sense of final /t/ from the strong onset of the FS word.
We see 2 sets of reverse words typically produced by a FS word. We could assume that himself will produce [force me] and herself will produce [force her]. These are not convincing examples of RS.

In the second example above, behind the words “Mr Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct” we find language that sounds like [God knocks ‘im – serious son of Ackerson] or [God knocks some serious son of Ackerson]. 
God knocks – mi[sconduct]
‘im/some – [mi]sconduct Very short vowel, but possible. With [some], something like [s’m] would be plausible.
serious – [serious] The final vowel sound is not actually there, and so this is a distorted version of the word.
son of – Ka[vanaugh’s]
Ackerson – [Mister Ka]vanaugh’s – The ending is actually /m/ however
This is close to the words. Are we supposed to think that is language? ‘serious son of Ackerson’?? There are 7 words, not 2. Interesting that [God knocks him] comes behind the word [misconduct]!
FS: … when they first started talking about the possibility of a hearing I was hoping that there would be an a more thorough investigation.
RS: When they do it then they force you out 
when they do it – [there would be an] There is no /w/. The reversal begins with [an’]. It is [an’ they do it] with [th] disappearing in favour of /n/, which is ok.
then they – I was hop[ing that] FS [th] disappears in favour of /n/. It mostly sounds like [then near], however, [then they] may be acceptable here, and would suit the grammatical structure.
force you out – [I was hop]ing /p/ can be heard in place of /f/. [you out] comes out more as [you-a].
[an’ they do it, then they force you out] is worthy of some consideration. [they] is imprecise, [out] is questionable; nevertheless, with longer reversals, the final word can become distorted, and this may be through influence from the sounds which follow.

Then, this reversal may refer to the Senate acting on the hearing, and she having to attend and give evidence. However, [force you out] is dubious.
FS: I was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other, what looked like equally qualified candidates.
RS: Better make your fuck, you will be careful 
better – can[didates] There is sibilance or frication at the beginning which should be removed. The /d/ in [d]idates may be assumed to assimilate into the RS word following. So, it sounds similar to [detter]. /b/ is projected into it. 
make – [can]didates – FS /n/ can be heard, /m/ can be projected into it.
your – qualif[ied] there is no /r/. Could be more like [ya] or [yeah], though the initial is ambiguous. Can sound like an initial /f/.
fuck – [qualif]ied This is ok.
you’ll be – [equally] FS /k/ sound disappears; there is an ambiguous sound at the beginning of RS [be], but easily perceived as [you’ll be].
careful – [look like] [care] can be perceived as a possibility. There is an ambiguous sound that could be perceived as /f/. It may be heard as [careful] with a stronger stress on the second syllable.

The reversal almost seems to continue past this where Ford says what in the FS and [no] in reverse. The Senator says [thank you] in FS and what appears like [we can’t] in reverse. So, it seems like an agreement between each subconscious of the two people denying that they can be careful!
The reversal has a quality that makes it worthwhile considering. It may be that not all of it should be included, perhaps [Yeah, fuck, you’ll be careful/No we can’t]. This would be seen as either a conscious thought of, or a subconscious warning to Ford, followed by a denial on the part of both speakers. Therefore, this would show a conflicting element in Ford’s psyche.
FS: I have been [accused of acting] out of partisan political motives
RS: His habits weak 
his – ac[ti]ng approximates the word without an obvious /h/. As there seems to be a couple of words before this in the FS, a weak /h/ may not be an issue. The two words before it, on the surface level, can seem as [put on], but is more like [foot ain].
habits – accu[sed of ac]ting – It approximates [habits] although the /b/ is really a /v/. The FS [c] can be heard on close listening, but generally disappears in overall perception. It could also sound like [have it], with the /s/ sibilance simply part of frication of the /t/.
weak – [accu]sed This sounds like [ueesh] with a mild velar-like click at the end.. Highly distorted.

Appears to lack value.
FS: ignore the memories of the assault
RS: Aw save us, he remembered their own 
aw – ass[au]lt The documenter cut of the [lt] from [assault], but this was incorrect. The word begins with /l/ as in [law]
save us – [s of the ass] – This is ok.
he – memor[ie]s – There is actually another /r/-influenced short syllable before [remembered]. Therefore, it can sound like [e-your] or [‘ere]. It does not appear to be [he].
remembered – [the memor]ies – This is close to the word.
their own – ig[nore] – This is close to the words.

There may be another word which follows – [gifts]
Besides [aw] being really [law], the key issue is the sounds that comes between the two sections of the reversal. If you try to make it [he] you still have another short syllable where either [y] or [r] can be perceived before the start of the next word. One can close in on the word [you] before [remembered], however this leaves an [-e] at the end of [save] as in [save-e]. The word could be [here], and although a little distorted, this is possible. Some roundedness would occur at the end as it transitions to [remembered], giving the sense of [you]. So, when listening to the reversal overall, it can sound like there is a short pronoun there, however, when uttering [here] quickly followed by [remembered], this can make it sound as such. So, it is possible that it is [Law save us (you) remembered their own (gifts)]. If you listen to it together, it will be hard to discern [here]. It sounds like there is a pronoun in the middle such as [you]. The movement of articulation toward [r] in [remembered] gives the sense of [you].
The documenter has taken two separate reversals from the FS below.
FS: and I’m committed to doing my very best to answer them. I’ve never been questioned by a prosecutor and I will do my very best.
RS: I’m nude 
RS: Mother’s nice 
I’m nude – [doing my] This is like the words.
mother’s nice – [to answer them] Mother’s is fine. The sibilance at the end does not actually belong to nice. There is a reversal following (see below). The ending comes at the release of FS [to] and onset of FS. There is no consonantal ending, but one could assume /t/ as in [mother’s night].
There are words that are between the two reversals:
Mother’s ni(ght?). It’s Siberia if I’m nude
mother’s – an[swer them] This is acceptable.
night – [an]swer Cut at the right position, it sounds like this.
it’s – be[st to] Acceptable
Siberia – v[ery bes]t The final /a/ is not evident. It would elide to some degree when quickly followed by a following word with a vowel initial, and in particular [i] because of the last [i] in [Siberia].
if – [ve]ry The consonant remains voiced, but this is acceptable.

Ignoring [mother’s night], we have [It’s Siberia if I’m nude]. The possible [Siberia] may be a reference to the old gulags where political prisoners and undesirables were sent to suffer. [Nude] of course is if she is plain to see. So, if she is fully revealed, it will cost her. Purposefully not revealing certain information can be one interpretation; however, this fear could be considered to be quite normal as a psychological reaction – if she reveals herself she will be punished – a fear that can go back to early childhood.
RS: My dealer. She’s the nervousness 
my – th[e inf] The initial sound of the word is behind FS /n/, is but may be heard as /m/. The vowel sound is ambiguous. Before this, the documenter has included the /f/ from [information], for some reason.
dealer – [relay th]e – approximates the word. One may hear a very short syllable after this in the transition to [she’s]. This can be easy glossed over.
she’s – urgen[cy to] This is like [she’s].
the – ur[gen]cy The frication of the [g] may represents a syllable, here as [the]. There is a further syllable before, however, sounding somewhat like [in] which comes from the /n/ in [urgency].
nervousness – a sound like /d/ can be perceived as the initial, the rest of it is a good representation of the word.

Other words appear to come before it – [In the shame of] (one may even perceive words before that). But one would expect that the reverse of [formation] would typically produce the words. Here it is with the extra ‘words’. [In the shame of m[?] dealer she’s [in] the [d]ervousness). So, now the word my/me sounds like it could be a part of [in the shame of].
FS: … and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.
RS: No-one to help 
no-one – [no long]er – FS /l/ can be heard, but /w/ can be perceived in its place.
to – [was] There is a fricative initial; it sounds like a shortened [zoo].
help – this can be perceived as [‘elp]. Sounds a bit like a dog’s bark!
This is an unattractive string of sounds passed off as language.

Immediately following this is another string of ‘words’:
[an’ it terrible it’ll pass/bust (?) you] FS: we toppled over an’… 
an it – [an’] Initial [a] comes from release of FS /n/. /t/ may be heard from the click-like sound occurring on the release of FS [over].
terrible – [over] onset of word is ambiguous. It may be heard as /h/. There is a click-like sound that occurs on release of FS [over], that helps to give [in it] its /t/ ending. Normally, in the words [an’ it terrible], the /t/ would chiefly occur in [terrible], but here it is more closely linked to [it]. A /v/ can be perceived from [over] instead of /b/. There is no light /l/ sound. Although the last syllable is without /l/, natural production of the word before another word can see it shortened and the /l/ lost. So, it is really distorted example.
it’ll – topp[led o]ver This is acceptable.
pass – [topp]led –The ending is ambiguous. One may perceive it as sibilance as in /s/, or aspiration + /t/. The initial lacks aspiration. This is uncertain.
you – [we] This is acceptable.

So, we have a rough approximation of a string of words [No-one to help, an’ it terrible, it’ll (pass?) you]. [to help] is messy, and [terrible] and [pass] are ambiguous. This can only be seen as language if the subconscious communicates in verbal language, but fails to express it clearly through the forward speech. But assuming that this is the case, and at least some of it is language, her subconscious is saying a situation is/was terrible (the verb is missing), and that the experience of it will pass by, as if it is a reassurance. Whether this is referring to a past real event, whether Kavanaugh or some other negative experience that was triggered, or whether it is referring to the current situation of having to relate everything to the Senate hearing, would have to be decided.
After half a second gap, there is another word-like string like [said the dick], however, I will leave that.
FS: and feeling an enormous sense of relief that I escaped that house
RS: Sore heart speaks it 
sore – [house] There is a double vowel where there is a shorter [a] on the end. It is like [sorwah].
heart – [that] start of the vowel sound can be like vowel in [heart], rest is more like vowel in [hat]. Isolated by itself, one can also hear [that]. The /h/ dominates when listening to the words together. These sounds produce an ambiguous outcome. 
speaks – e[scaped] – FS /d/ becomes sibilant enough to create sense of /s/ initial.
it – this is possible with a sense of glottal – like /t/ ending.

The ambiguity of the second word leaves one to use what is grammatically and contextually appropriate. So, alternatives could be [heart] or even [hurt] if one leaves the /h/ to dominate. Using [hurt], the [a] ending on [sore/saw] can become [I]. If one looks at the /h/ at the end of sore/saw as extraneous, that will leave [that], in [saw that speaks it]. A missing he/she then occurs before [speaks]. So, there is the ending of [sore/saw] and the ambiguity of [heart] that are two issues.
FS: … the press reported that Mr Kavanaugh’s confirmation was virtually certain.
RS: Her seal serves the machine 
her seal – virtua[lly cer]tain – creates [‘er seal].
serves – wa[s virtual]lly [tua] creates a [ch] or [sh] sound, otherwise the rest is acceptable.
the – w[as] This is acceptable as the [th] would be influenced by the sibilant from [serves].
machine – confir[mation w] – At RS /m/, although there is FS /n/, the /w/ helps to produce a sense of initial /m/ in reverse. However, there is an /m/ final rather than /n/. This is very clear/y an /m/.

So the initial of [serves] is imprecise, the ending of [machine] is /m/, and there is no initial /h/ for [her]. There is a further syllable at the end if one listens to the larger FS section. It may just be an extraneous syllable, but it does not give a clean ending. Perhaps it may be considered that the final sound in [machine] was influenced by what came after it, and therefore, one could assume it was meant to be [machine].
Interesting reversal just the same if one ignores its flaws. An aspect of her subconscious referring to her in the third person, saying that her confirmation of events serves the (political) machine.
FS: that was me and one other girl … Leland.
RS: I know names 
I know – [one o]ther This is reasonable. However, the [th] from the FS can’t really be separated from [I], so it is not a clean beginning.
names – wa[s me an’] This is acceptable. Though, the documenter should have cut off the extraneous ending.
FS: I was willing, I was hoping that they would come to me but then I realised that was an unrealistic request.
RS: The pains muck your weapon 
the – [but] This approximates the word
pains – [to me] /p/can be perceived on release of FS [me]. /n/ is /m/.
muck – [come] This is reasonable
your – w[ould] There is no /r/. [d] can also be heard as the initial as in [do]. So, it may be meant to be [the]
weapon – hopi[ng that they w] [th] can be heard from the FS at the point of RS /p/. It is easy to hear it as /p/.

So, we have [the paims muck do wethon]. If the subconscious spoke through the FS, one may expect some distortion. However, the incorrect phonemes make it dubious.
FS: … and letting the committee and the Senate make their decision without knowing what Mr Kavanaugh had done to me
RS: Your scheme innocent 
your scheme – [make their] This sounds something like [drith (k)him]. There is a sense of /d/ probably from the influence of /d/ in the following FS word. /r/ is from th[eir], and [th] from [th]eir. The FS [th] is causing frication, and there may be a ‘click’ from the forward speech /k/. This has been interpreted as [sch].It’s actually a poor example.
innocent – [in the Senate] – this is reasonable, but particularly so, if the documented reversal was chopped back slightly. The ending would sound better.

As a one word reversal, [innocent] may be ok, but the shortness increases coincidence. That it is at the part where she says they make their decision does make it a little interesting nevertheless. A problem here is that, assuming it had any merit, is she stating Kavanaugh is innocent, or that the Committee and Senate may find him thus if they don’t know all the details? And, of course, the first two words are not there.
FS: and it had the most lasting impact on my life. It was for me to breathe and I thought that Brett was going to accidently kill me.
RS: Feel them attack me 
feel – [life] This is ok.
them – o[n my] The FS /n/ disappears. Initial much more /l/. This, of course, would be ok as in [feel ’em]. In this case, there is more stress on the last syllable than would be normal.
attack – im[pact o]n Directly following the /m/ from the previous word, is a /w/. A /t/ can also be heard at the point of the FS /t/. Isolated, this sounds like [what]. At RS [tt] there is a /k/ from FS [c] in [impact]. The final is an aspirated /h/. So, in isolation it is like [whatkah]. The /w/ is typically not heard because of the impact of the /m/ before it, and the /t/ is quite soft. The /k/ is then replaced by the mind with /t/, and the /h/ is interpreted as [ck]. Natural grammatical reconstruction does the rest. So, this is a very distorted string of sounds.
me – [the im] [th] silent. This is ok.

This, of course, is supposed to be a key ‘damning’ reversal against Kavanaugh. However, the sheer distortion of [attack] makes this highly dubious.
FS: … Senator Feinstein said he would not share my letter without my explicit consent …
RS: This’ll scam

Scam is ok behind [my ex]. This’ll is also ok behind [licit]. However, The transition from [x] to [l] through the FS [p] brings out the /p/. So, it is really like [thisilp), This issue and the fact of its shortness probably makes any ‘word’ coincidental.

FS: I am an independent person and I am no-one’s pawn
RS: There’s no one man in this 
There’s no one – [no-one’s] [th] not there, but it is not impossible that it is meant to be [there’s] otherwise it is just heard as [z]. The documenter has cut off some of the sibilance /s/, which is a little more evident behind the larger forward speech.
man – [nd I am] this is ok
in this – [son a]nd – approximates [in this] but no degree of [th] exists.

It is hard to say if this is meant to be something. Interpretation-wise, one could say that it reveals an issue regarding men. She is not a pawn or dependent on men, that is. If it has any merit, it reveals psychological resistance to males. That is, she has ‘man issues’.
FS: This has resulted in additional emails, calls and threats.
RS: Suck slimy on a shit 
suck – [calls] Sounds like [zokh] with a guttural ending.
slimy – [emails] usual reverse for ‘emails’.
on a shit – a[dditional] reasonable.

[suck] should be dispensed with. The other words may be simply coincidental.
FS: … resulted in additional emails, calls and threats.
RS: none of this force 
none – [n ad]ditional – one possible perception. Could be heard as [done]. The initial is more /d/ than n/.
of – [d i]n – This can be interpreted as a vowel sound alone, or /it/ or  /id/, as the /d/ is articulated from FS [resulted]. Actually, [t/d] can be heard at the end, and also at the beginning of the next word. So it is roughly [done it] before the beginning of the next word if one was to separate the two sections.  This, itself, may not ne an issue so much as /f/ would often disappear and the vowel [o] would link to the next word. The way the first three words are constructed doesn’t bring confidence that it is those words.
this – [resul Heard as [dis], which may be ok.
force – [sul]t Ambiguous initial; there could be /l/ there from the FS /l/. Preceding /l/ one could put different sounds into it – [p], [c], [f]. Documenter should have cut off the tail.

This is dubious.


FS: She didn’t know about the event she was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her.
RS: They damaged my brain 
they – [didn]ot – Sounds like [they] with /n/ initial (which is ok in some circumstances). There is a vowel sound at the beginning which wasn’t cut off by the documenter.
damaged – event[t and I d]id not – This is like [danit] with a slight frication on the /t/ interpreted as /g/ in [damaged]/.
my – ev[en]t This sounds like [ny], or really [no] in the way an Australian might say it. It gives the impression of [y] because of the way the ending is articulated.
brain – [in the ev] – Sounds like [vein]. There is a vowel sound at the end which was not cut off by the documenter.

A great deal of projection put into the sounds.
FS: My name is I’m a professor
RS: Suffer from that 
suffer – p[rofess]or
from – I’[m a p] Either /p/ or /f/ can be perceived as the initial
that –One might expect that at least there would be some perception of /n/ if there is no [th] next to an /m/ from the previous word [from]. However, it remains /m/. There is no sense of /t/ final. So, we have [ma].

Most likely coincidence in [suffer]. Combined with an ambiguous preposition and lack of evidence of [that], there is nothing here.
FS: I attended a small gathering in a house in the the (?) area.
RS: I suffered from it 
I suffered – [the ?] – The area that she speaks of in the FS produces sounds similar to [fursday]. The [ay] gives the [I]. The furs] gives the [suff], while FS /d/ disappears. RS [ered] comes from [the]. This sounds like [suffith].
from it – [in the] There is no /r/. There is no /m/, but an obvious /n/. The vowel sound is between the sound of /u/ in [fun], and the sound of [o] in a British [phone]. No confidence of a /t/ final.

No adequate linguistic evidence of this.

Separated by around 1 second is this:
Sit and I stare 
I attended a small gathering
sit – [d a s]mall –
and I – att[ende]d –
stare – [I att] – The [tt] creates RS [st].

It can also sound like [sit in a stair]. [in] would be an incorrect preposition, however. Apart from that, one could suggest that at the gathering (at some point) she sat on a stair (apparently she had to go upstairs to the bedroom). Otherwise, one could suggest that she is referring to a moment where she sat and stared at something.
FS: visibly drunk, early in the evening I went up a very narrow set of stairs leading to a living room to a second floor …

FS: nail her, our deal 
nail her – [early in]
our deal – [bly drun]k FS /b/ disappears enough to leave a sense of [deal]. /d/ comes from the onset of [bly] in reverse where there is a transition to the FS /d/. [our] comes from [drun]. The /d/ here disappears. So, it comes out as [nar]. There are non-speech sounds in between the two pairs of words documented.
So, it sounds like [nail her, nar deal].

Anything word-like here is coincidental.

Two seconds from this are other word-like sounds:
Serious, said I saw I near 
FS: very narrow set of stairs

This is close to the words. [Serious] is certainly imperfect, for example th e[I] appears not to be there. I assume it is [I]. I can’t see anything else that could go there. Note, [saw] has a rhoticised linkage with the following word [I]. This is a phenomenon in some Englishes such as Australian/English, but not in some American pronunciations. With RS, one should not assume an American pronunciation in reverse, such as a strong propensity for /r/ in words. One should understand how English works in different speakers.



FS: This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn’t take me out on the merits
RS: Feel war within, you do it 
feel – on[ly if] ok
war – [on]ly This begins with /n/ and sounds something like [nor + vowel-like sound]
within – [needed] This begins with /n/ and sounds like [dideen] 
you [be] The FS /b/ can be heard
do – [ould] – This is acceptable.
it – [it] /w/ connects [do it] as is natural. There is perception of a possible unreleased /t/ final.

[war within] highly distorted. Lacks evidence.
FS: No, I remember what happened
RS: don’t remember that one 
don’t – The initial is an alveolar, so it could be /d/; also sounds like /l/. No /t/ final, nevertheless, /t/ can easily be lost in favour of initial of following word.
remember  [remember] It approximates this word.
that – [I] A consonant such as [th] could be perceived at the onset of [I] in reverse. No final /t/; the length of the gap between words and a ‘throatal click’, so this helps one to have a sense of /t/ final.
one – [no] This is fine.
Perhaps it is meant to be [don’t remember] but it can sound like [lower member].

There are possible words before it:
in the back – [happened] This approximates the words; Final /k/ is aspirated from the FS /h/, however, so there is no clear /k/.
In this case, as an alternative, we would have:
In the back; lower member – that one
Perhaps Kavanaugh considers the Senator a ‘lower member’ from ‘the back’. __________________________________________________________________________________
FS: If the party described by Dr Ford happened in the summer of 1982 …
RS: All forgot about 
all – F[or]d
forgot – [doctor F]ord –
about – des[cribed by]
There are other words before this:
Messin’ in the back – they’re all forgot about
messin’ in the back – [happened in the summ] messin’ is from i[n the sum]. The vowel [e] is more centralised and leans more towards an unpronounced vowel (schwa). In the back is from [happened i]n. [th] assimilates to /n/, but this is ok.
The subconscious is bringing up memories of past fun as a young man. Here, perhaps messin’ in the back seat of his car. If it is ‘they’re’ before all forgot about, this could mean events like this.
FS: I was not at the party described by Dr Ford
RS: You’re all forgot about 
you’re all – F[ord] Sense of [they’re] rather than [you’re], which comes from Fo[rd].
forgot about – as in previous reversal
Obviously, the same reversal will be produced by repeating the same FS. Therefore, one can logically assume coincidental and meaningless language-like productions. However, one may argue that the subconscious will influence the speaker to produce certain words/sounds. And, if the repetitive word/words are found in a more developed, more complex utterance, with high contextual value, then this increases the genuineness of the utterance. With this thing in mind, the problem here is that the key word [forgot] comes from [Doctor F]ord, who is the topic of the conversation. Interesting that it says [forgot], however, one must tread carefully in assigning meaning here.
FS: like the one Doctor Ford describes in her allegation.
RS: Forgot you know with guilt 
forgot – [doctor F]
you know – A vowel sound can be heard, but it may be more like ‘an[d]’. [know] comes from FS [on]e
with – [w] comes from [w] produced by [o]ne. [th] is possible as there is [th] in the FS. However, this could be something else like [would] or [we].
guilt – There is no evidence of /t/ or there being meant to be /t/. Usually, FS [like] produces [kill] in reverse. The initial is a cross between /g/ and /k/.
One might suggest it is meant to be [forgotten know …]. The /n/ final comes across as unnatural, however, so this is questionable. The word before the final word could be [would], [we] or [with]. As with the previous reversal, [they’re all] could begin the reversal. The sounds approximate [They’re all forgot. An’ know we/would kill]. But what does all this mean?? The repeated word [forgot] behind [doctor F]ord. And then, knowing we kill?
Too many questions with this one.
FS: I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr Ford.
RS: You all forgot abuse, they’re gonna shake light on 

you all – F[ord] It approximates [d’rall} so it is much more like [they all].
forgot – [doctor F]. This is acceptable.
abuse – [st me by] The word can be isolated and heard; stress issue, but sound-wise is reasonable. The /t/ of the previous word joins onto it, however, this is normal.
they’re – ag[ain]st – this would isolate the sounds [ney]. /n/ may be accepted in some situation as the initial when there is a previous sound that it assimilates to, but that is not the case here with the /s/ as the previous sound.
gonna – [on ag]ainst Sounds like [ginna], so approximates [gonna].
shake – alle[gati]on – This is acceptable.
light – [the alle]gation FS [th] disappear. Final /t/ in ligh[t] may be acceptable in its linking with the /d/ at the start of [on].
on – de[ny] Linking of the final /t/ to the word would be normal, however, the sound is particularly strong and unnatural. It sounds like [dyaan].
One issue is [they’re]. A second reversal statement following can be ‘backed up’ tightly against the ending of the first statement, so that the separation may not always be heard easily. In this case, however, I don’t think so. It is more likely that the sibilant /s/ from [abuse] continues on to create [snake]. The final word is particularly messy and I find this unlikely. If we include everything except the final word, we may have [They all forgot abuse, snake in a shake a/the lie] or [They all forgot abuse snake gonna shake a/the lie]. This would mean also accepting the word [abuse].
As an externally focussed comment, it would refer to Ford as a snake lying. As an internally focussed one, it would refer to Kavanaugh himself.
Ashley and my daughter Liza said their prayers, and little Liza all of ten years old said to Ashley we should pray for the woman.
RS: How the Lord damn you 
how – [Li] – possible
the Lord – [daughter] – [Lord] is possible from [daught]. [the] is FS [er] combined partially with the FS /l/ in [Liza].
damn you – Ash[ley an’ my] – /d/ initial can be perceived. /m/ is from [m]y, so it approximates [damn]. There is a short extra syllable created by FS [an’] before what may sound like [you]. Some sense of [y] is possible from the [ey]. Following what I heard as [damn], an /n/ occurs (one can also perceive it as /m/). Therefore it sounds something like [nail], or [male] is you call the /n/ and /m/. A sibilant has been left on the end of the documented reversal from FS A[sh]ley. This would therefore create something approximating [nails] or [males].
The reversal likely begins earlier and may have a different ending.
Brett this is how the Lord damn (__?)
FS: Ashley and my daughter Liza said their prayers
Brett – [their] prayers – /b/ comes at the FS offset of [their] perhaps with some assimilation affect to the following FS /p/. This can also sound like /f/. So, there is a labial perception of the initial. FS [th] sounds enough like /t/. The mid-high forward vowel is within acceptable boundaries. It is quite possible that this is [Brett].
this is – Li[za] said] This is acceptable.
How the Lord damn – as above.
(?) – A[shley an’] – What comes after [damn] is more distorted. The reversal may not end at [damn], It could be argued, as the final word of a long reversal, it has been influenced by the sounds following and become distorted. I have seen this happen before, where the final word takes on some of the characteristics of what follows. So, I am uncertain about what this can be. [males] approximates it in some way.
FS: I never attended a gathering like the one Dr Ford or anyone.
RS: I paid words that you funded
FS: We all know that if I had referred her allegations to the FBI, when she would not come forward, there would have been nothing to do. The FBI would have had an anonymous allegation …
RS: I paid. Words that you funded
I – F[BI] – An [I] can be heard. There is actually an unreleased [b] on close listening at the end.
paid – [the F]BI – /p/ is actually /f/. /d/ is perceivable from FS [th].
words – [do] /w/ is from the /w/ which follows in the FS, and the rounded vowel [o]. /d/ fial can be heard, but not /s/.
that – [to] It is possible to perceive a possible stop consonant or perhaps something that may represent [th] as the initial. There is a sibilance in the final sound, which is acceptable if it came before you, as that is what would often occur in FS.
you – noth[ing] – a nasalised [ge] can be heard.
funded – [been noth]ing – Initial can be heard as [th], but also /f/. [d]ed can be heard as /n/, but there is enough /d/ quality to be able to hear it as /d/. de[d] can be heard as /d/, although /b/ is also possible. So, to accept it as [funded] one needs to be a bit forgiving of it.
There is no indication that the reversal begins at [I]. The natural beginning appears to be …
Close examination reveals something like – [we-a-ai-ib]. Cut it at another point and it can sound like [you]. /f/ can be heard instead of /p/ for [paid], though /p/ is quite easy to perceive in its place.

[word] (but no /s/), [that], and [funded] are possible with caution; [you] definitely ruins it, though. There are phonemes that can sound like other phonemes. One can easily hear it as [I fade, word that gnye thundered], and that doesn’t include the doubtful beginning.


FS: under oath before the Senate and the nation, before my family and God, I am innocent of this charge.
FS: Yeah I’m awful 
yeah – m[y] The extension of the [y] gives a sense of [yeah]
I’m – [my] Creates a sound like [um], which could possibly represent [I’m}
awful – [before] This sounds like [roful] as the /r/ comes first.
This is most likely gibberish. The existence of sounds that approximate [yeah I’m] does not mean much (it also sounds like on the surface level – [the arm]), and the main word is strongly distorted with the /r/.
FS: well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family, will not drive me out.
RS: Lying don’t stumble 
Lying – [me out] – The FS final creates a sense of a double consonant –[dl]. The word sounds like [dlame].
don’t – dr[ive] – The FS /v/ disappears and leaves a /d/ onset in reverse. There is no [n’t], ending in a vowel.
stumble – [will not dr]ive The [st] perception comes from [dr]. RS /m/ is an /n/ from the FS. [ble] sounds like [nle] in reverse. The FS [will] creates a strong sense of a labial with /l/, but more an /m/ than a /b/. So, we have something like [stunmle].
We have something like [dlame doe stunmle]. Projection into the sounds to reconstruct language is occurring here. ________________________________________________________________________________
FS: We submitted things to the editors and and I believe that they took them, I don’t know if they’ve changed things or not but … I’m aware one way or the other, I’m not going to sit here and contest that …
RS: Suck the grievous in a karma 
suck the – c[ontest] – double /s/ occurs, a [kh] occurs, then [ni]. So we have something like [s-sukh ni].
grievous – [sit here and c]ontest – /n/ in FS  [and] disappears leaving perception of [gr]. /v/ is one possible interpretation of the sound in the reverse of si[t h]ere. Sounds can represent the word.
in a – [gonna] This is acceptable. /g/ not evident here but influences next word [karma]
karma – [I’m not] FS /m/ disappears. RS /m/ is /n/. /k/ unaspirated. So, word sounds like a choice between gonna/garna/ unless one makes the initial /k/.
This is not strong enough to represent a string of words.

FS: He was so gracious to me and my family on the July night; he announced my nomination at the Whitehouse.
RS: Sly hell with the shame, am I now slimy
sly hell – [whitehouse] The documentation has cut off the /s/. A hearing of the forward speech section reveals the /s/ is actually there. Its omission is careless. /l/ can be heard in the vowel of h[ou]se. /y/ can also be heard. There is a distortion at the beginning of [hell] which is difficult to hear overall as [sly] tends to drown it out, but there is a short vowel + alveolar tap + short vowel before it that sounds like [ell]. A general listening will cause one to gloss over this and hear a /h/.
with the – nominati[on at the w]hitehouse – A sense of [the] can be had at [on at] (the /n/ disappears). [wi]th comes at [the w] with the [th] silent. [th] in reverse comes at the /t/ in FS [at].
shame – nomi[nati]on – This produces [shen]
am I – [nomi]nation The FS /n/ disappears here but influences the following word [now].
now slimy – [he announced my] With [slimy], [sl] produced by [nce]. The /m/ is actually /n/, but it is /m/is easy to hear in its place. FS /m/ in [my] takes on /w/ qualities, and /n/ can be heard also, allowing a fair perception of [now].
The /n/ is both [shame] and [slimy] give pause to considering this. There is some ambiguity as [o’ mine] can also be heard in it.
RS: Beyond now was the name
FS: I’m deeply grateful to President Trump for nominating me. He was so gracious to my family and me on the July night
beyond – [night] initial ambiguous, but /b/ a possibility. The rest acceptable.
now – Ju[ly n] Artefacts of the FS /l/ remain, but this is acceptable
was – [Ju]ly Artefacts of the /l/ remain, but this is acceptable.
the – [the] This is acceptable
name – [me on] This is acceptable.
This reversal is quite reasonable.
FS: … said to Ashley we should pray for the woman
RS: I know with the filth that she will try this
I know with the – [for the woman] –
filth – [pray] for – filth: FS /p/ disappears, /r/ helps give a sense of RS /l/. Onset of [pray] in reverse gives sense of /f/. One has to assume that the [th] assimilates into the following [th] in [that]. Otherwise, it is more likely [fear].
that – sh[ould] – The [ld] is perceivable as an /r/, though the frication can give a sense of [th]. The final /t/ in [that] is not there but can disappear naturally into the following reverse word [she]. The sounds are in fact similar to [wrish] with the vowel tending central, and joined to the [sh] in the following word. It is possible that that the sound that occurs before the [sh] is [but].
It roughly sounds like the documented words, assuming that the [th] has been assimilated. It can also roughly sound like [filthy] with a bit of a gap between the syllables, and higher than usual stress of the second syllable. Perhaps though the first syllable is more [fear].
she will – Ash[ley we sh]ould – There is a [y] sound in [she] on closer listening.
try – [to Ash]ley – a double syllable, but certainly like this word. In isolation it can sound like [tried], but this tends to be lost in overall listening.
this – [said]
The reversal is close to the documented words. It could also be I know with the fear. But she will try this. Or it could be something else.
FS: A bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group. The media circus that has been generated by this thought and reported that it referred to sex, it did not.
RS: But that’s the curse, I deem it
but [has] This should not be included in reversal. The natural beginning is [that’s].
that’s – [s that] This is acceptable.
the – circ[u]s FS [c] This is more like [a], and not [the].
curse – [circ]us This is acceptable.
I – med[ia] – may be accepted
deem – [med] This is acceptable
it – [the] – [it] joins naturally to [deem]. There is some sense of a /t/ ending.
It may be considered as [That’s a curse, I deem it].
Perhaps this can be considered as meaning involvement like this can result in a great deal of problems later. ________________________________________________________________________________
FS: Mark Judge has provided sworn statements saying this didn’t happen and that I didn’t and never would do ..
RS: And then they plan this sin yes
and then they – happ[en and tha]t – This is reasonable.
plan – di[dn’t happ]en – One gets a sense of an /l/. The [dn’t] probably provides more for [ed] on the end, which then links to the next word, which is [it] rather than [this].
this – thi[s di]dn’t – This is more [it] at [di]n’t. [sin] begins at /s/ in FS [this].
sin – say[ing this] This is acceptable.
yes – [say]ing – This is acceptable.
So, it is more [And then they planned it, sin yes]. Is this an internal voice saying the Judge and Kavanaugh planned either the statements or the event in the bedroom, and that it is a sin? Or, is it a response to the Democrats activities to bring Kavanaugh down?
FS: I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever.
RS: Hoax ya
hoax – [school] This is reasonable. Assumed that [hoax] would commonly occur in the reverse f [school]
ya – [high] This is OK. Aspirated element from the /h/
One may take the words and say the Kavanaugh is deceiving. The fact that this is 2 words, with one of them a version of [you], does not make it noteworthy. [hoax] would also be usual behind school. Nevertheless, one may argue that the use of high school could have been generated by the subconscious mind for this purpose. A problem with this is that ‘high school’ is a key term in the context of the proceedings, and is therefore expected to come up many times. _________________________________________________________________________________
FS: They’re here today. When I was 10, my Mom went to law school, and as a lawyer she worked hard …
RS: Hoax all with you Mom
hoax – [school] A typical reverse of the word.
all – [law] This is ok.
with you – [went to] The FS /n/ produces perception of either an alveolar tap or /n/. The FS /t/ creates /t/. Both sounds are actually separate, so that it is really something like [w’t do]. The mind will gloss over its flaws in constructing language. Whether this is meant to be [with you] is debatable.
Mom – [Mom] This is ok.
[hoax] as mentioned in the comments to the previous reversal behind [school]. Same goes for [Mom]. Tow of the three other words are quite distorted. This may mean nothing.
FS: I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone
RS: Now win it and it force you
now – [one] This is ok
win it – [any o] possible
and it – nyone – possible
force – [ssaul] Appears to start with a labial such as /p/, so /f/ could be considered.
you – sexua[lly] Sounds like [sill]
It is obviously unlike [you], and there is ambiguity about the initial in [force]. The rest is perceivable as there. __________________________________________________________________________________
FS: She then goes on if you kept reading and says she actually can’t point to any specific instance like that.
RS: See that guilt make you shy
see – an[y s]pecific As long as the /p/ is cut off this is probably ok.
that – [to an]y This may be ok.
guilt – [point] FS /p/ disappears Initial sound can be heard as /n/ from the FS., so that the sound sounds somewhat like [ny’l]. Listening in general, it can sound like it is /g/. There is no /t/ at the end. There is audio noise that may give one the sense of it.
make – [can’t] Initial is really /n/, however, it is easy to perceive it as /m/. Perhaps there is influence from the preceding FS /p/.
you – actua[lly] An /l/ may still be perceived, but this may be considered.
shy – sh[e actu] This is possible
[guilt] is very dodgy. The rest approximates the words.

FS: and it is indeed refuted by the people allegedly there
RS: I’ll beef it up
I’ll – [ple] More like [all]
beef – [peop]le /b/ produced by release of vowel and transition to FS /p/. /f/ is much more /p/.
it up – [by the] This is ok
This is unlikely to be anything.
FS: we mean, we mean no ill will
RS: I won name, you name you
I – [ill] more like [we]. Part of the beginning was cut off. Here it is behind the larger FS.
won – [no] This is possible
name – [mean] – like [neem], but [name] is possible.
you – [we] This is ok.
The closest would be [we won, name you name you].
RS: Now win it and it force you

FS: When this allegation first arose I welcomed any kind of investigation …
RS: Soul was selfish
soul – a[rose] /r/ does not occur at this point. It is possible it could be [soul].
was – [a] The influence of the /r/ occurs here. Not really /w/.
selfish – [tion first] – approximates the words, but the first syllable is really like [surf], however, the sibilant sounds more palatised like [sh].
The reversal approximates the words, however, lack of clear evidence of /l/, /w/ and [se] (and its shortness) makes this dubious.
A word-like string follows straight on from this:
shake the lie(s)
FS: thi[s allegati]on
In this case, the [sh] sound in FS [ti] would be shared by the [sh] in [shake] and [selfish]. Possible, as in FS the final [sh] would be cut short in favour of the initial [sh] in the following word. [le] provides an acceptable [the]. [s al] provides [lies], or [lie] without the FS /s/.
There is nothing remarkable about these three words behind the FS. Further words to extend the reversal would add to it, however, [soul was selfish] has a dubious quality. Therefore, the whole string together could be simple coincidence.
FS: Another Democratic on his Committee said quote “Judge Kavanaugh is your worse nightmare”.
RS: I am beyond soul
I am – [mare] Close to [I am], but with an /r/ quality to it from the FS.
beyond – [night] This is ok. Initial may be perceived as /b/. There may be influence from the /m/ in [mare].
soul – [worse] This is like [sro]. Lack of evidence that it is this word.
Likely a couple of coincidental-sounding words and nothing more.
FS: … and my good name. A good name bu da, built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government.
RS: Avoid the dope man
avoid – [built u]p /v/ is perceivable at [lt]. FS /b/ disappears, and final /d/ could be assumed. The sound at the beginning needs to be removed to make it clearer. Not obviously separated from sounds before it.
the – [da] – This is ok
dope – [bu d]a This is possible
man – [name] This is ok
Some ambiguity, but may be possible. This comes at the verbal stumble which produced [dope]. If there is anything in this, it may be a conflict about behaviour that affects high functioning.
FS: been in the public arena for 26 years without even a hint, a whiff of an allegation like this.
RS: Snake had to be in idle
snake – [hint] /k/ is not obvious, but contraction of the velum after [a] and during [h] can give a sense of /k/. [sn] come from [nt] where /t/ produces the sibilance. This may be ok.
had – [n a h]int] This is ok
to be – [even] The /v/ is obvious.
in idle – [without] This is ok.
Overall, not bad. Some doubt about /k/, and the /v/ rather than /b/. But worth considering. May mean the forces that would attack him did nothing.
FS: when we were in our 30s, confided in me about the abuse, and consult my advice. I was one of the only people she consulted.
RS: Solve the arm boss
solve – [vice] Something lik e[see-alv]
the arm – [my ad]
boss – con[sult m] Influence from /m/. To make this cleaner the FS [con] needs to be cut off. This can be viewed as extraneous.
The word somewhat dubious, the rest acceptable. A strange set of words; likely to be coincidental.
FS: will be in an ugly place
RS: You got unable
You – ug[ly] –
got – [ug]ly –
unable – [will be in a]n –
6/10 – small number of words/syllables, grammar?, reasonable soundness of reversal phonemically makes it minimally worthwhile of consideration.
FS: … a federal judge must be independent, not suade by public or political pressure …
RS: They’ll lock the deal stunt
They’ll lock – [public] Initial sound /d/, vowel imprecise; the second word isolated reveals a /b/ initial from the FS /b/ and a fricated /h/ at the end. The influence of the FS /l/ does, however give a sense of a [‘ll] final and [l] initial.
the – [by] sounds roughly like [dub] – Perception of the /b/ is easily lost in a general listening as it is masked by the following /d/.
deal – [uade] – This is acceptable
stunt – [not s]uade either [stun] or [stunt].
I think there is a group of words that roughly approximate the documented words, has a few imprecise sounds, and really doesn’t amount to any meaning. This is likely to be coincidental, similar-to-words sounds.
FS: I do not think that is a fair characterisation. And Chris Dudley’s quoted in that article. And I refer you to what he said. I spent more time with Chris Dudley in college than just about anyone
RS: They see old youth forgotten
they see – [t he said] Sounds like [da seed]. There is final /d/ from FS [what].
old – [to wha]t – This is ok.
youth – [fer you] To include [th], one needs to include /f/ from FS [refer], but it is obviously /f/. [y] can be perceived at some point, however, after [old], It most sounds like [ear], removing the /f/.
forgotten – [and I ref] This is ok.
It sounds like language, but [they said] is questionable, and so is [youth]. Perhaps this is a case of the subconscious actually attempting to produce language, and it simply didn’t come out clearly in the FS. If this were the case, Kavanaugh’s memory is being pulled back to his younger days.
FS: American drinks beer
RS: Rapes used in a crime
rapes – [s beer] natural reverse of FS
used in – [n drink]s – [nk] appears to disappear in reverse. Words are possible.
a crime – [America]n – natural reverse of FS
6/10 – rapes and a crime inevitably come from the reverse of the forward sounds. Connection with context, and possibility of [used in] joining first and last words makes this minimally worth consideration.
FS: Americans listened carefully
RS: And it sells in the crime
and it – [tened]
sells – [s lis]
In the – [Americ[an]
crime – A[meric]a
Words are reasonably there. The next question is, is it coincidental. [crime] is a constant behind [America]. The only other content word is [sells].

Dr Fords accusation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there …
RS: not Hillary
not – [un] /t/ not there, but glottal-like and so may be assumed.
Hillary – m[erely] – No /h/, so [illary]. An issue is that the end has an /m/, which has been cut off in the reversal.
3-4/10 The lack of any perception of /h/ combined with an /m/ final weakens this. Only 2 words as well. Any reasonable contextual interpretation does not add enough viability. This is not worthwhile.

A number of reversals have been going around that suggest the Pope’s subconscious possesses pedophiliac, homosexual tendencies. I would like to address some of these reversals here. I will show that many of the words are invalid.

RS: Evil, suck cock
FS: This conviction have, has led me from the beginning of my ministry ….
evil – [led me] – There is some frication at the point between FS [d m] that allows a sense of /v/. There is a clear and obvious /m/ from the FS. This makes it sound like [heemvil].
suck – [has] – the frication noise produced by the speaker at the back of the throat gives a sense of [sukh]
cock – The Pope accidently says [have] before changing it to [has]. This produces a /v/ initial. There is no final /k/. This leaves something like [vah] with a preglottal frication.
So, the sounds are similar to [heemvil sukh vah].

RS: Eat the holy cum
FS: Martin Luther King
eat the – Lu[ther King] Although the words can be projected into it, it is more [eak ga].  
holy – Mar[tin Lu]th This sounds like [holni]. The /n/ is clear and obvious from the FS /n/.
cum – [Mar] – This is close. There is a short fricative-like sound after the [c] which could be [r] as in [crumb] or something else. So, it may be heard as [cum] with perhaps some frication after the initial, or as [crumb].  The first half of the word

The most obvious error is the /n/ in [holni]; and when you include the other small errors or ambiguity, the viability of this reversal is reduced greatly.

RS: I rape the other kid
FS: I wish to reaffirm my high esteem and appreciation. Those first contacts were often turbulent and violet, but we know it is very difficult to judge the past by the criteria.
I rape – cri[teria] It is easy to project /p/ into it, although it is really /t/, as in [rate]. If this went slightly longer, the frication of the audio noise can make it sound like [th]. 
the other [cri]teria The FS [r] gives a ‘tap’ on the alveolar in place of [th]. RS [th] really begins with [e], however, one can ‘add’ the [th] in [rathe] to it. There is a /k/ final which cannot be separated from it. So, it is like [e-o(tap sound)rk].
kid – [the] The /k/ sound heard really is the final of the previous word and not the initial of this one. That leaves a /h/ as in [hid].
Speech does create ‘distortions’ in intended sounds, however there is more wrong with this than right.

I’m evil, you seek it
FS: the history of the United States
I’m evil – [of the Uni]ted The sounds approximate [evil]; however there are two issues with [I’m]. First, it is /n/. Second, one may hear an /n/ at the beginning due to the point at which the recording was edited (the onset of FS /t/ in United). If we go to the larger forward speech, we will see that the reversal starts fully at the point of FS /t/. Therefore there is an alveolar initial, either /d/ or /n/, which would make it [done] or [none], except that there is a short [y] sound after the initial phoneme.


I have decided to provide an analysis of the reversals played by David Oates on the Jeff Rense show on June 27 2018. The audio of the show can be found here. I have not chosen this show specifically other than it is the most recent. I am frustrated over the errors, debatable quality, probable coincidences and inconsistences of reversals that are presented publicly by people, even at the ‘highest level’, whether on YouTube or radio shows. Also addressing someone personally and individually about errors has always been to no avail in the past. 

If one studied audio of forward speech, one would hear all kinds of distortions and imprecisions, and so this would also occur in Reverse Speech. But one needs to be aware of what is acceptable when addressing distortions and imprecisions in Reverse Speech. One needs to understand linguistic parameters. Yet, a person won’t even get to this point if he is not aware of the true level of linguistic errors in a reverse string of words. There is a great deal of projection occurring.

And, even where a reversal appears linguistically valid, it may just be coincidental, particularly if it is short. Most reversals played by David, for example, range from two to five words, with occasional ones over that. Three-word reversals are very common. Many are unremarkable. 

Take for example, the statement ‘This is it”. You have two words with the function of pronouns, and an auxiliary verb. Two words have two phonemes, and one word has three, total seven phonemes. The shortness of the statement and of the words themselves make this unremarkable. However, combine that with an incorrect phoneme, an irregular stress pattern, and irregular connection of phonemes, then you probably have something that is worthless. This example is examined below.

So, a first point is understanding what is truly imprecise about language at a phonemic, syllabic, word, sentence and prosodic level. This takes careful investigation. Then, one needs to apply what one has discovered to see if it can reasonably fall into linguistic parameters of speech, as well as the particular character and nature of Reverse Speech. One also needs to be aware that short word-like strings can be coincidental. With the massive bits of language produced each day around the world, there will be word-like examples, which are simply coincidental, no matter how much one thinks he can interpret its meaning. 

With that said, one could speculate that the subconscious of the speaker is imposing some control at times over the linguistic components of the verbalisations of the speaker. However, complete control is not possible, and errors are evident, say two or three obviously incorrect phonemes in a string of 20 – 25 in an otherwise linguistically reasonable utterance. If that be the case, then you might have a genuine reversal. But, assuming Reverse Speech is real, who will determine that? One would need both a level of linguistic knowledge and a deep understanding of the phenomenon. 

The first eight were found by David from Trump’s Singapore summit. The remainder come from a person in Canada whom David uses to find reversals for his shows. David checks the reversals and selects suitable ones for public airing.

RS: I’m very careful (Trump at Singapore media conference)
FS: Well thank you very much everybody, appreciate it we’re getting ready to go back
I’m very – [you very mu]ch The position of FS /v/ is at /r/ in RS [very]. Therefore it has disappeared in favour of /r/.  And to be precise, the beginning of RS [ery] is not /v/, but more of an /m/. However, it can  easily sound like /v/ to listeners.
careful – [well thank] FS [th] doesn’t precisely occur at RS /f/. [th] tends to disappear, but there is a possible /f/ on release of FS we[ll]. This is possible.
It certainly approximates the words. There is more of an /m/ in place of /v/,  but in light of the knowledge that FS language is imprecise, and can be heard as such on audio, permits further consideration of its possible value. Also, the question begs: If the subconscious is communicating through vocal sounds/language, why should we assume that it will be entirely successful in producing all of the phonemes precisely? I will address this in the future.
RS: Failed business
FS: Countless people died in the conflict including tens of thousands of brave Americans Yet while the armistice was agreed to, the war never ended …
failed – [brave] – [fail] reasonably occurs, with the vowel more like that in [air].  A /d/ final cannot be heard in reverse, There is a FS /b/ articulation occurring, but that is difficult to pick up in reverse. In FS, /d/ assimilation to the initial consonant of the following word can occur. 
business – thou[sands of] FS /v/ can be perceived as /b/. This is acceptable.
Note: behind FS of [thou]sand, [life] may be perceived, although the FS [th] can also still be heard as [th] in reverse. It can be heard more or less as [th] or [f] depending on where one cuts it. Except for that imprecision, it may be viewed as [business life].
Failed is uncertain, but it could be [failed? business life]. 
FS: This is it
FS: This isn’t.
This – i[sn’t] This sounds like [niz], with a very short amount of frication from the release of /t/ in the FS.
is it – [this i]sn’t This is acceptable. Note that stress is on [is] however, and not [it] in the reversal. Also, the nonseparation of [thi[s i]s, although normal in speech, is overly intense, causing it to sound unnatural.
We have [nizizit]. Poorly formed. 


RS: You live with the shit
But peace is always worth the effort especially in this case. They should have been done years ago, they should have been resolved …
you [re]solved – This is acceptable.
live with – [have been] There is an /n/, but this may be perceived a /l/. There is no /w/, so it is more like [nivit]. There is some sense of an unreleased /t/ final. The /v/ allows for perception of [with]. 
the shit – [they should] This is acceptable.
This is questionable with the obvious /n/. One might ask, is it meant to be these words?

. ___________________________________________________________________________
RS: Over see God
FS: And where the light of peace chases away the darkness of war
see God – [darkness] – In the FS Trump dropped the /n/ so that it sounds like [darkess]. [see] is from [ess]. God is from [dark], however it sounds like [krod].  Perhaps the closest word would be [cried].
over – [of war] [ver] comes at [of]. FS [war] has a breathy /h/ ending, so this sounds like [her-ro].  The FS /r/ would need to be cut off to get [over]
This sounds like [herrovaseekrod]. 
If one were to cut off the beginning [herr], there would be something sounding like [over, see, cried
RS: They give us a limit
FS: So it’s an honour to be with everybody today, the media, it’s a big gathering of media
They give us i[t’s a big gath]ering This approximates it, although the FS /b/ is still obvious in reverse to make [they gibus], and FS /g/ has weakened from a stop to more of a velar /h/. It sounds like it in an overall listening, but flaws are revealed in a more detailed listening. 
a limit – [the media] This is acceptable.
The reversal certainly approximates the words; a couple of phonemes are not as precise as they seem to be. It is a debatable point whether it has value as a genuine reversal. _______________________________________________________________________________
RS: Wisdom drove me round it
FS: people understand that this is something very important to
Jeff Rense pointed out correctly that it is not [round it].
wisdom – importa[nt to] [to] produces [wis], or likely in this case [wes]. The remainder is the /n/ sound in the FS which produces an /n/ final in reverse. Therefore the closest word is [west’n] or in other words [western]. 
drove me – ver[y import]ant This is acceptable. There is a /p/ in the FS, but in this case it is light and one may assume assimilation of /v/ to the bilabial /m/.
round it – [thing ver]y This sounds similar to [rung it] with the /ng/ from [ng] in the FS. 
This seems to be word-like, West’n drove me rung it, but nonsensical. 

RS: America get habit
FS: Otto did not die in vain, he had a lot to do with us speaking here today thank thank you very much
America – [thank you very mu]ch [Ameri] can be heard behind [you very mu]. [ca] is actually [get] from FS [thank]. Therefore it sounds like [Ameriget]. 
get – [thank] This is acceptable.
habit – [today] There is a /d/, not a /b/, so it is like [had it]. 
This is not valid.
RS: Gotta sly be bad
FS: A some point that I have to be honest that I used to say this during my campaign …
Trump talks about wanting to bring soldiers home.
Jeff Rense suggested it was you’ve been bad. There is indeed another syllable, you.
gotta – [that I] There is no initial /g/. FS [th] disappears to get [otta] The reversal actually starts earlier than the documented section, and sounds something like [vyatta]. 
sly – b[e hones]t This is acceptable. However, there is a further syllable at b[e] which is [you].
be – [to b]e this is ok except that there is an unreleased /t/ final which is drowned out by the initial sound of the following word.
bad – [I have t]hat There is a /v/ that can be perceived as /b/.
There is a lack of evidence for [gotta]. The remaining [sly be bad] may just be coincidental. Three short words. _________________________________________________________________________________

RS: and mud by you
FS: we have done that, Secretary Pompeo has really been doing a fantastic job … (Trump)
by you [we have] There is a clear /v/ rather than /b/, therefore we get what sounds like [vayou]. The closest word is probably [value] with a light /l/, that not articulated on the palate, which is possible, hence the [y] sound. 
and mud [done tha]t There is no /m/. It sounds like [an’ nod] with American pronunciation of [o]. The closest words would be [and not].

RS: Here is a census
FS: to immediately begin the process necessary
Trump talking about establishing a space force.
Here is a – nec[essary] This is acceptable.
census – [process nec]ssary This is acceptable.
RS: Yeah I got nukes
FS: As long as it’s an American rich person that’s good, okay?
Yeah I got – [okay]
nukes – that[‘s good] – /n/ or /d/ can be perceived at FS /d/.
I find this, although reasonably there, unimpressive. Not a good quality reversal, and may be coincidental.
RS: All bad
FS: The Democrats forced that law upon our nation
all bad – [that law] There is no /b/. The sounds are like [dead], with a released /d/ final. 
This is clearly not there.

The word [but] seems to occur behind [up]on. /t/ is glottal rather than alveolar, but that is fine. So, the words are probably closest to [but all dead]. It’s probably coincidental gibberish nevertheless.
RS: All lies, said all lies 
FS: I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law. (Trump).
all lies – that[s their law] [s their] creates something more like [lads]. There is still a stop consonant sound from [th], although it is easy to gloss over the stop in favour of only /s/.  This is minor, however, it is enough to throw it into doubt.
said – For a word like [said] to occur here, the /s/ would have to be removed from the documented [lies]. If /s/ is not removed one either gets (ted) from the FS onset of /s/ remaining, or something like [hed] if the /s/ onset is not included.
all lies – [their law] /s/ final is not really evident. There is a [th] ending with a short sibilant ‘added’ to the end. [all] sounds more like [o] with FS [their l]aw like [lathe]. Therefore the sounds are similar to [olathe-s]. 
This is gibberish.
RS: We’re gonna get you, scum
FS: ten votes, we can’t get ‘em from (Trump)
we’re gonna – g[et ‘em from] This comes out as something that approximates [mafronei], with ‘e[m] silent, and /t/ giving perception of /n/. 
get you – [we can’t g]et /n/ is silent, /c/ is not articulated, and so this gives the listener a sense of a /t/ for [get]. You comes from [we].
scum – te[n votes] – this produces something like [skon]. /v/ disappears. 
This is poorly documented, and badly misheard.
RS: In their famous office
FS: supposed to be a friendly picture, that was put out …  (Trump)
in their – f[riendly] This is acceptable. [th] would naturally assimilate to /n/.
famous – suppo[sed to be a f]riendly This is acceptable.
office – [suppo]sed This is acceptable.

There are words that may come before the documented reversal:
Why not do it; the ship in their famous office
why not – wa[s put out] The FS /p/ is silent. The frication from the /s/ was responsible for the final /t/ here and the /d/ in RS [do].
do it – [that was] Normally, one should not cut an /s/ to get a /t/ or /d/, which can occur. However, the nature of it. I feel. Is different than most other cases. Therefore, I still present it as a possibility.
the ship – [picture] The [ure] creates some sense of the article [the].

RS: Wear the halo people/We’re the halo people
FS: oh that’s nice, Justin’s giving a .. and they talked about how they won’t be bullied, how the.., and I said what’s this all about?
Trump talking about the meeting in Canada.
wear the – [how the ..] Trump moved towards a rounded vowel when articulating [the …] allowing for /w/ in [wear]. [how th] sounds most like [they] in reverse on closer listening, but this is missed in an overall listening. [they] doesn’t make sense, however, and [the] is easily distorted in speech. [thy] could also be considered, as it is appropriate with [halo].
halo – [bullied] /d/ is silent. /b/ can be perceived at the end from FS /b/, but perception allows it to assimilate into the labial /p/ of the next word [people].
people – [won’t be b]ullied initial /p/ comes at the release of [be] and movement towards [b]ullied. 2nd /p/ is weaker and comes as the rounded vowel in [won’t] moves towards the [b]e. The ending [le] also comes at [wo].
This is possible and could be considered as wear the halo people or wear thy halo people, perhaps a criticism towards the holier than thou attitude of other leaders.
RS: business a chance
FS: that’s nice Justin’s giving
business a – J[ustin’s giv] The FS /v/ provides perception of a labial, but not /b/, so the initial of the word is weak.
chance – that[‘s nice J]ustin – [ch] perceivable from [c J]. This is acceptable.
This could be considered as a possibility, but not a certainty.
RS: My gift America
FS: Thank you very much, ‘pprecia … (Trump)
my gift – the audio is poor; it may be heard as this.
America – [thank you very mu]ch It may be perceived as [America]. However, the FS /v/ at which /r/ is perceived can also sound like a /v/, and a /t/ ending can also be heard from FS [th].
As audio quality is reduced, this must be treated with uncertainty.
RS: You’ll be private
FS: It’s about keeping families together (Trump)
After playing David and Jeff agreed the [‘ll] wasn’t there.
You’ll be – [keeping] There is a sense of [you be], although some perception of a velar /k/ occurs at the beginning, which is from the FS /ng/.
private – [it’s about] Sense of /p/ occurs at FS /t/, and some sense of /v/ occurs at FS /b/. It tends to fall into sibilance at the end, but may be there.
There is a potential reversal immediately before it:
They could seal mouth
They could – [togeth]er
seal mouth – [families] – the vowel in [outh] is a monophthong, and the sense of [th] is probably assisted by the pause and perhaps audio noise. However, it was interesting to consider in light of the use of the potential [private].
RS: America’s in all the shit
FS: They said oh that’s so terrible
After playing, David and Jeff did not like [America’s].
America’s – [so terrible] [c] occurs at the alveolar /t/. A /d/ sound can be heard, although it is perceivable as [c]. /m/ occurs at /b/. The main issue here is using the full /s/ as rather than a schwa, it makes it sound like [us]. If the /s/ is removed, although imprecise, the word is more reasonable.
in all [oh tha]t’s although one can perceive /n/ it is more accurately t/th.
the shit – [they said] this is acceptable.
Rather than the documented reversal we should consider:
that it could be America, but no /s/, with the /s/ beginning [stood/still]. Or, that only the initial part of /s/ belongs to America, and the rest of /s/ begins [stood]. The vowel may not sound like that for the word [stood] if pronounced as a single word, however, in a speech string the change in vowel would be plausible. So we would have [stood all the shit/still all the shit].
America/America’s stood all the shit/America – still all the shit

RS: Help, help, help
FS: We were probably going to war with North Korea, if we did …quiet quiet, quiet.
help, help, help – [quiet, quiet, quiet] Although at a surface level it sounds like this, the final consonants are ambiguous. They could be /f/ or /k/.
I found a reversal that follows on from this:
You’re dead you bitch


RS: I would make it early
FS: He learnt you can’t do that
Trump talking about Trudeau’s news conference when he was on a plane leaving Canada.
I would – [do that] – [th] and /t/ disappear in the FS allowing for a sense of these words.
make it – learn[t you can’t] There is no /m/. There is an /n/ followed be /t/ in the FS. If the /n/ is localised, it will sound like [naked]. With the /t/ included, it allows perception to hear it as [take it]. 
early – he lear]nt This is acceptable.

RS: I’ll be bad 
FS: we got some bad people
I’ll be – [people] This is possible, although an unreleased /p/ is discernible on close listening which cannot be attributed to the beginning of the following word.
bad – [bad] The initial and final consonants are ambiguous. Perception of the word is possible, however, perception of an initial alveolar and final labial is also possible (the reverse of the word).
This is a dubious reversal.
I found an amusing sounding reversal after this. Its weakness is the lack of the verb ‘be’, and the fact that [nn] is really more like [ll]. Himmel reminds one of the German interjection Gott im Himmel!
RS: Must I/eye a winner. Himmel! 
FS Let me tell you, we got some bad people
must I/eye a – w[e got some] [I a} comes behind w[e go] where the /g/ is silent.
winner – [tell you w]e Although it can sound like [nn], it is more [ll]. This is the one issue with the reversal, apart from the missing ‘be’ verb.
himmel – [let me]
RS: God bless you
FS: There’ll be setbacks
Comey saying that America will be OK (even if they have Trump).
God – set[back] There isn’t actually a /d/ final. The FS /b/ is silent. A sense of /p/ occurs on release of /t/ in FS [set]. To get /g/ initial, the beginning has to be cut off. If it were included it would be [sco],
bless – [set] The FS /t/ creates the /l/, while a /p/ is perceivable on release of the FS /t/.
you – b[e] set A sense of [you] can occur if cut at the right point. With the /b/ fully included from FS [be], it can sound like [him].
This is dubious and can be heard as other strings of speech. For example one can get [scopeless]. 
RS: Hillary laughs
FS: he’s failed a year later
Comey talks about Trump wanting to stop illegal immigration.
Hillary – he‘s failed a [year la]ter [illary] can be perceived from this, so it is not too bad. However, the documenter cut off the /d/ coming from [later]. If the beginning was included, it would sound like [her dillary]. In addition, [a y]ear produces another syllable not documented, which sound like [you].
laughs – he[‘s failed] [led] produces /l/. The word is acceptable. However, as mentioned, there is a discernible [you] before it. Also, in this case, the /s/ should be removed in favour of [you laugh]. The /s/ arguably belongs to [see] which follows (falls into gibberish after that).
This may be a case where the subconscious was indeed thinking Hillary you laugh, but the /d/ needed to be not included. This presents a problem, however. One can cut words strings at certain points and come up with different words.
RS: Their government suck now 
FS: that the American story is an upward sloping line, constant progress …
After playing, David didn’t feel happy about the reversal, but accepted its validity.
Their – prog[ress] There is an /s/ initial, which was cut off by the documenter. An alveolar /t/ or /d/ can always be produced is the /s/ is cut off, but the onset of /s/ retained. Documenters need to be aware of this. [their] is not there.
government – cons[tant prog] – [gov] can be perceived in [prog], however the rest is [nit]. In FS, this word is often distorted, however, without any evidence of /m/, it is dubious.
suck – [cons]tant There is an /n/ after /s/. A velar final occurs, but is fricative in nature. This is a poor example.
now – [line] This approximates the word.

For the reasons above, it is not sound as a reversal.

RS: That bible beat the crime, he lost it
FS: That was President Obama’s decision about whether to tell the American people about that (Comey)
that bible – peo[ple about that] The /b/s do not come at the position of the FS /p/ and /b/ in the FS. [b]ible comes at the release of [about], and bi[b]le comes at the articulation of the peop[le]. Perception of labial /b/s is evident. The word is there.
beat the crime – A[merican peop]le [p]eople is silent in the RS leaving the /n/ from America[n]. This leaves a sound like [ni] for RS [the]. This is not an issue as this word is typically altered substantially in FS. The silent /p/ there allows an alveolar perception of the final sound in [beat]. [crime] comes from [meric] which is pretty much a constant.
he lost it – [to tell the] A general listening gives he lost. Careful listening will reveal an alveolar /t/ which can make he sound like it. This sound is lost very easily, however. [lo] actually sounds like [lie]. It is only the [st] from FS [t]ell, that allows perception of [lost]. [it] comes from [to].

Following on from this reversal is what appears to be more words. These are not as clear as the first part of the reversal above, but they are worth investigating. There are different ways to approach it. This is one way:
[lost] wouldn’t be a natural ending to the reversal due to the prosody, unless speech continued immediately after it (hence, [it] sounds like a natural ending). I will assume [lost] as the ending of the first part, or, alternatively [lie], and assume the sibilance after it is a moment of gibberish, but that the reversal actually continues on.
RS: didn’t know why produce system
didn’t know – [whether to] One can get a sense of /n/ at FS [th] for both reverse words. Whether there is meant to be an /n/ for [didn’t] is debatable however.
why – ab[out w]hether Sounds more line [wa] but this quite normal in a string of speech.
produce – de[cision ab] – this is not clearly articulated. There is a sense of a labialised consonant at the beginning, and one must assume it is meant to be [pro]. The RS /d/ is like a [dz], but this is normal as the word can be articulated with an alveolar or a fricative. [c] comes at FS [c].
system – Oba[ma’s dec]ision This is acceptable
One must be very careful with the use of [crime] as the reverse of America as it will often be coincidental. It is fairly common that there appears to be a verb before it also. There needs be more content information. The use of bible and the way it was constructed from the FS sounds, makes it worthy of note. A general listening gives he lost. Careful listening will note an alveolar /t/ which can make he sound like it. [lo] actually sounds like [lie]. It is only the [st] from FS [t]ell, that allows perception of [lost].

So, it can sound like: That bible beat the crime, he lost, didn’t know why produce system 

RS: had a gun awful
FS: … responsible for I’m not gonna
had a [g[onna] This is acceptable There is an alveolar tap to get a sound like /d/.
gun I[‘m not g]onna This is acceptable. The FS /m/ assimilates to /n/.
awful [le for I]’m This is acceptable.


RS: They were lost 
FS: This was an discussion between a UK host and another person about Muslim issues.
These words come behind [tolerant]. The other person also said [tolerant] and it clearly came out as [never lost] although FS /r/ is simply giving an impression of RS /v/. The same occurs in [they were lost]. There is still an /n/ beginning, but the FS /r/ is less perceivable as /v/ and one may get the impression of /w/ instead as in [were].
These probably should be considered as coincidental.


RS: Asleep, that is America, we love you
FS: everybody will move their embassies there, you’ll see (Netanyahu)
After playing, David (rightly so) stated that [asleep] should be discarded. Jeff stated that [that is] (also correctly) wasn’t there, and this was accepted by David. I will investigate it with ‘asleep’, but keep the two words before America as the word before is essential to be able to hear the /a/ in [A]merica. Otherwise, it will sound something like [Themeri …]That is – [ssies there] The closest words are probably [as this].
America – will move [their emba]ssies Ameri is clear from [eir emba]. The ending gets somewhat lost in the [th]eir. Elision of endings as articulation moves to the next word is normal in FS, so I accept the possibility of the word here. There are two syllables that have not been included in the documented reversal. These come behind w[ill mov]e. The [ov] produces an ambiguous sound, but could be [will], and the [ill m] produces a sound similar to [mo], as if [move] was going to said but cut short.
we love you – [everybody wi]ll [we] comes from [y w]. [love] can be perceived from [bod]. The alveolar /d/ provides a sense of alveolar /l/ and labial /b/ produces a sense of labial /v/. [you] is acceptable as [ver] disappears but lends some rounding of the mouth after /e/ in the FS, and as the tongue moves high front, we can get a sense of [y].
Perhaps it could be considered as As this America will mo.. we love you 
RS: You’re gonna kiss, God will find this
FS: sit down for godsake and negotiate (Netanyahu)
you’re – neg[o]tiate The beginning of the reversal needs to be trimmed as it starts with a [j] sound from FS [ti].
gonna – [and neg] This is acceptable
kiss -[sake] This is acceptable
God – [God] – This is something like [dzarg] The fricative sound comes from the movement toward /s/ in the FS in [sake].
will find – [down for] It sounds like [find]. This is aided by its length before the beginning of the next word. It is arguable, however, that an /n/ is not there, leaving [will fight]. It is more likely to be [find] if the following word is [us], with the fi[nd] represented by si[t d]own in the FS. There is a more centralised, less pronounced vowel instead of [u]s, but this is acceptable.
this – [sit] This is acceptable
[God] isn’t there. The rest, possibly is, with alternatives for the last two words.
RS: see the panic
FS: I would think it had to be somebody from …
see – t[o be s]omebody /b/ is silent. This is OK
the – h[ad t]o this is OK
panic – thi[nk it ha]d The release of [ha] in the FS before /d/ gives a perceptual sense of /p/. [n] can be perceived around [t d], and [k] can be heard in [n].
This is acceptable.
However, it appears that there are words before it. [must] can be heard and a strange name before [must]. I will assume the strange name is gibberish, and that it is [must see the panic].
RS: Barack ordered sarin
FS: to an all powerful (Obama)
Obama was talking about the need for people to surrender their rights to an international order.
Barack – [ll power]ful The strength of the /r/ and the movement toward /f/ can allow some sense of a possible /b/. There is an unreleased /p/ that is evident as a final, so it is more like [barap]
ordered – [to an a]ll A sense of RS /d/ arises from FS /n/. There is a sense of [or] from [a]ll, The ending becomes something similar to [doo]. The [t]o disappears. There isn’t actually a /d/ final; however, as [ed] isn’t always distinct in FS, this not be much of an issue here. Alternatively, it sounds like [ought to],  with the /t/ articulated as a tap alveolar, which is quite normal.
sarin – [their rights] [ts] in [rights] produces a consonant after /s/ in reverse. This can be perceived as /k/, if not /t/. FS [th] can give a sense of /n/. Therefore, it is closest to [skarin].
With the [sk], the reversal is not valid.
RS: ‘n I’ll be birth dead
FS: … that there are people uncomfortable with that idea.
(I assume that David said ‘I’ll’ rather than ‘all’).
This is Justin Trudeau talking about Islamophobia.
Jeff Rense suggested that it is we’ll all be birth dead. David accepted that.

There is another word-like strong immediately before it and joining it:    What is the most clear is: all be fuck ….. be birth dead. At some point inbetween, the first reversal ends and the second begins. Where this occurs is debatable. This should not be interpreted as a single continuous reversal, but two reversals, back to back.

First of all, this type of occurrence is common in RS. One reversal ends and another begins without pause. After the /k/ in [fuck], there is an /n/, a vowel, and a possible /l/. This comes behind peo[ple un]comfortable. In the RS, the FS /p/ is silent, but there is an increase in amplitude at this point which is matched by what follows, but not be what is before. Around this point, one may also hear a difference in voice quality. At the point peop[le u]n, there is either two vowel-like sounds, or a vowel + /l/. One way to approach this is to end and begin in the middle of this:

All be fucked now/Are we fucked now? All be birth dead 

Although there is no clear [ed], I am assuming its existence here and assimilation into the following /n/. Obviously the word assumed to be [now] is short, and doesn’t have a natural ending. This is because the 2nd reversal has ‘taken over’. It is like two people in a conversation where one cuts off the first person before they fully express their message.  

An alternative is:                                                                                                                                     All be fuckin’. Now be birth dead  

Is this supposed to represent [now], or [‘n I’ll] or [‘n all]? In tis case there is not only an /n/ final in the first reversal, there is an /n/ initial in the second.

Note: One may also be able to pick up [th] and so the word could be [death], but this may not be easy to hear.

In whatever case, there seems to be an underlying message around birth rate and Muslims. Trudeau speaks of Islamophobia in the FS.  [fucked] would mean being in trouble – the birth rate is ‘dead’ with non-Muslims, that is, not sustainable. Or, either non Muslims need to be producing babies, or all the Muslims are doing it [fuckin’]. So, although Trudeau is publicly supportive of Muslim migration, his subconscious speaks of the consequences.
RS: Shared assassin
FS: … revealed the secrets behind the assassination …
One will get ‘assassin’ in reverse from ‘assassin’ when there is an /n/ sound that comes before it from a previous FS word (in this case [nd the]). ‘shared’ is also normal behind assassi[nati]on, although quite short, with the [ti] acting as [sh] and the vowel allowing for some sense of sh[are]d. The /d/ comes from the /n/ in the FS. In this case there is an alveolar sound in the example at the start of [sh] giving it a a [ch] sound, so it is closer to [cheered]. This is because there is an /n/ from the FS that occurs, and part of that was included, or it was difficult to separate it from the [sh] for documentation purposes.

This is most likely coincidental sounds.
RS: Still surfin’ it terror
FS: the rift in the first place
David noted that the /t. in s[t]ill may not be there after he played it, but accepted it when listening again.
terror – [the rift] This is close. [th] disappears. There is a t-t at the beginning, but reasonably represents the word.
surfin’ it – [in the first] This is acceptable. Final /t/ in ‘it’ is assumed.
still – sounds similar to si-ill. Sense of /t/ is caused by the music only. A close word would be ‘seal’. However, it makes it nonsensical.
There is some merit to surfin’ it terror.

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.