Archive

Analysis of other’s speech reversal documentations

I’m often gob smacked at what is being played publicly as speech reversals. Here I give an example. A guest on a radio show is presenting some of his reversals. He has a particular interest in finding reversals on Shiva and Nazi. Not one says Shiva. Any reversal with Nazi either is not there or highly dubious. These here represent the majority of reversals played. Not one of them is accurate. This makes any discussion of the meaning of these invalid.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: We hail Shiva over apartment

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

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

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

over apartment – [ssion is possible o]bviously

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Hitler war[public in]formation

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: Send a dog Shiva

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

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

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

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

This is unlikely to be reversal.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: I begone, Shiva might murder ill

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is gibberish.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: Share with her sin it’s healthy

FS: it points in a certain direction

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: That’s nazi

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

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

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

There is obviously nothing there.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: The nazi him assassin

FS: an assessment based on a b …

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

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

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

Overall, it sounds something like rana seebnin sassin  

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: And I’ll share venom

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

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

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

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

The final word is gibberish.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: August hell

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: Don’t want to feel a villain

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

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

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

feel ab[elieve]

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: Garden of evil, hell

FS: But look, we have endeavoured …

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

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

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

This is gibberish.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: So we warn you girl    

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

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

warn you[we know]

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

A language-like string occurs – So earl warn you   

__________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: Know we did it

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: Man that sell crucify thief

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

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

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

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

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

This is imprecise.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Documented RS: All ashamed to call murder

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

All – c[all]  Sounds like orkh  

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

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

murder – g[ather m]ore  This is OK.

This is imprecise.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Analysing speech reversals can be interesting as Reverse Speech is still a mystery. I have amused myself by doing this with a Trump reversal which is on YouTube  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89T_yG21ShA&feature=youtu.be

Documented RS: I’ll see in the lawsuit    

FS: do solemnly swear

Breakdown of phonemes and syllables

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

see in the – sol[emnly s]wear

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

I’ll – s[wear]

Consideration of ‘you’

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

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

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

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

Could the reversal say something else?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about other reversals with it, and other voices?

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

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

Ill of fear, flow our/out (Dad)?  

[that I will faithfully]

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

of – faith[fu]lly

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

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

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

So we have something like:

Ill of fear. Flow out.

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

Weak, you’re sca ….   

faithfully [execu]te

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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