U.S. politics

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’ll/You’ve sit in Baghdad rubbish 

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

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

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

Here is the whole lot from beginning to end

Then to fuck her on your silver 

FS: … my wonderful wife Karen, our son Michael and his fiancé Sarah, our daughter Audrey, far away, and our daughter Charlotte. I could not be here without them. And I’m deeply grateful to the American people [for placing their confidence] in this team ….

The reversal could indicate Pence’s excitement of reaching the White House, the step up and the prestige of it. The silver would represent that prestige with fantasised sex with his wife on the White House dining table surrounded by the silver. The forward speech at that point speaks of the American people placing their confidence in them, so the reversal could indicate some immaturity in regard to the position, or a sense that people won’t know what they are really up to.

Another possible reversal, which comes before the one above in the FS direction is:

Now we’re off 

This could just indicate that the election has been won and he and (his family?) are on their way to the White House.


Silver gets in it. Her and I our helm. Yeah, see you in Dallas.  

[So let me say], it is [my high honour], [and distinct privilege] to introduce to you the President-elect of the United States …

For the sake of clarity, I have removed the 2 short syllables after ‘helm’, which appears to be ‘city’, with the expectation that it won’t affect meaning. There appears to be a pattern in the set of reversals from his victory speech, where he speaks of both he and his wife and the power and prestige of his position. There is a reference to ‘silver’ again, and synthesised with the other reversal above on ‘silver’, would refer to being in the White House. Note that ‘silver’ comes behind different words in the two reversals. He speaks of being at the ‘helm’, that is, in a position of leadership and control. Interestingly, he refers to Dallas, which could refer to assassination. Taken together, this may demonstrate some belief that assassination (of Trump) could occur, resulting in his position at the ‘helm’.


¹You feel may have found me out – ²Her and I – ³Self screwed him, a foul so lost in it  – ⁴They deserve wound and they kill; is that high crime?   

FS: A⁴[merica has elected a new president], ³[and it’s almost hard for me to express] ²[the honour] ¹[that I and my family fe]el, that we will have the privilege to serve as your Vice President.

I have removed an extraneous ‘tail’ syllable at the end of each of the first two reversals. Sometimes a ‘tail’ syllable occurs in RS, and can be chopped off the end. In the first reversal, Pence probably feels he is hiding something. Again he refers to his wife (Her and I). The next reversal could refer to Trump – Trump’s own self screwed causing inappropriate/unwise etc behaviour/actions. The pronoun ‘they’ used twice in the final reversal makes it confusing who it refers to.


Summer Zervos was a contestant on The Apprentice in 2005. In 2007, she contacted Trump about a job, and in a hotel, she alleged that he kissed her and groped her breasts.

The following two sets of reversals from Zervos and her lawyer, Gloria Allred, refer to the heinie/ass.


Girl lives/is a heinie 

FS: [He now has the lar]gest bully pit pulpit in the world, and he has not taken back his threat to sue me.

The second word is either lives or is. Either the articulation of alveolar [l] past the [l] in girl means the words begins with [l], or the [l] simply attaches to is because it begins with a vowel. The [th] in ‘the’ in the FS can help to give the impression of a sound between the two sounds [iz]. This helps to give an impression of lives. Whatever the word, there is a stronger stress on it than the first word.

The reversal appears to refer to the speaker as a sexual object.


Zervos lawyer

Ass hurts him; snake it lie; he keeps her     You prize that heinie   

… price for speaking out against Mr Trump. He now has now won the presidency which is the prize that he sought. He now has the opportunity …

The reference to him would be Trump – his interest in ass can get him into trouble (Note: the pronunciation of the vowel in [ass] is unlike the typical American pronunciation; however, in RS it is quite common for Americans to not have typical American pronunciations in RS, such as the rhotic [r]). The reference to a snake and a lie is age old – it may refer to a person, or the snake of fable and lore. Keeps may refer to providing for a woman. You would either refer to Trump or Zervos. If Trump, then the reversal changed from 3rd person to 2nd person, which may indicate a different person.


Zervos reacts negatively when her lawyer says the word ‘star’.

You miss it  

FS: President of the United Stated; he is no longer just a star ….. [I’m sorry]

When the lawyer mentions that Trump is no longer just a star, Zervos reacts in reverse. The last word can sound like ‘her’, however, I suggest that it is meant to be ‘it’. There is aspiration, though in it. Does her subconscious refer to Trump? That he will miss it? Or, her anguish is about herself – her desire to be on television/film. If that were the case, the voice would be referring to Zervos in the 2nd person rather than 3rd person. It’s important to pay attention to the use of pronouns, as this can be a guide to characteristics of the subconscious.


Zervos breaks down and puts her head in her lawyer’s shoulder. Eventually she whispers to her lawyer and her lawyer whispers back. Of course, it is difficult to know for sure what they say in reversal, but here is one suggestion:

Zervos lawyer – Because I am a fake   Zervos – Why you fake?    

Zervos FS: gotta go

This occurs over 3 seconds. The two reversals occur together. The order is the last comment in the FS first (from the lawyer). This would be the case if Zervos’ reversal is a response to the lawyer’s. If so, then the lawyer’s response would have had to be already formulated subconsciously for Zervos to respond. The lawyer’s FS words appears though to be a response to what Zervos said in the FS, which might indicate non-formulated thoughts. Yet, could what she have said (which is hard to hear) already have been in her subconscious before Zervos said ‘Gotta go’? Bit tricky, isn’t it. If Zervos’ words were not a response to the lawyer’s reversal, then it may indicate her subconscious communicating to Zervos asking why she is a fake. The lawyer then reacted to Zervos’ subconscious by admitted that she too is a fake.


Here are four possible reversals from an earlier press conference.

¹Needs kiss as I do    ²Did he tell on me end it       ³Did he tell on me end it    ⁴Save your prayer 

I then wrote his assistant an email on April 24, April 21 ¹[2016] asking her to send my email directly to Mr Trump. ²[In that email I stated], your interest me is … ³[in that email I stated], your interest in me as a potential employment (   ). Your interest in me as anything more than my mind and I lost my footings. I further said I have been incredibly hurt ⁴[by our previous] interaction.

The first reversal may show the subconscious conflict she has – needing closeness, intimacy, to be desired. The next two reversals come behind the same FS words. Here she uttered “in that email I stated”, she then tripped over her words and stopped talking before repeating the same words. Of course, words that are repeated behind the same FS words can simply be coincidence. I’m not convinced of that here, however. If genuine, it would indicate concern over someone spilling the beans on her, and maybe she should stop it. In the last reversal, she states in the FS that she had been hurt by it, and in reverse her subconscious says to save your prayer. This would indicate that she won’t succeed.


Kathleen Willey as a volunteer White House aide during Bill Clinton’s presidency, claimed Clinton had embraced her tightly, kissed her on the mouth, grabbed her breast, and forced her hand on his genitals.

At least fuck; he will dick my twat; ‘n he found it

FS: I think (?) he can bring peace to this world, [and I think Donald Trump can lead us to that] point.

Willey is speaking about Trump in the FS, but the reason she is there is to do with Bill Clinton. The subconscious comments likely refer to either Trump or Clinton. The first section at least fuck generally sounds like it, however, I am uncertain that it is this. The next comment uses future tense to suggest he will have sex with her. The third, uses past tense. If it refers to Bill Clinton, these comments seem to put her back into that moment. ‘N he found it would seem to indicate that Clinton had at least touched her genitals, however, this is not so according to the testimony.  Perhaps it doesn’t have to be so literal, and relates to the sexual advances. If it is at least fuck, this may indicate a willingness to go further with him, and some expectation/desire to do so. If Trump, the final comment would be inconsistent as it is unlikely that anything occurred between her and Trump.

Three points to note here: 1) the possible return of the subconscious mind to the moment, 2) A subconscious thoughtform produced from association with the reason she is there rather than who she is directly speaking about in the forward speech and 3) ’N he found it cannot be taken that Clinton literally touched her ‘twat’. It would have come up in testimony. And as mentioned, it is highly unlikely that something occurred with Trump.


Kathy Shelton was raped at age 12, and the defendant was represented by Hillary Clinton.

Hey Doris take a seat  

.. whether they did or not, now she’s laughing on tape saying she knows they did it.

Trump: You went through a lot.

[Yes, yes sir I did].

Shelton spoke for a while. She then stopped speaking, and Trump filled in the pause. A final comment was spoken by Shelton to end it. The subconscious mind told her to take a seat’, in other words, stop speaking at that point. That is exactly what she did. Interesting that Doris is used. Obviously, the person is ‘Kathy’. Doris may then refer to an aspect of her subconscious that influences Shelton to maintain her attitude toward Clinton. Another aspect comes in and tells ‘her’ to stop now.

Point to note: The possible existence of one aspect communicating to another aspect in the person.


²She says he should die      ¹Lord revoked it  

¹[At 12 years old] Hillary put me through um something that you would never put a 12 year old through um ²[and she says she’s fo]r women and children …

Shelton says ‘she’ and ‘he’.

Rather than looking outside Shelton for ‘she’, we should probably look at it as referring to Shelton/an aspect of Shelton. ‘He’ then would refer to the alleged rapist. The comment would therefore come from a different aspect of Shelton’s subconscious. The other reversal comes some seconds before. It is unclear what should be revoked – various guesses could be made.


The(ir) loan that she has – he has money  

FS: … and he was asked last year on what happened, and she says she supposed to defend, whether they did or not, now she’s lau[ghing on tape saying she knows they d]id it whether they did or not, now she’s laughing on tape saying she knows they did it.

If the reversal is there, it seems to refer to a loan, and recognition that (a male – Trump?) has money. Perhaps there is a desire to be helped out financially.


And the neighbours love to shitty shit  

FS: And she says she’s for women and children and he was asked last year on what happened, [and she says she supposed to defend], whether they did or not, now she’s lau[ghing on tape saying she knows they d]id it whether they did or not, now she’s laughing on tape saying she knows they did it.

Perhaps this refers to her experience or belief that her neighbours gossip about her.


Juanita Broaddrick claimed Bill Clinton raped her in 1978. In 1998 she denied it in a sworn affidavit, but in 1999 made the claim publicly.

¹Bits and they shattered                ²Spin her all badness   

… ¹[that actions speak] louder than words. Mr Trump may have said ²[some bad words], but Bill Clinton raped me.

Spin could refer to telling a deceptive story. The subconscious states these words directly behind saying Trump may have said some bad words. So, it may indicate deceptiveness in her story. That is one interpretation. Bits and they shattered (possibly chattered) may refer to something coming to bits and shattering. Once again, there can be different views about meaning. If it is tied to the interpretation of the other reversal, then it could refer to her story. Hard to know.






I would like to discuss a reversal released recently. It was documented as

And I shall be killed, and is spoken by Donald Trump. One group considered it to be ‘killed’, and others considered it to be ‘healed’. 

In the forward speech he says ‘great people’. The contentious word is behind ‘great’.

RS is very much about speech perception (which is also true for FS). Here, what is happening phonetically is that a vowel is being produced in the area of the target point in the FS word ‘great’. Trump’s tongue is rising towards articulation at the alveolar ridge so as to produce [t]. However, assimilation occurs with the following [p] in ‘people’, that is, rather than the tongue completing articulation with the alveolar ridge, articulation moves straight to a labial one [p].

But going back to the vowel … there are three short vowel sounds occurring. Working in reverse of the forward speech, a short vowel sound as in ‘bit’ is produced, followed by an [a]. This comes from the diphthong vowel produced in ’great’. Following  that, is a high back [oo] as a result of the [r] in the forward speech (The onset of [r] after [g] produces some rounding of the mouth). The [oo] gives a sense of [l] in reverse through the position of the tongue.

The continuous vocalic signal helps to give people the perception of a [h]. There is no hard [k].  In regard to [k], the closest consonant to it in the FS is the [t] in ‘great’. When the primary acoustic or phonetic cue that causes people to hear a [t] is missing, one may hear [k] or alternatively [p] in its place. In fact, this type of event is probably an important part of RS. It is possible that a key frequency formant of the vowel occurring at the target is within the perception zone of a k + vowel combination. There is also a ramping up of energy at the onset of the vowel in the RS, which contributes to perception of a ‘burst’. These are possible reasons why some hear [k].

If you listen to the larger forward speech section in reverse, following the contentious word (or beginning where the (ed) is documented) is the [g] in the forward speech.This produces a nasal [ng] sound in reverse. Following that, sounds like ‘miss me’, however ‘me’ is actually ‘ve’. Listening to the whole section, the nasal sound seems to disappear. 

Without ‘miss (v)e’ you can hear the nasal sound 

The second reversal in the audio seems to indicate putting pressure on the female, while the second has a different tack. An aspect of Trump that refers to him as ‘gov’ seems to suggest it.

¹Dinner, flower, get that gov  ²You stand on her 

FS: I did try and fuck her, she was married, ²(I know Nancy), no this was … and I moved on her very heavily, in ¹(fact I took her out furni)ture shopping


Bill of money and green indicate how money gets Trump places. The last comment calls the female a hoe, which is a slut or loose woman.

Show Bill of money, get through, get through with green you see. Yeah, hi, you a hoe. 

FS: Hello, how are you, hi, nice seeing you, terrific, terrific, you know Billy Bush?


Here, dumbo may refer to the penis (as in the big fella!), and soak indicates desire for the sexual act. Behind the FS, saying that he could do anything, the subconscious states that it would. There are two different pronouns – you, I. “I” refers to the subconscious aspect, however, does “you” refer to the aspect addressing Trump, or a 3rd person?

You soak the dumbo     Then I would  

FS: You can do anything, (grab ‘em by the pussy), (you could do anyth)ing


The first comment indicates desire to get the female sexually excited. I assume the first phoneme is [m] – it is masked by Trump’s voice. The second comment may be a trigger caused by changing places (positions) with the female.

Make her wet, well I’m a nigger ye(t)\yeah.

FS: Yeah you get in the middle, there we go


Billy Bush indicates that he and Trump are making a move. The female says ‘hot’, indicating recognition of the sexual nature of the meeting. I will assume that it is meant to be [k] in ‘spiky’, though it can sound like ‘spiny’; anyway, there is a sense of something short and sharp.  There is only a glottal articulation at that point where [a] onset occurs in ‘absolutely’. This could refer to her pubic area. No one had spiky hair.

¹I go i … you’re in/Hot  ²Your little spiky haircut 

Have a little hug for the Donald/he just got that off the bus, ²(OK, absolutely), Melania said this was OK/¹(Oh!/There we, here we go)


Shoot my dog, Momma, hey you think 

FS: Well you’ve got a nice co-star here/Yes, absolutely/After you, come on Billy don’t be shy.

It may be meant to be ‘she’s’, but it seems to be ‘shoot’.


When the idea of competition is created by Billy Bush, Trump again falls back on money as a means to get what he wants. Note: ‘your’ can sound like ‘a’ in a general listening.

Let’s shake your buck faster 

Me or the Donald for a date?/No, no, no, (that’s stiff competition).


In this one from Billy Bush, in a top down listening, it sounds like ‘we don’t get to die’. At a phonemic level it is ‘know’ rather than ‘don’t’. So I have to make a decision whether to trust top down processing or bottom up processing. I find RS to often be a series of comments running continuously without a pause. Billy Bush is being competitive over the female, and in the first comment, suggests that it is ‘officially’ known who she wants to date. ‘Get to die’ may refer to the loser. Then there is a response about the absurdity of the comment.

Yeah gazette so we know. Get to die. You die, you’re serious? 

FS: Me or the Donald ….. (Seriously, if you had to, had to take one of us as a date) …


This one is from Billy Bush. The words before ‘talk’ are articulated poorly, and it is uncertain what they are. A check at the sound level and noting the sounds, I believe, will not provide the right words. So, I will really only on top down processing, and get a sense of what it is overall. Therefore I have chosen ‘If you’re gonna’. The only clear words here are ‘talk tender’. Separating the last three words helps to show that it could start with ‘’take’, not ‘let’. Anyway, Bush’s subconscious refers to his nice words. Although other words are not clear, it gives the impression that the aspect is saying ‘cut the crap, stop talking like that’!

If you’re gonna talk tender, let me out 

FS: (Well you’ve got a nice co)-star here/Yes, absolutely/After you, come on Billy don’t be shy.


‘sick’ comes behind ‘kiss’. It is likely not all of the following can be considered genuine.

Hang a sick   I’ll believe the dick   Made me sick  

FS: I’ve got to use some tic tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful, I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet.


The female meets Trump, and seems to say ‘we’re a nude’, alternatively ‘wear a nude’. This could indicate that she is feeling exposed and perhaps inhibited meeting them. ‘We’re’ does not necessarily refer to her and the people outside of her. The voice can refer to itself and other subconscious aspects of her. If ‘wear’, this could refer to a desire to be sexually appealing.

We’re a nude  

I’m doing very well thank you, are you ready to be a soap star?