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 probably says something about Zervos as a sexual object, that is, a willingness to promote her sexuality.
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. 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. Could this indicate a different voice? Or, the same voice now referring to the person in front of the lawyer at the time – Summer Zervos?
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’. 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
In the first Trump/Clinton debate, Trump says ‘African American’ a number of times. In reverse it can sound like language. It’s worth analysing each of them to see whether they are language or not.
Each of these reversals contain ‘crime’, which occurs when ‘America’ is reversed. One must be careful to accept reversals with this word, even if there appears to be words with it that can make up a sentence or phrase. However, that said, if the subconscious is influencing what is said and how it is said, then that is likely at both sound and word level. But, the word America/American is going to be used in a variety of verbal interactions and communications, and the Trump/Clinton debate was certainly one of them. Therefore the choice of the word is less likely to be influenced by the subconscious then other words where there is more flexibility in choice.
The section in brackets, [African A]mericans, also produces what seems language. Let’s have a listen to the first one. A general macro listening can make it sound like
Seen that in the crime. I think you’re fat.
FS: We need law and order and we need law and order in the inner cities, and the people that are most affected by what’s happening are (African American and His)panic people.
Note: Ɂ will be used to denote a sound like similar to a glottal t – where the vocal tract is constricted instead of an alveolar articulation of [t]. ɾ will be used to denote an alveolar flap – where the tongue tip hits the alveolar ridge quickly rather than produce an n/t/d/l, as in how ‘water’ is often pronounced.
A closer listening reveals something like “SinaɁnicrime-aɾikyerfaɁ
I have selected the word ‘think’ to represent the sounds at that point in the reversal. It is uncertain to know what it could be, and I have chosen ‘think’ as the closest possibility. One can project into it ‘make you fat’, but I think this is even less likely than ‘think’.
[th] does not occur in ‘that’ and ‘the’; of course, [th] in normal speech can assimilate to the [n], but there is no perception of [th] or alveolar stop (t/d) in either word, and there is no grey area here.
I think you’re fat occurs again behind the following FS. This time there is nothing before ‘crime’ that can be perceived as language-like.
FS: We have to protect our inner cities because [African A]merican communities are being decimated by crime.
In the next occurrence, it can be heard as either ‘I think you’re fat’, or ‘A nigger fight’. This is so because [y] in ‘you’re’ is weaker than in the other examples, allowing perception of ‘er’ instead. Also, the vowel in the last word is longer, more like a double vowel.
Sits in the crime. I think your fat/A nigger fight
FS: … our inner cities, [African Americans, His]panics are living in hell …
There is a sense of ‘sits in the crime’ first – sits’nicrime.
In the last one, ‘African Americans’ is uttered two times, and in both, it is more like ‘nigger fight’. The stronger force of [y] following the velar [k] in the FS, helps to give a sense of [g] where the [y] is masked. Before ‘crime’. Is what sounds like ‘making the’ (makini).
¹Making the crime, a nigger fight ²But nigger fight
FS: ¹[The African American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time like right now, and after the election they said, see you later I’ll see you in 4 years. ²[The African A]merican commu, ah, b, me look, the community within the inner cities has been so badly treated, they’ve been abused and used in order to get votes by democratic poli ….
Can anything be genuine here? Saying that someone is fat again and again behind the same FS words is a big stretch, and there do not appear to be any triggers from the speaking. ‘Think’ is highly suspect, and anything else in its place would be contentious. The something something in the two examples are likely worthless (Sure, one may view his subconscious as saying it’s a crime being fat, but I believe the likelihood of it being genuine language is low). That said, something a little peculiar occurred after the first two reversals listed above. Straight after, he seems to say ‘pasta’. In the first one ‘need a pasta’, in the second just ‘pasta’ (well, actually ‘pasta with vayue’, but the last word is too much like gibberish). What is even more unusual is that ‘pasta’ was formed by completely different words from the FS.
The final example, although not perfect, is sounder overall. It is the only place where ‘nigger fight’ can be heard easily (although the second has a tremolo effect). It occurs two times in the same section of speech, seconds apart. Also, ‘nigger’ and ‘African Americans’ is directly associated. Once again, language-sounding words before ‘crime’ behind ‘American” in the FS, should not be trusted. But, including it, an easy interpretation can be given – problems/crimes are the fault of African Americans, and this points a finger at them for the problems they experience. However, it is fairly easy applying meanings to what we hear, and we need to be careful about using it as a justification for genuineness of language. Some weight can be given to it in evidence, but the question is how much?
Do I think the last example is genuine? I’m sceptical.
Here is a written analysis from one Trump reversal which is quite interesting.
The following reversal indicates communication by two personality aspects not completely unified with the speaker. A couple of words are imprecise, nevertheless the reversal is interesting enough to consider.
In the first part, thunder in debate, I never snap, but they get him out, expresses that the debate is loud and aggressive. Yet, the voice states that it never snaps, or loses self-control; and that they (the Hillary camp) is winning. The second voice is oppositional to this comment (“they get him out”), retorting ‘hell no way!’ and then saying they (have to) go, calling them devils. So, we see a part of Trump that doesn’t lose self-control and makes an observation, and the other part, an aggressive fighter, completely oppositional.
RS: Thunder in debate, I never snap, but they get him out. Hell no way, they go devils
FS: … unbelievably happy and that love me. I’ll give you an example. We’re just opening up on Pennsylvania Avenue right next to the White House. (So if I don’t get there one way, I’m going to get to Pennsylvania Avenue another).
As in forward speech, not all sounds in language come out precisely. ‘Debate’ is poorly formed and only sounds somewhat like it on the surface level, as is ‘devils. ‘I’ can also be heard to have a vowel shape like [ei] as in ‘they’, although ‘I’ is acceptable. In the utterance. ‘I’ would be more logical due to ‘but they get him out’. The weakness of [t] in this voice’s utterance is not really an issue due to the length, grammatical appropriateness and strength of other sounds. It may be suggested that this voice has a tendency to glottalise [t] when it is not in initial position. ‘Out’ is a bit messy in the stress structure of the piece, however.
In the utterance by the second voice, which has a slightly nasal character, [l] was not successfully produced leaving ‘devus’. However, not every sound will be produced appropriately in speech, and taking into account other factors, it is likely that it is meant to be ‘devils’. The second word is poorly formed and ambiguous. I have put ‘go’, but it can sound like ‘poor’.
FS: [Then there is the issue of se]curity; countless innocent American lives have been stolen because our politicians have failed in their duty to secure our borders and enforce our laws ….
Perhaps smelling your cheese is the old schoolyard prank where someone gets another to put his nose near their closed fist and duly gets a punch in the nose. Perhaps it is a throwback to foreigners and their cheese (non-Anglo-Saxon), and suggesting they are here, you know they are here, you can smell them by their traditions.
… [the fundamental problem] with the immigration system in our country is it serves the needs [of wealthy donors], political activists and powerful, powerful politicians.
Trump pays visits to Norfolk/Virginia Beach in Virginia and gives speeches. He was only there around 3 weeks earlier and actually went there days later. ‘Bar’ has different meanings, and one is to prevent someone from doing something. ‘for’ throws up a grammar and semantic issue, but without it, it would be ‘bar them’. ‘Clover’ brings up the concept of acquiring wealth. He states this when he mentions wealthy donors.
FS: Anyone who tells you that he core issue is the needs of [²those living] [¹here illegally] has simply spent too much time in Washington.
Immediately following is what appears to be:
²in/an evil sword
After the long [e] at the end of “Hillary”, there is a change in reversal starting with a very short [i] before [n]. In FS, “in evil” naturally has the [n] joining “evil”. However, some [n] articulation occurs in ”in”, and this is lacking here. This combined with the stronger second syllable in “evil”, and the [z] is “sword”, makes this a less than perfect reversal.
“Heal Hillary” appears to be sound, while the remainder may or may not be genuine.
I have taken an interest in a webpage on http://reversespeech.com/reversal/did-we-go-to-the-moon-or-not/ I have listened to a few of the reversals. I am not conspiracy-minded myself, but I would like to make comments about some the reversals presented, as well as present some more that lie behind the forward speech.
The numbered reversals are the reversals documented on the webpage, while BA is my take on what is there. Reversal 1 etc refers to the Reversal number on the webpage.
Ah, it sucks
Apollo 11 not perfect. Ah, it sucks
BA: Apollo he/who left on a carpet. Ah, it sucks
When splitting into two sections, I can hear language that is like “Apollo 11” (11 roughly so), and “no perfect” (without [t] in ‘not’). “Perfect” is possible, however, I put forward the possibility of “carpet” – the initial consonant may be heard as [p], but also [k]. Rather than“11”, it could be “he left on”, or “who left on” – if “who” the bilabial approximate [w] comes off the rounded final vowel in “Apollo”. Here it is as “he/who left on a” And. rather than “not”, it becomes o[n a].
This occurred at lift off. If “carpet”, it sounds like a fantasy as in “magic carpet ride”. Whether one wants to interpret that as just that – a fantasy – and therefore not really happening, or, alternatively, as an expression of the magical and brilliant event that was occurring, flying into the sky …. that will be determined by the bent of one’s character.
It could be “camera 4” rather than bad rapport . The initial sound is a wildcard and can be heard differently; however [c] is just as likely as anything else. [m], [r], as well as [f], and [or] in “4” come from the sounds in “roll from” in the FS
It is very fast, but I agree with “I come in” it is the first word that is unknown, and it could represent different words. It has a bilabial quality, so I am going to assume ‘but’
There are words preceding which appear to be part of the reversal with “camera 4”. They start when Klondike finishes talking – “I’m from” or “Come from” or “I come”, but it is not clear
In this case, this would refer to the capturing of the lift off through the organisation and direction of the cameras.Note in the forward speech the speaker said something about get a roll …….
First, there is a reversal before it – The outfit cuff you. Of course, ‘cuff’ someone would indicate limiting a person’s ability to take action/say something etc. “Outfit” would be the organisation. At the end of this and the onset of the next reversal, there is an [r], so it comes out as Ryena(‘s) paranoid. [R] cannot be separated from it. It sounds like the name of a female.
There is another reversal: Fire, [I] was in the co(ck)pit (cockpit). Alternatively, it would have to be File was in the co(ck)pit. There is a small syllable in between ‘Fire’ and ‘’was’’, which I will assume to be “I”
I think “Man will” is “Never”. Never – [N] comes from ma[n]; m in [m] remains a fricative in the RS – the mouth moves towards a labial position, but frication continues to occur giving an sense of the labial [v] in ne[v]er. In the FS [f] is “for” disappears.
Here it is without the [N], as ‘ever‘ Here it is with the [N] included Never
It is possible there is meant to be an [s] sibilant at the end of “space walk“ and it is space walks”; however, this is not necessarily so, and can be seen as space walk, also.
Then there is the word “know” followed by a possible “that” disappearing into poor audio quality. There is a very short syllable before “know” that is like an unpronounced schwa. This may or may not be meant as “I”. I know that
With “never”, I find a consistency in the emotional expression of the whole message. There is almost a feeling of pained thought or sorrow in the way the reversal is uttered.
As a future tense, “man will” would appear inaccurate as man had already space walked. Neil Armstrong, though, never did space walk, while Buzz Aldrin did. Therefore, it may simply refer to the fact that he had not, or in fact ever would space walk.
There is shit. We need to fry the head. Near blood. It’s terrible.
BA: Near pod, it’s terrible. They’re ashamed o’ that. There is shit. They/He knew to/need to buy/fry the head.
There may be a reversal before “There is shit”, although it is not all clear and it is ‘disintegrating’ towards the end:
They’re ashamed o’ that
Here is They’re ashamed o(f). In natural speech, [f] can be left off
Here is that. Although messy, it is possible
The alveolar in the middle is messy, but ‘need to’ is possible, and it could even be heard as ‘nigger’. But it called be “knew to”.
There is shit; they knew
to buy/fry the head
In regard to ‘blood’, there is an [l] in ‘develop’ from the FS. However, I believe it disappears to a significant degree in the RS, and the RS has become “pod” (a cross between [b] and [p]). Near pod, it’s terrible
Pod could refer to either the re-entry vehicle or the Lunar module. “Head” does not necessarily refer to a human head, but could be machinery.
BA: Let’s kiss old Sue/who in a movie now/First now kiss her
There is a lot more happening around these words. It appears to start Let’s kiss old Sue/who in a movie now. On listening you notice that it is particularly hard to catch “Sue who”, and instead may be heard as ‘server’. However, I have consistently come across this in RS, where one reversal statement ends, and the next follows immediately on, and general listening does not capture that break. Separated, it comes out as follows:
(L)et’s kiss old Sue
Who in a movie now
This is followed by First now kiss her
However, this may not be all. Following on immediately is possibly:
Surf with her from (Churliss) (I have written it as it sounds. It may not mean anything, however).
And, the whole lot together:
Let’s kiss old Sue/who in a movie now/First now kiss her/ Surf with her from Sherliss.
So, it seems, the whole time, Aldrin’s subconscious is thinking about a girl from his past. As he said in the FS, ‘sequence of rendezvous maneouvres’, lol. This shows that what comes from the subconscious may not be about the topic at hand, but a trigger occurs from the topic creating a past memory experience.
There is [h] about the start, but the force can give one the perception of [k]. It may or may not be a reversal. Before ‘my fraud’ is “Concert to’’, which indicates a mutual agreement to the fraud. Concert to my fraud
The initial is also heard as an alveolar like [t] or [d]. I put forward the possibility that is is meant to be a [k] initial in ‘concert’.
An overall listening gives a sense of the documented reversal. However, there is a double syllable occurring where ‘en’ is documented. This is behind the FS a[s you get]. In reverse there are the sounds of “take – izh”. “gineered” is dominating, so the mind can gloss over this to hear just “engineered”. So, the issue here is, was the subconscious actually producing “engineered”?
I cannot be confident of that. I will try an alternative. Over 6 seconds, there appears to be a group of reversals. This starts with:
Her die, but gal fell off or Her life but gal fell off In this case the alveolar in ‘’life” is meant to be [l]. ‘Her die’ is not grammatically correct. However, I recognise that this may occur at times.
There was joke/They’re a joke In deciding which one, one has to decide if there is supposed to be [s] on the end of “was”. This is quite reasonable as it would tend to combine with the [j]. There is also a [w] formed from the rounded vowel in “to” in the FS. Nevertheless, “They’re a” is also reasonable. Is it meant to be “joke”. Yes, possibility; it comes behind “close to”, so the [k] comes from [c] and the [j] comes from the combination of the sounds clo[se t]o. Note, the word “then” appears to occur first, however I did not include it for sake of clarity, and because its removal doesn’t affect meaning.
Injured, neared now I will assume “injured” is the beginning of the next comment. “neared now” is a question of whether it belongs with “injured” or the next comment, “The Earth, the Earth”. There is no pause after “injured”, however, I am unconcerned about that as one comment following another does not always have a pause, in my experience. Of course, this also may be heard as “engineered now”. But note – there is an syllable between “joke” and “engineered” (“take” mentioned above, leaving the sound “izh” or “ezh” as the beginning of “engineered”). I am uncomfortable that there would be an extra syllable as gibberish, unless it was meant to be incorporated into the first syllable of “engineered”, but is just imprecise.
The Earth, the Earth
Armstrong descends the ladder on the LEM. His subconscious may remember a female who fell, where maybe a joke as played, and she was injured (maybe even died). In this case the movement down the ladder triggered the subconscious meandering. With “The Earth, the Earth”, his subconscious may again have come back to the current situation.
However, if it is “They’re a joke”, this may not have anything to do with the scenario just mentioned. If it is meant to be “engineered now”, then it may read as “They’re a joke – engineered now – The Earth, the Earth”.