Archive

U.S. politics

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 outwardly letting people know that they are responsible and can be trusted, but inwardly showing a side that is ‘naughty’.

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. He includes his wife in this. 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 honor] 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 subconsciously, is concerned about being ‘found out’. In the forward section he says that he and his family feel it’s a privilege to serve Trump as Vice President. His concern is that Trump knows that is untrue. Again he refers to his wife (her and I) seemingly as an equal partner in what he does. The next reversal could refer to Trump – Trump’s own self screwed perhaps caused by inappropriate/unwise behavior/acts. Alternatively, there is a sense that it is his own ‘self’ that screwed Trump (he did not want to be found out). The pronoun ‘they’ used twice in the final reversal is confusing in who it refers to. Perhaps it refers to the enemies of what Trump and Pence stand for – they cause harm and they deserve punishment, so why should that be ‘high crime’ or treason that Trump (and Pence) gets into the Whitehouse?

__________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Zervos

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 and sexual advances. The subconscious comments likely refer to either Trump or Clinton. The actual topic of the interview triggers a subconscious response that may indicate desire/expectation at least fuck, he will dick my twat. ‘N he found it is in past tense. As this comes with fuck and dick my twat, found it would indicate her sex organs. In her claims, Clinton had not touched her genitals, and it is unlikely that Trump had. So, one could not claim that Clinton had sex with her or even touched private parts. It is more a ‘storyline’ running in her subconscious. This is important when considering the ‘truth’ of Reverse Speech. _____________________________________________________________________________

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. Her 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.

________________________________________________________________________________

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 …

Who is she and he? Is it the unconscious referring to Shelton and her anger toward the alleged rapist? If it refers to Clinton, is it an internal subconscious fantasy that Clinton is on her side and believes that the rapist should die? Lord revoked it may refer to the loss of her virginity.

__________________________________________________________________________________

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 imaginings that her neighbors 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 the/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. However, it could refer to a belief that others spin stories about her painting her as bad and was triggered by her words in the forward speech. With the other reversal, perhaps it refers to falling to bits and shattering, that is, falling apart emotionally.

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?

_________________________________________________________________________________

In the first Trump/Clinton debate, Trump says ‘African American’ a number of times. In reverse it can sound like he is producing language.

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 this 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 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 type of glottalisation– 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 by an American or Australian.

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’.

One has to assume that there is meant to be a /t/ ending in ‘fat’. There is nothing more than a mild constriction of the upper throat. That said, even in forward speech, final /t/ is not always articulated adequately and can seem to almost disappear. Nevertheless, this further weakens the soundness of the reversal. It is not until the final reversal below that we can really entertain that there is an allophone of /t/.

[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.   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). The final vowel in this reversal is a little different, but I am taking it as a possibility, particularly because of the following reason: ‘pasta’ was formed by completely different words from the FS. If indeed, there was anything in ‘fat’ and ‘pasta’, the section with ‘crime’ may be unrelated and coincidental.

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. Final /t/ is closest to being perceivable in this reversal, as well; unlike the ones above. Also, ‘nigger’ and ‘African Americans’ is directly associated. Once again, language-like words before ‘crime’ behind ‘American” in the FS, should not be trusted. But, including it, an easy interpretation can be given – these 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’.

From extract of Trump speech August 31, 2016

I listened to part of the Trump speech and have given a selection of reversals from it here.

RS: Hurt ‘em

FS: Because of a preventable death, because of [murder], no, she’s only talking about families who come here in violation of the law.

Immediately after this FS, he states:

RS: They’ll know we wreck

FS: We will treat [everyone living] or residing in our country with great dignity.

Here. Trump desires decisive action on the subject of his speech

___________________________________________________________________________

RS: You smell his cheese, they’re in there

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.

___________________________________________________________________________

RS: We’ll bar for them in Norfolk

RS: Soon I get clover

… [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.

___________________________________________________________________________

¹Heal Hillary

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.

____________________________________________________________________________

RS: Yeah did get ISIS in the crime

FS: The biggest problem …. facing [American society today], is that there are 11 million illegal immigrants who don’t have legal status ….

_________________________________________________________________________________

Trump had just arrived back from meeting the President of Mexico, where the President refused to fund the “wall”.

“Scam” is normally produced in the reverse of “Mexico”. Alone, therefore it is meaningless. The question is whether it is meaningful in the following:

RS: Like/Mark a scam/scum – here’s/he is na[k]zi

FS: I’ve just landed having returned from a very important and special meeting with the President of Mexico – a man who I like and respect very much, a man who truly loves [his country – Mexico].

Of course, there is still a [k] sound in “nazi”. Also, the vowel is most like ‘am’ rather than ‘um’ as in “scam”. Whether there is intentional language here is debatable.

A few seconds later Trump seems to say:

RS: Sucks [  ?] I saw you

FS: [We also discussed] the great contributions of Mexican American citizens to our two countries ….

The second word appears to have fallen into gibberish. The sounds are most like “sid”. If this is genuine, perhaps it was meant to be “that” or “since”.

If there is anything genuine here, there would be a negative attitude towards the President of Mexico.

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

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.

Reversal 1

  1. Ah, it sucks
  2. Apollo 11 not perfect. Ah, it sucks

BA: Apollo he/who left on a carpet. Ah, it sucks    

FS: 

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.

____________________________________________________________________

Reversal 3

  1. Bad rapport. Can I come in?
  2. Bad rapport, do I come in?

BA: I’m from/Come from camera 4; but I come in?  

FS: 

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 init 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 …….

____________________________________________________________________

Reversal 5

  1. Hyena Paranoid 

BA: The outfit cuff you/Ryena(‘s) paranoid 

FS: 

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” 

Fire    I was in the co(ck)pit 

If File    was in the co(ck)pit  

___________________________________________________________________

Reversal 7

  1. Man will space walk

BA: Never space walk(s), (I) know that

FS: 

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.

__________________________________________________________________

Reversal 10

  1. There is shit.
  2. 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.  

FS: 

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.

 

__________________________________________________________________

Reversal 14

  1. In a movie now

BA: Let’s kiss old Sue/who in a movie now/First now kiss her 

FS: 

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.

________________________________________________________________

Reversal 15

  1. My fraud 

BA: [K]ill the ships/Concert to my fraud

FS: 

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’.

_______________________________________________________________

Reversal 6

Documented reversal: Joke engineered now  

FS: 

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”.