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 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’.
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 jokeIn 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”.
Laura Bush had a particular focus on children’s education, and was keen to promote programs to improve the literacy, education and psychological well-being of children.
Early in the Bush presidency, I found the reversals below. I assume all are from Larry King’s interview in 2001. She is speaking about children’s education, an area she was most passionate about. There is a strong pattern occurring in the reversals. They suggest that she wanted funding for her programs, wanted George Bush to help her, and believed that she was in a position of influence and could make a difference.
1.Reverse: In my Bush – money
Forward: Course my mother-in-law was great. I did call her when we were getting ready to move here. She’s the kind of person I can say what should I bring, (and um she’ll tell me).
An amusing reversal with its double meaning.
In my Bush [she’ll tell me] – Bush comes behind ‘she’ll’; a [b] is perceivable; the [t] in the FS disappears and a [y] approximant occurs at the high front vowel; [l] takes on some characteristics of the following [m] in the FS, allowing perception of ‘my’ + and short centralised vowel; the two syllables of ‘in my’ are clear behind ‘tell me’, and the [n] ‘assimilates’ to the following [m] in the RS.
money [and um]
2. Reverse: Your Bush, why he make you mine, I will cost you money
Forward: Every mother there had volunteered a lot, some are teachers themselves [and ah we talked about how we can help children], when we know they need help.
Your Bush [children] – [b] comes behind [l] just before the alveolar stop (Note, this occurred also in the first reversal).
Why he make – [m] in ‘make’ is actually [n]; ‘I’ has aspiration attached to it from [h], so ‘he’ is probably the closest pronoun (I had originally thought ‘I’); ‘why’ is sound.
you mine – abou[t how we] – ‘you’ comes from high front vowel; ‘mine’ is stretched out into two syllables with an aspiration moving to [n] in the second syllable; [m] comes from strong [w]; note, one may see this as ‘wine’; [n] comes from alveolar [t
I will cost [talked abou]t – sibilance at [t] in FS helps give perception of ‘cost’; although not well-formed, ‘will’ is unclear – there is a [b] followed by by a vowel sound where the [d] in the FS disappears; ‘I’ comes from [ou].
you money [and ah we] – more [w] rather than [n]; ‘you’ comes from high front vowel.
I originally ignored the aspiration and used ‘I’ as the preposition; also originally, my reversal started with ‘Bush’. However, going back over the FS, I noticed ‘Your Bush’. So, in its current form we have your, you, he, I and mine. This makes interpretation confusing. With ‘your’, the subconscious personality appears to be referring to Laura Bush; however, ‘he’ and ‘you’ appear to be Bush!! So, this makes a pretty pickle. Of course, prepositions are notoriously weak words, and even in FS speech close examination of some prepositions can tell one that they don’t always sound like they are supposed to.
Consideration of its soundness as a reversal will depend on weighing up the general listening, its appropriateness to the speaker and context, and what is reasonable phonologically within speech, with any part that lacks soundness (such as n/m in ‘make’, and the stretched out ‘mine’). The point is, can this hold up in the big picture? I am interested in it only in relationship to the other reversals.
3. There is no arms today. Pray that I’m your weapon.
Forward … [n every mother there had volunteer]ed a lot, some are teachers themselves and ah we talked about how we can help children, when we know they need help.
There is no arms today [had volunteered]
There is – volun[teered] – [th] at [d] in FS, a sense of [s] occurs at [t] in FS
no arms – [volun]teered – the [l] disappeares to be replaced by [w] as a natural linking sound between ‘no’ and ‘arms’; [m] is perceivable at [v] (this may be due somewhat to the audio quality); there is a sense of sibilance at the end to get [s]
today [had] – the double [d] creates the [t] and [d] in ‘today’ (ie, 1) the movement of the tongue to the alveolar ridge, pause, full pronunciation of [d]
Pray that I’m your weapon [n every mother there]
Pray th[ere] – [p] can be perceived
that [mo[ther th]ere
weapon [n ev]ery – only a general listening may give a sense of ‘weapon’. The sounds are more [vr] shortcode requires a data source to be given and a glottal stop instead of [p]. So, one needs to weigh this imprecise word against the phonology of the rest of the words in the two sentence reversal, their grammar and semantics. Other words are conducive to the possibility of ‘weapon’. In the big picture, could it meant to be ‘weapon’?
Laura Bush may see herself as a useful weapon, due to her position, in bringing about improvements in education.
The forward speech is 7 seconds in length. There appears to be discernible language behind most of it both from Laura Bush and from Larry King.
4. (a) Bush will part with this and I know we’re about to beat them
Forward: So we can figure out ways to help children ….. des[pi, deep(?) everyone knows who the troubled children are] …. you know, you know that.
(Note: FS audio is for all 3 reversals)
will – troub[led] – [d] has disappeared enough for [w] to stand out
with this [s who the]
and I [know]s
know we’re – e[veryone]
about to – this one’s a bit messy, but that could be so if it was FS. The rising intonation in ‘we’re’ gives a sense of [a] in ‘about’. [b] is really a [v]; a sense of a short ‘to’ is gleaned from the glottalisation between [p] and the start of ‘everyone’.
beat them – des[pi deep]
Laura Bush may be confident that Bush will provide necessary funding for her programs, and she believes that she will be victorious over those who may represent barriers in her path.
(b) Bush, go ahead – sell/Why’re we here?/To make you watch her
… [there so we can figure out ways to help child]ren ….. des[pi, deep(?) everyone knows who the troubled children are] …. you know, you know that.
There are three comments made. The first refers to her desire for Bush to ‘sell’ her programs. The second is a question asking why is LB on the show. The third comment is the answer – to watch her.
For added interest, Larry King appears to make statements in reverse. He mentions troubled children, the distant child in the FS.
(c) Why action that saved it/Laura Bush, Dad loves it.
‘Laura’ lacks [r] and is more like [w]; in a general listening it can sound like an [l]. However, it bears a close approximation to ‘Laura’ and this makes it worth paying some attention to. Who ‘Dad’ is, I do not know – is it a meandering in his own mind about his father (who was long dead)? Or is it a reference to George Bush, or even himself?