A number of reversals have been going around that suggest the Pope’s subconscious possesses pedophiliac, homosexual tendencies. I would like to address some of these reversals here. I will show that many of the words are invalid.
RS: Evil, suck cock
FS: This conviction have, has led me from the beginning of my ministry ….
evil – [led me] – There is some frication at the point between FS [d m] that allows a sense of /v/. There is a clear and obvious /m/ from the FS. This makes it sound like [heemvil].
suck – [has] – the frication noise produced by the speaker at the back of the throat gives a sense of [sukh]
cock – The Pope accidently says [have] before changing it to [has]. This produces a /v/ initial. There is no final /k/. This leaves something like [vah].
So, the sounds are similar to [heemvil sukh vah].
RS: Eat the holy cum
FS: Martin Luther King eat the – Lu[ther King] Although the words can be projected into it, it is more [eak ga]. holy – Mar[tin Lu]th This sounds like [holni]. The /n/ is clear and obvious from the FS /n/. cum – [Mar] – This is close. There is a short fricative-like sound after the [c] which could be [r] as in [crumb] or something else. So, it may be heard as [cum] with perhaps some frication after the initial, or as [crumb]. The first half of the word
The most obvious error is the /n/ in [holni]; and when you include the other small errors or ambiguity, the viability of this reversal is reduced greatly.
RS: I rape the other kid
FS: I wish to reaffirm my high esteem and appreciation. Those first contacts were often turbulent and violet, but we know it is very difficult to judge the past by the criteria. I rape – cri[teria] It is easy to project /p/ into it, although it is really /t/, as in [rate]. If this went slightly longer, the frication of the audio noise can make it sound like [th]. the other [cri]teria The FS [r] gives a ‘tap’ on the alveolar in place of [th]. RS [th] really begins with [e], however, one can ‘add’ the [th] in [rathe] to it. There is a /k/ final which cannot be separated from it. So, it is like [e-o(tap sound)rk]. kid – [the] The /k/ sound heard really is the final of the previous word and not the initial of this one. That leaves a /h/ as in [hid].
Speech does create ‘distortions’ in intended sounds, however there is more wrong with this than right.
I’m evil, you seek it
FS: the history of the United States I’m evil – [of the Uni]ted The sounds approximate [evil]; however there are two issues with [I’m]. First, it is /n/. Second, one may hear an /n/ at the beginning due to the point at which the recording was edited (the onset of FS /t/ in United). If we go to the larger forward speech, we will see that the reversal starts fully at the point of FS /t/. Therefore there is an alveolar initial, either /d/ or /n/, which would make it [done] or [none], except that there is a short [y] sound after the initial phoneme.
I have decided to provide an analysis of the reversals played by David Oates on the Jeff Rense show on June 27 2018. The audio of the show can be found here. https://www.davidoates.com/shows/ I have not chosen this show specifically other than it is the most recent. I am frustrated over the errors, debatable quality, probable coincidences and inconsistences of reversals that are presented publicly by people, even at the ‘highest level’, whether on YouTube or radio shows. Also addressing someone personally and individually about errors has always been to no avail in the past.
If one studied audio of forward speech, one would hear all kinds of distortions and imprecisions, and so this would also occur in Reverse Speech. But one needs to be aware of what is acceptable when addressing distortions and imprecisions in Reverse Speech. One needs to understand linguistic parameters. Yet, a person won’t even get to this point if he is not aware of the true level of linguistic errors in a reverse string of words. There is a great deal of projection occurring.
And, even where a reversal appears linguistically valid, it may just be coincidental, particularly if it is short. Most reversals played by David, for example, range from two to five words, with occasional ones over that. Three-word reversals are very common. Many are unremarkable.
Take for example, the statement ‘This is it”. You have two words with the function of pronouns, and an auxiliary verb. Two words have two phonemes, and one word has three, total seven phonemes. The shortness of the statement and of the words themselves make this unremarkable. However, combine that with an incorrect phoneme, an irregular stress pattern, and irregular connection of phonemes, then you probably have something that is worthless. This example is examined below.
So, a first point is understanding what is truly imprecise about language at a phonemic, syllabic, word, sentence and prosodic level. This takes careful investigation. Then, one needs to apply what one has discovered to see if it can reasonably fall into linguistic parameters of speech, as well as the particular character and nature of Reverse Speech. One also needs to be aware that short word-like strings can be coincidental. With the massive bits of language produced each day around the world, there will be word-like examples, which are simply coincidental, no matter how much one thinks he can interpret its meaning.
With that said, one could speculate that the subconscious of the speaker is imposing some control at times over the linguistic components of the verbalisations of the speaker. However, complete control is not possible, and errors are evident, say two or three obviously incorrect phonemes in a string of 20 – 25 in an otherwise linguistically reasonable utterance. If that be the case, then you might have a genuine reversal. But, assuming Reverse Speech is real, who will determine that? One would need both a level of linguistic knowledge and a deep understanding of the phenomenon.
The first eight were found by David from Trump’s Singapore summit. The remainder come from a person in Canada whom David uses to find reversals for his shows. David checks the reversals and selects suitable ones for public airing.
RS: I’m very careful (Trump at Singapore media conference)
FS: Well thank you very much everybody, appreciate it we’re getting ready to go back I’m very – [you very mu]ch The position of FS /v/ is at /r/ in RS [very]. Therefore it has disappeared in favour of /r/. And to be precise, the beginning of RS [ery] is not /v/, but more of an /m/. However, it can easily sound like /v/ to listeners. careful – [well thank] FS [th] doesn’t precisely occur at RS /f/. [th] tends to disappear, but there is a possible /f/ on release of FS we[ll]. This is possible.
It certainly approximates the words. There is more of an /m/ in place of /v/, but in light of the knowledge that FS language is imprecise, and can be heard as such on audio, permits further consideration of its possible value. Also, the question begs: If the subconscious is communicating through vocal sounds/language, why should we assume that it will be entirely successful in producing all of the phonemes precisely? I will address this in the future.
RS: Failed business
FS: Countless people died in the conflict including tens of thousands of brave Americans Yet while the armistice was agreed to, the war never ended … failed – [brave] – [fail] reasonably occurs, with the vowel more like that in [air]. A /d/ final cannot be heard in reverse, There is a FS /b/ articulation occurring, but that is difficult to pick up in reverse. In FS, /d/ assimilation to the initial consonant of the following word can occur. business – thou[sands of] FS /v/ can be perceived as /b/. This is acceptable.
Note: behind FS of [thou]sand, [life] may be perceived, although the FS [th] can also still be heard as [th] in reverse. It can be heard more or less as [th] or [f] depending on where one cuts it. Except for that imprecision, it may be viewed as [business life].
Failed is uncertain, but it could be [failed? business life].
FS: This is it
FS: This isn’t. This – i[sn’t] This sounds like [niz], with a very short amount of frication from the release of /t/ in the FS. is it – [this i]sn’t This is acceptable. Note that stress is on [is] however, and not [it] in the reversal. Also, the nonseparation of [thi[s i]s, although normal in speech, is overly intense, causing it to sound unnatural.
We have [nizizit]. Poorly formed.
RS: You live with the shit
But peace is always worth the effort especially in this case. They should have been done years ago, they should have been resolved … you [re]solved – This is acceptable. live with – [have been] There is an /n/, but this may be perceived a /l/. There is no /w/, so it is more like [nivit]. There is some sense of an unreleased /t/ final. The /v/ allows for perception of [with]. the shit – [they should] This is acceptable.
This is questionable with the obvious /n/. One might ask, is it meant to be these words?
RS: Over see God
FS: And where the light of peace chases away the darkness of war see God – [darkness] – In the FS Trump dropped the /n/ so that it sounds like [darkess]. [see] is from [ess]. God is from [dark], however it sounds like [krod]. Perhaps the closest word would be [cried]. over – [of war] [ver] comes at [of]. FS [war] has a breathy /h/ ending, so this sounds like [her-ro]. The FS /r/ would need to be cut off to get [over]
This sounds like [herrovaseekrod].
If one were to cut off the beginning [herr], there would be something sounding like [over, see, cried]
RS: They give us a limit
FS: So it’s an honour to be with everybody today, the media, it’s a big gathering of media They give us i[t’s a big gath]ering This approximates it, although the FS /b/ is still obvious in reverse to make [they gibus], and FS /g/ has weakened from a stop to more of a velar /h/. It sounds like it in an overall listening, but flaws are revealed in a more detailed listening. a limit – [the media] This is acceptable.
The reversal certainly approximates the words; a couple of phonemes are not as precise as they seem to be. It is a debatable point whether it has value as a genuine reversal. _______________________________________________________________________________
RS: Wisdom drove me round it
FS: people understand that this is something very important to
Jeff Rense pointed out correctly that it is not [round it]. wisdom – importa[nt to] [to] produces [wis], or likely in this case [wes]. The remainder is the /n/ sound in the FS which produces an /n/ final in reverse. Therefore the closest word is [west’n] or in other words [western]. drove me – ver[y import]ant This is acceptable. There is a /p/ in the FS, but in this case it is light and one may assume assimilation of /v/ to the bilabial /m/. round it – [thing ver]y This sounds similar to [rung it] with the /ng/ from [ng] in the FS.
This seems to be word-like, West’n drove me rung it, but nonsensical.
RS: America get habit
FS: Otto did not die in vain, he had a lot to do with us speaking here today thank thank you very much America – [thank you very mu]ch [Ameri] can be heard behind [you very mu]. [ca] is actually [get] from FS [thank]. Therefore it sounds like [Ameriget]. get – [thank] This is acceptable. habit – [today] There is a /d/, not a /b/, so it is like [had it].
This is not valid.
RS: Gotta sly be bad
FS: A some point that I have to be honest that I used to say this during my campaign …
Trump talks about wanting to bring soldiers home.
Jeff Rense suggested it was you’ve been bad. There is indeed another syllable, you. gotta – [that I] There is no initial /g/. FS [th] disappears to get [otta] The reversal actually starts earlier than the documented section, and sounds something like [vyatta]. sly – b[e hones]t This is acceptable. However, there is a further syllable at b[e] which is [you]. be – [to b]e this is ok except that there is an unreleased /t/ final which is drowned out by the initial sound of the following word. bad – [I have t]hat There is a /v/ that can be perceived as /b/.
There is a lack of evidence for [gotta]. The remaining [sly be bad] may just be coincidental. Three short words. _________________________________________________________________________________
RS: and mud by you
FS: we have done that, Secretary Pompeo has really been doing a fantastic job … (Trump) by you [we have] There is a clear /v/ rather than /b/, therefore we get what sounds like [vayou]. The closest word is probably [value] with a light /l/, that not articulated on the palate, which is possible, hence the [y] sound. and mud [done tha]t There is no /m/. It sounds like [an’ nod] with American pronunciation of [o]. The closest words would be [and not].
RS: Here is a census
FS: to immediately begin the process necessary
Trump talking about establishing a space force. Here is a – nec[essary] This is acceptable. census – [process nec]ssary This is acceptable.
RS: Yeah I got nukes
FS: As long as it’s an American rich person that’s good, okay? Yeah I got – [okay] nukes – that[‘s good] – /n/ or /d/ can be perceived at FS /d/.
I find this, although reasonably there, unimpressive. Not a good quality reversal, and may be coincidental.
RS: All bad
FS: The Democrats forced that law upon our nation all bad – [that law] There is no /b/. The sounds are like [dead], with a released /d/ final.
This is clearly not there.
The word [but] seems to occur behind [up]on. /t/ is glottal rather than alveolar, but that is fine. So, the words are probably closest to [but all dead]. It’s probably coincidental gibberish nevertheless.
RS: All lies, said all lies
FS: I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law. (Trump). all lies – that[s their law] [s their] creates something more like [lads]. There is still a stop consonant sound from [th], although it is easy to gloss over the stop in favour of only /s/. This is minor, however, it is enough to throw it into doubt. said – For a word like [said] to occur here, the /s/ would have to be removed from the documented [lies]. If /s/ is not removed one either gets (ted) from the FS onset of /s/ remaining, or something like [hed] if the /s/ onset is not included. all lies – [their law] /s/ final is not really evident. There is a [th] ending with a short sibilant ‘added’ to the end. [all] sounds more like [o] with FS [their l]aw like [lathe]. Therefore the sounds are similar to [olathe-s].
This is gibberish.
RS: We’re gonna get you, scum
FS: ten votes, we can’t get ‘em from (Trump) we’re gonna – g[et ‘em from] This comes out as something that approximates [mafronei], with ‘e[m] silent, and /t/ giving perception of /n/. get you – [we can’t g]et /n/ is silent, /c/ is not articulated, and so this gives the listener a sense of a /t/ for [get]. You comes from [we]. scum – te[n votes] – this produces something like [skon]. /v/ disappears.
This is poorly documented, and badly misheard.
RS: In their famous office
FS: supposed to be a friendly picture, that was put out … (Trump) in their – f[riendly] This is acceptable. [th] would naturally assimilate to /n/. famous – suppo[sed to be a f]riendly This is acceptable. office – [suppo]sed This is acceptable.
There are words that may come before the documented reversal: Why not do it; the ship in their famous office why not – wa[s put out] The FS /p/ is silent. The frication from the /s/ was responsible for the final /t/ here and the /d/ in RS [do]. do it – [that was] Normally, one should not cut an /s/ to get a /t/ or /d/, which can occur. However, the nature of it. I feel. Is different than most other cases. Therefore, I still present it as a possibility. the ship – [picture] The [ure] creates some sense of the article [the].
RS: Wear the halo people/We’re the halo people
FS: oh that’s nice, Justin’s giving a .. and they talked about how they won’t be bullied, how the.., and I said what’s this all about?
Trump talking about the meeting in Canada. wear the – [how the ..] Trump moved towards a rounded vowel when articulating [the …] allowing for /w/ in [wear]. [how th] sounds most like [they] in reverse on closer listening, but this is missed in an overall listening. [they] doesn’t make sense, however, and [the] is easily distorted in speech. [thy] could also be considered, as it is appropriate with [halo]. halo – [bullied] /d/ is silent. /b/ can be perceived at the end from FS /b/, but perception allows it to assimilate into the labial /p/ of the next word [people]. people – [won’t be b]ullied initial /p/ comes at the release of [be] and movement towards [b]ullied. 2nd /p/ is weaker and comes as the rounded vowel in [won’t] moves towards the [b]e. The ending [le] also comes at [wo].
This is possible and could be considered as wear the halo people or wear thy halo people, perhaps a criticism towards the holier than thou attitude of other leaders.
RS: business a chance
FS: that’s nice Justin’s giving business a – J[ustin’s giv] The FS /v/ provides perception of a labial, but not /b/, so the initial of the word is weak. chance – that[‘s nice J]ustin – [ch] perceivable from [c J]. This is acceptable.
This could be considered as a possibility, but not a certainty.
RS: My gift America
FS: Thank you very much, ‘pprecia … (Trump) my gift – the audio is poor; it may be heard as this. America – [thank you very mu]ch It may be perceived as [America]. However, the FS /v/ at which /r/ is perceived can also sound like a /v/, and a /t/ ending can also be heard from FS [th].
As audio quality is reduced, this must be treated with uncertainty.
RS: You’ll be private
FS: It’s about keeping families together (Trump)
After playing David and Jeff agreed the [‘ll] wasn’t there. You’ll be – [keeping] There is a sense of [you be], although some perception of a velar /k/ occurs at the beginning, which is from the FS /ng/. private – [it’s about] Sense of /p/ occurs at FS /t/, and some sense of /v/ occurs at FS /b/. It tends to fall into sibilance at the end, but may be there.
There is a potential reversal immediately before it: They could seal mouth They could – [togeth]er seal mouth – [families] – the vowel in [outh] is a monophthong, and the sense of [th] is probably assisted by the pause and perhaps audio noise. However, it was interesting to consider in light of the use of the potential [private].
RS: America’s in all the shit
FS: They said oh that’s so terrible
After playing, David and Jeff did not like [America’s]. America’s – [so terrible] [c] occurs at the alveolar /t/. A /d/ sound can be heard, although it is perceivable as [c]. /m/ occurs at /b/. The main issue here is using the full /s/ as rather than a schwa, it makes it sound like [us]. If the /s/ is removed, although imprecise, the word is more reasonable. in all [oh tha]t’s although one can perceive /n/ it is more accurately t/th. the shit – [they said] this is acceptable.
Rather than the documented reversal we should consider:
that it could be America, but no /s/, with the /s/ beginning [stood/still]. Or, that only the initial part of /s/ belongs to America, and the rest of /s/ begins [stood]. The vowel may not sound like that for the word [stood] if pronounced as a single word, however, in a speech string the change in vowel would be plausible. So we would have [stood all the shit/still all the shit]. America/America’s stood all the shit/America – still all the shit
RS: Help, help, help
FS: We were probably going to war with North Korea, if we did …quiet quiet, quiet. help, help, help – [quiet, quiet, quiet] Although at a surface level it sounds like this, the final consonants are ambiguous. They could be /f/ or /k/.
I found a reversal that follows on from this: You’re dead you bitch
RS: I would make it early
FS: He learnt you can’t do that
Trump talking about Trudeau’s news conference when he was on a plane leaving Canada. I would – [do that] – [th] and /t/ disappear in the FS allowing for a sense of these words. make it – learn[t you can’t] There is no /m/. There is an /n/ followed be /t/ in the FS. If the /n/ is localised, it will sound like [naked]. With the /t/ included, it allows perception to hear it as [take it]. early – he lear]nt This is acceptable.
RS: I’ll be bad
FS: we got some bad people I’ll be – [people] This is possible, although an unreleased /p/ is discernible on close listening which cannot be attributed to the beginning of the following word. bad – [bad] The initial and final consonants are ambiguous. Perception of the word is possible, however, perception of an initial alveolar and final labial is also possible (the reverse of the word).
This is a dubious reversal.
I found an amusing sounding reversal after this. Its weakness is the lack of the verb ‘be’, and the fact that [nn] is really more like [ll]. Himmel reminds one of the German interjection Gott im Himmel!
RS: Must I/eye a winner. Himmel!
FS Let me tell you, we got some bad people must I/eye a – w[e got some] [I a} comes behind w[e go] where the /g/ is silent. winner – [tell you w]e Although it can sound like [nn], it is more [ll]. This is the one issue with the reversal, apart from the missing ‘be’ verb. himmel – [let me]
RS: God bless you
FS: There’ll be setbacks
Comey saying that America will be OK (even if they have Trump). God – set[back] There isn’t actually a /d/ final. The FS /b/ is silent. A sense of /p/ occurs on release of /t/ in FS [set]. To get /g/ initial, the beginning has to be cut off. If it were included it would be [sco], bless – [set] The FS /t/ creates the /l/, while a /p/ is perceivable on release of the FS /t/. you – b[e] set A sense of [you] can occur if cut at the right point. With the /b/ fully included from FS [be], it can sound like [him].
This is dubious and can be heard as other strings of speech. For example one can get [scopeless].
RS: Hillary laughs
FS: he’s failed a year later
Comey talks about Trump wanting to stop illegal immigration. Hillary – he‘s failed a [year la]ter [illary] can be perceived from this, so it is not too bad. However, the documenter cut off the /d/ coming from [later]. If the beginning was included, it would sound like [her dillary]. In addition, [a y]ear produces another syllable not documented, which sound like [you]. laughs – he[‘s failed] [led] produces /l/. The word is acceptable. However, as mentioned, there is a discernible [you] before it. Also, in this case, the /s/ should be removed in favour of [you laugh]. The /s/ arguably belongs to [see] which follows (falls into gibberish after that).
This may be a case where the subconscious was indeed thinking Hillary you laugh, but the /d/ needed to be not included. This presents a problem, however. One can cut words strings at certain points and come up with different words.
RS: Their government suck now
FS: that the American story is an upward sloping line, constant progress …
After playing, David didn’t feel happy about the reversal, but accepted its validity. Their – prog[ress] There is an /s/ initial, which was cut off by the documenter. An alveolar /t/ or /d/ can always be produced is the /s/ is cut off, but the onset of /s/ retained. Documenters need to be aware of this. [their] is not there. government – cons[tant prog] – [gov] can be perceived in [prog], however the rest is [nit]. In FS, this word is often distorted, however, without any evidence of /m/, it is dubious. suck – [cons]tant There is an /n/ after /s/. A velar final occurs, but is fricative in nature. This is a poor example. now – [line] This approximates the word.
For the reasons above, it is not sound as a reversal.
RS: That bible beat the crime, he lost it
FS: That was President Obama’s decision about whether to tell the American people about that (Comey) that bible – peo[ple about that] The /b/s do not come at the position of the FS /p/ and /b/ in the FS. [b]ible comes at the release of [about], and bi[b]le comes at the articulation of the peop[le]. Perception of labial /b/s is evident. The word is there. beat the crime – A[merican peop]le [p]eople is silent in the RS leaving the /n/ from America[n]. This leaves a sound like [ni] for RS [the]. This is not an issue as this word is typically altered substantially in FS. The silent /p/ there allows an alveolar perception of the final sound in [beat]. [crime] comes from [meric] which is pretty much a constant. he lost it – [to tell the] A general listening gives he lost. Careful listening will reveal an alveolar /t/ which can make he sound like it. This sound is lost very easily, however. [lo] actually sounds like [lie]. It is only the [st] from FS [t]ell, that allows perception of [lost]. [it] comes from [to].
Following on from this reversal is what appears to be more words. These are not as clear as the first part of the reversal above, but they are worth investigating. There are different ways to approach it. This is one way:
[lost] wouldn’t be a natural ending to the reversal due to the prosody, unless speech continued immediately after it (hence, [it] sounds like a natural ending). I will assume [lost] as the ending of the first part, or, alternatively [lie], and assume the sibilance after it is a moment of gibberish, but that the reversal actually continues on.
RS: didn’t know why produce system didn’t know – [whether to] One can get a sense of /n/ at FS [th] for both reverse words. Whether there is meant to be an /n/ for [didn’t] is debatable however. why – ab[out w]hether Sounds more line [wa] but this quite normal in a string of speech. produce – de[cision ab] – this is not clearly articulated. There is a sense of a labialised consonant at the beginning, and one must assume it is meant to be [pro]. The RS /d/ is like a [dz], but this is normal as the word can be articulated with an alveolar or a fricative. [c] comes at FS [c]. system – Oba[ma’s dec]ision This is acceptable
One must be very careful with the use of [crime] as the reverse of America as it will often be coincidental. It is fairly common that there appears to be a verb before it also. There needs be more content information. The use of bible and the way it was constructed from the FS sounds, makes it worthy of note. A general listening gives he lost. Careful listening will note an alveolar /t/ which can make he sound like it. [lo] actually sounds like [lie]. It is only the [st] from FS [t]ell, that allows perception of [lost].
So, it can sound like: That bible beat the crime, he lost, didn’t know why produce system
RS: had a gun awful
FS: … responsible for I’m not gonna had a [g[onna] This is acceptable There is an alveolar tap to get a sound like /d/. gun I[‘m not g]onna This is acceptable. The FS /m/ assimilates to /n/. awful [le for I]’m This is acceptable.
RS: They were lost
FS: This was an discussion between a UK host and another person about Muslim issues.
These words come behind [tolerant]. The other person also said [tolerant] and it clearly came out as [never lost] although FS /r/ is simply giving an impression of RS /v/. The same occurs in [they were lost]. There is still an /n/ beginning, but the FS /r/ is less perceivable as /v/ and one may get the impression of /w/ instead as in [were].
These probably should be considered as coincidental.
RS: Asleep, that is America, we love you
FS: everybody will move their embassies there, you’ll see (Netanyahu)
After playing, David (rightly so) stated that [asleep] should be discarded. Jeff stated that [that is] (also correctly) wasn’t there, and this was accepted by David. I will investigate it with ‘asleep’, but keep the two words before America as the word before is essential to be able to hear the /a/ in [A]merica. Otherwise, it will sound something like [Themeri …]That is – [ssies there] The closest words are probably [as this]. America – will move [their emba]ssies Ameri is clear from [eir emba]. The ending gets somewhat lost in the [th]eir. Elision of endings as articulation moves to the next word is normal in FS, so I accept the possibility of the word here. There are two syllables that have not been included in the documented reversal. These come behind w[ill mov]e. The [ov] produces an ambiguous sound, but could be [will], and the [ill m] produces a sound similar to [mo], as if [move] was going to said but cut short. we love you – [everybody wi]ll [we] comes from [y w]. [love] can be perceived from [bod]. The alveolar /d/ provides a sense of alveolar /l/ and labial /b/ produces a sense of labial /v/. [you] is acceptable as [ver] disappears but lends some rounding of the mouth after /e/ in the FS, and as the tongue moves high front, we can get a sense of [y].
Perhaps it could be considered as As this America will mo.. we love you
RS: You’re gonna kiss, God will find this
FS: sit down for godsake and negotiate (Netanyahu) you’re – neg[o]tiate The beginning of the reversal needs to be trimmed as it starts with a [j] sound from FS [ti]. gonna – [and neg] This is acceptable kiss -[sake] This is acceptable God – [God] – This is something like [dzarg] The fricative sound comes from the movement toward /s/ in the FS in [sake]. will find – [down for] It sounds like [find]. This is aided by its length before the beginning of the next word. It is arguable, however, that an /n/ is not there, leaving [will fight]. It is more likely to be [find] if the following word is [us], with the fi[nd] represented by si[t d]own in the FS. There is a more centralised, less pronounced vowel instead of [u]s, but this is acceptable. this – [sit] This is acceptable
[God] isn’t there. The rest, possibly is, with alternatives for the last two words.
RS: see the panic
FS: I would think it had to be somebody from … see – t[o be s]omebody /b/ is silent. This is OK the – h[ad t]o this is OK panic – thi[nk it ha]d The release of [ha] in the FS before /d/ gives a perceptual sense of /p/. [n] can be perceived around [t d], and [k] can be heard in [n].
This is acceptable.
However, it appears that there are words before it. [must] can be heard and a strange name before [must]. I will assume the strange name is gibberish, and that it is [must see the panic].
RS: Barack ordered sarin
FS: to an all powerful (Obama)
Obama was talking about the need for people to surrender their rights to an international order. Barack – [ll power]ful The strength of the /r/ and the movement toward /f/ can allow some sense of a possible /b/. There is an unreleased /p/ that is evident as a final, so it is more like [barap] ordered – [to an a]ll A sense of RS /d/ arises from FS /n/. There is a sense of [or] from [a]ll, The ending becomes something similar to [doo]. The [t]o disappears. There isn’t actually a /d/ final; however, as [ed] isn’t always distinct in FS, this not be much of an issue here. Alternatively, it sounds like [ought to], with the /t/ articulated as a tap alveolar, which is quite normal.
sarin – [their rights] [ts] in [rights] produces a consonant after /s/ in reverse. This can be perceived as /k/, if not /t/. FS [th] can give a sense of /n/. Therefore, it is closest to [skarin].
With the [sk], the reversal is not valid.
RS: ‘n I’ll be birth dead
FS: … that there are people uncomfortable with that idea.
(I assume that David said ‘I’ll’ rather than ‘all’).
This is Justin Trudeau talking about Islamophobia.
Jeff Rense suggested that it is we’ll all be birth dead. David accepted that.
There is another word-like strong immediately before it and joining it: What is the most clear is: all be fuck ….. be birth dead. At some point inbetween, the first reversal ends and the second begins. Where this occurs is debatable. This should not be interpreted as a single continuous reversal, but two reversals, back to back.
First of all, this type of occurrence is common in RS. One reversal ends and another begins without pause. After the /k/ in [fuck], there is an /n/, a vowel, and a possible /l/. This comes behind peo[ple un]comfortable. In the RS, the FS /p/ is silent, but there is an increase in amplitude at this point which is matched by what follows, but not be what is before. Around this point, one may also hear a difference in voice quality. At the point peop[le u]n, there is either two vowel-like sounds, or a vowel + /l/. One way to approach this is to end and begin in the middle of this:
All be fucked now/Are we fucked now? All be birth dead
Although there is no clear [ed], I am assuming its existence here and assimilation into the following /n/. Obviously the word assumed to be [now] is short, and doesn’t have a natural ending. This is because the 2nd reversal has ‘taken over’. It is like two people in a conversation where one cuts off the first person before they fully express their message.
An alternative is: All be fuckin’. Now be birth dead
Is this supposed to represent [now], or [‘n I’ll] or [‘n all]? In tis case there is not only an /n/ final in the first reversal, there is an /n/ initial in the second.
Note: One may also be able to pick up [th] and so the word could be [death], but this may not be easy to hear.
In whatever case, there seems to be an underlying message around birth rate and Muslims. Trudeau speaks of Islamophobia in the FS. [fucked] would mean being in trouble – the birth rate is ‘dead’ with non-Muslims, that is, not sustainable. Or, either non Muslims need to be producing babies, or all the Muslims are doing it [fuckin’]. So, although Trudeau is publicly supportive of Muslim migration, his subconscious speaks of the consequences.
RS: Shared assassin
FS: … revealed the secrets behind the assassination …
One will get ‘assassin’ in reverse from ‘assassin’ when there is an /n/ sound that comes before it from a previous FS word (in this case [nd the]). ‘shared’ is also normal behind assassi[nati]on, although quite short, with the [ti] acting as [sh] and the vowel allowing for some sense of sh[are]d. The /d/ comes from the /n/ in the FS. In this case there is an alveolar sound in the example at the start of [sh] giving it a a [ch] sound, so it is closer to [cheered]. This is because there is an /n/ from the FS that occurs, and part of that was included, or it was difficult to separate it from the [sh] for documentation purposes.
This is most likely coincidental sounds.
RS: Still surfin’ it terror
FS: the rift in the first place
David noted that the /t. in s[t]ill may not be there after he played it, but accepted it when listening again. terror – [the rift] This is close. [th] disappears. There is a t-t at the beginning, but reasonably represents the word. surfin’ it – [in the first] This is acceptable. Final /t/ in ‘it’ is assumed. still – sounds similar to si-ill. Sense of /t/ is caused by the music only. A close word would be ‘seal’. However, it makes it nonsensical.
There is some merit to surfin’ it terror.
A speech reversal from Kate McCann, the mother of missing Madeleine McCann, was played on a radio show recently and declared as being a ‘nice and clear’ reversal. The reversal accuses Kate McCann of beating Madeleine and killing her. However, the reversal is incorrect.
The documented reversal is:
Slay with fists Madeleine
Here is the audio
Although Madeleine is imperfect, I will assume that her name is there. I wish to address [slay with fists].
There is an /f/ in the FS; however, the sound largely disappears and there is mild frication in its place and also a velar quality of a [k + h] type. Rather than [fist], it is more like [kissed]. There is no concise /k/; however, the frication and aspiration combined with the ramping up of the vowel lends some perception of /k/.
It is not [with], but [we] as the mild frication at the FS /f/ fails to produce [th] perception.
Slay is [slow] articulated with a very English vowel sound.
Therefore, we would have [slow we kissed Madeleine], clearly a very different meaning to the documented version.
Preservation of primary phonetic and acoustic cues of phonemes trigger their perceptual identification. Time reversal of speech both preserves and alters phonetic and acoustic features of speech signals. Invariant features such the power spectra of a signal are usually maintained whilst properties such as duration and the shape of the temporal envelope, as well as finer details of the acoustic spectrum are altered (Grataloup, Hoen, Veuillet, Collet, Pellegrino and Meunier, 2009). Non-continuant speech sounds are more susceptible to altered perception in reversals as assymetry typically occurs in the shape of the temporal envelope. This is the case in stop bursts, abrupt vowel onsets, and ramping (smooth increase in amplitude) and damping (smooth decay) of signals (Pellegrino, Ferragne and Meunier, 2010). Time reversal of these features alter the characteristics of the speech signal, permitting perception of alternative phonemes, and even the addition of phonemes to the speech signal, or the omission of phonemes from the forward speech.
One study has been conducted that investigates the preservation of phonetic cues in time reversed speech and the perception of reversed phonemes. Pellegrino, Ferragne and Meunier (2010) conducted an experiment which required four phoneticians to listen to pseudowords that were recorded and played in reverse, and phonemically transcribe what they heard. The results of the study showed that around 25% of the original segments from the forward speech were exactly retrieved in reverse. The experiment also demonstrated that certain phoneme types were more likely to be distinguished than others. Fricatives (e.g. /f, v/) liquids (e.g. /l/) and nasals (e.g. /n, m/) were identified at a rate above 90%, and vowels at close to 90%. The authors suggest that the high rate of identification likely reflects the invariance of continuant waveforms preserving a high level of perceptual cues permitting perception. Rhotics (e.g. /r/) and voiced stops (e.g. /b, d, g/) were identified at an intermediate level (66.7% and 61.8% respectively). Listeners, however, were inaccurate with unvoiced stops (e.g. /p, k, t/), with a rate of only 9.4%, as well as schwas (mid central neutral vowel /ə/).
The ones that were not correctly recognised were identified as phonemes having alternative place and/or manner of articulation. 30% of unvoiced stops were transcribed as fricatives. 25% were identified as stops, which also included other stop types such as glottal stops or unreleased voiced stops. 28% were heard as a cluster; for example, a final /t/ in the natural speech was heard as an /sn/ cluster. The authors suggest that the /n/ arose from the ramping of the vowel in the time-reversal signal. 7% were transcribed as a sonorant (r, l, m, n, w, y) while 10% of the stop segments were not detected.
The findings of this study suggest that not only are speech sounds from the forward speech heard in reverse, sounds that are not in the forward speech are also perceived as phonemes.
These perceptions are typical in Reverse Speech. Although many phonemes from the forward speech are perceived, others are heard as alternative sounds, and this is certainly the case with unvoiced stops. They can be perceived as a phoneme with a different place of articulation (e.g. /t/ → /k/ or different manner of articulation (e.g. /t/ →/s/, /p/ → /f/). An alveolar stop and alveolar /l/ can convert into another alveolar consonant; for example, /t/ or /d/ may be perceived as /n/ or vice versa. Others may be heard as allophones (different variation of the one phoneme; e.g. /t/ → /ʔ/ or unreleased /t/), or a similar phoneme such as an alveolar tap /ɾ/. Phoneme addition can occur such as /t/→ /st/. Stop bursts can disappear when reversed, lost in the vowel sound that came before it in reverse, resulting in perception of an alternative phoneme, an unreleased allophone, or omission altogether. Omission of sounds from the forward speech is a common occurrence. Light articulation of consonants or the strong frication of vowels next to a consonant may result in non-recognition of the consonant.
Some sounds in time reversed speech are highly ambiguous and may be heard differently by different listeners. Alteration of phonemic cues through reversing or degrading of the sound through audio noise or poor audio quality contribute to ambiguity. In this case, one’s grammatical and lexical knowledge comes into play in phoneme selection, projecting the desired phoneme to produce meaning.
Reverse Speech is very much about the perception of speech sounds and finding meaning though the building of strings of language that make some grammatical and syntactical sense. But of course, this is very much the case for normal speech as well. We turn the sounds uttered by another into coherent meaning. When listening to speech, we cannot actually perceive each individual speech sound. We assume that they are there. However, if we were to examine the individual segments of spontaneous forward speech, we would find that not all phonemes of the heard words are recognisable; they may sound different or be missing altogether. Yet, there is ample remaining of the speech signal to perceive a coherent string of words. The rest is projected into it.
So, we can now see that Reverse Speech is composed of perceivable phonemes and segments. Not covered by Pellegrino et al. is whether the segments produce lexical information. It can be easily proven that they indeed do. However, to perceive strings of language correctly, one needs to operate within linguistic possibilities and parameters. This entails examination of phonemes and segments of reversed speech as well as comparing them to the information in the forward speech. This means understanding linguistic processes. This also means knowing that some speech sounds in forward speech can be heard differently to the sounds which normally make up words. It is important to know what is wrong with the string of words just as it is important to know what is right. This helps to set reasonable linguistic parameters for what can be accepted as linguistically viable. There are innumerable examples out there in ‘Reverse Speech World’ that are obviously not what they are claimed to say. There are also many that can sound like what they are attested to be, yet still lack the necessary evidence for it.
Yet, strings do occur that mirror acceptable language. Nevertheless, proving that they are anything but coincidental is another matter. Every day, there are perhaps trillions of strings of language produced by speakers around the world. Quite naturally, ‘words’ will appear that are purely coincidental, even if they are a grammatically acceptable string of two, three or four words which are composed of perhaps one or two content words and one or two particles. One can shake these in front of linguistics all day and get a response like “that’s interesting, but no cigar!”, even if they did seem to have some meaning regarding the speaker and what he was saying. For attention to be garnered, linguistically viable strings that are much longer need to occur; say, a minimum of 7 words in length with ample examples of ones that are more than 10 words and even as long as 15 -20 words.
Funnily enough, they exist.
Grataloup, C., Hoen, M., Veuillet, E., Collet, L., Pellegrino, F & Meunier, F. (2009). Speech Restoration: An Interactive Process, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 827-838.
Pellegrino, F., Ferragne, E., & Meunier, F. (2010). 2010, a speech oddity: Phonetic transcription of reversed speech. Interspeech 2010, 1221 – 1224.
A number of positive, potential reversals occur in ‘Alexanders’ testimony on Reverse Speech sessions with David Oates. I have included those here. I will also attempt to make an interpretation. Other language-like strings were found, but have not been included. This is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51chcgyidJM&t=14s
RS: ¹and they chartered wolf in this issue ²Nail the thunder cell/Nail the thunder, sell
FS: We now have two viable programs, one of ¹[which is in full production], the other which will be going online soon at the end of the year, so that ²[was another win], in my opinion, for David.
I assume it is ‘chartered’ rather than ‘charted’, or alternatively another word like ‘shuttered’. I assume also that there is ‘ed’ as there is a gap between /r/ and /w/ in ‘wolf’. I also assume it is /ch/ and not /sh/. Of course, sometimes, ‘and they’, is ‘n ney’. In FS speech there is often a degree of assimilation of /th/ with /n/ before it. ‘n ney’ is assumed to be ‘and they’. in this issue
At the end of ‘nail’ one may hear an /l/ or /w/ as in ‘now’, or both. I assume it to be ‘nail’. Nail the thunder cell/sell
The reversals may mean power was conferred to the wolf and the wolf utilised in the issue. As for the second reversal, it depends on the meaning of ‘nail’. If ‘thunder cell’, as a thunderstorm cell is a negative event, ‘nail’ could mean securing, holding down the cell so that the storm doesn’t impact. Alternatively, the sessions have allowed her to release power, for example, through speaking strongly and with conviction – ‘nail’ here would mean getting it right, doing it successfully. ‘They’ occurred in half of these reversals on this page. ‘They’ may refer to the unconscious, which may be seen as a group rather than a single entity. ‘They’ in the various reversals here would show that the unconscious was accessed produce changes.
RS: Now I’m the (court?) and I give acts to the force
FS: we began our work and this was the first time as I said that I had worked with David, I really did not know what to expect; I was not sceptical because I like to think of my[self as having an open mind] …
There is /p/ at /c/ in ‘court’. While the labial /p/ can be heard, I am assuming that it is meant to be ‘court’ rather than ‘port’. ‘Acts’ is not a strong example, with no obvious /k/ produced, but again, I assume it to be. If one listens to short extracts of forward speech, imprecise phonemes occur as well. to the force
She has melded that aspect that has the power and authority to govern , make laws etc, and can use the force to act on.
FS: Although [it’s quite a significant fin]ancial commitment to take a chunk of his time to address your problems, you get his full attention, he’s very responsive to emails …
Making something happen easily and suddenly, but with the idea that you have the power to do so. Making the magical but mischievous and potentially harmful part of oneself stop acting (sit).
Perhaps flicking fingers is making something happen easily and suddenly, but with the idea that you have the power to do so. Letting the elf sit is making the magical but mischievous and potentially harmful part of oneself stop acting (sit) to her detriment.
FS: I first worked with David just about 12 months ago in October of 2013; I called him because I had one very urgent concern .
Once again, ‘they’ is used. This indicates that the attention of the unconscious was gained and utilised to promote her life energy. ‘to look’ is fast at the end before the start of the 2nd comment directly after. Because it continues on to ‘grow’, ‘to look’ runs together quickly, but is possible. Also, there is a perceptible /t/ after ‘made’.
Recently I have been examining speech reversals on the internet. It is clear that there is a plethora of examples that are ambiguous or obviously incorrect. Clearly, projection is occurring. Yet, some responders on the various sites indicate agreement with examples while others oppose. I have to assume that concurrence with highly dubious reversals is a case of priming which Mark Newbrooke claimed was a factor in hearing reversals. This is where the words are given to the listener beforehand, and this influences the listener’s perception. The listener perceives a syllable count, hears some phonemes or allophonic variations that are within linguistic limits, and the remainder is projected into; the mind adds the necessary sounds, and/or deletes others so that a recognisable string of language occurs. Furthermore, there are many reversals that are of 2 to 5 words, Out of the multitudinous strings of speech occurring each day, it is not unreasonable to expect short language-like strings from the reversed sounds that are simply coincidental occurrences.
So, projection occurs; priming occurs, too. Short strings of speech are not all that remarkable – often they are just the reverse of the sounds of the forward speech, and probably occur when different people say it, or there are a couple of ambiguous sounds that allows the mind to fill in the ‘right’ sounds. But, with all that said, does this mean that there is nothing genuine about reversed speech? Not necessarily. It means projection is an issue. It means that there are plenty of poor or ‘shaky’ examples around.
Amongst all the valueless apparent language, there is some pretty powerful stuff, and stuff that occurs in much longer strings of language, that I believe, are reasonably there within linguistic bounds. It is these longer strings that ‘separate the men from the boys’ so to speak.
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”.