Here I present and discuss a number of reversals from the Ramseys that have been documented by others and are accessible on the internet.
RS: I done it. It’s a show you’re running
FS: to ah to immediately look [you know the directions], [and I know] there are other directions being looked at
done it [and I] – ramping energy gives a sense of /d/, and final gives a sense of unreleased /t/. This is reasonable.
I – There is no certainty as to where the reversal begins. Cutting it at this point is a bit opportunistic. One can cut it at [oi] so that there is some resemblance to I. One could cut it at another point so that it may sound like who done it It can be cut at another point to sound a bit like boy done it. The sound is actually /w/ from ‘know’, not /b/, but perception can allow one to hear /b/. The sound just before it can be cut to sound like The boy done it or Have I done it? Actually the change in acoustic energy indicates that the reversal may begin around this point.
What this begins with, therefore, remains a question.
It’s a show you’re running – this is a possibility; it could also be See a show you’re running
RS: This is a plan
FS: They didn’t even [ask, I just said] come
This is a [I just said] – This is possible, however it can just as easily be something else such as death/that is a, or death/that to the – however, the audio quality seems to mask /s/ sibilants.
Plan – this is possible, however it could also be plant
Following on is
This section is quite clear. Is it part of the reversal either intrinsically, or added to it? (It almost sounds like it is added as an afterthought). Or does it represent coincidental sounds? If it represents coincidental sounds then one needs to realise that what sounds like language is not always language. The only sentence structure that would make sense with these words is This is a plant/plan of India or even, strangely enough – Death is a plant of India
There is too much ambiguity to offer likelihood.
RS: And I planned the note
FS: Patsy Rams[ey, Jonbenet’s mother]
And I – if you start at the beginning of the FS section there is: an’ (th)en I
Plan the note [Jonbenet] – It is possible that plan and note are there, though audio quality excludes any certainty. There is a syllable in the middle; this is documented as the. It is the /b/ in Jonbenet. It can be heard as /m/ in reverse on close examination. So, if the words are plan and note, it sounds something like planemnote. and as /m/ can easily be heard as /n/, then planennote, and then the double [nn] can easily be heard as planenote. This middle syllable is what is assumed to be the. The [ed] is only assumed, as evidence is lacking. However, if [ed] is assumed to be the middle syllable then maybe it is planted, as in I planted note (without the). But the /t/ then will have to be assumed. On top of all this, phoneme ambiguity means that there is no guarantee that it is even plan or planted. /pl/ can also be heard as /t/, for example.
Audio quality reduces any confidence in this reversal.
The reversal doesn’t end at this point, there is a word following that sounds something like did as a kind of confirmation:
An’ (th)en I planted/plan the note, did
RS: I’m the only one
FS: I can’t believe that we have ever [knowingly met] anyone that can be this vicious
I’m the only one [knowingly met] – this appears to be sound
This is reasonable.
There does seem to language either side of the section, however.
Going in reverse:
And now mean it [anyone]
But even before this, there are words that sound similar to So ships are leadin’.
Remember you with …… (the ending resemble ‘villamaker’, but seem to be falling into gibberish).
So, what constitutes language here?
RS: I struck her head
FS: It was the [day after Christma]s so I was going to go visiting
struck her – aft[er Chris]tmas – There is no /t/ in struck. The /r/ has an elevated intensity almost giving it the quality of a hard consonant. The sounds are similar to suckter. It is easy in this case to project the /t/ into the sounds to give struck
head – the /f/ in after can still be clearly heard making it sound similar to fed
Following on is what appears to be just do it tomorrow/let’s do it tomorrow
A missing phoneme, addition of another, and a phoneme replacement makes it unlikely.
RS: I’m that person/seen that rape
FS: at least two people on the face of [this Earth that know]
I’m that [that kno]w – The /th/, /t/ and /n/ remain clear in the RS. This means that there is an /n/ followed by a /d/ sound followed bt /th/ sounding something like an death.
person [this Earth] – sounds like the word, except that the final sound is a /d/ if cut out the right point, or /th/ if completely included.
Replaced phonemes makes this unlikely.
Rather than person, the second syllable may begin a reversal as follows:
Said to save the law
Peo[ple on the face of this] Earth
RS: seen that rape
This is appropriate. However, it may be that the reversal starts earlier. Also, it sounds like ‘callous you’ following, possibly ‘careless’ but more like ‘callous’.
RS: we now fool you
FS: we will find you
This is reasonable, although, the short vowel and its articulation can produce full instead of fool
RS: We’re lyin’ in their defence
FS: There’[s never been any other] projection, any other source
We’re could also be you’re. /l/ in ‘lyin’ can be perceived easily on release of /o/ and onset of /th/ in ‘other’. However, there is an evident /th/ or /f/ which occurs. If this was included we would end up with something like thyin/fyin/thain/fain. In some way the th/f sound needs to be included. It could be You’re/We’re fine with an intonation change giving fine a double vowel, or it could be Worth lyin’. With defence, the /d/ is perceivable in the ramping up in reverse of the /v/ release, while the onset of /v/ disappears in the fricative noise. The /f/ occurs in the ramping up energy of the release of /n/, and /n/ occurs at /n/ in ‘never’. The poor audio quality may have contributed a little to this.
We have here, ignoring audio quality, a statement with very good prosody, but a /th/ or /f/ alters the reversal. Alternatives are – Worth lyin’ in their defence, and You’re/We’re fine in their defence
RS: Sliced her up; rapist
FS: [To sit there] [by ourselves]
Sliced her up [by ourselves] – this is there
(Her) rapist [to sit there] – There is her at the beginning. Although one can perceive /p/, the sound is actually /th/. The audio may increase perception of a stop consonant. Although there is /t/ in ‘to’ in the FS at the place of the final in rapist, it presents a disjointed noise. Nevertheless, it is reasonably there.
RS: Our rape hurt
FS: [that er care abou]t us
Our is oh, but addition of /r/ helps to give a general perception of our. The documented reversal has left the /t/ from FS ‘about’ as the initial, making it sound like though (but addition of the /r/ once again changes perception of the vowel to one in thou). The /t/ is actually the ending of a prior word that is not included – said.
/k/ occurs as in rake. Perception of /p/ occurs on release of [er] in the FS. This has the ability to drown out the /k/ allowing perception of rape. A /t/ does occur at the end allowing perception of hurt.
In the wash up, it is possible there was planning involving (or the note planted). It is possible they are not being truthful – running a show, and perhaps lying in some others’ defence, and perhaps being fooled. I’m the only one’ could refer to something else rather than pointing the finger at Patsy as the murderer, and striking her head and being that person lack the efficacy to be acceptable.