RS: Sell poof, they’re our guest – The machine, are you worse? – He’s/his kiss a crime, he’s/his kissin’ a no-no – At least I warn/won you/At least I wind you up
FS: But [we know what he doe]sn’t, that [when women succee]d, A[merica succeed]s. And [so we are unleashing the] power of women to [take our rightful place] in our national life.
These reversals come behind 9 seconds of forward speech. They are featured from the last in the FS to the first.
Sell poof, they’re our guest [take our rightful place] – Some may interpret the first word(s) as [tell] or [See a poof]. I believe [sell] is the likeliest. The pronoun seems to be [they’re]. It can sound like [are] following, however, with [they’re] it is likely to be [our]. Perhaps this refers to Pete Buttigieg who was to give a speech the following night. ‘Taking our rightful place’ also can be associated to people such as LBGTQI. Note that there is a reversal below that possibility indicates same sex attraction by Pelosi.
The machine are you worse [so we are unleashing the] – Following the FS, we may interpret it as ‘unleashing the machine’. But, interestingly, Pelosi said ‘are you worse’ in a somewhat robotic fashion. But what does ‘are you worse’ refer to – if a gay person like Buttigieg, then there may be judgement over his sexuality (note next reversals), or if it refers to ‘the machine’, does it mean that unleashing the machine is worse?
He’s kiss a crime, he’s kissin’ a no-no [when women succee]d, A[merica succeed] Although /h/ is not obvious, I assume [he’s]. However, in light of the constructions of the two clauses perhaps it is meant to be [his]. So in interpretation, we can interpret it as ‘his kissing (men) is a crime. In the following clause, either he’s kissin’ someone who is a ‘no-no’, in other words, gay, or ‘his kissin’ is a no-no’. So, we see that although someone is open and supportive of gay people, there can be subconscious artefacts that oppose this.
At least I warn you [we know what he doe]sn’t [warn] could be [won]. In addition there is a word following which is like [up]. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it belongs to this reversal string. However, if it does, perhaps the word is meant to be [wind] – [At least I wind you up] – as in she wants to wind up Trump. The vowel is imprecise, but the /d/ in [wind] could be dropped in normal speech. I will assume At least I warn you
I have first presented 3 reversals in the 9 second forward speech section. However, there are other potential reversals which seem to relate to the topic. These reversals are presented in the second and third audio below.
The reversals appear to relate to a sexual internalisation which may have been real or imagined by the subconscious. The reversals indicate a desire to kiss somoene, if ‘that girl’, then another female. There is also a fear of it as either taboo, or that she would get into trouble – (r)ub it off, on the face know we kiss.
RS: Hurry, clash – On the face, know we kiss – wan(t)o pash
FS: by [championing a w]oman’s right to choose and defending Roe v Wade. [Securing safe and a]ffordable [childcare]. Preserving social security and passing equal pay …
RS: Hurry clash – rub it off – on the face know we kiss
rub it off comes behind [affordable]. There is an /l/ rather than /r/ however. /f/ may not be so obvious at the end, however, at this position, there is an /f/ in the FS. So, it is possible that this section, which is separated from other sounds is three statements long.
RS: This girl – wan(t)o pash
Separated by 2 syllables of gibberish, it may be that the first part says ‘that girl’, though it is somewhat ambiguous.
RS: He loosed Chirac the mystic God – They test for laugh/lab.
He killed her wolf, they they test for laugh/lab
Joe Biden’s faith in [God gives him the courage to lead]. Joe Biden’s love gives him the strength to persevere. Joe Biden is the president we need right now – [battle tested, forward looking], honest and authentic.
He loosed Chirac the mystic God [God gives him the courage to lead] – This sounds like she is saying that Biden ‘loosed’ an inner (Jacques) Chirac, who her subconscious considered a ‘mystic God’.
They test for laugh/lab [battle tested] Hard to know what this is about. Though, Biden ‘loosing’ his inner Chirac the mystic God is somewhat amusing.
He killed her wolf [forward looking] [wolf] is ok, however, the construction of the rest is dubious, although it sounds like it on a surface level. Perhaps these are just coincidental sounds.
RS: It’s dark, come outside the zipper – I could see that/Dad; Soon/Sin cried the dark, could we stunt
In that spirit we come together now; [not to decry the darkness], but to light a way forward for our country – [that is the guid]ing [purpose of House Democrats].
Pelosi talks of darkness and light. She mentions [dark] twice in reverse behind different words; actually even ossibly three times behind different words, except that one was [dyark].
It’s dark, come outside the zipper – I could see that/Dad [that is the guid]ing [purpose of House Democrats]
We may have come outside, it’s dark (inside), but there is a sexual nature with [come outside the zipper] – either in putting herself in front of a zipper, or with the penis outside the zipper, ejaculating. Her subconscious states that she could see either ‘that’ or ‘Dad’. There are two syllables of possible gibberish separating the two parts. This is where [dyark] occurs.
Sin/Soon cried the dark, could we stunt [not to decry the darkness] This is either [sin] or [soon]. The vowel is short and comes at [ness]. Although [soon] has a long vowel, in speech, it can be quite short, and there can be some roundedness occurring from the unstressed vowel in FS [ness]. Either could be considered. However, [sin] is probably more relatable. I assume [stunt] rather than [stun], though it is possible.
We see something hidden in the ‘dark’ spaces of Pelosi that could be related to something of a sexual nature.
FS: To win the vote, women marched and fought and never gave in. We stand on their shoulders, charged with carrying forward the unfinished work of our nation [advanced by heroes], [from Seneca F]alls, to Selma, to Stonewall.
Story helped saved it [advanced by heroes] Mentioning these three locations (which have stories behind them) either helped ‘save’ her line of speech, or helped save the work of these women.
Fuckin’ asthma [from Seneca F] This seems unrelated to the other reversal. Lack of [th] in [asthma] is not really an issue as that is typical in FS.
[He know] does not have the verb matching the pronoun in number. Message is still clear, however. But, perhaps it is meant to be [you]. With the other word, it can sound like [we], however, it seems the [‘ll] is likely to be there. A pertinent reversal seeing the attacks on history.
Nearly have an affair – warn her or Nearly havin’ a fail – warn her/Say [h]ello [to] you rat/A demon/See the lock on it, face soul/We fitter
Nearly have an affair – warn her or Nearly havin’ a fail – warn her
I kept [have an]/[havin’] together as the /v/ naturally links the two words. The same with [warn her].
[Nearly have an affair – warn her] may refer to Trump or not. On closer listening the word is more [fail]. If so, this may be Ocasio-Cortez’s subconscious reacting negatively to her efforts and desires to warn her. However, the end of [affair] can be influenced by the following sound in speech, and one can suppose that the /w/ in [warn] has influenced the word to sound like [fail]. Therefore, we can consider both alternatives.
Say hello to you rat This is not a good reversal. In normal speech, sounds can often become altered as the speaker articulates and they interplay with each other. Nevertheless, one has to decide if there is too much wrong with it compared to right. [Say] is closer to [see]. No /h/ on [hello], but this is probably not an issue. There does appear to be an extra short syllable after [hello]. This is a change in vowel sound after [hello] like [ee]. On a surface listening it can give one the impression of [to] although it doesn’t actually say [to], or one can gloss over it completely and just consider it as [hello you]. The effect of the potential extra syllable changes what she is saying – from telling someone to say hello to saying hello to that someone. With [rat] one may perceive a final /p/, however, /t/ is also perceivable and is closer to the FS sound it comes from.
[Say hello to you rat] may refer to Trump as may [a demon].
She states [See the lock on it, face soul] when she refers to an economy that rewards explosive inequalities of wealth for the few. With [we fitter], this suggests that she believes that she and her group will be better to lead.
/t/ on the end of [fight] is not clear, but this may be ok. Straight after she states [hurry, fight for color] see says ‘out of a love for all people’, in Spanish then in English, which indicates that she is referring to those of ‘color’ only. [See a crowd] indicates that she has an audience for it.
He’s your comet/Makes you sow, carrot say it’s ti(m)e to grow.
She is talking about the grassroots campaign that was organised. She endorses Sanders in this speech (as per DNC requirements). Pehaps if [comet] is a positive metaphor, then this refers to Sanders. The closest word at the end of the next section is [sow] as in female pig, so I will assume that. Carrot has a bit of a /w/ in it but it is ok. It is interesting that she refers to ‘grassroots’ in the forward speech, as it refers to ordinary people growing something from the soil. The reversals seem to connect to this idea. – time to grow [carrots] and even perhaps [sow] as an animal that may seem fertile and productive yet gets down in the mud and dirt. Note that there is /n/ instead of /m/ in [time], however I still consider this worthwhile for consideration.
You must see sober. Bush had given up alcohol previously. It is likely that Bush realises he needs to be clear-headed in order to face the challenges ahead. This may have triggered the association with lack of clear-headedness and drinking or the need to be clear-headed and the need to stop drinking, which would still lie in the subconscious mind. It depends on how one interprets the interaction of the subconscious with the conscious mind. One may view it, alternatively, as the subconscious providing a warning in the form of an analogy.
(Nov 7 2002) Bush made a sarcastic comment about all the advice he was getting. In reverse he stated:
Be law. They shoot Powell (referring to Colin Powell).
(October 11, 2001). Bush talks about repairing the Pentagon after the damage from 911. He says in reverse: Sure, after we move it. This could indicate a desire or intention to relocate certain operations of the Pentagon elsewhere.
(December 12, 2001) Bush was having trouble with the Senate at this time, and if I remember correctly, with some fairly new Senators. He states in reverse:
Senate. They’re all first year losers.
On October 4, 2002 a Democrat Congressman gave the following reversals when Congress was discussing what to do with Saddam Hussein.
In this one he is likely to be referring to George Bush – The lyin’ dickhead. And they all throw up. Hurl in it. The speaker uses two words that mean to vomit, show disgust – throw up and hurl.
He also stated in reverse – They’ll see a war.
(January 27, 2002) Terrorist you bet was in Tehran.
FS: America must [not rest until every terrorist] group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
(September 13, 2001) Two days after 911, Bush states in reverse:
I heard Libya
In October 2001, An interview with a Taliban spokesman asked if he thought the USA would ever catch Osama Bin Laden brought this reversal:
Bin Laden spoke in Arabic and produced English in reverse. He spoke English to a degree. In this reversal (I have it as December 2001 release), he said in reverse:
(September 2002). Bush was asked if he thought Bin Laden was dead. He replied with this is reverse:
One of our raids annulled him. We have the word ‘annul’ in the past tense form, which means to declare invalid, no longer having legal existence, but also, simply to do away with, put an end to, or reduce to nothing. Then we have the word ‘raid’. Is ‘annulled’ a way of saying he was killed’, because we have ‘raid’? If so, then the subconscious is not giving the actual truth, as we know now that Bin Laden was killed much later. He was killed by a raid, however. Yet it is in past tense. Is Bush’s words/thoughts simply triggering associated desires held in his subconscious mind? It is quite reasonable to assume that having a U.S. raid take him out would be the ultimate outcome for Bush. This is informative. People have called Reverse Speech. ‘the ultimate truth detector’. If that were so, then Bin Laden had been taken out and the information hadn’t been shared publicly. But this is not so. Therefore, it is only a ‘truth’ held by the subconscious. It is not a manifested reality. Of course, subconsciously held thoughtforms can cause the owner to manifest those beliefs in the external world, but it does not mean this will occur. Nevertheless, it actually did occur, eventually, but not under George Bush’s watch. That said, the word ‘annulled’ doesn’t actually mean ‘killed’. One might argue that by September 2002, Bin Laden’s ability to influence and direct had been severely handicapped. He would have been on the run, travelling through mountainous territory. due to U.S. operations against him. So, it could be accurate that Bush didn’t know whether he was alive or dead, but he knew that his ability to act was removed.
An amusing reversal by Bush on October 2, 2001:
FS: Gotta make sure demand for US products [stay strong].
FS: It’s almost like his heart wasn’t in what he was speaking about, and the problems around 911 were occupying his mind.
Bush in his 2004 election debate was speaking about those harboring a terrorist were equally as guilty. He states:
Iraq we roll/we’re rollin’ ‘n they blast the terrorist. The months of September/October/November 2004 saw the US launch heavy assaults against Falluja. The reversal indicates an aggressive push by the US to defeat the militants. Terrorist, though not a precise descriptive word is a likely word of association.
Oct 12, 2002, Bush was talking about a final agreement with Congress. The day before Congress had conditionally approved military action against Saddam Hussein. In reverse he appears to state:
And you goin’ off/go now to talk to Chirac.
FS: And I look forward to signing this good piece of legislation if and when it gets to my de … [Congress is close to a final agreement]
Gaining the support of Jacque Chirac, President of France would have been a priority for Bush. If /f/ is considered to be extraneous frication, the reversal would be [go now].
Tell why I’ll sign it.
FS: … deal with threats before it’s too late. [And that’s why I went] into the United Nations the other day.
I don’t have the date for this anymore. I assume it is 2002 when Bush was garnering support for invading Iraq.
(January 25, 2002) Bush is with a lady in the White House, making a joke about a painting. He says in reverse: Hide the wanker. Mama. This may refer to subconscious embarrassment over his words. There may also be a mother connection. The word [thing] seems to occur before it as in [Thing hide the wanker. Mama] (I haven’t included it here). Perhaps this refers to a subconscious memory of not wanting his mother to catch him ‘wanking’ his ‘thing’!
Gonna fuck myself (July 11, 2002)
FS: this is probably not to your liking by the way, you love those court [fights, I’m confident] it makes great cover and great stories.
Perhaps he is worried about a negative press reaction.
A peek at the elicits in the car, will bomb. (October 2001?)
FS: [The Iraqi regime] bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed [mobile weapons facilities to keep a step a]head ahead of weapon’s inspectors.
Behind ‘The Iraqi regime’, there is [amnesia we carry]. Bush produces this in the sounds of the phrase. Here he is in October 2002 producing the reversal exactly the same:
FS: … by taking these steps and by only taking these steps, [the Iraqi regime] has an opportunity to avoid conflict.
Abdullah Abdullah was a senior member of the Northern Alliance and Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time of 911 and the overthrow of the Taliban. Early in the campaign against the Taliban and Bin Laden, there was frustration that the Northern Alliance, supported by the U.S. was ineffective. Abdullah Abdullah gave the reversal below in a media conference. It is a very long reversal which is continuous. The reversal states:
They blew it up at night. Powell wasn’t there. That is not right. Then they give us this stuff.
Powell, of course, was Colin Powell, Secretary of State at that time. By this reversal, it appears that Abdullah was frustrated himself about apparent level of support and equipment that the Northern Alliance was getting from the U.S.
I discovered in the late 90s that people speaking in a different language who had a level of English knowledge could give reversals in English. This is now accepted in Reverse Speech. I found many on Bin Laden, for example. Here are some from Muammar Gaddafi from 2003. I found him to be most amusing in his reversals. The first one states:
Fuckin’ laughing man. In this reversal he sounds as if he were stoned!
In this one, he states:
I’m a beautiful person.
Here he may refer to George Bush.
He has buffalo look. He’s an American. I hear your horsey. This appears to be a reference to a cowboy stereotype.
Perhaps in the next reversal, Gaddafi refers to the 1986 attempt to get him by the US/UK.
Condoleezza Rice was George Bush’s National Security Advisor during the campaign against Al Qaida in Afghanistan.
Here, she states in reverse:
North people we had deal, Bin Laden shot. I believe this is from November 2001. North people would refer to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. In her forward speech she talked about surrounding and destroying Al Qaida members who were on the run. Clearly, she wanted action from the Northern Alliance regarding Bin Laden.
Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence in the Bush era. In October 2001 he was talking about giving support to forces that opposed the Taliban. He produced a reversal indicating frustration at the ineffectiveness of current forces.
They cannot kill in any force. See that pressure.
In October 2001, talking about terrorism, he stated in reverse:
Call police. Make your break snake.
This probably means use authority and force to hunt down Al Qaida/Taliban, or individually, Bin Laden, daring the ‘snake’ to break out from hiding and make a run for it.
November 17 2001, Rumsfeld again used ‘snake’. He was speaking about the problems of releasing foreign fighters where they would destabilise other areas. He stated in reverse:
Snake fightin’ on.
October 2001, Rumsfeld referred to General Richard Myers, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs in 2001, in reverse. Rumsfeld was explaining some confusion about where an attack was coming from, saying it was actually AAA from the ground, not fire from above. He stated:
Myer in muff. Although his name actually ends in /s/, the reversal is still worth noting. From this we get the idea that he believes that Myer messed up.
January 2002 Rumsfeld talks about using Afghan’s in the fight against the Taliban, and where not U.S, forces. He states in reverse:
You fuck it up. Once again, we see an ineffectiveness in operations.By this time Bin Laden had well and truly disappeared.
December 2001, Rumsfeld was talking about operations against terrorists. He stated in reverse:
His sex is’91. This could refer to George Bush, and what ‘gets him off’ is the success of the 1991 Gulf War under his father.
Here are some from General Richard Myers, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Bush administration. These reversals came from the later period of 2001, in the early days of the Afghanistan campaign.
Giving an operations update, he sates, See you lost the 4. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember finding this in the morning, and then hearing on the news later that day that 4 soldiers were killed.
Talking about the latest on fighters in the caves, he states in reverse, I heard there’s a fire, who’s missin’
Giving another operations update about satellite imagery, he states in reverse, And I had missed it (Note above Rumsfeld’s comments of Myer in muff, and you fuck it up).
Another one – So we hit him first.
Showing an image of a hit on a terrorist training camp, he seems to state Terrorist you know they hit. Overall, a bit ambiguous. Of course, ‘terrorist’ can sound like ‘tourist’ here, however, the second syllable can drop out to a degree in forward speech. (Yet, one could entertain that he indeed is saying ‘tourist’ and he is talking about intel on a possible attack on a tourist area).
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”.