Archive

Tag Archives: Reverse Speech

Burke Ramsey police interview https://reversespeechanalysis.org/2017/09/19/burke-ramsey-police-interview-1997-reverse-speech/

Patsy Ramsey 911 call here https://reversespeechanalysis.org/2017/06/16/patsy-ramsey-911-call/

John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey reversals from the Dr Phil interviews

JOHN RAMSEY

John Ramsey: RS: ⁵Now I’m numb – ⁴the boy – her he hit 

FS: … took her ups¹[tairs and laid] ²[her, and I didn’t] ³[I wa, I guess I was] ⁴[taking her to help in] ⁵[my min]d, I didn’t ⁶[perhaps wanted to accept that she was dead].

Where he says ‘in my mind’, he states that he feels numb.

Note the construction of the remainder – the subject first (the boy), then the object (her), and then the subject again (he)  followed by the verb (hit) as a way of expressing “The boy hit her”.

There are other potential reversals behind the FS, however, there is greater ambiguity. These may be added later.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

John Ramsey: RS: ¹Serious murder; ²Burke get that  

FS: ¹[I picked her up] car²[ried her upstairs]; I d³[on’t know what I was think]ing but I was just horrified I couldn’t speak, I was just …

murder – There is an extra syllable in the FS after “murder” in reverse. There is [p] at the point of [m] in “murder”, but is close enough to [m] to be “murder”. However the softness of [p] may give some the impression of “hurt her” rather than “murder”.

Burke get that– The alveolar in “picked” [d] disappears in the RS leaving only an aspiration similar to a voiceless labial-velar fricative. The velar [k/g] begins on “get” with a natural elision of the [k] in “Burke” as it would occur in FS (in the audio where I have separated “Burke” I show the ending, which is the natural beginning of “get”). Note: a general listening may give some the sense of ‘did’ rather than ‘get’.

John Ramsey seems to point to Burke’s responsibility in the harming of Jon Benet.

There are other potential reversals. Here is one. The other may be added later:

³Get some marijuana   

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

John Ramsey: RS: So wowser, hurt ass in my plot  

FS: Linda Arndt [knelt down beside her as I was] and felt for a pulse and looked me in the eye and said she’s dead.

in my plot” shows that Ramsay concocted a plan.

Wowser originates from Australia, but is known in America. Calling someone a wowser means that their sense of morality seeks to deprive others of what is considered sinful, immoral behaviour. The reversal starts immediately after saying the detective’s name.

If “hurt ass” refers to the topic of the speech, Linda Arndt, perhaps the “voice” considers that she is harming herself by falling into the trap set by Ramsey.

However, an alternative meaning is based on viewing the ‘voice’ as a semi-autonomous aspect of the person’s personality which is referring to the speaker (Ramsay) himself. Here, this subconscious aspect of Ramsey devised the plot (and influenced the man), and refers to Ramsey as a wowser ( a moraliser). As to “hurt ass”, this could refer to Ramsay’s ‘ass’ getting hurt (because he did something illegal), or to a more general, wider field of people (law enforcement, Ramsay’s etc).

RS: Said so I understand  

FS: [and that’s when I was just] .. stunned

“I understand” is somewhat imprecise, but reasonably there. This reversal comes after Arndt telling Ramsay, Jon Benet was dead. It is probably confirmation that he understands this.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

RS: So wet on the corpse. The boy, so we know it 

FS: so I wasn’t surprised that the glass wa[s broken but I was] surprised that [the window was open].

When JB mentioned the glass was broken he stated the body was wet. When he mentioned the window was open, he mentioned what could be ‘the boy’.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

RS: Saw it there ‘n did that one 

FS: and her hands were tied over her head she had tape on her mouth and took the tape off, her eyes were closed .. (Dr Phil) Could you at that point perceive her injuries at the time, could you see her neck and her head  (JR) [No, I didn’t I, there was] …

saw it – [there was]  The linking /r/ between the two words is a normal occurrence in the English language.

there – [I]  The release if [I] creates some perception of a consonant initial in the RS. An approximation of the word only.

‘n did [didn’t]

that one [no, I] The constriction occuring after the release of [no] and the onset of [I] allows some perception that /t/ is meant to be there. [th] comes from the release of [I] and the onset of /d/ in [didn’t]. The sound of /w/ in [one] comes from the rounded vowel [o] in the FS.

What was mentioned in the FS was tied hands, tape on her mouth, and perceiving injuries. JR seems to mention that he saw it (whether this was the tied hands and tape mouth or the injuries), and he appears to say that he did that (again, whether it was the tied hands and taped outh or the injuries.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

BURKE RAMSEY

Burke Ramsey: Here is one from Burke Ramsey in the Dr Phil interview, September 2016.

RS: Mum out there. Remember answer  

FS: The [first thing I remember is my Mum] bursting in my room really frantic saying like oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, running around my room looking for Jon Benet.

There is no [b] in “remember”, however I think this does not exclude it as the documented reversal.

This could indicate coaching from his parents when he was a child, or even refer to a rehearsed response to his mother.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

RS: ¹Near you find killer but/²Must serve the girl – too hot/³They rape brother I show ya 

FS: Dr Phil When you talk to her what would you say?

Burke Ramsey: ²[oh just like if there’s some] important thing I was doing like hey thanks for looking out for me and ¹[( ) really looking out for me], and, you know, hope you’re having fun up there ‘cause I’m takin’ some tests you know like, ³[like I wish I was up there righ]t now …

I have mixed the order up as they come behind the forward speech.

Near you find killer but: Burke thanks Jon Benet for looking out for him. The first word is closest to ‘near’, which, of course means the killer is near. If it is Burke, is the response to Dr Phil (as Burke is right in front of him), or to Jon Benet as her brother?

Must serve the girl – too hot: This may indicate feelings of guilt towards Jon Benet. The last part and the next reversal below indicate a classic Christian fear of a hellish afterlife. ‘Too hot’ may refer to a fear of going to hell.

They rape brother I show ya: Burke says he wishes he was with JonBenet (in the afterlife). Like ‘too hot’, the aspect of his subconscious which contains concepts of Hell is informing him what could happen to him.

There is another potential reversal. Burke says he hopes Jon Benet is having fun ‘up there’, and immediately after gives this reversal. Some of it has a sing-song quality with ‘I’ as a double syllable. However, the ending of ‘sa’ is a problem and makes it sound illogical – Girl I think you’re (sack/sat?) – unless the final word is meant to be ‘sad’.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

RS: So I had it out – simmer kill 

FS: They showed me a picture of the baseball bat like [on the side of the house] or something.

Burke was asked about his baseball bat (considered a possible weapon), which was found at the side of the house. He had stated that he normally leaves it outside on the patio. His reversal states he had it out, but that language implies it was out for a particular purpose. The last part of the reversal can indicate motivating purpose. It can also sound like ‘summer’, but ‘simmer’ is more logical. Simmer indicates restrained anger over a period of time.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

From extract of Trump speech August 31, 2016

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

RS: Hurt ‘em

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

Immediately after this FS, he states:

RS: They’ll know we wreck

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

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

___________________________________________________________________________

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

FS: [Then there is the issue of se]curity; countless innocent American lives have been stolen because our politicians have failed in their duty to secure our borders and enforce our laws ….

Perhaps smelling your cheese is the old schoolyard prank where someone gets another to put his nose near their closed fist and duly gets a punch in the nose. Perhaps it is a throwback to foreigners and their cheese (non-Anglo-Saxon), and suggesting they are here, you know they are here, you can smell them by their traditions.

___________________________________________________________________________

RS: We’ll bar for them in Norfolk

RS: Soon I get clover

… [the fundamental problem] with the immigration system in our country is it serves the needs [of wealthy donors], political activists and powerful, powerful  politicians.

Trump pays visits to Norfolk/Virginia Beach in Virginia and gives speeches. He was only there around 3 weeks earlier and actually went there days later. ‘Bar’ has different meanings, and one is to prevent someone from doing something. ‘for’ throws up a grammar and semantic issue, but without it, it would be ‘bar them’. ‘Clover’ brings up the concept of acquiring wealth. He states this when he mentions wealthy donors.

___________________________________________________________________________

¹Heal Hillary

FS: Anyone who tells you that he core issue is the needs of [²those living] [¹here illegally] has simply spent too much time in Washington.

Immediately following is what appears to be:

²in/an evil sword 

After the long [e] at the end of “Hillary”, there is a change in reversal starting with a very short [i] before [n]. In FS, “in evil” naturally has the [n] joining “evil”. However, some [n] articulation occurs in ”in”, and this is lacking here. This combined with the stronger second syllable in “evil”, and the [z] is “sword”, makes this a less than perfect reversal.

“Heal Hillary” appears to be sound, while the remainder may or may not be genuine.

____________________________________________________________________________

RS: Yeah did get ISIS in the crime

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

_________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

A few seconds later Trump seems to say:

RS: Sucks [  ?] I saw you

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

I have taken an interest in a webpage on http://reversespeech.com/reversal/did-we-go-to-the-moon-or-not/ I have listened to a few of the reversals. I am not conspiracy-minded myself, but I would like to make comments about some the reversals presented, as well as present some more that lie behind the forward speech.

The numbered reversals are the reversals documented on the webpage, while BA is my take on what is there. Reversal 1 etc refers to the Reversal number on the webpage.

Reversal 1

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

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

FS: 

When splitting into two sections, I can hear language that is like “Apollo 11” (11 roughly so), and “no perfect” (without [t] in ‘not’).  “Perfect” is possible, however, I put forward the possibility of “carpet” – the initial consonant may be heard as [p], but also [k]. Rather than“11”, it could be “he left on”, or “who left on” – if “who” the bilabial approximate [w] comes off the rounded final vowel in “Apollo”. Here it is as “he/who left on a And. rather than “not”, it becomes  o[n a].

This occurred at lift off. If “carpet”, it sounds like a fantasy as in “magic carpet ride”. Whether one wants to interpret that as just that – a fantasy – and therefore not really happening, or, alternatively,  as an expression of the magical and brilliant event that was occurring, flying into the sky …. that will be determined by the bent of one’s character.

____________________________________________________________________

Reversal 3

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

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

FS: 

It could be “camera 4” rather than bad rapport . The initial sound is a wildcard and can be heard differently; however [c] is just as likely as anything else. [m], [r], as well as [f], and [or] in “4” come from the sounds in “roll from” in the FS

It is very fast, but I agree with “I come init is the first word that is unknown, and it could represent different words. It has a bilabial quality, so I am going to assume ‘but’ 

There are words preceding which appear to be part of the reversal with “camera 4”. They start when Klondike finishes talking – “I’m from” or “Come from” or “I come”, but it is not clear 

In this case, this would refer to the capturing of the lift off through the organisation and direction of the cameras.Note in the forward speech the speaker said something about get a roll …….

____________________________________________________________________

Reversal 5

  1. Hyena Paranoid 

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

FS: 

First, there is a reversal before it – The outfit cuff you. Of course, ‘cuff’ someone would indicate limiting a person’s ability to take action/say something etc. “Outfit” would be the organisation. At the end of this and the onset of the next reversal, there is an [r], so it comes out as Ryena(‘s) paranoid. [R] cannot be separated from it.  It sounds like the name of a female.

There is another reversal: Fire, [I] was in the co(ck)pit (cockpit). Alternatively, it would have to be File was in the co(ck)pit. There is a small syllable in between ‘Fire’ and ‘’was’’, which I will assume to be “I” 

Fire    I was in the co(ck)pit 

If File    was in the co(ck)pit  

___________________________________________________________________

Reversal 7

  1. Man will space walk

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

FS: 

I think “Man will” is “Never”. Never – [N] comes from ma[n]; m in [m] remains a fricative in the RS – the mouth moves towards a  labial position, but  frication continues to occur giving an sense of the labial [v] in ne[v]er. In the FS [f] is “for” disappears.

Here it is without the [N], as ‘ever‘   Here it is with the [N] included Never

It is possible there is meant to be an [s] sibilant at the end of “space walk“ and it is space walks”; however, this is not necessarily so, and can be seen as space walk, also.  

Then there is the word “know” followed by a possible “that” disappearing into poor audio quality. There is a very short syllable before “know” that is like an unpronounced schwa. This may or may not be meant as “I”. I know that  

With “never”, I find a consistency in the emotional expression of the whole message. There is almost a feeling of pained thought or sorrow in the way the reversal is uttered.

As a future tense, “man will” would appear inaccurate as man had already space walked. Neil Armstrong, though, never did space walk, while Buzz Aldrin did. Therefore, it may simply refer to the fact that he had not, or in fact ever would space walk.

__________________________________________________________________

Reversal 10

  1. There is shit.
  2. There is shit. We need to fry the head. Near blood. It’s terrible.

BA: Near pod, it’s terrible. They’re ashamed o’ that. There is shit. They/He knew to/need to buy/fry the head.  

FS: 

There may be a reversal before “There is shit”, although it is not all clear and it is ‘disintegrating’ towards the end:

They’re ashamed o’ that 

Here is They’re ashamed o(f). In natural speech, [f] can be left off 

Here is that. Although messy, it is possible 

The alveolar in the middle is messy, but ‘need to’ is possible, and it could even be heard as ‘nigger’. But it called be “knew to”.

There is shit; they knew 

to buy/fry the head 

In regard to ‘blood’, there is an [l] in ‘develop’ from the FS. However, I believe it disappears to a significant degree in the RS, and the RS has become “pod” (a cross between [b] and [p]). Near pod, it’s terrible 

Pod could refer to either the re-entry vehicle or the Lunar module. “Head” does not necessarily refer to a human head, but could be machinery.

 

__________________________________________________________________

Reversal 14

  1. In a movie now

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

FS: 

There is a lot more happening around these words. It appears to start Let’s kiss old Sue/who in a movie now. On listening you notice that it is particularly hard to catch “Sue who”, and instead may be heard as ‘server’. However, I have consistently come across this in RS, where one reversal statement ends, and the next follows immediately on, and general listening does not capture that break. Separated, it comes out as follows:

(L)et’s kiss old Sue 

Who in a movie now 

This is followed by First now kiss her 

However, this may not be all. Following on immediately is possibly:

Surf with her from (Churliss) (I have written it as it sounds. It may not mean anything, however).  

And, the whole lot together:

Let’s kiss old Sue/who in a movie now/First now kiss her/ Surf with her from Sherliss. 

So, it seems, the whole time, Aldrin’s subconscious is thinking about a girl from his past. As he said in the FS, ‘sequence of rendezvous maneouvres’, lol. This shows that what comes from the subconscious may not be about the topic at hand, but a trigger occurs from the topic creating a past memory experience.

________________________________________________________________

Reversal 15

  1. My fraud 

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

FS: 

There is [h] about the start, but the force can give one the perception of [k]. It may or may not be a reversal. Before ‘my fraud’ is “Concert to’’, which indicates a mutual agreement to the fraud. Concert to my fraud 

The initial is also heard as an alveolar like [t] or [d]. I put forward the possibility that is is meant to be a [k] initial in ‘concert’.

_______________________________________________________________

Reversal 6

Documented reversal: Joke engineered now  

FS: 

An overall listening gives a sense of the documented reversal. However, there is a double syllable occurring where ‘en’ is documented. This is behind the FS a[s you get]. In reverse there are the sounds of “take – izh”. “gineered” is dominating, so the mind can gloss over this to hear just “engineered”. So, the issue here is, was the subconscious actually producing “engineered”?

I cannot be confident of that. I will try an alternative. Over 6 seconds, there appears to be a group of reversals. This starts with:

Her die, but gal fell off or Her life but gal fell off  In this case the alveolar in ‘’life” is meant to be [l]. ‘Her die’ is not grammatically correct. However, I recognise that this may occur at times.

There was joke/They’re a joke  In deciding which one, one has to decide if there is supposed to be [s] on the end of “was”. This is quite reasonable as it would tend to combine with the [j]. There is also a [w] formed from the rounded vowel in “to” in the FS. Nevertheless, “They’re a” is also reasonable. Is it meant to be “joke”. Yes, possibility; it comes behind “close to”, so the [k] comes from [c] and the [j] comes from the combination of the sounds clo[se t]o. Note, the word “then” appears to occur first, however I did not include it for sake of clarity, and because its removal doesn’t affect meaning.

Injured, neared now  I will assume “injured” is the beginning of the next comment. “neared now” is a question of whether it belongs with “injured” or the next comment, “The Earth, the Earth”. There is no pause after “injured”, however, I am unconcerned about that as one comment following another does not always have a pause, in my experience. Of course, this also may be heard as “engineered now”. But note – there is an syllable between “joke” and “engineered” (“take” mentioned above, leaving the sound “izh” or “ezh” as the beginning of “engineered”). I am uncomfortable that there would be an extra syllable as gibberish, unless it was meant to be incorporated into the first syllable of “engineered”, but is just imprecise.

The Earth, the Earth 

Armstrong descends the ladder on the LEM. His subconscious may remember a female who fell, where maybe a joke as played, and she was injured (maybe even died). In this case the movement down the ladder triggered the subconscious meandering. With “The Earth, the Earth”, his subconscious may again have come back to the current situation.

However, if it is “They’re a joke”, this may not have anything to do with the scenario just mentioned. If it is meant to be “engineered now”, then it may read as “They’re a joke – engineered now – The Earth, the Earth”.

 

Other links

Isaac Reinwand – Deorr Kunz case

Vernal Deorr Kunz, Jessica Mitchell – Reverse Speech of 2016 interview

Jessica Mitchell 911 call – Deorr Kunz

Here is a selection of reversals from the first 5 minutes of Isaac’s interview.

RS: Yeah unreliable. Someone near/there, getting(?) life  or

Yeah unreliable. Someone near get/need a knife  

There is uncertainty over some words. It is important to investigate the alternatives. Isaac is responding to a question about his impression of Jessica and Vernal when he gives this reversal. In the first version, it is ‘getting’, or ‘giving’ or ‘needing’. In the second version, it is ‘get a knife’ or ‘need a knife’. You need to weigh up what it sounds like in the overall utterance, and what it sounds like as a single word. Of course, in forward speech, when listening to an isolated word, you can find it doesn’t quite sound like what you know the person is saying, which you have gathered from a macro listening using grammar, syntactic, and contextual clues. Yet, at the same time, you can’t always trust a macro listening, as what you initially thought something was, turns out to be something else. When there is uncertainty, you need to look at its grammatic and syntactic suitability, and its contextual appropriacy, yet at the same time, guard against accepting what you want to hear, or expect to hear. If it were ‘giving’ or ‘needing’, it remains vague. ‘Getting life’ as in life in prison is less vague and more contextually appropriate. However, once again, one needs to guard against wanting to hear something. If is were ‘get a knife’ or ‘need a knife’, it could reveal:

  • someone near an unreliable person should protect themselves, or alternatively, ought to use it,
  • someone actually got knifed or will get knifed by an unreliable person, or
  • someone near and the unreliable person is one and the same, and ought to be knifed.

There are other reversals that indicate Isaac is critical of someone in the group.

Immediately after giving the reversal as he was describing them as an average family, he stated that he ‘trusted Bob though’, and gave what could be another reversal which sounds something like:

You were involved, destruct shit  

The [b] sounds in ‘Bob’ take on enough of a fricative quality to accept the possibility of [v] sounds in ‘involved’. [d] at the end of ‘involved’ quite naturally disappears to a certain extent before consonants in following words, and of course, does so with the [d] in ‘destruct’. I initially thought that it might have been ‘destruction’ with a loss of the [n]; however, there is a [t], and I have documented it as it sounds – ‘destruct shit’. This, of course, can be coincidental-sounding gibberish. One does not have to, nor shouldn’t just accept everything that may sounds like language. If this section was valid (and remember, that is not necessarily so), who is Isaac referring to then? Vernal or Bob, or someone else?

RS: The fun’s over, I’ve said it; I do not tell him the fun’s over  

Isaac was saying that Vernal Deorr and Jessica Mitchell decided to go down to the store to get gas, but when they got there it was closed. At that point, he gives the reversal. This appears to be what is going through his subconscious in response to his experiences or beliefs regarding what he is speaking about. There is a conflicting statement. One voice states the fun’s over and claims it has been said, and another denies saying anything. What ‘fun’ refers to here, is open to interpretation. For example, something said in response to deciding to get gas, drive all the way down, then finding out it was to no avail (as in fun and games). Alternatively, when one states ‘the fun’s over, they are saying that someone is caught out.

‘over’ lacks an obvious [v] in both times.The first one is really “oh’ra”, while the second is a bit closer with [w]. Nevertheless, I conclude that they are intended to be the word in question.

RS: Lies they grow; he’s dick satan 

Isaac says that when he got up, Jessica, Deorr and Vernal were planning to go and get gas. At the point where he mentions the three names he gives the reversal. It’s possible it may not be ‘lies’. The initial consonant is open to interpretation. It is a reasonable possibility. As often occurs in RS, [t] is glottalised rather than alveolar, and this occurs in ‘satan’. Who is he referring to as dick satan? Vernal? It is also possible that a subconscious aspect may be referring to the speaker himself. If so, it would be an aspect of Isaac that has dislike for Isaac. The pronoun may prove important in this regard in deciding this (such as ‘he’ rather than ‘you’).

RS: No, I don’t need tremors (driver seen no-one)

Isaac is talking about getting up and using the restroom then going back to bed (until midday). He spoke about Bob having whiskey, but said Bob doesn’t drink it; he brought it for others. One would surmise that Isaac was drinking heavily, so he went back to bed and slept the morning.

‘I’ is connected to ‘no’ by [w] which is normal linguistically. Perception of [d] in ‘don’t’ occurs, however sound is more like [n].

No, I don’t need tremors 

Immediately following the reversal, he appears to say a word like ‘driver’, although, once again, the [v] is not evident, and then ‘seen no-one’, with [s] sounding like [z]. Of course, one can’t expect RS sounds to be perfectly articulated – they aren’t in forward speech. If ‘seen no-one’ is valid, perhaps it simply refers to him going back to bed, and not seeing others for a while.

RS: And there’s Dennille; so we, we get high  

A person’s subconscious will respond to triggers and bring up past experiences and internalisations, or it may respond directly to what it happening at the time of speaking. Of course, there was no-one called Dennille (and we do have to be careful when an unknown name arises as it may not be part of a real reversal). If the Dennille section is relevant, it is more likely a trigger to a past experience or something internalised. Alternatively, some of it may be connected (getting high) to what was happening at the time (the night before that morning).

‘high’ is strongly connected to [t] before it, and this reduces [h] initial; however, I conclude that it is more likely ‘get high’ than not.

RS: You said/say Bob  

The interviewer asked if Bob Walton had any whiskey, and Isaac first stated he might have had a couple, then immediately changed his mind and said Bob doesn’t drink anymore. At the point where he changed his mind, he gave the reversal. It is like his own subconscious remarked or complained to him about what he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I have been slow in getting reversals up. I have many, many reversals, but will just put up a few for the moment.

RS: Warned, did they show ya. He’ll lead it.

‘He’ll lead it’ occurs approximately 4 seconds before ‘Warned, did they show ya’. He produced ‘he’ll lead it’ as he was speaking about his love for Americans, but then immediately changed to wishing he knew about his son because he would have done something about it. At ‘I wish I did know’, he produced ‘Warned did they show ya’. A possible interpretation is that he was warned about it, and that Omar would lead something like what he did (Warn(ed), did they show you that he’ll lead it).

RS: Follow your Dad 

The father, speaking out against what his son did, less than two seconds before the interviewer asked a further question relating to Omar Mateen’s son, stated ‘follow your Dad’. Simply in light of the topic that had been occurring, one may consider it to mean, “You should have been like me, your father, and not do those kinds of things”. It is (possibly) interesting to note that it comes at a point where he states that his son is not a terrorist (yet towards the end of the interview, he states that he is!).

All of this aside, however, one can view the reversal in another way: The interviewer brought up, after the reversal, a question about explaining it to his grandson. In this light, ‘follow your Dad’ may then refer to the grandson following the father (Omar). This occurs just before the topic of the grandson comes up. The topic and question would probably have already been forming in the interviewer’s mind when Seddique produced the reversal, and in this sense could be a case of his subconscious picking up information from the subconscious of the interviewer. Alternatively, the subconscious of the interviewer picked up the reversal from Seddique, and it triggered a question about the grandson.

There do appear to be further reversals from the interviewer and Seddique. The interviewer, in his question, said ‘Omar’. When I first heard it overall, I heard ‘That Omar serve(s) nyet/near (or even ‘tear’). Screw you’ (+ extraneous syllable at end). I felt something was wrong around the start of nyet/near and the word itself. For a start, a complete reversal has a certain level of consistency, and the final word before ‘screw’ did not seem to fit the natural flow of the words before it. I realised that it was ‘suit’, and the following word was likely ‘him’, with [m] coming at [p] in ‘explain’’. A comment then follows immediately after – ‘Screw You’, and ends with an extraneous syllable, which I have deleted. I have found that at times there is a final syllable that is extraneous to the reversal. This is one case. So, I believe the most likely reversal is ‘That Omar suit him. Screw ya’.  Listening to the father, even though he lost his son, one can get a sense of the situation somehow suiting his ambitions. The interviewer may be thinking this.

RS: Did his own Fallujah 

Seddique Mateen stated that he did not approve of what his son did, and stated behind those words ‘Did his own Fallujah’. There is a [dy] rather than [j] in ‘Fallujah’, however, it is worthwhile documenting it as a possible reference to the conflict region of the Iraqi city. Isis held the city until recently. Also, [dy] is actually fairly similar in articulation to a the sound of [j]. That would not be the case if it had been [b] or [g] for example.

RS: Force some people in America – Fallujah, Libya 

Seddique Mateen stated again that he doesn’t approve of his son’s act. Behind it he says ‘Force some people in America. ‘people’ is a bit ‘oppressed’ but there. He utters 2 syllables sounding something like ‘Kazoo’, which I am taking as gibberish and have deleted; he then states what appears to be ‘Fallujah, Libya. This is the second time he produced what could be ‘Fallujah’ except that [j] is [dy]. He produced this behind the same words as before ‘I don’t appr]ove’. In RS, reversals occur from individualised alterations in sounds, and also words selected by the speaker. Once again, if real, he refers to recent ISIS activity and conflicts and relates them to activity in America.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

RS: Those Americano … that/they grow terrorist

Seddique is speaking in his native tongue in a video to Afghanistan. Here, he is expressing his dismay about why he did it during Ramadan, and then speaks about how God will punish gays himself. Most of the victims in Florida may be seen as ‘Americano’s’. There is some gibberish afterward followed by that/they grow terrorist. This can be interpreted as blaming behaviours in America for the rise of attacks there.

He also produced another reversal: Who was that? Ease off. Said move ’em. An aspect of his personality may have come into play that is suspicious and looks out for potential. dangers. Interesting that some of it ‘Ease off. Said move ’em’ is produced with a mid – north north west English accent.

RS: We’re the hero 

Again speaking in his Afghani language, Seddique says ‘We’re the hero’. In the FS, he is saying that he doesn’t know what caused him to shoot. I will assume that it is ‘we’re’ and not ‘where’. Interesting use of pronoun. By saying ‘we’re’, it is like he is taking accolades for himself as Omar’s father.

A number of reversals on Bin Laden will be posted here in coming weeks. They are ones that I found many years ago. Bin Laden speaks in Arabic, however, he had a reasonable command of English, and English occurs in the reverse of those speaking another language. If one only knew a very small amount, one could still produce simple phrases such as hello, how are you, etc.

Andrew Card the Whitehouse Spokesman gave the first reversal below in January 2002, soon after Tora Bora and the disappearance of Bin Laden. The first Bin Laden reversal here may be from an October 2002 release and the second from a February 2003 audio release. Both mention what sounds like Samarka. Bin Laden also mentions India in each reversal. It was eventually found that he had been living in Abbottabad near the Indian border. Also, in 2004, there were claims that he was seen in the Ladakh area near Tibet, and within an area controlled by India.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FK03Df05.html

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/11/03/17028911.php?show_comments=1

Andrew Card: Give him chase Samarka; an Afghan’s involved in it   

Give him chase Samarka – kind [of conversation be]cause – [m] in Samarka comes from the movement of [n] to the labial [v]; [g] in RS comes from th onset of [c] in ‘because’; a sense of [v] occurs from the [b] in the FS.

an Afghan’s involved in it [involved in that kind o]f conversation

an Afghan’s [d in that kind o]f – [g] comes from [k] while a sense of [f] occurs through the aspiration after [k] in the FS; a slight frication from the [d] in the FS may give a sense that there could be [‘s] in reverse; [th] and [t] disappear in favour of the [k] and [n] in the FS to produce [ghan]; the vowel beginning this section is separate to the vowel ending the prior words.

involved ‘n it [involved]

FS: I see a need to have the President involved in the kind of conversation because after all Secretary Evans do the right thing …

BL: There’s plenty of time and be in India  

BL: I left Samarka, I will buy it in India  

______________________________________________________________________________________

This came from the Oct 2002 audio release. The audio is not great, however, the following words are reasonably there. As we know, BL had agreement with Pakistani authorities/military to remain in Pakistan. Here, he had an accord, and didn’t need to force the situation (hammer). I assume ‘cell’ phone rather than ‘sell’ phone, where he is using it as a verb. Of course, BL would have wanted to avoid using a cell phone.

BL: Pakistani accord – don’t need a hammer. Mustn’t cell phone – here they’ve got it. 

______________________________________________________________________________________

There was a question over Bin Laden’s health – such as whether he had kidney disease, needed dialysis etc. Here are three reversals which refer to health; the first I think comes from 2002, but I am unsure; the other two apparently are from the February 2003 release. Of course, muscle wasting can occur with chronic kidney disease.

The first reversal is either ‘give man the online doctor’ or ‘give me an online doctor’, suggesting needing contact with a (specialist?) medical advisor.

Ever survivor; give man the online doctor  

He assumed that I was ill (Feb 2003)  

I’d muscle failure; you’ll die threaten the Asia (Feb 2003)  

This study, published in 1993, chiefly looked at the effect of reversals on listeners, and is motivated by previous claims of influence of backward messages in rock music. It does not address Reverse Speech.

In the study, the authors played backward messages to one group and the forward speech content to another group. Afterwards, to both groups, the backward speech examples were played along with other examples which were not in the original examples. Their findings showed that the group that listened to the backward speech were able to recognise more of the actual backward speech played again to them than the ones that heard only the forward speech. As expected in the study, those who heard backward messages were able to recognise more than those who heard the forward speech of the backward examples played again. Acoustics (backward message group) were recognised more than meaning (forward speech group).

A second part to the study had groups read forward speech examples and decide whether they were what they had heard. The forward speech group recognised more of the speech than the backward speech group.This, of course, is understandable. Asking people to recognise the forward speech behind backward speech examples of a set of examples they heard once is asking their conscious mind to recognise something supposedly subconscious, soon after hearing. The conscious mind gets in the way, of course. The subconscious is sub … conscious. Play forward speech statements and then ask a group to recognise typed statements they had heard … well, how significant will the result be compared to the other group? Tests of this sort are only really worthwhile through a longer term observation of behavioural change through the influence of the subconscious. Yet, even then, those who listened to the backward speech recognised the forward statements at a proportion of 0.53 compared to the forward speech listeners at a proportion of 0.55, which is not a great difference.

In any consideration of Reverse Speech, there is little that is particularly informative here – the effect of reversals on the non-speaker listener is of interest, of course; however it is secondary to the consideration of whether real speech occurs, and what this means for the speaker himself. Secondly, asking the conscious mind to simply recognise what the subconscious is supposed to recognise, is just as likely to produce error, and, therefore, having those who heard forward speech and then seeing the typed forward speech, will, naturally, have an outcome greater than one who did not hear it. Thirdly, in Reverse Speech, intelligible language occurs in both modes. This study refers to forward speech played in reverse as gibberish.

A further point – the authors note that subjects were inexperienced at listening to backward speech. They suggested that people who were skilled at converting forward speech into backward speech (and vice versa?) could be good candidates for detection of backward messages. Of course, consciously-aware conversions have little to do with subconscious influences of messages. Again, there is nothing in this that has value in any consideration of Reverse Speech.

Prompted language

The authors state, “the target may be missed many times unless listeners are warned to listen for it”. This is an argument brought up by other researchers such as Newbrook and Curtain (1997) – that suggestion prompts hearing. Their point is quite correct –  suggestion can and does manipulate what people hear/believe etc. And, in regard to listening to backward messages, there is validity in the claim. However, it becomes a case of this can happen, therefore in all situations and cases it can be nothing more than suggestion.

The authors put forward the premise that potential meaning is there, but actualised meaning is not unless it can be heard by the listener. So, for meaning to be actualised, it must be decoded by a listener; therefore, if a listener fails to decode it, then there is no meaning. On the other hand, meaning is simply potential unless there is a listener with the right skill/ability can decode it, such as in understanding a foreign language. Their implication seems to be that, unless listeners can pick up messages independently, free from prompting, the message remains potential, and not actualised; in other words it may not be there at all. A message, then, may not be heard as something easily comprehensible,  and it would require either a particular decoding skill, or someone pointing out that it is there, aka suggestion.

Surely, if a backward message that approximates language is played, it stands to reason that more people will hear the message if pointed out than if not indicated. A study by Thorne and Himelstein (1984) found that 18% of listeners who were told to listen for messages in rock music (but not specifically satanic messages) heard satanic words, while 41% who were told to listen for satanic messages heard them. Of course, people will not always pick up short snippets of language that appear suddenly and unannounced, and that are not well enunciated – if two or three words from rock music, or from fast, casual speech were played amongst gibberish, surely more will pick up language that has been first indicated?

So, yes, there is no argument that people are influenced by verbal suggestion. Yet, if one played short segments of backward messages amongst gibberish, it is understandable that people will be more likely to recognise it if prompted. This, quite frankly, may be found to be true for forward speech. Play rock music or fast casual speech as short snippets of three to six words, and place it amongst gibberish, which group will hear significantly more? The prompted or unprompted group? The fact that more will hear speech that is prompted than unprompted does not ‘prove’ the lack of existence of backward messages. In addition, it must be realised that backward speech is not exactly the same as forward speech. Although many linguistic processes are shared by both modes, backward speech has its own nuances that occur through the subconscious communicating at the same time and space as the conscious speaker. People are not used to hearing speech in its backward mode. Just as people do not hear some accents as well as others, people will be less likely to pick up speech easily (and unprompted) that can be different to what they are used to hearing.

There are three questions that inform my thinking about Reverse Speech.

The first question is, are there substantial amounts of grammatically acceptable, linguistically-viable language in the reverse of speech? The answer is yes, there is. This can be proven. The next question is, can this language inform us about the person? The answer is yes, it does appear so. There is substantial evidence that is contextually/person-relevant (although I admit this can also be a product of projection and wrongful interpretation). The next question is, who/what is producing this language, what is the situation actually referred to, and, who does the message refer to? Any worthwhile interpretation would, and needs depend upon which subconscious aspect is communicating (if one is to differentiate aspects rather than see the subconscious as a single entity), and the actual situation/experience referred to, and who the referent is.

Begg, I. M., Needham, D. R., & Bookbinder, M. (1993). Do backward message unconsciously affect listeners? No. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(1).

Newbrook, M., & Curtain, J. (1997 ). Oates’ theory of Reverse Speech: a critical examination. The Skeptic (17)3

Thorne, S.B., & Himelstein, P. (1984). The role of suggestion in the perception of satanic messages in rock-and-roll recordings. Journal of Psychology (116), 245-248