Reverse Speech

[mojo]

Some insiders share that they have the black box technology to pick up words and sentences in reverse while the spoken word is done in forward speech in real time. There are so many good examples of reverse speech that it statistically goes against random speech patterns.

9r9THfPYAmw

[Shannon]

I can't disagree more....Reverse speech is a dangerous way to go about looking for any truth. It's too easy to find biased "evidence" or "proof"...and i really don't like that it even gets the attention it receives. :/

[Sunny-side-up]

Hidden in Plain-Audio-Sight.

[raregem]

I can't disagree more....Reverse speech is a dangerous way to go about looking for any truth. It's too easy to find biased "evidence" or "proof"...and i really don't like that it even gets the attention it receives. :/

I will give Mr. Oates benefit of the doubt considering his many years of research and strict protocols to accept the reverse speech possibilities.

[AngelEyes]

Curious about this reverse speech...because a youtube video that is circulating shows Obama saying "I love satan" is that the same thing reverse speech? just wondering. seems like they will put anything and everything together to put fear into people. SMH.

[mojo]

yes that is the same thing AngelEyes. Below posted more info and always liked Jon Kelly's reviews of reverse speech...

VFHW_-YSIao

[mojo]

seems like they will put anything and everything together to put fear into people

I don't think people like Jon are fear mongering they simply produce the evidence and let it speak for itself...

[Mutchie]

Whenever i hear about Reverse Speech it reminds me of Peggy Kane ... She was convinced there was a lot more to this than meets the eye

I also saw the reverse speeches of Obama ... I love Satan lol .. I am away to watch the video back soon :sun:

[mojo]

Thanks Mutchie, I also agree there is much more to it. There is interesting idea that communication is multidimensional. It's an intriguing thought. I'm not sure all speech is multidimensional but do believe that certain frequencies that create sound waves like the Golden Mean or Fibonacci or Phi can move into infinity or other dimensions.
Check out one of his analysis below.
cant embed so here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8F_AwcliU

Here is what Phi sounds like. This sound can move into infinity and perhaps be an excellent way to communicate in other dimensions
W_Ob-X6DMI4

[Shannon]

To me, I find it to be to easy to condem or put someone on a pedestal ... It's just that, it's finding what you want to find, and hearing what you want to hear. I liken to it to flat earth as well. I question why it's gotten so much attention lately.


Some of the followers and believers of RS can be just as vicious and thick headed as flat earth peeps, mr Oates included too, I don't like the guy. There I said it. Lol...but that's not why I don't believe or like RS. I consider myself a student of Peter Hyatt and I cannot stand the guy. He teaches and gives free courses plus loads of research and I respect him ( somewhat) in that way, but cannot stand the guy or his personal principles. He's the anti-Bill Ryan lol. ( that just popped in my head lmao. It true though he's a like the total opposite. ) I read there a lot but stopped commenting because of the constant attacks or he would just delete my posts or ban me. Lol.

Have I made up mind on it? No, I always think, hey who knows, and what's does my opinion count for anyway, lol...I just thought if we're on this topic, maybe the 'not so enthusiastic about reverse speech peeps and those in the dark about the whole thing', this view could be useful as well :)

Here's some linky links..


This one says it could be something else...
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/demon-haunted_sentence_a_skeptical_analysis_of_reverse_speech1/


This one is him, Hyatt , basically comparing reverse speech to bad psychics and them putting all psychics down! This is no good for our community and this is the kind of attention we do not want. I support true psychics and believe there are many people who do not understand how this power manifests and our perception of it thru movies and such is so wrong ...end rant :)
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/08/deorre-backwards-speech-and-psychics.html?m=1

And what the hell...


http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception?language=en

[mojo]

Warning the video below is very disturbing . I watched it yesterday and even debated posting it. I finally decided that people can choose to listen or not but part of the reasoning to watch should also depend on your thoughts about reverse speech. When I listened to Pope Francis he came off so humble, but could he be another Trojan horse as people have been fooled in the past by charismatic personalities and feel the video might be revealing things we would never know except the subconscious never lies. The intro lasts about 15 minutes so move to that mark to begin.
ZqUNYkDYt0w

[mojo]

Just in case some people aren't familiar posted Malachy Prophecy below. Before Pope Francis become the newest Pope people were debating if he was the Pope that would be fulfilling the Prophecy.

2yVdXrHYj7Q

[Honesty]

..........

[Flash]

Why friend of David? David who?

[Honesty]

..........

[Honesty]

..........

[Honesty]

..........

[Honesty]

..........

[Honesty]

..........

[Honesty]

..........

[Bill Ryan]

I'd like to gently point out that the fact that barely anyone has responded, or even thanked these posts, might suggest that there's little or no support in this community for this kind of analysis.

I'm being polite here, as I should, but personally I'm totally certain that this is 100% nonsense. The ONLY way to validate any reverse speech analysis is to do BLIND TESTS by asking statistically significant numbers of non-front-loaded people if they can make anything out.

I'd confidently predict that if you INSTEAD posted samples of reverse speech and then ASKED people what they heard, you'd get wildly different results. (And, my guess would be that most people wouldn't make out anything intelligible at all.)

You can't do 'science' like this by telling people what they're going to hear. That skews everything, and the 'confirmation' you might possibly get from others will be totally meaningless.

If the training you've embarked on isn't pointing this out, and including this as part of the necessary protocols, I'd suggest it may not be a very good course.

[petra]

I think there's something to the 'reverse speech' phenomena in regards to hidden messages, but it's all very biased, like Bill points out. There's whole websites out there dedicated to mis-heard song lyrics, which pretty much prove the point.

The reason why the idea of 'reverse speech' seems like such nonsense is because it insinuates that the speech has to be backwards. But in fact there can be hidden messages, they're just not necessarily backwards.

Sometimes the meaning of the exact same words can change based off perspective: a double entendre. The meaning which the person does not recognize is the hidden one - the 'reverse speech'.

This is how I understand the words 'reverse speech' and I realize it is all entirely subjective. I tie this closely in with NLP

[Bill Ryan]

I'd like to gently point out that the fact that barely anyone has responded, or even thanked these posts, might suggest that there's little or no support in this community for this kind of analysis.

I'm being polite here, as I should, but personally I'm totally certain that this is 100% nonsense. The ONLY way to validate any reverse speech analysis is to do BLIND TESTS by asking statistically significant numbers of non-front-loaded people if they can make anything out.

I'd confidently predict that if you INSTEAD posted samples of reverse speech and then ASKED people what they heard, you'd get wildly different results. (And, my guess would be that most people wouldn't make out anything intelligible at all.)

You can't do 'science' like this by telling people what they're going to hear. That skews everything, and the 'confirmation' you might possibly get from others will be totally meaningless.

If the training you've embarked on isn't pointing this out, and including this as part of the necessary protocols, I'd suggest it may not be a very good course.

A brief note. After reading my post above, Honesty self-deleted all his prior posts ^^, and then sent Paul a PM asking to be retired from the forum. That's a shame.

I think I can share this openly here. I did rather a http://projectavalon.net/forum4/images/smilies/0406%20Facepalm.gif when Honesty started this thread, and thought to myself it was sure to end in tears. And there really were no post replies, and no Thanks. The members just ignored it.

My own post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?105154&p=1262195#post1262195) quoted above, which was thanked quickly by 5 people, was tough but 100% fair — as any scientists will be aware. (It was about the scientific method.) Honesty had an opportunity to respond to the 'peer review', as it were. We could have had an interesting and intelligent discussion about the protocols.

But instead, he deleted his posts and took his ball away. That helped no-one, including anyone genuinely interested in the veracity of reverse speech. I do personally and sincerely wish he had not done that.

[Pam]

First of all, I don't know a dang thing about reverse speech. What if you look at words as energy fields, which they are. Information is essentially energy, what if by effectively inverting the energy by reversing it's vibrational essences you could gather some meaning from it... Like I said, I don't know a thing about it, just looking at it from an energetic perspective. Now proving or verifying any of this would be a really messy affair.

[Bill Ryan]

Now proving or verifying any of this would be a really messy affair.

Well, it'd be quite easy to verify [or otherwise] statistically. For instance, if someone presented a reverse speech clip to 100 people, without telling them what might be in there, and all 100 (or even 60-70 of them!) heard the same thing, that'd really mean something.

As statisticians say, that'd be 'statistically significant'. Much research is conducted that way, including controlled psi investigation of every kind.

If the 100 test subjects all heard something different, or heard nothing intelligible, then that'd be a problem that would seem to show evidence for no pattern actually being there at all.

This could be done on Avalon, here. It'd be very easy to set up. Someone posts a reverse speech clip, without any 'front-loading' comment, and then we all reply with what we think it says. (Or, better still, PM the poster, so that we'd not be influenced by one another's interpretations.)

This is why when in any reverse speech analysis, one can't and shouldn't tell listeners what they should expect to hear. That skews everything.

For this very reason, remote viewing assignments are always done 'blind'. The remote viewer never knows what they're looking at, or are expected to 'see'. This was firmly established in the remote viewing protocols very early on by Ingo Swann et al, and that's SO critically important for actually enabling it to work well.

An example there: if a team of 6 military remote viewers, all working individually, are given a random set of co-ordinates to 'view', and then 4 of the 6 independently say these are armed Russian missiles in a silo that no-one knew existed, then that's VERY valuable operational intelligence for the military.

They'd be bound to take that seriously, and then they'd act on that by immediately seeking further corroboration from agents on the ground, or targeted photo-analysis of that location. It's the independent, non-front-loaded results ('front-loading' is a frequently-used RV term) that matter.

[RunningDeer]

Godspeed, Honesty. https://i.imgur.com/Wfi0NBS.gif
ytsenoH, deepsdoG

Life’s a hodgepodge of loss, gain, courage, growth, challenge self to go beyond, etc. Examination of beliefs is critical. One has to be willing to let go of the emotional attachment, time commitment, and financial investment that keeps one from fresh opportunities to explore this human experiment experience.

https://i.imgur.com/wTlYXrZ.gif
Ugh!…stated the OBvious AgAIN.

https://i.imgur.com/F5VZkI8.gif

While I’m at it…I’ve lost count on how many times I’ve deleted posts. {insert red face and apologies here}
Please, no one in the back room reveal that number. {insert thanks here} https://i.imgur.com/clt9QW1.gif

:focus:

[petra]

Whenever i hear about Reverse Speech it reminds me of Peggy Kane ... She was convinced there was a lot more to this than meets the eye

I also saw the reverse speeches of Obama ... I love Satan lol .. I am away to watch the video back soon :sun:

I'm pretty darn convinced too, just having a hard time conveying why.

Never heard of that "I Love Satan" one, that's funny!
To think something like that was put there on purpose by Obama is absolute foolishness
But if we think of English the Language more like a "virus" (I can't explain why it's like a virus) the amount of "symptoms" start to make more sense

Who would invent something so awful as English? Satan - that's who ;-)

In sign language, the sign for "I Love You" is the exact same hand sign as the "Hail Satan" one too.

[Pam]

Godspeed, Honesty. https://i.imgur.com/Wfi0NBS.gif

Life’s a hodgepodge of loss, gain, courage, growth, challenge self to go beyond, etc. Examination of beliefs is critical. One has to be willing to let go of the emotional attachment, time commitment, and financial investment that keeps one from fresh opportunities to explore this human experiment experience.

https://i.imgur.com/wTlYXrZ.gif
Ugh!…stated the OBvious AgAIN.

https://i.imgur.com/F5VZkI8.gif

While I’m at it…I’ve lost count on how many times I’ve deleted posts. {insert red face and apologies here}
Please, no one in the back room reveal that number. {insert thanks here} https://i.imgur.com/clt9QW1.gif

:focus:

Ditto what RunningDeer said. I always find the search for truth and meaning admirable. Perhaps you will reconsider and come back if you are reading this. I understand it is hard to share something you are jazzed about and not having others share your enthusiasm. That is kind of the story of my life, so I do understand.

[scotslad]

belief or non belief is almost irrelevant. Interest or non interest in a subject (any) in the forum becomes apparent and due to the self-regulatory and cooperative/participative nature of the forum. I dont think people look for arguments on here or to go out of their way to put people down, but as consenting free thinking participating adults - we can also choose to share, comment or not - some people are interested in science, spirituality, aliens, security, secret space programs, genuine whilstle blowers and some may even be interested in reverse speech analysis. Like many topics on here, participation or not on a thread, reading comments on a thread can always lead to a learning experience as we read, relate, assimilate and apply that learning in future posts. Just because someone has an opposing point of view or has not experienced your experience doesnt mean that NO-ONE likes or has an oppinion - some just havent summoned up their courage to post as many are here to search of knowledge, truth and wisdom and not necessarily out to air or express their views or opinions or a particular topic.

May everyone's search (and experience) continue :)

[ExomatrixTV]

🌐 ‼️ Would it be possible to use Quantum A.I. Deep Mind analyzing/decoding reverse speech search for "key words" or "key sentences" of millions of audio files of key people in society? Maybe within minutes (or hours) then printing it out! ... Maybe do a search of all people saying the same world wide backwards. To find a common message from our "human collective conscience". ;)

Cheers 🦜🦋🌳
John Kuhles May 1st, 2020

jApioIrsCbE
MbhkXxBOtCI
P9eaO6nK3C4

[ExomatrixTV]

ZjuD0-x7PVc

[Post-Structuralist Comet]

Would it be possible to use Quantum A.I. Deep Mind analyzing/decoding reverse speech search for "key words" or "key sentences" of millions of audio files of key people in society? Maybe within minutes (or hours) then printing it out! ...
I had a little think about using machine learning for detecting words in reverse speech a while ago because it seemed like an interesting project (though fwiw I'm not convinced there's any meaning in reverse speech). I concluded it would be hard to do using currently available tools (at least without a lot more resources than anyone who'd be interested in doing this would have).

Training a computer model that transcribes speech involves feeding the computer (i) a ton of speech audio, (ii) a ton of timestamped transcriptions of that speech audio, and (iii) using these to have the computer find similarities (in audio frequency, rhythm, and volume) across different tokens for each word type (e.g. finding the similarities between audio of 10,000 different people saying the word 'trout').

The above could also be done using transcriptions of phonemes rather than words, and having the computer find similarities between audio of 10,000 different people saying the phoneme 'out' in 'trout'/'snout'/'sprout'.

There are two ways to apply this to reverse speech.

Firstly, existing computer models which have already been trained on forward speech could be used, but applied to reverse speech rather than forward speech. The reason this wouldn't work well is that the words people perceive in reversed speech sound profoundly untypical in terms of their rhythm and changes in volume (and possibly the frequency, but I don't know enough to say!).

That's pretty obvious from listening to putative examples of words in reverse speech, but as a toy example consider the word 'Madame'. If you reverse a recording of someone saying 'madame', you'll hear the very same word - but the stress on the a will also be reversed and so the reversed version will sound different.

Because speech-to-text computer models have been trained to find what is typical in the speech used to train them, they don't work well when presented with less typical examples (which would include reverse speech). This can be seen in youtube's automatic captions not working well for thick accents - the model wasn't trained on those accents, so doesn't produce good results when it's fed those accents as input.

I've actually tried this approach briefly while messing about with an off-the-shelf speech-to-text algorithm, and it produced a garbled mess (if there's any interest I can try and dig out my results).

It's possible a model that's trained to detect phonemes rather than whole words would work better, but even the phonemes in reverse speech sound very odd (my subjective take is they sound slurred, and blur into each other), and I suspect a computer model trained to detect phonemes would have trouble separating out distinct phonemes in reverse speech.

Secondly, this could be applied to reverse speech would be for people to
produce their own timestamped transcriptions for reversed speech, and train a bespoke model. I think there are two problems here, though one of them might not be a problem if my own scepticism doesn't pan out.

The first problem is that the sheer amount of data that would be required is immense and I'm fairly confident it would be beyond the budget of anyone doing research into reversed speech.

The second problem I see (reflecting my scepticism!) is that the amount of data required would require lots of people doing the transcription. I think different people transcribing reversed speech would hear very different things even for the same audio, and so the data itself would lack the consistency required for what you're thinking of. Nearly every time somebody's claimed to have heard a specific word or phrase in a reversed clip, and I've listened to the clip before knowing what that person heard, I've gotten very different results. I expect the same would happen if multiple people produced transcriptions of reverse speech.

Maybe there's some unknown form of machine learning which could detect words in reverse speech without running into the problems I've given above, but if there is it would be radically different to everything publicly available.

Looking back over what I've written, sorry for the big ramble in response to a passing thought! As I said, I've given this topic a bit of thought before so I was excited for the opportunity to talk about it, and I didn't have the time to edit down to a shorter post! :bigsmile:


For instance, if someone presented a reverse speech clip to 100 people, without telling them what might be in there, and all 100 (or even 60-70 of them!) heard the same thing, that'd really mean something....If the 100 test subjects all heard something different, or heard nothing intelligible, then that'd be a problem that would seem to show evidence for no pattern actually being there at all.

This could be done on Avalon, here. It'd be very easy to set up. Someone posts a reverse speech clip, without any 'front-loading' comment, and then we all reply with what we think it says. (Or, better still, PM the poster, so that we'd not be influenced by one another's interpretations.)
This could be fun to do! If someone wanted to PM me one or two short (~30s) examples of reverse speech they find particularly compelling, I'd be happy to do the leg work of collecting and counting up results, and if we got enough contributions doing some basic statistics on them.

[Richter]

Of all the Reverse Speech audio I've heard, in 90% of the cases I couldn't be bothered, but there
are examples that can't be denied - and this is one.

Obama - Yes We Can = Thank You Satan (4:32)
An assortment of clips from the acceptance speech in Chicago - November 4, 2008. These are
not the best or most obvious samples that can be found, just those from the acceptance speech.
jqALdkTArqs

Yes we Can and Thank you Satan (0:44)
-uZTBXyTDIM

[ExomatrixTV]

David Oates Reverse Speech on Jeff Rense 30 november 2021

bITIKM6BT90

[ExomatrixTV]

Reverse Speech - Alec Baldwin With George Stephanopolous

PlX_ZdtCpZ8

[ExomatrixTV]

Sincere question: If "Speech Recognition Software (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_recognition)" is getting better and better, especially with new type of advanced A.I. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) programs ... When are they "good enough" to do the same job with recognizing parts of reversed speech? ... The moment they are getting better at it even better than humans can ... You could use that tech to check ALL Bilderbergers (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?121161-The-69th-Bilderberg-Meeting-2023-Is-Underway-and-the-Media-Are-Still-Clueless) & WEF Minions (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118748-Top-10-Creepiest-Most-Dystopian-Things-Pushed-By-The-World-Economic-Forum) looking for special "key-words" too. We may even use ChatGPT4 and soon 5 to do the job for us :)

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

a3QBmfYYKFA

[ExomatrixTV]

Your Darkest Secrets Revealed in your Reverse Speech | CIA is Listening:

https://sp.rmbl.ws/s8/2/Z/s/c/K/ZscKi.gaa.mp4


CIA Declassified: What Backwards Secrets are you hiding in your Reverse Speech? In 1983, David Oates dropped his walkman into the toilet. If you're under 40 years old, a walkman was a portable cassette player. If you're under 30, a cassette was how we listened to music in the stone age. Anyway, after being dropped, David's tape player would only play tapes in reverse. At first, he found this entertaining. There were lots of songs that contained hidden messages that you could only hear if you played them backward. But *those* messages were placed there intentionally. Soon, David discovered messages hidden in human speech that were NOT intentional. Messages that were put there by the speaker's subconscious. Turns out, we all do this. In fact, when we lie, our subconscious actually encodes the *truth*, backward, inside the lies that we tell. This is *really* interesting. Because that means, the truth about every conspiracy is right in front of your nose. If you know how to find it.


source (https://rumble.com/v2dj837-your-darkest-secrets-revealed-in-your-reverse-speech-cia-is-listening.html)

[ExomatrixTV]

My comment under this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP656kgwTgQ):

Quote: "Almost everybody knows by now that "speech recognition" software based on A.I. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) "neural networks" started late 1980s and has the ability to improve itself using self-correcting algorithms last 3 decades ... Meaning the accuracy is now so high that it MUST be possible to try to analyze reverse speech as well BUT IT IS NEVER DONE BEFORE ... WHY NOT FOR FCK SAKE? ... Imagine if it works so well it can expose ALL professional liars with an accuracy score above 90% especially all WEF (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118748-Top-10-Creepiest-Most-Dystopian-Things-Pushed-By-The-World-Economic-Forum) Agenda2030 (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111148-The-Great-Reset) stooges!" unquote