| Editorial Stunning Results From
Blind Testing
By
Michael Goodspeed
We're all familiar with the claim of sceptics
that Reverse Speech is a phenomena no different
that seeing the image of Jesus in a tortilla, or
the face of Elvis in a cloud. They claim the
science is a a form of trickery which utilizes
the power of persuasion to convince people they
are hearing intelligent phrases in meaningless
gibberish. This argument is fuelled by the fact
that many people have difficulty hearing
reversals without being told in advance what to
hear.
Personally, I've long understood that this
argument is totally specious. I often play
reversals for untrained people without prompting
them in advance, and if the reversal is clear,
they almost always agree with my interpretation.
Recently, I decided that it would be worthwhile
to put some of my reversals to the acid test, and
ask people to participate in 100% blind testing
on my website.
Now bear in mind, this was not a multiple choice
test; I gave people no hint whatsoever of my
interpretation of the reversals or even who was
speaking.
Here were the results: reversal number one was an
extremely controversial reversal on Major Ed
Dames. The reversal contained a total of 4 words.
I drew a total of 10 responses, 7 of which agreed
with my interpretation, with only the most minor
disagreement (some people heard "a"
where I heard "the"). 2 people missed
it entirely on their first guess, and one person
was right on 3 of the 4 words.
For the record, here is my interpretation of this
reversal: "I KILLED THE BOY." I must
ADAMANTLY make the point that I have no reason to
believe we should interpret this reversal
literally. As DJO has repeatedly pointed out,
anywhere from 70-85% of all reversals are
metaphoric in nature; he may be referring to the
death of some aspect of his own psyche. I would
never accuse anyone of a crime on the basis of a
single reversal, irrespective of how clear it
might be.
Here's a look at your interpretations:
Michael,
The reversal is obviously Minor Ed dames...should
I believe what I'm hearing? He clearly says,
"I killed the boy." ???????????????? If
I were u, I'd be careful who I piss off...Dames
is former military, and has a very short fuse!!!!
--Andrew H.
-----------------------------------
Hi Michael,
I tried your blind test (forbidden reversal), I
believe it says "I kill the boy" I also
believe it to be preceded by "elf mess up",
I could read some other stuff in it too but not
clear enough for public play.
--Terese
--------------------------------
Hey Michael,
I have already seen that blind test posting on
your site and I would agree that it is very clear
what is said. "I killed the boy." Is
definitely what I hear.
--JT
---------------------------------
Hi Michael -
No question: it's "I killed the boy."
But even more interesting is the forward
phrase, and even the exact words ("hell to
look at"), in which this reversal appeared.
--Fred
----------------------------
I take it this reversal on your Forbidden
Reversal page is of none other than Major Ed
Dames, a self proclaimed remote viewer. It sounds
like he is saying " I told a lie."
--Ivan
---------------------------
Except I now hear it as "I killed THE boy". Although
it might be interpreted as "A boy". You
were certainly right to do a blind test. And now
the "killed" word does not seem
imprecise to me. I heard it clearly the first time
I replayed after your last E-mail.
One of my favourite reversals on myself is "Wolf
would eat boy, now" which I interpreted as
,the "wolf" part of my me would take
over the "boy" part of me, now. Which it
certainly is ,in the process of doing. So, such
statements can be metaphorical. Really great
work, Michael!
--KEnKC
----------------------------
Michael -
The unanimous verdict here is "I told a lie."
Is that Ed Dames we're listening to?
--Kristin
---------------------------
hello
After first listening to it , I could not figure
it out. After playing it over and over in the
background why chatting online I think it says, I
killed the black I hope I got close, but buggered
if I know what it means
--mike
--------------------------------------
Michael,
my initial impression of this reversal of Dames
is : " I kill the boy " I tried to hear
it as " I killed a boy " but I
preconceive the 3rd syllable ( the way I hear the
syllable count) as " THE " with a
definite " TH " sound! Like I said,
this is my initial perception of it, and it is an
understatement to say that RS is complex in its
nature.
--Brian
------------------------
I just listened to that "blind"
reversal on your site. Sorry if I'm a little
behind in reading your articles. I have tears in
my eyes. I heard the reversal say, "I killed
the boy" very, very clearly. I'm interested
in Reverse Speech, but sometimes I find that the
reversals sound different to me than what they're
supposed to be saying. Is this what you heard?
Fight the good fight, Michael, but be careful.
--Elva Raymond
--------------------------------
Out of 10 respondents, 7 got it right, with only
the most minor disagreement, 1 got 3 out of 4
words right, and only 2 were completely off.
That's a very impressive 70% accuracy with no
prompting at all. The other test I did was a
highly embarrassing reversal I found on a
gentleman discussing his problem with impotency.
This is possibly the clearest reversal I have
ever found, and is astonishingly complimentary to
the forward dialogue. Forwards, the man says,
"There are plenty of people who aren't able
to have sex, so maybe it's not that important."
Backwards, "I HAD A WEINER."
So far, I've only received 6 blind
interpretations, but the responses have been 100%
accurate, with only the most minor disagreement:
some people claim they here the the word "if"
at the beginning of the reversal. In either case,
the meaning of the reversal is the same, and all
are in agreement that the words "I had a
Weiner" are indeed there.
Here's a look at your interpretations:
Mr Goodspeed,
Normally, I have a had time hearing reversals
when I'm not told what to hear, but I think that
one says "I had a Weiner." ROFLMAO!!!
--CJ
------------------------------
"If I had a Weiner" Seems pretty
clear, though the "if" is implied, more
than stated. I have no idea who the speaker is.
--Kevin Estes
-----------------------------
Michael,
I have no idea who the guy talking is, but he
clearly says, "I had a Weiner." Wonder
what happened to him...obviously, talking about
some inability to sexually perform. Hope for his
sake he didn't lose it in an accident!!
--RK , Texas
-----------------------------------------
Hi Michael -
My first impression of your second blind test was
"if I had a Weiner," but upon closer
examination, I also hear "if I had a peiner."
In either case, the meaning is obvious. It would
make perfect sense, considering the forward
dialog.
--Fred
-------------------------------
Well, Jeffrey hears "I had a wiener." I
hear "if I had a wiener". Too damn
funny, for sure.
--Kristin
------------------------
Michael,
Quickly, to give my input on your blind test: I
would think this man is expressing " if I
had a Weiner '' in the reversal (the way I
initially heard it) it goes quick of course, but it
sounds like " FI had a Weiner "
I believe that if RS is truly a direct and
personal expression of the speaker, and I think we
both believe it is, then I think it is quite
logical to hear mispronunciations or habitual
cutting short the full letter sounds like is
quite commonly the case with forward speech. In
this case, dropping the projection of the short
" I " sound in the very begging of the
reversal (the way I am hearing it)is quite common
in forward speech, further more I would
venture, or at least suspect that this man may have
lost the ability to sexually perform, or is
discussing this condition of others, although the
way I hear the " I " in this, makes me
think he is referring to himself in this !
--Brian
Many of my other reversals can be
heard at http://www.reversespeech.com/goodsp.htm
| ^top
of page |
David
John Oates
Founder and Developer of Reverse Speech
Technologies
PO Box 678, Noarlunga Centre, SA 5168.
Australia
phone: 08 83824372 - international: 61 8
83824372
|
Reverse
Speech TM is a trademark owned
by David John Oates.
All contents of the web site is Copyright
© 2001 by David John Oates |
|