Is Reverse Speech Real Or Just Random Bullshit?

« A Tribute To Dumb Stock Photography | Home | The Ideal Way To Start Every Day »

May 15, 2008

Tape recorder As some of you may be aware, there is an idea of “reverse speech”, that is the playing of various audio backwards where the goal is to see what actual words and phrases can be heard in the dialogue. The theory behind it seems to be that whatever is heard in the reverse speech is a form of communication from the speakers subconscious mind.

You might remember something very similar to this among people who swear there can be heard demonic messages in many music recordings when their records are played backwards on a turntable. Combining this with the idea that it may be communications from the subconscious, you could easily arrive at the hypothesis that the artists had less than honorable thoughts and intentions while publishing the particular music.

After listening to the many examples presented on ReverseSpeech.com, as well as some heavy study, thought, and personal experimentation, here is my report on the phenomenon.

Reverse speech is a hypothesis first put forward by David John Oates. It was widely publicized on the radio show of Art Bell. Oates’ claim is that every time humans speak they convey two related sentences, only one of which we can hear naturally. The second message is embedded backwards into the person’s speech. This means that if a person’s statement was recorded and played backwards, the speaker’s unconscious thoughts could be heard. The most famous recording that allegedly demonstrates this is the speech given by Neil Armstrong at the time of the moon landing, in which, if played backwards, the words “man will spacewalk” can supposedly be clearly heard.

However it has been argued that without prompting no one would hear this phrase, and only once we had been told what to listen for would we hear it. My personal tests, however, seem to render this argument inadequate.

The presence of negatively influencing, even neo-satanism-themed reverse speech has been argued to be present in heavy metal music by some conservative groups, claiming that this music made or can make their children perform antisocial acts.

The ReverseSpeech.com website provided many compelling examples, and also sells a sound analysis program for $60 which can be tried for free for 7 days. A similar program, though much more expensive, is SoundForge, which can do the things ReverseSpeech can and a lot more (it’s for studio professionals). Also, for the extreme cheapskate, there is the Sound Recorder program that comes with Windows, which can record and play back sounds (backwards too), though functionality is limited to just that. All things considered, the ReverseSpeech program is worth trying for 7 days and if you really get into this, probably the best solution you could purchase.

Throughout many tests, my friend Jason and I were able to get at least one (oftentimes several) pieces of good reverse speech per recording session. We heard things like “we’re worried”, “overweight”, “I wanna win”, “wuss”, “not my fault”, and a very omnious “throw us into the fire.” Conversely, and much less omnious, was the humorous “Sherriff Louie, that’s me, sah” quote from Jason.

This was undoubtedly interesting, so Jason and I decided to test things other than ourselves. Among these were: the audio from a taping of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (10 minutes), a speech from President FDR (30 minutes), and a CD from marketing expert Dan Kennedy (45 minutes). All were at least 99% speech in their content.

The tests proved interesting and worthwhile, even though almost no reverse speech was found in all those piles of audio. Why? Because the ONLY reverse speech discovered was during pieces of audio that were known to be unscripted. This discovery lends some credibility to the reverse speech case, possibly demonstrating that subconscious messages are only present when one is “speaking from the gut”, unrehearsed and unscripted.

On a counterpoint, another interesting thing to note is the discovery that the phrase “I don’t know” or even “I do not know” tends to sound almost the same when played backward as forward. This would lead us to believe there are at least several other words or phrases that would do the same, thus saying that no matter what you are “really” thinking on the subconscious level, you would be able to say these phrases with alterior meaning and still fool a Reverse Speech listener into thinking you really mean what you say.

We also performed straight tests on works which were primarily music. An interesting thing happened that we guessed might happen but deep down didn’t really believe would actually occur; classically “beautiful” and universally accepted “good” music seems to sound good even when played backward, while “normal” or “fad-based” music that is not so universally revered and timeless seems to play horribly.

While I conclude that this phenomenon is worth looking into further to do more testing, I will personally shy away into being a mere casual observer, at least for the time being for the following reasons -

Probability: While there is decent evidence both for and against the valitidy of the claim, there still exists the issue of the whole thing being a result of a pure probability game. In other words, if you listen to something like this, every once in awhile there is a chance you will discover a very clear thing in English language. Everything else around it is either pure gibberish or sounds very much like some foreign language (see “things to try and/or consider” below).

Time and Importance: There are many lifetimes of good material out there that need to be looked into by an unbiased person, this being one of them. However, I find it more profitable for myself and the future benefit of others if I personally (at least temporarily) file this away in my mind as a possbility for use at a later date. Listening to mounds upon mounds of audio for clues as to hidden messages are details that are better left to the ones more dedicated to the pursuit of the field. Their findings will then need to be tested by people like you and me.

Things to try and/or consider:

Entertaining the idea—

It could be that all audio, when played backwards, can produce clear, audible speech, it’s just that there could be a running frequency pattern that needs to be “decoded” if you will. In other words, as you traverse through the audio, the frequency and amplitude of output that our ears can hear needs to be continually modified in order to get the full message. The reason why we hear the audible speech only sometimes and the rest gibberish, could be because every once in awhile, those frequency patterns cross over into our normal range of listening, and we hear the speech…then they quickly leave us again.
It could be that what appears to be a foreign language of reverse speech sometimes actually is a foreign language. Even possibly that of any number of “lost” languages throughout time. It would be interesting to play back Japanese, Russian, Chinese, and German backwards to see if an English word or phrase ever occurs. Possibly even combine this idea with the one presented above.
More tests need to be done concerning scripted vs. unscripted audio. Jason and I seemed to be able to get reverse speech easily when we recorded ourselves, even for small amounts of time. But when even large quantities of scripted voice was played, it was much more difficult.

Popularity: 97% [?]

Click to save and share this post with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.