Introducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community – A Debate Transcript

Introducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community – A Debate Transcript

A Transcript of the Facebook Debate between Jon Kelly (www.yourinnervoice.com) and Noel Herbiet, Research Coordinator for ECUFOR (Evaluation Center for UFO Reports) South Africa


(C) 2010 All Rights Reserved www.yourinnervoice.com

* This enlightening discussion began when I introduced my analysis of
the Col. Charles Halt Rendlesham Forest UFO tape in a Facebook
conversation involving Tracy Farley, Director of UFO Research for
ECUFOR South Africa. Based upon the initial posting, Nick Pope, former
head of the UK MOD UFO project, took my conclusions to Col. Halt, with
inconclusive results. Noel Herbiet, Research Coordinator for ECUFOR
then mounted a challenge against my claim. Below is a transcript of the
debate that followed. I have also included comments from Paul Westwood
of www.bigcatmonitors.co.uk as they help to define the international online cultural climate into which I am advancing my concepts and vision.

My conclusions from this experience? Noel concedes that I am practicing
a science on more than one occasion. However, the absence of rigor and
stamina displayed by Noel throughout the debate brings into question
his qualifications to mount the challenge he undertook. Noel's high
personalization and subjectivity, stated unwillingness to review
information, unresponsiveness to relevant points, unwillingness to
answer questions and apparent inability to recognize answers all
contribute to this opinion.

What do you think? Did I evade Noel's question as he claimed? Did I
challenge his integrity? Or was I simply using his challenge as a
platform for what Noel describes as "free extended publicity"?

Read on to learn more about my experience with "Introducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community"! – Jon

Noel Herbiet –

I see numerous references to Jon's reverse speech analysis in
connection with the Halt tape. I would like to challenge this as it
appears that no one is questioning its basic concept. Put simply, a
sentence spoken is a sequence of uttered sounds, the order of which is
governed by grammar rules and which the listner understands as being
the idea expressed by the speaker. The brain has thus focused into
translating an idea into words. To imagine that this same brain would
be able to construct a hidden meaning using appropriately sounding
words that when listened to in reverse express an idea that the speaker
is unconscious off is to me far fetched. Regardless of alleged success
in the past, I consider this a highly subjective form of research. In
my opinion, Halt's testimony stands to be jeopardised.

Noel Herbiet –

I would be interested in how Jon validates his interpretations.

Paul Westwood –

So why would we develop a capability to speak backwards as well as
forwards? Until technology has developed in recent times it has not
been possible to here this reverse speech. I'm sure the human brain
cannot decipher reverse speech on its own.

And what would be the point to it anyway?

So you are having a chat with some one but in reality they are saying something completely different?

If you have to use texts prompts to make people understand, then it
stands to reason that the words are subjective to the person making the
observations.

This is from the net :

`One explanation for this phenomenon is pareidolia, the tendency of the
human brain to perceive meaningful patterns in random noise. Pareidolia
is even more likely to occur when a person consciously tries to detect
a pattern, as is the case for someone listening for intelligible
phrases in backwards speech. The power of suggestion is then used to
nudge the listener to hear what the presenter wants him to hear – David
John Oates, for example, almost always tells the listener in advance
what he should expect to hear, thereby planting a suggestion that would
make the listener more likely to actually "hear" that phrase. A study
has shown that when listening to the same clips without being told in
advance what to expect, the results have a higher variation'

Jon Kelly –

"it is remarkable that speech remains reasonably intelligible even
under conditions of extreme distortion, such as … time reversal of
segments of speech (Saberi & Perrott 1999)"

From: Basic auditory processes involved in the analysis of speech sounds
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1493/947.full

See: Cognitive Restoration of Reversed Speech
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~saberi/saberiandperrott1999.pdf

My essential claim is regarding detection of information while
observing the speech signal through a mirror filter. Specifically,
monitoring audio playback under conditions involving the insertion of a
virtual mirror along the x-axis of the cartesian coordinate plane
waveform graph of the audio samples where x=time.

The mirror is widely regarded in contemporary society as instrumental
in safety and security applications. For example, an informal survey of
Google searching the words "mirror" and "security" shows over 43M
results.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=mirror+security&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

While searching "mirror" and "safety" shows over 33M results:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=mirror+safety&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

It is within this context of safety and security that I practice this procedure and share the results with the public.

Noel, my interpretations are validated through real-world feedback such
as comments from the speakers themselves. Here is a demonstration
conducted live on-air, publicly witnessed with independent third-party
documentation:

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/cherylnfts012709.rm

Paul, the "prompting" model of communications that you describe
requires that I, as a "person" require a "prompter" who "makes me
understand" what I am hearing. This raises the question "who is my
prompter?" and if that prompter is a "person", then "who is my
prompter's prompter?" my "prompter's prompter's prompter?" and so on.

Can anybody demonstrate that all of these prompters exist while
providing a flow chart that identifies their location and the
hierarchical structure by which they exert their successive prompting
influences?

In the absence of such evidence, the "prompting" model appears to be nothing more than a "conspiracy theory".

Now, let's look at how audio recordings are commonly represented in mainstream news coverage through this example:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/28/charlie.sheen.911.call/index.html

Note the extensive use of subtitles. Is this "prompting" of the
audience another tell-tale sign informing us that the 9-11 tape being
described is a hypothetical abstract with no basis in objective reality?

Anyone who can replicate my evidence (in terms of reporting world
events in advance and producing live demonstrations) while providing a
simpler explanation will not only satisfy Occam's razor but will
advance the development of our growing understanding of human
communications, cognition and performance.

Noel Herbiet –

Hi T, …@ Jon, thank you for your attempt at justification. However, I
dispute the fundamentals of your " science ". Firstly your reference to
mirror and safety ??? … a piece of glass with a silver covering
allowing full reflection .. that's all a mirror is. Nothing else
whatever we choose to use it for, security or vanity !

Secondly, in simple terms, you take a sound sequence and reverse it.
You then supposedly understand a new meaning to this, for all intents
and purposes, NEW sound sequence. Question ! Does your interpretation
apply to all spoken languages .. it would have to in order to be real !
Another thing, accent ! I cant understand an Irishman when he speaks
forward, never mind when you play it back to me in reverse !! The
moment you prompt me to hear a particular word, of course I will
recognise it … but would I initially ? No ! therefore it's YOUR
interpretation that I am hearing. Its the same as fortune tellers,…
they ask you questions, you answer, and WoW! they tell you something of
your future … NO they didn't!!, YOU told them to start with, but
people fall for it and pay for it, just as they "fall" for your
interpretation once prompted. Going back to basics: how can a sequence
of sounds expressed through the mouth to express one idea suddenly
express a second idea when played in reverse ?

Esrever ni deyalp nehw aedi dnoces a sserpxe ylneddus aedi eno sserpxe
ot htuom eht hguorht desserpxe sdnuos fo ecneuqes a nac woh : scisab ot
kcab gnioG !

Do you really believe there is a hidden meaning in the above sentence ?:)

Sorry, the fundamentals don't gel, irrespective of alleged success or evidence.The foundation is flawed in my opinion.

Jon Kelly –

"… the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its
falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." – Sir Karl Popper
"Science as Falsification" http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Noel: Jon, thank you for your attempt at justification.

Jon: Justification? From my perspective Noel, you and I are simply
having a conversation through Facebook comments. You have posted some
questions, and I am attempting to answer them. Is every person's
attempt to answer your questions a "justification" or have you reserved
this special status for my comments only?

Noel: However, I dispute the fundamentals of your " science ".

Jon: With regards to science, how do claims of observable "reverse
speech" phenomena fit into Sir Karl's "Science as Falsification" model?

I have to say that my reporting has been characterized by "risky
predictions" of severe and potentially catastrophic proportions on more
than one occasion. And I'm not just talking about bypassing the censors
at the Pentagon. For example, every live demonstration offered to the
public provides the opportunity for testing, refuting and
falsification. Under those conditions, not only would the speaker be
unable to resolve the message, the message contents themselves would be
refuted as well.

Here's the sample demonstration I presented earlier:

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/cherylnfts012709.rm

Noel: Firstly your reference to mirror and safety ??? … a piece of
glass with a silver covering allowing full reflection .. that's all a
mirror is. Nothing else whatever we choose to use it for, security or
vanity !

Jon: I'm simply pointing out that mirrors are widely recognized as
safety devices, and that my application of a digital mirror to the
speech signal is occurring within this socially recognized context.
Think about it, Noel. If mirrors were as widely recognized as the
source of "pareidolic hallucinations" wouldn't that represent a public
safety threat of global proportions? After all, how many of the world's
estimated 600,000,000 automobiles are not equipped with mirrors?

Here's the US Department of Transportation's position on the use of mirrors:

Standard No. 111 – Rearview Mirrors – Passenger Cars, Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, School Buses and Motorcycles
(Effective 1-1-68)
This standard specifies requirements for the performance and location
of inside and outside rearview mirrors. Its purpose is to reduce the
number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor
vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the
rear.

School Buses (Effective 12-2-93)
Revised requirements for driver visibility in front of and along both sides of school buses.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html#SN111

Note the absence of any mention of mirrors as the source of
hallucinations. Maybe you should write to them Noel and explain how
people are "seeing things that aren't there" when they look in the
mirrors on their automobiles.

Noel: Secondly, in simple terms, you take a sound sequence and reverse
it. You then supposedly understand a new meaning to this, for all
intents and purposes, NEW sound sequence.

Jon: Someone is driving a car down the street past an observer on the
sidewalk. The driver proceeds for some distance then turns the vehicle
around and drives back in the opposite direction. To the observer on
the sidewalk, it may appear that two different cars are traveling in
opposite directions, and yet we know that it is in fact the same
vehicle being observed from multiple perspectives. Geometric transforms
along one axis of observation (eg: the mirroring of the speech signal
waveform) are not radical changes in the fundamental qualities of the
subject being observed.

However, the effects of such transforms on the mind of the observer can
be easily detected. In other words, new perspectives create
opportunities for the mind's resolution of new meanings.

Noel: Question ! Does your interpretation apply to all spoken languages .. it would have to in order to be real !

Jon: There is significant testimony from an international community of
observers describing messages found in other languages. However, my
field work is related to English speakers only. On a related note, I
have found examples of speakers communicating in different language
giving messages in English.

Noel: Another thing, accent ! I cant understand an Irishman when he
speaks forward, never mind when you play it back to me in reverse !!

Jon: But we would both agree that in spite of the fact that you are
unable to resolve the statements of the Irishman, that he is in fact
still speaking (independent of your comprehension or lack thereof). I
have observed examples where accents change between the original and
mirrored versions.

Noel: The moment you prompt me to hear a particular word, of course I
will recognise it … but would I initially ? No ! therefore it's YOUR
interpretation that I am hearing.

Jon: So what does it feel like to hear my interpretation Noel? You are
telling me that we are both hearing the same thing, but I want to
remind you that I can't actually "make" you hear anything. And if you
are suggesting that all use of prompts in media is an attempt to "make"
audiences' detect non-existent phenomena, then I feel your conclusion
is a "conspiracy theory".

Here's the 9-11 call example again:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/28/charlie.sheen.911.call/index.html

Are you feeling "prompted" yet?

Noel: Its the same as fortune tellers,… they ask you questions, you
answer, and WoW! they tell you something of your future … NO they
didn't!!, YOU told them to start with, but people fall for it and pay
for it, just as they "fall" for your interpretation once prompted.

Jon: Noel, I agree that President Bush and Pastor Caldwell "told" me 2
years in advance about the "Shock and Awe" strikes on Baghdad that
marked the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. I also agree that Dennis
Rader "told" me he was the BTK Killer before he confessed. I even agree
that Oprah Winfrey "told" me her true feelings about James Frey. It's
simply the way that I detected this "telling" that is the subject of
controversy. For me, it's the use of a mirror. For you, it's a
conspiracy of vast proportions.

For example, are you saying that I "prompted" the United States into
invading Iraq? And why would my experience be any different from that
of the average person? As I said before, your model requires that I
have a "prompter", and a "prompter's prompter" and so on. Who are all
of these people you are describing Noel? Are the fees from "fortune
telling" really financing this apparently infinite yet invisible army
of prompting personnel?

Noel: Going back to basics: how can a sequence of sounds expressed
through the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea
when played in reverse ?

Jon: Noel, this very question has been explored by composers of Western
music going back hundreds of years. Their answers are included in both
counterpoint and serialism as "Inversion (mirror transform along the
y-axis)" and "Retrograde (mirror transform along the x-axis)".

Noel: Esrever ni deyalp nehw aedi dnoces a sserpxe ylneddus aedi eno
sserpxe ot htuom eht hguorht desserpxe sdnuos fo ecneuqes a nac woh :
scisab ot kcab gnioG !

Do you really believe there is a hidden meaning in the above sentence ?:)

Jon: The hidden meaning is that the letters "A", "H", "I", "O", "U",
"V", "T", "W", "X" and "Y" all survive the mirror transform uncorrupted.

It's just like what the scientists are telling us Noel:

"It is remarkable that speech remains reasonably intelligible even
under conditions of extreme distortion, such as … time reversal of
segments of speech (Saberi & Perrott 1999)" – Brian C.J. Moore,
"Basic auditory processes involved in the analysis of speech sounds",
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 March 2008 vol. 363 no. 1493 947-963

"We have studied the intelligibility of speech, and find it is
resistant to time reversal of local segments of a spoken sentence"
-Kourosh Saberi and David R. Perrott, "Cognitive restoration of
reversed speech", Nature 398 (29 April 1999) 760… See More

"Speech is a multidimensional stimulus. There are different ways you can extract a message from it" – Kourosh Saberi

Noel: Sorry, the fundamentals don't gel, irrespective of alleged success or evidence.The foundation is flawed in my opinion.

Jon: And that is what you have offered so far Noel, your personal
opinion. In return, I'm offering citations from literary and scientific
records along with evidence documented by independent third parties.

Noel Herbiet –

Hi Jon … that you believe yourself to be correct is self evident,
along with the other individuals you quoted. You are quite entitled to
that and I respect that. However this is not my page and I owe to it
and its owner, Tracy, the respect of it as if I were in her home, this
is her territory as it were so I will be brief and to the point.

You lost me entirely on the mirror issue ! All I said is that a mirror
is just a reflective/reflection device and nothing more, whether used
at home, in an automobile or in the head of a missile. You appeared to
place great emphasis on the fact that your software uses mirror
techniques. Be that as it may.

On the issue of reversed speech, you have not, with all due respect,
explained to me how an idea I express in words can possibly have a
different meaning or any meaning at all when listened to in reverse
order…. See More
For instance, I will say " The postman was bitten by my dog yesterday and he is now taking me to court."
Now according to your theory, if we play that backwards we might hear a hidden message eg " … the neighbour has cancer …".

Please answer the following Jon, seriously, and without referring me to
websites …. I thought the above idea, … I then expressed it
verbally by modulating airflow via my vocal cords causing sounds you
have been taught to recognise as English and of appropriate meaning. My
brain was responsible for that controlled sequence of sounds and their
resultant meaning. What you are suggesting is that my brain chose words
that would express a different idea when played backwards by a computer
… a different idea by the way that I am unaware of. Please explain
the mechanism which makes this possible, in simple English.

Another thing, you say that words spoken in French for instance, provide you with a message in English ????
You wrote : "On a related note, I have found examples of speakers
communicating in different language giving messages in English." Please
explain.

In passing, you said "It's simply the way that I detected this
"telling" that is the subject of controversy. For me, it's the use of a
mirror. For you, it's a conspiracy of vast proportions." …
??? For the record, I am NOT into conspiracies, I despise them and the people that promote them.

Do you not recognise the power of prompt or suggestion ? It is the
keystone of all advertising. I can make you hear and see anything with
the correct prompt or suggestion !! I know ! I have experienced this
first hand and it is a common occurrence in mass witness UFO sightings
when witnesses are in close proximity.

I do not wish to debate this forever Jon … I have asked a simple
question, how does this mechanism work ?… bearing in mind that our
brain is trained to recognise sounds and translate them into words
instantly … speech sounds in reverse will obviously sound similar to
other words and a meaning could be extracted. The point is, is it
relevant !

By the way, is the hidden meaning of a spoken sentence related or
attached to the original speaker or does it still work when that same
original message is repeated by a second person? If a hidden message is
detected in the reverse sound train of the second person, to whom does
that hidden message belong, the original speaker or the second person ?

I ask you kindly Jon, if you so wish, to explain the basic fundamentals
of your science in plain English, but not by referring me to websites.

Tracy, please forgive the length of this debate but I am not willing to let this ride with substantiation.

Jon Kelly –

Noel: Hi Jon … that you believe yourself to be correct is self
evident, along with the other individuals you quoted. You are quite
entitled to that and I respect that. However this is not my page and I
owe to it and its owner, Tracy, the respect of it as if I were in her
home, this is her territory as it were so I will be brief and to the
point.

Jon: It is so funny to me to see you characterize my statements of fact
as matters of belief, Noel. Your ability to render matters of public
historic record into abstract rhetorical hypotheticals is amazing! But
it is exactly because you are representing yourself as someone who is
interested in science that I am quoting from "the other individuals"
like Sir Karl Popper, widely regarded as one of the greatest
philosophers of science of the 20th century!

Noel: You lost me entirely on the mirror issue ! All I said is that a
mirror is just a reflective/reflection device and nothing more, whether
used at home, in an automobile or in the head of a missile. You
appeared to place great emphasis on the fact that your software uses
mirror techniques. Be that as it may…. See More

Jon: Noel, you may think that you're lost but from my point of view,
you actually appear to be demonstrating a grasp of the concepts I have
been repeating 🙂 Earlier you stated that we were both detecting the
same message, now you are confirming that you understand how it is that
I am using a mirror to detect the messages. Your statements certainly
resemble those of someone who is beginning to distance themselves from
the "pareidolia" mob, don't they?

Noel: On the issue of reversed speech, you have not, with all due
respect, explained to me how an idea I express in words can possibly
have a different meaning or any meaning at all when listened to in
reverse order. For instance, I will say " The postman was bitten by my
dog yesterday and he is now taking me to court." Now according to your
theory, if we play that backwards we might hear a hidden message eg "
… the neighbour has cancer …".
Please answer the following Jon, seriously, and without referring me to
websites …. I thought the above idea, … I then expressed it
verbally by modulating airflow via my vocal cords causing sounds you
have been taught to recognise as English and of appropriate meaning. My
brain was responsible for that controlled sequence of sounds and their
resultant meaning. What you are suggesting is that my brain chose words
that would express a different idea when played backwards by a computer
… a different idea by the way that I am unaware of. Please explain
the mechanism which makes this possible, in simple English.

Jon: Well, I think my answer to your earlier question was actually
quite responsive. You asked "how can a sequence of sounds expressed
through the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea
when played in reverse?" I said in response that composers of music in
the Western tradition envisioned Retrograde as an instrument of both
Counterpoint and Serialism, allow the mirroring of one musical idea to
invoke new aesthetic meaning through its counterpart. For words, simply
add lyrics to the tones. The thematic arrangement of sounds IS the
representation of an idea. So you see, those composers satisfied your
question in eras that predate the digital age, Noel.

You are probably also familiar with the Search for Extra-Terrestrial
Intelligence or SETI. In simple terms, SETI is engaged in the detection
of intelligent electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on
distant planets. SETI does not propose to answer questions regarding
the mechanisms by which signals are transmitted, they are primarily
concentrated on signal detection and analysis.

It appears that you feel the presence of a transmission theory is
necessary to validate the realities of repeated signals detection.
Therefore I am curious to know if you will be writing to SETI to
explain how unscientific their mission is in the absence of any
explanation of the mechanism by which the ET signals are transmitted?

As I said earlier,"My essential claim is regarding detection of
information while observing the speech signal through a mirror filter."
In these terms my work can be placed in the same camp with SETI and
other signals detection organizations who perform meaningful work in
the absence of a robust transmission model.

Sorry Noel, but I guess my telling you that "body language" is
unconscious involuntary muscular communications that often accompanies
speech and even contradicts spoken statements just isn't going to cut
it!

Noel: Another thing, you say that words spoken in French for instance, provide you with a message in English ????
You wrote : "On a related note, I have found examples of speakers
communicating in different language giving messages in English." Please
explain.

Jon: I was referring to the Arabic statements of Saddam Hussein as
heard during his interview on "60 Minutes" just prior to the war.

Noel: In passing, you said "It's simply the way that I detected this
"telling" that is the subject of controversy. For me, it's the use of a
mirror. For you, it's a conspiracy of vast proportions." …
??? For the record, I am NOT into conspiracies, I despise them and the people that promote them.

Jon: Your promotion of the "prompting" model of communications in this
discussion seems antagonistic to your stated feelings about
conspiracies Noel. Your prompting model informs us that the average
reasonable person requires a prompter who makes them sense phenomena,
either real or imagined. I'm just an average person Noel, so why don't
you clear the air and explain who is prompting me to make me hear
messages, who is my prompter's prompter, my prompter's prompter's
prompter? Lay out the financials, the organizational structure and the
locations of this invisible yet seemingly infinite army of prompting
personnel and put this issue to rest once and for all 🙂

Noel: Do you not recognise the power of prompt or suggestion ? It is
the keystone of all advertising. I can make you hear and see anything
with the correct prompt or suggestion !! I know ! I have experienced
this first hand and it is a common occurrence in mass witness UFO
sightings when witnesses are in close proximity.

Jon: I get it, Noel. Your testimony of first hand experience is more
than enough evidence to validate the "prompting" hypothesis, but even
when presented with citations from legal, scientific and literary
records along with evidence of events that were publicly witnessed and
independently documented by third parties, the realities of reverse
speech phenomena are simply impossible for you to validate.

Is that your point?

It's also kind of funny that you claim to be able to make me "hear and
see anything" but the only way I could resolve this claim is to believe
that if your contribution to this discussion, the outcome of your
challenge that you initiated, was intended to prompt me, to make me
believe that you were completely wrong and in denial regarding the
facts that I am presenting.

Was that your hidden intention Noel? If so, I concede the point to you!

Noel: I do not wish to debate this forever Jon … I have asked a
simple question, how does this mechanism work ?… bearing in mind that
our brain is trained to recognise sounds and translate them into words
instantly … speech sounds in reverse will obviously sound similar to
other words and a meaning could be extracted. The point is, is it
relevant !

Jon: I have lucidly and repeatedly explained the mechanisms of signal
detection to you in clear, unambiguous terms Noel. I have also offered
suggestions in order to provide conceptual frameworks from within which
you might begin to imagine the possible mechanisms involved in
transmissions. I have even demonstrated that real signals detection
science is taking place today in the absence of such models.

If clinical, forensic and military grade intelligence are relevant in
today's world, the approach I am using for signals detection can
reasonably be recognized within the frameworks of contemporary
scientific thought.

Consider that, from the perspective of Karl Popper's critical
rationalism, it is the the least probable theory that still withstands
attempts to falsify it which is the preferred basis of scientific
philosophy. The demonstrated public historic record of my most
improbable research satisfies Popper's criteria unambiguously.

Noel: By the way, is the hidden meaning of a spoken sentence related or
attached to the original speaker or does it still work when that same
original message is repeated by a second person? If a hidden message is
detected in the reverse sound train of the second person, to whom does
that hidden message belong, the original speaker or the second person
?… See More

Jon: President Bush's inaugural address was recited from a script, yet
the President's characterization of the spoken word gave it novel and
unexpected meanings, including disclosure of intent to invade Iraq.
Other than examples of speakers reciting scripted statements, my
research does not entirely answer this question, leaving the path open
to people like yourself, Noel, to design experiments and test for
possible answers.

Noel Herbiet –

Jon, thank you for your lengthy response. However cannot continue this
debate when a simple question is evaded. My intention was for you to
provide me and others who follow Tracy's page the opportunity to
understand the basic fundamentals of your science which is highly
controversial.

My intention was not to present you with a free platform for extended
publicity. My simple question has yet to be answered in a simple direct
manner. Any further discussion can be handled by private message if you
so wish.

For the record:

1. I have no intention of questioning SETI nor would I compare your
science with that of SETI. Their's is an attempt to capture a
transmission,… yours is to receive that transmission, turn it
backwards thereby allowing you to find hidden meaning not originally
intended.

2. You will never convince me that Arabic translates into English when played in reverse, Sorry !

3."… realities of reverse speech phenomena are simply impossible for you to validate. .."
> My validation is of no relevant consequence or importance, however
the need for you to explain the mechanism by which reverse speech
mechanism operates IS, and you have failed to do this in the most basic
way.

4."…Was that your hidden intention Noel? If so, I concede the point to you!".
>Jon, do not, even for one moment, challenge my integrity as a human
being or investigator. I questioned your science, not you as an
individual !

5."If clinical, forensic and military grade intelligence are relevant
in today's world, the approach I am using for signals detection can
reasonably be recognized within the frameworks of contemporary
scientific thought."
>Hardly a comparison Jon. Forward signal detection is as intended by
the transmitter. To reverse that signal to find new meaning was not
intended by the transmitter nor by nature.

This concludes my comments on this subject, I remain sceptical and
would ask that you exercise caution and due care in the application of
your science and its consequences on a gullible public mind.

I would also ask that you respect another person's FB page with the
length of your replies which amount to extended publicity for yourself.

END TRANSCRIPT

For more information about my audio research and other related fields
please be sure to watch the 6-part series "Jon Kelly Live at ECETI"
posted on my Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/yourinnervoicedotcom#p/u