<\/p>\n
<\/span> Update <\/strong>(Feb 26, 2009) – <\/strong>This Exopolitics Media Note on Exopolitics.com<\/a> has given rise to a dialogue on the science of reverse speech as among David Oates of <\/font>www.reversespeech.com<\/a><\/font>, Terese Johnson of www.reversespeechanalysis.com<\/a>\/, and Jon Kelly of www.yourinnervoice.com<\/a>. <\/strong>This dialogue was triggered as part of Jon Kelly's reverse speech analysis of Obama's inaugural address in the article <\/strong><\/font>Barack Obama\u2019s inaugural speech predicts \u201cextraterrestrial event\u201d on scale of Iraq war says expert<\/a><\/em> at Examiner.com<\/a>. DAVID OATES RESPONSE TO JOHN KELLY'S RESPONSE<\/strong> <\/span> February 26th Jon Kelly has Secondly, Kelly \nKelly asks why are my check points \nThe rigid \nThe final point I want to address is \nMr. Kelly's \nKelly further states "…that I was \nDavid John Oates \n "If Oates can demonstrate how his "official parameters" have "For example, what place do the Oates parameters have the in "My skills in the application of this procedure were recognized Thank you,<\/font><\/p>\n
\nEXOPOLITICS MEDIA NOTE<\/strong><\/font><\/p>\n
<\/font><\/p>\n
<\/font><\/p>\n
\nReverse Speech Responds to Kelly's Response
\n <\/font><\/p>\n
\n2009<\/font><\/p>\n
\nissued a response to my critique on his work which requires
\ncomment. (See Kelly's response below.) Firstly, the most obvious
\npoint is that his response completely leaves out the main point
\nof my critique which was that his reversal was flawed. (You
\ncan see my critique by clicking here<\/a>.) This observation has
\nbeen made officially by at least three other people now. How
\ndoes he explain this? How is it that after he has been in the
\nfield of Reverse Speech for at least 10 years now, he goes
\npublic with such an obviously flawed reversal? Jon Kelly, please
\naddress this issue. <\/font><\/p>\n
\nasks me to show where my techniques have been recognised by
\ninternational speech recognition communities. The point is
\nentirely moot. I am not an expert in speech recognition
\ntechnologies nor have I ever claimed to be. Furthermore I do not
\nmove in those circles. I am an expert in Reverse Speech and the
\nrecognition of intelligible sounds in reverse, a field I founded
\nand have pursued for 25 years now. I can provide dozens of
\nendorsements from certified Reverse Speech Analysts and
\nPractitioners who can testify to the reliability of the Reverse
\nSpeech check points <\/font>
\nand
\nmandatory verification guidelines<\/font>.
\nFurthermore my website contains many other endorsements from a
\nwide variety of professionals and clients alike (click
\nhere<\/a>). I would ask Kelly to provide us with the basis of his
\nclaim to be a speech recognition expert. Who has endorsed him as
\nsuch?<\/font><\/p>\n
\nnot used by other fields such as air traffic controllers. <\/font>
\nA strange
\nquery with a very simple answer: <\/font>
\nThey are not doing Reverse Speech.
\nThey are listening to and transcribing forward spoken English.
\nIf they were doing Reverse Speech they would have taken training
\nand learned the techniques I have developed over 20 years of
\ntraining 100s of Reverse Speech students.<\/font>The
\nnatural propensity to imagine and to project words and phrases
\ninto the normal gibberish when speech is played in reverse – and
\nthen to 'document' words that do not exist – is very high. <\/font><\/p>\n
\nand time-tested Reverse Speech check points have been developed
\nto ensure the actual sounds do exist and have not been imagined.
\nThe requirements of the check points are really quite simple.
\nThey demand that ALL the letters, and consonant and vowel
\nsounds, actually do exist in the reversal. If Kelly had
\nfollowed the requirements as he learned them in his initial
\nReverse Speech training he would not have made the rather
\negregious mistake in misdocumenting the word "Saucers"<\/font><\/p>\n
\nKelly's rather bizarre claims that I entrusted him with case
\nwork focused on subjects of Canadian Security Intelligence
\nService and Royal Canadian Mounted Police National Security
\ninvestigations. I have *never* done any work for any of these
\nagencies, or any other Canadian agencies, nor have I ever been
\nin contact with them. <\/font><\/p>\n
\nclaim is totally false and, quite frankly, delusional. He states
\nthat I used him to analyse session client tapes. This is true
\nbut it was part of his responsibilities. He was in training
\nwhile he worked briefly for Reverse Speech, and as an apprentice
\nhe was required to analyse tapes and sit in on client work
\ndiscussions. He chose to terminate this ongoing training when he
\nleft our company prematurely.<\/font><\/p>\n
\ngiven these duties at a time when more senior and more
\nhighly-certified candidates were available for selection speaks
\nvolumes about the quality of my work product as perceived by
\nOates himself." However, he completely leaves out the fact that
\nhis Reverse Speech certifications were revoked in 2000. This
\nalso speaks volumes about the quality of his work as perceived
\nby myself.<\/font><\/p>\n
\nFounder of Reverse Speech
\n <\/font><\/p>\n
\n<\/font>Formal response by Jon Kelly to David
\nOates critique, Feb. 22, 2009:<\/strong>
\n<\/font>
\n"The detection of intelligible speech is commonly referred to as
\n"speech recognition" in contemporary culture. Natural speech
\nrecognition is occurring daily in the minds of children
\nunschooled in the reverse speech philosophy presented by David
\nOates. Even
\nthe "Brain Understands Backwards Speech" studies discussed in
\nthe journal Nature were completed successfully without Oates'
\nintervention. This empirical functionality is simply part of the
\ninborn intelligence of human beings.<\/p>\n
\nfound serious widespread acceptance within international
\ncommunities and industries that employ speech recognition
\ntechnologies, it might give greater weight to the assumption
\nthat his parameters are the sole measure by which such
\nobservations can be qualified (as implied in his written
\ncritique).<\/p>\n
\nprotocols followed by medical transcriptionists? Do the Oates
\ncheck points help in the management of military jets,
\nhelicopters and command centers? Do civilian air traffic
\ncontrollers rely on the Oates protocols to evaluate their
\ncommunications? What international scientific body has vetted
\nthe Oates protocols and suggests their implementation by
\ngovernmental agencies and industries that employ human and
\nmachine-based speech recognition technologies? Oates' omission
\nof such references while offering these parameters as the sole
\nbasis of a critique targeting the product of my work is simply
\ndeafening.<\/p>\n
\nearly by Oates and the evidence of that recognition is how he
\nentrusted mewith case work focused on subjects of Canadian
\nSecurity Intelligence Service and Royal Canadian Mounted Police
\nNational Security investigations while also giving me further
\nresponsibilities in preparing clinical case transcriptions for
\nhis own clients. That I was given these duties at a time when
\nmore senior and more highly-certified candidates were available
\nfor selection speaks volumes about the quality of my work
\nproduct as perceived by Oates himself."<\/p>\n
This
\nis an example of what happens when the analyst working with the
\nreversed material becomes too attached to what a purported messages
\nstates. <\/p>\n
I agree with Mr. Oates that the word that Mr. Kelly
\nputs forwards as 'saucers' is clearly not up to standards in regards to
\ncheckpoints and validity factors, failing miserably so. <\/p>\n
\nWhat CAN be heard clearly, and in my opinion does meet the checkpoints
\n(though the 's' is nearly silent), is 'know(s) power of alien'. While
\nthis MAY support Mr. Kelly's interpretation it MAY NOT. It may instead
\nrefer to aliens of the terrestrial kind – possibly referring to the
\nselling off of America that is currently happening at an alarming rate.
\nThe number of bankers and ex-bankers being appointed to Obama's team
\nmakes this prospect even more chillingly real.<\/p>\n
\nJon, please be more careful in what you choose to document – you are
\ngifted, don't lose your reputation over powerful attachments. And
\nDavid, please be more focused on what should be documented and less on
\ndiscrediting an old nemesis, however 'respectfully' done. <\/p>\n
Reverse
\nSpeech is a powerful method to get at the truth of things, it is up to
\nthose with the experience and talent to analyze it to work together to
\nprove its valid worth and have the messages received, not fought over.<\/p>\n
Sincerely, Terese Johnson
Certified Reverse Speech Investigator, Analyst, Master Practitioner and Trainer.
14+ years experience.<\/p>\n
Source: http:\/\/exopolitics.blogs.com\/exopolitics\/2009\/02\/exopolitics-media-note-.html?cid=6a00d8341c73dd53ef011168938af9970c#comment-6a00d8341c73dd53ef011168938af9970c<\/a><\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
JON KELLY'S COMMENTS ON DAVID OATES' AND TERESE JOHNSON'S COMMENTS<\/strong>:<\/p>\n A common theme surrounds the resolution of the Obama message <\/div>\nBeyond discussions of reverse speech as an abstraction or <\/div>\nI have attached an audio file from a live demonstration conducted <\/div>\nThis particular demonstration raises an important question <\/div>\nI do not expect you to air this clip however it will be important
I am scanning the responses to [the Examiner] article as they appear on blogs across the web.\n<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\nitself, in that both Oates and T Johnson claim it does not comply with
\n"official RS parameters" while many lay observers also disagree with my
\ninterpretation of the recording, particularly my detection of the word
\n"saucers".<\/div>\n
\na hypothetical entity, the true litmus test from the practitioner
\nperspective is the live demonstration. My typical format is the
\nrecording of a 1 minute sample followed by 5 minutes of analysis. In my
\nopinion, anyone can talk about reverse speech, but only a world-class
\npractitioner can repeatedly produce verified results under live
\nconditions. In fact, it could be stated that my entire authority and
\nmajor distinction in this field is founded on my ability to do this.<\/div>\n
\non the air and documented by an independent 3rd party, where I detect
\nand report a "low-resolution" message found in the voice of a live
\ncaller to a radio show. This demonstration is from late
\nJanuary, concurrent with the time in which I conducted the Obama
\nanalysis. In spite of the low resolution of the message, the caller is
\nstill able to verify the information that I am reporting. <\/div>\n
\nregarding how compliance with RS or lay standards of resolution
\nrepresents a valid rebuttal to my reporting in light of the fact that I
\ncan publicly demonstrate factual, verifiable information precision even
\nunder low-resolution conditions.<\/div>\n
\nin our discussion to note that beyond my journalistic record, there
\nexists a catalog of live demonstration audio with a high rate of
\nverification from the speakers. In four hours of airtime from this
\nrecent two part series, 7 out of 8 callers verified the contents of
\ntheir messages on the air.<\/p>\n
Listen to source audio now:<\/p>\n
Download CherylNFTS012709<\/span><\/a> <\/div>\nThe source audio can be found here:<\/div>\n <\/div>\nhttp:\/\/www.blogtalkradio.com\/ <\/div>\nThank you.<\/div>\n <\/div>\nJon Kelly<\/p>\n
\n<\/div>\n
NOTE TO EXOPOLITICS.COM REGARDING REVERSE SPEECH WORK FOR RCMP AND CSIS<\/strong>:<\/p>\n
<\/span> Exopolitics.com<\/a> has <\/font>received an unsolicited email (below) from Irene Zundel, former spouse of Ernest Zundel.<\/p>\n\n———- Forwarded message ———-
The
\ntext of the email states that both David Oates and Jon Kelly's reverse
\nspeech work was used by the RCMP and CSIS in the Ernst Zundel case. <\/p>\n
"While my marriage was disintegrating and I left Ernst, I sent a tape of
\none of Ernst's radio broadcasts to David Oates for reverse speech
\nanalysis.
\nIt took a long time to get the results, and the Canadian government was
\nvery interested in those findings, so I pressed for a completion date.
\nThe tape was then turned over to Jon Kelly for completion.<\/p>\n
"I received results from both men, and gave the transcripts and tape to interested investigative parties."<\/p>\n
Alfred<\/p>\n
From: Irene Zundel<\/strong> <\/span>
Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:44 AM
\nSubject: Re John Kelly's work with the RCMP and CSIS in Canada
To: exopolitics@exopolitics.com<\/a><\/p>\n
Dear Sir,<\/p>\n
I was formerly married to Ernst Zundel, and lived for a couple of years in the Toronto area.
\nDuring that time, he was considered a threat to national security, and
\nwas under investigation by CSIS, the Canadian version of the CIA.
\nSIRC, Canada's security intelligence division, held lengthy hearings to
\ndetermine if his residing in Canada posed a threat to the country.
Eventually
\nhe was accused in being a threat to national and international
\nsecurity, advocating sedition, associating with people or groups
\ninvolved in terrorist activity, and espionage.
\nHe was deported to Germany, his country of origin, and has been in prison for several years now.<\/p>\n
While
\nmy marriage was disintegrating and I left Ernst, I sent a tape of one
\nof Ernst's radio broadcasts to David Oates for reverse speech analysis.
\nIt took a long time to get the results, and the Canadian government was
\nvery interested in those findings, so I pressed for a completion date.
\nThe tape was then turned over to Jon Kelly for completion.<\/p>\n
I received results from both men, and gave the transcripts and tape to interested investigative parties.<\/p>\n
Although some of the revelations were traumatic for me, it was well
\nworth the investment. That reverse speech work had a profound personal
\neffect on me!<\/p>\n
I don't know Mr. Oates at all, but I have had some
\ncontact with Mr. Kelly over the years. I have found him to be
\nprofessional, discrete and very knowledgable in this field.<\/p>\n
Sincerely,<\/p>\n
Irene Helen Zundel\n<\/div>\n
Received Feb. 27, 2009<\/p>\n
—
<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
ORIGINAL EXOPOLITICS MEDIA NOTE DISCUSSION – FEB. 22, 2009<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
<\/span>David Oates of www.reversespeech.com<\/a> has released a public statement in which he "respectfully disagrees with Jon Kelly's claim of a coming UFO event supposedly revealed in obama's inauguration speech\u201d (see below). Jon Kelly\u2019s claim was published on February 20, 2009 as part of a news commentary<\/span> article Barack Obama\u2019s inaugural speech predicts \u201cextraterrestrial event\u201d on scale of Iraq war says expert<\/a><\/em> at Examiner.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Exopolitics.com<\/a> has requested that Jon Kelly respond to David Oates critique of his speech recognition analysis of the Obama inaugural, and will publish that as soon as Jon Kelly responds. (See response, dated Feb. 22, 2009 below).<\/p>\n
In the interim, Exopolitics.com<\/a> had asked Jon Kelly to respond to a similar critique of his reverse speech analysis raised by an exopolitical colleague. That critique was almost verbatim<\/em> to the critique raised by David Oates, and stated:<\/p>\n
CRITIQUE BY EXOPOLITICAL COLLEAGUE: \u201cThis one sounds less like \u2018knows power of alien saucers\u2019 <\/em>and more like \u2018knows power of alium snabsus.\u2019 <\/em>Ideally, reverse speech analysis would have an objective way of gauging the fidelity to real words, and assessing the likelihood of random sounds resembling a coherent message.\u201d<\/p>\n
JON KELLY RESPONSE: In a response to this critique by an exopolitical colleague, Jon Kelly wrote to Exopolitics.com<\/a>:<\/p>\n
"I would like to point out that objective feedback regarding the quality standard constraining my speech recognition documentation as well as the information produced through these efforts (as described repeatedly in this article) suggests that the quality standard is very high and that the information is very reliable."
Kelly continues, " I did report during hundreds of radio interviews key Iraq War intelligence describing the geographic coordinate and the initial military strike at that coordinate marking the launch of the Iraq War. Objective feedback first appeared through an article in the Guardian newspaper: http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/world\/2003\/mar\/11\/usa.iraq<\/a>. The manifestation of "Shock and Awe" strikes in Baghdad as described in the messages discovered and reported in January 2001 qualified the objectivity of my observations again."
Kelly states, "The fact that these were "real events" is significant evidence that I was actually documenting 'real words'".
Kelly says that in evaluating reverse speech, "I am studying a signal demonstrating mulitiple levels of organization including mirror-oriented sets of communications. In the visual world, the pixels on my computer screen are displaying alternating patterns of dark and light yet somehow I am still able to interpret these seemingly random patterns as coherent messages as well."<\/p>\n
Readers can listen to the sounds of Barack Obama\u2019s inaugural address reverse speech by clicking here<\/a>.
<\/font><\/p>\n
<\/span>Below is a wave graph of a sample of Obama\u2019s inaugural address reverse speech to exemplify other visual information in addition to the auditory information which Jon Kelly indicates he is processing when making a reverse speech evaluation.<\/font><\/p>\n![\"ObamaWaveform-2\"](\"http:\/\/exopolitics.blogs.com\/.a\/6a00d8341c73dd53ef0111689038c2970c-800wi\" "\\"ObamaWaveform-2\\"")
<\/a>
\n
<\/font><\/p>\n
\n
Formal response by Jon Kelly to David Oates critique, Feb. 22, 2009:<\/strong><\/p>\n
"The detection of intelligible speech is commonly referred to as "speech recognition" in contemporary culture. Natural speech recognition is occurring daily in the minds of children unschooled in the reverse speech philosophy presented by David Oates. Even the "Brain Understands Backwards Speech" studies discussed in the journal Nature were completed successfully without Oates' intervention. This empirical functionality is simply part of the inborn intelligence of human beings.
"If Oates can demonstrate how his "official parameters" have found serious widespread acceptance within international communities and industries that employ speech recognition technologies, it might give greater weight to the assumption that his parameters are the sole measure by which such observations can be qualified (as implied in his written critique).
"For example, what place do the Oates parameters have the in protocols followed by medical transcriptionists? Do the Oates check points help in the management of military jets, helicopters and command centers? Do civilian air traffic controllers rely on the Oates protocols to evaluate their communications? What international scientific body has vetted the Oates protocols and suggests their implementation by governmental agencies and industries that employ human and machine-based speech recognition technologies? Oates' omission of such references while offering these parameters as the sole basis of a critique targeting the product of my work is simply deafening.
"My skills in the application of this procedure were recognized early by Oates and the evidence of that recognition is how he entrusted me with case work focused on subjects of Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Royal Canadian Mounted Police National Security investigations while also giving me further responsibilities in preparing clinical case transcriptions for his own clients. That I was given these duties at a time when more senior and more highly-certified candidates were available for selection speaks volumes about the quality of my work product as perceived by Oates himself."<\/p>\n
Thank you,
Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
Exopolitics.com<\/a>
February 22, 2009<\/font><\/span><\/strong><\/font><\/p>\n
<\/span>
<\/strong><\/font><\/p>\n
DAVID OATES CRITIQUE OF JON KELLY'S SPEECH RECOGNITION ANALYSIS
<\/strong><\/font><\/p>\n
<\/span>Reverse Speech Respectfully Disagrees with
\nJon Kelly's Claim Of A Coming UFO Event
\nSupposedly Revealed In Obama's Inauguration Speech<\/strong><\/font><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
February 22 2009<\/span><\/p>\n
Speech
\nrecognition expert Jon Kelly has recently published a claim –
\nusing Reverse Speech – that we feel the need to comment on.
\nKelly alleges that there will be a significant event of an
\n'extraterrestrial nature' that will occur sometime over the next
\nfour years.
\n
\nHis claim can be seen by clicking here<\/a>. As proof of his
\nclaim he quotes the following purported speech reversal found on
\nBarack Obama's inauguration address. Kelly claims the reversal
\nsays, "Knows power of alien saucers."
\n
\nIt can be heard by clicking here.<\/em><\/a> <\/font><\/p>\n
However when
\napplying the reversal to official Reverse Speech parameters and
\nrigorous, strict check points it simply doesn't match up and
\ntherefore cannot be considered a legitimate speech reversal. The
\nrecorded segment sounds more like. "Knows power of alieM
\nSNOBSUS<\/em>." It is nowhere close to Reverse Speech required
\npronunciation protocols and therefore its subjective message
\ncannot be relied upon. <\/font><\/p>\n
Based on this
\nflawed reversal, we do not believe there will be an event such
\nas Kelly describes over the next four years.<\/font>
\n(Certainly, no one can rule out a significant ET event
\ncompletely unrelated to the Obama speech. UFO encounters and
\nsightings occur around the world essentially on a daily basis.
\n See http:\/\/www.ufocenter.com<\/a>,
\nfor example.)<\/font><\/p>\n
The track history
\nof Reverse Speech is impressive when practiced correctly by
\nappropriately qualified individuals using recognised guidelines
\nand we stand by many of its claims. We cannot, however, support
\nthis particular example put forth by Jon Kelly. Jon took
\ntraining in Reverse Speech in 1998 and qualified as a Reverse
\nSpeech Investigator – the first level to a formal Reverse Speech
\nAnalyst certification. He was also employed as Reverse Speech
\nmarketing manager for a period of 3 months. He left the Reverse
\nSpeech organisation in 1999 and started his own business. Some
\nof his claims have been impressive and based on good reversals.
\nThis one, however, is not.<\/font><\/p>\n
David John Oates
\nFounder of Reverse Speech Technologies<\/font><\/p>\n
Source: http:\/\/www.reversespeech.com\/kellyufo.htm<\/a><\/p>\n
VIEW\/COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE:<\/p>\n
http:\/\/exopolitics.blogs.com\/exopolitics\/2009\/02\/exopolitics-media-note-.html<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1036","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1036","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1036"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1036\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1036"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1036"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}