{"id":896,"date":"2010-01-30T16:45:45","date_gmt":"2010-01-30T16:45:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/2010\/01\/30\/introducing-reverse-speech-concepts-to-the-ufo-research-community-a-debate-transcript\/"},"modified":"2010-01-30T16:45:45","modified_gmt":"2010-01-30T16:45:45","slug":"introducing-reverse-speech-concepts-to-the-ufo-research-community-a-debate-transcript","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/introducing-reverse-speech-concepts-to-the-ufo-research-community-a-debate-transcript\/","title":{"rendered":"Introducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community – A Debate Transcript"},"content":{"rendered":"


\nI<\/em>ntroducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community – A Debate Transcript<\/p>\n

A Transcript of the Facebook Debate between Jon Kelly (www.yourinnervoice.com<\/a>) and Noel Herbiet, Research Coordinator for ECUFOR (Evaluation Center for UFO Reports) South Africa
<\/em>
\n
\n(C) 2010 All Rights Reserved www.yourinnervoice.com<\/a><\/p>\n

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

My conclusions from this experience? Noel concedes that I am practicing
\na science on more than one occasion. However, the absence of rigor and
\nstamina displayed by Noel throughout the debate brings into question
\nhis qualifications to mount the challenge he undertook. Noel's high
\npersonalization and subjectivity, stated unwillingness to review
\ninformation, unresponsiveness to relevant points, unwillingness to
\nanswer questions and apparent inability to recognize answers all
\ncontribute to this opinion.<\/p>\n

What do you think? Did I evade Noel's question as he claimed? Did I
\nchallenge his integrity? Or was I simply using his challenge as a
\nplatform for what Noel describes as "free extended publicity"?<\/p>\n

Read on to learn more about my experience with "Introducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community"! – Jon<\/p>\n

Noel Herbiet –<\/p>\n

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

Noel Herbiet –<\/p>\n

I would be interested in how Jon validates his interpretations.<\/p>\n

\nPaul Westwood –<\/p>\n

So why would we develop a capability to speak backwards as well as
\nforwards? Until technology has developed in recent times it has not
\nbeen possible to here this reverse speech. I'm sure the human brain
\ncannot decipher reverse speech on its own.<\/p>\n

And what would be the point to it anyway?<\/p>\n

So you are having a chat with some one but in reality they are saying something completely different?<\/p>\n

If you have to use texts prompts to make people understand, then it
\nstands to reason that the words are subjective to the person making the
\nobservations.<\/p>\n

This is from the net :<\/p>\n

`One explanation for this phenomenon is pareidolia, the tendency of the
\nhuman brain to perceive meaningful patterns in random noise. Pareidolia
\nis even more likely to occur when a person consciously tries to detect
\na pattern, as is the case for someone listening for intelligible
\nphrases in backwards speech. The power of suggestion is then used to
\nnudge the listener to hear what the presenter wants him to hear – David
\nJohn Oates, for example, almost always tells the listener in advance
\nwhat he should expect to hear, thereby planting a suggestion that would
\nmake the listener more likely to actually "hear" that phrase. A study
\nhas shown that when listening to the same clips without being told in
\nadvance what to expect, the results have a higher variation'<\/p>\n

\nJon Kelly –<\/p>\n

"it is remarkable that speech remains reasonably intelligible even
\nunder conditions of extreme distortion, such as … time reversal of
\nsegments of speech (Saberi & Perrott 1999)"<\/p>\n

From: Basic auditory processes involved in the analysis of speech sounds
\nhttp:\/\/rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org\/content\/363\/1493\/947.full<\/a><\/p>\n

See: Cognitive Restoration of Reversed Speech
\nhttp:\/\/www.socsci.uci.edu\/~saberi\/saberiandperrott1999.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

My essential claim is regarding detection of information while
\nobserving the speech signal through a mirror filter. Specifically,
\nmonitoring audio playback under conditions involving the insertion of a
\nvirtual mirror along the x-axis of the cartesian coordinate plane
\nwaveform graph of the audio samples where x=time.<\/p>\n

The mirror is widely regarded in contemporary society as instrumental
\nin safety and security applications. For example, an informal survey of
\nGoogle searching the words "mirror" and "security" shows over 43M
\nresults.<\/p>\n

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<\/a><\/p>\n

While searching "mirror" and "safety" shows over 33M results:<\/p>\n

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=<\/a><\/p>\n

It is within this context of safety and security that I practice this procedure and share the results with the public.<\/p>\n

Noel, my interpretations are validated through real-world feedback such
\nas comments from the speakers themselves. Here is a demonstration
\nconducted live on-air, publicly witnessed with independent third-party
\ndocumentation:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/exopolitics.blogs.com\/files\/cherylnfts012709.rm<\/a><\/p>\n

Paul, the "prompting" model of communications that you describe
\nrequires that I, as a "person" require a "prompter" who "makes me
\nunderstand" what I am hearing. This raises the question "who is my
\nprompter?" and if that prompter is a "person", then "who is my
\nprompter's prompter?" my "prompter's prompter's prompter?" and so on.<\/p>\n

Can anybody demonstrate that all of these prompters exist while
\nproviding a flow chart that identifies their location and the
\nhierarchical structure by which they exert their successive prompting
\ninfluences?<\/p>\n

In the absence of such evidence, the "prompting" model appears to be nothing more than a "conspiracy theory".<\/p>\n

Now, let's look at how audio recordings are commonly represented in mainstream news coverage through this example:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2009\/SHOWBIZ\/TV\/12\/28\/charlie.sheen.911.call\/index.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Note the extensive use of subtitles. Is this "prompting" of the
\naudience another tell-tale sign informing us that the 9-11 tape being
\ndescribed is a hypothetical abstract with no basis in objective reality?<\/p>\n

Anyone who can replicate my evidence (in terms of reporting world
\nevents in advance and producing live demonstrations) while providing a
\nsimpler explanation will not only satisfy Occam's razor but will
\nadvance the development of our growing understanding of human
\ncommunications, cognition and performance.<\/p>\n

\nNoel Herbiet –<\/p>\n

Hi T, …@ Jon, thank you for your attempt at justification. However, I
\ndispute the fundamentals of your " science ". Firstly your reference to
\nmirror and safety ??? … a piece of glass with a silver covering
\nallowing full reflection .. that's all a mirror is. Nothing else
\nwhatever we choose to use it for, security or vanity !<\/p>\n

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

Esrever ni deyalp nehw aedi dnoces a sserpxe ylneddus aedi eno sserpxe
\not htuom eht hguorht desserpxe sdnuos fo ecneuqes a nac woh : scisab ot
\nkcab gnioG !<\/p>\n

Do you really believe there is a hidden meaning in the above sentence ?:)<\/p>\n

Sorry, the fundamentals don't gel, irrespective of alleged success or evidence.The foundation is flawed in my opinion.<\/p>\n

\nJon Kelly –<\/p>\n

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

Noel: Jon, thank you for your attempt at justification.<\/p>\n

Jon: Justification? From my perspective Noel, you and I are simply
\nhaving a conversation through Facebook comments. You have posted some
\nquestions, and I am attempting to answer them. Is every person's
\nattempt to answer your questions a "justification" or have you reserved
\nthis special status for my comments only?<\/p>\n

Noel: However, I dispute the fundamentals of your " science ".<\/p>\n

Jon: With regards to science, how do claims of observable "reverse
\nspeech" phenomena fit into Sir Karl's "Science as Falsification" model?<\/p>\n

I have to say that my reporting has been characterized by "risky
\npredictions" of severe and potentially catastrophic proportions on more
\nthan one occasion. And I'm not just talking about bypassing the censors
\nat the Pentagon. For example, every live demonstration offered to the
\npublic provides the opportunity for testing, refuting and
\nfalsification. Under those conditions, not only would the speaker be
\nunable to resolve the message, the message contents themselves would be
\nrefuted as well.<\/p>\n

Here's the sample demonstration I presented earlier:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/exopolitics.blogs.com\/files\/cherylnfts012709.rm<\/a><\/p>\n

Noel: Firstly your reference to mirror and safety ??? … a piece of
\nglass with a silver covering allowing full reflection .. that's all a
\nmirror is. Nothing else whatever we choose to use it for, security or
\nvanity !<\/p>\n

Jon: I'm simply pointing out that mirrors are widely recognized as
\nsafety devices, and that my application of a digital mirror to the
\nspeech signal is occurring within this socially recognized context.
\nThink about it, Noel. If mirrors were as widely recognized as the
\nsource of "pareidolic hallucinations" wouldn't that represent a public
\nsafety threat of global proportions? After all, how many of the world's
\nestimated 600,000,000 automobiles are not equipped with mirrors?<\/p>\n

Here's the US Department of Transportation's position on the use of mirrors:<\/p>\n

Standard No. 111 – Rearview Mirrors – Passenger Cars, Multipurpose
\nPassenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, School Buses and Motorcycles
\n(Effective 1-1-68)
\nThis standard specifies requirements for the performance and location
\nof inside and outside rearview mirrors. Its purpose is to reduce the
\nnumber of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor
\nvehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the
\nrear.<\/p>\n

School Buses (Effective 12-2-93)
\nRevised requirements for driver visibility in front of and along both sides of school buses.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.nhtsa.dot.gov\/cars\/rules\/import\/fmvss\/index.html#SN111<\/a><\/p>\n

Note the absence of any mention of mirrors as the source of
\nhallucinations. Maybe you should write to them Noel and explain how
\npeople are "seeing things that aren't there" when they look in the
\nmirrors on their automobiles.<\/p>\n

Noel: Secondly, in simple terms, you take a sound sequence and reverse
\nit. You then supposedly understand a new meaning to this, for all
\nintents and purposes, NEW sound sequence.<\/p>\n

Jon: Someone is driving a car down the street past an observer on the
\nsidewalk. The driver proceeds for some distance then turns the vehicle
\naround and drives back in the opposite direction. To the observer on
\nthe sidewalk, it may appear that two different cars are traveling in
\nopposite directions, and yet we know that it is in fact the same
\nvehicle being observed from multiple perspectives. Geometric transforms
\nalong one axis of observation (eg: the mirroring of the speech signal
\nwaveform) are not radical changes in the fundamental qualities of the
\nsubject being observed.<\/p>\n

However, the effects of such transforms on the mind of the observer can
\nbe easily detected. In other words, new perspectives create
\nopportunities for the mind's resolution of new meanings.<\/p>\n

Noel: Question ! Does your interpretation apply to all spoken languages .. it would have to in order to be real !<\/p>\n

Jon: There is significant testimony from an international community of
\nobservers describing messages found in other languages. However, my
\nfield work is related to English speakers only. On a related note, I
\nhave found examples of speakers communicating in different language
\ngiving messages in English.<\/p>\n

Noel: Another thing, accent ! I cant understand an Irishman when he
\nspeaks forward, never mind when you play it back to me in reverse !!<\/p>\n

Jon: But we would both agree that in spite of the fact that you are
\nunable to resolve the statements of the Irishman, that he is in fact
\nstill speaking (independent of your comprehension or lack thereof). I
\nhave observed examples where accents change between the original and
\nmirrored versions.<\/p>\n

Noel: The moment you prompt me to hear a particular word, of course I
\nwill recognise it … but would I initially ? No ! therefore it's YOUR
\ninterpretation that I am hearing.<\/p>\n

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

Here's the 9-11 call example again:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2009\/SHOWBIZ\/TV\/12\/28\/charlie.sheen.911.call\/index.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Are you feeling "prompted" yet?<\/p>\n

Noel: Its the same as fortune tellers,… they ask you questions, you
\nanswer, and WoW! they tell you something of your future … NO they
\ndidn't!!, YOU told them to start with, but people fall for it and pay
\nfor it, just as they "fall" for your interpretation once prompted.<\/p>\n

Jon: Noel, I agree that President Bush and Pastor Caldwell "told" me 2
\nyears in advance about the "Shock and Awe" strikes on Baghdad that
\nmarked the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. I also agree that Dennis
\nRader "told" me he was the BTK Killer before he confessed. I even agree
\nthat Oprah Winfrey "told" me her true feelings about James Frey. It's
\nsimply the way that I detected this "telling" that is the subject of
\ncontroversy. For me, it's the use of a mirror. For you, it's a
\nconspiracy of vast proportions.<\/p>\n

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

Noel: Going back to basics: how can a sequence of sounds expressed
\nthrough the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea
\nwhen played in reverse ?<\/p>\n

Jon: Noel, this very question has been explored by composers of Western
\nmusic going back hundreds of years. Their answers are included in both
\ncounterpoint and serialism as "Inversion (mirror transform along the
\ny-axis)" and "Retrograde (mirror transform along the x-axis)".<\/p>\n

Noel: Esrever ni deyalp nehw aedi dnoces a sserpxe ylneddus aedi eno
\nsserpxe ot htuom eht hguorht desserpxe sdnuos fo ecneuqes a nac woh :
\nscisab ot kcab gnioG !<\/p>\n

Do you really believe there is a hidden meaning in the above sentence ?:)<\/p>\n

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

It's just like what the scientists are telling us Noel:<\/p>\n

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

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

"Speech is a multidimensional stimulus. There are different ways you can extract a message from it" – Kourosh Saberi<\/p>\n

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

Jon: And that is what you have offered so far Noel, your personal
\nopinion. In return, I'm offering citations from literary and scientific
\nrecords along with evidence documented by independent third parties.<\/p>\n

\nNoel Herbiet –<\/p>\n

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

You lost me entirely on the mirror issue ! All I said is that a mirror
\nis just a reflective\/reflection device and nothing more, whether used
\nat home, in an automobile or in the head of a missile. You appeared to
\nplace great emphasis on the fact that your software uses mirror
\ntechniques. Be that as it may.<\/p>\n

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

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

Another thing, you say that words spoken in French for instance, provide you with a message in English ????
\nYou wrote : "On a related note, I have found examples of speakers
\ncommunicating in different language giving messages in English." Please
\nexplain.<\/p>\n

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

Do you not recognise the power of prompt or suggestion ? It is the
\nkeystone of all advertising. I can make you hear and see anything with
\nthe correct prompt or suggestion !! I know ! I have experienced this
\nfirst hand and it is a common occurrence in mass witness UFO sightings
\nwhen witnesses are in close proximity.<\/p>\n

I do not wish to debate this forever Jon … I have asked a simple
\nquestion, how does this mechanism work ?… bearing in mind that our
\nbrain is trained to recognise sounds and translate them into words
\ninstantly … speech sounds in reverse will obviously sound similar to
\nother words and a meaning could be extracted. The point is, is it
\nrelevant !<\/p>\n

By the way, is the hidden meaning of a spoken sentence related or
\nattached to the original speaker or does it still work when that same
\noriginal message is repeated by a second person? If a hidden message is
\ndetected in the reverse sound train of the second person, to whom does
\nthat hidden message belong, the original speaker or the second person ?<\/p>\n

I ask you kindly Jon, if you so wish, to explain the basic fundamentals
\nof your science in plain English, but not by referring me to websites.<\/p>\n

Tracy, please forgive the length of this debate but I am not willing to let this ride with substantiation.<\/p>\n

\nJon Kelly –<\/p>\n

Noel: Hi Jon … that you believe yourself to be correct is self
\nevident, along with the other individuals you quoted. You are quite
\nentitled to that and I respect that. However this is not my page and I
\nowe to it and its owner, Tracy, the respect of it as if I were in her
\nhome, this is her territory as it were so I will be brief and to the
\npoint.<\/p>\n

Jon: It is so funny to me to see you characterize my statements of fact
\nas matters of belief, Noel. Your ability to render matters of public
\nhistoric record into abstract rhetorical hypotheticals is amazing! But
\nit is exactly because you are representing yourself as someone who is
\ninterested in science that I am quoting from "the other individuals"
\nlike Sir Karl Popper, widely regarded as one of the greatest
\nphilosophers of science of the 20th century!<\/p>\n

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

Jon: Noel, you may think that you're lost but from my point of view,
\nyou actually appear to be demonstrating a grasp of the concepts I have
\nbeen repeating \ud83d\ude42 Earlier you stated that we were both detecting the
\nsame message, now you are confirming that you understand how it is that
\nI am using a mirror to detect the messages. Your statements certainly
\nresemble those of someone who is beginning to distance themselves from
\nthe "pareidolia" mob, don't they?<\/p>\n

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

Jon: Well, I think my answer to your earlier question was actually
\nquite responsive. You asked "how can a sequence of sounds expressed
\nthrough the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea
\nwhen played in reverse?" I said in response that composers of music in
\nthe Western tradition envisioned Retrograde as an instrument of both
\nCounterpoint and Serialism, allow the mirroring of one musical idea to
\ninvoke new aesthetic meaning through its counterpart. For words, simply
\nadd lyrics to the tones. The thematic arrangement of sounds IS the
\nrepresentation of an idea. So you see, those composers satisfied your
\nquestion in eras that predate the digital age, Noel.<\/p>\n

You are probably also familiar with the Search for Extra-Terrestrial
\nIntelligence or SETI. In simple terms, SETI is engaged in the detection
\nof intelligent electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on
\ndistant planets. SETI does not propose to answer questions regarding
\nthe mechanisms by which signals are transmitted, they are primarily
\nconcentrated on signal detection and analysis.<\/p>\n

It appears that you feel the presence of a transmission theory is
\nnecessary to validate the realities of repeated signals detection.
\nTherefore I am curious to know if you will be writing to SETI to
\nexplain how unscientific their mission is in the absence of any
\nexplanation of the mechanism by which the ET signals are transmitted?<\/p>\n

As I said earlier,"My essential claim is regarding detection of
\ninformation while observing the speech signal through a mirror filter."
\nIn these terms my work can be placed in the same camp with SETI and
\nother signals detection organizations who perform meaningful work in
\nthe absence of a robust transmission model.<\/p>\n

Sorry Noel, but I guess my telling you that "body language" is
\nunconscious involuntary muscular communications that often accompanies
\nspeech and even contradicts spoken statements just isn't going to cut
\nit!<\/p>\n

Noel: Another thing, you say that words spoken in French for instance, provide you with a message in English ????
\nYou wrote : "On a related note, I have found examples of speakers
\ncommunicating in different language giving messages in English." Please
\nexplain.<\/p>\n

Jon: I was referring to the Arabic statements of Saddam Hussein as
\nheard during his interview on "60 Minutes" just prior to the war.<\/p>\n

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

Jon: Your promotion of the "prompting" model of communications in this
\ndiscussion seems antagonistic to your stated feelings about
\nconspiracies Noel. Your prompting model informs us that the average
\nreasonable person requires a prompter who makes them sense phenomena,
\neither real or imagined. I'm just an average person Noel, so why don't
\nyou clear the air and explain who is prompting me to make me hear
\nmessages, who is my prompter's prompter, my prompter's prompter's
\nprompter? Lay out the financials, the organizational structure and the
\nlocations of this invisible yet seemingly infinite army of prompting
\npersonnel and put this issue to rest once and for all \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n

Noel: Do you not recognise the power of prompt or suggestion ? It is
\nthe keystone of all advertising. I can make you hear and see anything
\nwith the correct prompt or suggestion !! I know ! I have experienced
\nthis first hand and it is a common occurrence in mass witness UFO
\nsightings when witnesses are in close proximity.<\/p>\n

Jon: I get it, Noel. Your testimony of first hand experience is more
\nthan enough evidence to validate the "prompting" hypothesis, but even
\nwhen presented with citations from legal, scientific and literary
\nrecords along with evidence of events that were publicly witnessed and
\nindependently documented by third parties, the realities of reverse
\nspeech phenomena are simply impossible for you to validate.<\/p>\n

Is that your point?<\/p>\n

It's also kind of funny that you claim to be able to make me "hear and
\nsee anything" but the only way I could resolve this claim is to believe
\nthat if your contribution to this discussion, the outcome of your
\nchallenge that you initiated, was intended to prompt me, to make me
\nbelieve that you were completely wrong and in denial regarding the
\nfacts that I am presenting.<\/p>\n

Was that your hidden intention Noel? If so, I concede the point to you!<\/p>\n

Noel: I do not wish to debate this forever Jon … I have asked a
\nsimple question, how does this mechanism work ?… bearing in mind that
\nour brain is trained to recognise sounds and translate them into words
\ninstantly … speech sounds in reverse will obviously sound similar to
\nother words and a meaning could be extracted. The point is, is it
\nrelevant !<\/p>\n

Jon: I have lucidly and repeatedly explained the mechanisms of signal
\ndetection to you in clear, unambiguous terms Noel. I have also offered
\nsuggestions in order to provide conceptual frameworks from within which
\nyou might begin to imagine the possible mechanisms involved in
\ntransmissions. I have even demonstrated that real signals detection
\nscience is taking place today in the absence of such models.<\/p>\n

If clinical, forensic and military grade intelligence are relevant in
\ntoday's world, the approach I am using for signals detection can
\nreasonably be recognized within the frameworks of contemporary
\nscientific thought.<\/p>\n

Consider that, from the perspective of Karl Popper's critical
\nrationalism, it is the the least probable theory that still withstands
\nattempts to falsify it which is the preferred basis of scientific
\nphilosophy. The demonstrated public historic record of my most
\nimprobable research satisfies Popper's criteria unambiguously.<\/p>\n

Noel: By the way, is the hidden meaning of a spoken sentence related or
\nattached to the original speaker or does it still work when that same
\noriginal message is repeated by a second person? If a hidden message is
\ndetected in the reverse sound train of the second person, to whom does
\nthat hidden message belong, the original speaker or the second person
\n?… See More<\/p>\n

Jon: President Bush's inaugural address was recited from a script, yet
\nthe President's characterization of the spoken word gave it novel and
\nunexpected meanings, including disclosure of intent to invade Iraq.
\nOther than examples of speakers reciting scripted statements, my
\nresearch does not entirely answer this question, leaving the path open
\nto people like yourself, Noel, to design experiments and test for
\npossible answers.<\/p>\n

Noel Herbiet –<\/p>\n

Jon, thank you for your lengthy response. However cannot continue this
\ndebate when a simple question is evaded. My intention was for you to
\nprovide me and others who follow Tracy's page the opportunity to
\nunderstand the basic fundamentals of your science which is highly
\ncontroversial.<\/p>\n

My intention was not to present you with a free platform for extended
\npublicity. My simple question has yet to be answered in a simple direct
\nmanner. Any further discussion can be handled by private message if you
\nso wish.<\/p>\n

For the record:<\/p>\n

1. I have no intention of questioning SETI nor would I compare your
\nscience with that of SETI. Their's is an attempt to capture a
\ntransmission,… yours is to receive that transmission, turn it
\nbackwards thereby allowing you to find hidden meaning not originally
\nintended.<\/p>\n

2. You will never convince me that Arabic translates into English when played in reverse, Sorry !<\/p>\n

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

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

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

This concludes my comments on this subject, I remain sceptical and
\nwould ask that you exercise caution and due care in the application of
\nyour science and its consequences on a gullible public mind.<\/p>\n

I would also ask that you respect another person's FB page with the
\nlength of your replies which amount to extended publicity for yourself.<\/p>\n

END TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

For more information about my audio research and other related fields
\nplease be sure to watch the 6-part series "Jon Kelly Live at ECETI"
\nposted on my Youtube channel: http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/yourinnervoicedotcom#p\/u<\/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-896","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896","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=896"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=896"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=896"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}