#+reversespeech+

So, I was talking to my brother the other day, and his response woke me to a perception issue others have toward REVERSE SPEECH. I want to categorically clear up this misconception.

I told him I had just made X amount of dollars in a couple of days with Reverse Speech and how stoked I was. He paused and asked me if I had seen the video where Listening to it you heard one thing said forward and then when someone wrote what they were hearing below it you would hear that said, and if the original interpretation was then written under the video you would then hear that again in the video. Meaning that it sounded like it could be saying several different things in the same clip, depending on which version was written in text below and in conjunction with hearing the audio.

I told him it wasn't the same thing and then went on. But I did not express the differences very well. So, I am endeavoring to do that here.

The reason why that is not the same thing is that we do intensive vetting of these reversals. This is not a " kinda sounds like " situation where RS is employed. We Have a rigorous scientific protocol for documenting reversals. That is why the classes are so intense, and the reason it takes so long to get it right.

First off, There are checkpoints that must be met in order for anything to be considered a legitimate reversal, and if the audio can be interpreted to say something else then it is not a documentable option. This means we throw it out(no matter how much work we put into it).

Number 1 is called 'complementarity', this means that the message heard in reverse must have a connection to the subject being spoken of in the forward, conscious, dialog. and i mean , usually to the very words we find the reversal in: we place brackets around the forward speech the reversal is behind.

so say this [is The senten]ce...the reversal would be contained in the bracketed forward speech.

Number 2 is syllable count. There must actually be the correct amount of distinguishable syllables for what you think you are hearing. Not 1 less, not 1 more. we listen at different speeds and we slow stuff WAAAAY down to be sure we are exact about this.

Number 3 is vowel and consonant sounds, similarly we slow things way down for this, If you cannot hear every consonant and vowel in the correct order for what you think you are hearing then it is not a legitimate reversal and cannot be documented.

Number 4 is the beginning and endings of the words. It has to be accurate. If they aren't there then it is not a legitimate reversal.

Number 5 there needs to be legitimate space between the words. You cannot pick apart a long line of gibberish and make it say the words you want. the words will contain actual spacing to make words and sentences.

Number 6 is distinction. When you run it backward over a section of the conversation in reverse the words will literally jump out at you after they have been found. the jumping out is how we locate the beginning of a reversal. then we listen around it to see what else we can hear to get the message. sometimes it is just a single word. that is not a reversal, and we do not document that except in some rare situations.

Number 7 is a melodious tone. in most situations, the genuine reversal will carry a melodious tone and a beat that can be identified

Number 8 it must be grammatically correct. If the grammar sounds like an idiot speaking, then it is not a quantifiable reversal and it is unacceptable.

So, there you have it. in some cases you can relax a little bit of a rule here and there, for instance, if someone always drops their g's in conversation then they will not pronounce them in reverse.

This is not something that kind of sounds like someone is saying one thing but it really could be this other thing. It is not an almost, it is precise.

I am going to put in one example, and I believe it will sufficiently relate what I am trying to present to yall here.

This is Pastor Arnold Murray. At the end of his daily lesson he opens mail and answers questions. In this instance the lady opened with a joke, and Pastor Murray responds, in reverse, to the joke.

This what the documentation looks like

F1: [but im young in the lord, well thats just fantastic, uh]/well i guess that helps someone, oh we'd be lying madam R1: i guess that helps someone, oh we'd be lying madam. F = 0:00:00 to 0:00:08, R = 0:00:01 to 0:00:05

notice the square brackets. the reversal itself is repeated 3 times at varying speeds to help the un initiated, and the complementarity is precise. it has a direct correlation to the thought behind the speech