BackTalk
The Official Journal Of
The Reverse Speech Education And Research Institute (USA)
Revcom – The Society For Reversed Communication Research (Australia)
“Backtalk” is an international journal that reports exclusively on the ongoing research into Reverse Speech. It is produced with the joint effort of Reverse Speech researchers in both Australia and the United States Of America.
Publisher: David J. Oates
FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR
Welcome to our new style and format in this issue of Backtalk. I hope you like it. It is indicative of the general up beat direction of Reverse Speech at this current time, and also of my continuing plans to constantly upgrade and improve Backtalk.
We have a new member on our editorial staff – Reverse Speech Trainer and Advanced Analyst, Becky Thompson. Becky will now be making regular contributions to Backtalk both in the form of articles and general editorial comments. She will be giving Backtalk a slightly different flavor and greater versatility – a change that is anticipated with great excitement. To get a feel for Becky’s style, have a look at her comments in this issue’s “Letters To the Editor”. She will now be answering all your letters. But Beware! She has a mischievous pen. Her article on “Setao the Bearded” will show you that.
We also welcome to Backtalk as a regular writer, Reverse Speech Analyst, Jeff Smiley. Jeff is currently training for his Advanced Analyst and Trainer certificates and he has some new ideas about how people find reversals. He will be presenting these ideas in future articles. His first one is in this issue.
And …. wait for it! Australia is making its presence felt in a major way. Reverse Speech Developers, Greg Albrecht from South Australia, and Paul Von Stroheim from Sydney, have both been making regular contributions to Backtalk (see Paul’s article in this issue), however we commented in last issue’s “Bits And Pieces” column that the Queensland Research Institute has been very quiet lately. All that is about to change. In my last trip back to Australia (March 1991), I went to visit the Queenslanders and told them to shape up. So they are. The new frontier in Australia is about to forge ahead again. Reverse Speech Developer, John Suess (head of the Institute in Australia), has an article in this issue, and Australia is going to have a training class going sometime next year (see details on page 19).
Thus, the world of Reverse Speech keeps on evolving.
Talking about Australia, as fate would have it, within a few days of my arrival back onto home soil, American media decided that they wanted Reverse Speech. So I had phone calls running back and forth between the two countries as reporters hustled for information. Consequently, Reverse Speech received some excellent write ups in newspapers across the United States (see in particular Harper’s magazine, May 1991), and I’ve been conducting many radio interviews since my return. The media appearances I had planned in Australia, however, did not come about. Oh well. That’s life.
Onto some REALLY good news – the book is being published!! We have chosen an excellent publisher, Knowledge Systems Inc., in Indianapolis. The official release date is October lst., and they are fully expecting it to be a best seller. Many thanks must go to Reverse Speech Developer, Kathleen Hawkins, who has spent more than a year pulling this book together, turning my manuscript from raw research notes and semi-formed ideas into an easy to read masterpiece!
So, all you people who have been anxiously waiting for the book to come out – you don’t have to wait much longer. In fact, you can place an advance order right now!
All in all, Reverse Speech is going great. We currently have two classes going. One in Dallas, Texas, and the other in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. There are in excess of 30 students in these two classes with some of them flying in monthly from Los Angeles and San Fransisco. I’ve just returned from a trip to Montreal, Canada, and training will begin there in August. Two other possible classes are currently on the planning table for Indianapolis and Los Angeles later on this year.
On a personal note, I am just so very happy to see Reverse Speech (my little baby) starting to grow up and learning to walk. And whilst on the subject of babies, my twin daughters (who aren’t really babies anymore – they’ll be four in July) will be coming over to the states in October for a few months. So, for those of you who live in Dallas, expect to see me doddering around very paternally not too long from now.
Welcome to the MANY new subscribers. I hope you like Backtalk. See you next issue.
David Oates
THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION AND REVERSE SPEECH
Ralph Thomas is an investigative specialist and Director of “The National Association Of Investiigative Specialists, Inc.” He publishes their bi-monthly journal, “Connections”. He is currently writing a book on the Kennedy Assassinahon and this article is an edited reprint from one of his book’s chapters. Ralph is a student in the current Analyst class in Dallas. Copyright on this article is owned by Ralph Thomas and is reprinted with his kind permission.
All reversals quoted in this article (and throughout this journal) are indicated by bold type in the line below the forward dialogue, and have been verified to be exact by the staff of Backtalk. (Anyone who has access to these tapes can play them in reverse and verify them.)The precise sechon of forward dialogue in which the reversal occurred is indicated by brackets – [ ]. All reversals have been rated on a Validity scale of 1-6 (6 being the clearest) based on its audible clarity and syntactic structure. Some editorial comments are made periodically throughout this article.
INTRODUCTION
Very little comments made by Oswald have been captured on tape. Although he was interviewed by the Dallas Police Department after his arrest, the official story is that no tape recording was made during the twelve hours of interrogation by Dallas Homicide Detective, Will Fritz.
The reason given by Captain Fritz for not recording the interview is that he did not have access to a tape recorder and that he had requested the purchase of a tape recorder for quite some time. I find this hard to swallow. One of the largest and one of the best police departments in the country in the early 1960’s certainly had to have a tape recorder and I am certain that it’s use would have been considered with an interrogation with the suspect of the crime of the century.
It is a well documented fact that Captain Will Fritz was ordered by the federal government and President Johnson to stop his investigation. Sources reveal that Johnson called Captain Fritz and stated that he had his man and in the interest of national security,”stop your investigation.” Based on my research which would be too lengthy to go into in this article, I believe that Will Fritz likely had made tape recordings but they have either been suppressed or destroyed. I think that it is also important to point out that Will Fritz was known among police circles as one of the best police detectives in the country and what ever took place, Captain Fritz was following orders from his government.
There are some comments made by Oswald after his arrest and before his murder that have been captured on tape. He was permitted a very brief news conference and was recorded by newsmen as he made his way to and from the police interrogation room and his jail cell before he himself was shot down. The following is the transcript with speech reversals of the news conference.
Oswald: “I’ve be accused [of ah, of ah] murdering a policeman.” [I know nothing more than that.]” Lone Wolf. (Validity 4) I’m the lonely Camelot. (Validity 5)
Oswald: “I do request that someone [ to come forward], to give me [ah, legal assistance].” I mustn’t, I mustn’t. (Validity 6) We need more help. (Validity 5)
News Reporter: “Did you kill the President?”
Oswald: “[No I have not been charged with that in fact nobody has said that to me yet]. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall ah [asked me that] question.” Shock Daddy. Got one problem, that’s nasty unknown. (Validity 4) I didn’t scratch. (Validity 4)
That was the end of the news conference. It is apparent from the video of this news conference that the Dallas police cut it off. Oswald appeared frustrated at this point. It’s my feeling based on additional research that the news conference was cut off by the Dallas police because they had not intended for a question and answer session to take place at all.
The news conference was held in the police lineup room. Oswald was first displayed to the news media on the other side of the glass but reporters were complaining. The Dallas officers then escorted Oswald out onto the main floor of the lineup room and the reporters were able to ask the few questions.
One reporter asked him as he was escorted away something about the cut above his eye and Oswald responded that a policeman hit him. But the sound track was of very poor quality for reversals at that point with too many reporters talking in the background.
I was able to locate a few recordings from old news reels as Oswald was moved through the hallways of the police station. Here is one of those comments along with the reversals.
News Reporter: “Did you fire that rifle?”
Oswald: “I don’t know the facts that you people have been given but I [emphatically deny these] charges.” See now I’m the give-up. (Validity 4)
Still another comment was recorded in the hallway when reporters asked Oswald’s involvement.
Oswald: “These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything.” That killer was gifted. (Validity 3)
Reporter: “Did you shoot the President?”
Oswald: “I didn’t shoot anybody.” Are they all going to dish it out? (Validity 4)
The only other reversals I have found on Oswald occurred during a short excerpt I have of a news conference he held in New Orleans just prior to the assassination (I am currently waiting for a tape of the entire interview). They are “Oswald angry / Hear them. Wish to kill President.”
These reversals appear to show the same trend as seen in the preceding nine reversals Oswald made after his arrest, and before he was shot down.
In summary they are:
Lone Wolf
I’m the lonely Camelot.
I mustn’t, I mustn’t.
We need more help.
Shock Daddy. Got one probiem
that’s nasty unknown.
I didn’t scratch
Help! See now I’m the give-up.
That killer was gifted.
Are they all going to dish it out?
The reversal that Oswald used where he said forward, “I request sorneone to come forward to provide legal assistance”, that said “We need more help,” is significant in that he used the word “we“. Does this indicate that Oswald was referring to some other party, or parties, other than himself?
The reversal that Oswald used when he said forward, “These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything” – “That killer was gifted“, suggests some connection with, and even respect of, the killer. It does, however, suggest that the killer was NOT Oswald.
The reversal that says, “Help! I’m the give-up“, would also seem to indicate that Oswald did not kill the President, but was rather a [Ed: voluntary?] “patsy”. The reversals that say, “Lonely Wolf” and “I’m the lonely Camelot“, are Structural Metaphors indicating behavioral strategies and personality patterns.
It is interesting to note, however, that Camelot is the name of a song that Kennedy listened to over and over again and that news reporters have since coined the Kennedy Presidency as Camelot.
[Ed: Structural metaphors are complex imageries that require in depth knowledge of Reverse Speech theory to understand. In broad terms, in this context they appear to indicate a “quest” of some sort. Wolf is the hunter and protector or “driving force” of behavior and Camelot is the end goal of a quest, the ultimate vision or achievement.
Overall, the general reversal trend is that of a man willingly involved in the assassination plot with an idealistlc, almost “innocent”, drive. I get the “sense” of a 60s rebel teenage character (Shock Daddy) struggling with both his own purpose and that of society. I suggest that there were events transpiring behind the scenes of which he had some knowledge, but not as much as he thought.
Based on this sampling of reversals, there is NO indication that Oswald did the actual killing, but there is STRONG indication that he was involved and willing to take the “fall” for it.]
Several additional news conferences and on the spot interviews were recorded with other officials involved in the investigation of the assassination. Henry Wade was the district attorney in charge of the Oswald case. Jessie Curry was the Dallas Police Chief at the time of the assassination. Most of these can be located on various videos in the form of short new clips. Here are transcriptions of the ones I have located and analyzed:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WADE
Reporter: “Has he told anybody he killed the President?”
Wade: “He hasn’t admitted killing the President to anyone. I don’t know what he said … he says he didn’t do it. [We’re still working on the evidence. This has] been a joint effort by the Secret Service, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Dallas Police Department, The Sheriff’s Office, my office and Detective Will Fritz has been in charge of it.” This is the way … you won’t believe this. (Validity 4)
I believe that it is important to point out that my research shows that Henry Wade had been asked by the federal government to cut off any comments concerning conspiracy theories. My research reveals that Wade had been contacted by high ranking federal government officials (most likely Lyndon Johnson or J. Edgar Hoover) and briefed about this.
The reversal, “This is the way … you won’t believe this“, strongly implies that Wade was attempting to follow the guidelines and instructions he had been given by the federal government. It further implies that he wanted the news reporters to believe that Oswald was the assassin. “You won’t believe this“, implies there is more to the story.
Reporter: ” How would you describe his mood during the questioning?”
Wade: “[Very arrogant]. [Has been all along].” Very ignorant. (Validity 6) More water, sir? (Validity 5)
It is hard to tell what Wade was referring to in his reversal, “Very ignorant.” Was he saying that he felt Oswald was an ignorant person or was he saying Oswald was ignorant when it came to the assassination? My research reveals that Oswald was not an ignorant person and, in fact, he was a well read individual. Maybe it was his own personal perception of the man. “More water, sir“, is a little more difficult. It could be an unconscious thought, flashing back to asking Oswald if he wanted more water during the interrogation. [Ed: Water is also an Operational metaphor indicating nourishment or emotional relief ].
Reporter: “How do you sum him up ah as a man based on you experience with criminal types?”
Wade: “I think he’s a man that ah [planned this] murder [weeks or months ago and]….” Some help (Validity 4) No boy, just had the skill. (Validity 4)
This reversal would seem to imply Wade’s thought that one person could not have had the skill to pull off the assassination of the President of the United States and his thoughts that Oswald had some help.
Wade (Cont.): “…and laid his plans carefully and carried them out [as planned at that time (and) what he was going to tell] the police that are questioning him at present. I would say that without any doubt he’s the killer, the law says [beyond a reasonable doubt] until a moral certainty which I’m, there’s no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy.” Influence make Leo mad that’s going to help you. (Validity 3) There’s a problem here (Validity 4).
The reversal, “There’s a problem here”, implies that Wade thought that the evidence that was collected up until this time had a least one major problem proving Oswald’s guilt.
Reporter: “Will you ask death in the electric chair for Lee Oswald?” Wade: “[Yes, sir]. [We’ll ask the death penalty.]” I think so. (Validity 2) I’d pay to sell him. (Validity 5)
In another news conference, I found this reversal on Wade.
Wade: “Yes, I haven’t gone into that the paraffin tests show that he had ah, recently fired a gun, it was on both hands.”
Reporter: “Both?”
Wade: “Both hands.”
Reporter: ” —(Can not hear question)—”
Wade: “[A gun]” A rifle. (Validity 5)
A paraffin test measures chemical elements on a subject’s hands and face that would be strong evidence concerning the firing of a weapon.Paint is one thing that will produce a positive result with a paraffin test and fresh paint was being used on plywood floors at the Texas School Book Depository Building the day of the assassination. Oswald’ s test results were positive for his hands and negative on his face. A negative result on the face would indicate that a rifle was not fired by the suspect. If Oswald didn’t fire a rifle, he could not have assassinated the President. Wade commented that the results revealed Oswald fired a gun in forward speech. He said, “a rifle“, in reverse. There is a big difference.
POLICE CHIEF CURRY
Reporter: “What was his comments?”
Chief Curry: “He doesn’t give any motive except he denies them both. ”
Reporter: “We understand that no one actually saw this man pull the trigger of the rifle that apparently killed the President. Is that correct?”
Chief Curry: “That is correct up till this time in our investigation.”
Reporter: “What about the ballistics tests, Chief?”
Chief Curry; “On the [ballistics test] we haven’t had a final [report, but] it is, I understand, will be favorable.” The throat (Validity 4) Take me to him. (Validity 5)
Curry’s reversal about the throat is interesting. I assume that Curry is referring to Kennedy’s throat wound and the reversal may indicate he would like to see it. Kennedy’s body had already been removed from Dallas to Washington, D.C. which was actually an unlawful act of itself according to Texas law. The Parkland Hospital doctors who had treated Kennedy had stated in a news conference that the throat wound was an entrance wound. If the throat wound was an entrance wound, then the shot was fired from the front. If it was fired from the front, Oswald could not have fired it as his position at the time of the shooting was behind the President.
Here are reversals from another news conference with Curry:
Reporter: “Was there any surveillance ah, was the police aware of his presence in Dallas?
Chief Curry: “We and the police department here did not know he was in Dallas. [I understand the] FBI did know he was in Dallas.” Pay ransom off. (Validity 4)
This is the first time the word ransom comes up from members of the Dallas Police. This word is documented again towards the end of this study. The specific meaning of this is not clear. Is it possible that the police chief’s thought patterns were centered on the payment of a ransom?
Reporter: “The FBI informed the police?”
Chief Curry: “[Yes]. We did not have knowledge.” Save me! (Validity 6)
The reversal, “Save me“, implies that Curry was concerned about his comment. The FBI did, in fact, know of Oswald, knew that he was in Dallas and had interviewed him several times in the months before the assassination. It is also apparent that the FBI had an ongoing investigative file on Oswald in the Dallas field office.
Reporter: “You were informed?”
Chief Curry: “We had not been informed of this man.”
Reporter: “Chief, do you have any concern for the safety of your prisoner in view of the high feeling among the people of Dallas over the assassination of the President?”
Chief Curry: “No, because his, [ah, necessary precautions will be] taken of course. ” His sentence. That’s because he’s hostage. (Validity 4) The two reversals, “His sentence“, and “That’s because he’s hostage“, are interesting. It is my opinion that Curry was referring to Oswald’s court sentence which would be death in the electric chair for the assassination. If he was referring to his sentence which was carried out by Jack Ruby, the same result of Oswald’s death and silence becomes the issue. The reversal concerning Oswald being a hostage is also interesting. Hostage is defined in the Funk & Wagnall’s International Dictionary as: “A person held as a pledge for the performance of some stipulation.” [Ed: Curry’s reversal may also imply that he knew, at least on an unconscious level, that Ruby was going to shoot Oswald.]
Reporter: “Chief, we understand you have the results of the paraffin tests which were made to determine whether or not Oswald fired a weapon. ”
Curry: “I understand it was, I understand it was positive. ” Reporter: “But what does that mean? It only means that he fired a gun.” Although I didn’t find any reversals in Curry’s response, his forward speech implies that Oswald didn’t fire a rifle, only a gun. Again, if Oswald didn’t fire a rifle, he didn’t kill the President. I also believe that it is significant to point out that neither Curry or Wade ever directly pointed out the test was negative on the face which indicates Oswald did not fire a rifle. They left that part of the test out. Here are some comments made by Curry, after Oswald was shot.
Curry: “[The suspect’s name is Jack] Rubinstein, I believe. [He goes by the name of Jack] Ruby.” That’s the man that does it. (Validity 4) That’s the man and a druggy. (Validity 4)
My research indicates that Ruby was an underworld figure and a major contact for drug traffic.
“That’s the man that does it“, and “That’s the man and a druggy“, may imply that Curry knew of Ruby’s involvement both in drugs and the assassination of Oswald.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WADE
Reporter: “Did you know Ruby before this?”
Wade: “[No, sir. Saw him in this very same] room Friday night when we had the defendant up here. If some of you [will recall he asked a question] from out here, ah, it was an answer to a question … He was standing right back here and I didn’t know who he was. I thought he was a member of the press and he told me as I walked out of here that he was a night club operator.” Yes, sir! Send me Dallas night clubs. (Validity 4) Help me! Said he knew Oswald.(Validity 2)
The first reversal indicates that Wade did know Ruby. My research of Ruby’ s employees at his night club indicates that Wade had been a guest at Ruby’s club in the past. The second reversal above, “Help me! Said he knew Oswald”, indicates that Ruby had a relationship with Oswald. My research of several witnesses clearly support the fact that Oswald and Ruby did know each other before the assassination.
Reporter: “What question did he ask you?”
Wade: “[What]?” No (Validity 4)
Reporter: “What question did he ask?”
Wade: “I don’t remember but he, [he, ah maybe it was an answer, but] I don’t remember.” That’s him. Him forget about it. (Validity 3)
In my opinion, this reversal indicates that Wade wanted to get off this question.
JIM LOVELL INTERVIEW
Jim Lovell was the police officer who was handcuffed to Oswald when Oswald was shot by Ruby.
Reporter: Can you tell us what happened, ah, were you handcuffed to him?”
Lovell: “I was handcuffed to him and also had a hold of the waistband of his trousers. I saw this man come from the crowd and at the time he emerged from this crowd of these people he was not more than six [or seven feet from us], from me.” Mafia restaurant. (Validity 5)
Reporter: “Did you see the gun his hand as he came?”
Lovell: “I saw the gun in his hand as he emerged from the crowd but [being such a short distance from me] ah, I had no time to say anything. ” He’s a mobster. This bullshit. Let’s hit him. (Validity 4)
Reporter: “Ah, when Oswald fell to the ground was he unconscious at that point?”
Lovell: “[I would say if he was not he was ?????? ah nearly so.]” What’s he doing, ah, Ransom, ransom, he paid us off. (Validity 5)
Reporter: “Did you recognize him when he came through?”
Lovell: “Yes, I have known Jack Ruby for a number of years and I recognized him just as soon as he emerged from the crowd.”
The three reversals I found are:
Mafia restaurant
He’s a mobster. This bullshit.
Let’s hit him.
What’s he doing, ah, Ransom,
ransom he paid us off.
The first two reversals appear to reflect Lovell’s belief that Ruby was a member of organized crime. My research into Ruby’s background points in this direction. For the second time, I found the word ransom again by a member of the Dallas Police. When considering the forward dialogue, does it imply that Lovell is referring to the fact that Ruby paid someone off?
YALP S’DNIM
Reverse Speech Developer, John Suess, heads up the Australian affiliated branch of the Reverse Speech Education And Research Institute. He is the founder and current President of the Queensland Hypnosis Society in Brisbane, Australia, as well as owner and founder of Myndslink. He is a certified hypnotist (#4), with over 16 years of clinical experience, as well as being a Trainer for Neuro Linguistic Programming.
John brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to Reverse Speech and this article is the first of many he has planned for Backtalk.
I recall that particular evening, some years ago, when the President of the Queensland Hypnosis Society brought along a presenter with a novel concept.
This chap arrived with boxes of cassette tapes and a couple of tape recorders. He had long black hair and a black beard which somehow reminded me of the lead in a movie about pirates I had recently seen. He told us about how he had spent the last few years playing tapes backward and listening to the statements that occur between the gibberish which appeared to contribute more information to the flow of communication between the people speaking on the tape. I think as the presentation continued David was surprised since the members of the QHS readily accepted and understood this remarkable discovery. David, it seemed, was usually confronted with disbelief and argument about the validity of this phenomena.
Since that meeting with David, like many others, have observed him with curiosity about how has he developed the skill to hear reversals and what is the strategy he used. To those observations, I might add a few of mine.
David presents as a person with a predominance of the Auditory sense with the general build of an Auditory, and giving out a number of accessing cues in support of that sensory preference. Further, David reports a sense of comfort in working with the auditory mediums of tapes and radio as opposed to a nervousnesses when confronted with visual media like TV. David, of course, is deceptive in that when he speaks of finding reversals, he uses visual predicates and descriptions.
It seems to me that David uses visual as a check or test of what is heard, using synesthesia. Synesthesia is suggested by David’s report, where the person tends to report the second sensory step first and with priority. Also David is strongly associated and “In Time”, which means that he puts his past behind him and focuses straight ahead to the future in front of him.
Interestingly David typically has difficulty planning immediate future, but plans medium future with relative ease. “I know what I’ll be doing 6 months from now, but I’m unsure of what I’ll be doing next week.” —- “I prefer ‘Now’ to be unplanned and spontaneous, for example while in Australia I prefer to just decide what I want to do and go and do it.” [This possibly suggests an associated now, but a dissociated future. .]
Also David has a negative motivation strategy which is evident when he is about to lecture or teach when he shows signs of stress, which is also evident when he is preparing to analyze tapes, again indicating a need to build stress before thresholding into tape analysis mode. This is of course deceptive because David shows strong positive motivation when he is about to have involvement with other people.
Additionally in my observed observations, when David is with me and talking about himself, or actually analyzing tapes in my presence, he is strongly aware of detail from which he constructs the larger picture. Also David has a self frame of reference which means he relies on his own opinion rather than the opinions of others to validate his findings.
Clearly to the trainee working to learn Reverse Speech and who may choose to model David to acquire these skills, these kinds of issues may be useful. Of course, more observation, analysis and data may be required. Just as the comments I make here may be of little use to a particular trainee.
NLP GLOSSARY OF TERMS
PREDOMINANCE OF THE AUDITORY SENSE -NLP categorizes people to one of the three main sensory input systems – Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic. This phrase means that David is exhibiting many indicators of paying primary attention to sounds. Thus David is Auditory. GENERAL BUILD OF AN AUDITORY – People who predominantly pay attention to the auditory channel have a similar body build. An auditory body build is best described as saxophone shaped.
ACCESSING CUES – These are the signals that David is mainly paying attention to the Auditory channel. Signals include tilting the head, gestures, eye movements, etc.
VISUAL PREDICATES, and DESCRIPTIONS -Most predicates (verbs and adverbs) fit into the three channels ~ Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic. Although David is auditory while listening to reversals, he speaks about it in a Visual mode – “They look like”, “I see them”, etc., instead of, “I hear them”, “They sound like”.
SYNESTHESIA – Two channels are used simultaneously and may appear to be only one. David hears reversals and then immediately sees them written in the air. It happens so quickly, and possibly out of his awareness, that David sometimes misleads by acting as if it is only one process.
IN TIME – This is part of Time Line Therapy. Another way to categorize people in NLP is “in time” and “through time”. In time people are in the moment and tend to arrive late. They become so into what they are doing right now that they don’t think about what’s next. “Through time” people tend to be more organized and arrive early to appointments.
PUTS THE PAST BEHIND HIM AND FOCUSES STRAIGHT AHEAD TO THE FUTURE IN FRONT OF HIM – Time Line Therapy also suggests that people organize the events of their life in a “line”. In time people’s time line runs through them in some direction. John is suggesting that David’s line runs from behind him – his past events, and his future is in a line in front of him.
ASSOCIATED/DISSOCIATED – A person is “associated” if he is inside of memories – seeing through his own eyes, hearing through his own ears, feeling the feelings of the event as if it were happening now. This suggests that David’s feelings are more concerned with the now, rather than being associated in the past or associated in the future.
DISSOCIATED – The feelings are more distant in these memories. It’s as if you can picture yourself experiencing the events, but you are not feeling the feelings. David sees his future in an unemotional sort of way.
NEGATIVE MOTIVATION STRATEGY – What motivates an individual. A negative motivation is that you move away from negative emotions, situations and stress. This suggests David gives off negative symptoms prior to something he wants to do.
THRESHOLDING – Going over threshold means he creates enough stress that builds up to a threshold then it motivates him to act – analyze tapes.
POSITIVE MOTIVATION STRATEGY – positive motivates him when he knows he will work with people.
RESEARCH INFORMATION
BI LINGUAL
In previous issues of this column we have reported on Reverse Speech and other languages. Mostly we have been speculating based on minimal research, but now we have more data upon which to propose some form of hypothesis.
Training is beginning in Montreal, Canada, (the French quarter) in August of this year. David Oates recently made his first trip to Montreal to establish the class. During this trip David made recordings with the Canadian Reverse Speech coordinator, Michel Belanger, who is bi-lingual (French and English).
In one recording, David conducted a session in the normal manner, except Michel answered his questions in both French and English. The first observation noted was that when Michel spoke in English, nearly all of his reversals were in English, irregardless of the context. When Michel spoke in French a marked difference was noted. His INTERNAL DIALOGUE reversals were all in French, that is, issues that related to him. A simulated example: “Why aren’t I working as well as I should / because my drive for money is too low.” BUT, when the reversal was EXTERNAL DIALOGUE, that is directed to David, the reversal was in English, even though he was speaking AND thinking in French at the time. A simulated example: “I didn’t hear that question / Tell me again David.” On one occasion, however, an INTERNAL DIALOGUE reversal was heard in English, while Michel spoke French, but Michel remembers that occasion well and was actually thinking in English for the split second that the English reversal was delivered.
In another experiment, David and Michel carried on a casual conversation about Reverse Speech where David spoke in English and Michel spoke solely in French. David reports it as an unusual experience. For the first 2-3 minutes, forward communication flow was very difficult but as rapport between the two built up, and Michel began to use hand signals along with his French, effective communication was established even though two different languages were being spoken.
The reversals found were amazing. Basically an entire reversed conversation transpired IN ENGLISH from both David AND Michel, that directly related to the forward discussion. For example: David, I must serve my mission. Michel, I will help your mission. David, My baby [Reverse Speech] will grow. Michel, The Whirlwind will make the baby grow. etc. etc.
Finally, Michel made a tape recording of his 18 month old son. In one part of the section analyzed, he was dressing his son and speaking to him in French. His son gave off both French and English reversals that were both internal and external dialogue. For example, “Heavy shoes” and “Je vu” (French for “I want”). The language spoken at home is French and the child is learning to speak forwards in French. So why the English reversals? The son has much contact with English. He watches Sesame Street, over hears English conversations etc. So the assumption is made that on an unconscious level he is learning both languages. It would be interesting to see how quickly he incorporates English into his forward speech.
The overall conclusions are still a little hazy but based on these initial results, it would appear that what has often been thought (if they think in English then the reversals will be in English) would indeed be true. Yet, the EXTERNAL DIALOGUE English reversals found in French spoken forwards, complicates the situation somewhat. Does the unconscious mind choose the language that is understood by the listener when delivering reversals that relate directly to them? In this case it would appear so.
No doubt the training class in Canada will yield a wealth of information about bi-lingual persons and languages other than English. Incidentally, several of the common English metaphors were found in Michel’s FRENCH reversals – “wolf, naked” etc. A can of worms? No. A wonderful opportunity to learn. Stay tuned to this column for all the updates.
SOME DANGERS
In the last issue of Backtalk we published an article by David Oates that reported on a new experimental technique for changing behavior, entitled Metaphor Restructuring. For the most part this has been of tremendous success, but some complications have arisen.
In one case, David was working with a client who had a club foot as a young child (with very similar symptoms to polio). His client had successfully overcome this problem in his early teens. However, in working with this client’s metaphors to change some current behavioral difficulties, all the past symptoms of the client’s club foot returned. Over a period of 1-2 weeks, it increased in its severity until the client was barely able to walk. Rapid trance work was done by both David and Becky in an attempt to remedy the problem. In a couple of days the symptoms of the club foot disappeared again, but the symptoms of the original behavioral problem, which the Reverse Speech session was supposed to correct, remained.
Another case also caused some concern. David was working with a client on a particular problem using the Metaphor Restructuring techniques. He was unsuccessful in restructuring one particular metaphor pattern so, against his better judgement, he altered his trance technique in mid stream to bypass the client’s objections. Three weeks after the trance, the client was in hospital suffering from a major nervous collapse – one of the main problems David had been trying to prevent. The client subsequently went into an extended behavioral pattern that eventually resulted in the nervous collapse, and several other problems discussed in the Reverse Speech session, being effectively resolved. What should have been a simple procedure turned into a painful and potentially dangerous experience. It is believed that the mistake was made when David bypassed the objections raised by the metaphor group that he was working on in trance at the time.
Herein lies some of the dangers of Metaphor Restructuring. The warning is – it is a POWERFUL technique that has the potential to change both emotions and physiology. Much more work with it is needed before it can be safely used and taught.
CONCLUSION ACCURACY
One of the statements that David Oates makes about Reverse Speech is that if two trained analysts document accurate reversals and interpret those reversals accurately, then the session overview and overall conclusions of the two analysts will be the same even if few or none of the reversals they documented were the same. To test this theory, Becky Thompson decided to run an experiment on this contention. This is an edited version of her results. Becky’s experiment began when a student in the last class did a session about the lack of money in her life. When David discussed the results of the student’s session, the student did not agree with David’ s interpretation. So, was David’s interpretation wrong? Were the reversals he found wrong? Did David’s beliefs about money and/or this student blind him to the truth, and thus his own belief systems caused him to “taint” his analysis? OR, was the student in reversal denial and not able to face the truth??????
Reverse Speech Analyst, Jeff Smiley, had just finished the analyst training, and Becky and Jeff were discussing these questions. Jeff mentioned that he had done the reversals on the tape in question. He felt that the reversals he found were different than David’ s (a common occurrence) but wasn’t sure if the overall conclusions were the same.
This is when Becky decided to do the reversals herself and test the contention by having David do the interpretation of both Jeff and Becky’s transcripts, but without knowing who and what the session was about. Thus the test was conducted “blind” with David totally unaware of the purpose of the analysis. David had taped his original interpretation of his reversals, so Becky had a point of comparison to judge the other two transcripts. She prepared her transcript of just the reversals and disguised the analyst and woman’s name. She then had Jeff do the same. Then she presented David with the two transcripts and taped his interpretation.
By and large, David was saying the exact same thing with different words. Because the reversals were different, his description was just a difference in word choice. For instance, one of David’s original conclusions was that the woman was running a program that caused her to sabotage her own wants and desires. When he discussed Jeff’s transcript he said, she was playing games, and she was creating her own trouble. With Becky’ s transcript David said that she was living a fantasy and was short circuiting herself. Each of these “metaphors” were describing the same behavior patterning.
Thus Becky has concluded that, based on this test, David is indeed correct about the conclusions drawn from different reversals on the same transcript. If the reversals found by different Analysts on the same tape are accurately documented, even though each reversal transcript may be different, then the overall conclusions drawn will be identical and the same behavioral patterns will appear. What one analyst may decide to document, another analyst may decide to reject (or simply miss it). Hence the differing transcripts with identical conclusions.
SETAO THE BEARDED
INTRODUCTION
In October of 1989 I embarked on a course of study which was to irrevocably alter the focus of my life and which I believed had the potential to ultimately impact on the very structure of civilization as we know it. THE CITY IS DALLAS. MY NAME IS BECKY. I CARRY A REVERSING MACHINE (dum da dum dum.)
My experiences as a Reverse Speech trainee have been recounted at length by David Oates and the Reverse Speech Institute and have become part of Reverse Speech mythology which has been told and retold to each matriculating class of trainees, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. But, the TRUE UNTOLD STORY of my struggle and survival as a loyal advocate of Reverse Speech is better represented by this fairy tale detailing my training experiences. [Carolyn Rozeboom deserves to be credited with (or blamed for) the original idea and help in the creation of this fine piece of literature.]
SETAO, THE BEARDED
Once upon a time in afar off land there lived a man called SETAO, THE BEARDED. And the Great Wizard appeared to SETAO and honored him by giving unto him the blueprints for constructing the Golden Temple of Enlightenment. The Great Wizard promised SETAO that upon completion of the temple the Wizard himself would reside therein and bring enlightenment to all the people of the land.
SETAO labored for many months, and his arms grew weary in trying to erect the temple alone. And so he sent out a call for other special workers for help. Many answered the call. The work was laborious, so many became discouraged, falling by the wayside.
SETAO noticed as he worked along side a man called NOTLAW, that he worked quickly and well. “I will make you my second in command,” said SETAO. But, NOTLAW was only interested in collecting bent golden nails from which to make a crown so he could become king. And when the crown was complete, he came rarely to the site of construction.
SETAO grieved at NOTLAW’s lack of vision.
A dispute arose between SETAO and the remaining chosen few over the placement of the tiles in the great hall of the temple. SETAO became enraged and cast NOTLAW and the disputers out of the temple.
And the work continued with only a handful of devoted followers. Time passed. SETAO noticed that a small red-haired dwarf continued to work diligently beside him. While the dwarf worked more slowly than NOTLAW she was very careful in placing the golden nails. SETAO and CEB, the dwarf discussed their vision for the temple, and their hopes and drearns were similar.
Having seen the fate of others CEB wasted very little time arguing with SETAO over the best method for erecting the Golden Temple of Enlightenment.
And the Great Wizard smiled on the effort of the unlikely duo. And when the temple was complete, the people came to the temple and received enlightenment. And the names of SETAO and CEB were known for good across the land.
TO BE CONTINUED……
It occurred to me if I submitted “SETAO” for publication as a children’s book that this would help David launch Reverse Speech, so I quickly sent off a copy. My manuscript was rejected by every known publisher in the free world. But, following those rejections, my head was bloody but unbowed, and I sought a new market. From the purity and innocence inherent in children’ s literature, I shifted my sights in the opposite direction toward the worldly, gold digging realm of Hollywood.
I sent off a rewritten manuscript with an outline for a wonderful movie, and received a quick rejection from Tinsel Town. But, months later I grew suspicious when a film with a similar theme won honors and high acclaim for one Kevin Costner. Was this the result of tapping into the collective unconscious or is there a black market script ring in Hollywood?????????????? Here’ s my version, you be the judge:
Once there was an Aussie by the name of David Oates who decided he wanted to experience civilization before it was completely extinct. He set out on a journey to America and although he had great difficulty learning the language, he finally broke through the communication barrier between the natives and himself by pointing to his tape recorder and saying “REVERSE MACHINE!”
After dwelling among the natives for a time, he acquired at least a few of the trappings of civilization, including a native wife called, “ADDS WITH A CALCULATOR AND UNDER-STANDS COMPUTERS” Finally after many months, he was even given a civilized name of his own and was known henceforth and forever as “HEARS VOICES BACKWARDS”.
Shattered and disillusioned by the dishonesty of Tinsel Town, I called a friend from New York City who consoled me in my times of need, and he let it slip that a remake of the classic “Wizard of Oz” was being considered. My mind raced in reverse as I mentally revised my manuscript into a musical comedy score.
This time my story would begin in Australia where a cyclone hit a toilet and sucked David Oates and his ever-present Walkman backwards into an adventure. In mid-rewrite one of the original songs (“Lions and Tigers and Bears”) was rewritten and re- choreographed when my roommate (the aforementioned Carolyn Rozeboom) attempted to wade through the Reverse Speech paraphernalia cluttering my office, and stumbled around shrieking repeatedly, “Wires and tapes and papers, oh my! Wires and tapes and papers, oh no!”
I quickly recorded her version of the tune, and later when I reversed it, I discovered a perfect rating six, stage three reversal, which clearly stated, “Gee, David I don’t think we’re in Australia, anymore!”
As I sat there anticipating the arrival of a contract from Broadway, my mind raced and my gestalt brain formulated a more grandiose idea. I decided to create a leading female-type murder mystery for a weekly TV show (preferably for Sunday nights) entitled “REVERSALS SHE HEARD”. I solved weekly murders of my closest friends by listening to tapes in reverse. Anytime I needed to go undercover my code name was “Triple 0 One“. (The number on all of my Reverse Speech certificates.) I only wrote one script, because I ran out of friends. I even toyed with ideas for “Star Trek” episodes, which included: “The Search for Metaphors, ” “The Trouble with Tape Recorders,” “Reverse Time,” and “The Wrath of Oates.” I’ve even managed to schedule an interview on “60 Minutes” with Andy Rooney. I can hear him now — “Have you ever wondered why the phrase ‘my wife’ always reverses to firearm?” …… THE END
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Dave,
It was really nice to have spent time with you in Brisbane … I got very excited with the possibility of exploring how Gestalt methods could be a way of working out the metaphor restructuring. I do this in my groups all the time. I wish I had the reversals to tell how to be more precise … I look forward to new developments.
Yaro Starak (Queensland University, Brisbane Australia)
Eds Note: It’s good to see Australia making its presence felt again.
Dear David,
Those of us who see Reverse Speech analysis as the wonderful tool that it is for reaching into man’s mind and bringing up the truth, will be shocked at how quickly the lawyers rally to curtail its use … Worse, they will attack the Reverse Speech Analysts on all fronts. Regardless that the analysis process is so thorough as to eliminate individual bias in its interpretation, we can expect analysts to come under fire, both professionally and personally.
Jenine Alexander, Studio City, California
Eds Note: An interesting opinion about the possible impact of Reverse Speech on the legal community.
Dear David Oates,
All I can say is, Reverse Speech is absolutely remarkable and credible. I am a practicing Neuro Linguistic Programmer as well as an Ericksonian Hypnotherapist. Reverse Speech goes in a perfect path with both of them. Since I reviewed your tapes, I would like to offer an in-good-faith critique of the presentation of your system thus far.
Here goes: I feel like you need to have someone teach that is a natural teacher who teaches in a high level academic style that is also cognizant of the personal growth group teaching technology since EST. This person should be assisted at all times by monitors whose job it is to see that learning and creativity are really happening for the clients.
I think you are trying to do too much. Your speech impediment makes it difficult to take the material in smoothly and quickly. I imagine that your highest and best use is in the one-on-ones with the individuals who want you to analyze their reversals.
Your personal image could use a good make-over. You have grown out of your image! I am assuming that what you want to do is sell your workshops. I am speaking to you of administrative matters as well as about matters of PR. I think Dallas is an awkward place for you to try and get your vehicle off the ground … I guess what I am saying is, that I would love to train your material … If you have any interest in training me as a presenter for your material please let me know.
Beverly Cadbury, Eugene Oregon
Eds Note: We are always pleased when people who have impressive academic credentials show an interest in Reverse Speech. However in any endeavor of merit it is necessary to complete a rigorous and specialized course of study. As for David’s manner of speech, we have found that one’s level of frustration in dealing with David’s stutter (which is now almost nonexistent) has an almost perfect negative correlation with one’s success in Reverse Speech analyst training.
While David’s personal demeanor has always been unpretentious, he is exhibiting a somewhat more conservative appearance these days. I am a little puzzled about your comments regarding David’s presentation and teaching style. It has been constantly praised by many students. Personally, I can think of no better person to teach and train others in a new technique than the discoverer, founder and developer of that technique. Can you?
Dear David,
The more educated a person is, or let us say, the more “academically sophisticated,” then the more there will be sudden immediate dismissal of the Reverse Speech phenomenon followed by its denial into the same dust-bin oblivion as astrology, ESP, UFO’s, or whatever does not fit into the left-brain pot of intellectual knowledge …. It is only when we are willing to doubt our own left brain doubting, or become skeptical of our own skepticism that we can begin to perceive what the right brain is telling us in Reverse Speech.”
Tom Mellett, Austin, Texas
Eds Note: Yes! ! !
Dear David Oates,
About one month ago, I attended your lecture on Reverse Speech at the University of Texas … I was at first, very skeptical. One of the first things I did was contact the police department in Australia to verify that they had used Reverse Speech in one of its investigations which you revealed in your lecture. After making several telephone calls getting to the right person, I did verify that a murder weapon was located in the basement of a suspect using the Reverse Speech process.
With that verified, I obtained one of your Reverse Speech modified tape recorders to test some of your examples on my own as I thought that some of this stuff could have been some kind of technological trick. I went to a video store and obtained a documentary video tape of our space program and located the sound track on the video. I then tape recorded the sound track of, “that’s one small step for man” and then played it backwards. Sure enough I found that when I played the tape recording backwards, the sentence, “Man will space walk,” was found.
I had proved to myself that your Reverse Speech examples were not some sort of technological trick that involved doctored sounds tracks. I also did this with several other examples you presented in your lecture and all proved that your sound tracks had not been doctored.
My next thoughts ran along the lines that this thing might just be some sort of coincidence. I talked with several language experts and statistical mathematicians at the local university proposing “what if” type questions and asking them if such coincidences could occur. Their basic answer was that speech spoken forward may produce a random audible word now and then, when played in reverse, but the idea that reversed speech could make complete sentences or phrases, that related directly to what was being said forward, was a statistical improbability.
I tested the “one small step for man” further by recording these words into a tape recorder myself and having several other people do it, thinking that I might come up with the same sentence in reverse. Not only did I not hear “Man will space walk”, when I played these tracks in reverse, I heard a completely different sentence with some individuals. On my own voice I recorded over and over again, I finally heard (after several hours of listening), “Maybe this is valid.” On another person who had somewhat of an idea of what I was doing, I heard, “Ralph’s flipped out.”
Ralph Thomas, Investigative Specialist, Austin Texas
Eds Note: Welcome to the world of Reverse Speech! As President of the Reverse Speech Research Institute, I invite you to submit your study to the institute in order for it to become part of the formal record of research done on the topic of Reverse Speech.
REVERSAL RECOGNITION PROCESS
As President of the Reverse Speech Research Institute, I would like to begin compiling research articles like this article submitted by Reverse Speech Analyst Jeff Smiley. This is an edited version of Jeffs article, and the original full length artlcle can be obtained from the institute (Becky Thompson)
Bring up the subject of hearing reversals to a group of Reverse Speech students, and the moaning and theorizing begins. “I can’t hear them,” says one. “Maybe I should try visualizing them through the top of my head.” “No, no,” says another. “I think you have to go into a right brain trance by listening to music,” “That’s not it,” says a third student, “NLP’s the answer. We need to precisely model David’s posture, attitude, breathing, and ancestral heritage.”
Almost everybody entering into Reverse Speech tries – almost desperately – to find the “secret” or “trick” to hearing reversals. On the surface, Reverse Speech looks pretty easy. Well, guess what! Learning to find speech reversals is hard! You are attempting to learn a technique that you have absolutely no practical training with, or experience, whatsoever.
When we listen to reversals, at least four distinct processes occur almost simultaneously. First, a “mental quieting” is needed. Clearly, when our mind is in an uproar, the subtle mental processes we need to utilize for recognizing reversals will not function properly. You need a way to take the mind from its agitated, subjective state to a calmer, more clear and objective style of functioning.
There are many techniques available that will help you turn your attention inward and achieve a deeply relaxed yet alert status. Part of David’s technique, if I may speculate, is that he listens to reversals about 20% slower than anyone else I’ve witnessed.
Next, is the ability of our nervous system to take in auditory sensory input and transmit it to more subtle processing centers. We are a society of visualizers, not listeners, but our survival in Reverse Speech training is dependent on listening.
Some simple suggestions: Close your eyes when listening to reversals. Some people keep them open and just defocus, but shutting your eyes, at least at first, is easier. Also to improve your hearing depth, stop all activity and listen to music with your eyes closed. Allow yourself to focus more on background sounds and harmony.
When you are struggling to hear reversals, you need to focus your intellect and assign a phonetic vowel or consonant sound to every single syllable that you hear, including everything you consider to be gibberish. Each time that you do this, you create a simple phonetic lock (SPL). The syllable is now heard only one way. It is “locked” into your brain as a specific “bit” of sound that is similar to the same bit locked into someone else’s brain. Because of this, SPL’s are the basic building blocks of reversal recognition.
SPL’s have four important characteristics:
1. They are smallest “bits” of speech that we can recognize.
2. They provide an initial point of focus for our intellect – they keep us from “spacing out”.
3. All forward and Reverse Speech structure is based on them.
4. They are repeatable. Almost everyone hears them exactly the same way.
If SPL’s are truly objective in nature, then everyone that can hear SPL’s should, in theory, be able to hear reversals. No exceptions. To prove this, I found a student who claimed he couldn’t hear reversals and did a test.
We started off by picking a word at the end of a forward sentence. At that point, we reversed the machine and listened to the first two or three syllables. I asked him what vowel or consonant sounds he heard, and asked him to say them out loud. He said what he thought they were, and we now had our first SPL’S. We started to add on more, thereby creating a “string”. As we continued to add more, each time going back to the confidence. Soon a reversal came up, and he got it! The whole process took about ten minutes. During the next half hour, we constructed more strings, and he found more reversals in the same manner. The results he achieved were entirely appropriate considering his learning stage.
Thus, when training students to listen for reversals, it is important to assign a phonetic component to the reverse syllables.
The process and techniques I have just described are not only applied when hunting for reversals, they also are used every time we assign validity factors to reversals. The intellect “listens” to the vowel and consonant sounds of each word, and uses a sliding scale to determine their clarity.
Short and robotic reversals are heard mostly at the level of Simple Phonetic Locks. Longer and more holistic melodious-type reversals are found when we recognize something familiar about a chain of SPL’s. If the chain sounds familiar, a combination of rhythm, tonality, and meaning are constructed. We lock this new construction into our memory much in the same manner as we did SPL’s only now it’s a Complex Phonetic Lock [CPL].
As with SPL’ s, it will now be difficult to hear the CPL/reversal any other way. We identify with it – it’s ours. It becomes part of the stable framework which we use to maintain our mental balance. It’s unsettling if someone else comes along and says that they “can’t hear it”. That causes us to briefly question our own validity.
The idea of identifying with a reversal is kind of disturbing, because it also means that something new creeps into the reversal recognition process when we reach more abstract levels: emotional response. Up to now we’ve been dealing with more or less spontaneous processes that only need activation to a greater or lesser degree, and have inherently neutral/on-off type characteristics. With the introduction of emotional responses, however, and all the subjectivity inherent within it, we can suddenly see a potentially big problem that may affect the credibility of Reverse Speech.
One such problem is familiar to everyone. A student stops hearing reversals, and can’t figure out why. A likely reason is that the student experiences emotional pain that in some way is connected to a reversal. EG: being told that the reversals you find are lousy, incorrect, or not valid, or personal issues surfacing when faced with hearing your own reversals.
The second emotional effect is more subtle and sneaky, and harder to detect. It relates to the attitude and expectations of the Analyst towards the client. When an Analyst finds exactly the type of reversals he expects to find, it seems reasonable to suspect that the tone of the reversals will tell you as much about the Analyst as it does the client. Emotional subjectivity is clearly a potentially powerful and undesirable intruder in the reversal recognition process. A goal of the Analyst should be to totally neutralize emotions – both positive and negative – that can block hearing and cloud up everything else.
The logical question to ask before panic sets in is: Can we reduce this emotional influence? The answer is, of course, we can. Emotional upsets are caused by stress. Therefore, any good stress reduction technique will help. And for emotion-related problems, like not being able to hear reversals, we have already discussed possible solutions.
Now that we’ve looked at the reversal recognition process in detail, it seems appropriate to conclude by speculating on possible “unplanned side effects” that we might experience from constantly hearing speech reversals. After all, Reverse Speech in an unusual activity. It almost seems logical that something weird MUST occur.
When we examine the mind and all of its major processes, we find a common sub-process continually at work: comparison. We learn, grow, and make sense of the world by comparing new things to things we already know. In the process of reversal recognition, we input hundreds of bits of audio information every few seconds and quickly compare each bit to all of our various memory systems, from simple to abstract.
But there is another, much slower, almost unintentional type of comparison we make when listening for reversals. Each time that we replay a section of tape when verifying a reversal, we are also listening to the forward dialogue and unconsciously comparing the two. This comparison, if done often enough over a long period of time, may result in the Analyst developing the ability to hear reversals
There is yet another unintentional benefit that may be derived by listening to reversals. It may turn out that brain synchrony is a by-product of listening to speech reversals. When we focus inward, and abstractly synthesize different audio components to recognize reversals, we use the right side of our brain. At virtually the same time, our left brain function is assigning specific phonetic bits to audio, and sequencing that information into logical, linear, patterns. The result is a rapidly fluctuation, deep interconnection of brain activity that could, if experienced often enough, create a phase transition into a new, holistic style of functioning.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if it turned out that the process of recognizing reversals was an even more powerful transformational tool than the process of analyzing them for meaning?
WHY METAPHORS?
During his recent visit to Sydney I asked David Oates if there had been any reaction to my article in Backtalk about “Backwards Reality”. David said “Yes, I have had a few calls from people who just did not understand what the article was about!”
Last year I was in Heidelberg, Germany and discovered in one university bookshop a whole window full of books written by the German Philosopher Martin Heidegger. I am fascinated by Heidegger’ s thought model so went in and bought six books. The bookshop assistant said “Obviously you like Heidegger?” “I don’t know, I don’t understand him!” I answered. “Why do you buy his books then?” she asked. “Well! ” I answered, “If I could understand him there would be no reason for me to read his works!” That story leads me into the question, WHY METAPHORS?
There has heen a lot written in Backtalk lately about metaphors and their uses in Reverse Speech. There has also been some very good books written about metaphors. “Therapeutic Metaphors” by David Gordon, (META Publications, Cupertino, CA 95014) is worth reading if the desire grabs you. In this article I want to get off the beaten track a bit, explore other metaphors. Metaphors in the form of symbols, word symbols. In this article and in this context, I am referring to the Archetypal words picked up as reversals on tapes. [Ed: Structural metaphors]
Symbols obviously take many forms, they can be Human, eg. Martin Luther King, Superman, Einstein. Symbols can be of the inert kind such as, the Christian Cross, the swastika, any flag. They can also take the form of pictures or music or words, often smells and so on. And because I am writing this article for people researching Reverse Speech, I will write about “symbolism in words” and how to utilize them!
“Understanding” is a strange phenomenon. Some of us believe if we do not “understand” something, it can not have validity. Some NLP Trainers even teach how to understand understanding. There is also an understanding that “just evades” us. A person may know how to ride a bike well, yet not really “understand” balance so that they can talk with authority about it.
Symbols are a bit like that. We know certain things are very symbolic to us, but exactly WHY that particular object is symbolic and the object next to it is not, is elusive. That “knowing” “just evades” us. Symbols are most often “synesthesias”, that means they are an integrated mixture of sights, sounds, feelings, tastes, ideas, meanings and beliefs, with a certain magnetism thrown in. Therein lies some of the mystery of a personal symbol. We recognize the symbolism, and yet we do not fully understand the magnetism that gives the symbol so much power to affect us the way it does.
If you were given paper and time, how much could you write about the word “WHIRLWIND”? You could describe it scientifically as a natural phenomenon, you could write your thoughts, feelings, opinions, beliefs, statistics about whirlwinds, page after page. So that single word has a huge amount of general and personal meaning attached to it. And should you ever experience a whirlwind it would then mean a lot of different things to you, than someone who has only seen a whirlwind on TV.
So what is a whirlwind really? A whirlwind is anything it wants to be (goes the joke) and that’s almost true. It’s everything everybody ever thought about it, is what it is!! If someone says “A Whirlwind is a pain in the ass!” Well that’s what it is for them.
But WHY metaphors in therapy? Why not just “‘lay it on the line” “say it as it is?” With some people you can. Some people can handle the truth, but what if neither person really knows the truth?
One of my personal axioms of therapy states: “I never ever know what others really mean when they speak, others never ever know what I mean, when I speak.”
Many years of studying human behavior has shown me that humans rarely heed advice, even when it’s good advice, and most of us, don’t even follow our own good advice. Most of us have invested a lot of time and energy into becoming “individuals”, staying masters of our own minds and we are proud of our well formed and thought out opinions. We will fight against being “dominated” by someone else’s ideas or opinions, and many of us will even avoid the implied domination of being “helped” by another person.
We resist the domination of being “helped” because “help” suggests, that the person helping, has greater control over the other person’s circumstances than the person being helped. Another way we have of getting around being “dominated” by another’s suggestions, thoughts, ideas, and opinions is to just ignore or resist them!!! A lot of people think that if they’re smart enough to get themselves into trouble, they are smart enough to get themselves out of it again!!
The power of some symbols is enormous. Millions of people die in the name of a symbol. Millions of others fall on their knees five times a day and worship them. Those millions of people dying for a symbol are doing so in order for the SYMBOL to survive! ! ! !
Will you imagine for a moment how much power is associated with some of these symbols. The longer a symbol has survived on this planet, the more people who have accepted, believed supported and loved the symbol, the more power the symbol represents. How many levels of the mind are infected by a symbol that our grandparents and their grandparents have given power to for thousands of years.That’s why Metaphors!!!!
So what do we do with the word symbols we are presented with in Reverse Speech? I know David has offered a number of descriptions of what a lot of these “word-symbols” generally mean. Please remember these explanations are guidelines only and each person you are dealing with has their very own “meanings” attached to these Archetypal word-symbols.
We give power to the symbol, and by utilizing the symbol and the meanings each of us give that symbol, we can tap into that power and use it for healing. One simple method of creating a therapeutic metaphor out of word symbols, is to note down the word-symbols contained in the reversals on your tapes and then ask the client to write a creative fairy story. This fairy story should fulfill the following criteria…..
1. Have all the word-symbols that you give them, woven into it.
2. Should be about the existing problem but have a fictitious person, animal or bird suffering from their problem.
3. The story must contain the necessary steps, the fictitious hero needs to lead to a happy end.
Another alternative is to offer the client a metaphor and weave their word-symbols into a story. Offer one or two solutions to their problem as you go. You can also utilize these metaphors by showing the client a list of word-symbols from the reversals. Ask them to mark the words that best symbolizes their most powerful resource state. Then see who can come up with the best story of how the resource symbol can overcome the problem symbol. Allow the client to come up with the best story. These are useful techniques, but how about allowing your mind to come up with a few of you own. Use your own symbols of knowledge, wisdom and personal power to evoke your own creativity.
One definition Of a metaphor: “A way of speaking in which one thing is expressed in terms of another, whereby this bringing together throws new light on the character of what is being described.” Another definition of a metaphor: “Any real or fictional story, recurring therne or character type that appeals to a consciousness of a person in such a way as to assist with the obtaining of an ecologically sound solution or rnethod of behaving, in a given situation. THE END
STIB DNA SECEIP
STUDENT’S FIRST CONTACT
Reverse Speech Student, Darcy Roberts, had a fast introduction to Reverse Speech late last year, when David Oates asked her if she had ever been married. She laughed and replied, “Er, ar, um, no.” Played backwards, a clear reversal was heard that said, “Well, I won the batde.” Darcy claims this reversal accurately summed up her relief that she had not succumbed to her last boyfriend’s pressure to tie the knot. She immediately enrolled for the next analyst class. Fending off marriage proposals is a battle??! ! We wonder what her reversals would say about a more recent relationship breakup.
REVERSE SPEECH TELLS ALL
A press release with the above headline was sent out March 28, 1991 by “Wireless Flash” (No. L108) to syndicated radio networks across the United States.
“Maybe Mr. Ed was a satanic horse and all those metal bands really are sending occult messages. That’s according to an Australian man who studies Reverse Speech and claims truth comes out in reverse … Oates says that the President slipped and talked about Operation Desert Storm last September -fve months before that code name was used. He says last September a word sounding like “simone” kept popping up in tapes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. In Arabic, the word means dust storm in the desert – or desert storm.” Mr. Ed was a Satanic horse???!!!
And on the subject of Desert Storm, the weather man on CNN, discussing conditions in Saudi Arabia, stated on February 18, 1991 at 11:54 am: “we’re about a month away from the sand storms, the real desert storms that rip through the area.”
RUN THAT BY ME AGAIN
Radio WGN, out of Chicago, has a nationally syndicated talk program (320 stations) with a rather skeptical host – Rush Leinbaum. Earlier this year, he went to great lengths to say howridiculous Reverse Speech was. Then, to prove his point, he played a recording backwards live on the air from a section of the program where he had just been talking about “LA Law” character, Michael Cusak. He, and many of his listeners, heard a very clear reversal that said “Cusak sucks.” Somewhat stunned, he replayed the tape and heard it again. His next comment was: “That’s exactly what I was thinking about Cusak. For the first time in twenty years of radio I may have to eat my words. Maybe there is something to all of this.” We had at least two students enroll for the current analyst class after listening to his program.
BACKWARDS BABY
Australian Reverse Speech Developer, John Suess, sure has an upside down life. His new daughter, Hayley, took her first steps recently, BACKWARDS!
While we are talking about John Suess. He has cheated us all! Back in the September 1990 issue of Backtalk we reprinted a congratulatory telegram that he sent David and Kathy for their wedding in April 1990. This telegram supposedly contained a backward message. Finally, after months of frustration and torture experienced by Analysts in the United states trying to find this message, he has revealed the secret. There is no hidden backward message!! The message is forwards and it is supposed to be a pun on couples celebrating before their married life begins. It says: “…the celebration party is held before the couple begins their marriage. Sure seems backwards to me!” Boo! Hiss!
IMPOSSIBLE! IMPOSSIBLE!
Reverse Speech Developer, Greg Albrecht, recently found a little gem concerning initial academic experiments with Thomas Edison’s “Talking Machine.” The phonograph was critically examined by a member of the French Academy Of Sciences who wrote: “I have examined Mr. Edison’s phonograph and can assure you that the effect is accomplish by ventriloquism.”
DADDY COMES HOME
David Oates recently returned from a four week trip to Australia. During this time he recorded many conversations with his children. The latest tapes of David’s children are one of the assignments for the current training class. While I was working with the tapes and compiling David’s reversals with mine, a few trends seemed to leap off the transcript. I am writing my thoughts and speculations knowing that they are just that, and much more research is needed to verify or disprove these ideas. I have a included a copy of just the reversals with this paper.
The twins, Jaye and Symone, are playing a make-believe game. The forward dialogue is about their naming ” sticks” and creating a “stick” family. The sticks are broken into different sizes, so they are talking about “little ones” and “big ones”. Toward the end of the session that was used for the homework assignment, Jaye is playing with her stick family and says (forwards): “We don’t have a Daddy.” David, listening and watching the game intently, interrupts and says (forwards) “But I’m your Daddy.”
Immediately, Jaye gives off three very reassuring reversals showing that she knows that he is her Daddy and that she loves her Daddy (“We love Daddy“; “I love you“; “Hark with my Daddy“).
The tape I transcribed ended shortly after that exchange, but David explained that Jaye continued to reassure her Daddy metaphorically (forward) by having her ” stick family” get a Daddy. This seems to exemplify Jaye’s sensitivity to others emotional states. In fact, Jaye refers to David eight times in reverse; four times as “Dad” or “Daddy“, and “He” and “Him” two times each. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable reaction for a child who hasn’t seen Daddy in months. Jaye wants to “please” her Dad, she “loves” him, and she “milks” him (metaphor for drawing strength or nourishment).
These are in sharp contrast to Symone’s three mentions of Dad (“I miss him“). Her emotions are much more subdued and more matter of fact, which exemplifies Symone’s characterization as independent. Also, Symone’s reversal “I missed him” is immediately responded to by Jaye in reverse, “Have fun we’ve missed“. She seems to be in some way making up for lost time, now that David’s home.
This exchange made me take a look at the pronouns that the twins were using. Jaye uses the plural pronoun four times ( “We miss him“; “Our mom’s really far“; “We love Daddy” “We milk him“). Symone uses only the singular pronouns. My inclination would be to think she means Symone and herself as the “we“. So, it’s as if Jaye is the one responsible for emotions, and she is including Symone in those emotions. Symone’s matter of fact reversals tend to make me think she is more left brained analytic compared to Jaye’s emotional right brained outlook. This is also present in the number of times Symone uses the word “know” in reverse. Symone uses “know” seven times to Jaye’s four times.
I think it would be interesting to compare this to a four year old that is raised alone. Is Symone’s left brain approach rubbing off on Jaye? And is Jaye’s right brain approach rubbing off on Symone? Symone uses the word “love” four times, as compared to Jaye’s seven times. Or is “know” and “learn” the next step in the development of all children? The last set of reversals that I was curious about was the reversals on Jaye, which included the word “live“. Jaye repeats “Will she live” twice. And then in a cluster of reversals about Dad she states “He lives“, followed by “Love. He live. Love Daddy.”
I was curious about the “live” reversals immediately. I wasn’t sure, at least in the context of their mother, whether Jaye was commenting on some unknown hurt (“My mom’s hurting“). But, when the reversal also came up in the context of David, I was wondering if this has something to do with Jaye’s perception about life and death. David had been gone for over a year and now here he was with them again and alive! But, now Mum is not present. Will she live? Will she be back?
Then I started to remember some of my studies into the development of children. There is a very important stage of early development which is called “object permanence”, which is when children begin to understand that things in their world are permanent, and this stage of development is supposed to be completed by about two years old. Could this reversal be telling us that in Jaye’s development she missed an important ingredient in learning permanence? These were some of my thoughts about this session, and I would be interested in any thoughts from others on this session.
Here are the reversals found on Jaye and Symone (documented by both David and myself) in order…
Symone: I Know. I Know
Jaye: I know. Learn you. Real naked. I love. Please my Dad. Love him. Hush. Momma eat with the wolf.
Symone: No good.
Jaye: Mum.
Symone: I love you every, every…
Jaye: See my Mum. My Mummy.
Syrnone: Loving must call Mum.
Jaye: My forgotten part.
Symone: Here we are. Yeah, I know. I know I’m the one.
Jaye: Will she live.
Symone: My Mum’s sent home.
Jaye: My Mum’s hurting. Will she live.I know.
Symone: Have no one. I know. I know.
Jaye: There is Mona (Symone). Needing your love.
Symone: I’ve missed Dad.
Jaye: Have fun we’ve missed.
Symone: Own the war.
Jaye: He believes it. Our Mum’s really far. He lives. He live. Love Daddy.
Symone: I know.
Jaye: Where’s your name.
Symone: Believe me. I’m easy. I’m nearly. I need good men. Lost our man. Here’s licking it. My Mum said love.
Jaye: We milk him.
David: Hey, they don’t want your child(ren). Did they know what to sell.
Jaye: We love Daddy. I love you. Run naked with hair. Hark with my Daddy. I knew. I knew.
Symone: Dad’s lost. Did I fuck. I was hurt in a nasty dream. Now we smack nasty girl.
Jaye: Mummy, look at me.
Symone: We make loving.
A General Significance Of Some Metaphors Quoted In This Issue Of Backtalk
CAMELOT – From the legend of King Arthur, a fortress, an ultimate goal of life’s quest.
LICK – To connect with someone, to explore a relationship.
MEN/MAN – Men is a general description, whereas Man is a male figure of great significance.
MILK – To nurture, receive or give emotional nourishment.
NAKED – To be open and free with no inhibitions.
NAME – The representation of the real or “deep” Self.
SELL – To persuade, to give with the expectation of return.
WAR – Inner turmoil, conflict.
WATER – nourishment.
WOLF – The prime motivator of behavior, the hunter and protector of Self.