Introducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community - A Debate Transcript
A Transcript of the Facebook Debate between Jon Kelly (www.yourinnervoice.com) and Noel Herbiet, Research Coordinator for ECUFOR (Evaluation Center for UFO Reports) South Africa
(C) 2010 All Rights Reserved www.yourinnervoice.com
* This enlightening discussion began when I introduced my analysis of the Col. Charles Halt Rendlesham Forest UFO tape in a Facebook conversation involving Tracy Farley, Director of UFO Research for ECUFOR South Africa. Based upon the initial posting, Nick Pope, former head of the UK MOD UFO project, took my conclusions to Col. Halt, with inconclusive results. Noel Herbiet, Research Coordinator for ECUFOR then mounted a challenge against my claim. Below is a transcript of the debate that followed. I have also included comments from Paul Westwood of www.bigcatmonitors.co.uk as they help to define the international online cultural climate into which I am advancing my concepts and vision.
My conclusions from this experience? Noel concedes that I am practicing a science on more than one occasion. However, the absence of rigor and stamina displayed by Noel throughout the debate brings into question his qualifications to mount the challenge he undertook. Noel's high personalization and subjectivity, stated unwillingness to review information, unresponsiveness to relevant points, unwillingness to answer questions and apparent inability to recognize answers all contribute to this opinion.
What do you think? Did I evade Noel's question as he claimed? Did I challenge his integrity? Or was I simply using his challenge as a platform for what Noel describes as "free extended publicity"?
Read on to learn more about my experience with "Introducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community"! - Jon
Noel Herbiet -
I see numerous references to Jon's reverse speech analysis in connection with the Halt tape. I would like to challenge this as it appears that no one is questioning its basic concept. Put simply, a sentence spoken is a sequence of uttered sounds, the order of which is governed by grammar rules and which the listner understands as being the idea expressed by the speaker. The brain has thus focused into translating an idea into words. To imagine that this same brain would be able to construct a hidden meaning using appropriately sounding words that when listened to in reverse express an idea that the speaker is unconscious off is to me far fetched. Regardless of alleged success in the past, I consider this a highly subjective form of research. In my opinion, Halt's testimony stands to be jeopardised.
Noel Herbiet -
I would be interested in how Jon validates his interpretations.
Paul Westwood -
So why would we develop a capability to speak backwards as well as forwards? Until technology has developed in recent times it has not been possible to here this reverse speech. I'm sure the human brain cannot decipher reverse speech on its own.
And what would be the point to it anyway?
So you are having a chat with some one but in reality they are saying something completely different?
If you have to use texts prompts to make people understand, then it stands to reason that the words are subjective to the person making the observations.
This is from the net :
`One explanation for this phenomenon is pareidolia, the tendency of the human brain to perceive meaningful patterns in random noise. Pareidolia is even more likely to occur when a person consciously tries to detect a pattern, as is the case for someone listening for intelligible phrases in backwards speech. The power of suggestion is then used to nudge the listener to hear what the presenter wants him to hear - David John Oates, for example, almost always tells the listener in advance what he should expect to hear, thereby planting a suggestion that would make the listener more likely to actually "hear" that phrase. A study has shown that when listening to the same clips without being told in advance what to expect, the results have a higher variation'
Jon Kelly -
"it is remarkable that speech remains reasonably intelligible even under conditions of extreme distortion, such as ... time reversal of segments of speech (Saberi & Perrott 1999)"
From: Basic auditory processes involved in the analysis of speech sounds
http://rstb.
See: Cognitive Restoration of Reversed Speech
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~
My essential claim is regarding detection of information while observing the speech signal through a mirror filter. Specifically, monitoring audio playback under conditions involving the insertion of a virtual mirror along the x-axis of the cartesian coordinate plane waveform graph of the audio samples where x=time.
The mirror is widely regarded in contemporary society as instrumental in safety and security applications. For example, an informal survey of Google searching the words "mirror" and "security" shows over 43M results.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=
While searching "mirror" and "safety" shows over 33M results:
http://www.google.ca/search?
It is within this context of safety and security that I practice this procedure and share the results with the public.
Noel, my interpretations are validated through real-world feedback such as comments from the speakers themselves. Here is a demonstration conducted live on-air, publicly witnessed with independent third-party documentation:
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/
Paul, the "prompting" model of communications that you describe requires that I, as a "person" require a "prompter" who "makes me understand" what I am hearing. This raises the question "who is my prompter?" and if that prompter is a "person", then "who is my prompter's prompter?" my "prompter's prompter's prompter?" and so on.
Can anybody demonstrate that all of these prompters exist while providing a flow chart that identifies their location and the hierarchical structure by which they exert their successive prompting influences?
In the absence of such evidence, the "prompting" model appears to be nothing more than a "conspiracy theory".
Now, let's look at how audio recordings are commonly represented in mainstream news coverage through this example:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/
Note the extensive use of subtitles. Is this "prompting" of the audience another tell-tale sign informing us that the 9-11 tape being described is a hypothetical abstract with no basis in objective reality?
Anyone who can replicate my evidence (in terms of reporting world events in advance and producing live demonstrations) while providing a simpler explanation will not only satisfy Occam's razor but will advance the development of our growing understanding of human communications, cognition and performance.
Noel Herbiet -
Hi T, ...@ Jon, thank you for your attempt at justification. However, I dispute the fundamentals of your " science ". Firstly your reference to mirror and safety ??? ... a piece of glass with a silver covering allowing full reflection .. that's all a mirror is. Nothing else whatever we choose to use it for, security or vanity !
Secondly, in simple terms, you take a sound sequence and reverse it. You then supposedly understand a new meaning to this, for all intents and purposes, NEW sound sequence. Question ! Does your interpretation apply to all spoken languages .. it would have to in order to be real ! Another thing, accent ! I cant understand an Irishman when he speaks forward, never mind when you play it back to me in reverse !! The moment you prompt me to hear a particular word, of course I will recognise it ... but would I initially ? No ! therefore it's YOUR interpretation that I am hearing. Its the same as fortune tellers,... they ask you questions, you answer, and WoW! they tell you something of your future ... NO they didn't!!, YOU told them to start with, but people fall for it and pay for it, just as they "fall" for your interpretation once prompted. Going back to basics: how can a sequence of sounds expressed through the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea when played in reverse ?
Esrever ni deyalp nehw aedi dnoces a sserpxe ylneddus aedi eno sserpxe ot htuom eht hguorht desserpxe sdnuos fo ecneuqes a nac woh : scisab ot kcab gnioG !
Do you really believe there is a hidden meaning in the above sentence ?:)
Sorry, the fundamentals don't gel, irrespective of alleged success or evidence.The foundation is flawed in my opinion.
Jon Kelly -
"... the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." - Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification" http://www.stephenjaygould.
Noel: Jon, thank you for your attempt at justification.
Jon: Justification? From my perspective Noel, you and I are simply having a conversation through Facebook comments. You have posted some questions, and I am attempting to answer them. Is every person's attempt to answer your questions a "justification" or have you reserved this special status for my comments only?
Noel: However, I dispute the fundamentals of your " science ".
Jon: With regards to science, how do claims of observable "reverse speech" phenomena fit into Sir Karl's "Science as Falsification" model?
I have to say that my reporting has been characterized by "risky predictions" of severe and potentially catastrophic proportions on more than one occasion. And I'm not just talking about bypassing the censors at the Pentagon. For example, every live demonstration offered to the public provides the opportunity for testing, refuting and falsification. Under those conditions, not only would the speaker be unable to resolve the message, the message contents themselves would be refuted as well.
Here's the sample demonstration I presented earlier:
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/
Noel: Firstly your reference to mirror and safety ??? ... a piece of glass with a silver covering allowing full reflection .. that's all a mirror is. Nothing else whatever we choose to use it for, security or vanity !
Jon: I'm simply pointing out that mirrors are widely recognized as safety devices, and that my application of a digital mirror to the speech signal is occurring within this socially recognized context. Think about it, Noel. If mirrors were as widely recognized as the source of "pareidolic hallucinations" wouldn't that represent a public safety threat of global proportions? After all, how many of the world's estimated 600,000,000 automobiles are not equipped with mirrors?
Here's the US Department of Transportation's position on the use of mirrors:
Standard No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, School Buses and Motorcycles
(Effective 1-1-68)
This standard specifies requirements for the performance and location of inside and outside rearview mirrors. Its purpose is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear.
School Buses (Effective 12-2-93)
Revised requirements for driver visibility in front of and along both sides of school buses.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/
Note the absence of any mention of mirrors as the source of hallucinations. Maybe you should write to them Noel and explain how people are "seeing things that aren't there" when they look in the mirrors on their automobiles.
Noel: Secondly, in simple terms, you take a sound sequence and reverse it. You then supposedly understand a new meaning to this, for all intents and purposes, NEW sound sequence.
Jon: Someone is driving a car down the street past an observer on the sidewalk. The driver proceeds for some distance then turns the vehicle around and drives back in the opposite direction. To the observer on the sidewalk, it may appear that two different cars are traveling in opposite directions, and yet we know that it is in fact the same vehicle being observed from multiple perspectives. Geometric transforms along one axis of observation (eg: the mirroring of the speech signal waveform) are not radical changes in the fundamental qualities of the subject being observed.
However, the effects of such transforms on the mind of the observer can be easily detected. In other words, new perspectives create opportunities for the mind's resolution of new meanings.
Noel: Question ! Does your interpretation apply to all spoken languages .. it would have to in order to be real !
Jon: There is significant testimony from an international community of observers describing messages found in other languages. However, my field work is related to English speakers only. On a related note, I have found examples of speakers communicating in different language giving messages in English.
Noel: Another thing, accent ! I cant understand an Irishman when he speaks forward, never mind when you play it back to me in reverse !!
Jon: But we would both agree that in spite of the fact that you are unable to resolve the statements of the Irishman, that he is in fact still speaking (independent of your comprehension or lack thereof). I have observed examples where accents change between the original and mirrored versions.
Noel: The moment you prompt me to hear a particular word, of course I will recognise it ... but would I initially ? No ! therefore it's YOUR interpretation that I am hearing.
Jon: So what does it feel like to hear my interpretation Noel? You are telling me that we are both hearing the same thing, but I want to remind you that I can't actually "make" you hear anything. And if you are suggesting that all use of prompts in media is an attempt to "make" audiences' detect non-existent phenomena, then I feel your conclusion is a "conspiracy theory".
Here's the 9-11 call example again:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/
Are you feeling "prompted" yet?
Noel: Its the same as fortune tellers,... they ask you questions, you answer, and WoW! they tell you something of your future ... NO they didn't!!, YOU told them to start with, but people fall for it and pay for it, just as they "fall" for your interpretation once prompted.
Jon: Noel, I agree that President Bush and Pastor Caldwell "told" me 2 years in advance about the "Shock and Awe" strikes on Baghdad that marked the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. I also agree that Dennis Rader "told" me he was the BTK Killer before he confessed. I even agree that Oprah Winfrey "told" me her true feelings about James Frey. It's simply the way that I detected this "telling" that is the subject of controversy. For me, it's the use of a mirror. For you, it's a conspiracy of vast proportions.
For example, are you saying that I "prompted" the United States into invading Iraq? And why would my experience be any different from that of the average person? As I said before, your model requires that I have a "prompter", and a "prompter's prompter" and so on. Who are all of these people you are describing Noel? Are the fees from "fortune telling" really financing this apparently infinite yet invisible army of prompting personnel?
Noel: Going back to basics: how can a sequence of sounds expressed through the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea when played in reverse ?
Jon: Noel, this very question has been explored by composers of Western music going back hundreds of years. Their answers are included in both counterpoint and serialism as "Inversion (mirror transform along the y-axis)" and "Retrograde (mirror transform along the x-axis)".
Noel: Esrever ni deyalp nehw aedi dnoces a sserpxe ylneddus aedi eno sserpxe ot htuom eht hguorht desserpxe sdnuos fo ecneuqes a nac woh : scisab ot kcab gnioG !
Do you really believe there is a hidden meaning in the above sentence ?:)
Jon: The hidden meaning is that the letters "A", "H", "I", "O", "U", "V", "T", "W", "X" and "Y" all survive the mirror transform uncorrupted.
It's just like what the scientists are telling us Noel:
"It is remarkable that speech remains reasonably intelligible even under conditions of extreme distortion, such as ... time reversal of segments of speech (Saberi & Perrott 1999)" - Brian C.J. Moore, "Basic auditory processes involved in the analysis of speech sounds", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 March 2008 vol. 363 no. 1493 947-963
"We have studied the intelligibility of speech, and find it is resistant to time reversal of local segments of a spoken sentence" -Kourosh Saberi and David R. Perrott, "Cognitive restoration of reversed speech", Nature 398 (29 April 1999) 760... See More
"Speech is a multidimensional stimulus. There are different ways you can extract a message from it" - Kourosh Saberi
Noel: Sorry, the fundamentals don't gel, irrespective of alleged success or evidence.The foundation is flawed in my opinion.
Jon: And that is what you have offered so far Noel, your personal opinion. In return, I'm offering citations from literary and scientific records along with evidence documented by independent third parties.
Noel Herbiet -
Hi Jon ... that you believe yourself to be correct is self evident, along with the other individuals you quoted. You are quite entitled to that and I respect that. However this is not my page and I owe to it and its owner, Tracy, the respect of it as if I were in her home, this is her territory as it were so I will be brief and to the point.
You lost me entirely on the mirror issue ! All I said is that a mirror is just a reflective/reflection device and nothing more, whether used at home, in an automobile or in the head of a missile. You appeared to place great emphasis on the fact that your software uses mirror techniques. Be that as it may.
On the issue of reversed speech, you have not, with all due respect, explained to me how an idea I express in words can possibly have a different meaning or any meaning at all when listened to in reverse order.... See More
For instance, I will say " The postman was bitten by my dog yesterday and he is now taking me to court."
Now according to your theory, if we play that backwards we might hear a hidden message eg " ... the neighbour has cancer ...".
Please answer the following Jon, seriously, and without referring me to websites .... I thought the above idea, ... I then expressed it verbally by modulating airflow via my vocal cords causing sounds you have been taught to recognise as English and of appropriate meaning. My brain was responsible for that controlled sequence of sounds and their resultant meaning. What you are suggesting is that my brain chose words that would express a different idea when played backwards by a computer ... a different idea by the way that I am unaware of. Please explain the mechanism which makes this possible, in simple English.
Another thing, you say that words spoken in French for instance, provide you with a message in English ????
You wrote : "On a related note, I have found examples of speakers communicating in different language giving messages in English." Please explain.
In passing, you said "It's simply the way that I detected this "telling" that is the subject of controversy. For me, it's the use of a mirror. For you, it's a conspiracy of vast proportions." ...
??? For the record, I am NOT into conspiracies, I despise them and the people that promote them.
Do you not recognise the power of prompt or suggestion ? It is the keystone of all advertising. I can make you hear and see anything with the correct prompt or suggestion !! I know ! I have experienced this first hand and it is a common occurrence in mass witness UFO sightings when witnesses are in close proximity.
I do not wish to debate this forever Jon ... I have asked a simple question, how does this mechanism work ?... bearing in mind that our brain is trained to recognise sounds and translate them into words instantly ... speech sounds in reverse will obviously sound similar to other words and a meaning could be extracted. The point is, is it relevant !
By the way, is the hidden meaning of a spoken sentence related or attached to the original speaker or does it still work when that same original message is repeated by a second person? If a hidden message is detected in the reverse sound train of the second person, to whom does that hidden message belong, the original speaker or the second person ?
I ask you kindly Jon, if you so wish, to explain the basic fundamentals of your science in plain English, but not by referring me to websites.
Tracy, please forgive the length of this debate but I am not willing to let this ride with substantiation.
Jon Kelly -
Noel: Hi Jon ... that you believe yourself to be correct is self evident, along with the other individuals you quoted. You are quite entitled to that and I respect that. However this is not my page and I owe to it and its owner, Tracy, the respect of it as if I were in her home, this is her territory as it were so I will be brief and to the point.
Jon: It is so funny to me to see you characterize my statements of fact as matters of belief, Noel. Your ability to render matters of public historic record into abstract rhetorical hypotheticals is amazing! But it is exactly because you are representing yourself as someone who is interested in science that I am quoting from "the other individuals" like Sir Karl Popper, widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century!
Noel: You lost me entirely on the mirror issue ! All I said is that a mirror is just a reflective/reflection device and nothing more, whether used at home, in an automobile or in the head of a missile. You appeared to place great emphasis on the fact that your software uses mirror techniques. Be that as it may.... See More
Jon: Noel, you may think that you're lost but from my point of view, you actually appear to be demonstrating a grasp of the concepts I have been repeating :) Earlier you stated that we were both detecting the same message, now you are confirming that you understand how it is that I am using a mirror to detect the messages. Your statements certainly resemble those of someone who is beginning to distance themselves from the "pareidolia" mob, don't they?
Noel: On the issue of reversed speech, you have not, with all due respect, explained to me how an idea I express in words can possibly have a different meaning or any meaning at all when listened to in reverse order. For instance, I will say " The postman was bitten by my dog yesterday and he is now taking me to court." Now according to your theory, if we play that backwards we might hear a hidden message eg " ... the neighbour has cancer ...".
Please answer the following Jon, seriously, and without referring me to websites .... I thought the above idea, ... I then expressed it verbally by modulating airflow via my vocal cords causing sounds you have been taught to recognise as English and of appropriate meaning. My brain was responsible for that controlled sequence of sounds and their resultant meaning. What you are suggesting is that my brain chose words that would express a different idea when played backwards by a computer ... a different idea by the way that I am unaware of. Please explain the mechanism which makes this possible, in simple English.
Jon: Well, I think my answer to your earlier question was actually quite responsive. You asked "how can a sequence of sounds expressed through the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea when played in reverse?" I said in response that composers of music in the Western tradition envisioned Retrograde as an instrument of both Counterpoint and Serialism, allow the mirroring of one musical idea to invoke new aesthetic meaning through its counterpart. For words, simply add lyrics to the tones. The thematic arrangement of sounds IS the representation of an idea. So you see, those composers satisfied your question in eras that predate the digital age, Noel.
You are probably also familiar with the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence or SETI. In simple terms, SETI is engaged in the detection of intelligent electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on distant planets. SETI does not propose to answer questions regarding the mechanisms by which signals are transmitted, they are primarily concentrated on signal detection and analysis.
It appears that you feel the presence of a transmission theory is necessary to validate the realities of repeated signals detection. Therefore I am curious to know if you will be writing to SETI to explain how unscientific their mission is in the absence of any explanation of the mechanism by which the ET signals are transmitted?
As I said earlier,"My essential claim is regarding detection of information while observing the speech signal through a mirror filter." In these terms my work can be placed in the same camp with SETI and other signals detection organizations who perform meaningful work in the absence of a robust transmission model.
Sorry Noel, but I guess my telling you that "body language" is unconscious involuntary muscular communications that often accompanies speech and even contradicts spoken statements just isn't going to cut it!
Noel: Another thing, you say that words spoken in French for instance, provide you with a message in English ????
You wrote : "On a related note, I have found examples of speakers communicating in different language giving messages in English." Please explain.
Jon: I was referring to the Arabic statements of Saddam Hussein as heard during his interview on "60 Minutes" just prior to the war.
Noel: In passing, you said "It's simply the way that I detected this "telling" that is the subject of controversy. For me, it's the use of a mirror. For you, it's a conspiracy of vast proportions." ...
??? For the record, I am NOT into conspiracies, I despise them and the people that promote them.
Jon: Your promotion of the "prompting" model of communications in this discussion seems antagonistic to your stated feelings about conspiracies Noel. Your prompting model informs us that the average reasonable person requires a prompter who makes them sense phenomena, either real or imagined. I'm just an average person Noel, so why don't you clear the air and explain who is prompting me to make me hear messages, who is my prompter's prompter, my prompter's prompter's prompter? Lay out the financials, the organizational structure and the locations of this invisible yet seemingly infinite army of prompting personnel and put this issue to rest once and for all :)
Noel: Do you not recognise the power of prompt or suggestion ? It is the keystone of all advertising. I can make you hear and see anything with the correct prompt or suggestion !! I know ! I have experienced this first hand and it is a common occurrence in mass witness UFO sightings when witnesses are in close proximity.
Jon: I get it, Noel. Your testimony of first hand experience is more than enough evidence to validate the "prompting" hypothesis, but even when presented with citations from legal, scientific and literary records along with evidence of events that were publicly witnessed and independently documented by third parties, the realities of reverse speech phenomena are simply impossible for you to validate.
Is that your point?
It's also kind of funny that you claim to be able to make me "hear and see anything" but the only way I could resolve this claim is to believe that if your contribution to this discussion, the outcome of your challenge that you initiated, was intended to prompt me, to make me believe that you were completely wrong and in denial regarding the facts that I am presenting.
Was that your hidden intention Noel? If so, I concede the point to you!
Noel: I do not wish to debate this forever Jon ... I have asked a simple question, how does this mechanism work ?... bearing in mind that our brain is trained to recognise sounds and translate them into words instantly ... speech sounds in reverse will obviously sound similar to other words and a meaning could be extracted. The point is, is it relevant !
Jon: I have lucidly and repeatedly explained the mechanisms of signal detection to you in clear, unambiguous terms Noel. I have also offered suggestions in order to provide conceptual frameworks from within which you might begin to imagine the possible mechanisms involved in transmissions. I have even demonstrated that real signals detection science is taking place today in the absence of such models.
If clinical, forensic and military grade intelligence are relevant in today's world, the approach I am using for signals detection can reasonably be recognized within the frameworks of contemporary scientific thought.
Consider that, from the perspective of Karl Popper's critical rationalism, it is the the least probable theory that still withstands attempts to falsify it which is the preferred basis of scientific philosophy. The demonstrated public historic record of my most improbable research satisfies Popper's criteria unambiguously.
Noel: By the way, is the hidden meaning of a spoken sentence related or attached to the original speaker or does it still work when that same original message is repeated by a second person? If a hidden message is detected in the reverse sound train of the second person, to whom does that hidden message belong, the original speaker or the second person ?... See More
Jon: President Bush's inaugural address was recited from a script, yet the President's characterization of the spoken word gave it novel and unexpected meanings, including disclosure of intent to invade Iraq. Other than examples of speakers reciting scripted statements, my research does not entirely answer this question, leaving the path open to people like yourself, Noel, to design experiments and test for possible answers.
Noel Herbiet -
Jon, thank you for your lengthy response. However cannot continue this debate when a simple question is evaded. My intention was for you to provide me and others who follow Tracy's page the opportunity to understand the basic fundamentals of your science which is highly controversial.
My intention was not to present you with a free platform for extended publicity. My simple question has yet to be answered in a simple direct manner. Any further discussion can be handled by private message if you so wish.
For the record:
1. I have no intention of questioning SETI nor would I compare your science with that of SETI. Their's is an attempt to capture a transmission,... yours is to receive that transmission, turn it backwards thereby allowing you to find hidden meaning not originally intended.
2. You will never convince me that Arabic translates into English when played in reverse, Sorry !
3."... realities of reverse speech phenomena are simply impossible for you to validate. .."
> My validation is of no relevant consequence or importance, however the need for you to explain the mechanism by which reverse speech mechanism operates IS, and you have failed to do this in the most basic way.
4."...Was that your hidden intention Noel? If so, I concede the point to you!".
>Jon, do not, even for one moment, challenge my integrity as a human being or investigator. I questioned your science, not you as an individual !
5."If clinical, forensic and military grade intelligence are relevant in today's world, the approach I am using for signals detection can reasonably be recognized within the frameworks of contemporary scientific thought."
>Hardly a comparison Jon. Forward signal detection is as intended by the transmitter. To reverse that signal to find new meaning was not intended by the transmitter nor by nature.
This concludes my comments on this subject, I remain sceptical and would ask that you exercise caution and due care in the application of your science and its consequences on a gullible public mind.
I would also ask that you respect another person's FB page with the length of your replies which amount to extended publicity for yourself.
END TRANSCRIPT
For more information about my audio research and other related fields please be sure to watch the 6-part series "Jon Kelly Live at ECETI" posted on my Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/
A Transcript of the Facebook Debate between Jon Kelly (www.yourinnervoice.com) and Noel Herbiet, Research Coordinator for ECUFOR (Evaluation Center for UFO Reports) South Africa
(C) 2010 All Rights Reserved www.yourinnervoice.com
* This enlightening discussion began when I introduced my analysis of the Col. Charles Halt Rendlesham Forest UFO tape in a Facebook conversation involving Tracy Farley, Director of UFO Research for ECUFOR South Africa. Based upon the initial posting, Nick Pope, former head of the UK MOD UFO project, took my conclusions to Col. Halt, with inconclusive results. Noel Herbiet, Research Coordinator for ECUFOR then mounted a challenge against my claim. Below is a transcript of the debate that followed. I have also included comments from Paul Westwood of www.bigcatmonitors.co.uk as they help to define the international online cultural climate into which I am advancing my concepts and vision.
My conclusions from this experience? Noel concedes that I am practicing a science on more than one occasion. However, the absence of rigor and stamina displayed by Noel throughout the debate brings into question his qualifications to mount the challenge he undertook. Noel's high personalization and subjectivity, stated unwillingness to review information, unresponsiveness to relevant points, unwillingness to answer questions and apparent inability to recognize answers all contribute to this opinion.
What do you think? Did I evade Noel's question as he claimed? Did I challenge his integrity? Or was I simply using his challenge as a platform for what Noel describes as "free extended publicity"?
Read on to learn more about my experience with "Introducing Reverse Speech Concepts to the UFO Research Community"! - Jon
Noel Herbiet -
I see numerous references to Jon's reverse speech analysis in connection with the Halt tape. I would like to challenge this as it appears that no one is questioning its basic concept. Put simply, a sentence spoken is a sequence of uttered sounds, the order of which is governed by grammar rules and which the listner understands as being the idea expressed by the speaker. The brain has thus focused into translating an idea into words. To imagine that this same brain would be able to construct a hidden meaning using appropriately sounding words that when listened to in reverse express an idea that the speaker is unconscious off is to me far fetched. Regardless of alleged success in the past, I consider this a highly subjective form of research. In my opinion, Halt's testimony stands to be jeopardised.
Noel Herbiet -
I would be interested in how Jon validates his interpretations.
Paul Westwood -
So why would we develop a capability to speak backwards as well as forwards? Until technology has developed in recent times it has not been possible to here this reverse speech. I'm sure the human brain cannot decipher reverse speech on its own.
And what would be the point to it anyway?
So you are having a chat with some one but in reality they are saying something completely different?
If you have to use texts prompts to make people understand, then it stands to reason that the words are subjective to the person making the observations.
This is from the net :
`One explanation for this phenomenon is pareidolia, the tendency of the human brain to perceive meaningful patterns in random noise. Pareidolia is even more likely to occur when a person consciously tries to detect a pattern, as is the case for someone listening for intelligible phrases in backwards speech. The power of suggestion is then used to nudge the listener to hear what the presenter wants him to hear - David John Oates, for example, almost always tells the listener in advance what he should expect to hear, thereby planting a suggestion that would make the listener more likely to actually "hear" that phrase. A study has shown that when listening to the same clips without being told in advance what to expect, the results have a higher variation'
Jon Kelly -
"it is remarkable that speech remains reasonably intelligible even under conditions of extreme distortion, such as ... time reversal of segments of speech (Saberi & Perrott 1999)"
From: Basic auditory processes involved in the analysis of speech sounds
http://rstb.
See: Cognitive Restoration of Reversed Speech
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~
My essential claim is regarding detection of information while observing the speech signal through a mirror filter. Specifically, monitoring audio playback under conditions involving the insertion of a virtual mirror along the x-axis of the cartesian coordinate plane waveform graph of the audio samples where x=time.
The mirror is widely regarded in contemporary society as instrumental in safety and security applications. For example, an informal survey of Google searching the words "mirror" and "security" shows over 43M results.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=
While searching "mirror" and "safety" shows over 33M results:
http://www.google.ca/search?
It is within this context of safety and security that I practice this procedure and share the results with the public.
Noel, my interpretations are validated through real-world feedback such as comments from the speakers themselves. Here is a demonstration conducted live on-air, publicly witnessed with independent third-party documentation:
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/
Paul, the "prompting" model of communications that you describe requires that I, as a "person" require a "prompter" who "makes me understand" what I am hearing. This raises the question "who is my prompter?" and if that prompter is a "person", then "who is my prompter's prompter?" my "prompter's prompter's prompter?" and so on.
Can anybody demonstrate that all of these prompters exist while providing a flow chart that identifies their location and the hierarchical structure by which they exert their successive prompting influences?
In the absence of such evidence, the "prompting" model appears to be nothing more than a "conspiracy theory".
Now, let's look at how audio recordings are commonly represented in mainstream news coverage through this example:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/
Note the extensive use of subtitles. Is this "prompting" of the audience another tell-tale sign informing us that the 9-11 tape being described is a hypothetical abstract with no basis in objective reality?
Anyone who can replicate my evidence (in terms of reporting world events in advance and producing live demonstrations) while providing a simpler explanation will not only satisfy Occam's razor but will advance the development of our growing understanding of human communications, cognition and performance.
Noel Herbiet -
Hi T, ...@ Jon, thank you for your attempt at justification. However, I dispute the fundamentals of your " science ". Firstly your reference to mirror and safety ??? ... a piece of glass with a silver covering allowing full reflection .. that's all a mirror is. Nothing else whatever we choose to use it for, security or vanity !
Secondly, in simple terms, you take a sound sequence and reverse it. You then supposedly understand a new meaning to this, for all intents and purposes, NEW sound sequence. Question ! Does your interpretation apply to all spoken languages .. it would have to in order to be real ! Another thing, accent ! I cant understand an Irishman when he speaks forward, never mind when you play it back to me in reverse !! The moment you prompt me to hear a particular word, of course I will recognise it ... but would I initially ? No ! therefore it's YOUR interpretation that I am hearing. Its the same as fortune tellers,... they ask you questions, you answer, and WoW! they tell you something of your future ... NO they didn't!!, YOU told them to start with, but people fall for it and pay for it, just as they "fall" for your interpretation once prompted. Going back to basics: how can a sequence of sounds expressed through the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea when played in reverse ?
Esrever ni deyalp nehw aedi dnoces a sserpxe ylneddus aedi eno sserpxe ot htuom eht hguorht desserpxe sdnuos fo ecneuqes a nac woh : scisab ot kcab gnioG !
Do you really believe there is a hidden meaning in the above sentence ?:)
Sorry, the fundamentals don't gel, irrespective of alleged success or evidence.The foundation is flawed in my opinion.
Jon Kelly -
"... the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." - Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification" http://www.stephenjaygould.
Noel: Jon, thank you for your attempt at justification.
Jon: Justification? From my perspective Noel, you and I are simply having a conversation through Facebook comments. You have posted some questions, and I am attempting to answer them. Is every person's attempt to answer your questions a "justification" or have you reserved this special status for my comments only?
Noel: However, I dispute the fundamentals of your " science ".
Jon: With regards to science, how do claims of observable "reverse speech" phenomena fit into Sir Karl's "Science as Falsification" model?
I have to say that my reporting has been characterized by "risky predictions" of severe and potentially catastrophic proportions on more than one occasion. And I'm not just talking about bypassing the censors at the Pentagon. For example, every live demonstration offered to the public provides the opportunity for testing, refuting and falsification. Under those conditions, not only would the speaker be unable to resolve the message, the message contents themselves would be refuted as well.
Here's the sample demonstration I presented earlier:
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/
Noel: Firstly your reference to mirror and safety ??? ... a piece of glass with a silver covering allowing full reflection .. that's all a mirror is. Nothing else whatever we choose to use it for, security or vanity !
Jon: I'm simply pointing out that mirrors are widely recognized as safety devices, and that my application of a digital mirror to the speech signal is occurring within this socially recognized context. Think about it, Noel. If mirrors were as widely recognized as the source of "pareidolic hallucinations" wouldn't that represent a public safety threat of global proportions? After all, how many of the world's estimated 600,000,000 automobiles are not equipped with mirrors?
Here's the US Department of Transportation's position on the use of mirrors:
Standard No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, School Buses and Motorcycles
(Effective 1-1-68)
This standard specifies requirements for the performance and location of inside and outside rearview mirrors. Its purpose is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear.
School Buses (Effective 12-2-93)
Revised requirements for driver visibility in front of and along both sides of school buses.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/
Note the absence of any mention of mirrors as the source of hallucinations. Maybe you should write to them Noel and explain how people are "seeing things that aren't there" when they look in the mirrors on their automobiles.
Noel: Secondly, in simple terms, you take a sound sequence and reverse it. You then supposedly understand a new meaning to this, for all intents and purposes, NEW sound sequence.
Jon: Someone is driving a car down the street past an observer on the sidewalk. The driver proceeds for some distance then turns the vehicle around and drives back in the opposite direction. To the observer on the sidewalk, it may appear that two different cars are traveling in opposite directions, and yet we know that it is in fact the same vehicle being observed from multiple perspectives. Geometric transforms along one axis of observation (eg: the mirroring of the speech signal waveform) are not radical changes in the fundamental qualities of the subject being observed.
However, the effects of such transforms on the mind of the observer can be easily detected. In other words, new perspectives create opportunities for the mind's resolution of new meanings.
Noel: Question ! Does your interpretation apply to all spoken languages .. it would have to in order to be real !
Jon: There is significant testimony from an international community of observers describing messages found in other languages. However, my field work is related to English speakers only. On a related note, I have found examples of speakers communicating in different language giving messages in English.
Noel: Another thing, accent ! I cant understand an Irishman when he speaks forward, never mind when you play it back to me in reverse !!
Jon: But we would both agree that in spite of the fact that you are unable to resolve the statements of the Irishman, that he is in fact still speaking (independent of your comprehension or lack thereof). I have observed examples where accents change between the original and mirrored versions.
Noel: The moment you prompt me to hear a particular word, of course I will recognise it ... but would I initially ? No ! therefore it's YOUR interpretation that I am hearing.
Jon: So what does it feel like to hear my interpretation Noel? You are telling me that we are both hearing the same thing, but I want to remind you that I can't actually "make" you hear anything. And if you are suggesting that all use of prompts in media is an attempt to "make" audiences' detect non-existent phenomena, then I feel your conclusion is a "conspiracy theory".
Here's the 9-11 call example again:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/
Are you feeling "prompted" yet?
Noel: Its the same as fortune tellers,... they ask you questions, you answer, and WoW! they tell you something of your future ... NO they didn't!!, YOU told them to start with, but people fall for it and pay for it, just as they "fall" for your interpretation once prompted.
Jon: Noel, I agree that President Bush and Pastor Caldwell "told" me 2 years in advance about the "Shock and Awe" strikes on Baghdad that marked the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. I also agree that Dennis Rader "told" me he was the BTK Killer before he confessed. I even agree that Oprah Winfrey "told" me her true feelings about James Frey. It's simply the way that I detected this "telling" that is the subject of controversy. For me, it's the use of a mirror. For you, it's a conspiracy of vast proportions.
For example, are you saying that I "prompted" the United States into invading Iraq? And why would my experience be any different from that of the average person? As I said before, your model requires that I have a "prompter", and a "prompter's prompter" and so on. Who are all of these people you are describing Noel? Are the fees from "fortune telling" really financing this apparently infinite yet invisible army of prompting personnel?
Noel: Going back to basics: how can a sequence of sounds expressed through the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea when played in reverse ?
Jon: Noel, this very question has been explored by composers of Western music going back hundreds of years. Their answers are included in both counterpoint and serialism as "Inversion (mirror transform along the y-axis)" and "Retrograde (mirror transform along the x-axis)".
Noel: Esrever ni deyalp nehw aedi dnoces a sserpxe ylneddus aedi eno sserpxe ot htuom eht hguorht desserpxe sdnuos fo ecneuqes a nac woh : scisab ot kcab gnioG !
Do you really believe there is a hidden meaning in the above sentence ?:)
Jon: The hidden meaning is that the letters "A", "H", "I", "O", "U", "V", "T", "W", "X" and "Y" all survive the mirror transform uncorrupted.
It's just like what the scientists are telling us Noel:
"It is remarkable that speech remains reasonably intelligible even under conditions of extreme distortion, such as ... time reversal of segments of speech (Saberi & Perrott 1999)" - Brian C.J. Moore, "Basic auditory processes involved in the analysis of speech sounds", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 March 2008 vol. 363 no. 1493 947-963
"We have studied the intelligibility of speech, and find it is resistant to time reversal of local segments of a spoken sentence" -Kourosh Saberi and David R. Perrott, "Cognitive restoration of reversed speech", Nature 398 (29 April 1999) 760... See More
"Speech is a multidimensional stimulus. There are different ways you can extract a message from it" - Kourosh Saberi
Noel: Sorry, the fundamentals don't gel, irrespective of alleged success or evidence.The foundation is flawed in my opinion.
Jon: And that is what you have offered so far Noel, your personal opinion. In return, I'm offering citations from literary and scientific records along with evidence documented by independent third parties.
Noel Herbiet -
Hi Jon ... that you believe yourself to be correct is self evident, along with the other individuals you quoted. You are quite entitled to that and I respect that. However this is not my page and I owe to it and its owner, Tracy, the respect of it as if I were in her home, this is her territory as it were so I will be brief and to the point.
You lost me entirely on the mirror issue ! All I said is that a mirror is just a reflective/reflection device and nothing more, whether used at home, in an automobile or in the head of a missile. You appeared to place great emphasis on the fact that your software uses mirror techniques. Be that as it may.
On the issue of reversed speech, you have not, with all due respect, explained to me how an idea I express in words can possibly have a different meaning or any meaning at all when listened to in reverse order.... See More
For instance, I will say " The postman was bitten by my dog yesterday and he is now taking me to court."
Now according to your theory, if we play that backwards we might hear a hidden message eg " ... the neighbour has cancer ...".
Please answer the following Jon, seriously, and without referring me to websites .... I thought the above idea, ... I then expressed it verbally by modulating airflow via my vocal cords causing sounds you have been taught to recognise as English and of appropriate meaning. My brain was responsible for that controlled sequence of sounds and their resultant meaning. What you are suggesting is that my brain chose words that would express a different idea when played backwards by a computer ... a different idea by the way that I am unaware of. Please explain the mechanism which makes this possible, in simple English.
Another thing, you say that words spoken in French for instance, provide you with a message in English ????
You wrote : "On a related note, I have found examples of speakers communicating in different language giving messages in English." Please explain.
In passing, you said "It's simply the way that I detected this "telling" that is the subject of controversy. For me, it's the use of a mirror. For you, it's a conspiracy of vast proportions." ...
??? For the record, I am NOT into conspiracies, I despise them and the people that promote them.
Do you not recognise the power of prompt or suggestion ? It is the keystone of all advertising. I can make you hear and see anything with the correct prompt or suggestion !! I know ! I have experienced this first hand and it is a common occurrence in mass witness UFO sightings when witnesses are in close proximity.
I do not wish to debate this forever Jon ... I have asked a simple question, how does this mechanism work ?... bearing in mind that our brain is trained to recognise sounds and translate them into words instantly ... speech sounds in reverse will obviously sound similar to other words and a meaning could be extracted. The point is, is it relevant !
By the way, is the hidden meaning of a spoken sentence related or attached to the original speaker or does it still work when that same original message is repeated by a second person? If a hidden message is detected in the reverse sound train of the second person, to whom does that hidden message belong, the original speaker or the second person ?
I ask you kindly Jon, if you so wish, to explain the basic fundamentals of your science in plain English, but not by referring me to websites.
Tracy, please forgive the length of this debate but I am not willing to let this ride with substantiation.
Jon Kelly -
Noel: Hi Jon ... that you believe yourself to be correct is self evident, along with the other individuals you quoted. You are quite entitled to that and I respect that. However this is not my page and I owe to it and its owner, Tracy, the respect of it as if I were in her home, this is her territory as it were so I will be brief and to the point.
Jon: It is so funny to me to see you characterize my statements of fact as matters of belief, Noel. Your ability to render matters of public historic record into abstract rhetorical hypotheticals is amazing! But it is exactly because you are representing yourself as someone who is interested in science that I am quoting from "the other individuals" like Sir Karl Popper, widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century!
Noel: You lost me entirely on the mirror issue ! All I said is that a mirror is just a reflective/reflection device and nothing more, whether used at home, in an automobile or in the head of a missile. You appeared to place great emphasis on the fact that your software uses mirror techniques. Be that as it may.... See More
Jon: Noel, you may think that you're lost but from my point of view, you actually appear to be demonstrating a grasp of the concepts I have been repeating :) Earlier you stated that we were both detecting the same message, now you are confirming that you understand how it is that I am using a mirror to detect the messages. Your statements certainly resemble those of someone who is beginning to distance themselves from the "pareidolia" mob, don't they?
Noel: On the issue of reversed speech, you have not, with all due respect, explained to me how an idea I express in words can possibly have a different meaning or any meaning at all when listened to in reverse order. For instance, I will say " The postman was bitten by my dog yesterday and he is now taking me to court." Now according to your theory, if we play that backwards we might hear a hidden message eg " ... the neighbour has cancer ...".
Please answer the following Jon, seriously, and without referring me to websites .... I thought the above idea, ... I then expressed it verbally by modulating airflow via my vocal cords causing sounds you have been taught to recognise as English and of appropriate meaning. My brain was responsible for that controlled sequence of sounds and their resultant meaning. What you are suggesting is that my brain chose words that would express a different idea when played backwards by a computer ... a different idea by the way that I am unaware of. Please explain the mechanism which makes this possible, in simple English.
Jon: Well, I think my answer to your earlier question was actually quite responsive. You asked "how can a sequence of sounds expressed through the mouth to express one idea suddenly express a second idea when played in reverse?" I said in response that composers of music in the Western tradition envisioned Retrograde as an instrument of both Counterpoint and Serialism, allow the mirroring of one musical idea to invoke new aesthetic meaning through its counterpart. For words, simply add lyrics to the tones. The thematic arrangement of sounds IS the representation of an idea. So you see, those composers satisfied your question in eras that predate the digital age, Noel.
You are probably also familiar with the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence or SETI. In simple terms, SETI is engaged in the detection of intelligent electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on distant planets. SETI does not propose to answer questions regarding the mechanisms by which signals are transmitted, they are primarily concentrated on signal detection and analysis.
It appears that you feel the presence of a transmission theory is necessary to validate the realities of repeated signals detection. Therefore I am curious to know if you will be writing to SETI to explain how unscientific their mission is in the absence of any explanation of the mechanism by which the ET signals are transmitted?
As I said earlier,"My essential claim is regarding detection of information while observing the speech signal through a mirror filter." In these terms my work can be placed in the same camp with SETI and other signals detection organizations who perform meaningful work in the absence of a robust transmission model.
Sorry Noel, but I guess my telling you that "body language" is unconscious involuntary muscular communications that often accompanies speech and even contradicts spoken statements just isn't going to cut it!
Noel: Another thing, you say that words spoken in French for instance, provide you with a message in English ????
You wrote : "On a related note, I have found examples of speakers communicating in different language giving messages in English." Please explain.
Jon: I was referring to the Arabic statements of Saddam Hussein as heard during his interview on "60 Minutes" just prior to the war.
Noel: In passing, you said "It's simply the way that I detected this "telling" that is the subject of controversy. For me, it's the use of a mirror. For you, it's a conspiracy of vast proportions." ...
??? For the record, I am NOT into conspiracies, I despise them and the people that promote them.
Jon: Your promotion of the "prompting" model of communications in this discussion seems antagonistic to your stated feelings about conspiracies Noel. Your prompting model informs us that the average reasonable person requires a prompter who makes them sense phenomena, either real or imagined. I'm just an average person Noel, so why don't you clear the air and explain who is prompting me to make me hear messages, who is my prompter's prompter, my prompter's prompter's prompter? Lay out the financials, the organizational structure and the locations of this invisible yet seemingly infinite army of prompting personnel and put this issue to rest once and for all :)
Noel: Do you not recognise the power of prompt or suggestion ? It is the keystone of all advertising. I can make you hear and see anything with the correct prompt or suggestion !! I know ! I have experienced this first hand and it is a common occurrence in mass witness UFO sightings when witnesses are in close proximity.
Jon: I get it, Noel. Your testimony of first hand experience is more than enough evidence to validate the "prompting" hypothesis, but even when presented with citations from legal, scientific and literary records along with evidence of events that were publicly witnessed and independently documented by third parties, the realities of reverse speech phenomena are simply impossible for you to validate.
Is that your point?
It's also kind of funny that you claim to be able to make me "hear and see anything" but the only way I could resolve this claim is to believe that if your contribution to this discussion, the outcome of your challenge that you initiated, was intended to prompt me, to make me believe that you were completely wrong and in denial regarding the facts that I am presenting.
Was that your hidden intention Noel? If so, I concede the point to you!
Noel: I do not wish to debate this forever Jon ... I have asked a simple question, how does this mechanism work ?... bearing in mind that our brain is trained to recognise sounds and translate them into words instantly ... speech sounds in reverse will obviously sound similar to other words and a meaning could be extracted. The point is, is it relevant !
Jon: I have lucidly and repeatedly explained the mechanisms of signal detection to you in clear, unambiguous terms Noel. I have also offered suggestions in order to provide conceptual frameworks from within which you might begin to imagine the possible mechanisms involved in transmissions. I have even demonstrated that real signals detection science is taking place today in the absence of such models.
If clinical, forensic and military grade intelligence are relevant in today's world, the approach I am using for signals detection can reasonably be recognized within the frameworks of contemporary scientific thought.
Consider that, from the perspective of Karl Popper's critical rationalism, it is the the least probable theory that still withstands attempts to falsify it which is the preferred basis of scientific philosophy. The demonstrated public historic record of my most improbable research satisfies Popper's criteria unambiguously.
Noel: By the way, is the hidden meaning of a spoken sentence related or attached to the original speaker or does it still work when that same original message is repeated by a second person? If a hidden message is detected in the reverse sound train of the second person, to whom does that hidden message belong, the original speaker or the second person ?... See More
Jon: President Bush's inaugural address was recited from a script, yet the President's characterization of the spoken word gave it novel and unexpected meanings, including disclosure of intent to invade Iraq. Other than examples of speakers reciting scripted statements, my research does not entirely answer this question, leaving the path open to people like yourself, Noel, to design experiments and test for possible answers.
Noel Herbiet -
Jon, thank you for your lengthy response. However cannot continue this debate when a simple question is evaded. My intention was for you to provide me and others who follow Tracy's page the opportunity to understand the basic fundamentals of your science which is highly controversial.
My intention was not to present you with a free platform for extended publicity. My simple question has yet to be answered in a simple direct manner. Any further discussion can be handled by private message if you so wish.
For the record:
1. I have no intention of questioning SETI nor would I compare your science with that of SETI. Their's is an attempt to capture a transmission,... yours is to receive that transmission, turn it backwards thereby allowing you to find hidden meaning not originally intended.
2. You will never convince me that Arabic translates into English when played in reverse, Sorry !
3."... realities of reverse speech phenomena are simply impossible for you to validate. .."
> My validation is of no relevant consequence or importance, however the need for you to explain the mechanism by which reverse speech mechanism operates IS, and you have failed to do this in the most basic way.
4."...Was that your hidden intention Noel? If so, I concede the point to you!".
>Jon, do not, even for one moment, challenge my integrity as a human being or investigator. I questioned your science, not you as an individual !
5."If clinical, forensic and military grade intelligence are relevant in today's world, the approach I am using for signals detection can reasonably be recognized within the frameworks of contemporary scientific thought."
>Hardly a comparison Jon. Forward signal detection is as intended by the transmitter. To reverse that signal to find new meaning was not intended by the transmitter nor by nature.
This concludes my comments on this subject, I remain sceptical and would ask that you exercise caution and due care in the application of your science and its consequences on a gullible public mind.
I would also ask that you respect another person's FB page with the length of your replies which amount to extended publicity for yourself.
END TRANSCRIPT
For more information about my audio research and other related fields please be sure to watch the 6-part series "Jon Kelly Live at ECETI" posted on my Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/
Sounds like this Jon kelly guy has no idea about communications, and defends himself based on infinite regression. The scientists he quotes indicate a SEGMENT of speech reveresed, not the whole thing, in an attempt to throw off the receiver which proves faulty because the brain is able to understand the message based on the entirety of the transmission.
Posted by: Ivan Kardashev | 01 June 2010 at 01:28