On the topic of the scientific validity of reverse speech.

How about the following experiment?

1)  Record Hamlet's soliloquy as performed by a number of professional
actors;
2)  Determine what the angst-ridden Dane is saying in reverse speech;
3)  Identify exactly when and where each of these actors is repeating the
exact same phrase (my guess would be something like "..save kingdom,
avenge king's death");

If all actors are saying the same subliminal thing, then there's
something to reverse speech.  If not, reverse speech is bunk.

There are, of course, simpler methods to determine whether reverse speech
is valid (such as having proponents of reverse speech transcribe
backwards hidden phrases without first knowing who the speaker is or what
was said originally and in what context, but that would be too simple).
In my mind, the real proof of reverse speech would be if reverse speech
worked across language translation (e.g., dubbed movies would have the
same hidden messages as the original films).

Reverse speech relies on intonation and the stressing of syllables in
order to make its case.  What is interesting is that musical composition
does sometimes use backwards phrasings in the development of musical
themes, and that in mathematics you can always work your way backwards in
a problem.  However, I think that, just as physics holds that you can't
take a charred match and make it whole again by adding light and heat
energy to it, you can't take speech and play it backwards in order to get
at its gist.

There's already plenty of deceit to be found in "forward" speech to worry
about elucidating the truth from sound recordings played backwards.



Fernando Colina
Center for World Languages and Cultures
University of Massachusetts Boston
100 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA  02125-3393