122 replies to this topic

[Leonardo]

The phenomenon is a form of "audio pareidolia".

All of our language (speech) is made up of phonemes. These are the basic sounds we make when we say words. Playing our own language in reverse, we engage "confirmation bias", as Rlyeh said, to 'hear' phonemes in what was said. We do this because we already know what we are hearing is speech. Except it's not really, it's speech in reverse.

Because we have convinced ourselves we hear phonemes, the language centre in our brain then arranges these phonemes into 'words' - because that is what our brain does. This is pareidolia. We haven't really heard speech, we have heard sounds we know were speech (although reversed) and recombined those sounds into a recognisable pattern.

Edited by Leonardo, 20 April 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[Left-Field]

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

You're only proving my point about confirmation bias. They definitely aren't english words, something that sounds similar to a word doesn't cut it sorry.

Interestingly enough, I find that you are the one holding a biased standpoint. I state this because, as best I can tell, you do not believe any unintentional messages can be found in backmasked recordings. I find it hard for one to believe that is a fact when there are numerous examples in which messages can be heard pretty darn clearly upon listening to a track played in reverse.

On the other hand, if I were truly holding a confirmation bias then it would stand to reason that I always hear the backmasked message some claim is present in any given song upon being told what it is I am expected to hear. This is not the case, however. I will acknowledge when people are reaching in their attempts to claim a backmasked message is heard.

If the unintentional messages really aren't present, then we should not be hearing the original lyrics sung when we play a recorded version of the backmasked message in reverse.

In other words, if what one claims to hear is nothing more than sounds resembling words, then when the words we believe we hear in the backmasked message are sang and recorded, and then played in reverse, we should not be hearing the original lyrics to the song being sung.

It seems to me that that it is a reasonable way of proving that what we hear in the backmasking is truly present. If the discernable message people hear isn't really present, then upon doing what I mention above we should hear nothing that resembles the original recording of the song.

I would also state that what you claim are nothing more than sounds resembling words could actually be real words coming out in a different dialect.

[Left-Field]

Leonardo, on 20 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

...we have heard sounds we know were speech (although reversed) and recombined those sounds into a recognisable pattern.

Isn't this what we do with any speech we make sense of whether it is a forward or backwards played message?

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 20 April 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[Leonardo]

Angel Left Wing, on 20 April 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Isn't this what we do with any speech we make sense of whether it is a forward or backwards played message?

When you speak, you arrange phonemes in a specific order to make up words and sentences. Those phonemes only work in that order, and reversing them only generates 'noise'.

[Left-Field]

Leonardo, on 20 April 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

...and reversing them only generates 'noise'.

How can you claim it only generates "noise" when many others are able to hear recognisable sounds - or more to the point, recognisable words.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 20 April 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[Leonardo]

Angel Left Wing, on 20 April 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

How can you claim it only generates "noise" when many others are able to hear recognisable sounds - or more to the point, recognisable words.

Gyains ma I thaw dternasndu uoy od?

[Rlyeh]

Angel Left Wing, on 20 April 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

If the unintentional messages really aren't present, then we should not be hearing the original lyrics sung when we play a recorded version of the backmasked message in reverse.

I guess then beach towels really did turn into the virgin Mary because some people saw it.

Quote

In other words, if what one claims to hear is nothing more than sounds resembling words, then when the words we believe we hear in the backmasked message are sang and recorded, and then played in reverse, we should not be hearing the original lyrics to the song being sung.

And thats the experiment that failed, the reversed song sounded like the singers tongue had been cut out and stuffed into their sinus.

I'll bet if the author hadn't presented his version of the reversed "lyrics" it would've sounded like unintelligible gibberish.
I've noticed a lot with proponents of reverse speech (and other fields of pseudoscience), anything even remotely similar to their preconceived notion becomes proof.
Such as in the video, many of the complete words of the reversed lyrics can't be heard; "say" and "sat" becomes "satan", "pa" becomes "path", etc.It's gibberish.

Edited by Rlyeh, 20 April 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[Left-Field]

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

I guess then beach towels really did turn into the virgin Mary because some people saw it.

Well, no. But if someone demostrated to me that the Virgin Mary had turned into beach towels then I would be left to believe that those particular beach towels can turn themselves back into the the Virgin Mary.

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

And thats the experiment that failed, the reversed song sounded like the singers tongue had been cut out and stuffed into their sinus.

If that is truly the case then you, nor I, nor anybody else, should be able to hear anything that resembles any type of language being spoken - or in this case, sung.

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

I'll bet if the author hadn't presented his version of the reversed "lyrics" it would've sounded like unintelligible gibberish.

I disagree.

I have even acknowledged that there are cases in which what you state above is true. There are also many instances in which a message can be heard, however. The demonstrations in the video are examples of this occurring.

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

I've noticed a lot with proponents of reverse speech (and other fields of pseudoscience), anything even remotely similar to their preconceived notion becomes proof.
Such as in the video, many of the complete words of the reversed lyrics can't be heard; "say" and "sat" becomes "satan", "pa" becomes "path", etc. It's gibberish.

To state that something is gibberish is to claim that nothing discernable can be heard. This is not the case, however.

Are you really going to tell me that upon hearing the sung recording of the backmasked message played in reverse you can't hear the original lyrics being sung?

They may not be said in the same exact manner that you or I would say - or sing - the lyrics, but they can most definately be understood. As I mentioned in a previous post, it is simply the dialect that changes.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 20 April 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[Left-Field]

Leonardo, on 20 April 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Gyains ma I thaw dternasndu uoy od?

Yes I do. You have asked me the following: "Do you understand what I am saying?"

[Leonardo]

Angel Left Wing, on 20 April 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Yes I do. You have asked me the following: "Do you understand what I am saying?"

No, I didn't write that but the persuasive nature of language (and our pattern-matching ability) led you to interpret what I wrote as that. What I wrote was gobbledegook. Noise.

This is how effective we are at matching a previously recognised pattern to something that looks (or sounds) similar, but isn't the 'stored pattern' we have matched. This is what causes pareidolia. It is because of how we remember patterns, which is based on the whole of it without remembering the details of it.

Edited by Leonardo, 20 April 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[Left-Field]

Leonardo, on 20 April 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

No, I didn't write that but the persuasive nature of language (and our pattern-matching ability) led you to interpret what I wrote as that. What I wrote was gobbledegook. Noise.

This is how effective we are at matching a previously recognised pattern to something that looks (or sounds) similar, but isn't the 'stored pattern' we have matched. This is what causes pareidolia. It is because of how we remember patterns, which is based on the whole of it without remembering the details of it.

I understood the message. Therefore what you wrote was not "gobbledegook." You were clearly asking me the question: "Do you understand what I am saying?"

Did you write the letters and words in that order? No. But, nonetheless, the message was present.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 20 April 2012 - 04:38 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Angel Left Wing, on 20 April 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

To state that something is gibberish is to claim that nothing discernable can be heard. This is not the case, however.

Well sure you can spin anything starting with "sa" to mean satan, but I meant real words.

Quote

Are you really going to tell me that upon hearing the sung recording of the backmasked message played in reverse you can't hear the original lyrics being sung?

Thats what I said. Some of us aren't convinced by malformed words.

Quote

They may not be said in the same exact manner that you or I would say - or sing - the lyrics, but they can most definately be understood. As I mentioned in a previous post, it is simply the dialect that changes.

What dialect has half of the words missing? Perhaps you can make something else up to support your unsubstantiated assertions.

Edited by Rlyeh, 20 April 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[Left-Field]

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Well sure you can spin anything starting with "sa" to mean satan, but I meant real words.

What you state above, though, is not what we hear in the demonstrations presented in the video.

You claim that the sound "sa" is turned into the word "Satan." That is not an accurate description of what is heard. What we actually hear being interpreted as "Satan" is both the "Sa" and the "tan" sounds following one another which forms the word "Satan."

In the written format it would be more like hearing "Sa-tan."

I could go through each word being said if that is really necessary. Hopefully, though, you will give more accurate representations of what is being heard the next time you make your claim.

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Thats what I said. Some of us aren't convinced by malformed words.

Ah! So you do recognize that these are words we are hearing.

What you classify as "malformed" is what I refer to as a different "dialect."

You can go all around America and ask people to say the same sentence in the English language and find it will be pronounced in all different sorts of ways. A better example would actually be hearing Americans and those from the United Kingdom read the same sentence in English.

Some people may say the words in what you would consider a "malformed" manner. This is not the case however, it is simply a matter of them having a different dialect.

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

What dialect has half of the words missing?

As I stated above, half the words are not missing. You aren't desrcibing what is heard in a truthful manner.

Rlyeh, on 20 April 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Perhaps you can make something else up to support your unsubstantiated assertions.

I am not the one misrepresenting what is being heard and demonstrated in the video.

[Rlyeh]

Angel Left Wing, on 20 April 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

You claim that the sound "sa" is turned into the word "Satan." That is not an accurate description of what is heard. What we actually hear being interpreted as "Satan" is both the "Sa" and the "tan" sounds following one another which forms the word "Satan."

In the Led Zeppelin reversal, satan isn't said once. I could easily say its saturn or satin.

The comments on this
Point out the obvious fact it is gibberish.

Perhaps the "tan" bit is coming from your behind? (like the rest of your logic).

Quote

Ah! So you do recognize that these are words we are hearing.

What you classify as "malformed" is what I refer to as a different "dialect."

So you admit they aren't real words then?

Quote

You can go all around America and ask people to say the same sentence in the English language and find it will be pronounced in all different sorts of ways. A better example would actually be hearing Americans and those from the United Kingdom read the same sentence in English.

Which dialect only pronounces half the word? And please don't pretend its not, I've already pointed out examples in the video.

Edited by Rlyeh, 20 April 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[Magicjax]

Watch this video. He goes over the stairway to heaven backwards message in it toward the end.

Edited by Magicjax, 20 April 2012 - 05:51 PM.