Slashdot Mirror

This soundclip and similar ones are under "R.S. examples" at this website:
http://www.reversespeech.com/
And yes, I first heard this clip when this man was on Art Bell's radio show in the late '90's.
And yes, I think he's a complete luna tick. No offense meant to true Moon residents or visitors.

I've heard something about infants speaking in reverse.

Anyone with a little child around and willing to try?
look at this page for more detils

Ok so how did I come accross this? Art Bell (late night am talk show wacko) used to have this guest on about reverse speech. The guest would have audio clips played foward, and then backwards. And when played backwards, a quick message would be heard. Supposedly, this message was the subconscious speaking and the truth to the lie would be told when the audio was played backwards.

grump.

David Oates has found this information about reversing speech.

I had a buddy who took Oates class and is now certified in reverse speech therapy.

That's an urban legend. Any usage of samples violates copyright law if not approved ahead of time by the copyright holder.

IANAL, but I'm sure this is wrong. While it is probably true you can't use samples in the way mentioned in the article without permission, there is such a thing as fair use. You can have a small sample for the purposes of commenting on something. Say you were writing an article about reverse speech, and you swear you hear "Ah babe, as I make love" in a song called Foolish Beat by some singer named Debbie Gibson, it would probably be okay to include the specific part of the song as a sample, though the law doesn't seem to be specific here, and the RIAA might try to sue you anyway. (Just because they're legally wrong doesn't stop the RIAA.)

Commenting is one of the major purposes of fair use: to enable fair speech and help uphold the "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" clause in the Constitution. The government isn't promoting science if scientists are restricted on how they write papers on a certain subject just because something they're illustrating is copyrighted. Similar clauses about encryption research were in the DMCA, but as usual, the RIAA ignored them. Copyright was intended to allow people to make money off their works, not restrict others from talking about those works.

The real FUD about fair use is spread by the "all music is free" crowd and the RIAA. The "all music is free" crowd insist it's fair use to just give away the entire song as long as you don't charge for it. Obviously false. Part of the test for fair use is the economic impact of the copying. At least some of the people would have bought the work but didn't because they got it for free. (Though the RIAA tries to overbloat this and say every copy adversely affects their sales. Even "RAM buffer copies", copies which just sit on a hard drive and never get listened too, even copies downloaded by some teenager who couldn't afford a single CD, even other songs which have a similar name to an RIAA one.) The RIAA says there is no such thing as fair use. Obviously false too. If it were true, there wouldn't be a section in Federal Law about fair use at all.

You must be referring to something like this.

(Note that I think it's total crap and a scam . . . I just thought the connection you made was interesting.)

Testimonials from the reverse speech guy immediately close my mind. Sorry, I don't have time to waste on lunatics.

FTR, being on the Art Bell show is not an unequivocal judgement of one's credibility.

The XEmacs spook.lines contains "David John Oates" who is the guy who listens to tapes of people speaking backwards and finds hidden messages that he claims are what they are really thinking about.
M-x spook is a joke. You're supposed to laugh ...