Alternative Theorizing

Verdi wrote:Indeed, you are welcome to discuss the subject.

If it proves to warrant its own special place on the forum then it can be discussed right here where it belongs   ..

What constitutes "unorthodox"? It seems rather subjective.
Are you sure you're not just unfairly labelling things that you personally dislike or don't believe in? 

AlexBG wrote:

Verdi wrote:Indeed, you are welcome to discuss the subject.

If it proves to warrant its own special place on the forum then it can be discussed right here where it belongs   ..

What constitutes "unorthodox"? It seems rather subjective.
Are you sure you're not just unfairly labelling things that you personally dislike or don't believe in? 

Subjective?  No!   Yes I'm quite sure - free of all prejudice.

You are at liberty to discuss the subject without restraint right here.

Lead on Macduff!

Verdi wrote:Subjective?  No!   Yes I'm quite sure - free of all prejudice.

You are at liberty to discuss the subject without restraint right here.

Lead on Macduff!

You didn't answer my question.
I have already put forward points for discussion on the subject - I shall see if anyone takes an interest and wishes to discuss. Less likely when the posts are hidden in a thread with a derogatory and irrelevant title, however.

Apologies if I didn't answer your question.

If you wish to continue discussion on this topic, this is a more recent thread you can use if you consider 'Unorthodox Theorizing' to be inappropriate or my view to be subjective..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I wouldn't like you to think your contribution is not welcome. If I might say, threads such as 'Unorthodox Theorizing' are initiated for good reason, to allow members to comment without censure, or being off-topic - not to restrict commentary nor trivialise. However, if fellow members have an alternative view don't be surprised nor affronted if they counter your opinion.

Good luck - I wish you well

Verdi wrote:If you wish to continue discussion on this topic, this is a more recent thread you can use if you consider 'Unorthodox Theorizing' to be inappropriate or my view to be subjective..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum."

I don't believe in this reverse speech business.

AlexBG wrote:

Verdi wrote:If you wish to continue discussion on this topic, this is a more recent thread you can use if you consider 'Unorthodox Theorizing' to be inappropriate or my view to be subjective..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum."

My apologies AlexBG, the thread was indeed archived by admin because it didn't contribute anything positive towards the true purpose of CMoMM.  Curiously the thread was initiated by a new member one year ago, almost to the day, whom I believe was here to promote and sell his wares - a sort of virtual hawker.  Not for the first time I might add.

So with that in mind, if it's all the same with you I'll leave things as they are for the moment.  If your interest generates further discussion here on Unorthodox (synonym alternative) Theorizing I will of course reconsider.

It's a matter of keeping the forum tidy and free of erroneous subject matter.

Verdi wrote:My apologies AlexBG, the thread was indeed archived by admin because it didn't contribute anything positive towards the true purpose of CMoMM.  Curiously the thread was initiated by a new member one year ago, almost to the day, whom I believe was here to promote and sell his wares - a sort of virtual hawker.  Not for the first time I might add.

So with that in mind, if it's all the same with you I'll leave things as they are for the moment.  If your interest generates further discussion here on Unorthodox (synonym alternative) Theorizing I will of course reconsider.

It's a matter of keeping the forum tidy and free of erroneous subject matter.

And there was me thinking that the true purpose of CMoMM was to find out what happened to Madeliene McCann. A 'mature' forum such as this always runs the risk of becoming an echo chamber for the well-aligned views of a small group of old regulars, thereby precluding any alternative discussion. Just something to watch out for.

Again, "didn't contribute anything positive" sounds like a subjective opinion, as does your judgement of the OP, but since you won't even allow people to view the thread in question we'll never know for sure.

Incidentally, if you're implying that s/he and I are the same person, you'd be wrong. I'm not even a new member.

Ooooh, Matron.

plebgate wrote:I don't believe in this reverse speech business.

What makes you so sure? If we consider the following example:

Forwards: "I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about err cadaver dogs and they're incredibly unreliable".
Backwards: "I will not help you. You've a net, score at the back. Yeah you had us, the debate had killed us, hope you didn't listen."

What are the odds of this occuring by random chance?

First Peter Hyatt now this, ye canny make it up 

HKP wrote:First Peter Hyatt now this, ye canny make it up 

I don't know about 'this' but Peter Hyatt seems very accurate, a bit like a sniffer dog (in the best way, I mean)

AlexBG wrote:

plebgate wrote:I don't believe in this reverse speech business.

What makes you so sure? If we consider the following example:

Forwards: "I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about err cadaver dogs and they're incredibly unreliable".
Backwards: "I will not help you. You've a net, score at the back. Yeah you had us, the debate had killed us, hope you didn't listen."

What are the odds of this occuring by random chance?

I'm so sure because it doesn't make sense to me.

Whereas Peter Hyatt made a lot of sense to me.

As you previously said, members can make up their own minds and mine is made up.

Imari wrote:

HKP wrote:First Peter Hyatt now this, ye canny make it up 

I don't know about 'this' but Peter Hyatt seems very accurate, a bit like a sniffer dog (in the best way, I mean)

I'm not sure 'accurate' is quite the right word to describe the trade of speech analysis.  It is after all only a form of interpretation, or opinion if you like, even if the analyst claims to have adequate experience in speech analysis together with physiology, to make their craft noteworthy.

Any one of us could hit on a right note, an accuracy, when opining on aspects of the case.  That doesn't equate to a professional accurate interpretation or analysis of the written or spoken word.  It can only ever be a tool to assist an investigation, or whatever other context it's used in.

Sorry Hobs   !

Bunkum in my view but slightly more plausible than talking in tongues.

plebgate wrote:
I'm so sure because it doesn't make sense to me.

When you say it doesn't make sense, do you mean you can't hear the words in reverse? or the words themselves don't make sense? or the notion of reverse speech existing as a phenomenon makes no sense?

The alleged phenomenon potentially makes sense as an unconscious means of communication. David Oates claims that human speech is essentially bi-layered, and while we hear the forwards speech consciously, we send and receive the reverse speech on an unconscious level.


In the interests of Madeliene, here is my interpretation of what the reversals are saying (with the relevant reversals in brackets). It is assumed that readers have bothered to listen to them (links provided in a previous post), in order to know the context of the forward speech in which they appeared, which is probably being overly optimistic in here. Alas we can only judge their accuracy if the truth ever comes out...


Madeliene died. Her body was transported in the boot of the hire car. Gerry used prior knowledge/training of DNA in an attempt to destroy the forensic evidence this had created by mixing other people's DNA in there too, and he felt confident that he had succeeded ("I remember DNA, this will pass", "So if we did, now I've sealed it").

The dogs' alerts were accurate ("Yeah, you had us"). Kate and Gerry were stressed by the subsequent discussion of the dogs' evidence ("The debate had killed us").

Madeliene did not die in the apartment but was brought there, by someone with the name/nickname of "Nibbie" ("Nibbie brought her").
Interestingly, J K Rowling was a current Nibbie-award winner at the time. She is believed to have links, both with Portugal and with the McCanns.

Madeliene probably died unintentionally, because the McCanns unexpectedly received financial compensation. The '16 text messages' were somehow associated with Gerry hiding the money to keep the pay-off secret ("I was hiding money"). It's reasonable to assume that if this secret payment had been pre-planned, there'd have been no need for any last-minute text messaging.

The incident involved sexual abuse but Gerry has forgiven the killer ("I forgive her lover"). The killer is probably a billionaire, because a billionaire was concerned about how the twins might behave on the night Madeliene was reported missing. ("Yes, they got a billionaire nervous this night"). The killer has no family. ("Well I'm certain, they've got no family").

The abuse was pre-planned, but people who know the McCanns were not told of the true nature of their trip to Portugal ("Never knew it was on").

The McCanns are under threat - possibly of death - from an unknown male if they reveal the truth ("He'll 'ave yer 'ead").

Gordon Brown is involved somehow, but Gerry dare not discuss this ("I can't deal with this").

Madeliene's body is located near a trestle ("She's near a trestle"). "Trestle" can refer to the support structure(s) of some types of bridges.

Kate is confident that the body won't be found ("They find no body").

The abuction and, implicitly, other events within a relevant time frame were simulated by the so-called tapas 7 ("The yarn of seven is private").

Glad you mentioned JK Rowling because your interpretation is pure fantasy / fiction made up of what you want to make of it. However we are all entitled to our own views so I'll respectfully leave it there

HKP wrote:Glad you mentioned JK Rowling because your interpretation is pure fantasy / fiction made up of what you want to make of it. However we are all entitled to our own views so I'll respectfully leave it there

That's a shame; I was hoping you might try to justify your statement.

The idea that we unintentionally reveal our true feelings in reverse is fatuous. This has to be a joke, yes?
People used to do this with the Beatles’ records, much to their amusement, ever seeking subliminal messages.  Hence the ‘Paul is dead’ stuff.

So let's cut out any self-promotional material and/or bizarre theorizing and turn to the man himself - David Oates, the founder of Reverse Speech .  Let the viewer and listener decide the merits of reverse speech for themselves..



I tried uploading this last night but couldn't stop laughing long enough to make it happen.  Terribly terribly subjective of me I know and I shouldn't mock but really - you cannot be serious!  If nothing else, it's a good entertaining diversion from the harsh reality of discussing a missing three year old child.

I'm off again

NB: Perhaps folk will now understand why the previous thread was archived.

watched first 4 mins Bunkum me thinks.....

patricia999 wrote:watched first 4 mins Bunkum  me thinks.....

You can't know that for sure though, just as none of us can know for sure what happened to Madeliene.
Even if there is something in it (which I still believe there is), it's not an exact science. 95% of what you hear when playing speech backwards is just gibberish, and there is always the danger that people will think they've found reversals when really they are just interpreting the gibberish (a real reversal sounds quite different). I think even some of David Oates' own examples come under this category, but there are still many good examples on his youtube page: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 

So now you openly admit that reverse speech has little or no merit.

Next ....

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 

So now you openly admit that reverse speech has little or no merit.

Next ....

Someone's not been paying attention. Or perhaps my posts should come with subtitles for the hard of comprehending.

My personal view is that the aforementioned [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] contains genuine reversals on the McCanns, most of which are very revealing and would make for some interesting lines of enquiry.

Enough of this tomfoolery !

From David Oates @ reversespeech.com

However, probably the most exciting aspect of Reverse Speech is its ability to reveal the voice of the human spirit itself. At its deepest levels, Reverse Speech reveals a constant dialogue between the spirit and the conscious mind. The Spirit is constantly talking to us, giving advice and guidance, reassurance and sometimes even warnings. People have tried many methods over the millennia to get in touch with the Spirit – prayer, meditation, hypnosis to name a few. Some work to varying degrees but none are as accurate and as direct as Reverse Speech. Imagine hearing your own spirit speaking to you in a voice you can understand. This possibility is now a reality. The Spirit does indeed speak – backwards.


Or just another nutjob trying to make a living