NASA "Backwards Thinking" Revealing True Agenda?

Reverse Speech

My name is David John Oates and I am the founder and developer of Reverse Speech. This is a career I have been pursuing, at the exclusion of everything else, for almost 15 years now on a full time basis. During this time I have compiled overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that verify a second form of human communication exists, imbedded backwards into the sounds of human speech. This form of communication reveals the total thoughts of the speaker at the time, both conscious and unconscious.

At the recent request of Art Bell I performed an analysis of the speech of two NASA scientists, Don Savage and Ray Veillard. The results of my analysis are posted on my web site. Prior to this time, I had no contact with NASA, very little knowledge about the US space program, and/or the rumors of hidden missions and other ventures. I approach my work with an open and clear mind and document exactly what I find with no editing and as little personal bias as possible. Since my analysis of the NASA scientists was broadcast on the Art Bell program on Friday June the 6th 1997, I have been informed that my conclusions are remarkably similar to what Richard Hoagland has been saying for years. *

For the record I wish to state that I have never met Richard Hoagland. I have never listened to any of his broadcasts or attended any of his lectures. I am so "one-eyed" Reverse Speech I have very little time, or interest, in anything else. I did glance through his book, "The Monuments Of Mars", several years ago and saw the photos of the "Face" but I never read any of the text. I had also heard rumors that a space probe was shot down over Mars a few years back but had not placed any credence to those rumors. Other than those two instances I have heard nothing else about Mars or any of the others things I uncovered in my analysis. My analysis was therefore totally independent and untainted by prior knowledge. This only adds further credence to the results I obtained. To be frank, I was shocked by what I found and had great fears publishing it because I thought it might have been considered "too far out". I have since discovered that my results verify things that have been suspected for a long time.

This statement has been prepared by me at the request of Richard Hoagland during our first ever telephone conversation which took place on June 10th 1997, four days after the Art Bell broadcast.

David John Oates
Founder and Developer Of Reverse Speech

* In Postscript to David Oates' preceding remarks, I wish to add a personal note to this latest serendipitous addition to our on-going inquiry into NASA's true agenda.

I first encountered the concept of "reverse speech" in 1988 (to be carefully distinguished from the completely artificial, so-called "recorded reversals" on Beatles' records, much hyped in the late '60's). The occasion was a series of discussions with key staff members of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. The "reverse speech" technique was apparently quietly (and quite effectively, even at that time) being utilized in on-going "unofficial" support of the Committee's official hearings and other legislative functions. Simultaneously, I was informed that this same technique was also being separately applied to key "situations" by at least one U.S. intelligence agency.

Needless to say, in the decade since, this technique has NOT been widely publicized by either of the aforementioned "interested parties!"

Subsequent to Oates' recent highly public NASA "revelations" on Art Bell's Coast-to-Coast radio program (6/6/97), a major controversy has erupted -- regarding the overall scientific validity of applying this technique in search of "truthfulness" behind conscious, spoken statements. My own opinion, based on my own personal discovery of at least two official U.S. agencies' use of this analytical tool, is that Mr. Oates has apparently, independently, reinvented a technique long kept quiet by those with far more to lose, if its consistent application to "sensitive" communications had not long since proven ... "useful."

Richard C. Hoagland -- June 14, 1997