Subject: Re: Garmonbozia backwards From: UnoJ Date: 1992-09-20, 00:00 Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks In article rhaller@oregon.uoregon.edu (Rich Haller) writes: > >I did some experiments with MacRecorder. > >"I is Windom Earle" reversed sounds too close to "Garmonbozia" to be a > >coincidence (though it sounded just as much like "Harmonbozia" with a > >gutteral H). > >Since "I is Windom Earle" is ungrammatical, I tried some variations like > >"this is...", "this was". That won't fly. "is Windom Earle" backwards lacks > >the 'Yuh' at the end, so something is missing, I tried 'pain is Windom > >Earle' and it was a possible, but 'I' backward gives a definite 'yuh' at > >the end and I would say. 'I' has to be the leading candidate. However, if > >people will e-mail me phrases which begin with something else, but continue > >"is Windom Earle", I will try them. Rich Haller, ultimate TP freak. Good job on this one Rich. You get an A+ from me. The Windom Earle coincidence is too obvious to be accidental, I agree. I would be extremely curious to hear the actual spoken words from the movie read backwards, i.e., we have to wait fro the video to come out before getting anywhere on this. The actors _must_ have known something when they were speaking that way. My theory: Windom Earle is not a supernatural being. In fact he is easily disposed of by Bob. But garmonbozia and WE bring pain and suffering: one in the Lodge (hence backwards) and the other in the real world (hence the straight "I is WE"). > > > >Maybe this is all just a little joke rather than a clue, but I am forced > >against my initial reluctance to conclude that garmonbozia is backwards > >speak for something very close to, if not identical with "I is Windom > >Earle". > > > >-Rich Haller > > How true...maybe Lynch, aware of all the wild theories, threw this one out on us to try to dissect. UnoJ
Return