Neville sees a vision of tourists entering the dead moon

A few days before closing his Los Angeles series Neville asked within for a simpler way to state the Law, and in the early hours had a vision of travelling to the moon, entering it through a tunnel, and finding cheap clay souvenirs made on earth to sell to tourists on a dead world.
Date (happened)
before 1957
unresolved
  1. before 1957 stated · probable · preferred
    Source Imagination ¶5"A few days before I closed in Los Angeles", told in Imagination (nid 1024)
Place
Los Angeles
Persons
Neville Goddard
Told / reported
  1. 14 July 1969 conclusion · probable
    Why dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
    Reasoning 1 claim, no conflict: 1969-07-14 (node:1024).
  2. 14 July 1969 estimated · probable
    Source Imaginationnid 1024 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1958-3-17 refuted; 1969-7-14 probable (preferred)
    Why Lane L7 (#2354) re-derivation. Supersedes in substance, not in storage, the refuted-date told claim(s) on this event; those rows stand per append-only.
    Reasoning Re-derived, not walked down. The existing told claim(s) on this event took their date from a delivery claim on node 1024 that the corpus has since REFUTED, so the corpus was asserting that Neville told this on a day it separately says he did not lecture. That is a contradiction rather than an over-confidence, and lowering the confidence would have hidden it instead of resolving it. The refutation stands and the told claim is the wrong side of it. Node 1024 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-7-14 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1958-3-17 refuted; 1969-7-14 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1958-03-17 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1958-03-17 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`). The telling is dated by its lecture, so with the refuted date removed from consideration the surviving claim is what the telling inherits, at that claim own confidence and no higher.
  3. 17 March 1958 stated · refuted
    Source ImaginationImagination (nid 1024), telling 1024-0, told 1958-03-17
    Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1024, 1958-3-17) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-7-14. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
  4. 17 March 1958 stated · refuted
    Source ImaginationImagination (nid 1024), telling 1024-0, told 1958-03-17
    Why Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
    Reasoning Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1024 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1024 delivery claims: 1957-??-?? doubtful; 1958-3-17 doubtful; 1969-7-14 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1024, 1958-3-17) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-7-14. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources

Source

  • Imagination ¶5 (I am on this craft and I am headed for the moon. There are others on the craft with me. Instead of landing on the moon, I went into the moon through a very, very large tunnel — a tunnel wider than the depth of this room. The object is dead, dead as dead …)