Neville says he was one of twelve children, ten of whom survived, and that he loved his father and never questioned that he was his father.
Date (happened)
before 1969
bound · possible
Source
qualifying source passages 528485; telling lecture nids 1037
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [528485] belong to telling lecture nids [1037]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1969 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1969 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 25 November 1966
bound · probable
Source
lecture nid 1037, surviving non-refuted delivery claim 1966-11-25 (certain, direct dateline in node body)
Why
Corrects the L6a envelope (before 1969) which relied on a since-refuted delivery claim; that row stands per append-only.
Reasoning
The existing envelope bound (before 1969, possible) rested on lecture 1037's catalog year, but both the 1957 and 1969-03-26 delivery claims on that lecture are now refuted; the sole surviving delivery claim is the certain, direct-dateline 1966-11-25. Recounted family material of this kind is background told at the telling, so its upper bound is the telling date itself, now known to the day rather than only the year.
Told / reported
25 November 1966
estimated
Source
nid 1037 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1969-3-26 refuted; 1966-11-25 certain (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 1037 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 1037 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1966-11-25 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1969-3-26 refuted; 1966-11-25 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-03-26 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`). 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.
26 March 1969
stated · refuted
Source
The Eternal Father (nid 1037), telling 1037-5, told 1969-03-26
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1037, 1969-3-26) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-11-25. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- The Eternal Father ¶41 (Yet, here I am one of ten children that survived, there were twelve of us, and my father…I know, that is I believe, how would I know that he is my father?)