A friend reports an apparent dove experience

Neville recounts that the same friend told him one day of an experience of the dove, which Neville judged to be a foreshadowing or hallucination produced by a powerful thinker, because the dove does not come the way the friend described; he then describes how it truly comes, floating in translucent heavens and lighting on the outstretched hand.
Date (happened)
before 1959
unresolved
  1. before 1959 bound · possible
    Source Who Paul Really Is ¶24qualifying source passages 529005; telling lecture nids 1055
    Reasoning Qualifying passage ids [529005] belong to telling lecture nids [1055]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1959 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1959 is the MIN across telling lectures.
  2. before 1971 bound · possible
    Source Who Paul Really Is ¶24corrected envelope; qualifying source passage 529005; telling lecture nids 1055
    Why Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1959 to before 1971.
    Reasoning Envelope recompute, arithmetic only. The phase4 L6a row on this event states its own rule: each telling lecture contributes MAX of its non-refuted delivery years, and the envelope is the MIN across telling lectures. Recomputed live over lecture nid(s) 1055 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1971, not the 1959 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 12 year(s) where it may sit. Same premise, same evidence, no re-reading and no re-judgement; only the maximum was taken correctly. The L6a row stands beside this one (append-only). Ruling: #2235 delta 1, architect 378.
  3. before 18 June 1971 bound · probable
    Source Who Paul Really Is
    Why M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 047)
    Reasoning Only telling lecture is dated to the day at probable confidence; the year envelope safely tightens.
Place
Los Angeles
Persons
Neville Goddard
Told
  1. 18 June 1971 conclusion · probable
    Why dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
    Reasoning 1 claim, no conflict: 1971-06-18 (node:1055).
  2. 18 June 1971 estimated · probable
    Source Who Paul Really Isnid 1055 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1959-5-10 refuted; 1971-6-18 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 1055 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 1055 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-6-18 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1959-5-10 refuted; 1971-6-18 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1959-05-10 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1959-05-10 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. 10 May 1959 stated · refuted
    Source Who Paul Really IsWho Paul Really Is (nid 1055), telling 1055-7, told 1959-05-10
    Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1055, 1959-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
  4. 10 May 1959 stated · refuted
    Source Who Paul Really IsWho Paul Really Is (nid 1055), telling 1055-7, told 1959-05-10
    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 1055 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1055 delivery claims: 1959-5-10 doubtful; 1971-6-18 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 1055, 1959-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources

Source

  • Who Paul Really Is ¶24 (He is a very powerful thinker, so he could conjure and give himself a grand hallucination, and thought that was it. It wasn’t it. That was an hallucination, when he thought . . because it doesn’t come that way. The dove does not come the way that he told…)