A woman heals blistered hands through five days of revision

A lady showed him her hands, blistered as if with acid a week before and now unscarred, which she said took five days of revision.
Date (happened)
c. October 1959
unresolved
  1. c. October 1959 stated · probable · preferred
    Source That Which Already Has Been ¶13"the other night", told in That Which Already Has Been (nid 1062)
  2. between 29 September 1959 and 6 October 1959 estimated · probable
    Source That Which Already Has Been ¶13Passage529183 says the hands were blistered a week before Neville saw them and healed through five days of revision.
    Reasoning Anchored to nid1062's certain 1959-10-06 delivery, the reported week-long episode falls between 29 September and 6 October 1959. The envelope includes uncertainty in 'the other night' rather than assigning a false exact day.
Place
Los Angeles
Persons
Neville Goddard
Told
  1. 6 October 1959 conclusion
    Why dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
    Reasoning 1 claim, no conflict: 1959-10-06 (node:1062).
  2. 6 October 1959 estimated
    Source That Which Already Has Beennid 1062 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1959-10-6 certain; 1968-10-13 refuted; 1959-10-6 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 1062 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 1062 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1959-10-6 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1959-10-6 certain; 1968-10-13 refuted; 1959-10-6 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1968-10-13 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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.
  3. 13 October 1968 stated · refuted
    Source That Which Already Has BeenThat Which Already Has Been (nid 1062), telling 1062-3, told 1968-10-13
    Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1062, 1968-10-13) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1959-10-6. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources

Source

  • That Which Already Has Been ¶13 (A lady said to me the other night: “Look at my hands! A week ago they were blistered as if with acid; now there is no scar, but it took me five days of revision to bring about what you are seeing.”)