Neville foresees Neville Mark's November birth

Neville saw in vision a four-year-old boy who told him his name was Neville Mark and that he was coming on the 10th of November; he told his wife and then a pregnant friend, and the boy was born to that friend on November 10th.
Date (happened)
c. September 1945
unresolved
  1. c. September 1945 estimated · probable · preferred
    Why M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 011): stated with no source: written as estimated with the reader's reasoning
    Reasoning Architect's note (525): the Berle interview independently dates Neville Marc Berle's birth to 10 November 1945; this vision-and-telling episode, which places Neville's announcement in September ahead of a November 10 birth, fits 1945 far better than his own 'about thirteen/fifteen' recollections given decades later in the two Riddle tellings.
  2. c. September 1948 stated · refuted
    Source "This was now September. ... He is now about fifteen.", told in A Riddle (nid 1144)
    Why pm-actor-525: refuted by the M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 011): Rests on 'He is now about fifteen' in a decades-later retelling; superseded by the independently dated 1945 Berle-interview birth (architect's note 525).
  3. September 1953 stated · refuted
    Source The Riddle ¶4"this is now September", told in The Riddle (nid 1923)
    Why pm-actor-525: refuted by the M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 011): Rests on 'about thirteen' in a decades-later retelling; superseded by the independently dated 1945 Berle-interview birth (architect's note 525).
Place
New York City
Persons
Neville Goddard
Neville Marc Berle
Catherine Willa Van Schmus
Told
  1. 28 April 1969 estimated · probable
    Source nid 1144 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1964-2-21 refuted; 1967-3-10 refuted; 1969-4-28 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 1144 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 1144 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-4-28 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1964-2-21 refuted; 1967-3-10 refuted; 1969-4-28 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1967-03-10 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1967-03-10 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.
  2. 10 March 1967 estimated
    Source The Riddledelivery claim on lecture nid 1923 ('The Riddle'); best-attested delivery claim is d2, stated/certain, from the chrome header dateline '3/10/67'
    Reasoning Neville recounts the vision of Neville Mark and the foretelling of his birth as a story within the lecture 'The Riddle', whose delivery date is 1967-03-10 per multiple stated/estimated certain delivery claims (d1, d2, d3); this is the telling date, separate from the already-recorded September 1953 happening date of the foretelling itself.
  3. 10 March 1967 stated · refuted
    Source A Riddle (nid 1144), telling 1144-0, told 1967-03-10
    Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1144, 1967-3-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-4-28. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
  4. 10 March 1967 stated · refuted
    Source A Riddle (nid 1144), telling 1144-0, told 1967-03-10
    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 1144 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1144 delivery claims: 1964-2-21 possible; 1967-3-10 possible; 1969-4-28 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 1144, 1967-3-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-4-28. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources

Source

  • The Riddle ¶4 (Before he was born he stood before me in vision and I felt I was his father. Appearing to be about four years old, he told me his name was Neville Mark. When I asked him when he was coming, he said the 10th of November. This was now September.)
  • The Riddle ¶4 (This lad stood before me and I felt I was his father. His name was Neville Mark; he was about four. We talked and I said, “When are you coming?” He said, “On the 10th of November”…this is now September.)