In vision, before his birth, a boy of about four told Neville his name was Neville Mark and that he was coming on the 10th of November; Neville told his wife and then told a pregnant friend that if her child were born that day and were a boy his name was Neville Mark - and on November 10th the boy was born.
Date (happened)
September 1945
unresolved
- September 1945 estimated · probable · preferredWhy M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 013)Reasoning Every telling (passages 549183, 549843, 531400, 553829) places the vision two months before the 10 November birth, now established as 1945-11-10 per the Berle-interview ruling (525), the same basis used for events 6244 and 8437.
- between September 1953 and September 1954 estimated · possibleReasoning Passage 549843 says the pre-birth vision occurred when 'This was now September'; neighbouring continuation 549844 says the child was born on November 10. At the standing, adjudicated delivery date of node 1950, 1969-04-28, the boy is described only as 'about fifteen'. That approximation permits a November 1953 birth (age about 15.5) or November 1954 birth (age about 14.5), placing the preceding vision in September 1953 or September 1954. The weakest link is the rounded age phrase, so the range is estimated and possible despite the carrier date itself being certain.
- c. September 1949 estimated · possibleSource passage 531400 (lecture nid 1144), 'He is now about fifteen...he said the 10th of November. This was now September.'Why If the lecture is instead the chrome-sourced 1969 delivery rather than 1964, the same 'about fifteen' arithmetic would instead place the vision circa September 1954 -- flagged here since the told date is not fully resolved.Reasoning The lecture is dated 1964-02-21 (see told claim). The boy is 'now about fifteen' at that lecture and was born (as foretold in the vision) on 10 November; working back from a Feb-1964 age of fifteen against a November birthday gives a birth year of circa 1949, and the vision itself -- explicitly 'now September', i.e. the September before the November birth -- falls in September of that same year. Written at possible/circa because 'about fifteen' is an approximation and the underlying told date itself carries only probable confidence.
- c. September 1953 estimated · possibleSource The Riddle ¶4Reasoning Passage 549183 (lecture nid=1923, delivered 1967-03-10, three independent claims at confidence certain) has Neville say his prenatal vision of 'Neville Mark' happened when the boy 'said, "On the 10th of November"...this is now September' -- i.e. September, two months before the 10 November birth. Neville adds 'he's now about thirteen' at the 1967-03-10 lecture, which best fits a birth on 10 November 1953 (age 13y4mo at the lecture), placing the vision circa September 1953. This is a soft estimate: a 1954 birth ('about thirteen' as rounding up from 12y4mo) cannot be ruled out, and a later aside in the same lecture ('about five years ago... the lad was then ten') points to a birth closer to 1952, so the year carries real uncertainty beyond the clearly stated month of September.
- No date relative · probableReasoning Passage 553829 has the vision-boy tell Neville he will be born 'on the 10th of November'; Neville replies 'I said you are now, this is late September,' and repeats it to his wife ('I'm not even pregnant, this is late September') -- placing the vision itself in late September, about six weeks before the 10 November birth of 'Neville Mark' confirmed in passage 553830. No year is stated anywhere in the text.
September 1954stated · refutedSource "This was now September.", told in A Riddle (nid 1950)Why pm-actor-525: refuted by the M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 013): Rests on an imprecise decades-later age estimate; superseded by the Berle-interview birth date of 1945-11-10 (525's ruling).
Place
Told / reported
- 28 April 1969 estimatedSource nid 1950 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1970-6-22 refuted; 1969-4-28 probable; 1969-4-28 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 1950 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 1950 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-4-28 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1970-6-22 refuted; 1969-4-28 probable; 1969-4-28 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1970-06-22 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.
- 28 April 1969 estimated · probableSource 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: 1964-02-21 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/w1/B3`). 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.
- 10 March 1967 estimatedSource The RiddleReasoning Passage 549183 is where Neville recounts this prenatal-vision story to the audience, in lecture nid=1923 delivered 1967-03-10 -- corroborated by three independent claims (d1 estimated/certain from the announced Monday/Monday/Good-Friday lecture sequence, d2 stated/certain from the chrome header dateline, d3 stated/certain from hist_event 20157's citation of the same node), all agreeing exactly on 10 March 1967. || v1.1 type repair: written as `stated` by run v1.1/l4/actor417/8000-9999-b8, retyped `estimated` — the claim cites node 1923, not a passage, so it is this lane's inference rather than something Neville said in so many words (#2117).
- 1970 estimated · probableReasoning Passage 553829 narrates this vision within lecture nid=2141 ('The Law Of Indentical Harvest'), whose own preferred delivery date (1970, year only) is an unreviewed legacy backfill from historical event 1236. The lecture's separate, non-preferred claim narrowing delivery to after 1970-11-10 rests on 'his namesake' reaching an eighteenth birthday, but the text available here (passage 553831) instead has the elder son Larry reach 18 and die, so that refinement is not corroborated and was not used. || v1.1 type repair: written as `stated` by run v1.1/l4/actor417/8000-9999-b17, retyped `estimated` — the claim cites node 2141, not a passage, so it is this lane's inference rather than something Neville said in so many words (#2117).
22 June 1970stated · refutedSource A Riddle (nid 1950), telling 1950-0, told 1970-06-22Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1950, 1970-6-22) 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.21 February 1964estimated · refutedSource delivery claims on lecture nid 1144 ('A Riddle'): two conflicting certain catalog claims (1964-02-21, 1967-03-10) plus a probable chrome dateline (1969-04-28) that disagrees with bothWhy Flag for lane L1 (already flagged by the original chrome-harvest note): nid 1144's three-way delivery conflict (1964/1967/1969) needs proper adjudication; the Ben-Gurion detail only rules out 1967, not 1969.Reasoning This lecture's own processing notes report that its stated age for Ben-Gurion fits an early-1964 delivery better than 1967, eliminating that catalog candidate. That leaves 1964-02-21 (certain, catalog, with this internal support) against 1969-04-28 (probable, a document-native chrome dateline that nonetheless conflicts with BOTH pre-existing claims rather than corroborating either, unlike the usual chrome-confirms-catalog pattern in this corpus). Given the internal support for 1964 and the chrome reading's own weaker, doubly-conflicting status, 1964-02-21 is preferred, but written at probable rather than certain since the chrome conflict is not resolved. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1144, 1964-2-21) 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.)