The Flood Is Still Upon Us
Lecture catalog #76 — text: HAVE
Date (happened)
19 November 1971
unresolved
19 November 1971
estimated · probable · preferred
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 014)
Reasoning
Node 1038's surviving delivery claim, 1971-11-19, is independently relied on and corroborated by event 15046 in this same span; it supersedes the doubtful catalogue year 1957.
1957
stated · doubtful
Source
Neville lectures catalog #76
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/propagate-node-refutation: lowered `certain` -> `doubtful` under A-121. THE CONTRADICTION: node 1038, the lecture this claim was copied to, holds the identical date 1957-??-?? as REFUTED, and records why — "Copied without semantic change from linked historical event 49. || v1.1/l1.3b/w1: Direct header 11/19/1971 identifies this transcript; lower the 1957 and 1970 title-linked claims. || v1.1/l7/apply/c1: refuted by L7 adjudication (#2363), shape `catalogue_block_error`. The delivery date that stands on this lecture is 197". A delivery date refuted on the lecture cannot stand as `certain` on the lecture event it was copied from. ⛔ Lowered only, never refuted: A-121's floor is `doubtful`, and nothing here is deleted — the date, its type, its source note and the prior confidence (certain) all survive, so this reverses from the ledger.
19 November 1971
stated · probable
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 049)
Reasoning
Same title as node 1038, dated there at 1971-11-19; the catalog claim was circularly copied from that node's now-refuted guess.
27 March 1970
stated · refuted
Source
Neville lectures catalog #630
Reasoning
Lowered to `doubtful` under the #2461 §1(b) extension of the #2435 standing rule. The fenced lecture that carried this date, nid 1038 "The Flood Is Still Upon Us", has had its claim at 1970-03-27 REFUTED, and no fenced lecture holds the date, so the assertion retains no support. This event cites that same node in field_sources (1038), so its support is circular: its only witness is a claim the corpus has withdrawn. ⛔ NOT `refuted`, deliberately: what was disproved is that THIS LECTURE was delivered on this day, NOT that Neville lectured that day at all — he spoke far more often than the surviving transcripts record. Refuting would assert the day did not happen, which nobody showed. Lowering withdraws the false confidence and keeps the day visible as calendar supply.