So I wonder...will the phrase "whatever happened might not actually have really happened" become the new most used statement on this site from now on? Lol. Judging from the blogs and posts below me, probably not as most people still seem to be subscribing to the original view that Daniel had of whatever happened happened. I would like to know why this is? Why are people taking what he originally said as gospel and seemingly ridiculing his thoughts on variables? Why believe one thing he said and not another? Both came from the same apparent brilliant mind didn't they? Or are we assuming that he's just permanently high in the late 70's and that it would really mess things up as we know it if he (or his journal) does manage to change the past?