I'm delightfully reading the Grand Design by Hawking-Mlodinow. After many years, I became persuaded from it that Feynman's interpretation as multiple paths of interference patterns in the double slit experiment and, more generally, his path integral approach to quantum mechanics, are superior to other mathematical settings because they capture some element of reality of "unobserved motion & causality" better than fickle behaviors interchanging between particle and wave. In other words, what is strange is the nature of motion or causal link between two consecutive observations-sources of information, not the fact that what is moving is a countable, detectable unit or "solid" and permanent object as a buckyball with a precise structure C₆₀. What I'm going to claim and underscore here is that multiple (and simultaneous) stories in Feynman's calculation technique are not "true" stories in time; not in the sense of causative chain or sequence of events in time. I think everybody, included Feynman, was aware of this tenet. Multiple paths "capture" something that is inherent to the reality of motion, as a sniffling of proximal paths which explains randomness and relation between subsequent observations, but we don't know exactly what is it. Wheeler delayed choice experiment (WDCE)changes the future only (in the intercepted particles, not the others), does not affect the "true" past (in which the interference "was" actually generated) in those cases in which we are authorized to consider that as a real past event (in the cosmological thought experiment). We must distinguish two cases. First, the real WDCE experiment in which we (erroneously) deduce a time delay from the spatial location in which we choose to observe/don't observe each particle. The Feynman's multiple paths do not correspond to actual single stories. So it is a nonsense to affirm that if the site of observation-choice is "subsequent" (actually to the right) of the two (open) slits, then it follows we are observing something which is occurring "after" in the Feynman's paths. We are actually making an observation set which is alternative to the observation on the screen. We can thus compare two alternative experiments, but not to consider one experiment as the continuation of the other. In conclusion, there is no difference between the choice to observe some of the particles just in front of the slits, behind the slits or close to the detector. In all these cases we are forcing the "possible" (Feynman's) stories of the observed particles with our present action and changing the future true story of those observed particles. But we can't say anything about the unobserved part of the single particle history (in between the source and the decision probe or the screen-detector). Second, if we have a quasar light arriving at our planet after some billions of years, forming an interference due to the passage of photons through the two right and left ends of a big lens-galaxy, and if today the quasar and the galaxy are not anymore aligned nor existing, then each single photon arriving upon our interference screen today does have its true story. There is a true past: the emission from the quasar. Then we have only simultaneous possible paths passages through one possible side or the other of the lens galaxy and gravitational deflection & interaction with any other possible path. Eventually we have two different possible "present times" in the true history of the photon, depending on our decision: one in which the photon has been intercepted by the probe spaceship that was sent midway towards the galaxy, so that that photon won't go to form the interference pattern in case it will reach our planet (we have changed the future of that photon). The other "present time" is in case we are choosing not to observe the photon stream for a while. After that the unobserved photons conserve the interference path that was generated during the past history and will arrive on the interference screen on Earth, plotting the interference pattern. In this case, the true story ends with the impact of the photon on the screen-detector on Earth. Our decision not-to-observe has not changed in any way the true story of the single photon. They are not our "decisions" which change the history of events, but only facts, actual events can do that: if we actually interact with-observe the single photon, that interaction will determine a really new future chain of events for that photon. There is no way to make any interaction - or decision that won't cause a true interaction - which would determine a change in some true past event of a true history, as the emission of photon from the quasar or as the same existence of a certain photon we haven't observed yet, with or without interference.