“Observation […] My point is that from what I have seen, scientists don’t seem to have come to any firm conclusions. If you have info that counters that …”

No, I don't have info on general scientific agreement on this matter. There are still proponents of necessity of a conscious observer out there. But records of experiments disprove that an conscious observer is necessary. If that was not the case, you posit that actual content of records also takes final shape only when cognized. It would also imply that you actively shape past from the present moment. So, in this case I'm with the majority camp for which quantum mechanical observer is enough (but for now, I leave my mind open for the possibility that no observer whatsoever is necessary – that would be quite amusing).

“Bohm’s view is nothing if not movement”

I guess, I missed it then. The main point was that water moving is still water and that layers which we can identify in world of phenomena are a continuum – they don't have strictly defined boundaries and all our divisions are more or less arbitrary. After all, matter is energy is information. That's why e.g. every software (stored, running, etc.) is at all times just the state of associated hardware.

“particles (and presumably any quantum system) existing in infinite time and space […] I just haven’t seen that referenced in all that I have read and studied on this.”

It was merely my speculation. A rudimentary thought experiment and a small play with working concepts. How to test for that is more than way beyond my competence level. It just seemed like a lot less complex solution. But frankly, whether it works this or that way is of little significance to me, and either way, at this point, all we have are hypotheses.