Fact Checking Nelson's "Doors Of Death" light aircraft near death experience

[IHAQ]

Feel free to explain on what basis you think it looks more likely to be a factual recounting of an actual event.

Another example of what a lie may look like is creating a fabricated position and claiming it's what someone else is arguing.

You said "frankly it doesn't look like it is {a lie} to me". I'm simply asking on what basis you think it looks like the truth. I don't see how that's me fabricating your position, it's what you actually said.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I expected more from a thread that has run over 40 pages. I'm not sure what is gained here, either. ... People are grasping and exerting surprising effort over what, exactly?

Welcome to in investigative work. And also, if you expected more, but haven't helped out, then that's on you. Collaboration is cool when the team is all kicking in an effort.

- doc

[Gadianton]

Of the processes followed in the thread to validate a belief of what actually happened, Res seems to be the one exhibiting scepticism of all assumptions and using the rigor of a process to maintain intellectual discipline.

Res has been the primary driver of this thread with "not much to be gained", by the way. I've enjoyed following his journey also. I participate in a lot of threads where others are doing the heavy lifting, or I'm out of my depth, and probably will continue to do so.

falsifiability of the story may not be possible

Nelson is by no means stupid. He made sure of that during his relative youth, by making a vague reference in an otherwise detailed diary of his exploits. As he aged and his stock went up, he's taken more risks by adding details that could bring him down.

[Res Ipsa]

The bottom line: If whatever happened on Nelson's aircraft occurred before 1978 and was categorized as an "incident," we know that the chance of finding that event in the online databases is exactly zero before we ever run a query. That's not because an incident didn't happen. It's because the databases do not include reports of "incidents" for that timeframe.

Confirming my understanding of the database requires doing some research and reading, as well as running several different queries to test what type of documents are included for which years. Falsifying my understanding should be easy peasy. Post a list of the aircraft incidents in Utah before 1978 from the database, and the search parameters you used to find it. DrW's single record from 1979 does not falsify my description, which applies to incidents before 1978.

Your entire case is based on online databases and assuming it was an incident and not classified as an accident. Many day ago I gave you this:



https://www.archives.gov/research/trans ... -accidents
Aircraft accident reports can be found in the Minutes of Meetings of the Civil Aeronautics Authority 1938-40 and the Civil Aeronautics Board, 1940-78 (MLR A1 E-34A, boxes 1-511) in the Office of the Secretary. The CAA minutes are arranged chronologically by year and the CAB minutes are arranged by year and month. There are accident reports, ranging from a paragraph to a several page report, located in each month of the minutes. The reports are submitted to the board anytime up to a year and a half after the date of the accident. Therefore, a search must be made of each month's minutes subsequent to the accident. The search involves checking the monthly index to determine the page number for the minutes. In some cases, particularly in the 1960's, the index will refer to a page listing board actions, which then refers you to an exhibit containing the accident reports.

The accident reports include, at a minimum:

information concerning the date
type of aircraft
owner
number of passengers
some mention of the circumstances of the accident

Folks, if Nelson's fantasy had actually occurred, there would in fact be a record of it in aviation documents.

Hi Tapir. What do mean by my “case”?

The part of my post that you quoted is addressed to online database that we can search. In a perfect world, those databases would contain the records were are looking for, including the dates were are looking for. Then, we could look at the records and if any even come close to what Nelson describes in his story.

If that were true, we could do a pretty good analysis from our computer screens. I’ve set out my explanation of which documents are included in the database and for which periods. And what you quoted was that explanation. The only conclusion I’m drawing from that is that we need to look for paper records if we want to investigate pre-1978 incidents.

The only reason I am still talking about online database is DrW’s claim the database he is using contains all records of FAA incident reports starting in 1973. While he is quite adamant about this claim, he has yet to provide a list of incident reports from 1973 through 1977. This is an issue that DrW could have resolved by doing exactly two queries on the database he is using. I have no idea why he hasn’t done so and reported the results. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have come to a consensus over a week ago as to what the online database contain.

Meanwhile, while I’m still trying to get the online database issue clarified, folks are sending FOIA requests to FAA and NTSB, and trying to draw conclusions from the responses. So, I’ve also been focusing on that. I’ve barely started on the information you found from the National Archives.

Please see my response to Doc for what I’ve done so far with respect to documents at the National Archives. I specifically looked for FAA correspondence files based on the general description of materials you linked to. I found a set of FAA correspondence files, but 1976 appeared to be missing from the chronological index of files. So, even though the page description you linked to contains a general description of the records in its collection, we we have to use the online catalog to determine how complete the the collections are.

So, what you found is a good guide on where we could look. But it takes more work with the online catalog to determine how complete the records are. And, unless the records themselves have been digitized, we can’t see the records from our computers.

So, it’s not the case that we can firmly conclude that the documents we are looking for exist based on the general description of the collection. But, why should we bother looking? You’ve determined it’s just a “fantasy” without looking at a single document from the National Archives.

[Res Ipsa]

I expected more from a thread that has run over 40 pages. I'm not sure what is gained here, either. Whether or not the story has become embellished would seem to be an obvious yes and be expected given how memory works. It's a rather benign story, too. He claims to have felt calm in the face of death. Ok. But knives have been drawn over it and there is a certain irrationality to the thread in reading it over the hunger to see the story proven to be a lie.

That's unfortunate. Res appears to have this about right. People are grasping and exerting surprising effort over what, exactly?

I think you're understating this "how memory works". Maybe how it works when there was never an attempt to substantiate the story in a minimal way, and there is an incentive to lie, there is an incentive to embellish, and the context is a religious leader who has free reign to take advantage of a system set up where he can say whatever he wants and the followers know not to question nor does the thought to question even come to mind. And the religion has a history of taking advantage of it's members in such ways and in fact even was founded on the principal.

Nelson doesn't have to be as diabolical as mark hofmann. He just has to have confidence in his own success and a flair for enjoying popularity, and the red carpet for abusing the Saints is rolled out for him to tread upon.

Hey, we have plenty of context and supporting storytelling for Uchdorf's heroic flying back of a hijacked plane, I wonder why that is?

Because a hijacked plane is more newsworthy than an engine fire in rural Utah?

[Res Ipsa]

Of the processes followed in the thread to validate a belief of what actually happened, Res seems to be the one exhibiting scepticism of all assumptions and using the rigor of a process to maintain intellectual discipline.

Res has been the primary driver of this thread with "not much to be gained", by the way. I've enjoyed following his journey also. I participate in a lot of threads where others are doing the heavy lifting, or I'm out of my depth, and probably will continue to do so.

falsifiability of the story may not be possible

Nelson is by no means stupid. He made sure of that during his relative youth, by making a vague reference in an otherwise detailed diary of his exploits. As he aged and his stock went up, he's taken more risks by adding details that could bring him down.

I don’t think I’ve been the primary driver of the investigative efforts. I have been the primary driver (or more accurately, lone voice in the wilderness advocating against unreasonable conclusions based on the absence of evidence.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. I mean we've determined a few facts surrounding the story.

1) He did attend the inauguration. So, he traveled to it in some fashion. In other words, the date itself most likely holds.

2) There were no news stories detailing an emergency landing that would've most likely garnered attention.

3) The story itself has multiple versions.

4) Russell M. Nelson has told other whoppers stories that appear to be fantastic.

5) Records detailing the small commercial operation, flights, and related information from 1976 most likely don't exist barring a NARA query.

If I'm missing something it'd be helpful to state it so we at least have a running list of facts.

- Doc

[consiglieri]

Shari Dew writes “another plane was dispatched.”

Where?

To the field where the first plane emergency landed?

[Res Ipsa]

Well. I mean we've determined a few facts surrounding the story.

1) He did attend the inauguration. So, he traveled to it in some fashion. In other words, the date itself most likely holds.

2) There were no news stories detailing an emergency landing that would've most likely garnered attention.

3) The story itself has multiple versions.

4) Russell M. Nelson has told other whoppers stories that appear to be fantastic.

5) Records detailing the small commercial operation, flights, and related information from 1976 most likely don't exist barring a NARA query.

If I'm missing something it'd be helpful to state it so we at least have a running list of facts.

- Doc

I think recaps of where we are at any given time are a good idea. My reaction:

1. He did attend the inauguration. Therefore he had to get to St. George in some fashion. I'm skeptical toward the date. The earliest version of the story we have is allegedly a decade or so after the incident. With respect to the date, it says:

I was in an airplane going from Salt Lake City to St. George to participate in a function at Dixie College. We were in one of those small commuter airplanes.

Nelson doesn't identify the nature of the event or the date. Those details are added later. In fact, Nelson tells the story additional times without even mentioning St. George or Dixie College. Looking at Tom's list of versions, the "event at Dixie College" isn't connected to the November 12, 1976 inauguration until 2003 in Nelson's biography. But the author simply quotes the version from 1985 and adds the date. Now, how was that additional detail added? Did Nelson actually recall the additional information without prompting? Or did His biographer discover that Nelson attended the inauguration, and lead Nelson into concluding that the inauguration "must have been" the event he recalled 10 years before? I stumbled across one other event that Nelson attended at Dixie College, but I think it occurred after he published the autobiography. I've never tried to see if there is evidence of Nelson attending any other event at Dixie College during the relevant time period.

2. There are no news stories about the landing. The rest is just an assumption of what we think would have been reported in small town newspaper on a given day. Again, from the earliest version we have (subject to verification):

he was able to glide us, following a highway, until we could make an emergency landing.

3. Agreed.

4. This is a highly subjective conclusion that I haven't seen demonstrated in this thread. Any conclusion based on "Nelson is the kind of a person who...." has to address the issue of Fundamental Attribution Error.

5. Agreed, although I'd phrase it something like: as far as we know, if records that would allow us to confirm our rule out relevant scenarios exist, they are housed in the National Archives or in the logs of the pilot and/or aircraft Nelson was flying on when the events occurred.

Something like that.

[Lem]

Well. I mean we've determined a few facts surrounding the story....

4) Russell M. Nelson has told other whoppers stories that appear to be fantastic....

I think recaps of where we are at any given time are a good idea. My reaction:....

4. This is a highly subjective conclusion that I haven't seen demonstrated in this thread. Any conclusion based on "Nelson is the kind of a person who...." has to address the issue of Fundamental Attribution Error.....

I'm pretty sure Doc is referring to the whopper story that was removed from his biography because the subject's family objected to the nonfactual telling. It's removal, due to non-subjectively being not true, has been discussed several times in this thread. Here's one time:

I think it’s fair to consider patterns of behavior. Having not studied the material, I don’t know how strong the evidence for a pattern is.

From tapirriders link

A book exploring the life and teachings of Russell M. Nelson, current President of the Mormon Church, underwent a last minute edit before its public release on April 8, 2019. The publisher, Deseret Book, became aware that the book contained a faith promoting story with material inaccuracies.The story was subsequently removed and the book reprinted in time for its scheduled release.

Excerpts from the book, titled Insights from a Prophet’s Life: President Russell M. Nelson, authored by Sheri Dew, were published in an article found in the March/April 2019 issue of LDS Living magazine.

One excerpt, titled, “You Didn’t Read it, Did You?”, tells the story of a young Nelson who was serving as a surgeon in Korea during the Korean War. While serving, he discussed the Book of Mormon with a nurse on staff, Beverly Ashcraft. He gave her copy of the book only for it to be returned a few days later by her husband, Derwin, a fellow surgeon at the base. Derwin did not express much interest in learning more about the book.

According to the story, Nelson pressed and convinced the Ashcrafts to read the entire book. The couple was eventually baptized by Nelson. Derwin died a few years later and Beverley remarried.

Apparently, sometime shortly after Nelson became an Apostle in 1984, he spoke at a Stake Conference in Tennessee. While at this Stake Conference, Nelson was drawn to a woman he saw in the crowd wearing a hat. While he was giving his talk from the pulpit he called her out in the crowd and asked how long she had been a member and who baptized her. She responded that he baptized her in 1951. The woman was Beverly.

The story goes on to describe how Nelson asked Beverly, ”How many people connected with you have come into the Church since I baptized you?” Astonished, she revealed a dream she had the night before in which someone at the conference asked her that very question. Because of the dream she came prepared with a piece of paper in her purse with the answer to the question.

According to Leslie and Katie McKenzie, daughter and granddaughter of Derwin and Beverley (whose name is spelled wrong in the LDS Living article), that is not what happened.

In a phone interview with Truth & Transparency, Leslie and Katie, told the real story behind their mother and grandmother’s conversion, a conversion story that has been a source of pride in their family for nearly seven decades.

Leslie and Katie say that their family have always been proud that their first exposure to Mormonism was through Nelson, the man who would later become President of the Church. They saw him as a spiritual giant, great leader, and the man that changed the legacy of their family forever.

They were aware that Nelson occasionally used the story of Derwin and Beverley as a faith promoting example of missionary work. The story even appeared in a 1984 Ensign article and in Nelson’s biography on lds.org. However, in these versions, there is no mention of Korea, Beverley being a nurse, or a serendipitous encounter at a stake conference in Tennessee.

According to Leslie and Katie, Beverley was never a nurse, she never lived in Korea, and she didn’t know Nelson until her husband introduced her to him.

Derwin met Nelson when the two were working at Walter Reed Army Military Medical Center in Washington D.C.. They were both doctors performing research, Derwin a veterinarian and Nelson a medical doctor. They became friends and Nelson later met Beverley who worked in the same hospital as a transcriptionist. Nelson introduced them to the Mormon Church and baptized them.

There was an encounter in the 1980s at a stake conference. Shortly after Nelson was called to be an Apostle, he traveled to Knoxville to speak at the conference. Leslie and Katie were both living with Beverley in Knoxville at the time. When they heard Nelson was coming to town they made sure to attend.

They remember that Nelson was aware of who Beverley was and knew she was in attendance. He did call her up to the podium during his talk and told everyone about her baptism story and about how there are many members of the church today as a result of her conversion.

There was no dream the night before, there was not a prepared note in her purse, and there was no confusion on the part of Nelson as to who she was. Katie adds that her grandmother ”has never worn a hat to church and did not have a hat on that day.”

Katie was first made aware of this new version of the story in early March when a family member sent her a screenshot of the article. She showed it to her mother and, when she realized that it was part of an upcoming book, immediately reached out to Deseret Book and LDS Living. She sent both companies a document with annotations pointing out the incorrect information.

Katie was eventually contacted by a representative from Deseret Book and another from LDS Living. The representative from Deseret Book thanked her for bringing this to their attention and that since it was so close to the release date they would just remove the story entirely instead of trying to fix it. The representative told Katie that this would require a reprinting of at least some of the books as the final printing process had already begun.

The representative from LDS Living told Katie that portion of the article would not appear in the online version, but did not say whether or not a retraction would be printed in the next issue.

Requests for comment from both Deseret Book and LDS Living have gone unanswered.

https://www.truthandtransparency.org/ne ... -m-nelson/
I'd say that's pretty strong evidence that Nelson is prepared to materially embellish anecdotes and, in pursuit of faith promotion/personal aggrandisement, portray as happening something "miraculous" that did not.