DiscussMormonism.com

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:16 am

Lem wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:48 pm

The key seems to be the telling, and then the retelling, as you mentioned. I had a good friend who was great at telling stories, and she had a whopper about being swept off Jones Beach in a riptide and being rescued by an intrepid member of the fabled NYC life guard crew.

The second or third time I heard her tell the story to a group of fascinated youth, I was a little nonplussed at the apparent changes. Her husband standing next to me must have seen my face, because he leaned over, chuckling quietly, and whispered in my ear, "every time the lifeguard grows more muscles, the riptide gets faster by several miles per hour, and the distance she was swept down the beach increases by half a mile."

Eventually, I expect the story will involve Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson sweeping her out of a riptide that sank the NYC CircleLine cruises, and him dramatically resuscitating her on a Hampton Beach in front of the NY governor and mayor, both.

Here’s a good example where board participants were focused on the embellished version of the story, rather than whether or not Russell M. Nelson was on a flight that landed due to a mechanical issue.

- Doc

Exactly, Doc. Whatever the originating event, actual or imagined, the key point is that the embellishments were untrue. It's a Dunn-ism all over again.

tapirrider wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:49 pm

That he has tied this alleged incident to the inauguration of W. Rolfe Kerr as the president of Dixie College provides a date that is unlikely he misremembered. There is no need really to expand a search to other years, with the exception as noted concerning minutes that reports were submitted to the board anytime up to a year and a half after the date of the accident.

Like you, I am unable to go through the paper files.

However, in this telling by Mr. Nelson of an aviation mishap, the wisdom of Nelson and the church to publish and promote this tale is questionable to say the least. Simply on the basis that had such an incident actually occurred there would in fact be an incident record of it, and the absence of such a record can and will be used to verify this tale as nothing more than another Dunn style of lying for the Lord, this time by the living prophet.

It seems at other points in this thread it was the lack of a report that sent it into Paul H. Dunn territory. Glad we're finding clarity finally, though.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:02 am

Hi DrW, good to hear from you. I just happen to have a plate of dicks for you to chomp on.

Hmmm, yummy, yummy dicks.

Great, honorentheos. As of this morning, this thread has had more than 24,000 views, an average of some 240 per day for 100 days. The thousands who have viewed this thread will weigh the evidence provided, as well as the credibility of those making arguments for and against Russell M. Nelson as an honest man and well qualified Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Mormon Church.

You have been one of the most staunch advocates for Russell M. Nelson on this thread, even to the point of accusing those who expressed doubt about his story of suffering from Dunning-Kruger. And here you are, trying to bolster your defense of Russell M. Nelson's behavior by indicating that you think male genitalia are "yummy".

You can't make this stuff up.

DrW wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:38 am

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:02 am

Hi DrW, good to hear from you. I just happen to have a plate of dicks for you to chomp on.

Hmmm, yummy, yummy dicks.

Great, honorentheos. As of this morning, this thread has had more than 24,000 views, an average of some 240 per day for 100 days. The thousands who have viewed this thread will weigh the evidence provided, as well as the credibility of those making arguments for and against Russell M. Nelson as an honest man and well qualified Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Mormon Church.

And while they are at it, I invite them to go back and read how you behaved in the discussion regarding the aviation incident and accident reports, the limits on available reports through online databases and when an engine fire is and incident or accident, and asserted rightness because you have a pilots licence while being belligerently wrong. They can also read on the previous page your quoting a post you made on page one as defense against the accusation you wrote off the likelihood of there being an engine-out event behind the story in a disingenuous coverup that by mid thread you'd dismissed the content of that post as over-generous.

Anyway, I'm comfortable anyone who reads the thread and isn't a Major McBragg will find my view as consistently wondering why people waste time trying to disprove the story through attacking the potential of there having been a scary plane ride when the dishonesty is obvious in the variety between the different accounts. Is there an unanswered question as Russell M. Nelson's mindset when he tells an exaggerated story like he has so many times? Yeah. I also wonder about your mindset and your dubious treatment of truth in this thread. Do you even know you were in the wrong when it came to the database arguments with Res? That you clearly had dismissed the probability of there having been a flight where something happened that served as the basis for Russell M. Nelson to write his autobiography for his family? I don't know. People are complex and minds create unimaginable constructs to protect one's self. As I mentioned to Gad pages back in regards to his work encounter, it isn't worth trying to figure that out, either. The church is a multi-million corp that hid the existence of it's mega hedge fund from the membership, lies about it's history and makes it seem to the membership that they communicate with God. I don't need to dig through FAA reports to form an opinion that will direct my engagement with the church. But I try not to let that disregard for the church in turn affect my regard for the truth.

You have been one of the most staunch advocates for Russell M. Nelson on this thread, even to the point of accusing those who expressed doubt about his story of suffering from Dunning-Kruger. And here you are, trying to bolster your defense of Russell M. Nelson's behavior by indicating that you think male genitalia are "yummy".

You can't make this stuff up.

When it's you eating them, it is quite delicious in a vicarious way to be sure.

I mean, if we’re going to have a munchy crunchy dick eating contest it’s kind of hard to surprass this gem from Res Ipsa when he couldn’t find a report of the flight in the NTSB database:

So, here is a possible version of what happened. He caught a flight from Salt Lake City to St. George on November 12, 1976. Shortly after the pilot announced that they were half-way there, one of the engines suffered a flame out. Either Nelson or other passengers see flames shoot out from the engine. The plane begins to lose altitude -- one or more passengers, including a woman, are scared and scream. Either Nelson misunderstands or someone misdescribes what happens with the other engine. Nelson has his life flashing before his eyes experience and feels calm. (Not an unusual reaction.) The pilot pulls the plane out of the dive. They land safely in a "field."

No notice is given to the NTSB because the incident doesn't qualify as an "accident" under the applicable definitions and it does not fall within any of the categories of incident that require notice. No report is filed with the NTSB, as filing a report is required only for "accidents" or for incidents at the request of the NTSB. No report is made to the FAA, as their accident reporting system is voluntary. Even if the NTSB were notified, not all incidents are reported in the NTSB database, and at one point a bunch of incidents were removed. Even if the incident had been voluntarily reported to the FAA, it's online database only goes back to 1978. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that we would be able to find on-line evidence of the crash. Any conclusion about the absence of an article in the local papers is pure speculation on our part.

Good Lord, somebody hire this man for ‘Witnesses 2: Enter the Wagon’.

- Doc

IHAQ wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:32 am

This story has been told and retold by Nelson over the years.

I remember vividly an experience I had as a passenger in a small two-propeller airplane. One of its engines suddenly burst open and caught on fire. The propeller of the flaming engine was starkly stilled. As we plummeted in a steep spiral dive toward the earth, I expected to die. Some of the passengers screamed in hysterical panic. Miraculously, the precipitous dive extinguished the flames. Then, by starting up the other engine, the pilot was able to stabilize the plane and bring us down safely.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... h?lang=eng

Never happened.

When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng

Additional details about the 11 Nov. 1976 Sky West flight with engine failure, which made a precautionary landing in Delta, UT (the flight that appears highly likely to have been Nelson's scary flight) as found in the 1977 Civil Aeronautics Board Report, specifically appears to contradict Nelson's story.

There are about 25 pages of text in which details about this flight are interspersed. The commentary about that flight, and 2 others, comes up only because a C.A.B. order is the topic of traffic route litigation.

That Nov. 11 plane, investigations revealed, could have continued on to SGU or returned to SLC, but landed "at the nearest airport" as a precautionary measure (not in a field or "off airport"). In fact, the same reports note two other Sky West engine-failures occurring between Oct-Nov 1976 were single-engine planes that specifically landed "off airport."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/ ... ff-airport

Page 762-787 - reporting facts related to a lawsuit filed by the city of Page, AZ in response to Airwest's application to delete service to Page. Order 77-1-133 denied Airwest's application, but authorized suspended service to Page for 3 years, contingent on a specified level of service by Sky West. Page, AZ and the state of Arizona filed petitions seeking to overturn order 77-1-133, resulting in significant back and forth.

Among the arguments made by Page related to Sky West's safety record, specifically 3 engine failures during the period of Oct-Nov 1976, which included the "scary" flight which now appears to be on the public record as it is shown that his flight, a two-engine craft flying from SLC to SGU on Nov. 11 1976, experienced one engine failure, and made a precautionary landing in Delta UT, the nearest airport.

Relevant text below, from pages 782-783.

"SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS"
...In its reply to Airwest's answer to Page's motion for stay pending judicial review (p.4) filed March 14, 1977, Page alleged that Sky West had experienced "three emergency landings in the last three months."

Due to the seriousness of the matters alleged, the staff requested that the FAA update its safety and compliance report in light of the facts alleged. That updated report (which indicates that the referenced occurrences were merely incidents, not accidents; the carrier was not in any way at fault; and there is no reason for the Board to act unfavorably as to Sky West) was served upon all parties (and Sky West) as an attachment to order 77-4-50, April 11, 1977 (73 C.A.B. 1087) which established procedures for the filing of comments and answers with regard to the report.

Comments were filed by Arizona and Sky West, and Airwest filed an answer to those comments). ... For the record, the facts surrounding each of the incidents in question is set forth below.

Each of the incidents involved the failure of the engine. Two of the three incidents involved single-engine aircraft of the type which Sky West operates in charter service, not in scheduled commuter operations. The third engine malfunction occurred on a twin-engine Navajo being operated in scheduled commuter operations. Although the aircraft could have continued to its destination or the originating station on one engine, in accordance with the company's operations manual, the pilot made a precautionary landing at the nearest airport. Once again, there were no injuries to any person, property, or the aircraft. As a result of the unfortunate coincidence of these three unrelated engine malfunctions within a short period of time, the incidents in question were investigated in depth by the FAA as well as the two engine manufacturers. ...

Additional detail about the Nov. 11, 1976 flight might be found online if we can find more information about the legal proceedings. Footnotes on the above-mentioned pages reference the following sources, but I'm not sure where to find them:

"Page's motion for stay pending judicial review"
"Arizona petition for reconsideration"
"Utah Parties' petition for reconsideration"

Thanx Tom
One thing is sure Nellie loves to tell that story!
Second with the plane in a whirling dervish dive, stuff should have been flying around the cabin-coke /pepsi cans, coffee cups and passengers sick as dogs- how the hell was he so calm and not even worried about that poor hysterical woman screaming as the plane spun but Nellie was quietly watching in his minds eye a cool video of his life as he awaited smashing into the ground.
Bottom line : Nellie took a plane ride in a small two engine
Plane which had an engine begin to rattle and the plane landed without any problem - the incident became the basis for a Mormon prophet to add a tall tale of lies about danger and dying so he could using a prophets position tell this lie to 10’s of thousands of Mormons over the years. You know God just wants all of us to just tell the truth and support truth telling in small and great things.
That’s what I like about this board - it abhors non-truth telling /lying about things Mormon and calls out the liars with I believe effectiveness.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 12, 2021 1:45 pm

And while they are at it, I invite them to go back and read how you behaved in the discussion regarding the aviation incident and accident reports, the limits on available reports through online databases and when an engine fire is and incident or accident, and asserted rightness because you have a pilots licence while being belligerently wrong.

As was pointed out to RI, an in-flight engine fire can be considered as an incident or an accident depending on the extent of damage to the aircraft. In either case, an engine fire requires an NTSB notification. The relevant regulations were pointed out to RI, chapter and verse.

His failure to understand them, or apparently much of anything else that was explained,* is not my problem. Bottom line is that no NTSB notification means no fire, and there was no NTSB notification. As Dr. Moore has now pointed out, a record of the event was finally found in 1977 Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB not NTSB) correspondence regarding claimed safety issues with SkyWest operations, which claim was determined to be unfounded.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 12, 2021 1:45 pm

They can also read on the previous page your quoting a post you made on page one as defense against the accusation you wrote off the likelihood of there being an engine-out event behind the story in a disingenuous coverup that by mid thread you'd dismissed the content of that post as over-generous.

With regard to the comment about my initial post being too generous; I stand by it. The comment assumed that the pilot may have momentarily lost control of the aircraft when the right engine "exploded". The right engine did not explode. In fact, the record shows the right engine was shut down as a precaution, resulting in a precautionary landing at the nearest airport. There was no spin, or even entry to spin, let along a death spiral dive. There was no loss of the second engine that required the miraculous re-start he described. There was no explosion. There was no fire. There was no landing in a farmer's field. There was no damage to the aircraft or injuries to the passengers or crew. Russell M. Nelson's story is a lie. In its numerous versions, it is numerous lies.

Had the events in 1977 been as dramatic as Russell M. Nelson claims, he would certainly have mentioned them before 1992. What professional religionist can pass up capitalizing on a faith promoting story like that? It's pretty clear that Russell M. Nelson, at some point in the intervening 15 years, felt he needed a dramatic faith promoting experience to validate his new standing in the Church. So he fabricated one based on a minor incident in a small plane more than a decade earlier. As with Paul Dunn, the problem was that his tall tale, much like the foundational truth claim of his religion, was falsifiable and has now been falsified.
__________________

ETA: * Reference to a possible "flame out" from a piston engine propeller driven aircraft in the passage from one of RI's posts that Doc quoted above makes it clear that RI didn't yet understand the difference between a piston engine (which can not have a flame out) and a jet engine (which might on occasion). In any case, RI's attempt in that passage to explain the absence of an NTSB notification of an engine fire is nonsense. As tapirrider explained to RI (twice) a "flame out" refers to loss of combustion inside a jet engine and thus there would be no external flame to frighten the passengers, even if the little Navajo were a jet, which it is not.]

I really feel like people should click on this link and start at 10:30:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHhg3j-AMxk

This really drives home how ludicrous the death spiral part of the story is. When I was taking flight lessons way back when I was struck by just how airworthy these little planes are. It’s incredibly difficult for them to fall out of the sky since they essentially fly themselves. I wonder how many LDS pilots have heard or read this story and just roll their eyes …

- Doc