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

[Gadianton]

Dr. w's defintions:

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

The operator shall file a report within 10 days of an accident. An accident is defined as “an occurrence…" in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.”

I'm pretty sure the engine blowing out meets the standard of "failure" resulting in a "major repair".

[Dr Moore]

Delta UT is not past the halfway point to St George. It may be past the halfway point to Cedar City, however.

[Res Ipsa]

Doc, I’m in a couple of different arguments, so I probably haven’t stated my position clearly. I’m interested in how the story came to be and how and why it changed over time. I think there are several possibilities:

1. Nelson knowingly made up the entire story.
2. Nelson imagined the entire story, but told it as if the events really happened
3. The story is a combination of accurate and inaccurate information due to changes in recollection, embellishment or fabrication.
4. The story happened exactly as Nelson reported.

I’ve said from the beginning that I expect parts of the story to be factually wrong because the incident happened over 40 years ago. So, I threw out number 4 from the beginning.

My position is, and has always been, that the state of the evidence as we know it is insufficient to reasonably conclude which parts, if any, of the story really happened. I’m still at the stage of trying to think through where we could look for evidence that would corroborate or rule out parts of the story. To do that, I have to consider the range of plausible facts so I know what to look for.

Consistent with that position, I have been arguing with Dr. W that his conclusion that Nelson imagined the entire incident is unreasonable given the state of the evidence. The hypothetical I proposed there would not require any report to the FAA or NTSB under current law. But that’s not my theory of what actually happened. It’s a counter argument to Dr. W’s position.

So, at this point, I don’t really have a theory of how the story came to be. I’m pretty sure that if Nelson’s description of what happened to the engine is accurate, then it had to happen before 1/1/70. (My only hesitation is that I’d like to double check the search I ran to make sure I did it right.) Based on the preface to the autobiography, It’s unlikely that the incident happened a decade before he wrote the autobiography. So, based on the evidence I’ve reviewed so far, I don’t believe Nelson’s description of whatever happened to the engines can be accurate.

There’s another piece of the discussion I’m involved with about whether other incidents demonstrate a pattern of behavior. The examples (two in addition to the airplane story) are different enough that I don’t think they establish a pattern, and I’m very skeptical about the notion of amateurs making those kinds of judgments. I try to know where my limits are.

If I reach the point that I can actually be confident about a theory, I’ll post it.

Happy hiking!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

RI,

I respect your thought process. This thread has been a clinic on discussion forum dialogue with excellent thinking all around. Thus far I don't see any evidence that lends credence to Russell M. Nelson's story simply because the story itself hit too many faith promoting tropes coupled with a lack of verifiable data points along with Russell M. Nelson's already established history of incredible claims that defy reason. Out of curiosity, has anyone verified he actually made it to the event, like, from an independent news source? I might of missed it, even though I've been reading the thread closely.

- Doc

[Moksha]

4. The story happened exactly as Nelson reported.

I’ve said from the beginning that I expect parts of the story to be factually wrong because the incident happened over 40 years ago. So, I threw out number 4 from the beginning.

So you won't even entertain the apologetic notion that an angel took the corroborating data up to the cloaked city of Enoch?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Anyone want to fire up a free trial to read the article covering Kerr's inauguration?

https://newspaperarchive.com/color-coun ... -1976-p-1/

Edit: I'd imagine Russell M. Nelson's big adventure would surely merit a mention.

information on the paper:

https://wchsutah.org/businesses/the-spectrum.php

- Doc

[Gadianton]

The autobiography excerpt is vague, but I'm going to guess that it's not fleshed out any more than that within the book. There's that forward, and that's it. (my guess)

I think he was inspired in part by his foreign travels where he flew on such planes frequently. I don't think the incident was the final nudge to write the book. I think when writing the book, he needed a tropey incident to be a final nudge for writing the book, to make the book production seem dramatic and inspired. He sure had a lot of things on his mind during a few seconds of nosedive: that he'd not provided a history of his life to his family, that the other passengers were pitiful in their fear, that he was calm knowing he'd been sealed in the temple and all his faith, the great phoniness of academia and all of his awards and accomplishments, his suits and tuxs and dinners...

From the time of the Dixie trip to the book published in hardback, it was just over 2 years. A first book by typewriter, 400+ pages, read by SWK, lots of pictures, with mid 70s tech. Possible, but I think he was working on it longer.

For years this dramatic event was never a thing outside of the family book. In 1985, it became a thing. It included the trope, "the halfway point -- the point of no return" which is straight from movies. Again, a halfway point can't be the point of no return and a pilot would doubtfully say that. However, in fiction and movies, the two phrases are found together constantly. the episode is a movie scene. By 1985, the coast was clear, he could reimage the event as happening on a trip close to the time of publication, as it had been 9 years. No Internet etc., not easily contradicted.

[Res Ipsa]

The second doesn’t involve Nelson changing his story over time. It involves different accounts by different witnesses of a complicated home invasion robbery in a foreign country. It’s the kind of event where you’d have to walk each witness step by step through the event, probably using floor plans to track where each witness was. The only witness who spoke the language well left the home to get help, so she did not witness everything that occurred inside the home. She also ended up with a broken arm, although I’m not clear how.

It’s exactly the kind of frightening and confusing event that can generate wildly different accounts from witnesses.

I don’t see a pattern.

Just to keep things straight here, the news stories never once mentioned a gun being held to Nelson's head, the trigger being pulled and the gun failing to fire the bullet. Nelson has been shooting his mouth off with that made for Hollywood type nonsense, and he waited until long after the initial stories were published to come up with that tale.

So come on, let's be rational here, alright? Had that happened, a gun to the head failing to fire, it would most certainly have been in the initial news stories, something like that doesn't stay silent. And if you read those first news stories, it was also quite clear that Nelson and Wendy were not the targets, but to hear them tell it so long after the fact, they have turned the tale into one all about them.

Oh wait, that is what he has done with the aircraft myths too, made women to look hysterical and turned it into all about him. Nope, no pattern here folks.

I’m going to try to do this from memory instead of blow by blow through the articles. First, initial news reports are often wrong, sometimes wildly so. Why? For the very reasons I pointed out. In stressful or chaotic situations, it is very common for witnesses to report wildly different descriptions of the events. The initial reports are often based only on the description of one witness. Only after many witnesses are interviewed does an accurate description occur. Sometimes. Other times witnesses tell conflicting stories that are never resolved.

Second, the media can report only what someone tells them. If a reporter isn’t there to observe the events, he only knows what he is told.

Third, we have no idea which witness was in a position to observe what. We know that one witness, the mission President’s wife, left the house, so she obviously didn’t witness everything that happened to the Nelsons. There were four robbers, which makes it extremely unlikely that a single witness could observe everything each robber did during the entire event. The second news report says that Elder Nelson was kicked in the face, indicating that the victims were kneeling or prone. If they were prone, face down, they weren’t in a position to see much of anything. I don’t think the Nelsons describe what happened to each other. Is that because they weren’t in a position to observe it. Did they keep all the victims in the same room? No one says.

The first press report consists of a press release from Turley, which specifically states that he doesn’t know all the details. The second is Turley’s press release plus an additional paragraph of information that is unsourced. The third is a copy of an e-mail that the missionary President and/or his wife sent to the missionaries. It appears to me to be intended to calm and reassure the missionaries. It says something like “we don’t feel the Nelsons were targeted.” That’s hardly convincing evidence of anything. The Nelsons disagree. It’s not a disagreement over what happened, but a highly subjective interpretation of what happened. Who is right? I dunno. Was there an actual disagreement? Or did the mission President fudge a little to avoid panic among his missionaries. Was the gun not mentioned to keep the missionaries calm? Or because folks thought it made Nelson look too vulnerable? Was he embarrassed at the time that someone was able to put a gun to his head? At least until he figured out how to cast it as a faith promoting story.

What did he actually perceive at the time? Did he see the gun? Or feel something he concluded was a gun? Why does he believe it misfired? Did he see the guy pull the trigger? Or did he hear or feel something that he thought was the guy pulling the trigger. How long was the gun actually pointed at his head? We don’t know any of the information we need to even try to figure out what happened.

And I don’t see how this makes Nelson look strong or the women weak. The dude couldn’t protect his wife. He got kicked in the face. He got held at gunpoint. God had to bail him out. Wuss!

[Res Ipsa]

4. The story happened exactly as Nelson reported.

I’ve said from the beginning that I expect parts of the story to be factually wrong because the incident happened over 40 years ago. So, I threw out number 4 from the beginning.

So you won't even entertain the apologetic notion that an angel took the corroborating data up to the cloaked city of Enoch?

Nope. Angels are right out!

[Res Ipsa]

RI,

I respect your thought process. This thread has been a clinic on discussion forum dialogue with excellent thinking all around. Thus far I don't see any evidence that lends credence to Russell M. Nelson's story simply because the story itself hit too many faith promoting tropes coupled with a lack of verifiable data points along with Russell M. Nelson's already established history of incredible claims that defy reason. Out of curiosity, has anyone verified he actually made it to the event, like, from an independent news source? I might of missed it, even though I've been reading the thread closely.

- Doc

Thanks Doc. If I recall correctly, the University’s newspaper reported that he gave the invocation.

It’s clear that he has presented the story as a faith promoting trope. Did it start that way? The earliest mention is the preface of his autobiography and it isn’t isn’t presented as a faith promoting story. It’s presented as the last straw that led him to write the autobiography. That’s why I’m interested in whether he tells the complete story in the text of the book.

In fact, as I look at the different versions, it seems to me that this was a story in search of a faith-promoting conclusion. The point seems to change from telling to telling.