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

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Lem.

I’m aware of two tellings of the story. Tapir linked to them both. The first version, told in Nelson’s voice, is consistent with the witness recollections. The second is Dew’s book, which is told in her voice. I haven’t looked for other versions.

Dew’s book makes two significant changes. First, it collapses an unrelated story into the story at issue. Those two stories appear in consecutive paragraphs in the version told by Nelson.

Second, it adds an inaccurate version of Nelsons re-encounter with the wife in the story at stake conference. Again, Dew is the person who tells the story. There are no quotes from Nelson.

I think it was Gad up thread who talked about the difference between what happened and what should have happened. The editor should have had a minion fact check Dew’s draft against the earlier version that appears on the Church’s website. That would have caught the mistake of including details of the unrelated story. The primary witnesses should have been interviewed, or at least given a chance to comment on the story as written. Nelson should have been asked to review the final draft and asked to point out anything that didn’t match his recollection.

But I don’t think I have any basis to claim that what I think should have happened actually happened. I don’t know what Dew did to write the book. I don’t know the extent to which it was edited and checked. The parts of the book I’ve seen don’t identify Dew’s sources. Who was her source for the stake conference part of the story? Was Dew present. Did she rely on someone other than Nelson for those details? Was Nelson asked to flyspeck a draft of the book to check accuracy? How clear were his memories at the time he did any review of the book?

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but I don’t think we can leap from what we know about this incident to “Nelson is the kind of person who...”

The potential for Fundamental Attribution Error is large.

[Lem]

So a new possibility, that potentially excuses the subject of the biography and the editor of the biography from responsibility for what is written.

All I can do at this point is quote myself.

then there is literally no end to this endeavor.

Every single piece of information presented ... can be dismissed by stating that [any, whatsoever] conclusion might arise from [an infinite number of cases of 'something else'].

After so many renditions of this, it becomes nothing more than a perverse manipulation of statistical likelihood.

I have been the primary driver (or more accurately, lone voice in the wilderness advocating against unreasonable conclusions based on the absence of evidence.

Agree to disagree.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Update from the FAA ref flight information being stored at the NARA:

Hello Dr. CamNC4Me –



Any records we may have had were destroyed in accordance with the Records Retention Schedule, as referenced in Federal Aviation Administration Order 1350.14B. Copies of destroyed records are not kept at NARA.



Hope this helps

In other words, we're SOL ref obscure flight data for SLC -> SGU in 1976. That's how I take it, anyway. Anyone taking a crack at the NTSB ref a FOIA?

- Doc

[Gadianton]

I'm inclined to see it Lem's way, assuming I'm reading as intended; ironically, she sums up to pretty much what honor has said, that the incident may be unfalsifiable.

Normally, if something is unfalsifiable, that isn't good for credibility. Bought suggested on the Witnesses thread, that John Whitmer wrote a retraction to his witness. Honor said he doubted it. But let's face it, it may be unfalsifiable. So should we comb the shelves of LDS libraries looking for it, and until we can definitively make the ultimate absence of evidence case, we tentatively accept the alternative Whitmer scenario?

to make that point differently, first recap: Honor said that the critics here wish to falsify this incident, but it may be unfalsifiable. (hopefully I didn't misrepresent you, Honor)

I'm not sure we're trying to falsify, and namely, falsify via argument from silence, so much as taking an initial position of high doubt, highlight the lack of evidence for the positive case. Given the dramatic telling, namely, an engine fire with oil spraying all over the side of the plane, and the pilot nosediving to put the fire out, pulling up right before the plane went fireball; and there's other civilians on board, it's not a war, and not a third world country, it's happy valley -- there are many channels by which a scrap of corroborating evidence could surface, especially given the story involves the current prophet and the telling is increasing over time. A key channel would be some kind of official report or a newspaper mention.

Recall Carl Sagan's Dragon. So what's the difference here?

Well, one thing I will agree with Res and Honor on, is I could spend a little time seeing what's in those databases myself so I'll give that a shot over the next couple of days. Maybe something I see will change my mind.

[IHAQ]

"The attempt of this book," the author writes, "is not only to highlight signal events in President Nelson's life . . . but, in particular, to examine major episodes from the life of the living prophet and extract the insights embedded in them. Some of these episodes in President Nelson's life took place in a matter of minutes or hours; others spanned several years. I selected each episode either because he learned something or because we can learn something from him, or both...

https://deseretbook.com/p/insights-from ... -hardcover

Dew is a personal friend of Nelson, her best friend is married to Nelson, she lives practically next door to the Nelsons, she travels with them around the globe on official visits. To suggest Dew wrote this biography of Nelson in 2019 and had it published by a Church owned company without access to Nelson's journals; his direct input; and his personal sign off on the final proof, is ridiculous.

[Res Ipsa]

So a new possibility, that potentially excuses the subject of the biography and the editor of the biography from responsibility for what is written.

All I can do at this point is quote myself.

then there is literally no end to this endeavor.

Every single piece of information presented ... can be dismissed by stating that [any, whatsoever] conclusion might arise from [an infinite number of cases of 'something else'].

After so many renditions of this, it becomes nothing more than a perverse manipulation of statistical likelihood.

I have been the primary driver (or more accurately, lone voice in the wilderness advocating against unreasonable conclusions based on the absence of evidence.

Agree to disagree.

I don't agree to the thought terminating cliché "agree to disagree."

First, I'm not potentially excusing anything. You've changed the subject. The question initially was something like: is what happened with Sheri Dew's book evidence that Nelson is the kind of a person who.... something something something. Who should be responsible for the atrocious errors in Dew's book is an entirely different question. In the first instance, Dew is responsible. She's the author. In the second instance, the editor, if there was one. The Amazon preview doesn't give a look at the Acknowledgments page.

With something like a biography, we would hope that the sources have accurate memories and that they share what they actually remember with the biographer. Dew's book is a problem because she is a long time friend of Nelson's wife and of Nelson since their marriage. That makes her a potential source for some of the stories. But it's the author's job to check the sources and interview the people necessary to make sure the that the contents of the book are accurate.

So, I'm not letting anyone off the hook in terms of responsibility for the book's contents. I didn't discuss that because I was responding to a different question.

I would expect the subject of the biography the same thing I would expect of any other source used to write the documentary: that they describe their recollections as they actually recall them. We know that, at one time, Nelson had a pretty accurate recollection of how the couple converted to Mormonism. I simply have no idea how that got mangled up in Dew's book. But it's the responsibility of the author to verify the accuracy of the source's recollections. And, for the story that got pulled, she clearly did not do that.

Dew does say in the book's introduction (forward?) that she used both Wendy and Russell Nelson as sources, recording them in some cases. But it doesn't indicate when she is relying on tapes, on recalled conversations, on her own observations, etc. There are no quotes in the story that was pulled, so who knows? I can't evaluate the accuracy or truthfulness of a source unless I know which source it is.

Do biographers have their subjects edit their books before they are published? I don't know, but it would seem odd to me. A biographer is telling the subject's story, and may have concluded that the subject's recollection is inaccurate or that the subject isn't being forthright in an interview, and so relies on other sources. If Dew asked Nelson to read the book and correct any inaccuracies, then I would assign him more responsibility for the contents than I normally would.

So, two different questions. Two different answers.

I understand the natural reaction of former Mormons to things that look like Mopologetic reasoning. But there is a difference between "as long as I can find a possible explanation, I win" and woodshedding your own assumptions by asking yourself "what am I assuming and why do I think I know what I know." I was doing the latter.

Clear?

[Res Ipsa]

Update from the FAA ref flight information being stored at the NARA:

Hello Dr. CamNC4Me –



Any records we may have had were destroyed in accordance with the Records Retention Schedule, as referenced in Federal Aviation Administration Order 1350.14B. Copies of destroyed records are not kept at NARA.



Hope this helps

In other words, we're SOL ref obscure flight data for SLC -> SGU in 1976. That's how I take it, anyway. Anyone taking a crack at the NTSB ref a FOIA?

- Doc

So, that fits with my understanding. The document management systems classify some types of documents as "permanent." Permanent records are shipped to NARA. All other records have a retention period. When they reach the end of that period, they are destroyed. So, anything identified as destroyed shouldn't (in theory) be located at the National Archives.

But, I'm not clear about what your FOIA friend means by "any records we may have had." Who is the we? Because the National Archive do contain a metric buttload of FAA records. So, I wouldn't give up on FAA records yet.

[Res Ipsa]

"The attempt of this book," the author writes, "is not only to highlight signal events in President Nelson's life . . . but, in particular, to examine major episodes from the life of the living prophet and extract the insights embedded in them. Some of these episodes in President Nelson's life took place in a matter of minutes or hours; others spanned several years. I selected each episode either because he learned something or because we can learn something from him, or both...

https://deseretbook.com/p/insights-from ... -hardcover

Dew is a personal friend of Nelson, her best friend is married to Nelson, she lives practically next door to the Nelsons, she travels with them around the globe on official visits. To suggest Dew wrote this biography of Nelson in 2019 and had it published by a Church owned company without access to Nelson's journals; his direct input; and his personal sign off on the final proof, is ridiculous.

That's an argument from personal incredulity. It's a logical fallacy. What you personally find hard to believe is not evidence of what actually happened.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm inclined to see it Lem's way, assuming I'm reading as intended; ironically, she sums up to pretty much what honor has said, that the incident may be unfalsifiable.

Normally, if something is unfalsifiable, that isn't good for credibility. Bought suggested on the Witnesses thread, that John Whitmer wrote a retraction to his witness. Honor said he doubted it. But let's face it, it may be unfalsifiable. So should we comb the shelves of LDS libraries looking for it, and until we can definitively make the ultimate absence of evidence case, we tentatively accept the alternative Whitmer scenario?

to make that point differently, first recap: Honor said that the critics here wish to falsify this incident, but it may be unfalsifiable. (hopefully I didn't misrepresent you, Honor)

I'm not sure we're trying to falsify, and namely, falsify via argument from silence, so much as taking an initial position of high doubt, highlight the lack of evidence for the positive case. Given the dramatic telling, namely, an engine fire with oil spraying all over the side of the plane, and the pilot nosediving to put the fire out, pulling up right before the plane went fireball; and there's other civilians on board, it's not a war, and not a third world country, it's happy valley -- there are many channels by which a scrap of corroborating evidence could surface, especially given the story involves the current prophet and the telling is increasing over time. A key channel would be some kind of official report or a newspaper mention.

Recall Carl Sagan's Dragon. So what's the difference here?

Well, one thing I will agree with Res and Honor on, is I could spend a little time seeing what's in those databases myself so I'll give that a shot over the next couple of days. Maybe something I see will change my mind.

I think we have to distinguish between claims that are unfalsifiable under any conditions (An omnipotent, omniscient God exists) and things that we cannot falsify because of the state of the evidence (the New Testament was based on the life and death of a real guy Jesus.). Indeed, this whole discussion reminds of our dear Reverend's sage comments on the historocity of Jesus and other historical figures. If we assumed "fictional" as a default position and required historians to meet the burden of proof on a more likely than not basis, I suspect a ton of figures that are considered real people today would be instantly reclassified as not real.

But why is "fiction" a default position when the task to try to figure out what happened thousands of years ago. Fiction/myth/urban legend is simply one of many plausible scenarios of what could have happened, given the sparse evidence we have. It could very well be that none of those possibilities meets a "more likely than not" threshold, in which case I guess the appropriate response is "I don't know."

Or, we can look at it another way. Which scenario best fits the evidence? Which of many possible scenarios has a higher probability than the others. That would get us something like: we can't be sure, but based on the evidence we have, the most probable scenario is .... blah blah blah.

The difference for me is where we are in the process of trying to figure things out. I'm saying that, before we try to look for the dragon, we should seriously think about all the evidence a dragon could be expected to leave, assuming we even know what the dragon is. Once we gather evidence, we look at the different scenarios in terms of what evidence we should expect and compare that with what we found. At that point, we no longer have to consider the possible, just what is the most likely.

[Dr Moore]

The difference for me is where we are in the process of trying to figure things out. I'm saying that, before we try to look for the dragon, we should seriously think about all the evidence a dragon could be expected to leave, assuming we even know what the dragon is. Once we gather evidence, we look at the different scenarios in terms of what evidence we should expect and compare that with what we found. At that point, we no longer have to consider the possible, just what is the most likely.

Your framework is logical, RI. I appreciate your thoroughness. If the burden is "beyond a reasonable doubt" then you've clearly shown us the wide breach of reasonable doubt that exists here.

At the same time, my confidence in the truthfulness of Nelson's account is much lower today than on the first day this thread went up. It might all be chalked up to absence of evidence. But absence of so much evidence that should be out there is troubling.

That absence of evidence is compounded by small inconsistencies, such as the fact that no commercial flights flew direct from SLC to SGU in the 1970s -- Sky West served SGU via Cedar City.

If this was a commercial flight, then his story has a huge gaping hole because he claims the pilot announced passing the half way point of no return to St. George. That makes utterly no sense at all for a flight bound from SLC to Cedar City. Maybe Nelson just recalls the "half-way" announcement but forgot by the time of retelling, that it was a connecting flight. But his retelling was very specific in this regard, that the pilot said they'd gone half way to St. George, not half way to Cedar City. Why add that very specific detail if he wasn't sure in 1979 or 1981 or whenever he first told the story?

If he flew a private charter direct, then his story also has a huge gaping hole because the half way point from SLC to SGU is well south of Delta Utah -- at least 20 miles south of Delta, to be more accurate. Nelson says the incident occurred "shortly after" that point-of-no-return announcement. Okay, so did this harrowing nose dive occur 20 miles or 25 or 30 miles south of Delta? Whatever. The point is, to spin dive and nearly hit the ground, only to stabilize and then fly literally for 20+ miles on one engine means the plane was very much flying (not gliding) toward Delta. So then, this pilot just decided to land in a field and not land at the the actual Delta Airport? So the private charter explanation strains credulity even more.

This was purportedly a life-changing event for Nelson. If his memory was foggy about this or that specific detail, he should leave them out. Or just admit he doesn't remember that detail. If he retells a specific detail, he owes his audience the courtesy of being accurate and truthful. Otherwise, it's no better than Dunn. Nelson's account is very specific and not only that, he makes comments that impress on the listener's/reader's mind that the vividness of his memory is important for the real point he's making about the vividness of clarity he felt regarding peace in his life's choices, temple sealing, and all of that. Specificity is important to his story because it's the specifics that make his story real.