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

[honorentheos]

And every time Res points out why the standard for record keeping leave the availability of official records in serious doubt, it's met with reasons for why that's either wrong or irrelevant. People pointing out why the other person's argument is not conclusive isn't exactly meaningful if one is arguing for ordinary, mundane matters. The dragon is an extraordinary claim. The methods for dismissing any attempt to test it are avoiding the attempt to find facts. Here, Res searched for the evidence and discovered facts that influence the investigation. The dismissal of the significance of this limitation has the appearance of dragon-defending as well.

So what then? Where is the actual dragon in the thread? Is it that the account CAN be falsified? That would be a somewhat extraordinary claim given the evidence, or lack thereof. Is it that it's been mythologized to some degree? I don't see anyone in this thread defending against that argument.

It seems many here view Res' discovery that the lack of records have unfortunate but factual reasons for being unavailable and therefore unable to be conclusive as the dragon. That's problematic given Res' position is based on the state of the evidence and real limitations on what may be knowable here. Those aren't manufactured or arbitrarily assigned to move the goal posts away from an apparent close call in proving the claim is false. They were discovered through the investigation. I don't think Res set out to prove the story could not be proven false, but instead his training leads him to be disciplined (because 10,000 hours of doing so or something like that) in a way that organized the evidence to demand caution in what one can securely claim. All I see Res doing is urging caution and restraint in what one claims is likely. That's reasonable given everything that's been shared in the thread so far. I don't think Res is trying to preserve Nelson's honor, nor did he seem to be taking an arbitrarily antagonistic position. As best as I can tell, his position came out of the state of the evidence and exhibits genuine discipline and skepticism that is necessary to resist biases. I'm coming down in favor of Res' process. I'm agnostic about Nelson's story because I couldn't care any less about it.

[Gadianton]

Were you responding to me with that or somebody else?

why is the "availability of official records in serious doubt" such a crushing blow to everyone on the thread?

The only "availability" issue I'm aware of, unless I missed something big, is that pre-1978 an incident won't show up, and in-flight fires CAN be incidents.

That was a good find on Res's part. But it's not certain that nobody else would have ever figured it out though due to a group delusion. Maybe it would have come up maybe not. If it helps, when Res made that discovery, the pendulum in my mind that had shifted more extreme to the left after early DB results came out, shifted back to the right a little bit.

But, it's worth noting, that a in-flight fire can be an accident. And human limitations works both ways, just because Rusty says in story omniscient mode "nothing was damaged" doesn't mean that nothing was damaged even though it seemed okay at first. An oil spitting fire that required a nose dive could have been serious enough to be an accident, and then it would have been in the database. Basically, what we have, is we can't rule it out to the degree that at one point it seemed we might to, but at the same time, nothing is helping the positive case.

[honorentheos]

Sorry I posted in response to Lem without quoting them directly. My bad.

[honorentheos]

Were you responding to me with that or somebody else?

Sorry I was posting in response to Lem just above your post. My mistake in not quoting it.

why is the "availability of official records in serious doubt" such a crushing blow to everyone on the thread?

I wouldn't describe it as a crushing blow against any person. I do think it has two results. First, it defined a limit as to what can likely be known that unfortunately takes away one of the more reliable sources of potential evidence regarding what might have occurred. And second, it reduces the degree the lack of an account can be conclusive. If the records from the period were more complete and standardized it makes reasoning for one being missing much more suspicious.

Now there turned out to be a fair amount of resistance to this evidence being meaningful. Some seem to have gone to lengths to attempt to disprove it was accurate at all. That is where I think it could rightly be said individuals had positions attacked and damaged.

But, it's worth noting, that a in-flight fire can be an accident. And human limitations works both ways, just because Rusty says in story omniscient mode "nothing was damaged" doesn't mean that nothing was damaged even though it seemed okay at first. An oil spitting fire that required a nose dive could have been serious enough to be an accident, and then it would have been reported. Basically, what we have, is we can't rule it out to the degree that at one point it seemed we might to, but at the same time, nothing is helping the positive case.

I agree with all of the above. Even if it seems to have some dragon-like qualities. There hasn't been a great deal of evidence that came out supporting the claim. So what degree oh skepticism does the most simple telling of the story deserve? Assuming the latest, most mythologized version is broadly deserving skepticism?

[Res Ipsa]

Honor, I think you’ve described my process accurately. Thanks for that.

I just reread Sagan’s discussion about the Dragon in the garage. It’s an example of ad hoc special pleading in order to ignore each piece of evidence until the Dragon becomes unfalsifiable. It has nothing to do with making sure that you figure out whether the type of evidence you are looking for exists in the place you want to look before you go looking for it.

Hypothetical: I’m a coin collector. I constantly talk about a rare dime that I own. My friends are very patient and polite, but can’t help rolling their eyes. Having read up a little on this dime I claim to own, my best friend concludes I’m most likely making it up — the dime is super rare and I never clearly explain how I acquired it. And no one has ever seen it.

Right in the middle of one of my bragging sessions about the dime, I drop dead of a heart attack. And I leave my coin collection to my best friend.

It’s big collection with lots of binders. He wants to know if the dime really exists, so he dives into the binders, carefully examining each coin. He goes through the binders twice, but the dime isn’t there. This confirms his preexisting belief that I didn’t own the dime. He tells our circle of friends that I made up the whole story, as they had all kind of expected.

Except, in his hurry, he failed to read the note in Binder Number 1 that said “These notebooks do not coin my most rare and valuable coins. They are in a safe deposit box at my friendly neighborhood bank.” And, in fact, in a notebook in the safe deposit box is the dime, along with a small collection of rare coins.

My friend was in such a hurry to find the dime, he overlooked the evidence of what the notebooks he searched did and did not contain. That rush, combined with his confirmation bias, prevented him from even asking himself whether a really valuable coin might be kept in a more secure location. As a result, he reached a conclusion that was 100% wrong.

Figuring out the universe of records that currently exist is not an ad hoc series of objections that never end. It’s a step that’s necessary before drawing any conclusions from looking for and not finding a particular piece of evidence. If I search a database for a specific record and find nothing, it can mean two different things. It can be evidence that the specific record I searched for never existed. Or it can be evidence that the database itself doesn’t include the type of record I’m searching for for the period of time I’m interested in. To draw any conclusions about my failure to find the specific document, I have to make sure that it should be there in the first place.

Put in terms of the Dragon analogy, it’s as if I said I have a Dragon in my garage and people responded by looking in my backyard. Having failed to find the Dragon by looking where it isn’t, they conclude as a group that I’m a liar and congratulate themselves on their masterful investigation skills.

We’re looking for a fairly well-defined set of documents. Because of their age, only a subset are in databases. The others were either destroyed or are in the National Archives. That’s pretty good progress in figuring out where we should be looking.

So, in my opinion, comparing my emphasis on knowing what is included in a data set before jumping to conclusions after not finding a document has absolutely nothing to do with Sagan’s Dragon or ad hoc special pleading.

As to the other example that’s been compared to the Dragon, prior acts, I haven’t responded to that argument by changing Nelson’s nature or adding things to the stories to make them falsifiable. I’m questioning the assumptions behind the arguments. Provide some kind of evidence that IHAQ, to choose one example, can look at a handful of incidents where he lacks evidence necessary to draw firm conclusions, can from them determine what kind of person Nelson “is,” and use that conclusion as reliable evidence about what happened in a different case.

That’s not ad hoc special pleading. That’s evaluating the soundness of an argument. It’s what skeptics are supposed to do. In contrast to the Dragon Story, it’s as if someone responded to my claim that there’s a Dragon in my garage by arguing that Santa Claus isn’t real. Pointing out that the existence of Santa Claus is irrelevant to whether there is a Dragon in my garage has nothing to do with what Sagan was describing. Saying “your evidence is weak” or your evidence is irrelevant “ is not as hoc special pleading.

So, I’m baffled by the comparison. I’d love to see an actual argument for why the analogy is valid.

[Res Ipsa]

Were you responding to me with that or somebody else?

why is the "availability of official records in serious doubt" such a crushing blow to everyone on the thread?

The only "availability" issue I'm aware of, unless I missed something big, is that pre-1978 an incident won't show up, and in-flight fires CAN be incidents.

That was a good find on Res's part. But it's not certain that nobody else would have ever figured it out though due to a group delusion. Maybe it would have come up maybe not. If it helps, when Res made that discovery, the pendulum in my mind that had shifted more extreme to the left after early DB results came out, shifted back to the right a little bit.

But, it's worth noting, that a in-flight fire can be an accident. And human limitations works both ways, just because Rusty says in story omniscient mode "nothing was damaged" doesn't mean that nothing was damaged even though it seemed okay at first. An oil spitting fire that required a nose dive could have been serious enough to be an accident, and then it would have been in the database. Basically, what we have, is we can't rule it out to the degree that at one point it seemed we might to, but at the same time, nothing is helping the positive case.

I think that’s a fair assessment. I also want to note that I’m trying to find the paper version of the documents. I’d love to have a full set of Utah Accident and Incident reports from 1970 through 1979. That should give us a clear picture of the types of incidents that ended up in an FAA Accident/Incident report. We can look for other reported engine fires and consider what would Nelson have had to be wrong about if that was actually the flight that Nelson is actually recalling. It may allow us to conclude that there are no possible incidents on Utah even resembling Nelsons story. In that case, fabrication is looking much more likely as an explanation. Or, we could find a report of an incident on the date of the inauguration that shows a less dramatic version of an event on a plane matching Nelsons description. I think that set of records, if it exists, is the best evidence that is accessible to us right now. And Tapir’s link gives us reason to expect it to be in the National Archives.

Just gonna take a little work and a little time.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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.

RI,

The person I was corresponding with is the Program Management Specialist (FOIA), FAA, Northwest Mountain Regional HQ, Flight Standards Service, Office of Foundational Business, Correspondence Services.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think this is probably the fairest way to describe a skeptical reaction to to Russell M. Nelson's story;

"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." - Gad

I seriously doubt had one of the contributors on this thread found information supporting Russell M. Nelson's they would've sat on it. Had there been a newspaper article showing Russell M. Nelson's downed plane in a field it would've been shared. Or a report detailing the incident. Or a FAA flight path log. Or a "I was the hysterical lady" testimonial.

No one is trying to frame him.

- Doc

[Lem]

Were you responding to me with that or somebody else?

why is the "availability of official records in serious doubt" such a crushing blow to everyone on the thread?

The only "availability" issue I'm aware of, unless I missed something big, is that pre-1978 an incident won't show up, and in-flight fires CAN be incidents.

That was a good find on Res's part. But it's not certain that nobody else would have ever figured it out though due to a group delusion. Maybe it would have come up maybe not. If it helps, when Res made that discovery, the pendulum in my mind that had shifted more extreme to the left after early DB results came out, shifted back to the right a little bit.

But, it's worth noting, that a in-flight fire can be an accident. And human limitations works both ways, just because Rusty says in story omniscient mode "nothing was damaged" doesn't mean that nothing was damaged even though it seemed okay at first. An oil spitting fire that required a nose dive could have been serious enough to be an accident, and then it would have been in the database. Basically, what we have, is we can't rule it out to the degree that at one point it seemed we might to, but at the same time, nothing is helping the positive case

We also have conflicting stories told by Nelson and/or his official biographer, some of which negate elements of others, and a likelihood of each conflicting story being completely accurate shifted slightly from virtually zero to almost virtually zero. Agreed, “nothing is helping the positive case” in any meaningful way.

I think this is probably the fairest way to describe a skeptical reaction to to Russell M. Nelson's story;

"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." - Gad

I seriously doubt had one of the contributors on this thread found information supporting Russell M. Nelson's they would've sat on it. Had there been a newspaper article showing Russell M. Nelson's downed plane in a field it would've been shared. Or a report detailing the incident. Or a FAA flight path log. Or a "I was the hysterical lady" testimonial.

No one is trying to frame him.

- Doc

Can’t argue with that. I’m a little nonplussed by the recent references in this thread to rabid critics trying to shoot down truth. I didn’t see that at all.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

RI,

The person I was corresponding with is the Program Management Specialist (FOIA), FAA, Northwest Mountain Regional HQ, Flight Standards Service, Office of Foundational Business, Correspondence Services.

- Doc

Thanks,Doc.