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

[DrW]

RI,

What is the point of your comment? I stated at the beginning of the pilot's view narrative that I would comment from the point of view of the pilot as described in Russell M. Nelson's story. I left the co-pilot out of the narrative because Russell M. Nelson did not have a co-pilot in his story.

You will admit that you have accused me of making assumptions about elements of the the story in my comments that were not specifically stated by Russell M. Nelson in his version, so I was trying to be careful not to do so. If my assumption that you would comment on my adding elements not specifically in Russell M. Nelson's story is offensive to you, then please accept my apology.

If your goal here is to simply keep the thread going, a better argument would have been to claim that the fact that Russell M. Nelson did not mention a co-pilot does not mean there was not a co-pilot. Just trying to be helpful.

Now you're attempting to rewrite history again. Contrast your former explanation of why you omitted the co-pilot from your pilot's eye view with your new version:

In my description of Russell M. Nelson's story from the pilot's viewpoint, it seemed odd to leave the right seat empty up front, or at least not to mention any role for the co-pilot in saving everyone from dying in an aircraft spiraling out of control. This was done so as not to add elements that RI would claim were not actually in Russell M. Nelson's telling of the story.

[Boldface added.]

I stated at the beginning of the pilot's view narrative that I would comment from the point of view of the pilot as described in Russell M. Nelson's story. I left the co-pilot out of the narrative because Russell M. Nelson did not have a co-pilot in his story.

If your reason for omitting the co-pilot had nothing to do with me, then why mention me at all?

I think the point of my post is very clear: "Your level of confidence in your ability to predict the thoughts and action of others far exceeds your actual ability to do so."

Why do you think you can draw any conclusion at all from the fact that Nelson does not include the co-pilot in his story?

There can be more than one reason for a decision. In this case there were two.

I see from your final comment that you took my suggestion to argue that no conclusion could be drawn from what was not mentioned in the story.

Well done.

[Res Ipsa]

Oh, so first there was one reason, then there is a different reason, and now there are two reasons.

Instead of congratulating yourself for being so clever, why don’t you try answering the question?

ETA: both of DrWs explanations seem completely bizarre to me. His pilots eye view was very helpful as a comparison between Nelson’s description of events and what the pilot of a Navajo Chieftan would have been doing. But, his description of the pilot’s eye view includes lots of things that Nelson never mentions: radio communication, landing damage to the aircraft, wooden power poles, nose gear digging into soil, Delta Municipal, the pilot securing records, etc. He didn’t limit his pilot’s eye view to things mentioned in Nelson’s story. So, why make an special exception just for the co-pilot? His explanation for omitting the co-pilot is inconsistent with what he wrote.

And DrW had no reason to think I would object to including a copilot. He’d already told us pages ago that this type of aircraft would have a co-pilot. I understood that that the co-pilot would have been present as I read his pilot’s eye view. And, I didn’t find it off in the slightest that he didn’t include the co-pilot in his description. And I wouldn’t have thought it odd in anyway if he had mentioned the co-pilot. I understood that he was communicating what would have been occurring in the aircraft, and, in that context, I wouldn’t have drawn any conclusion from the presence or absence of a mention of the copilot.

Including the co-pilot as part of the pilots eye view is completely different than making an argument based on the absence of the copilot in Nelson’s account. DrW included a bunch of other facts that don’t appear in Nelson’s account, so why would he think I would argue about this one? Again, the explanation makes no sense.

It does seem a little ironic to me that I didn’t think there was anything odd or significant about a knowledgeable and experienced pilot omitting the co-pilot from a detailed description of his pilot’s eye view, but DrW finds significance in the same omission in a non-pilot’s story.

There are other parts of DrWs posts that I could have responded to by pointing out unfounded conclusions and fallacious reasoning, but doing so has had no effect in the past, so I’ve been confining myself to rolling my eyes and reading the next post. And I’d have done the same thing here if DrW hadn’t chosen to connect me with his crappy arguments.

It is discouraging for me to see some of the same of the same folks who can spot and tear apart bad reasoning when it’s done by apologists, engage in or endorse bad reasoning as long as It leads to a negative conclusion about LDS leaders. All it does is feed the “bitter anti-Mormon” stereotype that, in my opinion, is damaging to both former and questioning Mormons.

[Dr Moore]

It’s all very simple. Nelson had “the pilot.” Joseph Smith saw “the Lord.”

[kairos]

While Rusty was witnessing the woman across from him go ballistically hysterical (probably a normal response ), he himself was calm and was heard by an unidentified passenger to be
softly repeating “God is MY co-pilot, God is MY co-pilot, all of the rest of you find your own way out of this death spiral”.
Upon landing on the runway/ highway/farmer’s field (choose one please) the formerly hysterical woman said “I needed a hug up there and I need one now. Rusty said “I need a ride to st George immediately- it’s an emergency for I must give a 2 minute invocation prayer or the church will be embarrassed- so anyone know where I can rent a plane ASAP!
Someone should write a book as this story is rich with possible human responses to possible life and death situations.

k

[kairos]

Quote from former 35 year DN editor responding to my email asking him if he knew/was aware/perhaps could check into information on the Russell M. Nelson almost doomed death flight story.

“Haven't learned anything new.
Seems to me it's an issue without legs. If it does turn out that an
apocryphal story was included, Deseret Book would simply
assume responsibility for the error, apologize and promise to be
more vigilant in the future. In short, it will be tempest in a teapot
stuff.
It will be remembered as an honest mistake not deception.”


I am almost sorry I asked this guy because of the vagueness
Of his response and by that response it is clear he is not going to deep dive
Into DN resources- what if anything they reported and when did they report it?
Actually his is what a TBM having drunk enough koolaid wiould write. Seems to have no interest in whether Rusty was lying and what that would imply about his character etc.
Slim chance - he did say he would keep his ears open !

k

[honorentheos]

Actually his is what a TBM having drunk enough koolaid would write.

I don't know if it's Mormonaid, but I'm having what he's having.

[Moksha]

Actually his is what a TBM having drunk enough koolaid would write.

I don't know if it's Mormonaid, but I'm having what he's having.

There are nearly two hundred years of such inspirational stories, so bottoms up!

[DrW]

Quote from former 35 year DN editor responding to my email asking him if he knew/was aware/perhaps could check into information on the Russell M. Nelson almost doomed death flight story.

“Haven't learned anything new.
Seems to me it's an issue without legs. If it does turn out that an
apocryphal story was included, Deseret Book would simply
assume responsibility for the error, apologize and promise to be
more vigilant in the future. In short, it will be tempest in a teapot
stuff.
It will be remembered as an honest mistake not deception.”


I am almost sorry I asked this guy because of the vagueness
Of his response and by that response it is clear he is not going to deep dive
Into DN resources- what if anything they reported and when did they report it?
Actually his is what a TBM having drunk enough koolaid wiould write. Seems to have no interest in whether Rusty was lying and what that would imply about his character etc.
Slim chance - he did say he would keep his ears open !

k

Thank you for returning and reporting. No surprise though. What else would one expect from former DN staff?

[IHAQ]

Quote from former 35 year DN editor responding to my email asking him if he knew/was aware/perhaps could check into information on the Russell M. Nelson almost doomed death flight story.

“If it does turn out that an
apocryphal story was included, Deseret Book would simply
assume responsibility for the error, apologize and promise to be
more vigilant in the future.”

I think he's saying that Deseret Book has a standing policy of throwing itself under the bus in order to protect any of the Brethren from being accountable for any dubious content in any of their books. That's pandering to narcissism.

[Moksha]

I think he's saying that Deseret Book has a standing policy of throwing itself under the bus in order to protect any of the Brethren from being accountable for any dubious content in any of their books.

The Deseret Books editors held their tongues when they decided not to tell Spencer Kimball that rape victims being encouraged to die before dishonor was not a good idea. The result was that they got to keep their jobs and continued to keep their families clothed and fed. So what if it screwed up the moral fabric of a generation of Mormons? They kept their jobs and were not hauled before an inquisitor for summary excommunication.