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

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey, I got a NTSB hit for 11/12/1976 in Utah!! <- Did someone already post this? I’m sure I would’ve noticed it since I’m paying relatively close attention to the thread.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 1778&key=0

I searched both incidents and accidents, by the way. Landed off runway, hit ditch, damage was ‘substantial’. No Mormon apostles were hurt in the incident/accident.

- Doc

It’s been cited a few times. See here for instance: viewtopic.php?p=17169#p17169

Ah, that’s right. I was just skimming through the thread trying to see if it was posted. Thanks for the reminder.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Yes, but, only because you are cherry picking the events you want to consider. And you are assuming that Nelson’s perception and memory are 100% accurate for your Cherry picked set of events. That’s confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. All you’ve done is constructed straw man and knocked it down.

Hold on. I could not disagree more with this statement. Taking Nelson at his word and his facts is cherry picking? Testing Nelson's stated facts and finding them lacking is confirmation bias? Come on...

Based on what Nelson said, whether in 1981 or 2021, it should not be hard to find some evidence that the story he tells happened. It is reasonable to expect some corroborating evidence. None exists. None. That's a problem.

Okay. Some versions say landing in a field and some say only safe landing. Picking field when you already know that the least likely of two options is a cherry pick. One version says a trip to St. George, others give a date, others give an event. Choosing the version that you know is least likely to be true is a cherry pick.

All you are doing is relying on your own intuition to tell you that documents “should” exist. You have to base your “should” on evidence not intuition. If you want to be right, you can’t just say “documents should exist and I don’t see any.” We haven’t done the work it takes to conclude “corroborating evidence doesn’t exist.” Not even close.

These are the necessary steps:

1. What documents were created in 1976?
2. Do you have evidence that those documents exist today?
3. Do you have evidence of where the documents are?
4. Have you looked?
5. If you’ve looked, do you have an evidence based reasons to have expected to find the documents where you are looking.

In the universe of reasonably plausible corroborating device, we haven’t scratched the surface. Are there witnesses? Who are they? Are they still alive? Have you tried to find them?

If there are witnesses, who is the person most likely to know who they are and how to find them? It’s the guy we don’t have access to.

“We haven’t found any corroborating evidence” is not the same thing as “corroborating evidence doesn’t exist.” If you treat them as meaning the same thing, your odds of being wrong just increased astronomically. The same is true if you rely on your intuition about what evidence should exist instead of relying on evidence.

[Res Ipsa]

Hey, I got a NTSB hit for 11/12/1976 in Utah!! <- Did someone already post this? I’m sure I would’ve noticed it since I’m paying relatively close attention to the thread.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 1778&key=0

I searched both incidents and accidents, by the way. Landed off runway, hit ditch, damage was ‘substantial’. No Mormon apostles were hurt in the incident/accident.

- Doc

Oh, and just a note because it’s hard to keep track of what’s in the databases, the NTSB database contains only “selected” incidents until, I think, 1982. And, at least in the time period we’re looking at, very few were selected.

[Dr Moore]

No, please don’t straw man me like that. My approach is not the problem. The task you’ve taken on is the problem. If you care about getting as close to the truth as you can, you have to do the extra work it takes to take to draw conclusions from the absence of evidence. That has nothing to do with burden of proof or Lamanites and Nephites. It’s just logic.

I understand what your approach is trying to accomplish. I'm not trying to box you into a strawman. And to be clear, I'd love to see what you find and I will happily change my mind if you find something confirmatory. We both know the odds of finding more "data" look slim, but even so, good luck.

It isn't a strawman to compare your efforts to efforts at proving or disproving Lehite existence. In a way, it's a compliment to your ambition and tenacity. If there is a body of data somewhere, which absolutely must with 0% doubt contain a record of Nelson's flight, then I think you'd be the guy to find it. It may not exist, but it may be right in front of us in the form of newpaper reports, NTSB accident logs, and known commercial flight plans. But again, we are asking fundamentally different questions.

You're also allowing for error in Nelson's memory, whereas some of us are not. Therefore, we look at the same data, or absence of data, differently. That's not a small thing, and neither question is wrong. Therefore, it's not fair for you to force your question on the way others interpret the same data. (And, accordingly, I wish you would quit sarcastically insulting people who are looking at data differently after asking the data different questions)

An essential difference in allowing for errors in Nelson's memory as opposed to not, is that you allow room for ad infinitum relocating or reframing Nelson's story. Therefore, your question allows for any amount of data to preserve truth in Nelson's retelling. That's why I related your approach (sorry, maybe wrong word) to efforts at defending literal Lehite existence. Or at least, that was the spirit of my comment.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey, I got a NTSB hit for 11/12/1976 in Utah!! <- Did someone already post this? I’m sure I would’ve noticed it since I’m paying relatively close attention to the thread.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 1778&key=0

I searched both incidents and accidents, by the way. Landed off runway, hit ditch, damage was ‘substantial’. No Mormon apostles were hurt in the incident/accident.

- Doc

Oh, and just a note because it’s hard to keep track of what’s in the databases, the NTSB database contains only “selected” incidents until, I think, 1982. And, at least in the time period we’re looking at, very few were selected.

Yeah. I actually just left a very detailed voicemail for a request from the NTSB ref all reports categorized as accidents or incidents for 11/12/1976 in Utah. I also requested someone call me back so I can talk to anyone who might know whether or not they can find any and all records regarding accidents and incidents for that date, be it in a database or archive we may not know about or through some avenue outside a foia request.

- Doc

[Dr Moore]

Okay. Some versions say landing in a field and some say only safe landing. Picking field when you already know that the least likely of two options is a cherry pick. One version says a trip to St. George, others give a date, others give an event. Choosing the version that you know is least likely to be true is a cherry pick.

I don't think it's cherry picking to take the most specific version of the story and going with that one. If Nelson includes a detail, then it's a detail that should stand up to scrutiny. Or at least, that's the approach I and some others here take in fact checking him.

If Nelson said it was a field, that detail evokes a suspense and dramatic effect. It highlights that his fear of dying was even more real. These details aren't accidental or pulled from fog -- I think Nelson says what he says because he means to convey effect. Therefore, his detailed facts should stand up to fact checking.

Again, we're asking different questions, and that should be allowed, even celebrated. I for one, celebrate your tenacity in chasing a different question down, namely what and where to find full and complete records and what those records do or don't tell us.

[Res Ipsa]

Okay. Some versions say landing in a field and some say only safe landing. Picking field when you already know that the least likely of two options is a cherry pick. One version says a trip to St. George, others give a date, others give an event. Choosing the version that you know is least likely to be true is a cherry pick.

I don't think it's cherry picking to take the most specific version of the story and going with that one. If Nelson includes a detail, then it's a detail that should stand up to scrutiny. Or at least, that's the approach I and some others here take in fact checking him.

If Nelson said it was a field, that detail evokes a suspense and dramatic effect. It highlights that his fear of dying was even more real. These details aren't accidental or pulled from fog -- I think Nelson says what he says because he means to convey effect. Therefore, his detailed facts should stand up to fact checking.

Again, we're asking different questions, and that should be allowed, even celebrated. I for one, celebrate your tenacity in chasing a different question down, namely what and where to find full and complete records and what those records do or don't tell us.

I agree. If you have a consistent principle that you apply through the process, it’s not a cherry pick. So, include every detail in every version should be fine, as long as it’s consistent.

Yeah, I appreciate the reminder that we’re looking at the same set of facts for different purposes. I try to jump in only when there’s an issue that’s common to the process, but I’m not always on the mark there.

[Lem]

No, please don’t straw man me like that. My approach is not the problem..

You're also allowing for error in Nelson's memory, whereas some of us are not. Therefore, we look at the same data, or absence of data, differently. That's not a small thing, and neither question is wrong. Therefore, it's not fair for you to force your question on the way others interpret the same data. (And, accordingly, I wish you would quit sarcastically insulting people who are looking at data differently after asking the data different questions)

An essential difference in allowing for errors in Nelson's memory as opposed to not, is that you allow room for ad infinitum relocating or reframing Nelson's story. Therefore, your question allows for any amount of data to preserve truth in Nelson's retelling. That's why I related your approach (sorry, maybe wrong word) to efforts at defending literal Lehite existence. Or at least, that was the spirit of my comment.

I made a similar comparison some 30 or 40 pages back. It never ends.

[Res Ipsa]

No, please don’t straw man me like that. My approach is not the problem. The task you’ve taken on is the problem. If you care about getting as close to the truth as you can, you have to do the extra work it takes to take to draw conclusions from the absence of evidence. That has nothing to do with burden of proof or Lamanites and Nephites. It’s just logic.

I understand what your approach is trying to accomplish. I'm not trying to box you into a strawman. And to be clear, I'd love to see what you find and I will happily change my mind if you find something confirmatory. We both know the odds of finding more "data" look slim, but even so, good luck.

It isn't a strawman to compare your efforts to efforts at proving or disproving Lehite existence. In a way, it's a compliment to your ambition and tenacity. If there is a body of data somewhere, which absolutely must with 0% doubt contain a record of Nelson's flight, then I think you'd be the guy to find it. It may not exist, but it may be right in front of us in the form of newpaper reports, NTSB accident logs, and known commercial flight plans. But again, we are asking fundamentally different questions.

You're also allowing for error in Nelson's memory, whereas some of us are not. Therefore, we look at the same data, or absence of data, differently. That's not a small thing, and neither question is wrong. Therefore, it's not fair for you to force your question on the way others interpret the same data. (And, accordingly, I wish you would quit sarcastically insulting people who are looking at data differently after asking the data different questions)

An essential difference in allowing for errors in Nelson's memory as opposed to not, is that you allow room for ad infinitum relocating or reframing Nelson's story. Therefore, your question allows for any amount of data to preserve truth in Nelson's retelling. That's why I related your approach (sorry, maybe wrong word) to efforts at defending literal Lehite existence. Or at least, that was the spirit of my comment.

Got it. Thanks. And I do respect your consistency in your approach to the data. You’ve been really straight forward in your approach, and I always get the impression you’re trying to find the best information.

I think about that infinite regression problem all the time. I think I set some boundaries somewhere in the thread to eliminate that possibility. I’ll have to look. As the possible scenarios get farther and farther from the facts from the facts of the story, the probability of being that far off has to drop pretty fast. At some point it’s got to drop past 50%. The hard part is it’s all pretty squishy.

I’ll take a look and see if I can find it.

[IHAQ]

The available proof data may be missing, but this isn't a legal case for which "absence of evidence" falls utterly short. There's no criminal burden like "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's a nice goal, but not the only goal.

Pilot training, regulatory filing requirements, actual existence of *some* contemporary relevant/related record types, timing and facts surrounding Nelson's accounts, likelihood of local and corroborating accounts from others, and what made newspaper coverage back then, are all factors to consider. Absence of evidence, given the unique circumstances, does move us further to the left hand on the B.S.>>truth scale.

Thank you.

The events described by Russell M. Nelson, including:
- right engine "explosion",
- right engine fire,
- failure of operable left engine in an engine out event,
- improper operation of an aircraft by a professional pilot (death spiral),
- significant deviation from ATC clearances by a professional pilot culminating in,
- professional pilot's decision to land in a farmer's field instead of the perfectly good alternate runway to which the pilot was cleared,
- no contemporary media reports of a downed aircraft,
- no faith promoting stories until many years later, and then from a single source only,
- no media reports of a commercial aircraft in a farmer's field, and to top it off -
- no records of the several required NTSB notifications resulting from the described events,
are individually improbable or highly improbable.

Taken as a dependent series of events, their aggregate probability is so vanishingly small as to warrant no further consideration.

I would note a couple of other "flags" in addition to your points.
1. He's been caught out materially embellishing a faith promoting anecdote before, in the very same biography where the most detailed version of the plane story appears.
2. His schedule for the day it supposedly happened appears to have been entirely unaffected, despite making an emergency landing in a field in the days without mobile communication.
3. His story becomes more detailed over time. That's the hallmark of embellishment rather than improved recollection.