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

[Gabriel]

<Old Testament SNIP>

[kairos]

My first podcast listening to this - the podcast dialogue was slow and stumbling because of how the back and forth moderation went.They often cut each other out in their comments. Although I felt my mind was sometimes in a
“death spiral” they got the story out, so
I give it 2 1/2 ’s.

k

[Moksha]

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... proven_to/

A rehash of this thread no doubt.

[Tom]

One minor note regarding the broadcast: there's not a 1985 biography on Nelson (which was suggested during the show here). Condie's 2003 biography (not a reprint) quotes from an account given by Nelson in a 1985 fireside address.

[Tom]

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... proven_to/

A rehash of this thread no doubt.

One source is listed twice (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ntina-2019) and the list doesn't include the Dew book and the 1985 fireside address.

[consiglieri]

One minor note regarding the broadcast: there's not a 1985 biography on Nelson (which was suggested during the show here). Condie's 2003 biography (not a reprint) quotes from an account given by Nelson in a 1985 fireside address.

Thanks!

You could tell I was confused by that

[Dr Moore]

Gemli’s assessment should be given airtime.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... piral.html

“Let’s hear it for the pilot.”

[Dr Moore]

Very interesting to see the consistency of informed skeptical opinions offered by many different pilots in comment boards following the Reel/RFM episode.

https://youtu.be/fz4iQk1M9l4

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ame=iossmf

https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... ame=iossmf

[Res Ipsa]

And while they are at it, I invite them to go back and read how you behaved in the discussion regarding the aviation incident and accident reports, the limits on available reports through online databases and when an engine fire is and incident or accident, and asserted rightness because you have a pilots licence while being belligerently wrong.

As was pointed out to RI, an in-flight engine fire can be considered as an incident or an accident depending on the extent of damage to the aircraft. In either case, an engine fire requires an NTSB notification. The relevant regulations were pointed out to RI, chapter and verse.

His failure to understand them, or apparently much of anything else that was explained,* is not my problem. Bottom line is that no NTSB notification means no fire, and there was no NTSB notification. As Dr. Moore has now pointed out, a record of the event was finally found in 1977 Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB not NTSB) correspondence regarding claimed safety issues with SkyWest operations, which claim was determined to be unfounded.

They can also read on the previous page your quoting a post you made on page one as defense against the accusation you wrote off the likelihood of there being an engine-out event behind the story in a disingenuous coverup that by mid thread you'd dismissed the content of that post as over-generous.

With regard to the comment about my initial post being too generous; I stand by it. The comment assumed that the pilot may have momentarily lost control of the aircraft when the right engine "exploded". The right engine did not explode. In fact, the record shows the right engine was shut down as a precaution, resulting in a precautionary landing at the nearest airport. There was no spin, or even entry to spin, let along a death spiral dive. There was no loss of the second engine that required the miraculous re-start he described. There was no explosion. There was no fire. There was no landing in a farmer's field. There was no damage to the aircraft or injuries to the passengers or crew. Russell M. Nelson's story is a lie. In its numerous versions, it is numerous lies.

Had the events in 1977 been as dramatic as Russell M. Nelson claims, he would certainly have mentioned them before 1992. What professional religionist can pass up capitalizing on a faith promoting story like that? It's pretty clear that Russell M. Nelson, at some point in the intervening 15 years, felt he needed a dramatic faith promoting experience to validate his new standing in the Church. So he fabricated one based on a minor incident in a small plane more than a decade earlier. As with Paul Dunn, the problem was that his tall tale, much like the foundational truth claim of his religion, was falsifiable and has now been falsified.
__________________

ETA: * Reference to a possible "flame out" from a piston engine propeller driven aircraft in the passage from one of RI's posts that Doc quoted above makes it clear that RI didn't yet understand the difference between a piston engine (which can not have a flame out) and a jet engine (which might on occasion). In any case, RI's attempt in that passage to explain the absence of an NTSB notification of an engine fire is nonsense. As tapirrider explained to RI (twice) a "flame out" refers to loss of combustion inside a jet engine and thus there would be no external flame to frighten the passengers, even if the little Navajo were a jet, which it is not.]

Nice revisionist History, Dr. W. Throughout our back and forth, it was I who had to keep reminding you of what the regulations actually said. Your use of terminology was sloppy and misleading. You consistently mixed up the different types of notices and reports in a way that was highly misleading. You misrepresented the contents of databases you presented so egregiously that I have a hard time believing it was due to accident or incompetence. Several times you announced dramatic conclusions that were flat out wrong.

You were the best example of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias I’ve seen in a long time. And rather than ‘fess up to the many mistakes you made through this thread, you resort to the Mopologetic technique of personal attack. Honor is right in this — you can take the boy out of the priesthood but it’s hard to take the priesthood out of the boy.

Throughout this thread, one of the things I’ve been interested in is whether the story was based on some real life incident or whether it was created out of whole cloth. And despite the revisionist history, there have been several claims that it was the latter. I think the CAB report (God knows how anyone found that) is pretty good evidence that the incident on Nov 11 was the origin of Nelson’s story.

For anyone who wants to really understand the problems with reasoning from the absence of evidence (and I suggest that any good skeptic should), read through this thread from the beginning, spot each time someone drew a conclusion that was incorrect, and think about why that happened.

And for those of you who don’t seem to understand the difference between “defending” Nelson and a bona fide investigation of facts, it might be worth taking some time to reflect on why you feel the need to divide folks into “with us or against us” at all.

[Lem]

Very interesting to see the consistency of informed skeptical opinions offered by many different pilots in comment boards following the Reel/RFM episode.

https://youtu.be/fz4iQk1M9l4

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ame=iossmf

https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... ame=iossmf

And consistent with pilot's comments here. Their experienced responses, as well as Dr. W's and others here, are much appreciated.

What I also found interesting were several comments that while the death-defying and 'faith-promoting' elements of the story would undoubtedly have generated significant press and very different FAA reports, the CAB report unreservedly states that none of the events in the time period reported rose above the level of an 'incident.' The comparisons to similar exaggerations in Dunn's stories were inevitable.

One thing I felt was unnecessary in the reddit OPs, however, was the assertion that the radio show 'proved' anything. Even though the probability is so unlikely that Nelson's story was accurate that the opposite conclusion approaches certainty, saying it has been 'proved' is not true and opens the door for a simple dismissal of the research. Yes, it would be wrong to do so, but it's a common mopologetic approach.