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

[Res Ipsa]

But right away it gets worse. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the passengers and maybe even the pilot discussed the event afterwards. As soon as that happens, Russell’s brain will interpret the events in light of what he hears.

Engine explodes, spews fiery oil all over the wing, spiral dive to earth, uncontrollable screaming, emergency landing in a field. You're damn right they would have "discussed" it afterwards. Don't you think it would have been more than a discussion, though? Waiting for emergency crews and ground transport, they'd have shared one of the most intimate human bonding moments imaginable.

Instead, Russell M. kept it all to himself, evidently. A greater story might have been the bond between him and the other passengers enduring for decades, no? Something more than the memory?

I thought you were going to follow "it gets worse" with something about the total lack of any corroboration or news coverage. Like is this sort of thing routine in the Cedar City area? I imagine Nelson expects us to believe that down in Southern Utah, the locals are like, "hey well wuddyaknow, it's Friday, and sure as shootin, my cow got stuck in the barbed wire and another one of them Sky West planes landed in my field with a blown up engine."

I have no reason to reach any conclusions about bonding among the passengers. I've read enough accounts of people's reaction to stressful situations to conclude that the range of "normal" reactions is extremely broad. Could they have become lifelong friends? Don't see why not. Could they have went their separate ways and not maintained contact? Don't see why not. Do I have any reason to believe that one outcome is more likely than another? Nope.

Did he keep it all to himself? No idea. I ran a couple of searches at newspaper.com, including his name, for the decade of the '70s. I'm assuming that, as the head of the Sunday School, he spoke at events. But I couldn't find any report on the substance of any speech for that decade. Apparently, being President of the Sunday School didn't get him news coverage of whatever it was he talked about for a decade.

That's why I say that drawing conclusions from the absence of evidence is tricky. To do that, one has to reach certain conclusions about the likelihood of finding evidence at all. And, commonly, people tend to base that on their own personal incredulity unless they stop and and try and figure out how to decide whether their personal expectations about what some other person would do decades ago are reasonable.

My "gets worse" comment referred to the problem of trying to ferret out what, if anything, happened based on Nelson's recitation of events. I always try to start out by clarifying with a witness which parts of their story are based on their own experience, which parts are conclusions they've drawn from what they witnessed, and which parts are based on information from someone else. That helps me try and figure out where to look for corroboration. Here, it's pretty hopeless at this point to try and figure that out.

[Res Ipsa]

I think this is a fascinating example of how the brain creates personal stories, manufactures meaning for them, and evolves them over time, all with no conscious confabulation or embellishment.

Maybe so. But then, he does use the word "miraculously" when recounting how the airflow of the rapid descent put the fires out.

Yes, he does, in some accounts. In the 2003 biography, which cites the 1985 fireside, he doesn't use the word. Taken in context, it doesn't appear that he is claiming literal divine intervention in any version of the story. Rather, the use of the word in some accounts appears to mean something like unexpected and very positive. I don't think that the point of the story is "God saved my life" in any of the accounts we've seen.

[Res Ipsa]

I know that there is one that is making the argument for The Limited Biography Theory, that because we do not have access to the original account of which later embellishments may have been added, and that all later written accounts must be discounted as the spurious speculations of careless scribes, or the embellishments that keep getting added along the way by fickle memory, that it is a vain enterprise to attempt to verify any aspect of Nelson's account. But that really cuts both ways, doesn't it? In fact, I don't think it equally cuts both ways. After all, the gentleman who wrote in his journals as well as his autobiography, and presumably has access to them, is the same person who can't seem to recount his experience in a materially cohesive manner. Why is that?

Major props for the LBT!! (We need an applause emoji)

But I must not be communicating very clearly. I don't think it's a vain enterprise to try and corroborate the story. The autobiography, which is the first reference we've found, is accessible. It's just not accessible over the internet or available for purchase at a reasonable price. Likewise, the publication of the fireside proceedings is also accessible. Just not through Google.

By the way, I don't think we have evidence about journals. Given the time period we are talking about and the fact that he wrote an autobiography, its a reasonable to assume that he did. But lots of reasonable assumptions are wrong. In my perfect world, he did keep a journal and I get to read it. But I think I have to settle for the autobiography.

As to why Nelson doesn't go back and read his journal before he tells the story, who knows? I mean, does anyone who tells personal anecdotes do anything like that? As in the Challenger Study, some people believed that their later recollection was more accurate than their current one. People are generally convinced that their memories, especially vivid ones, are accurate.

But you may have a valid point -- maybe he should. The church correlates the crap out of everything in Mormonism. Maybe they should attempt to correlate personal anecdotes with available facts. I tell lots of stories from my past. It would never occur to me to fact check them, even though I'm reasonably confident my memories are probably inaccurate in some way.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm pleased to report that I've prepared a harmony of the 15 accounts of the 1976 Plummeting Plane incident and have submitted a paper based on the harmony for this year's FAIR conference. If I do say myself—and I do—I have, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea that Nelson fabricated or even slightly embellished the story and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

An excerpt from my paper:

Criticism: A 2018 account mentions four passengers. This contradicts the 1985 account, which mentions six.

Response: Actually, the 1985 account refers to "about six passengers," which, even if we take the stated number at face value, is only slightly more than four. Alternatively, if we read the term passenger through the lens of Early Modern English (which had a broader definition of passenger than today's), President Nelson could easily be including the pilot and flight attendant in his passenger count.

Brilliant!! I have an idea for a Project Beta. In Honor of James Randi.

[Res Ipsa]

I think Nelson's real miracle in these events isn't the saving of the plane at all. The real miracle might be Nelson's God-like omnipresence, being perfectly aware of what happened inside his soul, and on the passengers, and on the left and right sides of the plane.

Yeah, he told the story in omniscient mode. He talks about all the mechanical things going on, and what the pilot is doing to resolve them, but how does he know all that? Is the pilot announcing a play-by-play? He never says that, and that would be a little far-fetched in such a compressed time. Afterwards they could have all been hanging around with rescue units as the pilot explained what had happened, but how much time did he have to hang around and listen? He had a prayer to get to.

Correct. When he's telling the story, he doesn't specify where the information is coming from. When I tell a story, I don't specify the source of each bit of information. It would get in the way of the story.

[DrW]

Given the regular functioning of human memory, we should expect to find errors in the story. The trick is figuring what those errors are. Is the date accurate? Is the destination accurate? Was it a scheduled commercial flight? Is the Description of fire and explosion accurate? A skeptic considers the reasonable range of possible explanations and does her best to investigate the facts to find the best fit explanation. And don’t see that happening. And without doing that, concluding that he imagined the whole incident is not reasonable.

You realize, do you not, that each of your questions in the paragraph above are based on the underlying assumption that the incident actually happened.

If the incident did not happen but, as has been suggested, is a synthesis of stories Nelson had heard, read, or seen in movies, prompted by musings during a bumpy flights in a light plane in bad weather, then none of your questions are even relevant to the issue.

You must be able to see that. In my view, the sad fact is that Nelson can make up any story he wants. He needn't worry about the facts, or the details (his publicists, editors and biographer appear to add them as they see fit) because in his line of work, it is the emotions created and faith engendered in adoring followers that are important. As IHAQ indicates, this is what brings in the cash. So far, the available evidence indicates that this is what he did. His false memory (and I’m being kind here) would be reinforced by the attention and adoration the story engenders in his followers with each re-telling. The evolution of the story in the retelling, much like that of Joseph Smith Jr.'s various first vision versions, does not help its credibility.

The theory that fits best with the data, or the lack thereof, is that it never happened. One shred of credible independent supporting evidence for this incident could tip the balance.

Find the pilot of the plane. Have him produce his log books. Get the aircraft registration (N) number and get its log books from SkyWest (or whatever airline he was flying). Find anyone who helped in the salvage. Find someone not connected to Nelson who actually saw the airplane in the field. Find one of the other passengers or their direct descendants to interview. Find the contemporary owner of the field near Delta where the plane finally landed. Find the facility where the aircraft was repaired. Any such positive evidence would go a long way.

Of course, Nelson and his apologists have not come up with any physical evidence backing the story, although it has been widely criticized on the internet, for the same reason that OJ Simpson never spent any time or money looking for the killer of Nicole Simpson or Ron Goldman. OJ knew the truth.

Ask yourself how you would set up a Bayesian analysis of the available information and what the outcome would be. Ask yourself if it did happen, what would one reasonably expect to see? If it did not happen, what would one reasonably expect to see? What has actually been seen? What does it mean? Not sure? Perhaps a real professional on the board could help - someone like LEM.

[Res Ipsa]

Given the regular functioning of human memory, we should expect to find errors in the story. The trick is figuring what those errors are. Is the date accurate? Is the destination accurate? Was it a scheduled commercial flight? Is the Description of fire and explosion accurate? A skeptic considers the reasonable range of possible explanations and does her best to investigate the facts to find the best fit explanation. And don’t see that happening. And without doing that, concluding that he imagined the whole incident is not reasonable.

You realize, do you not, that each of your questions in the paragraph above are based on the underlying assumption that the incident actually happened.

If the incident did not happen but, as has been suggested, is a synthesis of stories Nelson had heard, read, or seen in movies, prompted by musings during a bumpy flights in a light plane in bad weather, then none of your questions are even relevant to the issue.

You must be able to see that. The sad fact is that Nelson can make up any story he wants. He needn't worry about the facts, or the details (his publicists, editors and biographer appear to add them as they see fit) because in his line of work, it is the emotions created and faith engendered in adoring followers that are important. As IHAQ indicates, this is what brings in the cash. So far, the available evidence indicates that this is what he did. His false memory (and I’m being kind here) would be reinforced by the attention and adoration the story engenders in his followers with each re-telling. The evolution of the story in the retelling, much like that of Joseph Smith Jr.'s various first vision versions, does not help its credibility.

The theory that fits best with the data, or the lack thereof, is that it never happened. One shred of credible independent supporting evidence for this incident could tip the balance.

Find the pilot of the plane. Have him produce his log books. Get the aircraft registration (N) number and get its log books from SkyWest (or whatever airline he was flying). Find anyone who helped in the salvage. Find someone not connected to Nelson who actually saw the airplane in the field. Find one of the other passengers or their direct descendants to interview. Find the owner of the field near Delta at the time where the plane finally landed. Find the facility where the aircraft was repaired. Any such positive evidence would go a long way.

Of course, Nelson and his apologists have not come up with any physical evidence backing the story, although it has been widely criticized on the internet, for the same reason that OJ Simpson never spent any time or money looking for the killer of Nicole Simpson or Ron Goldman. OJ knew the truth.

Ask yourself how you would set up a Bayesian analysis of the available information and what the outcome would be. Ask yourself if it did happen, what would one reasonably expect to see? If it did not happen, what would one reasonably expect to see? Better yet, ask a real professional on the board- someone like LEM.

Yes, I realize that those questions assume that the story is not a complete fabrication or delusion. That’s a necessary part of trying to corroborate a story. If the story were true, where could I expect to find evidence? Please don’t get me wrong. That assumption is a method for deciding where to look for evidence. I’m not suggesting we make that assumption when we set out to evaluate the evidence.

If I had the time, inclination, resources, and authority to investigate the story, I would start with Nelson. I’d walk him through all the versions in chronological order, pressing him on changes and contradictions. I would press him hard on how sure he is of any detail that appears in later versions but not earlier versions. I would ask him for additional detail on his recollections, especially whether he recalled which airline, whether the flight was direct, information about the other passengers, and The details of what happened after he landed, conversations with the passengers or pilot, how he got to St. George, etc. Then I’d ask him for corroborating evidence, leading him through all the possible sources I could think of. Who did he talk to about the incident? When did he first used it in a talk or speech? Has anyone ever interviewed him about the incident? Has anyone ever tried to help him recall details about the event?

Then, I’d go and do exactly as you suggest. I’d try to find and interview pilots who flew passengers in the relevant time frame. I’d ask them if they recognize the facts of the story. I’d ask them about emergency landings they made, whether they knew of any cases of exploding engines, engine fires, or even engine failures. I’d ask to review the log books to verify their recollection of any such incidents I’d ask them about reporting requirements and practices during the ‘80s. I’d ask them about the possible ways a person could fly from SLC to St. George in the 1970s

Then I’d see whether all the incidents described to me by the pilots were reported in the local paper. I’d also look for every reported incident in the NTSB database in Utah in the ‘70s and look to see if it was reported in the local paper. I’d try to track down the editors and/or reporters of the papers near Delta and ask them about how they decided to report plane emergency landings. Did they actively looking for incidents? How did they find out about emergency landings? Then I’d ask them about the specifics of Nelson’s story.

Then, I’d try to review every paper record I could think of that might document the incident. I might try to find a historian with knowledge about the airline industry in Utah in the 70s. I would try to gain as much factual information as possible so that my assumptions on what evidence should exist are based on facts and not what I imagined to be true.

And through the entire investigative process, I’d do my best to avoid reaching any conclusions on the ultimate question until I had finished investigating. Then I’d sit down and try to figure out the best fit explanation.

What I’m not willing to do is conclude that the story was fabricated or imagined, as opposed to containing factual inaccuracies, based upon the investigation to date.

LEM has forgotten more statistics than I will ever learn, but what’s her experience at investigating complex evidence and evaluating whether a persons story is real or made up?

I wouldn’t set up a Bayesian analysis at this point because it would be GIGO. I’ve watched too many people misjudge the actions or motives of others because they were sure they “knew” what some other person would have done, when what they were really doing was making unfounded assumptions.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm not assuming that Nelson didn't intentionally embellish. I just haven't found evidence that would justify any conclusion on his intent.

Several times now you have mentioned memory over time. It does not help your case to find his mention of this closer to the time of the incident. The excuse of his memory changing the details? I think not.

You claim you haven't found evidence that would justify any conclusion on Nelson's intent to embellish. Perhaps, but let's examine his history of faith promoting stories with material inaccuracies, never mind his intent. Just the facts. Here are some, are you familiar with these?

False Story Removed From Newest Book on the Life of Mormon President Russell M. Nelson
https://www.truthandtransparency.org/ne ... -m-nelson/

Here is another example, and pay attention to how quickly Nelson began introducing material inaccuracies. That in itself needs to be kept in mind when considering the 1979 introduction to his book, which falls in a short time from the alleged incident, just as can be seen playing out in this one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... n_robbery/

Look how the accuracy of his story has become absurd over a longer period of time.
https://www.ldsaliveinchrist.com/robber ... e-trigger/


Here is my bottom line - memory doesn't change like this with most normal people. This isn't a fishing story where a few friends are sitting around swapping tales that all involved know are being embellished. No, this is not the case at all. What is going on here with Mr. Nelson is a very serious matter that needs to be exposed for what it is - lying for the Lord.

I haven’t sat down to review your links Tapirrider, but O don’t want you to think I’m ignoring you. I have some vague recollection of a thread fact checking a story about a navy guy, but I don’t remember the details or even if that was Nelson’s story. And he tells lots of stories involving widows, right?

I think it’s fair to consider patterns of behavior. Having not studied the material, I don’t know how strong the evidence for a pattern is.

I disagree with your bottom line. From what I’ve read, it’s normal for memories to change significantly over time. The
difference is that when we tell a story, it isn’t written up and published. And we don’t customarily challenge our friends and family when we notice their stories changing.

[Gabriel]

I’ve watched too many people misjudge the actions or motives of others because they were sure they “knew” what some other person would have done, when what they were really doing was making unfounded assumptions.

I disagree that Russell Nelson qualifies as just some other person.
I don't "know" what Nelson would have done. I don't "know" his motives.
We simply have his words and varying stories that, as yet, for a couple score decades now have no corroborating evidence. If his story is factual, something will probably pop up. If it's not, there will never be evidence to confirm it and you will still be free to continue your line of argument as long as you wish and chide everyone for not giving the poor man the benefit of the doubt.

[Moksha]

Ask yourself how you would set up a Bayesian analysis of the available information and what the outcome would be.

Interpreter Journal held to forehead: The answer given by Bayesian analysis will be a gamechanger in an upcoming issue of the e-Journal.