Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

helix's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. A solution can be simpler than that. There was an engine fire. The pilot responded with a common approach for an engine fire, which Nelson noted. The passengers were alarmed, but the pilot was in full control. They landed in a nearby airport. The damage was only engine damage, nothing to rest of the plane. The report simply said engine damage, which as cfi indicated in a prior post, were a dime a dozen and not worth getting into the details. Everyone acted normal. Nobody merged memories or purposely suppressed info. The easiest answer is the most mundane one.
  2. Thanks cfi, your posts here are very informative. What's interesting in that second photo is how relatively minor the damage appears on the outside.
  3. My links aren't related to his. I'm definitely not a pilot. I'm just fascinated that in 1985, Nelson gave credit to the pilot for professionally going through a process to respond to an engine fire. A process that is very common among propeller aircraft. Meanwhile, critics use awfully degenerative approaches to patch their theory to explain away Nelson's knowledge, then run around podcats and forums proclaiming victory. What's more likely? 1) Nelson told the truth. Nelson experienced an in-flight engine fire. Nelson, whose scientific background trained him to observe and trust professionals, credits the pilot and watches carefully the procedure used for putting out an engine fire. Still, he and another passenger felt alarmed. The very short report in the 1970s neglected many details and only reported the engine was damaged. Not long after, Nelson repeated this story to large public audiences while acting in capacity as an apostle. 2) Nelson deliberately lied. Nelson heard a pilot tell a step-by-step process how he or she dealt with an in-flight engine fire. Later, Nelson experienced a boring emergency landing with no steep descent or fire. Then Nelson maliciously took the other pilot's story of an engine fire, repurposed it into his own emergency landing incident, then repeated it to large public audiences while acting in capacity as an apostle, all while the other passenger and pilot are presumably still alive. For the perpetual cynic, #2 is the easy choice. For the rest of us, #1 is just fine.
  4. Then how did Nelson know that stopping the affected propeller, shutting off the fuel, going into a descent while spinning, and landing quickly at an emergency airstrip is a common procedure for an engine fire? From Nelson, in 1985: "But the pilot had turned off the ignition that fed more gas into the fire and had purposely been in a steep dive hoping that the flames might be extinguished, which was what happened. Then, with the power still left in the other propeller—which he then turned on just as we were about ready to have our moment of impact—he was able to glide us, following a highway, until we could make an emergency landing.’" Also Nelson in 1992: "As we plummeted in a steep spiral dive toward the earth, I expected to die. . . . Miraculously, the precipitous dive extinguished the flames. Then, by starting up the other engine, the pilot was able to stabilize the plane and bring us down safely. " A description of shutting off the fuel, then going into a steep descent here: Also here Note that this link also suggests turning upon landing to direct the fire away from key areas, I suppose a similar strategy could work while in the air. Here is another recommendation of a fire on the wing here This recommendation produces a steep spiral dive: Another steep bank/spiral descent for engine fires: The claim is Nelson heavily embellished the story. Yet nobody will explain how a heart surgeon managed to repeat proper procedure for a propeller aircraft engine fire. So tell me, how did he know this? If there was no engine fire, how did Nelson know that a pilot should shut off engine fuel, then engage in a steep banked spiral descent to extinguish the fire, and then land at an emergency airstrip?
  5. Thanks for this. What you said lines up perfectly with Nelson's story. A loud bang, a fire, doing a steep dive to put out a fire, finding the closest strip to land, a lack of airframe damage, and minimal investigation report.
  6. It never ends. Yesterday on Reddit, the online ex community believes they've caught Nelson in another embellishment. Nelson recently tweeted this: "[A lead in about Olympic competition...] I was among those who worked to develop an artificial heart-lung machine, which in turn helped in the pioneering of open-heart surgery. There was a great spirit of cooperation and respect among the few of us working in that new area of medical research. We knew that our real competition was against disease and death. Our cooperation in the race to pioneer new medical procedures literally saved lives. It is possible to disagree with others without violating the Savior’s injunction to “love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:12). It is possible to have a different opinion than your neighbor while still loving that neighbor. It is even possible to “compete” in a spirit of mutual respect that brings out the best in everyone." The ex community reacted to Nelson's message with anger and cynicism. They immediately tried to minimize or completely discount Nelson's involvement in that scientific endeavor. A few argued that because he was only the 5th author on a 7 author academic paper, he probably didn't do anything of interest, and shouldn't be tooting his own horn in this tweet. Others have suddenly started attacking the scientific process, telling anecdotal stories of how easy it is to be an author on a paper without doing the actual work. They're currently trying to hunt his PhD thesis with optimism they will find more flaws (they've only found a summary so far). One said that Nelson's work isn't a big deal because we'd have this artificial heart-lung machine had Nelson not been born. Another is upset he or she can't find Nelson's name more in academic discussion from the early 1950s. They have contacted Bill Reel to discuss this more (Bill has responded). And I'm back here thinking "This is a medical doctor who was involved in a team for novel research for his PhD, and you are mad about this!?" But they do this. Every week.
  7. I lived next to the Ogden airport in the 80s. That airport used to have many old farm homes adjacent to it. Homes whose residents could walk out onto their backyard, cross the property line, and walk onto the main runway if they desired. In the 1990s the federal government started modernizing it by expanding the runways, buying up adjacent property and tearing them down homes, and installing fences. I just don't recall seeing any farm animals nearby, but all other aspects felt farm-like from the runway end.
  8. I wouldn't be surprised if both stories are harmonious. They are in a small airplane. An engine makes a "bang" noise. Flames come out of the engine. The pilot handles it professionally, as they are trained to deal with a bad engine. The pilot stops one or both engines. The pilot starts a spinning steep descent to both aim for a nearby airport and put out the flames. A lady on the flight panics loudly. Nelson is initially alarmed, but is comforted because he has lived a life for which he's proud. The flames are extinguished. The pilot resumes a normal landing sequence. They land at the Delta Airport, which in the 1970s resembles a farmers field (or perhaps even had animals on fields very nearby). No external damage is seen on the airplane. The pilot was always in control and not alarmed, as planes are designed with redundancy. The passengers walk away shaken.
  9. We are a church fundamentally rooted on the concept that people sin, including leaders. This means mistakes happen, including membership councils (for example, I think that Oliver Cowdrey's removal was incorrect.) We are judged by God at the last day, not by the actions of our local leaders. Local leaders are simply trying to learn and grow and keep the church in order, just as the rest of us are trying to learn and grow.
  10. As I said, his checklist isn't peer-reviewed. That he appears on CNN often doesn't make him an expert. Academics in his field stay far clear of trying to define that pejorative. I suspect if he ever tried to have others critique his work, they would rightly point out his checklist is useless due to a combination of being overly broad, nebulous, and unrestrictive. His checklist frankly has the same characteristics as astrology, where if you squint just right you can apply it to anything. As I said before, your prior argument where you cited Hassan may not be a bad argument. But you should avoid a pop-culture book writer and TV show guest and instead focus on someone with academic weight.
  11. Ugh, this canard again. Steve Hassan simply created his own formula to define a pejorative to sell books. He created the equivalent of a checklist to describe "jerks". He deliberately avoided peer-review because he's only interested in writing books. His checklist is so vague and expansive that it can easily include graduate school programs, high school sports, and military programs. And he forgot to include mechanisms to indicate what does not count. Your argument can be a fine one, but Steve Hassan is not the authoritative source you want backing you up.
  12. A quote from Helfer addressing a crowd cheering her for fighting the church: "[Heated] I swear to God, if they mention pornography, one more time on a Sunday. When we all know that every time you say 'pornography' YOU'RE PICTURING IT! Oh thank you for reminding me about h***** people [she does vulgar mimicking] when I'm trying to worship my God. And Elder Oaks did that on General Conference on Easter Sunday! And what, I'm just supposed to be like [In a timid tone] 'Oh, excuse me Elder Oaks of revelatory power, um, I'm respectfully calling you out on this' [Mimicking Elder Oaks] 'You don't have the authority to call me out Sister Helfer.' [Speaking of herself] I have all the authority! No, what you did was kind of crappy. . . . No. You can't talk about that on Sunday, when my teenage sons are hearing you. And then you're wanting them to not think about it and not do it. Well you just reminded them about it. So I'm guessing they're going to go home tonight and probably look something up. Thank you! Thanks Elder Oaks for that."
  13. Several years ago during a leadership training, President Monson went out of his way to mention incorrect approaches for holding a council. It sounded as though he just got through managing one or more of these improperly held councils. The verbiage made it sound like the council's finding of excommunication was incorrect and had to be restarted with a correct council.
  14. I've had a cop do that to me. When I was a teenager, I was on a pedestrian bridge one evening watching a lightning storm. The cops received calls that someone else nearby was throwing rocks. One set of cops arrived, questioned me, and left. Another set of cops arrived a few minutes later, shined lights in my face, and demanded I immediately leave public property. When I said it was a public sidewalk and it's nowhere near curfew, he threatened to arrest me and throw me in jail while we sort it out. But I don't see how this pertains at all to Helfer's situation. She initiated the matter by spending years publicly hurling attacks at the church and attempting to redefine theological sins while brandishing her membership credentials. The stake president's job is to inject himself into that, as that is part of the rules of church membership.
  • Create New...