The Paul H Dunn-ing of President Nelson

[Vanguard]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 

Deleted,  headed back into retirement, It's quite apparent that I have long over stayed my welcome. I don't have the time to research this and argue its validity so I'll leave the stage.  I believe this is a real threat to President Nelson and had hoped someone might want to tackle it.  G'Day 

Smac did tackle it but I guess you don't want to address his well-thought-out efforts? Hmmm...

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Smac did tackle it but I guess you don't want to address his well-thought-out efforts? Hmmm...

Instead of doing a victory lap and relying on Smac to make you feel better about this, have you actually read the 85 page thread on the board we aren't allowed to link?  That is where all of this research both happened in real time and was documented.  Also, have you watched the 'Mormonism Live' episode from last week where this entire thing was summarized and discussed?  The embellishments are not minor.

Edited July 28, 2021 by ttribe

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Smac did tackle it but I guess you don't want to address his well-thought-out efforts? Hmmm...

This board calls itself the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. My experience has been closer to the "Bang Your Head Against a Thick Brick Wall Board"  Everyone already knows all of the answers to any questions or thought long before the question can even be shared to be discussed or begin a dialogue on.  It's a frustrating place to spend my time and I've often walked away just shaking my head. Since leaving a week ago,  I've found it much more enjoyable and a lot less painful having bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails just before I have them forcibly removed with pair of rusty plyers.  Life is so much better now.

So honestly? What's the point? Everyone's minds are already made up even before the questions have been asked. Mr Smac, even though he has correctly presented the facts, has already concluded that Nelson is not embellishing the very facts that he himself confirmed.  He's craved out room for Nelson to have been telling the truth despite the facts of that day on the plane not aliening up to what Nelson claimed took place.  It is my opinion that Pres. Nelson is embellishing a mechanical malfunction on his plane to make it a faith promoting story.  I would be more than happy to be shown to be wrong in my conclusion. Which is why I came here to ask that someone with this kind of background might take up the gantlet and find the woman or pilot on that plane. But instead I get nothing but push back, personal attacks and the same old MD&D crap.  So no I've had enough thank you very much.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This board calls itself the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. My experience has been closer to the "Bang Your Head Against a Thick Brick Wall Board"  Everyone already knows all of the answers to any questions or thought long before the question can even be shared to be discussed or begin a dialogue on.  It's a frustrating place to spend my time and I've often walked away just shaking my head. Since leaving a weeks ago,  I've found it much more enjoyable and a lot less painful having bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails just before I have them forcibly removed with pair of rusty plyers.  Life is so much better now.

So honestly? What's the point? Everyone's minds are already made up even before the questions have been asked. Mr Smac, even though he has correctly presented the facts, has already concluded that Nelson is not embellishing the very facts that he himself confirmed.  He's craved out room for Nelson to have been telling the truth despite the facts of that day on the plane not aliening up to what Nelson claimed took place.  It is my opinion that Pres. Nelson is embellishing a mechanical malfunction on his plane to make it a faith promoting story.  I would be more than happy to be shown to be wrong in my conclusion. Which is why I came here to ask that someone with this kind of background might take up the gantlet and find the woman or pilot on that plane. But instead I get nothing but push back, personal attacks and the same old MD&D crap.  So no I've had enough thank you very much.

And so there we have it (see my boldface). You too have already concluded Nelson is embellishing for artificial faith promotion. And so your faux call-to-arms in the defense of our beloved prophet comes off as cheap gamesmanship. And that is precisely what myself and others suspected from the get-go. I recommend in order to keep you own sanity you should go on concluding everything your write in this last post rather than introspectively consider how disingenuous your initial one came off as. Se la vie.

As for taking time away from the board, I too get it. I have needed to do the exact same thing. Best to you on that recess. 

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Instead of doing a victory lap and relying on Smac to make you feel better about this, have you actually read the 85 page thread on the board we aren't allowed to link?  That is where all of this research both happened in real time and was documented.  Also, have you watched the 'Mormonism Live' episode from last week where this entire thing was summarized and discussed?  The embellishments are not minor.

No victory lap. I never said anything about what I concluded form Smac's posts. Mine was a call for FD to address it - I guess you missed that. 

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

No victory lap. I never said anything about what I concluded form Smac's posts. Mine was a call for FD to address it - I guess you missed that. 

So your comment wasn't an endorsement of Smac's post?  That's interesting.

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This board calls itself the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. My experience has been closer to the "Bang Your Head Against a Thick Brick Wall Board"  Everyone already knows all of the answers to any questions or thought long before the question can even be shared to be discussed or begin a dialogue on.  It's a frustrating place to spend my time and I've often walked away just shaking my head. Since leaving a weeks ago,  I've found it much more enjoyable and a lot less painful having bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails just before I have them forcibly removed with pair of rusty plyers.  Life is so much better now.

So honestly? What's the point? Everyone's minds are already made up even before the questions have been asked. Mr Smac, even though he has correctly presented the facts, has already concluded that Nelson is not embellishing the very facts that he himself confirmed.  He's craved out room for Nelson to have been telling the truth despite the facts of that day on the plane not aliening up to what Nelson claimed took place.  It is my opinion that Pres. Nelson is embellishing a mechanical malfunction on his plane to make it a faith promoting story.  I would be more than happy to be shown to be wrong in my conclusion. Which is why I came here to ask that someone with this kind of background might take up the gantlet and find the woman or pilot on that plane. But instead I get nothing but push back, personal attacks and the same old MD&D crap.  So no I've had enough thank you very much.

Most of us don't like it when someone tries to find fault with our beloved Prophet, even though we accept the fact that he is not perfect.  So you should have expected some pushback from the comments you made. 

At least you didn't compare him to Trump, though, who is the King of Hyperbole.  That would have been really bad.

[Vanguard]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So your comment wasn't an endorsement of Smac's post?  That's interesting.

Am I allowed to hold judgment on his post until I hear - for the first time - a reasonable refutation? Or are you yourself being judgmental? Why don't you take up the cause and answer him as opposed to pondering the navel of why I haven't yet endorsed him? 

[Fair Dinkum]

36 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And so there we have it (see my boldface). You too have already concluded Nelson is embellishing for artificial faith promotion. And so your faux call-to-arms in the defense of our beloved prophet comes off as cheap gamesmanship. And that is precisely what myself and others suspected from the get-go. I recommend in order to keep you own sanity you should go on concluding everything your write in this last post rather than introspectively consider how disingenuous your initial one came off as. Se la vie.

As for taking time away from the board, I too get it. I have needed to do the exact same thing. Best to you on that recess. 

You didn't read my entire post.

I said:

Quote

It is my opinion that Pres. Nelson is embellishing a mechanical malfunction on his plane to make it a faith promoting story.  I would be more than happy to be shown to be wrong in my conclusion. Which is why I came here to ask that someone with this kind of background might take up the gantlet and find the woman or pilot on that plane. 

In other words...right now the evidence is titling towards an embellishment, but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, in which case  I would change my mind.  

[Fair Dinkum]

7 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Most of us don't like it when someone tries to find fault with our beloved Prophet, even though we accept the fact that he is not perfect.  So you should have expected some pushback from the comments you made. 

At least you didn't compare him to Trump, though, who is the King of Hyperbole.  That would have been really bad.

I didn't find fault with Pres Nelson, I brought to the attention of the members of this board that Houston we have a problem.  Don't shoot the messenger for delivering the message

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Am I allowed to hold judgment on his post until I hear - for the first time - a reasonable refutation? Or are you yourself being judgmental? Why don't you take up the cause and answer him as opposed to pondering the navel of why I haven't yet endorsed him? 

Perhaps that is why I directed you to the location of the actual research and discussion on this issues which took place away from this board?  I happened to have followed it in real time as it was being assembled.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Smac provided source material for the first. The second story can be found here:

https://www.truthandtransparency.org/news/2019/04/09/false-story-removed-from-newest-book-on-the-life-of-mormon-president-russell-m-nelson/

So the controversy seems to center on purported discrepancies between Pres. Nelson's various retellings of the story and the summary listed in the Civil Aeronautics Board ("CAB") record.  A few thoughts:

1. Unlike Paul H. Dunn's stories, the story about the airplane mishap was not particularly self-aggrandizing.  Pres. Nelson didn't do anything heroic.  He was calm in the face of death.

2. Unlike Paul H. Dunn's stories, the story about the airplain mishap did not involve any overtly miraculous claim or component.  

3. Paul H. Dunn publicly retracted and apologized for his embellishments/falsehoods.  

4. The purported embellishments, assuming they exist, do not seem to be "material" (as in "having real importance or great consequences").  The incident really did seem to have happened.  The worst possible reading was that engine did not "explode," and there was no "fire."  As to the former, "explode" can, I suppose, mean different things to different people.  And we are discussing an event that happened 45 years ago.  And the incident did result in at least "sheared" cylinder base studs.  That sounds . . . serious.  

5. Cinepro raises some good points about the nature of memory.  

6. The possibility of inaccuracy and/or omissions in the CAB record deserves some consideration.  Did the CAB have a representative on the ground in Delta when the flight landed?  How did it get the information about what had happened?  Who provided the information?  Was there an actual investigation?  Was the NTSB involved?  Apparently not.  The investigative function of the CAB, later abolished in 1985, was apparently taken over by the NTSB in 1967.  Even today, the NTSB - tasked with air accident investigation duties - has a grand total of 400 employees and four offices (Anchorage, Federal Way (Washington), Denver and Ashburn (Virginia).  So exactly how rigorous was the investigation of the 1976 incident? 

7. And about about SkyWest Airlines?  It was just over four years old, having been established in April 1972 and having a "fleet" of "a 2-seat Piper Cherokee 140, a 6-seat Cherokee Six, a 4-seat Cherokee Arrow, and a 6-seat Piper Seneca."  In 1973 the Seneca was replaced with a 9-seat Piper Navajo Chieftan.  1974 was a difficult year, despite Sky West's growth.  1975 was described as "efforts fail to sell or even give away SkyWest, losses reach $300,000" and "{r}eorganization takes place by cutting overhead costs and personnel, and selling 3 aircraft and the Moab FBO."  1976, the year of the incident described above, was described as: "First profitable year!  Net income is $17,097."  So SkyWest was struggling during this period.  And the notes above show that their inventory of aircraft experience had three separate engine failures within a five-week span, one of which was the incided described here.  Given these circumstances, would there have been an incentive for SkyWest to downplay the seriousness of the incident in its report to the CAB?  We report, you decide!

8. Overall, this does not seem like much of an indictment against Pres. Nelson.  If anything, it shows that the critics of the Church are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in looking for things to criticize about Pres. Nelson.  Splinters under the fingernails and everything.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 28, 2021 by smac97

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the controversy seems to center on purported discrepancies between Pres. Nelson's various retellings of the story and the summary listed in the Civil Aeronautics Board ("CAB") record.  A few thoughts:

1. Unlike Paul H. Dunn's stories, the story about the airplane mishap was not particularly self-aggrandizing.  Pres. Nelson didn't do anything heroic.  He was calm in the face of death.

2. Unlike Paul H. Dunn's stories, the story about the airplain mishap did not involve any overtly miraculous claim or component.  

3. Paul H. Dunn publicly retracted and apologized for his embellishments/falsehoods.  

4. The purported embellishments, assuming they exist, do not seem to be "material" (as in "having real importance or great consequences").  The incident really did seem to have happened.  The worst possible reading was that engine did not "explode," and there was no "fire."  As to the former, "explode" can, I suppose, mean different things to different people.  And we are discussing an event that happened 45 years ago.  And the incident did result in at least "sheared" cylinder base studs.  That sounds . . . serious.  

5. Cinepro raises some good points about the nature of memory.  

6. The possibility of inaccuracy and/or omissions in the CAB record deserves some consideration.  Did the CAB have a representative on the ground in Delta when the flight landed?  How did it get the information about what had happened?  Who provided the information?  Was there an actual investigation?  Was the NTSB involved?  Apparently not.  The investigative function of the CAB, later abolished in 1985, was apparently taken over by the NTSB in 1967.  Even today, the NTSB - tasked with air accident investigation duties - has a grand total of 400 employees and four offices (Anchorage, Federal Way (Washington), Denver and Ashburn (Virginia).  So exactly how rigorous was the investigation of the 1976 incident? 

7. And about about SkyWest Airlines?  It was just over four years old, having been established in April 1972 and having a "fleet" of "a 2-seat Piper Cherokee 140, a 6-seat Cherokee Six, a 4-seat Cherokee Arrow, and a 6-seat Piper Seneca."  In 1973 the Seneca was replaced with a 9-seat Piper Navajo Chieftan.  1974 was a difficult year, despite Sky West's growth.  1975 was described as "efforts fail to sell or even give away SkyWest, losses reach $300,000" and "{r}eorganization takes place by cutting overhead costs and personnel, and selling 3 aircraft and the Moab FBO."  1976, the year of the incident described above, was described as: "First profitable year!  Net income is $17,097."  So SkyWest was struggling during this period.  And the notes above show that their inventory of aircraft experience had three separate engine failures within a five-week span, one of which was the incided described here.  Given these circumstances, would there have been an incentive for SkyWest to downplay the seriousness of the incident in its report to the CAB?  We report, you decide!

8. Overall, this does not seem like much of an indictment against Pres. Nelson.

Thanks,

-Smac

I sure hope nobody checks on some of the stories I have embellished a little on.   They still illustrated the point I was making, just like the parables of Jesus, which He made up.
 

Edited July 28, 2021 by JAHS

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This board calls itself the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. My experience has been closer to the "Bang Your Head Against a Thick Brick Wall Board" 

I can't help it if we've re-hashed, many times over, the criticisms you and others want to bring up.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Everyone already knows all of the answers to any questions or thought long before the question can even be shared to be discussed or begin a dialogue on. 

I don't feel we should apologize for having previously considered, studied, and reached an informed conclusion about criticisms that have been hashed and re-hashed.  If and when there is something new and substantive to consider, I'm happy to give it a go.

By way of example, a while back there was some discussion about a BYU undergrad who felt she had uncovered a "smoking gun" in terms of Joseph Smith's purported reliance on a biblical commentary.  We discussed it quite a bit.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It's a frustrating place to spend my time and I've often walked away just shaking my head. Since leaving a week ago,  I've found it much more enjoyable and a lot less painful having bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails just before I have them forcibly removed with pair of rusty plyers.  Life is so much better now.

Online forums can be frustrating.  It happens.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So honestly? What's the point? Everyone's minds are already made up even before the questions have been asked.

In broad strokes?  Yes.  

I have been married to my wife for nearly 25 years.  At this point I feel comfortable in saying that my mind is "made up" about her.  I have spent a lot of time with her.  I have communicated with her on a daily basis for a quarter century.  We are raising six children together.  We have experienced health problems, financial problems, employment problems, and also many blessings and victories.  We've been through thick and thin together.  I have seen her at her best (pretty much all of the time), at her worst, and in between.  So yes, my mind is made up about her.  And my conclusions are informed by actual knowledge and experience.

Similarly, I have been a member of the Church all my life.  I've had good and bad experiences in it.  Struggles and blessings.  Challenges and comforts.  I have studied the doctrines and the history a lot.  I served a mission.  I have served in many callings since then.  I have been on this board since 2004 and have racked up nearly 13,000 posts discussing / dissecting / scrutinizing / celebrating / defending the Church.  My mind is made up about it, and my conclusions are informed by actual knowledge and experience.

I am open to further information about the Church.  If I wanted an echo chamber, if I only wanted to have my biases confirmed, I sure would not come to this board. 

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Mr Smac, even though he has correctly presented the facts, has already concluded that Nelson is not embellishing the very facts that he himself confirmed. 

Are you sure?  In a previous post I specifically said: "Is it possible that Pres. Nelson has embellished the account?  Yes."

How, then, can you say that I have concluded that Pres. Nelson is "not embellishing?"

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

He's craved out room for Nelson to have been telling the truth despite the facts of that day on the plane not aliening up to what Nelson claimed took place. 

I did?

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It is my opinion that Pres. Nelson is embellishing a mechanical malfunction on his plane to make it a faith promoting story. 

Okay.  And I have acknowledged, and acknowledge again, that this is a possibility.

But is it also possible that there are alternative, or additional, considerations in play?  That the CAB report was incomplete or inaccurate?  That the CAB report was likely not based on CAB/NTSB investigation?  That SkyWest may have had an incentive to downplay the seriousness of the incident?

I have acknowledged the possibility that aligns with your opinion/expectations.  Are you willing to consider possibilities that do not?

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I would be more than happy to be shown to be wrong in my conclusion.

A conclusion about an incident that happened 45 years ago? 

A conclusion based on a few lines in a CAB report? 

A report that was almost certainly hearsay? 

A report based on information given by a tiny and financially struggling airline, that may have had an incentive to downplay the seriousness of the incident when reporting it to the CAB? 

A report about an engine failure on an airplane that had been preceded by another failure a few weeks before, and was followed by another one a few weeks after? 

A report that seems to contradict itself (it notes that \"{i}nvestigation revealed cylinder base studs {in the engine} sheered" but, on the other, that there was "{n}o damage to aircraft")?

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Which is why I came here to ask that someone with this kind of background might take up the gantlet and find the woman or pilot on that plane.

Why?  It's your story.  It's your attempt to disparage Pres. Nelson's character.  Why is it our obligation to chase down these things?  

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But instead I get nothing but push back, personal attacks and the same old MD&D crap.  So no I've had enough thank you very much.

I do think the personal attacks on you were inappropriate, and I ask the board folks here to ease up.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the controversy seems to center on purported discrepancies between Pres. Nelson's various retellings of the story and the summary listed in the Civil Aeronautics Board ("CAB") record.  A few thoughts:

1. Unlike Paul H. Dunn's stories, the story about the airplane mishap was not particularly self-aggrandizing.  Pres. Nelson didn't do anything heroic.  He was calm in the face of death.

2. Unlike Paul H. Dunn's stories, the story about the airplain mishap did not involve any overtly miraculous claim or component.  

3. Paul H. Dunn publicly retracted and apologized for his embellishments/falsehoods.  

4. The purported embellishments, assuming they exist, do not seem to be "material" (as in "having real importance or great consequences").  The incident really did seem to have happened.  The worst possible reading was that engine did not "explode," and there was no "fire."  As to the former, "explode" can, I suppose, mean different things to different people.  And we are discussing an event that happened 45 years ago.  And the incident did result in at least "sheared" cylinder base studs.  That sounds . . . serious.  

5. Cinepro raises some good points about the nature of memory.  

6. The possibility of inaccuracy and/or omissions in the CAB record deserves some consideration.  Did the CAB have a representative on the ground in Delta when the flight landed?  How did it get the information about what had happened?  Who provided the information?  Was there an actual investigation?  Was the NTSB involved?  Apparently not.  The investigative function of the CAB, later abolished in 1985, was apparently taken over by the NTSB in 1967.  Even today, the NTSB - tasked with air accident investigation duties - has a grand total of 400 employees and four offices (Anchorage, Federal Way (Washington), Denver and Ashburn (Virginia).  So exactly how rigorous was the investigation of the 1976 incident? 

7. And about about SkyWest Airlines?  It was just over four years old, having been established in April 1972 and having a "fleet" of "a 2-seat Piper Cherokee 140, a 6-seat Cherokee Six, a 4-seat Cherokee Arrow, and a 6-seat Piper Seneca."  In 1973 the Seneca was replaced with a 9-seat Piper Navajo Chieftan.  1974 was a difficult year, despite Sky West's growth.  1975 was described as "efforts fail to sell or even give away SkyWest, losses reach $300,000" and "{r}eorganization takes place by cutting overhead costs and personnel, and selling 3 aircraft and the Moab FBO."  1976, the year of the incident described above, was described as: "First profitable year!  Net income is $17,097."  So SkyWest was struggling during this period.  And the notes above show that their inventory of aircraft experience had three separate engine failures within a five-week span, one of which was the incided described here.  Given these circumstances, would there have been an incentive for SkyWest to downplay the seriousness of the incident in its report to the CAB?  We report, you decide!

8. Overall, this does not seem like much of an indictment against Pres. Nelson.  If anything, it shows that the critics of the Church are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in looking for things to criticize about Pres. Nelson.  Splinters under the fingernails and everything.

Thanks,

-Smac

Though well reasoned, I suspect any refutation won't be forthcoming if the history of this thread is any indication. Easier to with the wave of a hand accuse you of 'already conclud[ing] that Nelson is not embellishing' as though those with an opposing view aren't! Ha! And of course the difference with them is that they are in possession of the facts, don't you know, and you, well you're simply doing what lawyers do... It must be good to be them. ;o

Edited July 29, 2021 by Vanguard

[smac97]

18 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Love your topics Fair Dinkum. 
The best place with all of the information, facts, and evidences is found on this podcast.  Radio Free Mormon lays it all out like a talented defense attorney.  The evidence is quite clear that Pres. Nelson has been fabricating faith promoting stories for some time much like Paul H. Dunn.

"A talented defense attorney" would not need two hours to "lay it all out."

I skimmed through it (1.75 speed, skipping through the smarm, the mockery, etc.).  Lots of sheer skepticism, as opposed to arms-length analysis. 

For example, they say they doubt Pres. Nelson would have been calm and experienced his "life flashing before him" in the heat of the moment.  This is "evidence?"  This is "a talented defense attorney" examining evidence and providing legal analysis and reasoning?

They spend a lot of time critiquing Pres. Nelson's statement that the pilot re-started the left engine, saying that there would not have been any reason for it to be turned off (such that it needed to be turned on again).  Oh, brother.  How is this relevant?  How is it probative?

Bill Reel faults Pres. Nelson for not comforting the distraught woman.  "Why didn't he comfort the lady across the aisle?  Why didn't he reach out and put his hand on her and try to calm her down?"  Consig responds: "In the first place, this does happen very quickly, apparently.  And in the second place, he's busy enjoying the movie of his life."  Reel laughs, and Consig continues: "I mean, what a distraction!  'I'm trying to watch the movie of my life, and you're over here screaming?'"  This goes on for a bit.  This is neither clever, nor classy, nor substantively analytical.  

They speculate that the woman in the plane was part of Pres. Nelson's entourage (I didn't know that the 1970s-era General Sunday School President had a posse with him wherever he goes), and that he probably knew her.  They admit this is speculation, but it furthers their characterization of Pres. Nelson as being uncaring and indifferent.  Again, this is not substantive.  A good attorney would not try to pass off rank speculation, intended to cast the other person in the worst possible light, as probative or relevant.  It's just a cheap shot.  And Bill Reel's incessant giggling and cheerleading is becoming tiresome.

They continue to parse things out.  Still not much in the way of substance.

Bill Reel notes that Pres. Nelson was a general authority in at the time (1976).  He wasn't.  He was the General Sunday School President.

Consig talks about how if the incident had been classified as an emergency "it should show up in NTSB records," but then admits that the records "were a bit spotty."   Yes.  The records are spotty.  And the events happened 45 years ago.  So the chances of us coming up with a pristinely accurate understanding of the event now, in 2021, seem low.

He then points to a message board discussion (now 85 pages long) where they were trying to address this "absence of evidence."  As an aside, he notes "It's kind of like archaeology of the Book of Mormon in the New World.  There's an absence of evidence, right?"  So the cheap shots and mockery continue. 

He then brings up the CAB report, which he calls "the jackpot."  He's referring to this:

Quote

Second incidence occurred Nov. 11, 1976 involving Piper PA 31 N74985. Pilot experienced rough engine on scheduled flight between Salt Lake City and St. George. 3 passengers on board. Engine was feathered and precautionary landing made at Delta, Utah, per instructions in company manual. Investigation revealed cylinder base studs sheered. As result of occurrence Sky West change maintenance procedures by checking torque studs at each 100 hour inspection. No damage to aircraft. No injuries to crew or passengers.

78 words from a governmental record 45 years ago is, for "a talented defense attorney" like Consig, a "jackpot?"  An evidentiary smoking gun?  

Bill Reel then goes on to speculate further: "And this should exist.  If an airplane has an incident in the sky, there are records that are mandatory to be kept."  Right.  Because everyone everywhere follows every law punctiliously.  So it is Bill Reel's assumptions, rather than the evidence, that are front and center.

Bill Reel goes on to talk about how the "FFA" (presumably he's referring to the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration) has rules and reporting requirements, and that "the burden of proof, at this point, would be on the Church or somebody else defending it, to give us the FFA {FAA} report for the incident."

And on and on.  Long on self-congratulation, long on conclusory denunciations, long on chuckling at their own jokes.  Very little substantive analysis.

So no, there is not much here that could be attributed to "a talented defense attorney." 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2021 by smac97

[JustAnAustralian]

The engine stopped. He thought he was going to die. He was ok with that. The engine started again.

There was no praying to get the engine to start. There was no "I knew I would be protected". There was no missionary experience.

Hardly a grand faith promoting story.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"A talented defense attorney" would not need two hours to "lay it all out."

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you watched it?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I didn't find fault with Pres Nelson, I brought to the attention of the members of this board that Houston we have a problem.  Don't shoot the messenger for delivering the message

Why would investigations and counterinvestigations into his credibility be a problem?

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is it possible that Sky West, a small regional airline, having had their inventory of aircraft experience three separate engine failures within a five-week span, might have undersold the severity of the incidents in their official reports to the Civil Aeronautics Board?  Also yes.

Is there perhaps something of a discrepancy in the CAB report, which states, on the one hand, that "{i}nvestigation revealed cylinder base studs sheered" but, on the other, that there was "{n}o damage to aircraft"?  Also yes.

Your readings on these two items are incorrect. 

As to the first, the CAB report was prepared by the CAB summarizing the results of an FAA investigation, not self-reporting by SkyWest.

As to the second, there is a distinction in the reporting of aviation incidents between the aircraft proper and the engines.  A damaged engine, by itself, would not be considered damage to the aircraft.  The CAB report makes clear that all damage in these incidents was confined to the engine.

Edited July 29, 2021 by ttribe

[2BizE]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"A talented defense attorney" would not need two hours to "lay it all out."

Thanks,

-Smac

He lays it out nicely for the slow learners like some of us. One important thing in this podcast/YouTube discussion is the report on the incident from the FAA/investigatory body is presented and discussed.  Because this was a commercial flight, a thorough internal and federal investigation was conducted. 
In short, one engine started to operate a bit rough, the engine was feathered back, the pilot made a precautionary landing in Delta per training/policy. No damage to the aircraft. 
 

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This board calls itself the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. My experience has been closer to the "Bang Your Head Against a Thick Brick Wall Board"  Everyone already knows all of the answers to any questions or thought long before the question can even be shared to be discussed or begin a dialogue on.  It's a frustrating place to spend my time and I've often walked away just shaking my head. Since leaving a week ago,  I've found it much more enjoyable and a lot less painful having bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails just before I have them forcibly removed with pair of rusty plyers.  Life is so much better now.

So honestly? What's the point?

Oh, this is easy, and obvious.   The people involved in the battle almost never budge a single dang inch in any debate.   However, the lurkers are absolutely open to the notions being argued back and forth, the lurkers will make up their minds based on what they perceive is the best argument, and the lurkers are the reason why the debate is important.

This thread, for instance: 

Just look at that view count!  Hundreds upon hundreds of people witnessed you show up with your big important point.  Hundreds watched Smac's thorough and relevant rebuttal.  Hundreds watched your absolute lack of response beyond getting frustrated because nobody is discussing or dialoguing with you.

Hundreds! Of! People! watched you do a dramatic exit, including the emotional crescendo of deleting your opening post.  Honestly friend, how many of them do you think SHOULD have been persuaded by your display?

[helix]

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. 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by helix

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

As someone who understands (just a little) how memory works, I don't find these discoveries about the stories to be surprising or disturbing. I find them to be expected. In fact, I would be more surprised if objective investigation shows the memories to be absolutely accurate. That would be unexpected!

You may find the discussion around the Brian Williams situation (the NBC news anchor who had his career destroyed over an inaccurate memory)to be relevant:
 

Scientists explain how Brian Williams’ memory may have failed him

 

The science behind Brian Williams’s mortifying memory flub

Very true! A friend of my husband and I's father apparently wrote out his history for his family to read and our friend thinks his dad either made up a bunch or had a faulty memory. 

[The Nehor]

The comparison to Paul H. Dunn is out there. The contention is that some details changed here. The Paul H. Dunn stories were generally wholesale fabrications.