The Paul H Dunn-ing of President Nelson

[DBMormon]

And don't forget it was a precautionary landing.  This simply wasn't an emergency

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

The most rational logical answer is the one that requires the least conjecture and allowances.  If the flight happened as Rusty insinuates, there would be reports available to the public for multiple reasons.  Also the chance there is a flight the day earlier matching the essential flight path details that had issues and chose to land would be extremely odd.  These two facts along with the other data make it the most rational answer is that Rusty deeply embellished his story.  Sadly along with the other stories which also are seemingly embellished significantly, it appears Rusty has a propensity for deceiving his audience.  I'm curious exactly what his role was on the medical machine.  Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new.  Remember Prophets don't lie according to Nelson himself.  Hence by his own standard, he isn't a prophet.

Wrong.

[cacheman]

27 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I'm curious exactly what his role was on the medical machine.  Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new.

He was an MD before he went to Minnesota to pursue a PhD.  As a PhD student, he was part of Clarence Dennis' team that built the heart-lung machine.  The fact that he is listed as a co-author on the publications discussing the development of the machine indicates that Dr. Dennis and other authors felt his contributions were significant enough to be included.  I don't know what his specific role was within the team, but it's common for graduate students (PhD candidates in particular) to conduct much, if not most of the day-to-day work.  Whatever the case, a project like that is by necessity a team project and every member of the team deserves credit. 

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

The most rational logical answer is the one that requires the least conjecture and allowances.  If the flight happened as Rusty insinuates, there would be reports available to the public for multiple reasons.  Also the chance there is a flight the day earlier matching the essential flight path details that had issues and chose to land would be extremely odd.  These two facts along with the other data make it the most rational answer is that Rusty deeply embellished his story.  Sadly along with the other stories which also are seemingly embellished significantly, it appears Rusty has a propensity for deceiving his audience.  I'm curious exactly what his role was on the medical machine.  Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new.  Remember Prophets don't lie according to Nelson himself.  Hence by his own standard, he isn't a prophet.

Rusty?

Did I wander back into the 7th grade again somehow? 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Rusty?

Did I wander back into the 7th grade again somehow? 

I just reported it as a board violation, but feel free to join me if you haven’t yet done so. 

[Kenngo1969]

You know, I'm sorry, but even if I thought the critics were right, and even if I shared their antipathy toward the Brethren, and even if I thought that President Nelson, Elder Holland, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, were veritable personifications of mendacity itself, I don't think I could bring myself to engage in the sort of vituperation that seems to be (and to become, once they become disaffected) their stock in trade.   

  

Edited August 5, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

The most rational logical answer is the one that requires the least conjecture and allowances.  If the flight happened as Rusty insinuates, there would be reports available to the public for multiple reasons.  Also the chance there is a flight the day earlier matching the essential flight path details that had issues and chose to land would be extremely odd.  These two facts along with the other data make it the most rational answer is that Rusty deeply embellished his story.  Sadly along with the other stories which also are seemingly embellished significantly, it appears Rusty has a propensity for deceiving his audience.  I'm curious exactly what his role was on the medical machine.  Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new.  Remember Prophets don't lie according to Nelson himself.  Hence by his own standard, he isn't a prophet.

It's customary when you are a guest in someone else's home, to not pee on the carpet.  Referring to President Nelson as Rusty is offensive to many on this board.  I know that I probably push the boundaries more than most.  But not even I would go this far.  

EDIT to add: If I could make a small recommendation.  It may be time for you to update or change your avatar,  Clearly you no longer "Lead with Faith"

Edited August 4, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[smac97]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

The most rational logical answer is the one that requires the least conjecture and allowances.

There sure was a lot of "conjecture and allowances" in your chucklefest with Consig.

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

If the flight happened as Rusty insinuates, there would be reports available to the public for multiple reasons. 

"There would be reports available..." = "conjecture and allowances."

And surely you realize that you come across as less credible when you can't even bring yourself to refrain from insulting Pres. Nelson to our faces.

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Also the chance there is a flight the day earlier matching the essential flight path details that had issues and chose to land would be extremely odd. 

I think there's a consensus that the 11/12/76 event in the CAB report corresponds to the story told by Pres. Nelson.

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

These two facts along with the other data make it the most rational answer is that Rusty deeply embellished his story. 

"Facts."  Oh.

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Sadly along with the other stories which also are seemingly embellished significantly, it appears Rusty has a propensity for deceiving his audience. 

Denigrating Pres. Nelson over and over is not helping your credibility.  You just come across as a poseur.  A provocateur.  A cheapshot artist.

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I'm curious exactly what his role was on the medical machine. 

I doubt that.

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Rumor is

"Rumor is..." = "conjecture and allowances."

Sheesh.  You are repeatedly violating the rule you laid out in the first sentence.  Kinda hard to take you seriously when you behave like this.

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new. 

But . . . your "curiosity!"  No need to actually do even a little bit of investigation and research for folks like you, eh?  Not when you can rely on "rumor."

Meanwhile, per Wikipedia Pres. Nelson "received a Ph.D. from Minnesota in 1954 for his research contributions" to the heart-lung machine.

His PhD dissertation: "Russell M. Nelson, 'Metabolic Effects of Paracolon Bacteremia,' Annals of Surgery 134, no. 5 (1951): 885–96; Condie, Russell M. Nelson."  The actual text of the dissertation is hosted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information here.  It was cited by at least two other medical articles in the 50s:

Quote

Experimental Approach to Visual Intracardiac Surgery, Using an Extracorporeal Circulation

C. E. Drew, P. Cliffe, C. F. Scurr, D. M. Forrest, D. J. Pearce, P. A. King, H. M. T. Coles, V. M. Leveaux, Joan F. Zilva

Br Med J. 1957 Dec 7; 2(5057): 1323–1329. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5057.1323

PMCID: 

PMC1963079

Summary Page Browse PDF–1.8MCite

 

A Comparison of Intra-Arterial and Intravenous Transfusion in Normal Dogs and in Dogs with Experimental Myocardial Infarction

Lawrence G. Hampson, Henry J. Scott, Fraser N. Gurd

Ann Surg. 1954 Jul; 140(1): 56–66. doi: 10.1097/00000658-195407000-00005

PMCID: 

PMC1609614

Summary Page Browse PDF–1.3MCite

He also co-authored an Annals of Surgery article: Development of a Pump-oxygenator to Replace the Heart and Lungs: An Apparatus Applicable to Human Patients and Application to One Case

This article has in turn been cited in at least 27 other medical articles.

More details from the University of Utah:

Quote

Nelson's interest in studying the human heart became a passion after seeing an early experimental version of the heart-lung bypass machine during his residency and Ph.D. studies at the University of Minnesota. 

"In 1948, I helped build the first machine ever to sustain the life of a dog for 30 minutes," said Nelson. 

When the machine was ready to use on human patients, it couldn't be moved due to its size. 

So Nelson and his colleagues began again, creating the first heart-lung bypass machine used for the first open heart operation performed on a human being in March, 1951. 

"The patient was a very complicated case and did not survive the surgery," said Nelson. 

But this brought Nelson and his colleagues to a whole new level of learning. 

"What do you do once you can get inside the beating heart," asked Nelson. "This was a whole new chapter for us." 

Nelson returned to the University of Utah in 1955 as an assistant professor of surgery and the director of the Thoracic Surgery Residency Program. 

In Utah, he developed his own updated version of the heart-lung bypass machine. 

His machine was used during the first open heart operation in Utah on November 9, 1955 at Salt lake General Hospital. Patient Vernell Worthen had an atrial septal defect and lived for many years after the surgery. 

"Our machine got a little better," said Nelson. "We finally knew what we had to have, and at that point got a professional machine company to create the device." 

Nelson shared this knowledge and technology across the world. In 1980, he trained heart surgeons at three universities in China, and it was there that he performed his last open heart surgery in 1985. 

These are excerpts from the first few returns of a Google search.  I suspect there's a lot more we could learn about Pres. Nelson's role in the development of the machine.

Meanwhile, here we have you, calling him "Rusty" and passing on "rumor."  Perhaps you will understand why people like me find it difficult to take people like you seriously.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 4, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

And don't forget it was a precautionary landing.  This simply wasn't an emergency

As I have noted previously, it seems that the a "precautionary" landing is often treated as a subset of "emergency" landings.  See, e.g., this website, and Wikipedia, and here.

If this is the apex of your effort to smear and disparage a good man, then it's pretty weak tea.  Paltry, even.  Pathetic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

And don't forget it was a precautionary landing.  This simply wasn't an emergency

To me, this sounds like someone sitting back and smugly saying, "And don't forget it was a cow. This simply wasn't a mammal."

Sorry, but a precautionary landing is a kind of emergency landing.

This is true in both a technical sense as outlined in @smac97's post here, which you clearly haven't bothered to read, and in a conversational sense as well.

If you are flying in an airplane when one of the engines goes out and you have to land early, that's an emergency landing. Plain and simple.

 

[halconero]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new.

Excuse me, saddling the RAs and PhD students with mundane tasks associated with research is a time-honoured tradition.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It's customary when you are a guest in someone else's home, to not pee on the carpet.  Referring to President Nelson as Rusty is offensive to many on this board.  I know that I probably push the boundaries more than most.  But not even I would go this far.  

Bill (Reel) has racked up 4,500+ posts on this board.  He knows exactly what he is doing.  He's long on taunts and insults and diatribes, and pretty short on substantive analysis, decorum, common courtesy and basic respect.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 4, 2021 by smac97

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bill (Reel) has racked up 4,500+ posts on this board.  He knows exactly what he is doing.  He's long on taunts and insults and diatribes, and pretty short on substantive analysis, decorum, common courtesy and basic respect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I'm curious exactly what his role was on the medical machine.  Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new.  Remember Prophets don't lie according to Nelson himself.  Hence by his own standard, he isn't a prophet.

For one so critical of unreliable stories, it seems strange that you are so willing to spread such ridiculous gossip based on "rumors" from the dark corners of the web.  Such integrity! 

He was completing his residency in Minnesota when he was part of a research team led by Clarence Dennis. 

Quote

Nelson’s own research focused on infectious complications of pump oxygenator use that had to be resolved before a trial in humans would ever be feasible

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4582&context=byusq

He was not some lab tech assistant who's sole role was sanitizing the machine.  His role was critical in the development and safe use of the machine.  It could not have even made to human trials without his research. 

Dr. Clarence Dennis included President Nelson on his team when first using the machine and performing the first open heart surgery.

Quote

In 1951, the first attempt with CPB was attempted on humans with Dennis at the helm,[3] along with Dwight S. Spreng Jr., George E. Nelson, Russell M. Nelson, John V. Thomas, Walter Phillip Eder, and Richard L. Varco [de].[4] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Dennis

Ya, I don't think he was just some surge tech assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine! 

Later, President Nelson become the first surgeon in Utah to perform open heart surgery, thanks in part to the research he performed in developing the machine.  He also invented and was the first to perform a tricuspid valve annuloplasty.  He was revolutionary in his field.

 

 

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

 The most rational logical answer is the one that requires the least conjecture and allowances. If the flight happened as Rusty insinuates, there would be reports available to the public for multiple reasons.  Also the chance there is a flight the day earlier matching the essential flight path details that had issues and chose to land would be extremely odd.  These two facts along with the other data make it the most rational answer is that Rusty deeply embellished his story.  Sadly along with the other stories which also are seemingly embellished significantly, it appears Rusty has a propensity for deceiving his audience.  I'm curious exactly what his role was on the medical machine.  Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new.  Remember Prophets don't lie according to Nelson himself.  Hence by his own standard, he isn't a prophet.

I'm gonna comment on a few things. 

Quote

The most rational logical answer is the one that requires the least conjecture and allowances.

Ah, Occam's Razor. First, the intuitive validity of Occam's Razor as an axiomatic rule of logic is actually in question. For an extremely shallow but broad introduction, see this Britannica blurb: https://www.britannica.com/story/is-occams-razor-always-true

The second objection is that you have horridly abused it. Occam's Razor does not in fact cut out conjecture and allowances, it cuts out the multiplication of entities. William of Ockham's original phrase is pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity"), or as it has otherwise been rendered, "entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." Note that "necessity" is defined by not only the rules of logic but also the rules of the discipline in question. In this case, historical inquiry requires that we seek a reconciliation between the available sources before declaring one or more of them fraudulent. Your hastiness to do just that means you are abusing Occam's Razor, claiming its authority without actually following it. 

Quote

If the flight happened as Rusty insinuates, there would be reports available to the public for multiple reasons.

Why? @cfi disagrees and on the face of it he seems to have more authority than you. Please back this contention up. 

Quote

Also the chance there is a flight the day earlier matching the essential flight path details that had issues and chose to land would be extremely odd. 

Do you mean to say "the chance is low?" Seems like you lost the thread of your statement in there. Also, another question: why?

Quote

Rumor is that he was a grad student assistant in charge of sanitizing the machine to prevent infection and he created nothing new. 

Your attitude towards conjecture appears rather flexible when it serves your interests.

That doesn't appear to bother you. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

OK, who on this forum said 'DBMormon' five times in front of a mirror???

[Bob Crockett]

On 7/30/2021 at 6:18 PM, Calm said:

If there is other evidence of poor memory, that definitely could be a factor. But I wouldn’t assume it just because of age. My memory started to deteriorate due to drugs, so who knows, it might improve if I get other options in ten or twenty years. 

DBMormon appeared on the same day Warlock reappeared.  Just saying. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

If the flight happened as Rusty insinuates, there would be reports available to the public for multiple reasons.

Would be interesting to find comparable incidents from the reports and see how many have other reports available to the public for multiple reasons.  You make the claim there will be some, going to do the work to prove it?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Such integrity! 

He still hasn’t edited even years later his ridiculous error that Bathsheba Smith was Hyrum Smith’s wife or spelled her name correctly even though it has been pointed out to him on this board multiple times. 
 

Quote

Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife, had in her possession…

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

He still hasn’t edited even years later his ridiculous error that Bathsheba Smith was Hyrum Smith’s wife or spelled her name correctly even though it has been pointed out to him on this board multiple times. 
 

 

Since DB’s very premise was false in the first place, wouldn’t correcting an incidental spelling and fact error be like straightening deck chairs on the Titanic?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since DB’s very premise was false in the first place, wouldn’t correcting an incidental spelling and fact error be like straightening deck chairs on the Titanic?

Yeah, he didn’t bother to look at or at least use the video clip of conference when the book he claims is not the same one is shown where it is rotated and one can tell the wear patterns vary from what side one is looking at and all the stills work for the same book….but it is an easy check.(and posted somewhere on this site in detail)  If he can’t be bothered with the least, probability he does a poor job on the more complicated stuff is vey high.

My memory is the spine is in relatively good shape while the corners are not, but it could be reversed.

Most old books in my experience, the various sides are worn down at different rates, so it didn’t surprise me from one angle not much wear and another quite a bit.

Edited August 5, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Yeah, he didn’t bother to look at or at least use the video clip of conference when the book he claims is not the same one is shown where it is rotated and one can tell the wear patterns vary from what side one is looking at and all the stills work for the same book….but it is an easy check.  If he can be bothered with the least, probability he does a poor job on the more complicated stuff is vey high.

My memory is the spine is in relatively good shape while the corners are not, but it could be reversed.

Most old books in my experience, the various sides are worn down at different rates, so it didn’t surprise me from one angle not much wear and another quite a bit.

He seems purposely oblivious to the fact that the Church came out (the very week of that general conference, as I recall) and clarified that there are two old Book of Mormon copies, each with the same dog-eared page, in the Church’s archives (hence, the confusion) and that the one Elder Holland held up has a reliable provenance as being the one that Hyrum read from before going to Carthage. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[cfi]

23 hours ago, DBMormon said:

And don't forget it was a precautionary landing.  This simply wasn't an emergency

Most of this has been covered by other posters, but to summarize...

A precautionary landing sits between a normal landing and a forced landing (see the references posted by smac). It is absolutely an emergency situation. Even if the pilot does not formally declare an emergency to ATC (air traffic control) on the radio, ATC treats it as an emergency. If you make a precautionary landing at a towered airport (one with an operating control tower), the emergency vehicles will roll to meet the airplane and will be prepared for the worst possible outcome.

Shutting down an engine in flight, and "feathering" the propeller, is absolutely an emergency. On a twin-engine airplane, losing one engine results in losing approximately 80% of your ability to climb (explaining why requires physics equations). Depending on airplane weight and engine power, one engine may not even maintain altitude. Lose an engine, you are going down. It's just a question of where, and whether or not you want it to be a "precautionary landing" or a crash.

An engine with a broken or separated cylinder is definitely "rough running", fire or not. It would be entirely appropriate for a pilot with a rough-running engine to declare and emergency with ATC.

The pitch of the propeller (the angle at which it "bites" into the air) is controlled by pressurized oil from the engine to the propeller hub (the cylinder to which the blades are attached). "Feathering" the propeller means turning it flat into the wind so it offers minimal drag, which helps the airplane stay aloft if that engine is shut down. This can be done intentionally from the cockpit, which causes the hub to "dump" the pressurized oil back into the engine. If the engine is broken and "dumping" oil overboard, it can no longer supply pressurized oil to the hub, and the propeller will feather on its own (via springs and counterweights normally opposed by the oil pressure). Two possible meanings of "dump oil" that can be confused, one is intentional, the other is not.

And since someone brought it up, my "credentials" (without sacrificing privacy):  Commercial Pilot and Certificated Flight Instructor ("cfi"). 35 years experience. Ratings include single-engine land, single-engine sea, multiengine land, multiengine sea, and instrument airplane. Chief Flight Instructor for a large flight school for about 10 years (responsible for overseeing safety, including the reporting of incidents to the FAA and NTSB). I volunteer with the FAA Safety Team and give public presentations on aviation safety. I own and maintain a twin-engine airplane (money pit!) that I use for training future airline pilots, and a single-engine airplane I fly for fun. All this is in addition to my full-time job as an engineer who designs certified systems for transport category (jet) aircraft.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, cfi said:

Most of this has been covered by other posters, but to summarize...

A precautionary landing sits between a normal landing and a forced landing (see the references posted by smac). It is absolutely an emergency situation. Even if the pilot does not formally declare an emergency to ATC (air traffic control) on the radio, ATC treats it as an emergency. If you make a precautionary landing at a towered airport (one with an operating control tower), the emergency vehicles will roll to meet the airplane and will be prepared for the worst possible outcome.

Shutting down an engine in flight, and "feathering" the propeller, is absolutely an emergency. On a twin-engine airplane, losing one engine results in losing approximately 80% of your ability to climb (explaining why requires physics equations). Depending on airplane weight and engine power, one engine may not even maintain altitude. Lose an engine, you are going down. It's just a question of where, and whether or not you want it to be a "precautionary landing" or a crash.

An engine with a broken or separated cylinder is definitely "rough running", fire or not. It would be entirely appropriate for a pilot with a rough-running engine to declare and emergency with ATC.

The pitch of the propeller (the angle at which it "bites" into the air) is controlled by pressurized oil from the engine to the propeller hub (the cylinder to which the blades are attached). "Feathering" the propeller means turning it flat into the wind so it offers minimal drag, which helps the airplane stay aloft if that engine is shut down. This can be done intentionally from the cockpit, which causes the hub to "dump" the pressurized oil back into the engine. If the engine is broken and "dumping" oil overboard, it can no longer supply pressurized oil to the hub, and the propeller will feather on its own (via springs and counterweights normally opposed by the oil pressure). Two possible meanings of "dump oil" that can be confused, one is intentional, the other is not.

And since someone brought it up, my "credentials" (without sacrificing privacy):  Commercial Pilot and Certificated Flight Instructor ("cfi"). 35 years experience. Ratings include single-engine land, single-engine sea, multiengine land, multiengine sea, and instrument airplane. Chief Flight Instructor for a large flight school for about 10 years (responsible for overseeing safety, including the reporting of incidents to the FAA and NTSB). I volunteer with the FAA Safety Team and give public presentations on aviation safety. I own and maintain a twin-engine airplane (money pit!) that I use for training future airline pilots, and a single-engine airplane I fly for fun. All this is in addition to my full-time job as an engineer who designs certified systems for transport category (jet) aircraft.

You need to get up to 25 posts so we can start rewarding you rep points for all of these amazing informational posts.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

OK, who on this forum said 'DBMormon' five times in front of a mirror???

Sorry, I didn’t think the experiment would add this way.