Jump to content

The Paul H Dunn-ing of President Nelson


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
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 by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

EJ3qG3OUcAEeqvA.jpg

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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…

 

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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 by Calm
Link to comment
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 by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...