Scientists and Engineers Who Thought Heavier Than Air Flying Machines Were Impossible

[TjW]

Deep, very deep.


Depends on the content of the dream. Some dreams are time-specific, while others aren't.

If someone had forecast a plane crash three hundred years ago, that would have been very impressive.

Oh, I'm sure someone could look through Nostradamus's quatrains and retrofit something. It's probably already been done.

But what is your conclusion regarding the timing of Booth's dreams and the crash of AA Flight 191 -- coincidence?

Yep. Coincidence. Airplanes crash. This one happened to crash after someone had a bad dream.

There's a big difference between calling the FAA and saying: "I think a plane is going to crash somewhere" and what the Playboy article says was a specific prediction of the crash of an American Airlines DC-10 or similar plane that was not making the noise it should have before banking and nose-diving into a field.

And there's a big difference between a description that is dissimilar enough to a DC-10 that the person he described it to thought it was a 737, and a description that is detailed enough to actually prevent an accident.
The registration number is visible. Why not report that? Something like N189AA would be completely unambiguous.

 

[bruto]

There's a big difference between calling the FAA and saying: "I think a plane is going to crash somewhere" and what the Playboy article says was a specific prediction of the crash of an American Airlines DC-10 or similar plane that was not making the noise it should have before banking and nose-diving into a field.

Yes, of course, but that does not answer the question of how many calls the FAA might have received, or might receive regularly, that are of a similar type.

 

[fls]

While it would be nice to have the actual notes, the fact that Booth called the FAA three days before the crash and told them about his dream sets this story apart from most others.

But not in a way that relates to whether premonitions are real. That he called probably relates to his character, circumstances, and the quality of the dreams. But we don't know that any of those things, in particular the quality of the dreams, depend upon real premonitions. That is, even recognizing that he had these dreams does not inexorably lead you to conclude any particular cause. Especially a cause that is otherwise unsupported by evidence.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

And there's a big difference between a description that is dissimilar enough to a DC-10 that the person he described it to thought it was a 737

Who thought the plane Booth described was a 737? According to the Playboy account, in Booth's dream: "I look up in the air and there's an American Airlines jet, a great big thing . . . " Doesn't that sound more like a DC-10 than a 737?

, and a description that is detailed enough to actually prevent an accident. The registration number is visible. Why not report that? Something like N189AA would be completely unambiguous.

If Booth had been that specific, the accident probably would have been avoided. But, perhaps, the accident was unavoidable.

 

[Rodney]

But not in a way that relates to whether premonitions are real. That he called probably relates to his character, circumstances, and the quality of the dreams.

Do you have any evidence that Booth had ever called the FAA or anyone else with a premonition prior to May 22, 1979?

But we don't know that any of those things, in particular the quality of the dreams, depend upon real premonitions. That is, even recognizing that he had these dreams does not inexorably lead you to conclude any particular cause. Especially a cause that is otherwise unsupported by evidence.

Linda

So what would it take to convince you that premonitory dreams occur?

 

[TjW]

Who thought the plane Booth described was a 737? According to the Playboy account, in Booth's dream: "I look up in the air and there's an American Airlines jet, a great big thing . . . " Doesn't that sound more like a DC-10 than a 737?

You may have a strong feeling to do or say something – even something that seems illogical at the time – which later turns out to be correct course of action. 10 nights in a row, Cincinnati office worker David Booth had nightmares of an American airlines jet flipping over and crashing down in a huge fireball. Every night booth woke up crying. The FAA took his dreams seriously and tried unsuccessfully to identify the particular jet – figuring it was either a Boeing 727 or a DC 10 from Booth’s description. Booth never had the nightmares again after May 25, 1979. On that day, actress Lindsay Wagner, TV’s Bionic Woman, had a strong negative premonition as she and her mother were about the board an American Airlines DC-10, Flight 191, at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. Wagner canceled the pair’s reservations. Seconds after takeoff, one of the jet’s engines broke off, the jet flipped over, and crashed, killing all 273 aboard in a horrible fireball.

My mistake; a 727 rather than a 737. Still, not specific enough to actually identify one particular type.
Also, the article (and probably people in general) seem to think the FAA is a monolithic block. It isn't. Ask two different Flight Service District Offices the same question and you're likely to get five different answers.
I hate to admit it, but there are woo pilots and administrators. Booth managed to get in touch with one. Am I shocked? No. Am I surprised that Playboy did an article on it? No. They lost an editor and a regular contributor in that crash. Adding a psychic angle to it made a good story.

If Booth had been that specific, the accident probably would have been avoided. But, perhaps, the accident was unavoidable.

Possibly, though keeping the damn engine on the wing would be a good start.

 

[fls]

Do you have any evidence that Booth had ever called the FAA or anyone else with a premonition prior to May 22, 1979?

What does that have to do with anything, unless we already know that uncommon experiences cannot be caused by natural processes?

So what would it take to convince you that premonitory dreams occur?

A prospective, rather than retrospective, observation, and observations that are so specific as to make a match highly improbable would be a start.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

My mistake; a 727 rather than a 737. Still, not specific enough to actually identify one particular type.
Also, the article (and probably people in general) seem to think the FAA is a monolithic block. It isn't. Ask two different Flight Service District Offices the same question and you're likely to get five different answers.
I hate to admit it, but there are woo pilots and administrators. Booth managed to get in touch with one. Am I shocked? No. Am I surprised that Playboy did an article on it? No. They lost an editor and a regular contributor in that crash. Adding a psychic angle to it made a good story.

I'll give you a response in a new thread titled "Premonitions of Disasters" on the General Skepticism and the Paranormal Forum.

 

[Don At Work]

How to quote mine, 101:

The problem with your analogy, in my opinion, is that the paranormal does not operate ...