Thread: [Debate] Can people Spontaneously Combust?

a person on a social forum told me how his aunt actually survived spontaneous human combustion
he said how he was there when he saw the flames appear on her and how her doctor then concluded it was coming from her cells and he diagnosed her with spontaneous combustion.
he said she didnt smoke, swears on the truth, and ended the thing with 'science doesnt explain everything' ...

he then said something about reactive gasses and chemicals building up in her from a bad diet caused her to start flaming up from the inside.
I recall that he mentioned the production of reactive chemicals or gasses.
i tried to question him , but then he questioned me if i had a PhD like the doctor who diagnosed her to challenge the diagnosis of flames from the inside out .
what do you think?

it seems that SHC is actually a valid medical diagnosis if doctors have diagnosed patients with burning from the inside out, on multiple occasions

there was a man in the news recently, named frank baker. he says he survived shc and his doctor confirmed it was cellular in source. he was interviewed in a TV documentary a couple of months ago..

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

a person on a social forum told me how his aunt actually survived spontaneous human combustion.

People on forums say all sorts of things. Some are true and some aren't.

Reported as a sock puppet.

it seems that SHC is actually a valid medical diagnosis if doctors have diagnosed patients with burning from the inside out, on multiple occasions

Perhaps, before you get banned again, you could provide some references to peer-reviewed medical journals where these multiple cases have been reported.

well what if they are telling the truth ? they have no reason to lie
its good to keep an open mind
remember old scientific theory that the earth was expanding. now we know its plate tectonics
this thread is important for the victims of SHC as well as scientific research on this medical condition .
we should research into its possibility just as we research cancer.
we will never learn anything new if we shoo away new ideas.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

this thread is important

No, it's just another deluded muppet trolling. Or in fact the same deluded muppet. Reported as sock puppet.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

this thread is important .

It really isn't. Airing your unsubstantiated opinions (you never did provide any evidence, remember) on a forum will achieve nothing. Other than making you look very silly.

I am not deluded. i am asking a question to spark debate, if we ridicule everything we dont currently understand we will not get very far
look how long it took people to believe germs caused disease and not 'night air' and how long it took people to start using sanitizer. SHC may seem ridiculous but there is too much circumstantial evidence to dismiss it entirely.

No, there is no evidence, that is why it is dismissed. How far do you think we'll get believing every bit of bullshit from the arse end of the interweb? The scientific method works for a reason, if you have no evidence it is wrong by default until you present some. I could claim that SHC is caused by people breathing in unicorn farts. That's now on the internet and posted by a scientist, do you believe it?

You proved in your last incarnation before you were banned that you are as thick as two short planks and will not listen to reason. Hopefully this sock puppet will be banned soon anyway...

there is too much circumstantial evidence to dismiss shc entirely. there are many theories on how it could happen ranging from a chemical imbalance, to mitochondrial disease and nervous system defects.


this begs the question ; why would three unrelated people come up with the exact same experience, down to being assessed and diagnosed with spontaneous combustion? the witnesses cannot all be lying, knowingly risking public ridicule. it was never assumed shc was physically impossible and there are some very plausible theories out there in my opinion.

its more ignorant to call something impossible
when science can shock us in many ways

lets explore mysteries instead of shunning them.

it seems that SHC is actually a valid medical diagnosis if doctors have diagnosed patients with burning from the inside out, on multiple occasions

Perhaps, before you get banned again, you could provide some references to peer-reviewed medical journals where these multiple cases have been reported.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

No, there is no evidence, that is why it is dismissed. You proved in your last incarnation before you were banned that you are as thick as two short planks and will not listen to reason so I'm out. This sock puppet will be banned soon anyway...

Not entirely true, there are cases of spontaneous human combustion. However they could not be monitored in a lab while they combusted, so the phenomena has not been reported yet. Nor have they been able to create believable scenario's on which a person would spontaneously combust.

However you may refute the possibility, it may actually be true, we just don't know it yet.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

there is too much circumstantial evidence to dismiss shc entirely. there are many theories on how it could happen ranging from a chemical imbalance, to mitochondrial disease and nervous system defects.

There are good theories (see the Wikipedia page, for example). The "theories" that you mention are things you have made up.

Peer review or it didn't happen

Anecdotal evidence is useless.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Originally Posted by PhDemon

No, there is no evidence, that is why it is dismissed. You proved in your last incarnation before you were banned that you are as thick as two short planks and will not listen to reason so I'm out. This sock puppet will be banned soon anyway...

Not entirely true, there are cases of spontaneous human combustion. However they could not be monitored in a lab while they combusted, so the phenomena has not been reported yet. Nor have they been able to create believable scenario's on which a person would spontaneously combust.

However you may refute the possibility, it may actually be true, we just don't know it yet.

i agree completely. just because it hasnt been seen happening in a lab, doesnt make it not true or impossible! thanks!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

there is too much circumstantial evidence to dismiss shc entirely. there are many theories on how it could happen ranging from a chemical imbalance, to mitochondrial disease and nervous system defects.

There are good theories (see the Wikipedia page, for example). The "theories" that you mention are things you have made up.

actually wikipedia mentions popular theories on how shc can happen. the only theory that doesnt apply to these people is the wick effect. they suffered burns from the inside out so it must be a chemical reaction or defect of some kind.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Not entirely true, there are cases of spontaneous human combustion.

And they are pretty well explained. There is no great mystery here.

However they could not be monitored in a lab ...

This was one of the arguments "melissa" made before. It is silly.

Nor have they been able to create believable scenario's on which a person would spontaneously combust.

Yes they have. There is no mystery here. Move along people.

nope, the case of Frank Baker has not been explained at all by skeptics. the doctor however explained it after assessing him that it was spontaneous combustion, eg burning from fire from the inside out.
skeptics ignore all the cases where the wick effect cannot possibly explain the injuries, which originated INSIDE the body. the wick effect does not cause one to burn inside to outside.

Note to casual readers, this bullshit has all been debunked before, look in the Trash can (or maybe Pseudoscience) for threads started by Lady Gaia, it was shit then, it's shit now and the refutations in those threads still stand (the OP never provided any evidence or response to the refutations just kept repeating the same nonsense and eventually got banned for being a loopy dipshit), there is no point in rehashing them here as the OP is f*cking nuts but if you are interested in this phenomenon and want to know why this bullshit is bullshit look up the other threads.

you have NOT debunked this at all. sorry, but the case of Frank Baker is viewed as a genuine case of spontaneous human combustion. his burns originated INSIDE of him. the wick effect does NOT cause burns to originate IN the body, but the opposite! skeptics have avoided this case despite it having been in the press since October 2013, because it cannot be explained using external means.

Go back and read those origin al threads, it appears you have a short memory as well as being delusional.

I must admit i didn't look into it, other than looking a few episodes on Discovery channel. But i would like to put it in the bin "possible, but probably not happening".

The problem in my eyes would be how a person, which is 80% water, which is pretty uniform and divided, be able to combust, while there is no temperature for it to happen, humans barely burn to begin with, and there is not enough oxygen in us to show the kind of combustion that i would see as spontaneous.

Simply having your polyester sweater light up by touching a cigarette bud is not spontaneous combustion.

But a person can carry a static charge, and can stand in a room full of alcohol vapor, so yes, i would believe that this would be viewed as SHC, which in fact it is not.

static electricity would cause burns from the outside to inside, but frank baker said his doctor called him, and said; ''frank, this burnt from the inside out''.
the case of frank baker only came up around October last year. i figured it was something to discuss because it isn't until now that there's been a mention of SHC in the news that simply cannot be chalked up to an external source of heat.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Go back and read those origin al threads, it appears you have a short memory as well as being delusional.

...

my point remains. i cannot change the fact that the case of frank baker was submitted to news websites. i used to assume shc was a myth too but since the case of frank baker i am open-minded to it.

i studied frank baker in the documentary and i could find no inconsistencies in his testimony or any indicaton he's lying whatsoever. i watched the full documentary on him. i took psychology as a college course and i was surprised to find no indications whatsoever, down to the eye contact and tone of voice, which is usually the hardest to retain when you're lying to someone.

frank has a facebook page hes been posting on, asking for donations to fund a cure for shc, and nobody donated to his page. i looked up his address to find he sold his house november 27th which tells me frank needed money and quickly - whatever he needed money for, it was important. this does lend credibility to his story.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Go back and read those origin al threads, it appears you have a short memory as well as being delusional.

...

...

i dont know if i'm allowed to post facebook links on here so if anyone knows do send me a PM
he claims on his facebook this has happened to him four times, and the medical community is interested in his cells. he says he needs the money for testing, hospital stays, and funding for a preventitive treatment. he also gives his full address and contact information several times entirely in public. i don't agree on that, but he has also posted on a mirror article on his own case, saying he has the doctors statement to back him up to those who do not believe his story, where he then gives his contact info once again.

So claims on a Facebook page count as scientific evidence now

My four year old niece painted a picture of her pet cat flying, why won't the scientific community take feline flight seriously! It's posted in the well respected¹ journal of my sisters fridge door! There is as much evidence for this as you have posted in favour of SHC.

1. As respected as Facebook or yootube anyway

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

nope, the case of Frank Baker has not been explained at all by skeptics. the doctor however explained it after assessing him that it was spontaneous combustion, eg burning from fire from the inside out.

Please provide a reference to the peer reviewed literature where this explanation appears.

it's circumstantial evidence yes, but it makes you wonder why the address frank constantly gave now redirects to a house that was sold on November 27th, 2013. it does lend credibility to his story that he needs money for some reason more important than having a roof over his head.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

nope, the case of Frank Baker has not been explained at all by skeptics. the doctor however explained it after assessing him that it was spontaneous combustion, eg burning from fire from the inside out.

Please provide a reference to the peer reviewed literature where this explanation appears.

it was a diagnosis. not all diagnoses are available online and its often considered a privacy breach by many doctors. at least thats how it is where i live.
this happened in 1995 so not everything then was put online

Originally Posted by Zwolver

The problem in my eyes would be how a person, which is 80% water, which is pretty uniform and divided, be able to combust, while there is no temperature for it to happen, humans barely burn to begin with, and there is not enough oxygen in us to show the kind of combustion that i would see as spontaneous. .

There isn't much "spontaneous" about it. The fires are caused by the usual things, typically cigarettes. It is the body fat (which as you know is many in or close to the dermis) that is the fuel for the fire. The water content probably explains why the fire does not blaze, but burns very slowly.

you're ignoring my point. Frank said his doctor called and said ''frank, this burned from the inside out''

Nothing i know of can cause flame burns from the inside out

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

it's circumstantial evidence yes, but it makes you wonder why the address frank constantly gave now redirects to a house that was sold on November 27th, 2013. it does lend credibility to his story that he needs money for some reason more important than having a roof over his head.

It's evidence you are a gullible loon.

[QUOTE=Mellisa1990;546711it was a diagnosis. not all diagnoses are available online and its often considered a privacy breach by many doctors. [/QUOTE]

So how do you know about it? Is there any information from this unnamed doctor? Or just word of mouth and fairy stories shared by delusional and gullible idiots?

you're ignoring my point. Frank said his doctor called and said ''frank, this burned from the inside out''

Nothing i know of can cause flame burns from the inside out
IF frank was set alight by a cigarette, then a biopsy would show that the source of heat came from an external source.
the opposite was true in frank's case.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

you're ignoring my point. Frank said his doctor called and said ''frank, this burned from the inside out''

And you have provided no evidence to support that. Until you do, I will treat it with extreme scepticism.

Repeating this claim doesn't make it true, you have been asked, repeatedly, for the peer-reviewed paper you are taking this from and can't provide it. The conclusion is you are making it up or it is from a source even you are embarrassed to reveal.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

frank has a facebook page hes been posting on, asking for donations to fund a cure for shc, and nobody donated to his page. i looked up his address to find he sold his house november 27th which tells me frank needed money and quickly - whatever he needed money for, it was important. this does lend credibility to his story.

This appears to confirm my original hypothesis that this was just a money making scam that he had made up. Luckily not many people are stupid enough to fall for it.

is there something that makes you assume that SHC cannot happen?

What if frank is telling the truth? why would he lie about something like this, knowingly risking public ridicule? why not simply lie about being a war vet, or something the layman is more likely to accept. why would he sell his house after he didnt get donations? i doubt he wouldve sold his house for a prank. he said he needed money, why would he sell his house unless he needed money for something much more important than having a roof over his head?

just because it hasnt happened in a lab doesnt mean it cannot happen.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

frank has a facebook page hes been posting on, asking for donations to fund a cure for shc, and nobody donated to his page. i looked up his address to find he sold his house november 27th which tells me frank needed money and quickly - whatever he needed money for, it was important. this does lend credibility to his story.

This appears to confirm my original hypothesis that this was just a money making scam that he had made up. Luckily not many people are stupid enough to fall for it.

okay I just finished watching a later re-run of the show to see if more details were there.
at the end, the commentor admitted both willey and frank had refused a polygraph test
this would invoke suspicion but there are other reasons someone may refuse a polygraph test other than lying so we cant be 100% certain

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

you're ignoring my point. Frank said his doctor called and said ''frank, this burned from the inside out''

I used to work with someone who told me that the president had broken into his apartment to steal his secrets. Should I believe him as well? He had no reason to lie. (Apart form being insane.)

You have already provided evidence that Frank has a motivation to lie. So I am going with the simplest explanation : he is a con man; you are gullible.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

you're ignoring my point. Frank said his doctor called and said ''frank, this burned from the inside out''

You appear to be ignoring this point:

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Repeating this claim doesn't make it true, you have been asked, repeatedly, for the peer-reviewed paper you are taking this from and can't provide it. The conclusion is you are making it up or it is from a source even you are embarrassed to reveal.

Why would you do that, unless you are dishonest or incredibly dumb?

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

okay I just watched a later re-run of the show.

Wouldn't it be more constructive spending your time looking for evidence. Rather than looking at TV shows, which also have a strong motivation to lie to you.

the commentor said both willey and frank had refused a polygraph

So yet more evidence he is lying. But you choose to dismiss it. Because you are delusional.

i am not making it up. it was in the huffingtonpost online a few months ago. ''frank baker speaks of spontaneous combustion experience'' was the headline.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Repeating this claim doesn't make it true, you have been asked, repeatedly, for the peer-reviewed paper you are taking this from and can't provide it. The conclusion is you are making it up or it is from a source even you are embarrassed to reveal.

Originally Posted by some loon

i am not making it up. it was in the huffingtonpost online a few months ago. ''frank baker speaks of spontaneous combustion experience'' was the headline.

Not peer-reviewed, not science.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

is there something that makes you assume that SHC cannot happen?

Of course it happens. It is well understood. Why are you making up fairy stories about it? What is wrong with you?

What if frank is telling the truth?

What if aliens created the documentary to distract you from their invasion?

why would he lie about something like this

Attention. Money. Mental illness. A joke. And 100s of other possible reasons.

i am not making it up. it was in the huffingtonpost online a few months ago. ''frank baker speaks of spontaneous combustion experience'' was the headline.
im using the college computer and many sites are blocked so ill post a link when i get home
refusing a polygraph test isn't 100% evidence someone is lying
and many people ask for money to help cure their cancer , it doesnt mean they're conning people
especially since he decided to sell his house to get money
why sell your house right after failing to get donations, if you dont have a severe medical problem?

you still havent commented on why you think shc isnt possible. thats part of the debate

Why are you so gullible? seems to be a more pressing question.

We have gone through all of this before

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Go back and read those origin al threads, it appears you have a short memory as well as being delusional.

Mods why is this sock puppet still here?

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

it was in the huffingtonpost online a few months ago

Riiight. And we all know everything in newspapers must be true. What is wrong with you?

why sell your house right after failing to get donations, if you dont have a severe medical problem?

Because not enough gullible idiots sent you money?

i'm not gullible. im currently taking biochemistry courses and theres a lot of complex chemical reactions constantly occuring in the body each second. hence, there are millions of ways things can go wrong. i understand that rather nasty and reactive things such as hydrogen peroxide, nitric oxide, and the like - are byproducts of enzyme reactions. The Human Metabolome Database is a good place to start in researching what chemicals the body makes. Some are downright nasty that you'd only would've expected would be found in some kind of lab. hydrogen peroxide is a liquid but when it's poured on leather in high concentration the leather will actually auto-ignite. hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizer so it can burn things underwater. thats how rocket engines work for spacecraft, theres no oxygen in space but the oxidizer allows things to burn. i'll post the video of HP making leather spontaneously combust when i get home and can access youtube

we produce flammable gas in our guts on a constant basis, some more than others
there is always electricity flowing through those areas

think of TWA 800 - the fuel tank explosion was caused by a spark in the tank - flammable gasses + faulty wiring = boom
the human body also contains flammable gasses and electricity producing cells.
the more i research into biochem the more open minded im becoming about the possibility of SHC.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

i'm not gullible. im currently taking biochemistry courses and theres a lot of complex chemical reactions constantly occuring in the body each second. hence, there are millions of ways things can go wrong. i understand that rather nasty and reactive things such as hydrogen peroxide, nitric oxide, and the like - are byproducts of enzyme reactions.

Okay, so give one example of a natural enzymatic process that could lead to combustion without being taken to absurd extremes.

well lets assume the mitochondria contains lots of substrate. but no enzyme that converts it to HP.
Theres a large concentration of enzymes which convert that substrate to HP outside the mitochondria.
An enzyme oxidizes a fatty acid to HP so the substrate cannot diffuse through the membrane of the mitochondria to meet the enzymes, so it can build up while being contained. same with the enzyme.

a problem with the mitochondria makes its membrane burst (many reasons for this) so the substrate can now react with the enzymes

think of the bombardier beetle
except instead of breaking down HP, it's forming HP.

This has been gone through before with myself and others who are knowledgeable about chemistry and biochemistry pointing out you are talking out of your anus. I even did a calculation (here it is) to show you this mechanism was implausible.

Go back and read those origin al threads, it appears you have a short memory as well as being delusional.

You lost me when you started comparing the metabolic byproduct of an oxidative metabolism to a specialized defense gland in an insect.

Can you give me figures on this process? What specific mitochondrial disorder would cause this to happen? How would an individual survive with this condition for decades? What is the mechanism for simultaneous release into the system?

I can give you one, eating potassium, pure, solid form, with a thin layer of oily plastic, which dissolves in the small intestines. Making you literally explode.. from the inside.. Not sure if it is spontanious combustion, but it's a little bit close. Same would happen with phosphorous, albeit slower, because there is less oxygen there.

That does sort of gloss over the ...

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

without being taken to absurd extremes.

... condition.

I have read a few reports of people starting to burn because the clothes they were wearing of the furniture they were on started to burn, once they were already dead. Often self combustions turn out to be smokers and they start the fire by dropping a cigarette.

It seems it does not take much of a fire to cook the skin enough to start rendering fats out of it and once the fats start to soak into the burning fabrics they act like a candle wick.
Essentially a smoker might have a heart attack and just keep smoking after they are dead.

It is a little known fact that the average obese human has enough fat to fuel a city bus for 5 hours if they were converted into biodiesel

Originally Posted by dan hunter

It is a little known fact that the average obese human has enough fat to fuel a city bus for 5 hours if they were converted into biodiesel

That could solve all sorts of problems with the creation of one new industry.

But what about people whose brain appears to be mainly lard?

Originally Posted by Strange

But what about people whose brain appears to be mainly lard?

You mean like people who are banned for being trolls and/or nutjobs who come back and post exactly the same bullshit under a different user name 3 months later thinking we won't notice? People like that?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

You lost me when you started comparing the metabolic byproduct of an oxidative metabolism to a specialized defense gland in an insect.

That can be explained by the fact that a link is close to non-existent.
Bombardier beetles use a mixture hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones (in an aqueous solution) in order to defend themselves (Beheshti, N. et al., 2007).
The result of the chemical reaction is the release of a hot spray, caused by the massive production of oxygen gas. It is neither spontaneous nor a combustion.

Can you give me figures on this process? What specific mitochondrial disorder would cause this to happen? How would an individual survive with this condition for decades? What is the mechanism for simultaneous release into the system?

Uncertain. Hydrogen peroxide is detrimental, but the ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) it can produce, are far more dangerous.
However, hydrogen peroxide can be broken down via catalase (in the peroxisomes) and GPx1-3 (in the cytoplasm and ECM).

Given the fact that we have already discussed this matter before, that is all the information I am willing to give at the moment.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

well what if they are telling the truth ? they have no reason to lie

as I get older i am learning that people will lie for no reason. specially anonymously on the internet.

Can people Spontaneously Combust?

yes. if dropped onto the surface of the sun.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

well what if they are telling the truth ? they have no reason to lie

as I get older i am learning that people will lie for no reason. specially anonymously on the internet.

But don't forget some people are just very dumb, it may not be dishonesty but stupidity (or a combination of the two)...

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

i am not making it up.

I fully accept that you have read reports about Frank Baker and his alleged spontaneous combustion. What I and other members have questioned is the reliability of these reports. Anecdotal evidence from an individual of unknown integrity, lacking any evidential support is generally best ignored. The likelihood that an important phenomenom can be identified from such sources is close to zero.
Do you understand this?

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

it was in the huffingtonpost online a few months ago. ''frank baker speaks of spontaneous combustion experience'' was the headline.

Today's Huffington Post headlines is Grotesque and Morally Perverse. This is Nick Clegg's view of Nigel Farage. If we take your approach we can conclude that Nigel Farage is probably grotesque and morally perverse. Do you understand that this is false logic?

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

im using the college computer and many sites are blocked so ill post a link when i get home

As a complete aside, does your college computer forbid the use of capitals?

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

refusing a polygraph test isn't 100% evidence someone is lying

The first point you have made with which I can agree. However, it does not support your argument.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

and many people ask for money to help cure their cancer , it doesnt mean they're conning people
especially since he decided to sell his house to get money
why sell your house right after failing to get donations, if you dont have a severe medical problem?

There are many reasons why you might do this. Gambling debts. Being chased by loan sharks. Having become unemployed. Having bought to expensive a house to begin with. Etc.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

you still havent commented on why you think shc isnt possible. thats part of the debate

No one has said directly it is not possible. The consensus has been that all alleged SHC events are more readily explained by conventional thinking and that there is no compelling evidence to suspect that SHC may be a reality. Certainly the claims on the internet by a random individual do not constitute compelling evidence to give the matter serious thought.

Just because SHC hasn't happened right in front of someone in a lab, doesn't mean it cannot or has not happened.
and you agree that Frank could very well be telling the truth.

we haven't observed the sun in a lab but we can use our knowledge of physics to theorize on how the sun functions. the same applies for SHC.
spontaneous combustion implies that the cells of a person heat up very quickly - this implies a sudden upset since none of these survivors report feeling an increase in local heat before flames appear on their body.

just because MOST cases of SHC can be explained using conventional ways, does NOT mean there are some very unusual cases out there.
Jack Angel, and Frank Baker, are examples where the victim survived and had a doctor confirm that the burns did not come from an external source but rather an internal source. These cases cannot possibly be explained using the wick effect or from cigarettes, etc.
that would be like saying 9/11 was a controlled demolition act, because most buildings that fall are demolished. Most are result of demolitions yes, but not all building collapses are.

This has been gone through before. You are just repeating the same claims made by your other (banned) account. They are still unsupported, you have still provided no evidence. What is wrong with you? Please:

Go back and read those origin al threads, it appears you have a short memory as well as being delusional.

you are failing to discuss the case of Frank Baker. I feel you are avoiding it because it lacks an explanation that matches the skeptic's view.

Your claims were discussed and debunked 3 months ago, then (as now) you failed to provide evidence, failed to respond to the criticisms of your claims and just repeated the same nonsense over and over and over again, why do you think anything has changed since the last thread on this subject that got you banned for being a poor dumb loon?

As far as I am aware, the case of Frank Baker has NOT yet been debunked. skeptics haven't even scratched the surface of this case and they avoid it like the plague.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

you are failing to discuss the case of Frank Baker. I feel you are avoiding it because it lacks an explanation that matches the skeptic's view.

(taken from xkcd)

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

As far as I am aware, the case of Frank Baker has NOT yet been debunked. skeptics haven't even scratched the surface of this case and they avoid it like the plague.

Then you are dishonest as well as stupid. Go back to the thread you started as Lady Gaia and actually read the responses you got this time.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

well what if they are telling the truth ? they have no reason to lie

as I get older i am learning that people will lie for no reason. specially anonymously on the internet.

But don't forget some people are just very dumb, it may not be dishonesty but stupidity (or a combination of the two)...

i try to give benefit of the doubt but people disappoint me each day

Oh wow, name-calling. how very mature!
I am not stupid. call me open minded. I presented this case because it is very different from the cases the skeptics draw up - where the cause of ignition is external and the victim had a habit of smoking in bed, etc.
I used to think all those cases were caused by that, but then I saw the case of Frank Baker in the news and ever since I've been fascinated by this case because it just cannot be explained by skeptics. They avoid it because it's inexplicable and they pretend it doesn't exist. Just like those who want to believe the Earth is flat dismiss flaws in their logic - the skeptic ignores cases which don't pertain to their linear explanation.

I'm actually very frightened of SHC.
If there are people to fully debunk the possibility then I'd be happy to hear that, but it seems that unfortunately SHC has happened.
I'd like to not believe so, but I am open minded to events which science cannot explain currently and I agree that Frank is innocent until proven guilty.

I thought I would make this thread for a semi-personal reason and I wanted people to come and try and debunk this case and/or the possibility of SHC.
Instead of just lazily shunning it

SHC is the biggest cause of anxiety for me at this time and it has been since I saw this case on the news. Before then I was comfortable that SHC was an impossible urban myth...

Is it as mature as signing up with a sock puppet to repeat the same bullshit that got you banned? I think you will find my comments are not name calling but an evidence based, accurate assessment of you based on what you have posted here, you are dishonest and stupid (or you are pretending to be so and trolling).

Oh look you have proved my point by again repeating the same claims with no evidence presented, no attempt to discuss or argue against the refutations and arguments presented to you and dishonestly claiming your idiotic nonsense has not been shown to be just that, here and in the other thread you started on the same subject as LadyGaia.

PhDemon if this thread bothers you so badly and you are not going to contribute to the debunking of the case of Frank Baker, then perhaps another thread is better for you.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

you are failing to discuss the case of Frank Baker.

But it has been discussed. Endlessly. In your previous thread(s) and this one.

You have provided nothing of any value; all you have is a TV "documentary" and newspaper reports (both sensationalist, and more interested in making money than facts). On the other hand, you have provided plenty of evidence that Baker could be lying and is telling this story in order to make money.

You expect everyone else to accept the same appallingly low quality of evidence that you do. But most people are not as naive, ignorant and gullible as you.

I feel you are avoiding it because it lacks an explanation that matches the skeptic's view.

You have been given several plausible hypotheses. You dismiss them all because they do not fit your narrow minded worldview. And then you have the cheek to accuse others of not being open minded. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

SHC is the biggest cause of anxiety for me at this time

you are joking i assume ?

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

As far as I am aware, the case of Frank Baker has NOT yet been debunked.

Is that because there's nothing been given on which we can check?
For example, who was the doctor that said the burning was from the inside?

skeptics haven't even scratched the surface of this case and they avoid it like the plague.

Is that because you've avoided looking?
Try Googling "frank baker spontaneous combustion debunked" and see what comes up. See just how much sceptics "avoid it like the plague".

As for credibility, how about this: Frank Baker faced death while earning two Purple Hearts in Vietnam.
Oh look, he lied about that. Not even one.
Now, given that it's a FACT that he's lied about something so easily checkable, why don't you question his veracity on claims where there's insufficient detail to establish the truth?

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

SHC is the biggest cause of anxiety for me at this time

you are joking i assume ?

No, I am not joking. I wish I was... Just when I convince myself SHC is nothing but old people catching themselves alight from smoking in bed, I see Frank Baker's case make the headlines in the huffingtonpost.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

As far as I am aware, the case of Frank Baker has NOT yet been debunked.

Is that because there's nothing been given on which we can check?
For example, who was the doctor that said the burning was from the inside?

skeptics haven't even scratched the surface of this case and they avoid it like the plague.

Is that because you've avoided looking?
Try Googling "frank baker spontaneous combustion debunked" and see what comes up. See just how much sceptics "avoid it like the plague".

As for credibility, how about this: Frank Baker faced death while earning two Purple Hearts in Vietnam.
Oh look, he lied about that. Not even one.
Now, given that it's a FACT that he's lied about something so easily checkable, why don't you question his veracity on claims where there's insufficient detail to establish the truth?

uh, millions of people have been awarded purple hearts. that register only lists about 70,000 recipents. the ''about'' section notes that it is expanding.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

PhDemon if this thread bothers you so badly and you are not going to contribute to the debunking of the case of Frank Baker, then perhaps another thread is better for you.

Cranks like you don't bother me, you amuse me, what bothers me is leaving utter bullshit like you post unchallenged where someone who is genuinely interested in science might read it and think you know what you are talking about. I note again you dishonestly ignore the fact that IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED, in the thread you started as LadyGaia.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

you are failing to discuss the case of Frank Baker.

But it has been discussed. Endlessly. In your previous thread(s) and this one.

You have provided nothing of any value; all you have is a TV "documentary" and newspaper reports (both sensationalist, and more interested in making money than facts). On the other hand, you have provided plenty of evidence that Baker could be lying and is telling this story in order to make money.

You expect everyone else to accept the same appallingly low quality of evidence that you do. But most people are not as naive, ignorant and gullible as you.

I feel you are avoiding it because it lacks an explanation that matches the skeptic's view.

You have been given several plausible hypotheses. You dismiss them all because they do not fit your narrow minded worldview. And then you have the cheek to accuse others of not being open minded. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The hypotheses say Frank burnt from an external source eg. static electricity, etc. But there's a problem with that because static electricity would not cause someone to get burnt from the inside out.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

SHC is the biggest cause of anxiety for me

If I were you I'd be far more worried about terminal gullibility.

Originally Posted by dishonest crank

The hypotheses say Frank burnt from an external source eg. static electricity, etc. But there's a problem with that because static electricity would not cause someone to get burnt from the inside out.

We have already been through this:

Go back and read those origin al threads, it appears you have a short memory as well as being delusional.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

The hypotheses say Frank burnt from an external source eg. static electricity, etc. But there's a problem with that because static electricity would not cause someone to get burnt from the inside out.

Neither would hydrogen peroxide, enzymes or any other vaguely described explanation (cf. post #59).

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

I am not stupid.

The evidence suggest otherwise.

call me open minded.

Absolutely not. Like all cranks, you are completely closed minded. You refuse to consider evidence that contradicts you, you cherry-pick evidence that you think confirms your beliefs.

You are closed minded to the point of delusion.

They avoid it because it's inexplicable and they pretend it doesn't exist.

You have been given many possible explanations. You pretend they don't exist. Because you are closed minded.

I'm actually very frightened of SHC.

If that is the reason for your threads then you should seek medical help.

If there are people to fully debunk the possibility then I'd be happy to hear that

Liar. You have been given plausible explanations but you reject them out of hand.

Instead of just lazily shunning it

I don't think that a large number of people providing you with facts, alternative explanations and highlighting the flaws in your argument can be called lazy.

However, ignoring reality in favour of your delusion IS lazy.

SHC is the biggest cause of anxiety for me at this time

Then seek professional help. This is clearly a symptom of some deeper problem. This may just be associated with your age. Whatever. A professional counsellor can help you understand what is really troubling you and come to terms with it.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

SHC is the biggest cause of anxiety for me at this time

you are joking i assume ?

No, I am not joking. I wish I was... Just when I convince myself SHC is nothing but old people catching themselves alight from smoking in bed, I see Frank Baker's case make the headlines in the huffingtonpost.

only in a first world nation would people be afraid of something like this over all other bad things that are very more likely to happen

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

someone to get burnt from the inside out.[/COLOR]

You have provided NO EVIDENCE that this happened.

I am willing to believe his clothes caught fire. Although I wouldn't be surprised if he lied about that as well.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

SHC is the biggest cause of anxiety for me at this time

you are joking i assume ?

No, I am not joking. I wish I was... Just when I convince myself SHC is nothing but old people catching themselves alight from smoking in bed, I see Frank Baker's case make the headlines in the huffingtonpost.

only in a first world nation would people be afraid of something like this over all other bad things that are very more likely to happen

Umm pyrophobia + knowing about this case = lots of fear
I got burnt as a kid, been deathly afraid of being on fire since
I can't even look at pictures of flames.

[QUOTE=Chucknorium;546820]

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

only in a first world nation would people be afraid of something like this over all other bad things that are very more likely to happen

..and even in a first world nation it would have to be someone as viscous as porcine excrement.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

SHC is the biggest cause of anxiety for me at this time

you are joking i assume ?

No, I am not joking. I wish I was... Just when I convince myself SHC is nothing but old people catching themselves alight from smoking in bed, I see Frank Baker's case make the headlines in the huffingtonpost.

only in a first world nation would people be afraid of something like this over all other bad things that are very more likely to happen

Umm pyrophobia + knowing about this case = lots of fear

..and you say you aren't stupid ROFLMAO

EDIT: This may seem callous but the bit about being burned as a kid was added after I posted. The addition makes me slightly more sympathetic, if you can believe it based on the integrity shown so far, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a ploy for sympathy seeing as it was added as an afterthought (cynical, moi) but they are still dumb as a box of rocks.

i assume that if humans can spntaeously combust that all mammals can also ? or does fur prevent this occuring ?

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

i assume that if humans can spntaeously combust that all mammals can also ?

Yes. We call that a BBQ.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

Umm pyrophobia + knowing about this case = lots of fear
I got burnt as a kid, been deathly afraid of being on fire since
I can't even look at pictures of flames.

Thanks for providing even more evidence not to take your highly biased opinions seriously.

Everything you say makes your case weaker. Which is pretty impressive considering you started out with zero credibility.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

But there's a problem with that because static electricity would not cause someone to get burnt from the inside out.

The BIGGER problem is that there's NO EVIDENCE that he did burn "from the inside out".
None.

maybe Mr. Baker was drinking heavily of spirits and spilled some on himself while smoking

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

But there's a problem with that because static electricity would not cause someone to get burnt from the inside out.

The BIGGER problem is that there's NO EVIDENCE that he did burn "from the inside out".
None.

Frank Baker said the doctor called and told him that.
His friend, Willey, who was sitting on the same sofa with him, also confirmed that Frank caught fire as a witness.

I think we cannot dismiss SHC entirely until we know more about the body and the effects of certain imbalances.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

maybe Mr. Baker was drinking heavily of spirits and spilled some on himself while smoking

Which would imply that it was an accident, a simple and likely explanation I can agree with.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

maybe Mr. Baker was drinking heavily of spirits and spilled some on himself while smoking

Which would imply that it was an accident, a simple and likely explanation I can agree with.

Sorry but there's a major problem with that. Spilling alcohol on yourself and having it lit would cause burns from the outside in.
Frank Baker suggests he had a biopsy done and this biopsy indicated more severe fire damage in the deeper layers than the outer layers which implies the fire started inside.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

Just because SHC hasn't happened right in front of someone in a lab, doesn't mean it cannot or has not happened..

No one is disputing this. What they are saying, very clearly, is that there is insufficient evidence to take seriously any claims that it has happened. Wide-eyed, dumb-assed speculation simply doesn't have any value in a serious discussion of science. I ask you for the second time - and insist that you answer - do you understand this?

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

and you agree that Frank could very well be telling the truth.

I most certainly did not agree to that. The phrase "could very well be" clearly implies that there is a high probability that it is so. I am not agreeing to that. Indeed, what I actually said was "Anecdotal evidence from an individual of unknown integrity, lacking any evidential support is generally best ignored. The likelihood that an important phenomenom can be identified from such sources is close to zero."

How do you go from that statement to claiming that I "agree that Frank could very well be telling the truth"? I must insist that you respond directly to that question.

we haven't observed the sun in a lab but we can use our knowledge of physics to theorize on how the sun functions. the same applies for SHC.

We have not, however, observed SHC. We have observed combustion of humans. We do not know that such combustion has been SHC. What we can do with laboratory studies is show that the end result of alleged SHC can be arrived at by perfectly normal processes that originate in the victims environment and not in their body. Do you understand that this is the case? I must insist that you respond directly to that question.

Jack Angel, and Frank Baker, are examples where the victim survived and had a doctor confirm that the burns did not come from an external source but rather an internal source.

So far you have failed to provide any reliable sources for your claims of what the doctors have allegedly said. It remains unsubstantiated anecdote. Do you realise this has no value in a science discussion?I must insist that you respond directly to that question.

Moderator Requirement: Notes above in green are moderator notes. In your next post on this thread I require you to respond to those points and only to those points. Any other action will lead to your suspension.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

maybe Mr. Baker was drinking heavily of spirits and spilled some on himself while smoking

I can' be bothered to go and find the crazy lady's previous thread (even though it is linked at the bottom of the page) but I seem to remember he had been drinking. And then his clothes caught fire. I could come up with half a dozen physically plausible hypotheses from oil on his work clothes, to him and his buddies lighting their farts, to he just made it up as a joke/scam.

All would be more realistic than the deranged ramblings of melissa/gaia.

I would also be prepared to modify and/or abandon them on the basis of evidence.

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mellisa1990

But there's a problem with that because static electricity would not cause someone to get burnt from the inside out.

The BIGGER problem is that there's NO EVIDENCE that he did burn "from the inside out".
None.

Frank Baker said the doctor called and told him that.
His friend, Willey, who was sitting on the same sofa with him, also confirmed that Frank caught fire as a witness.

I think we cannot dismiss SHC entirely until we know more about the body and the effects of certain imbalances.

Still repeating the same claim with no evidence (he said... doesn't cut it) and no attempt to refute the arguments made against your claims. We can discount SHC as there is no evidence it occurs no matter how much you wish to believe in it.