Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Spontaneous Human Combustion

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    oh yeah - another thing about the wick idea.
    1998 experiment

    A larger scale experiment conducted for the BBC television program Q.E.D. involved a pig's body being wrapped in a blanket and placed in a furnished room. The blanket was lit with the aid of a small amount of petrol. The body took some time to ignite and burned at a very high temperature with low flames. The heat collected at the top of the room and melted a television. However, the flames caused very little damage to the surroundings, and the body burned for a number of hours before it was extinguished and examined. On examination it was observed that the flesh and bones in the burnt portion had been destroyed.[4]


    the 'small amount of petrol' was a litre - not something we all have lying round the living room. Plus not all reported cases of shc are of bodies that had been "burned for a number of hours".


  • Options
    #33
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    I agree that the poor woman probably died of something before she burned; carbon monoxide poisoning, heart attack, or something.

    However I can't find a reference for the 'litre of petrol' that you claim. Could you post your source please? I'm not referring to the 'Iron Maiden Guy burning a pig... set the whole room on fire.' From a wikipedia article about the Q.E.D. event: "However, the flames caused very little damage to the surroundings," *

    From your link I note that the woman was found next to an empty bottle of vodka. Not quite petrol, no, but still highly flammable and capable of acting as an accelerant if spilled on clothes.

    I agree that the wick theory needs more testing, but at the moment it's the best theory there is, even the coroner quoted in your link thinks so.

    But we've been here before; you'll discount is as unproven before shrugging your shoulders and saying 'I dunno' when you're asked if you have any better ideas. If you have come up with any other, more plausible, theories since the last time then I'd love to hear them.

    In the mean time I'm going to suggest testing it to the Mythbusters, not having space to burn a piggy in my own garden.


  • Options
    #34
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    its in the documentary is it not, regarding the amount of fuel used? The wick theory isnt robust enough to explain many of the apparent cases of shc - thats obvious. I cant see why you insist on clutching at straws in regards to it.

    I dont accept people stories of ghosts, shc or paranormal claims offhand, the same way I dont accept flawed solutions like the wick theory that dont fit the bill. Sometimes I find those who shout 'fake!' the loudest are as gullible as those who shout 'ghost!'.


  • Options
    #35
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    This is a discussion forum. I'm very happy to discuss alternatives to the wick theory if you can provide any. If you can't, then I think we're done here.


  • Options
    #36
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    I think the point is that these bodies are cremated, in other words the temps reach 1200º C, which is not possible from a 'normal' fire. This subject is brought to mind by yesterday's story from Limerick which may or may not be SHC related.

    What really surprises me is that the experts seem content to label these cases as 'unsolved'; I would have thought any professional in the field would be strongly motivated to investigate this unexplained phenomena.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    I think the point is that these bodies are cremated, in other words the temps reach 1200º C, which is not possible from a 'normal' fire. This subject is brought to mind by yesterday's story from Limerick which may or may not be SHC related.

    What really surprises me is that the experts seem content to label these cases as 'unsolved'; I would have thought any professional in the field would be strongly motivated to investigate this unexplained phenomena.

    Can you substantiate both of these?


  • Options
    #38
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    This is only an article, but it shows its a commonly held view that temperatures would need to be quite high:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4456428.stm
    Modern cases have usually come about when police and fire investigators have found burned corpses but no burned furniture. Bafflement at how a body can be reduced almost to ashes, which requires temperatures of about 3,000 degrees, without any of the rest of the room being affected has driven some of the theories.

    How does your demand actually help the conversation though? - thats what Im wondering.


  • Options
    #39
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Dave! wrote: »
    Can you substantiate both of these?

    The first one from Prof Grace Callagy, the pathologist in the Michael Faherty case and the second from an undertaker on local radio some while back.


  • Options
    #40
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    maccored wrote: »
    This is only an article, but it shows its a commonly held view that temperatures would need to be quite high:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4456428.stm

    An experiment on the wick effect seems to show that the temperature it burns at can result in the bones being destroyed (i.e. cremation):

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/158853.stm
    But the fact that human bones were completely destroyed remained a mystery, until now.

    Even in human crematoria where temperatures are 700-1000 centigrade, the bones are not destroyed.

    ...

    After five hours of continuous burning the bones were being destroyed.

    Dr De Haan said: "The sort of damage here is exactly the same as that from supposed spontaneous human combustion."
    maccored wrote: »
    How does your demand actually help the conversation though? - thats what Im wondering.

    I think it's pretty important that we establish a solid foundation of facts before proceeding, don't you? People often like to assert things as facts without substantiating them, and then proceed from the premise that their statement was true and make points that stem from that false premise.

    At the risk of cutting the conversation short, maybe we can just avoid any unnecessary mystery mongering and stick to the sober and boring facts.
    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    The first one from Prof Grace Callagy, the pathologist in the Michael Faherty case and the second from an undertaker on local radio some while back.

    Strange comments from them then, because they don't jive with the facts


  • Options
    #41
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Dave! wrote: »
    People often like to assert things as facts without substantiating them

    Very often the same people who interpret as facts only those opinions which they believe substantiate their prejudices; if you had read the Michael Faherty inquest you would understand that the alert was raised upon hearing of the fire alarm - do you suppose it took five hours for the alarm to be set off?
    After five hours of continuous burning the bones were being destroyed.
    No, but since this fact jives with the supposed conclusions of the above experiment, it should of course be conveniently ignored.

    Dave! wrote: »
    At the risk of cutting the conversation short

    No reason to be fearful of an honest debate I hope!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    mickmackey1 wrote: »

    Very often the same people who interpret as facts only those opinions which they believe substantiate their prejudices; if you had read the Michael Faherty inquest you would understand that the alert was raised upon hearing of the fire alarm - do you suppose it took five hours for the alarm to be set off?

    That's quite possible yes, depending on the location of the alarm. Some of the characteristics of the wick effect is that the fire is localised and the flames are low. So it's possible that he burned for several hours before the fire caught something else (like the floor beneath him) and caused smoke to billow.

    Cremation at optimal temperature (in a crematorium) takes over 2 hrs anyway, so unless you're proposing some magical mechanism by which he was cremated instantly, then you're still left with the fact that he had to have burned for a long time, no matter how the fire started.


  • Options
    #43
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Do not use that flawed BBC QED tv programme as proof of anything. Read up on it first before making an eejit of yourself. Actually - too late. Reading this actual thread would have saved you the time.
    Dave! wrote: »
    An experiment on the wick effect seems to show that the temperature it burns at can result in the bones being destroyed (i.e. cremation):

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/158853.stm




    I think it's pretty important that we establish a solid foundation of facts before proceeding, don't you? People often like to assert things as facts without substantiating them, and then proceed from the premise that their statement was true and make points that stem from that false premise.

    At the risk of cutting the conversation short, maybe we can just avoid any unnecessary mystery mongering and stick to the sober and boring facts.



    Strange comments from them then, because they don't jive with the facts


  • Options
    #44
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    No reason to be fearful of an honest debate I hope!

    hahaha - from the 'skeptics'? ( I really mean cynics)


  • Options
    #45
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Dave! wrote: »
    Some of the characteristics of the wick effect is that the fire is localised and the flames are low.

    Other characteristics is that the 'wick effect', as outlined in the QED experiment, burned the whole room down. Not very localised in reality.
    So it's possible that he burned for several hours before the fire caught something else (like the floor beneath him) and caused smoke to billow.

    Not according to the wick effect. You did watch that QED documentary Im assuming? Or maybe you didn't, because if you had you'd see your error.


  • Options
    #46
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Dave! wrote: »
    That's quite possible yes, depending on the location of the alarm.

    A fire alarm in the same location as an open fireplace seems like a good idea... if so your goose is cooked:D


  • Options
    #47
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    maccored wrote: »
    Do not use that flawed BBC QED tv programme as proof of anything. Read up on it first before making an eejit of yourself. Actually - too late. Reading this actual thread would have saved you the time.
    maccored wrote: »
    Other characteristics is that the 'wick effect', as outlined in the QED experiment, burned the whole room down. Not very localised in reality.

    Not according to the wick effect. You did watch that QED documentary Im assuming? Or maybe you didn't, because if you had you'd see your error.

    Dunno where you're getting that from. I've just watched it now, and the room is far from "burned down".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrQ1m0uiMgw


    The only significant damage to the rest of the room is the TV which melted.
    maccored wrote: »
    hahaha - from the 'skeptics'? ( I really mean cynics)

    For someone so keen to "further the conversation", you're awful keen to reach for the ad-hominem in lieu of an actual argument :)
    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    A fire alarm in the same location as an open fireplace seems like a good idea... if so your goose is cooked:D

    Dunno what this post means


  • Options
    #48
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Dave! wrote: »
    For someone so keen to "further the conversation", you're awful keen to reach for the ad-hominem in lieu of an actual argument

    You know I love you all really Dave! - but the non changing, dogmatic nitpicking that gets called reasoning by those who called themselves skeptics, yet have a belief system the opposite of a 'believer' (which is just as bad if you ask me), will never, ever, ever further our understanding of what the 'paranormal' is all about. In fact, it's tiring reading the waffle.


  • Options
    #49
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    I think the point is that these bodies are cremated, in other words the temps reach 1200º C, which is not possible from a 'normal' fire. This subject is brought to mind by yesterday's story from Limerick which may or may not be SHC related.

    What really surprises me is that the experts seem content to label these cases as 'unsolved'; I would have thought any professional in the field would be strongly motivated to investigate this unexplained phenomena.

    Not necessary. During the ice age lack of timber led to humans burning bones as fuel*. They certainly didn't have the technology to reach 1200C, but they still burned mammoth bones to ash.


    * http://books.google.ie/books?id=_6WBlUwYPa8C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=ice+age+bone+as+fuel&source=bl&ots=vcAeQO-Ozc&sig=HXUg4d5fOSiRnGLlimurGPDi9N0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RCMuUeSADpOYhQeJ-YDwCw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ice%20age%20bone%20as%20fuel&f=false
    http://www.ice-age-art.de/entdecken_und_erforschen/auswertung.php


  • Options
    #50
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Dave! wrote: »
    Dunno what this post means

    Huh?... obviously if the fire alarm was in the same room as the victim it would have sounded within five minutes never mind five hours... if we could establish this fact it would add greatly to the mystery - there just wasn't enough time for the poor fellow to be cremated...:confused::confused:


  • Options
    #51
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    Huh?... obviously if the fire alarm was in the same room as the victim it would have sounded within five minutes never mind five hours... if we could establish this fact it would add greatly to the mystery - there just wasn't enough time for the poor fellow to be cremated...:confused::confused:

    A fire alarm in a room with an open fireplace would be constantly going off and therefore useless as people either grew used to ignoring it or removed the batteries because it was going off all the time. It's the same reason fire alarms are rarely put in kitchens.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement