/sci/ - Science & Math

Super Heated Cocks?
Sounds painful.

Spontaneous Human Combustion.

Also hasn't pretty much every case of this been proven to be someone lighting themselves on fire with a cigarette?

farts?

>>3796307
why do you sage my thread?
It seems there was a new case these last days and some people are claiming paranormal stuff did it. I just want to know if there's a better explanation.

>>3796289
Please Sir, I want some more?

>>3796317
>>>/x/

You will get answers there.

at least he removed his shoes.

too much magnesium suppliments.

i have no idea, such a clean burn rules out most things.
shc is not the same if you set the whole house on fire.

>>3796324
but just answers like "a ghost", "aliens did it" or "he was a demon".

pyrotrons

>>3796307
No, A significant portion of victims weren't smokers, many weren't near any flames of any sort

>>3796317
>I just want to know if there's a better explanation.

There is.
They lit themselves on fire and burnt up.
Most commonly it's falling asleep with a lit cigarette.

has anyone ever seen another person burning like this?

>>3796345
That's either a lie or gross ignorance, if something so common as cigarettes were responsible there would be hundreds of thousands of cases instead of hundreds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion

>>3796337
Sir....are you proposing a new fundamental particle that sets things on fire?

Have there ever been multiple cases of well-documented spontaneous combustion? No. What do they put as the cause anyway? Too much alcohol in the blood, or something ridiculous like that?

>>3796359
and what are YOU proposing?

>>3796355
Its a combination of a source of ignition and very specific other circumstances. This has all been explained years ago. Another non-mystery that keeps getting touted.

>>3796364
Read the link and find out why that's bullshit

/x/? is that you?
There are things /sci/ can't answer.

>>3796355
Read the wiki you just linked, the wick effect is the most proven of the ideas around SHC.

As for why there are so few cases of SHC. Most people will react to the pain of having a cigarette burn through their clothes. The few that don't become SHC victims.

>>3796375
perhaps people under the effect of alcohol/drugs don't feel the pain in time to react or they fall asleep too deeply?

I remember being told about this when I was 13 and thinking wow the universe is really strange and so much is unexplained...
Then I grew up.

Tends to happen close to open fires.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15032614

I died of SHC 2 years ago.

>>3796366
[citation needed]

>>3796375
You are ignoring the fact that it takes hours
You are ignoring the fact that there are people who have survived shc

>>3796395
they're fake.

>>3796395
How is he ignoring it at all? It takes hours. That is fine, since then those that react at the start to being burnt just put the fire out straight away. Victims are those who had a heart attack/fall/knocked their heads and then burnt up over hours.

>>3796382
True, but that doesn't contradict what I said. They could have also suffered heart attack or stroke.

>>3796399
Read the link before spouting bullshit

>>3796393
They're in the link

>>3796395
You are ignoring the fact that believing in bullshit makes you look like a gullible child.
You are ignoring the fact that spouting bullshit makes you look like a fucking ignorant moron.

>>3796400
>Able to move around with no symptoms
>Having a heart attack or stroke

Pick one

>>3796408

Well yeah, you CAN be asymptomatic with a stroke or MI depending on how small the injured area is.

>>3796408
I pick having a heart attack or stroke, thus being immobilzed/unconscious/dead and being unable to stop the fire.
Your point makes no sense.

cigarettes are uften found around the remains of their bodies. ThisIrish guy was next toa fireplace.

>>3796419
often

>>3796395
>>3796403
As the sensible man in that link stated the source simply can't be found anymore. Most was likely it was destroyed by the event itself.

The link even says there is a open fireplace. All it would take is one moderately sized cinder to pop and land on the victim. And if he didn't react to prevent himself from catching fire it would be reduced to ash along with him and never be found.

>>3796418
Except that survivors of shc were able to move around freely, which was my point

>>3796423
You have to look for superscripted numbers

>>3796407
>Verified by dozens of independent investigations
>bullshit

Pick one

>>3796431
1. "claims", [citation needed] etc.
2. Just because they called the event SHC, doesn't mean that phenonema has anything to do with the other cases.

>>3796431
>Except that survivors of shc were able to move around freely, which was my point.

And that's why they're survivors!

>>3796434
Read the link

>Humans spontaneously catching fire
>Not shc

Pick one

You are just like creationists thinking god made everything because you don't understand evolution

That's God's punishment.

>>3796431

>Verified by dozens of independent investigations

Like ghosts, ancient aliens, and Jesus?

>>3796440
You are now officially retarded.

>>3796435
Exactly, now don't you think they'd know if a piece of coal or cigarette had landed on them and brush it off before it set their fat on fire?

>>3796440
>>3796431
Stupid fucks

What if it's just some one in a trillion chance run-away biochemical reaction within the body?

>>3796444

>>3796450
Then it would still happen a few thousand times per day.

>>3796447
Hence the rarity of the event. The ones that DON'T brush it off, because the shock of the fire causes a heart attack, fall or a blow to the head are then continue to burn.

>>3796450

Then it's extremely hard to replicate and the poor sods who have it don't have a chance in hell to get analyzed before it "ignites".

>>3796431
The incidences I know of involving survivors are people who produce smoke. They are never actually on fire they're, just 'smoldering'. If I had to make a broad diagnosis then they were likely caught in the path of an electrical arc assuming they aren't hoaxing it up.

>>3796444
>Ghost
>Seen by millions of people from all over the globe throughout all of history
>Not real
0/10
There are many ways to explain ghosts

>>3796458
pretty sure some are just a hoax

>>3796461
yeah, but most are fake and gay.

>>3796455
Then how do you explain the survivors?

>>3796461

Yeah, I prefer to think they're actually the Unseelie faerie folk.

You know, cause that's what people used to think they were seeing before ghosts and aliums became the modern norm.

It's just Will o' the wisps, lad.

/sci/ - Paranormal

>>3796445
>>3796449
Obvious mad samefag is obvious and mad

>>3796467
>Implying unexplained = paranormal

Do you also think every unsolved murder was done by pixies?

>>3796467
Well, maybe we're trying to find a non paranormal reason for these cases. Fuck off.

>>3796465
You mean survivor there is one case and it was shown to most likely be a firework.
Dick

>>3796476
This is /sci/ not /x/
Cock

>>3796477

No, I mean the survivors listed in the link

>>3796465
slow as fuck

Survivors = they were alive, started burning and felt the pain. They moved and stopped the fire.

Non survivors= they were already dead, or in such a state they couldn't react. They start burning and can't stop it.

>>3796474
I want the paranormal shit outta here. Why would I?
>>3796476
Take that shit to >>>/x/
/sci/ is to discuss actual science, not talk about paranormal pseudo-reality

>>3796480
Unverified, and unrelated to the cause in the case of all the deaths. The amount of information given there is not helpful at all. It could be anything from natural gas (either from their supply of from the water) to lightning, if real.

>>3796480
And indeed we should expect a much larger number of cases for this if it were responsible for the deaths. There would be many more witness and survivors than victims. Meanwhile, a perfectly good explanation exists.

>>3796355
>pretending to be smart

>>3796481
Except that many victims weren't near any ignition sources and neither were the survivors listed

>>3796483
What's paranormal in this thread?
/sci/ is for science, this is /sci/ related

Purge this shit from /sci I'd rather the board be dead then turn to a fucking /x spin off.
paranormal fags fuck off.
It's almost as if the only people who come on this board and post are creationists and paranormal fags...

>>3796489
>Losing the argument
>Getting mad

Please understand that just flinching might be enough to prevent the initial fire. Survivors don't even have to consciously know that they just dodged a bullet.

Hence why only those with impaired reaction due to heart attack/stroke/intoxication/some other illness/already being dead actually become victims while others survive.

The question after that point is whether the survivors thinks they just survived something paranormal or whether they we able to find the ignition source.

>>3796489
>Except that many victims weren't near any ignition sources and neither were the survivors listed

No. Every victim with a link to follow on wikipedia says they were smokers or near a fire.

>>3796507
No it doesn't

>>3796501
>believing I'm one of the people daft enough to have argued with a baby level intelligence

>>3796522
>Resorting to ad hominems
>Not losing the arugment

Pick one

>>3796492
>Except that many victims weren't near any ignition sources and neither were the survivors listed

Non-verifiable claim of the highest order unless your suggesting that the victims have a superior level of consciousness and are aware of everything happening within 5 feet of them at all times. As well as stating that they know every possible source of ignition that exists.

Here this is for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

>>3796497
I don't see this is a paranormal thread.
unknown =/= paranormal

>>3796502
>Set yourself on fire
>Ignore the obvious ignition source
>Believe you survived shc
0/10

Or do you think walking can set you on fire?

>>3796511
Yes it does. You are really are desperate to look like an idiot, aren't you?
>Mary Reeser
"they hypothesized that she had fallen unconscious while smoking"
They would only do this if she was a known smoker.
>John Irving Bentley
Pipe smoker. Kept matches in his pocket too, which may have ignited from pipe smoke ash.
>Henry Thomas
"The victim's spectacles were sitting neatly folded in the grate of his open fire, within arm's reach of the position of the chair."
>George I. Mott
"Some believe his alcoholism and heavy smoking "
>Michael Faherty
"Faherty's body had been found lying on his back with his head closest to an open fireplace."

>>3796532
>Verified in link
>Unverifiable

Pick one

>>3796527
>implying ad hominem applies to someone who hasn't debated you

>>3796534
Have you not seen the paranormal faggots dismiss every possible logical answer?

>>3796542
See
>>3796539

>>3796539
>Debbie Clark was walking home when she noticed an occasional flash of blue light
>Susan Motteshead was standing in her kitchen, wearing flame-resistant pajamas

>>3796536
Walking can set you on fire in the correct circumstances.

>>3796548
We already dealt with this.

>>3796546
>Lost the argument
>Sage in an attempt to have the last word
Why so mad?

>>3796546
Have you not seen the faggots apply what happened in many cases to all cases, even when evidence proves otherwise?

>>3796546
See
>>3796355

>>3796532
Exactly, I have never once said that many cases of shc can't be applied to the wick effect, I have said that there are cases where there are no decent explanations, you have ignored these

>>3796542
>News articles and wikipedia
>verfication

I hope you're trolling. It's unverifiable because we have only the victim's (and the occasion witness's) word for it. It's unverifiable because there is no independent verification at the time of the incident and it can not be reproduced.

I don't understand why this is considered paranormal.

>>3796555
Maybe you imagined you did but it has not happened in this thread

>>3796554
If you have white phosphorus trousers and go for a run

>>3796562
Maybe we should ignore all eyewitness testimonies then? I'm sure legal defendants would love that

>>3796564
It only is by the same people that think ball lightning is a myth

We live in a world where things like gas and electricity power most of our tools and we are usually only a few feet from some kind of power source. Also, fire is used for many other things such as lighting and burning cigarettes.

It's not unusual to think that in some rare cases people would be unexpectedly lit on fire, especially if precautions aren't practiced correctly.

I believe it to be a better assumption than the alternatives, especially when all we're given are unverifiable accounts.

>>3796559
You only have those 2 cases of "survivors".
Which both come from the same book, have no other verifcation, and no investigation carried out. The most likely explanations are simple falsehoods or not seeing a source of ignition when there was one. Otherwise it could be from gas or electric. But really there is nothing to explain without more information.

No animal case of spontaneous combustion was observed (suspected) , ever.

What does it tell you?
That humans and animals are, obviously, the same, then there's no reason it could happen only to us.
More mystico-anthropocentristic bullshit.

>>3796574
There are 3

Can be explained by too much phloginston abuse.

>>3796582
>No animal case of spontaneous combustion was observed (suspected) , ever.

hahahahah

>>3796570
>Maybe we should ignore all eyewitness testimonies then? I'm sure legal defendants would love that

Courts of law are by no stretch of the imagination scientific. Even then they don't have the witnesses draw conclusions like 'there was no source of ignition I know because I'm omniscient'

If you want to get right down to it this is a case of pics or it didn't happen. There is no solid evidence being presented by survivors at all.

>>3796582
>Ignoring animal mutilations where they have burns on them
>Ignoring the fact that they are in fields where scavengers would be able to eat remains

>>3796594
Why is it called "spontaneous Human combustion", then?

>>3796607
Because wackos.

>>3796602
http://vault.fbi.gov/Animal%20Mutilation

Fuck off

>>3796587
>This version of Angel's story contradicts a 1975 testimony delivered to the Fulton County Superior Court in a civil-action suit filed by Angel's attorney: in the suit, Angel claimed instead to have been sprayed by "scalding hot water" after trying to fix his motorhome's water pressure.

This guy seems legit.

>>3796607
the name may be misleading, but it doesn't mean there are no cases in animals

>>3796600
Because the first thing you'd do if you were on fire is take pics to show doubters

>>3796600
There's a difference between knowing if they were smoking and knowing if they had an active lighter underneath their clothes

>>3796617
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_mutilation#U.S._governmental_explanation
but that some contained anomalies that could not be accounted for by conventional wisdom. The FBI was unable to identify any individuals responsible for the mutilations.[16]

Fuck off

>>3796620
/sci/ - Paranormal

WE DON'T KNOW IT DOESN'T EXIST, THEREFORE WE MUST OPERATE AS IF IT EXISTS!

Unless we have evidence of it, don't bring it up as a point. Fuck maybes.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion#Possible_cases
>Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) Only happens to tossers. describes alleged cases of the burning of a living human body without an apparent external source of ignition. There have been about 200 cited cases[1] worldwide over a period of around 300 years.
>Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) Only happens to tossers.
>Only happens to tossers.


Well there you have it, OP; SHC is caused by excessive masturbation.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion
>Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) Only happens to tossers. describes alleged cases of the burning of a living human body without an apparent external source of ignition. There have been about 200 cited cases[1] worldwide over a period of around 300 years.
>Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) Only happens to tossers.
>Only happens to tossers.


Well there you have it, OP; SHC is caused by excessive masturbation.

>>3796618
He lied to get compensation, you'd do the same

>>3796630
so buttmad
It happens to humans and animals. It's rare enough in humans, just try to think how few cases in animals have been reported. Or do you think soeone will call the cops becaus ethey found a dead sheep?

>>3796646
He lied to get in the newspapers and on tv, you'd do the same. This game is fun.

>>3796627
>provide FBI link
>post criticism on wikipedia as a rebuttal

The report indicates that foragers did the cutting. They weren't looking for a person responsible.

>skipped part of the sentence
>Rommel's final report was 297 pages long and cost approximately US$45,000. It concluded that mutilations were predominantly the result of natural predation

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_mutilation#Natural_causes

Fuck off

>>3796649
I picture myself, finding one of my sheep, burn to a crisp in middle of nowhere.
Yes, I would call the cops to ask them to catch the fucker(s) who did this.

>>3796662
okay, whatever. You would, but most farmers don't.

>>3796622
>Because the first thing you'd do if you were on fire is take pics to show doubters

You clearly have not see some of the stupid shit people have put on youtube.

Also that's not the point, if you don't have solid evidence don't expect to be believed on your word alone however frustrating that is for you.

>There's a difference between knowing if they were smoking and knowing if they had an active lighter underneath their clothes

There's a difference between not knowing someone is trying to set you on fire and not knowing that you just became a short to ground/had a hot ember stuck to you/are getting trolled by time traveling aliums.

why is everyone getting butthurt here?
If you don't believe in supernatural crap, there must be a "natural" reasoning. Then, it belongs to /sci/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_effect

Fuck off. If /sci/ isn't Paranormal, this should shut some people the fuck up

>>3796681
You'd hope so but I mentioned over an hour ago.

Well, with that I think we can declare another victory for science.

>>3796691
there was no challenger

>>3796681
Except that as has already been proved many time in this thread it cannot account for all instances of shc

>>3796656
>skipped part of the sentence
>but that some contained anomalies that could not be accounted for by conventional wisdom. The FBI was unable to identify any individuals responsible for the mutilations.[16]t of the sentence

>>3796654
Because there are so many accounts of shc survivors