Spontaneous Human Combusion (SHC)

[nicenycdick]

Yes, I first read about this in the late '50's...and it was debunked then. It is one of those urban myths-type thing that persists despite being scientifically discounted. It always helps to trust your scepticism...

 

[StrictlyAvg]

Given that human beings like to play with fire. You never hear of spontaneous combustion of livestock.

I did see the documentary a few years ago trying out the pig-in-a-blanket wicking theory (Horizon I think). Incidentally Nat Geo tried to replicate it but failed in their experiment - apparently they left the room door open and too much air got in so a proper conflagration ensued.

But, livestock don't wear clothes/covers, only a few have the right fat content to support "SC" (hence why pigs were chosen); being livestock they tend to live either outside or in well ventilated sheds; they don't get drunk and if they suffer from diseases that would make them stay unconscious through such an incident they'd be put down... I'm sure a number of other factors could be found here.
I can't find any instances where clothing or bedsheets etc were not involved in alleged cases of SHC. And the whole wicking process seems to rely on a closed room and clothing/coverings so oxygen doesn't get in too fast. And all too often there seems to be an ignition source involved on investigation - so hardly "spontaneous".

 

[witch]

I remember a few years ago there was a news story about several health care workers who were overcome by fumes emanating from a very seriously sick patient. [insert detail - I don't remember] I wonder if there are certain conditions of sickness that could cause chemical combustion? It does seem bizarre though. Given that human beings like to play with fire. You never hear of spontaneous combustion of livestock.

I remember that one …..1994, Riverside General Hospital, Gloria Ramirez ……

 

[SilverTrain]

You might enjoy That's Amazing, an Australian show with Carl Hooper (actually part of an English television show with Simon Day). In this episode, he talks to a guy named Dick about a monster.

But no John Davidson, Fran Tarkenton or Cathy Lee Crosby!

I remember seeing a grainy black and white photo of the "victim's" remains, that consisted of scattered ashes and a foot, severed at the ankle, still in it's buckled black shoe. Convincing stuff!

 

[Incocknito]

But no John Davidson, Fran Tarkenton or Cathy Lee Crosby!

I remember seeing a grainy black and white photo of the "victim's" remains, that consisted of scattered ashes and a foot, severed at the ankle, still in it's buckled black shoe. Convincing stuff!

This photo?

http://savykr.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/shc02.jpg

I agree that its shocking stuff and you could be forgiven for believing in spontaneous human combustion - especially looking at all the other photos.

But just because something looks shocking or extraordinary doesn't mean there isn't an ordinary explanation. The Wick Effect seems to explain SHC away.

 

[SilverTrain]

Christ, I mourn the apparent demise of irony.

 

[798686]

Spermtaneous cock-bustion? :biggrin1: (sorry)

 

[Incocknito]

Christ, I mourn the apparent demise of irony.

You implying that the photo is unconvincing would also imply that the photo was staged or otherwise not geniune.

But it is geniune and there are many other photos which I think most people would assume are quite convincing.

 

[ZOS23xy]

I think it's interesting that we seek to find highly unlikely reasons for things that could be better explained by more likely possibilities...like falling asleep with a lit cigarette.

Some of the bodies (or what's left) are completely incinerated, and nothing else in the house or room is burnt. Smoke and soot damage, but little else.

 

[SilverTrain]

You implying that the photo is unconvincing would also imply that the photo was staged or otherwise not geniune.

But it is geniune and there are many other photos which I think most people would assume are quite convincing.

Speaking of assumptions........

 

[AquaEyes11010]

Some of the bodies (or what's left) are completely incinerated, and nothing else in the house or room is burnt. Smoke and soot damage, but little else.

Yes, and how does this make one automatically conclude that a person burst into flames spontaneously? That's the point of my argument.

 

[StrictlyAvg]

A really interesting discussion here with input from a skeptically minded woman (username Gayle) who suffered a weird burning incident and doesn't fit ANY of the criteria posited by the burning pig experiment...