Jeremytt: Skeptical Inquirer & Spontaneous Human Combustion

Great Debates
1

Jeremytt went off on several tangents in a Staff Reports thread (Ganzfeld). So Dex closed it and asked that it be taken where it belongs.

Jeremytt had said, in part:

===

Anyway, the SI’s basic premise is that bodies can burn “at far lower temperatures”.

This seems to be wrong, or at least, disputed. Concerning the tsar’s bones, the author of the book interviewed probably the most eminent anthropologist in the US. I’ve forgotten his name, but I believe he works at the University of Florida in
Tallahassee…

Anyway, he says,“It’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a human body to burn at normal fire temperatures. In fact, what happens is that, the bodies usually char on the outside, preventing further burning.” I’m quoting from memory, here. But you get the idea.

With this in mind, it appeaars that SI’s investigation on SC is at least disputed…

Administrator, I realize this is straying far from the tenor of the room. I’m planning to open a new thread shortly called, “Is Skepticism Dangerous”??

===

Kyberneticist responded:

===

Yay! Much better! I can see everyone getting along fairly well with some facts to bite into!

Alright, I’m about to head off from work, but it seems you are moving into Spontaneous Human Combustion.

The skeptic naturally points out that most (all?) cases of SHC have involved overweight people, often smokers, alone.
The fat is theorized to provide the fuel for a slow burn.
To simulate this, being short on humans, a pig carcass was used. It burned quite nicely, so until we can check up on the anthropologist, I think the focus should be on what was wrong with their experiment.
Cecil covers the subject, includes SI view.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_205b.html

The Skeptic’s Dictionary details the pig experiment.
http://www.skepdic.com/shc.html

Spontaneous (non-human) combustion.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/971010.html

2

Jeremytt said:

One nit to pick here: Jeremy has been complaining (in the thread referenced above) about Skeptical Inquirer. However, he doesn’t seem to understand that it is written, like most publications, by different authors. In other words, it is not “SI” that has the premise, but the authors and investigators. In this case, it would be a lot easier to discuss if Jeremy would present specific articles and authors.

Oh, well, there’s a good source. Somebody who wrote some book. I think we need a little more detail than that, Jeremy.

No, we don’t get the idea – because we don’t know exactly what you’re talking about.

Now, if you’re claiming that it takes fairly high temperatures to incinerate a body under normal circumstances, then that’s one thing. But that’s not what happens in cases of spontaneous human combustion, as explained by Kyberneticist. There is a “candle” or “wick” effect that changes the necessary requirements.

You are using one type of discussion in an incorrect manner to say that another type of discussion is wrong.

Now, certainly there are people who say that the skeptics are wrong about this. Unfortunately for them, the skeptics (like Cecil) have the evidence on their side.

3

The Discovery Channel occasionally airs a program on SHC, in which some researchers demonstrate (with a side of beef or something) how a human body (presumably, once the clothing has been set afire) can burn for hours with low-intensity “flame.”

Assuming that they weren’t trying to fudge results, the side of beef burned for something like seveh hours, before they decided to end the experiment.

4

(Missed it the first time)

And it was a porker, not a side of beef.

Nevermind.

5

". Concerning the tsar’s bones, the author of the book interviewed probably the most eminent anthropologist in the US. I’ve forgotten his name, but I believe he works at the University of Florida in Tallahassee… "

I know the gent you are referring to, I happen to have read his book this year. His name also completely escapes me, except he looks like David Broder. The books name may have been Travels with Dr. Death. Yeah, that sounds right. I believe there was a full chapter devoted to his investigation of the Romanovs. So there’s some actual testimony for either side of this particular “sub-discussion” to mull. Watson, to the library!

I don’t remember details. What I remember is that the author was satisified with his conclusions, but understands there are basic limits to forensic anthropology… in other words, he had a preponderance of evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt sort of evidence.

I am also very confused as to what it is J is trying to establish. What exactly is the contention of SI in reference to this case?

Lastly, you (J) several times throughout this thread use phrases like “This seems to be wrong, or at least, disputed”. To which I can only reply, duh. If it wasn’t disputed, than SI probably wouldn’t investigate it. And while SI may think highly of themselves (I do also), even they don’t belive that by publishing an article, all dissenters will bow down their heads and apologize for having held such foolish notions. So you have to do better than “This seems to be wrong, or at least, disputed” because that means nothing.

You seem to belive that in general, SI isn’t all that great, and a good deal of the reason is <specific claim 1> and <specific claim 2>. How can we possibly have an intelligent debate about SC1 and SC2 until you provide us with details about them?
Hope this helps

6

say – has anyone told Jeremytt where we are now?

7

A little off-thread, but relevant eventually… I promise…

‘Skeptical Inquirer’ is the house magazine for CSICOP, which (as many Dopers will know) stands for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal, a catchy and memorable title if I’m a duck’s backside.

Unfortunately, although it was started as a committee CSICOP doesn’t really function as one any more, in the sense that ‘the committee’ never meets as a committee or publishes any reports\papers as one. Also unfortunately, it doesn’t mount any investigations. It only really tried to do this once, when it investigated the Gaughelin data on astrology - the so-called ‘Star Baby’ analysis of Gaughelin data. This investigation had a rather turbulent and unfortunate history, and accounts differ. However, it did cause some committee members to leave amid some suggestions that some CSICOPS had tried to interfere with the analysis when the results were not as desired. After this, CSICOP formally abandoned the notion of conducting its own investigations, and has been true to its word ever since.

However, given that it is not a committee and does not conduct investigations, it can still mount campaigns against pseudo-science. Right. Its last one was to persuade newspapers not to carry astrology columns. This has obviously been a vast success, on a par with the many recent breakthroughs in pig aeronautics.

Okay, so it doesn’t act as a committee, it doesn’t investigate anything, and it doesn’t mount any campaigns you’d notice. But it can still produce a magazine, SI. As a former subscriber, the primary function of this august journal seems to be to campaign for funds either (a) to build a large ‘Center for Inquiry’ in Buffalo, or (b) to fight off lawsuits.

If you want detailed coverage of SHC, or any similar subject, do yourself a favour and check out Michael Shermer’s Skeptic Society at http://www.skeptic.com and the magazine they produce, simply entitled ‘Skeptic’. It has extremely detailed and scholarly, well-written articles, but is also very enjoyable and easy to read.

8

I don’t know if this will help or hurt Jeremytt’s case, but the book he is referring to is called Dead Men Do Tell Tales : The Strange and Fascinating Cases of a Forensic Anthropologist and the gentleman who wrote it is Dr. William R. Maples, who passed away a few years ago.

However, I don’t remember him saying anything about SHC; I do remember him talking in the book about how hot crematorium fires have to be, and the fact that not all the bones burn thoroughly.

I do recommend the book, it’s quite fascinating. Dr. Maples was one of the forensic anthropologists (or possibly the forensic anthropologist, I honestly don’t remember) who debunked the idea that McKinley had been poisoned by arsenic.

9

Regarding the function of SI. I haven’t noted a preponderance of campaigning for funds, but I have read a number of interesting articles on subjects like spirit paintings, hauntings, ESP studies, and reincarnation (there are much more detailed articles in the print magazine. I’m not familiar with the history of CSICOP, but I see nothing to invalidate the studies the report on.
You are suggesting their motivation is flawed? Perhaps only a search for filthy lucre? :smiley:
I don’t particularly care. They make a fine news source for subjects of a skeptical nature, and are one of the few widly available skeptical magazines in print (even available at my local library, and Borders).

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by dogsbody *
**I don’t know if this will help or hurt Jeremytt’s case, but the book he is referring to is called Dead Men Do Tell Tales : The Strange and Fascinating Cases of a Forensic Anthropologist and the gentleman who wrote it is Dr. William R. Maples, who passed away a few years ago.

However, I don’t remember him saying anything about SHC; I do remember him talking in the book about how hot crematorium fires have to be, and the fact that not all the bones burn thoroughly.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by dogsbody *
**I don’t know if this will help or hurt Jeremytt’s case, but the book he is referring to is called Dead Men Do Tell Tales : The Strange and Fascinating Cases of a Forensic Anthropologist and the gentleman who wrote it is Dr. William R. Maples, who passed away a few years ago.

However, I don’t remember him saying anything about SHC; I do remember him talking in the book about how hot crematorium fires have to be, and the fact that not all the bones burn thoroughly.

Hah hah! I blew it the first time, didn’t I? sorry. Back to the point.

Yes, I do believe that’s the man. My point:

The basis of SI’s opinion on SC was this statement–“bodies can burn at far lower temperatures than previously believed”

If Dr Maples is right, that makes SI’s whole argument specious.

That’s all I’m saying.

12

I don’t think in cases of SHC that the entire body burns. A crematorium fire has to reduce a human to ash (and doesn’t aslways manage that with the bones). This is quite different from a fire that burns up a person’s fat and some of the surrounding flesh.

You might be interested in the photos and thoughts of this forensic scientist.
http://www.benecke.com/combust.html

13
14

Also, Dr. Maples’ point was not that bodies don’t burn at a lower temperature than that of a crematorium. Nor did he say anything about requiring a gas jet to light a human body on fire. What he did say, in his book (not the other gentleman’s book, that one I’m not familiar with), is that he has learned to recognize how bone has burned based on the damage done to the bone. (for example, bones burned with flesh on them change color and ashify(?) differently than bones burned alone.)

Also, one of the cases he discusses in his book was a situation where a man murdered his girlfriend, set a fire beneath the two of them, then committed suicide so that they could be “together in death forever.” (charming, I know.) Dr. Maples was able to reconstruct from bone fragments the identities of these two people, but really fragments were all that were left. Some teeth, and one whole tibia, I think, but otherwise nothing immediately identifiable. Which would seem to contradict your point about temperatures, Jeremytt.

One thing that you (J) don’t appear to be taking in to account is that crematoriums usually have a limited amount of time to burn the bodies; no more than an hour or so per body I would guess (I know it was mentioned in Dr. Maples’ book, but I don’t own a copy and I don’t recall offhand). Persons who have supposedly suffered from SHC were usually seen the night before, and not discovered “missing” or burned until some time the next day, giving them all night to smoulder into a single leg, for example.

I also remember the special on the Discovery Channel regarding the pig; I wonder if it’s available on video. (how macabre)

15

ianzin wrote:

And pig thermodynamics. <rimshot>

16

The Forensic Anthropologist is Maples. The book he wrote with said quote is “dead men do tell tales”

That should cover your source Mr B. carry on.

Osip

17

Frick, someone already mentioned that. Damned that is what I get for feeling smug and not reading all the posts first.
I shall go and dig up some of my old texts and notes and a handy book by Ulberich (Forensic antho dude at Smithsonian) and see what I can find on this.

Osip

18

Kyber, I admire your purity of motive, but I think you have misunderstood me a little.

The book I read was called THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMANOVS, I believe, and a good part of that book QUOTED Dr. Maples.

A large part of what Dr Maples was saying was, paraphrased, that it was very difficult, if not impossible to burn bodies–in the way that the tzar’s family’s bodies were supposed to be burned…in fact, usually what happens is the bodies CHAR, PREVENTING FURTHER BURNING.

I don’t want to appear to be supporting SHC…I’m not…

I’m only questioning some of the SI’s investigations…in this case, it’s possible they’re wrong.
By the way, David, about your post:

You mentioned I’m unfairly lumping SI into one amorphous whole, rather than realizing there are many writers at SI…

Buddy, you do have a point there…:slight_smile: Maybe some of the SI writers are more accurate than others, and some are more objective than others…Very good point, man…

19

What was the way in which the Tsar’s family was burned?
Because the article above by a forensic specialist seems to suggest that bodies burn quite well, even with just a little gasoline, at relatively low temperatures. No mention is made of charring preventing burning.

20

Kyber:

Thanks for asking…let me digress for a moment…In the book about the tsar’s family…this is the thesis–Originally, it had been claimed that the all the bodies except for 2 were doused with vitriol, and the bones dumped down a mine shaft. The other 2 bodies were supposedly doused with petrol (Gasoline) and burned…

The whole focus of the author’s point was that this idea didn’t feel right, because bodies are difficult to burn. To support this author’s idea, he quotes Dr. Maples, who concurs…Dr Maples is supposed to be the most eminent anthropologist in the country…He said," Bodies are extremely difficult to burn in a fire, and in fact, they char", etc, etc.

This was one of the main reasons that the researchers decided to look elsewhere for the tsar’s bones…the original story didn’t make sense…

NOW ADMITTEDLY, this has nothing to do with SHC, except to cast doubt on SI’s investigation of it. If their basic premise is wrong, that is, that bodies can burn at low temperatures…then the whole argument must be wrong…

One thing I forgot to mention. YOu all are talking about bodies of pigs or humans doused in gasoline…in SHC cases, you are talking about lit cigarettes…is it really parallel?

Also, if the “wick effect” works on living bodies in SHC cases, why won’t it work on dead bodies elsewhere?