Kyber:
Oh, I forgot…they found all the bones ELSEWHERE…several miles from where it had been believed for decades…but 2 sets of bones are missing.
Jeremy: The main point here is that you are using a source discussing one thing to try to buttress your argument on something completely different. It doesn’t work.
ianzin said:
Excuse you? Who says that was their last campaign? It is pretty obvious that you simply do not know what you are talking about. They have had a number of “campaigns,” including their Council for Media Integrity (of which the late Steve Allen was a co-chair), which continually pushes for responsibility in reporting scientific stories. They had a campaign for skeptics to buy stocks in major media companies so they could be heard at stockholder meetings. They have an ongoing campaign to organize local skeptics groups to act as better resources for science information. Etc.
I’m sorry, but this is just bullshit. There are maybe two pages in any given issue that advertise for their fundraising. Also, it shows how completely out of touch you really are. You admit you are a former subscriber. You say they are trying to build a Center for Inquiry in Buffalo when, in fact, that has been around for years and, in fact, there are several other such Centers across the country – plus one in Russia and one in Germany. Furthermore, they have not had to worry about lawsuits for quite some time – since Uri Geller bowed out of the last one a number of years back.
I certainly won’t disagree with your characterization of Skeptic as a good magazine, but to imply that somebody should read it instead of SI – especially for the erroneous reasons you give here – is simply wrong.
So far, nothing in that story shows that this premise is wrong. In cases of SHC, the bones are usually intact. The researchers were looking for the Tsar’s family’s bones, not bodies.
Your saying this shows you did not read the article, nor examine the pictures in the link I provided.
Here it is again.
http://www.benecke.com/combust.html
Kyber! That was obscene!
The link you sent me was to the SI! The whole focus of this thread!
You deve…
Kyber…come on…can you send me a link to a medical journal, or something?
With the presence of James Rand and Martin Gardner, and their subsequent will to disbelieve, I look askance at anything they write, just as I look askance at anything in FATE magazine for their will to believe!
Can you find an unbiased source?
Kyber, I had to set aside my admitted bias against SI, and looked at the pictures anyway. It’s hard to know exactly what to feel. The main thing that occurs to me is that the pictures don’t look an awful lot like SDC pictures, where both bone and body are reduced to ash.
That’s my initial impression, though. I’ll look further into it and get back to you…
jeremytt, it is difficult to remain civil, but you have already stated that not all SI authors are biased.
This is an article by a forensic specialist.
What more do you want?
I haven’t heard of any SDC (SHC?) cases where the body has been completely reduced to ash. This assumption may be where the source of your confusion lies.
BTW, you still haven’t given any basis for your claims about Garnder and Randi (especially since retracting the ad hominem about the Geller suit). Randi has always been thorough in his test for the million dollars, and so far it has not been through his willingness to disbelieve that people have failed.
It is through their failure to show anything higher then random chance in the tests.
Read the article in the pdf back issues of Swift on the testing of dowsers. I doubt you’ll see any problems with Randi’s methodology there.
Furthermore, just because Bencke was published in SI, does not mean he is automatically tainted. The article I linked to is on his site, and was written by him.
I doubt there is much on SHC in serious medical journals. All the sources I have found so far are from the paranormal and skeptical sides.
Kyber:
I’m researching your points, which so far seem to be valid. Can you give me a couple of days? I like to look at both sides of everything before I make conclusions…
See ya soon.
Kyber:
Like I said, so far, your ideas appear to have quite a bit of merit (with one exception). I found a website showing pictures of the pig experiment. The website itself is BBC, which I assess as absolutely unbiased. Of course, the underlying research was done by Joe Nickell, a SI investigater (those guys are EVERYWHERE…like a bad smellin’ fart, they follow you around)
Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s the link…http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_158000/158853.stm
The thing I’m reserving judgment is that there are at least 3 cases in which SHC has been witnessed. In one case, it was in a crowded room full of dancing teens.
I’ll have to do some more research on this. My present source I don’t deem completely reliable.
What on earth are you talking about. Besides slinging insults?
Joe Nickell is not mentioned in the link you provided. The experiment was conducted by:
Doesn’t someone usually scream “Oh Noooooo!” right about here?
Kyber, you are quite right. I stand corrected.
It’s exciting to me to find what I deem to be a completely unbiased report on the matter, Kyber. I just want to know the truth, no matter if it’s under a paranormal, skeptic, medical, or religious hood.
Off to do some more research…
David, with all due respect, I don’t see how…
Both the forensic scientist quoted by Kyber and Dr. Maples are talking about the exact same thing–the temperatures at which bodies can and cannot burn.
Oddly enough, there seems to be disagreement on this point between the experts. I do know that Dr Maples was considered the very most eminent anthopologist in the US at the time.
One other point–in viewing all the evidence, and accepting everyone’s beliefs as equally valid, something is occurring to me. To wit:
Is it possible that SHC could be caused by more than one source? It seems quite likely that most, if not almost all, of the SHCs are caused by the “wick” effect.
But eyewitnesses of some other events have told other stories. Some speak of a strange blue (or yellow) flame emitting from the victim at the time of the event.And in these second cases, sometimes the extent of the burning is different.
Do you all remember the event of the “mass hysteria” in CA? Nurses, friends, and relatives of an admitted woman all passed out when they got near her.(She had been admitted for a mysterious coma). Discover magazine deduced(fairly, I thought) that a very rare, unusual chemical, chain reaction was caused by an ointment she had used.
In view of these other SHC cases, a possible solution is a similar rare, chain reaction of chemicals. (A blue or yellow flame sounds chemical to me)…
I’m trying to find credible (to this room) sources to these witnessed SHC incidents. When I do, I’ll post my results.
I had said: “The main point here is that you are using a source discussing one thing to try to buttress your argument on something completely different. It doesn’t work.”
Jeremy responded:
That’s just it – they are not talking about the same thing.
One is talking about the incineration of a body by applying an external agent (i.e., dousing it with gasoline and lighting a match). The other is talking about a slow-burning candle effect. They are two different things.
Also, Jeremy, you might want to find Dr. Maples’ book and read his (rather thorough) discussion of the Tsar’s family’s death. I have not read the text you mentioned which mentioned his work, however IIRC the real reason two bodies were missing is that they were separated when the communists decided they needed to destroy the evidence.
He also has a very long chapter on crematoriums, and another about bodies that burned in the forest as I mentioned above. He does not, in fact, say that a body can only burn at crematorium temperatures, nor does he say anything about SHC.
David, good grief! You are splitting hairs with a vengeance!
There is an external agent in both cases! In your “wick” effect examples, it is a lit cigarette, flammable clothing, and/or candles, etc, nearby.
How COULD these things be different?
Dogsbody: Of course, you have a wonderful source at your hands…
But I’m quoting a different book. See THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMANOVS…whick quotes Dr Maples extensively…
I dunno, Jeremy, how about the fact that gasoline is an accelerant and encourages fire?
Dogsbody: you are right, but you have it exactly backwards…
Dr Maples says it’s nearly impossible…pertaining to putting gasoline on the tsar’s family’s bodies.
David here says it’s possible, using the “wicK” effect…using only a lighted cigarette!
That’s not awfully believable, is it?
Unless Dr. Maples is wrong, which he well may be. Other sources seem to disagree…