Spontaneous self-combustion

[delphi_ote]

So, indeed, the lesson of this whole thread is not only that memories can't be trusted, but that seemingly logical conclusions can't be trusted either if the results can't be replicated.

Wow. If you're up to it, I think you should share this with Randi. Just a narrative account of what happened to you, how you tested it, and the conclusions you drew from your results would be great.

This would:
1) Probably result in your storying being included in his weekly commentary, so your experience would be shared with a wider audience. It's something I think would be really helpful and interesting to a lot of people and would give you some more much deserved recognition for what you've done.

2) At least put a smile on Randi's face.

3) Would show Randi the positive impact the JREF forum community can have. I think he ends up seeing too much of the trouble the forum causes without getting to see the positive side.

 

[Gayle]

I think you should share this with Randi.

Jeff Wagg and I have talked about that. Seeing that I posted it in Randi's forum, he has the right to use the posts to promote skepticism in any way he sees fit. He has my permission. Whatever he wants to do is okay with me.

On a purely personal note, I have a certain amount of hesitation because I'm politically active in a way that has caused me to be labeled a firebrand.

I see five years of bad puns ahead.

 

[casebro]

active in a way that has caused me to be labeled a firebrand.

I see five years of bad puns ahead.

I'm proud of having a boss call me a rabble-rouser. One of the few guys who ever fired me. Wear your Firebrand Badge with honor.

 

[logical muse]

I seem to have missed this thread until just now, much to my consternation as it's made fascinating reading.

Gayle, I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding the unreliability of memory. Here are some quotes:

It was ten o'clock on a fine June morning. I'd just gotten out of the shower and was dressed in cotton shorts and a loose cotton shirt. My long hair lay wet and freshly washed on my shoulders and down to the middle of my back.

My wet hair saved me from being burned worse. It didn't combust and the burns on my back did not go higher than the ends of my wet hair. But ... my wet hair was laying on the shirt and the shirt burned like newspaper.

My hair came to my shoulder blades, not to my waist. It was damp, not dripping, having been wrapped in a towel and the excess moisture squeezed out before I got dressed. So my shirt was not damp and clinging to my body, held down by my damp hair.

I tested that this morning. My hair comes slightly below my shoulder blades. It does not dampen a shirt all the way down or hold the shirt against my waist.

Here I'm working under the assumption that "long hair and midde of my back" is different to my shoulder blades.

Is it possible, given that the events you've described occurred either 15 or 17+ years ago, that your hair was different back then? I'm not sure what bearing the details of your hair have on the combustibility of your shirt, but it does indicate that your memory may not be reliable.

Thanks for bringing this to the forum.

ETA: My unfamiliarity with anatomical terms means that "middle of my back" and "shoulder blades" might be referring to the same area, and I'm just too dumb to know. In which case, just ignore this post.

 

[delphi_ote]

Jeff Wagg and I have talked about that. Seeing that I posted it in Randi's forum, he has the right to use the posts to promote skepticism in any way he sees fit. He has my permission. Whatever he wants to do is okay with me.

On a purely personal note, I have a certain amount of hesitation because I'm politically active in a way that has caused me to be labeled a firebrand.

I see five years of bad puns ahead.

What about sending it to him anonymously or ask to remain anonymous? I'm sure he'd respect your wishes.

Randi is a busy guy and doesn't come around the forums much. He'd need a quick summary e-mailed to him to get the idea (i.e. "Dear Randi, I had this experience years ago. I'd always explained it happened this way. I brought up the subject on the message board and was inspired to test some of my hypotheses... " etc.)

ETA If you think putting the summary together wouldn't be worth the work, I'd be more than willing to pull something together from your posts for you.

 

[Gayle]

Defining our terms...

One of the explanations for spontaneous self-combustion is that the human torch has a lot of body fat which acts as fuel. I don't. At the time of the fire, I had even less than I do now.

That brings us to the question of shoulder blades.

If you click on the link below, you'll see the bones that make up the shoulder blade. They go down to the middle of the back, as did my just washed hair. My hair did not ignite and I did not get burns in the area where the wet hair hung down my back.

Most people can see only the top part of their shoulder blades. Because of my low body mass index, my entire shoulder blade is apparent.

That was a very good question. As I told the story, I mentioned my low BMI. However, I didn't think about the fact that most people can't see or feel the bottoms of their shoulder blades.

We did not define our terms. The link below defines what I mean by shoulder blades. It's a picture of bones. My hair came all the way to the bottom of the blade, maybe an inch beyond. That's close to the middle of my back. Most people probably think of the ridge of bone at the top as their shoulder blade.


http://www.deathstudios.com/images/Death_Back_View.jpg


Delphi_ote, if you have the time and inclination to put the story together from the posts, it's fine with me. You might PM Jeff and see what he has to say. My only major request concerned correction of my glaring spelling errors. If the story can advance the cause of skepticism and critical thinking I wouldn't mind bad jokes about me making an ash of myself in public.

Gayle

 

[logical muse]

Hey Gayle

Thanks for enlightening me. I was one of those people to whom you refer, thinking that the top ridge is the shoulder blade. I'm sufficiently informed now, so I don't have to feel like my day has been a complete waste.

 

[Soapy Sam]

LM- I had also noted those apparent differences. I concluded as a weight lifter Gayle probably knew what she meant better than I did.
She did.
You ain't the only one who just learned where his shoulder blades are.

I still think we missed something. I can't remember what colour my shower is, but Gayle seems a more observant person by far and methodical with it.
I want to know what else could have happened between leaving the shower and going outside.

For example- why a shower at ten o'clock? It seems late. had you been working out beforehand? Any possible heat source around your gym equipment?
Your husband left not long before. Late start that day? Some exception in your routine?

I think the shirt must have been already smouldering before you got outside. Yet surely not when you put it on.
You towelled your hair, but it was still wet. No hair dryer.

Long, wet hair. Long, wet hair...

What did you do, between putting the shirt on and walking out the door?

I know what I would have done. I would have walked to the kitchen and switched on the coffeepot / kettle- and I would have forgotten I did it, because it's a default action I perform when my mind goes null.
(If NOClueWhatToDo=1 then Make Coffee).
And afterward, I would never have remembered.
But I don't have long wet hair, so I don't splash water on electrical outlets. And UK powerpoints have spring loaded internal insulator gates , which American ones do not.

Just thinking. There's something you forgot Gayle. You forgot it then. What was it?

 

[Gayle]

1. Ten o'clock in the morning is not a late start around this household. It's the normal start of the day due to our work schedules.

2. I don't make coffee in the morning. My husband does. And he serves it to me in bed. (oh, I'm a lucky woman.)

3. I've never worked-out before 11 a.m., not even once. If I had a religion, it would be against it.

4. I don't recall doing anything else that morning except showering, dressing and going outside to enjoy the morning sun (and let it dry my hair.) But the fact that I don't recall anything doesn't mean I didn't do anything else.

5. My husband could find no ignition source inside or outside the house. Just the bit of mirror giving off some heat in the sun.


The way that shirt burned ... I don't think it smoldered for more than a few seconds. It burned in hot vaporous flames just like the clean (but formerly oily) rag I burned in the wood stove. From the time I felt heat until the time I pulled that shirt off over my head was mere seconds. And yet my back was completely blackened from shoulder blades to waistline. Not a little soot. Blackened.

To me, figuring out how the shirt ignited is not a huge mystery. It seems quite possible that something very natural could have happened that I missed. It would have had to happen quickly because my hair was still wet enough from the shower to not burn at all eventhough my charred back showed that the flames burned right to the level of my hair. But anything could have happened and I could have been totally unaware of it.

For example, mischief has been suggested. I've mentioned that I had ratted on the teenage boys down the street who had been shooting BB guns. Could they have zapped me with a parabolic mirror? I said I doubted it because my back had been toward the house, among other reasons. But can I swear I didn't turn my back in their direction? I could have turned to close the screen door or look at my Queen of May rambling rose. Could have done it for just a second. I don't remember either way. There's no way to know.

I never thought that my body had combusted and ignited the shirt. It was always the extent of my burns in such a short period of time that baffled me. That no longer seems mysterious.

Here's an analogy ... sometimes when I'm working outside, I'll discover blood on my hand. Somehow, someway, I scratched or gouged myself and didn't pay too much attention to it at the time. I'll have no idea how it happened. Maybe on a rose thorn or a rough piece of wood or wire. Who knows? I've never once looked at blood on my hand and said, "Holy Jesus, I've got the stigmata of Christ!" I look at the blood and say, "Oh, I scratched myself."

Now, looking at the fire event ... I looked in the mirror and said, "Holy Smokes, my body's on fire!" That's always been a huge mystery to me.

Now, after burning scraps of fabric, I no longer see that as a mystery. Now, I'm saying, "Oh, my shirt caught on fire and it was vaporous and it burned hellfire out of me."

I don't see any way to go back and reconstruct what might have ingnited my shirt. And to me, it doesn't really matter. The severity of my burns is now adequately explained.

Can anyone think of a way to go back and reconstruct what ignited the shirt? I can't. But maybe I'm not thinking clearly about it. This discussion shows this may be one of those (for me) rare situations where group thinking is more creative than individual thinking.

(And, Sam, clean your shower a few times and you'll know what color it is!)

 

[Beady]

Can anyone think of a way to go back and reconstruct what ignited the shirt?

What did ignite the shirt? No. Not sight-unseen, after 10(?) years, working only from hearsay.

What could have ignited it? We've already had a pretty fair crack at it, but are at a disadvantage because we're not familiar with "the scene of the crime," can't run a definitive set of experiments and, unless someone forgot to mention it, none of us have any experience as forensic examiners.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Oh, I clean the shower. (I live alone. I do all the cleaning). I just don't commit stuff to memory unless I actually verbalise it. I have no visual memory. (Or no visual recall at any rate. Clearly I do remember what things look like, because I know thst's me in the mirror every morning.)
But don't ask what colour my eyes are. I have no idea. I remember the colour of your shirt because I read it. Unless I actually look, I have no idea the colour of the one I'm wearing now. (Looks- White with blue ink stains).

To me, figuring out how the shirt ignited is not a huge mystery. It seems quite possible that something very natural could have happened that I missed. -Gayle

It's apparent from the way you dwell on it in your posts that the very idea of human spontaneous combustion causes you great distress. Having satisfied yourself that nothing of the sort took place, by concluding the mirror did it, you were content. Having now concluded the mirror probably did not do it, you are studiously ignoring the need for another source of ignition. I don't criticise you for that- first because it wasn't me on fire and second, because I have never for one second taken human spontaneous combustion seriously. It's not one of my pet bogeys, whereas it clearly has been one of yours. It's nonsense. Endit.

Hence my desire to keep bringing you back to the question of ignition. Your oily rag ignited after being dropped onto hot coals - probably at about 300 deg C. There was a huge amount of radiant heat there. If your shirt burned at the same rate, there must be a comparable heat source.

There's only one person here who can possibly figure out what it might have been. I think you may already know what it is, but you probably don't know that you know.

Easy for me to say. You say you have been over the question often. I still think there's something you missed, but I've badgered you enough.

By the way, does your kitchen have either a fire blanket or an extinguisher ? Know when was it checked last? If you answered "no"to either question- and this applies to everyone here, not just Gayle- do something about it , today.

 

[Gayle]

It's apparent from the way you dwell on it in your posts that the very idea of human spontaneous combustion causes you great distress.

...snip...

There's only one person here who can possibly figure out what it [the source of ignition] might have been. I think you may already know what it is, but you probably don't know that you know.

It would be ever so interesting to know what I know, but don't know I know. Like where I put my car keys. If anyone has any good evidence that suppressed or repressed memories really exist, the alien abduction crowd will be delighted to hear about it.

In my first post, I asked people to be nice. I expected the conversation to turn to me eventually. I wrote about a weird experience. I was hoping people could resist turning it into a conversation about a weird person. A futile hope, of course, but this conversation has been very good.

Just in case a few people missed it: I've said several times that I do not believe in spontaneous human combustion. I didn't combust from the inside out and we all know that.

I told my little tale for one reason. Weird things do happen in this world. Woos immediately attribute the happening to some paranormal factor. Some skeptics make the same kind of mistake, except they immediately attribute the weird event to a safe explanation and look no further. Unfortunately, in my opinion, jumping to attribution does not always explain weird things well.

Spontaneous human combustion (which is a misnomer for people burning up when their surroundings don't burn up) is often attributed to a fat, booze soaked, cigarette smoker passing out with a cigarette in their hand and catching their clothes on fire. Or some other permutation of a fat boozehound catching their clothes on fire and being too bemuddled to swat out the flames or roll on the ground or notice the excruciating pain. The clothes act as kindling and body fat acts as fuel. The person's body burns, feeding the fire with their own fatty flesh.

A dead pig wrapped in a blanket will burn in just such a manner.

Well, I'm not a dead pig. I can see and feel my shoulder blades. I'm not a drinker, druggie or smoker. I didn't fall into some faint or fugue and forget what I was doing. I accept that research clearly shows human memory is unreliable. But that's a far cry from accepting that the explanation for the unexplained event lies buried in suppressed memories.

Using suppressed memory as an explanation for anything falls in line with John Mack and the other psychologists who explain natural phenomenon like sleep paralysis and night terrors by saying the events represents repressed memory of alien abduction or sexual assault.

I firmly reject the idea of "recovered" memories. There is no evidence at all that recovered memories are anything other than suggestion and confabulation. So where could we possibly go with the idea that the answer to my shirt igniting lies buried in something I know, but don't know I know.

As skeptics, we have to do better than that. Oh, by the way, I haven't lost my car keys in years. I guess it's my husband who knows, but doesn't know that he knows where he put his shoes.

Sheesh!

 

[Soapy Sam]

I firmly reject the idea of "recovered" memories. -Gayle

Agreed.

In my first post, I asked people to be nice. I expected the conversation to turn to me eventually.

As it had do, given the situation. We are wholly dependent on your testimony. We accept this happened at all because we choose to believe your statement that it did.That testimony describes an improbable and unexplained event. Given we accept the honesty of the testifier, we must question the accuracy. You have accepted that with admirable grace.
Don't give up now.

I told my little tale for one reason. Weird things do happen in this world. Woos immediately attribute the happening to some paranormal factor. Some skeptics make the same kind of mistake, except they immediately attribute the weird event to a safe explanation and look no further. Unfortunately, in my opinion, jumping to attribution does not always explain weird things well.

In that context, did you consider the fragment of mirror a "safe" explanation?




Well, I'm not a dead pig. I can see and feel my shoulder blades. I'm not a drinker, druggie or smoker. I didn't fall into some faint or fugue and forget what I was doing. I accept that research clearly shows human memory is unreliable. But that's a far cry from accepting that the explanation for the unexplained event lies buried in suppressed memories.

You have a low fat index and work out. You said that. I never heard any association between SHC and fatness etc. I've always supposed the few rumoured cases simply died of heart attack or similar while sitting in front of a fire , or smoking a cigarette.
In fact , I'm not interested in SHC at all. It's a myth. I'm interested in how your shirt caught fire.

My bad though, if you think I'm still getting at suppressed memory. We've rejected that. We accept your statement that your memory of the day is as complete as we would hope for in a sober witness: When I say I think you know, but don't know you know, I mean you know what you did / could have done / must have done that day. You know the possibilities.
Nobody else does.

Your memory is clearly very good - though you acknowledge you and your husband differ by two years in dating the affair , I can't recall if you confirmed who was right. (I'm betting on you).- Also you are clearly a creature of regular habits. There are only so many things you possibly could have done. One of which caused your shirt to ignite. Let's face it- You were the only person there. Your shirt caught fire. Something you did (or perhaps failed to do) caused that. It may have been something as simple as standing in front of that mirror fragment. I'm not implying that it was in any way deliberate or careless. I'm not implying anything.
I'm stating simple fact, based solely on your testimony. You were alone in the house when your shirt caught fire. We ignore the alternative- that you ignited spontaneously, because neither of us finds it credible.

I don't think I'm missing anything. I think you are. I do fully accept that you don't know the answer and did not know it at the time. As Harry Lorayne said- The commonest reason for forgetting something is not knowing it in the first place.
I accept what you say about your memory and we agree that repression is not an acceptable answer.

So either you are back to the mirror, or there's another answer. we disagree only in one thing- you are content to accept that a possibly oily shirt can catch fire due to a natural process in the absence of any detectable heat source.
I'm not.

ETA- I not only lose my car keys. I've lost the car sometimes.

 

[Beth]

I somewhat late coming to this thread, but I do want to say Thanks Gail. It isn't easy to put an experience like this up for dissection on this forum. Regardless of what happened, how the fire occurred, you know more now than you did before. A good thing.

 

[Gayle]

I lose my car sometimes, too. I'm the woman roaming around the parking lot with the keys held firmly between her fingers.

Interestingly enough, the topic of repressed memories is semi-hot at the moment. Two threads have been started in this forum about this interview. The threads haven't picked up any speed yet.

December 8, 2005

The Truth Is in There

Susan Clancy on recovered memories, alien abductions, and how to believe weird things. A Reason interview.

Kerry Howley


In the late 1990s, as a twenty-year rash of high-profile sex abuse cases was winding down, Harvard Ph.D. student Susan Clancy took a skeptical look at the phenomenon of "recovered memories"—memories repressed for years and suddenly recalled in therapy, which had been sending accused molesters to jail for a decade. Her work promptly got her labeled a "friend of pedophiles" by one letter writer, and politically biased by a colleague quoted in the New York Times. Unprepared for the political minefield she'd stumbled into, Clancy started looking for a way to study false memory creation without inviting attacks of political bias. Naturally, she turned to aliens.

http://www.reason.com/links/links120805.shtml

I've had a skeptical view of repressed and recovered memories for many years. Fortunately, I didn't run into as much hassle as Susan Clancy did, but there was conflict. There was a time not so long ago when the woo idea that not having any memory of being abused was considered proof that abuse had taken place. It was nutty.

Regarding, booze and body fat ... Over the years, I've read articles about SHC out of morbid curiosity and for the (eesh!) morbid entertainment value. Booze and body fat seem to be a constant theme. I'll google tomorrow and see if I can find some of those. Anyone else who has links available might join in.

Hi, Beth. Welcome to the conversation. Everyone has been very nice. I was probably a little crabby over the repressed memory concept. Sorry, Sam.

 

[Dragonrock]

Gayle, even if you have low body fat, everyone's skin is mostly fat. Maybe it wouldn't be enough to sustain combustion, but it might been enough to get a small and local fire going.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Dragonrock- quite so. I actually doubt the fat percentage is relevant.
Any fireman will tell you three things are necessary to start a fire- Oxygen, fuel and heat.
That's not strictly true, as we know. An iron bar will burn very nicely in a fluorine atmosphere. Hydrocarbons can be ignited at room temperature by a platinum black catalyst. I doubt anything like that occurred here though.

Gayle? Any catalytic substances around?

My guess- despite the bare feet- is a static generated spark which started the shirt smouldering as Gayle lifted it and put it on. I've seen visible sparks in similar conditions in Colorado, but I'd expect Oregon air to be far too humid. Only been there once though.

Where I would differ from Gayle's conclusion- and why I would not advise using this as a case of "successful scepticism" - is implicit in the old Holmes dictum: " Once the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth. " .

If we except the mirror and accept Gayle's husband's conclusion that there was absolutely no other possible heat source, then this actually looks to me like the best case for SHC I have ever heard, and I suspect that's how SHC believers would interpret it.

We are not in a position to refute that, as we have no eye witness evidence, except Gayle herself. As the evidence is purely anecdotal it can be criticised by those of any viewpoint, or even flatly denied. Any critic of the conclusions only has to point out the obvious- unwitnessed anecdote; the neighbours are dead or gone; Gayle's husband saw only the after effects and the same goes for the doctor. The sole actual witness admits to bafflement. Imagine what Fox TV would make of that. Cue spooky music...

Which is what keeps bringing me back to the ignition event. Gayle says her mirror tests showed a mirror could make material smoulder. I'd suggest repeating that test next summer, on a similar day, with oiled cloth like that used in the stove test.
I don't feel we have a credible solution to the mystery, but we do have evidence that some paper and clothing is a far higher ignition risk than might be expected. (Try that cash register paper with the mirror, too!)
If a pure cotton shirt, not worn for particularly oily jobs and washed 500 times can burn like a garage mechanic's rag, after being flashed with reflected sunlight, that is emphatically worth communicating.

I'd note, Gayle- you did not say if you have an extinguisher in the house now. Everyone should have at least one. Keep it regularly serviced and accessible - and know how to use it and when. Even non-mysterious fires kill people.

 

[Gayle]

Define "Successful Skepticism"

The fire extinguisher is in the kitchen, serviced and easily accessible.

If we except the mirror and accept Gayle's husband's conclusion that there was absolutely no other possible heat source, then this actually looks to me like the best case for SHC I have ever heard, and I suspect that's how SHC believers would interpret it.

No, no, no. Let's reword that. We accept the conclusion that this was not a case of SHC. Gayle's husband didn't find an alternative heat source. He's convinced, but a conviction is not a fact. How can this possibly look like a case of spontaneous human combustion, even to a believer?

In fact, even my most woo believing friends and relatives did not think I spontaneously burst into flames. As I stated in my first or second post, strange theories revolved around some sort of mysterious, external ZAP that lit me ablaze.

My position is that I thought it was the mirror for years because it seemed like a reasonable explanation of all the possible explanations. But now, after discussing it, my position is that the source of ignition is, at this point, unexplained.

I would like to point out that Holmes' Dictum, Once the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth, was written by a man who believed in fairies.

Gayle's Dictum is: Once the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however, improbable, is the possible. Not the truth. The possible.

I'll even throw in Wolfe's Dictum, Use your intelligence, guided by experience. That ought to be enough to keep us away from Fox TV.

 

[Dave_46]

Snip
Any fireman will tell you three things are necessary to start a fire- Oxygen, fuel and heat.
Snip

Oxygen, fuel and heat will sustain a fire, you still need an ignition source to start a fire.

The three are usually given as Men, Women and Children.

End of derail, carry on.

Dave

 

[Soapy Sam]

How can this possibly look like a case of spontaneous human combustion, even to a believer?-Gayle.

Gayle- If someone wants to believe it, they'll believe it. And the wording I used is how it would be presented. Every argument you have made against SHC would be turned into an argument for it. Imagine the script-

An oily shirt? Ridiculous. It was high grade, pure cotton. The owner said it was her favourite round the house shirt because it felt so soft. She didn't wear it for oily jobs and had laundered it 500 times. How could it possibly be oily?
Ignition by sunlight? On a tiny fragment of mirror? On a June morning ?
Ridiculous!
Static electricity? In Oregon?
Kids with heat rays? Hey- a shapely young woman stands braless in a well washed shirt , taking the air. We all know what any spying neighbourhood lads were playing with and it sure wasn't heat rays!
Husband SWEARS (on the bible!)* that there was no other heat source.
She had a shirt that scarcely touched her, no body fat to speak of and she had BLUE FLAMES like rocket exhausts shooting out of her back two minutes after she came out of the shower!

OF COURSE it was spontaneous combustion! Probably a punishment from GAWD for behaving like a wanton hussy, wandering about the house half nekkid and titillating the local innocent youth...

* believe me, he'd be a "Pillar of the church" in the report, even if he last darkened the door at his christening.

Hey. I could write this stuff! I'm wasted in this job.
Gayle, what you or I think is of no relevance whatever to someone making sensational prime time for morons television.

Sure what's left is "the possible". But the possible, until proven otherwise, includes micrometeorite impact, a targeted gamma ray burst from planet X and the possibility you were just too hot too handle and burst into flames.

I don't buy it and neither do you. I'm just advising caution to balance those who have suggested you go public in some larger sense with this.
I think it would be inconclusive for actual sceptics , but standard fare for woos. And any real dissenters would grill you (sorry) a lot harder than I have, because to them you are a means to making their name.

I'd suggest you extend your mirror / ignition tests on paper and oily cloth and most definitely take any data you acquire to the fire station or other authorities. And please keep thinking about that ignition source. It has to be there.

Glad to know about the extinguisher. I hope everyone else is paying attention. Things burn, people. Sometimes, it seems, a lot faster than seems reasonable and for no discernable reason. Be prepared to deal with it.
This has been a public information office advisory.