[Jayy]

Originally Posted by Psychonautical ↗

Alright, quote fest time.



Right here, immediately you come in with an angry and negative attitude. Already you are saying that it isn't valid, without backing it up with any sort of evidence, articles or even your own theories on it.

Instead you chose a completely juvenile way of replying to a thread that is pretty cool and interesting.

So, I chose to defend this article as the thread starter clearly is interested in it and I am too along with the twenty or so other posters here.

I was offended to say the least, because like I said above you didn't back it up with anything. So I chose to make a joke out of it. I don't think it was all that hostile, and it's fine if you take offense.



Yet another quote, after my little joke you decided to attack my intelligence. Suggesting that if I were to think too much I may explode. An insult in my books.

And finally, I don't intend to quote the pitiful article that you posted here. And I have no doubt that you probably barely skimmed it, yet I happened to have read the whole thing after you posted it because I was willing to give you a chance, after all I wasn't saying that SCH is a real thing, but I wasn't saying it isn't.

If you had maybe quoted the article, chosen a few choice paragraphs it wouldn't have escalated like this.

Ah, yet another quote. Hooray!



Right there you say that nothing has been proven about this nonsense. I'm going to go ahead and say that it completely contradicts what you said earlier about the premise being oh.. What were your words? "Incredibly fucking retarded" I think it was.

If nothing has been proven, why are you so adamant about it being fake?

I'm getting tired of this, we've strayed off of the topic so far.

My problem was that you condemned this and didn't give any reasons, then attacked me and quoted an article that has as much, or even less merit than some of the ones posted here.

Have some respect for the people that post these things, you're entitled to your opinion, and you may not be obligated to be a nice person. But it goes a long way.

I can't say this a million more times, so I'll just say it once again (ok, or maybe more than once): I was giving my opinion. My opinion is that the whole fucking idea of spontaneous combustion is totally retarded. I didn't say you or anyone else was retarded. You're being extremely sensitive. I really meant nothing against you or anybody else who posted in the thread.
And I didn't attack you until you attacked me with your "joke" (which clearly wasn't meant for me to find amusing... it was obviously obnoxious and intended to be so).
You could have ignored my original post and this thread and life would have gone on just fine w/out all this crap.

Also, nobody has to back their opinions up with proof: My opinion of dinosaurs is that they were incredibly amazing... and that's that. I don't need to prove my opinion of dinosaurs.
I don't believe in God... my opinion is that the possibility of any God is impossible and absurd.
I can't prove that there is no God and I can't prove that SC is impossible and ridiculous (that's why they call it an opinion).

Perhaps if I were a scientist or doctor or a fire expert I'd be able to prove my opinion on SC (but as you know nobody has ever proven that it's real).
I also can't prove that the Easter bunny isn't coming, but I know damn well that it's not.

I am quite a nice person, thanks,... again I think you're just being way too sensitive and misguided by taking such offense to my original post/opinion and making something out of nothing.
I still love you though.

[Psychonautical]

Originally Posted by Jayy ↗

Entire post

I'm not even going to bother explaining this any further, and will simply counter this by saying that. The post that I made afterward, was my opinion and intended for humor. Yes it was at your expense, but if you are trying to argue that I was the one who provoked this it's just going to be a rehash of an Eye for an Eye because the same could be said that you could have chosen to ignore what was clearly a joke.

In my original post, I did not once make a single statement that would have been directly attributed to you. Insult or otherwise, it was just an attempt at humor that you seemed to take to heart. There are two other people before you who found it funny and said so.

I wasn't asking you to prove your opinion, I was asking you to back it up. When it comes down to it, it's a simple fact that it's easy to disagree with something for the sake of disagreeing. The difficult part lies in giving reasons why you disagree.

One last thing, if you consider my joke an attack. I really hope that you work from home, because anybody who would become as enraged as you did by that should really not be interacting with society.

I wash my hands of this thread, continue to post if you like but I've said what needs to be said.

[Jayy]

Originally Posted by Psychonautical ↗

I'm not even going to bother explaining this any further, and will simply counter this by saying that. The post that I made afterward, was my opinion and intended for humor. Yes it was at your expense, but if you are trying to argue that I was the one who provoked this it's just going to be a rehash of an Eye for an Eye because the same could be said that you could have chosen to ignore what was clearly a joke.

In my original post, I did not once make a single statement that would have been directly attributed to you. Insult or otherwise, it was just an attempt at humor that you seemed to take to heart. There are two other people before you who found it funny and said so.

I wasn't asking you to prove your opinion, I was asking you to back it up. When it comes down to it, it's a simple fact that it's easy to disagree with something for the sake of disagreeing. The difficult part lies in giving reasons why you disagree.

One last thing, if you consider my joke an attack. I really hope that you work from home, because anybody who would become as enraged as you did by that should really not be interacting with society.

I wash my hands of this thread, continue to post if you like but I've said what needs to be said.

Well thank fuckin "God" that you decided to stop your crying and whining over this shit already.
I can't believe I allowed you to suck me into your nonsense.

Your real problem all along was that your feelings and ego were bruised and you took it personally because I gave my opinion. Sorry for ruining your delusion about this impossible SC crap, as clearly you so want to believe in it.

Oh boy, and yes!! I am just so "enraged" over you!! In fact I'm so enraged that I plan on going into work Mon. and shooting up all my co-workers!
I'll take pics and post em here though.

[Scooter91]

Originally Posted by Cosmo ↗

This aint fake, its a rare phenomenon. I saw a documentary about it once. usually human skin is very hard to burn, it just goes black and hard. but in some wierd cases, they find people like this who appear to have burned from the inside out, compleatly insinerating their body (which is very hard to do) no-one knows how it happens they once found a guy dead in his home, totally insinerated, but no fire damage to anything else in the room?!?!

Your full of shit lol you have to be stupid if you think this dumb shit is real

[Soulconsumer]

Proven fakes.

[houseoftechno]

Originally Posted by Psychonautical ↗

I'm looking around, and came across a few accounts in which the people actually survived for a little while. They seem to also fit into the wick effect theory.

These are just a few of the many hundred reported cases of "spontaneous human combustion":

In 1938, a 22-year-old woman named Phyllis Newcombe was leaving a dance at the Shire Hall in Chelmsford, England. As she descended the staircase of the hall, her dress suddenly caught fire with no apparent cause. She ran back into the ballroom, where she collapsed. Several people rushed to her aid, but she later died in the hospital. Although the theory was that Newcombe's dress had been ignited by a cigarette or a lit match thrown from the stairwell, no evidence of either was ever found. Coroner L.F. Beccles commented on the incident, "From all my experience I have never come across a case so very mysterious as this."

In 1951, a 67-year-old widow named Mary Reeser was at home in St. Petersburg, Florida. On the morning of July 2, a neighbor discovered that Mary's front door was hot. When she broke into the apartment with the help of two workmen, they found Mary in an easy chair with a black circle around her. Her head had been burned down to the size of a teacup. The only other parts of her that remained were part of her backbone and part of her left foot. Other than Mary's charred remains, there was very little evidence of fire in her apartment. A forensic pathologist, Dr. Wilton Krogman, said of the incident, "[It's] the most amazing thing I have ever seen. As I review it, the short hairs on my neck bristle with vague fear. Were I living in the Middle Ages I'd mutter something about black magic." But the police report cited a far less supernatural explanation for the cause of death: a dropped cigarette, which ignited Mrs. Reeser's highly flammable rayon-acetate nightgown.

In 1982, a mentally handicapped woman named Jean Lucille "Jeannie" Saffin was sitting with her 82-year-old father at their home in Edmonton, in northern London. According to her father, a flash of light caught his eye. When he turned to his daughter, he saw that her upper body was enveloped in flames. Mr. Saffin and his son-in-law, Donald Carroll, managed to put out the blaze, but Jeannie died of her third-degree burns about a week after entering the hospital. According to Carroll, "the flames were coming from her mouth like a dragon and they were making a roaring noise." There was no smoke or fire damage in the room. Some have wondered if an ember from her father's pipe ignited Jeannie's clothing.

Besides SHC being physically impossible, as I recall most of the SHC case histories are explained as fire mishaps, and none are identified as SHC by science or medical professionals.