So, is Frank Baker telling the truth?
No.
So, is Frank Baker telling the truth?
What makes you think this?
Anyone?
Looks like no donations from this site.
Well, can we rule out the possibility of SHC 100%?
You don't have any evidence he's lying.
You may say shc has no evidence but anything's possible. We do not know everything there is to know about the human body, and we're still discovering new things about metabolism.
Has anyone read that Huffington Post article on Frank Baker? He says he survived spontaneous combustion and his doctor diagnosed him with it, sayign he burnt from the inside out.
The organic chemicals in the body would be broken down if SHC happened and the chemicals would be synonymous as if the person were burnt by an external source. This is just common sense, try catching something alight with radiowaves (not advised) and catch the same type of objects alight with an open flame. A person who didn't see what happened wouldn't be able to tell if the object caught alight from the radiowaves or from a simple open flame.
No one has bothered to look at the episode for themselves or even pose a good argument against Frank Baker's story aside from ''a lack of evidence'' but really you have to understand SHC is something that, even if it exists, you wouldn't be able to find evidence for anyway, at least not scientific evidence, more like witness testimony and pictures, since the evidence literally gets burnt away so there is no evidence that SHC occurred despite the circumstances being incredibly unusual, and people don't just simply burst into flames without an external source, unless there is an internal source of heat being responsible.
We also cannot say that the person is lying and there's some huge conspiracy of SHC either.
Occam's Razor points towards SHC being a malfunction of the body instead of a mass conspiracy of people who are all making up the same experience.
There are simply too many cases to dismiss all of these as liars, and there's the problem of people opening up about something so strange, risking public ridicule when they could just lie about something mainstream science bothers to accept because it can be tested in a lab as it happens.
GaiaGirl95,
No, we can't. It's very difficult to rule some things out 100%.
But you have the onus of proof the wrong way around. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. And so far, the only evidence you have provided is the self-report of one guy.
Got anything more solid than that?
It's an extraordinary claim. So it might be a good idea for you to start by asking yourself: what is more likely? That he's lying (for the publicity, the money he makes from the story and the "donations" he gets from believers, perhaps), or that there's a new phenomenon under the sun that science can't explain?
It's not true that anything is possible. Science has a pretty good understanding of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, for example. Those laws rule lots of stuff out as impossible, and that's just one example.
What you have here is an argument from ignorance. You're saying that because we don't know everything about the body, therefore we ought to believe your SHC guy's crazy story. But the fact is, we don't need to know everything about the human body to refute his claims. That's a long way down the track from where you've brought us to so far. The first, sensible, thing to do would be to establish the basic facts.
You say we don't have evidence that Frank is lying. But what (reliable) evidence do you have that he isn't making the whole story up?
SHC isn't a recognised medical illness, so no doctor worth his salt would ever make such a diagnosis. We can safely write that guy off as a quack, don't you think? That's if the un-named doctor actually exists at all.
Do you know of any mechanism that could possibly cause the organic chemicals in a human body to reach ignition temperature, internal to the body?
Fires always leave evidence. There are people whose jobs it is to determine the causes of fires and the points of ignition. They are there to investigate things such as the possibility of arson, for example. What do such experts have to say about supposed SHC cases?
No mass conspiracy is necessary, as far as I can see. Just some deluded people, or people out to make a buck from the gullible.
How many examples of people who have Frank's "problem" do you know of, exactly?
What do you think of alien abduction? Is that real too? Because we surely can't dismiss all abductees as liars.
Here's a question for you, why would Frank Baker knowingly risk public ridicule by proclaiming himself as a SHC survivor on TV?