WMD directed at YOU: spontaneous human combustion

[Guest guest]

- leslie o

o: buddy baker

Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:33 AM

WMD directed at YOU: "spontaneous human combustion"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pentagon buzz words: "slow kill, soft kill, silent kill"

 

This is a preview of one of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the US Government hides in its back pocket, waiting to unleash on YOU, the unaware American public.

 

SPONTANEOUS HUMAN COMBUSTION

 

Does the claim that the human body can ignite from the inside due to the rapid evaporation of water from the body, so ridiculous as to strain credulity?

 

Could the sudden and strange occurance of "frogs exploding" be caused by 'a virus' as was originally denoted by so-called 'experts'... or is this reason simply too dubious to be believed?

 

Although the victims denoted below have all been literally incinerated to death from the inside, the accounts illustrate identical complaints of being 'cooked and burned' described by citizens who are being invisibly assaulted with Microwave weaponry by the US Government. The difference being that the intensity of these same electro magnetic weapons are being 'controlled' --burning in small, imperceptible 'increments' -- so as not be noticed by others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) refers to the belief that the human body sometimes burns without an external source of ignition. There is much speculation and controversy regarding SHC, for it is not a proven natural phenomenon. Many theories and hypotheses have attempted to explain how SHC might occur, but those which rely on current scientific understanding say that instances mistaken for spontaneous combustion actually required a source of ignition. The likelihood that truly spontaneous human combustion actually takes place is remote, due to the presence of water and the lack of highly flammable compounds and oxygen in the human body.[1] #1-Henry Thomas Henry Thomas was a 73 year-old man who was found burned to death in the living room of his council house on the Rassau council estate in Ebbw Vale, south Wales in 1980. Thomas's entire body was incinerated, leaving only his skull and a portion of each leg below the knee. The feet and legs were clothed in socks and trouser legs. The fire had also destroyed half of the chair in which he had been sitting and melted the control knobs on a TV set some metres away (the TV set was still 'on' but had become so heat damaged that it no longer displayed a picture). The victim's spectacles were sitting neatly folded in the grate of his open fire, within arm's reach of the position of the chair. The victim's slippers were on the carpet just beyond his unburned feet, suggesting that Thomas had eased his slippers off and settled back to watch television before being burned. (Thomas was farsighted).

Pathologists found that Thomas had been alive when he began to burn, as his blood (taken from the remains of his legs) contained a high level of carbon monoxide. Heymer reached the following conclusions;

The body had begun to burn properly while seated in the chair.

The chair had caught fire while in contact with the body.

When one side of the chair had burned sufficiently, it collapsed, depositing the body on the floor.

Now out of contact with the body, the unburned portion of the chair ceased to burn.

The body continued to burn until only the skull and lower legs were left.

Police forensic officers arrived and announced that the incineration of Thomas was due to the wick effect. They reconstructed the scene as follows;

Thomas had fallen in the fireplace for some reason, while tending the fire, and had accidentally set alight to his hair. This accounted for his spectacles being in the hearth. He had then sat down in his chair and burned to death via the wick effect.

 

A scrap of fibrous matter on the fireplace was seized upon and it was declared that this would prove to be forehead skin, proving Thomas fell and injured himself. In fact, analysis proved the scrap was of bovine origin, probably from some leather item that Thomas had burned on the fire.

Heymer, a trained crime scene officer, argued that everything about the remains showed that the victim had been sitting comfortably in his chair when he burned to death. He argued that even a victim who had fallen and injured themselves would not get up and sit down in a chair while alight. Moreover, he argued that the lack of fire damage to the rest of the room indicated a rapid blaze which went out before anything not in contact with the victim had caught light. He also pointed out that the victim had draught-proofed his living room very effectively (to such an extent that no smoke particles were found on the outside of the living room doorframe) and that the oxygen supply in the room would not support the long slow burning of the wick effect. He also pointed out that the remains of the victim's trouser legs were undamaged, except for a very narrow burned 'fringe' where the remains terminated. Heymer described this 'fringe': 'as though the clothes had been burned through with a laser beam'. This, he said, also indicated something different from the wick effect. Thomas's death was ruled 'death by burning', as he had plainly inhaled the contents of his own combustion. #2-Homeless man Bailey When I got in through the window I found the body of a tramp named Bailey laying at the bottom of the stairs leading up to the second floor.[1] He was lying partly on his left side. There was a four-inch slit in his abdomen from which was issuing, at force, a blue flame. The flame was beginning to burn the wooden stairs. We extinguished the flames by playing a hose into the abdominal cavity. Bailey was alive when he started burning. He must have been in terrible pain. His teeth were sunk into the mahogany newel post of the staircase. I had to prise his jaws apart to release the body. The fire was coming from within the abdomen of his body. In 1986, Stacey was interviewed on BBC television's Newsnight programme, and went into detail: The flame itself was coming from the abdomen. There was a slit of about four inches in the abdomen and the flame was coming through there at force, like a blowlamp - a bluish flame, which would indicate that there was some kind of spirit involved in it. There's no doubt whatsoever, that fire began inside the body. That's the only place it could have begun, inside that body. The flames had scorched an area of floor measuring approximately six square feet and totally incinerated Bailey's right hand. Stacey does not believe in 'the paranormal', in which category he includes SHC. Stacey's own explanation is as follows: Bailey was an alcoholic, addicted to meths drinking, and had drunk too much of it. The meths had erupted through his abdomen and somehow exploded into flame. However, Heymer has written that Stacey's account contains a number of problems.

If Bailey was indeed conscious enough to respond to pain by sinking his teeth deep into a mahogany post, why did he not cry out, or indeed move at all?

Can a person really drink enough meths to ignite and burn to death?

Can enough gas at sufficient pressure to provide a blowlamp-like flame really be sustained from the contents of a stomach with a four-inch slit in it? (This pressure had been sustained for at least five minutes, because the time of the call and the time of the fire brigade's arrival are both known).

If one supposes that Bailey did not move due to alcoholic stupor, the idea that he clamped his teeth into a solid wooden post in agony becomes hard to support.

However, Bailey's head was fire-damaged and a less contradictory explanation could be that his jaw tendons contracted in the heat, clamping his jaws shut where his open mouth was already in contact with the post. At inquest, it was found that the cause of Bailey's death was 'asphyxia due to inhalation of fire fumes'. Bailey had suffocated on the fumes of his own combustion. A search of his body revealed no portable sources of ignition (lighters, etc) or inflammable substances. He was a non-smoker. #3- John Irving Bentley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Dr John Irving Bentley) Jump to: navigation, search John Irving Bentley (1874 – 1966) was a physician who burned to death in the bathroom of his house in Coudersport, Pennsylvania. His death was allegedly caused by spontaneous human combustion.

 

 

 

Bentley was last seen alive on December 4, 1966 when friends visiting him at his home said goodnight to him at about 9:00 P.M. On the following morning, December 5, a Mr. Gosnell, a meter reader, let himself into Bentley's house and went to the basement to check the meter -- since Bentley could only move about with the help of a Zimmer Frame, Mr. Gosnell had permission to enter as necessary.

While in the basement, Gosnell noticed a strange smell and a light blue smoke. Intrigued, he went upstairs to investigate. The bedroom was smoky and in the bathroom he found Bentley's cremated remains.

All that was left intact of the aged doctor was the lower half of his right leg with the slipper still on it. The rest of his body had been reduced to a pile of ashes on the floor in the basement below. His walker lay across the hole in the floor generated by the fire. The rubber tips on it were still intact, and the nearby bathtub was hardly scorched. Gosnell ran from the building to get help.

 

#4- Jeannie Saffin was an alleged victim of spontaneous human combustion. The case of Jeannie Saffin is one of the rare examples of someone allegedly spontaneously combusting in front of witnesses, surviving for a brief period, and the case being investigated by ambulance staff and the law enforcement officers (in this case, the Metropolitan Police). In addition, the case is very well-documented, with statements from all parties involved (except Jeannie herself) and a full inquest.

 

 

 

Although Jeannie Saffin was 61 years old at the time of her death, she had a mental age of approximately six, due to a bungled forceps delivery at her birth. She was, like many small children, terrified of naked flames and could not (according to her family) even be induced to hold a box of matches. At approximately 4 p.m. on Wednesday, September 15, 1982, Ms. Saffin aged 61, burst into flames while sitting on a wooden Windsor chair in the kitchen of her home in Edmonton, London, England. Her father, eighty-two-year-old Jack Saffin, was seated at a nearby table and said he saw a flash of light out of the corner of his eye and turned to Jeannie to ask if she had seen it. He was astonished to find that she was enveloped in flames, mainly around her face and hands. Mr. Saffin said Jeannie did not cry out or move, but merely sat there with her hands in her lap. Her father pulled her over to the sink, badly burning his own hands, and started trying to douse the flames with water, at the same time calling to his son-in-law, Donald Carroll: "Quick! Jeannie's burning!"[citation needed] The younger man ran into the kitchen to see Jeannie standing with flames 'roaring' from her face and abdomen. The two men managed to douse the flames with pans of water and called the emergency services. After the flames were extinguished, Jeannie "whimpered,"[citation needed] according to her father's evidence at the subsequent inquest. Jeannie's mental condition, her body's production of endorphins, the subsequent shock, and her eventual semi-conscious state may all have played a part in minimizing her response to pain. [edit] Medical witnesses According to the ambulance men who took Jeannie to hospital, the kitchen itself was undamaged by smoke or flame. The hospital notes of Jeannie's treatment begin with her transfer from North Middlesex Hospital to Mount Vernon hospital, at 7 p.m. on the day she burned. The first entry reads: "Approximately 4pm today thought to have burned herself? How? Found by ambulance men in kitchen, wearing nylon clothes, not on fire. Not in smoke-filled room."[citation needed] Both Donald Carroll, the son-in-law and Mr. Saffin (a First World War veteran) spoke of the flames coming from Jeannie as making a 'roaring noise'. Mr Saffin was registered deaf due to his experiences in the First World War, and Joe Nickell (see below) suggests that this undermines his testimony. Heymer puts forward the idea that the alleged 'roaring' noise may have been due to the rapid evaporation of water from Jeannie's body, likening it to a 'scaled-up' version of the hissing and screeching noise made when drops of water fall into hot cooking fat. Jeannie appeared to be conscious and aware in hospital but did not speak. The third degree burns on her body covered only the parts of her that had been unclothed, her face and hands, apart from her abdomen, where she had held her hands clasped while sitting. Her injuries were listed as follows: "Mainly full thickness burns of face. Burns to the neck, shoulders, chest, left arm, abdomen, thighs and left buttock - mixed full thickness and deep dermal with superficial patches on abdomen. Hands: mainly full thickness burns, both surfaces. Total: 30 per cent."[citation needed] A full thickness burn is one in which the flesh is destroyed down to the subcutaneous fat. This means that Ms Saffin's face was totally destroyed (her family described her burns as 'terrible' and her head 'like a football'). Her hands were essentially burned down to the bone. She lapsed into a coma and died nearly eight days later, at 8:10 a.m. on September 23, 1982. The cause of death was listed as "bronchopneumonia due to burns."[citation needed] An inquest was held into Ms. Saffin's death and police enquiries were ordered by the coroner, Dr. J. Burton, to determine how she caught fire. A letter to the coroner's office from a locum registrar in plastic surgery stated that Jeannie's injuries had been caused by a flame burn. Perhaps the most important fact that the eyewitness testimony from the inquest provides is that the burning episode in the kitchen lasted at most a minute or two -- and probably less -- before the flames were doused, rather than hours. Thus, this case can in no way be explained by the wick effect. Ms. Saffin's brother-in-law Donald Carrol told the coroner that: "I made a point of checking on the gas cooker and saw that it was not on and saw that my father-in-law had his pipe in his hand and I checked it and saw that it was fresh tobacco which had not been lit."[citation needed] [edit] Investigation by Joe Nickell The skeptical author Joe Nickell (see link, below) interprets this as a confession that Mr Saffin had been recently smoking and that this may indicate that an ember had smouldered on Jeannie's clothes, only bursting into flame some time later when fanned by a sudden draught from the open kitchen door. [edit] Police witness Nevertheless, the police officer who conducted the investigation into possible murder -- PC Leigh Marsden of Edmonton Police Station -- reported to the coroner's court that no cause for Jeannie's combustion could be found. PC Marsden's report stated the following facts:

That the wooden Windsor chair in which Jeannie had been sitting when she caught fire was situated in a corner of the Saffins' kitchen, about two inches from two adjacent walls forming a corner.

That both chair and walls were unmarked and undamaged.

That the nearest source of ignition was a small pilot light on the overhead grill of a gas-cooker some four to five feet away from the chair.

That the pilot light was protected by a grill hood and was unable to set anyone alight even if they were in contact with the cooker.

That the nearest gas point and electrical point were sited next to the cooker, four or five feet away from the chair.

That Jeannie's clothes "were still burning when I [Marsden] got there. I pulled off the rest of her clothes. She and her clothes were burning. I put it out with a towel"[citation needed]

PC Marsden told Ms. Saffin's relatives that he believed her to be a victim of spontaneous human combustion, which they accepted and put to the coroner. However, Dr. Burton told the family: 'I sympathise with you but I cannot put down SHC because there is no such thing. I will have to put down misadventure or open verdict.'[citation needed] In fact the verdict was misadventure. On Monday February 13, 1995, PC Marsden reiterated his faith that the death was due to SHC, during a phonecall with John E Heymer. Marsden added that some years after the event, he had been interviewed about the death by a senior fire brigade officer (name unknown to Marsden). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannie_Saffin"