Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is This A Hoax?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#18 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 09 April 2016 - 07:37 PM

what about the frank baker case/documentary on the science channel? (and similar cases) was that a hoax too?

By all credible reports, yes, not only a hoax, but attempted fraud. See post #9 for more details and links.
 

however watching the documentary he seems sincere.

People attempting to defraud others usually do appear sincere.
 

he also set up a facebook page about raising money to fund a cure for his condition.

Notice that every attempt by Baker to set use a crowdfunding site to actually get money from people has quickly been taken down. These sites bear some legal responsibility not to facilitate fraud, which is criminal. Social media sites like FaceBook, which don’t actually handle money, have less legal responsibility, so tend not to take down pages like Baker’s.

#19 NotBrad

NotBrad

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 11 April 2016 - 11:00 AM

I don't believe in the idea of spontaneous human combustion. But I do believe that I spontaneously combust people! Hell what's more fun than setting something on fire they said, nothing of course right? WRONG! Setting people on fire is way more fun! 

Just kidding, I don't do it for fun I get paid to do it... MUAHAHAHAHA!



#20 LisaL

LisaL

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 07:27 AM

What about cases of people suddenly feeling hot in a localized part of their skin followed by the production of smoke from their bare skin, followed by burn wounds? Are those hoaxes too?



#21 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 08:50 AM

This Corvidus character has been infesting other science discussion forums with the same nonsense, under a variety of names and sockpuppets. Here are two examples:

 

http://www.sciforums...t.140292/page-8

 

http://www.sciforums...1/#post-3192798

 

He was recently also on the science forum under the name Leo Corvidae, with various cock-and-bull stories. 

 

The funniest was a story about someone who, he claimed, was throttled by his own thymus gland: http://www.sciforums...o-death.140305/

 

Perhaps you have already had this one here, too, I don't know.   



#22 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1222 posts

Posted 08 October 2016 - 10:39 AM

It sounds like someone is seeking attention.  Overall, I think he needs mental help.



#23 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 08 October 2016 - 10:49 AM

It sounds like someone is seeking attention.  Overall, I think he needs mental help.

Yes I'm sure you are right. But perhaps he is now, at last, getting some, because he does not seem to have cropped up since April.



#24 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1222 posts

Posted 01 November 2016 - 11:34 PM

what about the frank baker case/documentary on the science channel? (and similar cases) was that a hoax too? I remember reading about it in the Mirror (news website) and some woman left a comment implying she knew him (or his wife) and called him and his friend out for lying. He also refused a polygraph. 

 

however watching the documentary he seems sincere. he also set up a facebook page about raising money to fund a cure for his condition.

If a bastion of journalistic integrity like the Mirror can't be trusted, then who can be? :hammer:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/



#25 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1222 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 01:58 AM

Since we are posting on irrelevant topics here, I would like to mention that I am considering running for the local redevelopment board again  (from which I was forced to step down after 2 years due to changes in state laws).


Edited by fahrquad, 21 November 2016 - 02:01 AM.


#26 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1222 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 12:29 PM

What about cases of people suddenly feeling hot in a localized part of their skin followed by the production of smoke from their bare skin, followed by burn wounds? Are those hoaxes too?

The DOCUMENTED cases of people feeling hot in a localized part of their skin are usually experiencing the symptoms of menopause.  The possibility of water laden human cells combusting on their own is a physical impossibility.  We have already discussed the necessary temperatures for combustion in the posts above.  Give it up LisaL, logic and reason are completely against your supposition, as is the complete lack of documented physical evidence.  In technical terms it is only a supposition, and does not rise to the level of a hypothesis or a theory due to the complete lack of evidence.  Peddle your pseudoscience in the tabloids, where it belongs.  This is a real Science forum. 



#27 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 12:33 PM

The DOCUMENTED cases of people feeling hot in a localized part of their skin are usually experiencing the symptoms of menopause.  The possibility of water laden human cells combusting on their own is a physical impossibility.  We have already discussed the necessary temperatures for combustion in the posts above.  Give it up LisaL, logic and reason are completely against your supposition, as is the complete lack of documented physical evidence.  In technical terms it is only a supposition, and does not rise to the level of a hypothesis or a theory due to the complete lack of evidence.  Peddle your pseudoscience in the tabloids, where it belongs.  This is a real Science forum. 

You seem obsessed with this topic. The discussion petered out in May. I thought we agreed the poster seemed to have got help and stopped. Why not give it a rest and turn your mind to something more worthwhile?   



#28 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1222 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 12:42 PM

Like Craig D said wax candles. We are encased in a layer of fat and our clothes can act like wicks so it's not a mystery. Why do you think most modern cigarettes are self extinguishing.

Cigarette butts are no longer self-extinguishing due to the chemicals or elements that were added to the filter being deleted (i remember asbestos micronite filters).  My Marlboro Ultra-Light Menthol 100 butts continue to burn in the coffee can I use outside the door.  The can is generally self-emptying as the butts burn off. I have smoked on and off for the last 40 years (the longest period off was 10 years before my new wife and I went to visit my friend dying of cancer (see other posts).



#29 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1222 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 01:13 PM

You seem obsessed with this topic. The discussion petered out in May. I thought we agreed the poster seemed to have got help and stopped. Why not give it a rest and turn your mind to something more worthwhile?   

I am not obsessed with this non-topic  Not worthy of serious discussion here or anywhere else, IMHO.  It keeps popping up on many different threads and I feel an obligation to dis-spell the BS whenever I can.  I am probably fighting a futile battle against some sort of Bot.



#30 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 08:10 PM

Cigarette butts are no longer self-extinguishing due to the chemicals or elements that were added to the filter being deleted ...

Your claim seemed reasonable to me, fahrquad, so I googled it, and found this

In 2003, U.S. states began requiring that all cigarettes sold must be “fire-safe,” that is, have sharply reduced ignition strength (ability to start fires), as determined by ASTM Standards. By 2010, fire-safe cigarette legislation was in effect in 47 states. From 2003 to 2010, the number of civilian deaths in smoking-material fires fell by an average of 21 percent.

2012 is the first year all 50 state laws are effective, and all inventories of pre-standard cigarettes should have sold out.

at National Fire Protection Association's "About fire safe cigarettes" webpage.

Your claim appears to be wrong.

#31 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 22 November 2016 - 01:38 AM

I am not obsessed with this non-topic  Not worthy of serious discussion here or anywhere else, IMHO.  It keeps popping up on many different threads and I feel an obligation to dis-spell the BS whenever I can.  I am probably fighting a futile battle against some sort of Bot.

But you are not "fighting" against anything. No one is posting on this topic, except you.