“Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, and Verification.”

What specifically about the claim below makes it ineffective or unsupportable. Also, could someone please explain what they think would have to be done to the claim in order to make it more effective or supportable.

"There is a phenomenon known as “spontaneous human combustion” in which most of the victim’s body, as well as the chair, in which the person was sitting, is found burned to ashes but the rest of the objects in the room are relatively unaffected. This phenomenon suggests that there is a new type of subatomic particle: a “pyroton” that interacts with cells and causes the victim to burst into flame. [Arnold, L. (1995). Ablaze! New York, NY: M. Evans.]"



Sorry about the crazy long question, and any help would be much appreciated.

It's unsupportable because it doesn't offer any “observation, hypothesis, experimentation, or verification.” It's like saying you can fly. Nobody's going to believe it until they see you floating in the air.