The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

Don't pick seven-year-old fights again here, unless you want to be posting continually on this thread for the next seven.

If you remember the previous discussion, it was established that none of the lamps that you consider "bright" were in use on the streets of London in 1888. There was still no such thing as a "powerful" gas lamp until the invention of the mantle in 1891; until then the streets of London were lit using naked gas flames under glass.

All the best,
Ben

There is no seven-year old fight, Ben. The issue was laid to rest seven years ago.

What you seem to think I donīt remember is exactly what I pointed out in my post - the Bray lamp was too expensive, and so the authorities did not buy it, or any other of the powerful gas lamps constructed to meet the threat from the electric lamps.

Did you not read that? Or did you forget that you had read it? Or what?

You produced the Youtube clip of a Bray lamp as an example of how poorly the gas lamps of the East End lighted the streets.

But the Bray lamp was not in existence on the East End streets of 1888.

So you provided an example that is not viable. It was historically faulty. And even more so since the Bray lamp was a quite powerful lamp - as opposed to your faulty claim. 500 c.p - that is a lot of light, and not some dim beacon. Fact.

Likewise, you claimed that there were no powerful gas lamps in existence in 1888.

That too was wrong. Fact.

I simply corrected you. Fact.

Since you were wrong. Fact.

There ends the discussion, as far as factualities go.

I have little doubt that the debate will go on nevertheless, not getting involved with simple matters like factualities.

I will not join it, however. You are at liberty to produce even more factual deficiencies, should you desire so.

You are even at liberty to claim that I cannot resist answering you.

Try it, Ben - and you will be factually incorrect again.

[Wickerman]

Should any doubt persist on the issue of the luminous intensity of the gas lamps available on London's streets in 1888, all anyone needs to do is consult these clips, use their eyes, halve the level of brightness, and then try to envisage objects positioned several feet below these mighty lights.

But Ben, every instance of your imaginings will be on the lower side of reality, likewise, anyone viewing the lamp as brighter will imagine on the higher side.

The bottom line is, you cannot recreate the true scene. The best that you can do is replicate what you want the scene to look like.

No-one knew the lamp was there until I mentioned it, so now your efforts go into arguing that "even though a lamp was near, it wasn't bright enough".

You have no intention of accepting there was a light available within a few feet that "could" have helped Hutchinson see what he claimed to see.

[DJA]

Sticking a handkerchief in an overcoat pocket would have made as much sartorial sense as wearing underwear on your head
Ben

A compromise?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Gumbys-present-architects-sketch.jpg

[Wickerman]

Ben.
You talk about "not powerful", and "dim", yet this debate concerns a wall lamp within a few (4-6?) feet of anyone standing outside the Millers Court passage.

How powerful does the lamp need to be to cast sufficient light?
You can't answer that question, therefore, you have no idea how powerful the lamp needs to be.

Bottom line is, you are guessing again.

Extremely unlikely, Jon.

Opinion again.
It is quite likely - my opinion.
So now what?

[Ben]

Hutch could very easily have noticed this handkerchief sticking out of the top of one of his pockets as Astrachan passed under the lamp, before they walked down Dorset St.

Extremely unlikely, Jon.

Sticking a handkerchief in an overcoat pocket would have made as much sartorial sense as wearing underwear on your head, according to anyone living in Victorian England. If he wore a handkerchief, it would probably have been slipped inside his waiscoat pocket, and certainly not visible underneath two coats.

Also, the fact that the item did not appear in the "description" section of the statement - which the forwarded to the press - is another obvious indication that the handkerchief wasn't visible, or rather Hutchinson never claimed it was.

Just for the record, the Ordnance Survey Map gives 125 ft. approx. from Millers Court passage to the east end corner of Dorset St., south side, with Commercial St.

Thanks, Jon!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Don't pick seven-year-old fights again here, unless you want to be posting continually on this thread for the next seven.

If you remember the previous discussion, it was established that none of the lamps that you consider "bright" were in use on the streets of London in 1888. There was still no such thing as a "powerful" gas lamp until the invention of the mantle in 1891; until then the streets of London were lit using naked gas flames under glass.

Do you remember who first provided that YouTube clip of a Bray Burner gas lamp? You. You pointed out that the Bray lamp provided the brightest light of all gas lamps available in 1888, and yet when you provided that clip, it became obvious immediately just how "mighty" this lamp was - i.e. not remotely so, by anyone's standards.

But thanks awfully for reminding me that these lamps, patented in the 1870s, were rejected as being too expensive for mainstream use on London's streets. In other words, the lamp responsible for "illuminating" Astrakhan and his hanky would have been considerably weaker than the one in this video, which you describe as the "mightiest of them all".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

Not "bright" by any stretch of the imagination.

There was furthermore the Siemens lamp, emitting a mighty 120-400 c.p!

Half as "bright" as the lamp showed in the clip, then?

Here is another example of 500cp at work. Notice that the surrounding vegetation becomes more visible when the lamp is turned off!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTyp5-j9Sg

CP stands for Candle Power, just in case anyone was in any doubt.

Should any doubt persist on the issue of the luminous intensity of the gas lamps available on London's streets in 1888, all anyone needs to do is consult these clips, use their eyes, halve the level of brightness, and then try to envisage objects positioned several feet below these mighty lights.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Out here, everything seems to go in circles.

Once again, we have a poster linking to a film of a Bray lamp and telling us that it was a lamp that emitted very little light.

That is as untrue as it was the last time over this was claimed.

The Bray lamp was produced to meet the threat of the new electric lamps. And it was manufactured years before 1888, so claiming that there were no bright gas lamps available at that time is false.

There were a number of manufacturers producing competitive gas lamps. There was the Sugg lamp, emitting 80 c.p (candlepower).

The use of candle term candlepower was originally defined in England by the Metropolitan Gas Act 1860 as the light produced by a pure spermaceti candle weighing one sixth of a pound and burning at a rate of 120 grains per hour. Spermaceti is found in the heads of sperm whales, and was once used to make high-quality candles. 80 c.p makes for a strong light.

There was furthermore the Siemens lamp, emitting a mighty 120-400 c.p!

And then there was the mightiest of them all, the lamp alluded to out here as a flickering, dim light: the Bray lamp. It produced 500 c.p.

Light 500 candles inside a room and it will get VERY bright!

However, the Bray lamp was too expensive, and so the London authorities did not invest in it. So, the lamps that were left to shine on the East End streets were of poorer quality. They did, however, produce enough light for the PC:s to make notes under them.

At any rate, claiming that the light produced was very low and exemplifying with a Bray lamp does not bring any correct light at all to the discussion, just as it is equally incorrect to say that there were no bright gas lamps available in 1888.

[DJA]

Prolly reckon it was Dr. John.

[Rosemary]

Merci

Let's face it,amongst those known to be at the scene of Stride's murder,no one could really be described a broad shouldered.

Broad shoulders are often the result of demanding excercise.

Charles Warren took an interest in Packer and sent for him.

Warren was an officer in the Royal Engineers.

Strongly suspect a RE sapper by the name of Carter was BS man.

His "card" was found near Eddowes body.

Some believe Carter was a baker.

Some people believe Hutchinson was a plumber,with a military bearing.

Some believe you can see boot buttons under spats.

Suspect I've found myself in a Monty Python sketch.

That would be me, a newbie.

[DJA]

What bodyguard, DJA? Do you mean a pimp (at about 4d a time they'd both be starving, surely), or boyfriend, like her ex Michael Kidney? And where is the proof?

Let's face it,amongst those known to be at the scene of Stride's murder,no one could really be described as broad shouldered.

Broad shoulders are often the result of demanding excercise.

Charles Warren took an interest in Packer and sent for him.

Warren was an officer in the Royal Engineers.

Strongly suspect a RE sapper by the name of Carter was BS man.

His "card" was found near Eddowes body.

Some believe Carter was a baker.

Some people believe Hutchinson was a plumber,with a military bearing.

Some believe you can see boot buttons under spats.

Suspect I've found myself in a Monty Python sketch.

[sleekviper]

No one said bright, and how dim it was depended on the person lighting it. Some people used less gas for fear of being blown off the ladders. Ok, light travels through space, is space lit up? No, space is a vacuum with nothing to alter the straight waves of photons. Once it reaches earth, everything from air to water cause refraction, the bending of light, and reflection turning darkness to day. What is glare? How do sunglasses work? Glare is not a secondary light, it is photons bouncing off a surface into photons, which causes intense light. Sunglasses only allow the photons before they bounce basically, removing the interaction causing glare. The video presented, is through a polarized lens; it has removed the interaction leading from the source, to the air. They did this to show the source flame since otherwise there would just be glare. Not sure what a unicorn has to do with light, but ok, now done with topic.

[Rosella]

What bodyguard, DJA? Do you mean a pimp (at about 4d a time they'd both be starving, surely), or boyfriend, like her ex Michael Kidney? And where is the proof?

[DJA]

Ah, another lookout, Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

Which movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

Seems more your style.

[DJA]

is it your contention that Jack only took a lookout along when he picked up Mary Kelly?

Yes.

Hutchinson was a "cockatoo" for Jack's entrance into Miller's Court and for some time after.

Mr A is a complete fabrication.

I believe that BS man was Stride's bodyguard and that Jack struck after he got tired of waiting and had an altercation over non payment of services.

[Wickerman]

Ah, another lookout, Hollywood has a lot to answer for.