Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Elamarna]

Sorry Steve, I do need to press you a little on this. What do you mean by that? Our eyes adapt to low light today don't they? Our pupils expand and contract according to the light available right? So if we are plunged into low light, at first we might not be able to see very much but then our eyes will adjust after a few minutes.

Thats ok David, no problem

True, and I am not talking about the ability to see better or not, more the ability to function better in low light,

Let me give an example, working in research i at times had to work in reversed lighting situations, that is the room where you are working is in full darkness during working hours, the only light available is low level red,

For the first few days carrying out tasks is difficult, but with time you perform better, its not eyesight as such, but a learned adaption.

Now Pierre says that there were people working in "complete darkness" in the British Empire and Phil responds by saying that Pierre has "a point worth thinking about" because our eyes are "accustomed" to bright light whereas in the Victorian period their eyes would be "more accustomed" to less light. But surely the working of our eyes is exactly the same today as it was 125 years ago isn't it? Regardless of what one is "accustomed" to, the eyes work in exactly the same way, adjusting to the amount of light available.

But if you are saying that people could actually see better in low light during the Victorian period than we can today, is there any scientific basis for this?

No i am not, even if it may sound close, I believe for instance that those working constantly in low light, could perform tasks better than those who did not, however it was not just about adaption of eyesight, but a learned adaption to function better in those conditions.

That is the question I was asking Phil although, for some reason, he described my post as "childish".



Sure but you do know I wasn't responding to any of your posts don't you?

Yes I do, but i raised the issue to start which Pierre then took in a somewhat different direction and just wanted to make my view clear.

Perhaps not in the case of Eddowes but surely almost complete darkness in the case of Nichols, bearing in mind the testimony of Cross and Paul?

Fair point, but I was specifically talking about Eddowes and the "expert" comments on such in Trevor's book

Merry Christmas by the way Steve!

same to you


steve

[David Orsam]

Thats ok David, no problem

True, and I am not talking about the ability to see better or not, more the ability to function better in low light,

Let me give an example, working in research i at times had to work in reversed lighting situations, that is the room where you are working is in full darkness during working hours, the only light available is low level red,

For the first few days carrying out tasks is difficult, but with time you perform better, its not eyesight as such, but a learned adaption.

Yes I understand that perfectly; and if the light had been very bright no doubt the same would have been true and if you had been working in conditions of loud music or with explosions going off around, your performance would have improved each time too.

I think an improved performance of a specific task after a few days is rather different to what Pierre and Phil were saying, whereby the point was that people who spent their lives in low light would have a better ability to see in low light (and Phil expressly told me there was a scientific basis to this whereby living in darkness would improve your eyesight contrary to what happens in nature to animals, who tend to go blind).

What I mean is that if Jack the Ripper existed today and did a few practice runs in the night he would then be at the same level of performance as anyone in 1888, regardless of how used they were to low light and how used they were to working in "complete darkness". There never is an improvement in eyesight, just an improvement of psychological ability to function in difficult conditions.

[John G]

Sorry Steve, I do need to press you a little on this. What do you mean by that? Our eyes adapt to low light today don't they? Our pupils expand and contract according to the light available right? So if we are plunged into low light, at first we might not be able to see very much but then our eyes will adjust after a few minutes.

Now Pierre says that there were people working in "complete darkness" in the British Empire and Phil responds by saying that Pierre has "a point worth thinking about" because our eyes are "accustomed" to bright light whereas in the Victorian period their eyes would be "more accustomed" to less light. But surely the working of our eyes is exactly the same today as it was 125 years ago isn't it? Regardless of what one is "accustomed" to, the eyes work in exactly the same way, adjusting to the amount of light available.

But if you are saying that people could actually see better in low light during the Victorian period than we can today, is there any scientific basis for this?

That is the question I was asking Phil although, for some reason, he described my post as "childish".



Sure but you do know I wasn't responding to any of your posts don't you?



Perhaps not in the case of Eddowes but surely almost complete darkness in the case of Nichols, bearing in mind the testimony of Cross and Paul?

Merry Christmas by the way Steve!

Merry Christmas, David. And, in the final words of many a House of Lords/Supreme Court justice, "I have nothing useful to add."

[David Orsam]

Merry Christmas to you too John.

Judgment for the Appellant then.

Or, wait a minute, do I mean the Respondent?

[John G]

Merry Christmas to you too John.

Judgment for the Appellant then.

Or, wait a minute, do I mean the Respondent?

Or even cross appellant!"

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;404194]

Sorry Steve, I do need to press you a little on this. What do you mean by that? Our eyes adapt to low light today don't they? Our pupils expand and contract according to the light available right? So if we are plunged into low light, at first we might not be able to see very much but then our eyes will adjust after a few minutes.

Potential eyesight can be measured as a constant (PE) over time (this is what your eye can see in the best conditions).

But eyesight (E) is affected by situations (S) depending on time (T) and place (P).

This gives:

T+P = S for E.

This means that PE can not always be obtained, but there is E on a scale from 0 to ....

For E to be useful, there is also ability (A) connected to E.

My hypothesis is that A can / must be improved in S where T and P affects E so that E has a low value. For example, if E = 0-1, A must be high if a task shall be completed. If E = 4, A must not be very high, since E is high.

Examples for S (affected by T and P) where E is used and affected on a scale:

Warfare. Differs both in T and P. Warfare in the Middle Ages could be performed in very poor light conditions at night (T) and in the woods (P) IF (condition) A was high!

Hunting. Differs both in T and P. Hunting at night demands high ability in A.

Now, one traditional hypothesis gives that "Jack the Ripper" was skilled. T

he question is: Could Jack the Ripper have reached the level of A without having been a doctor for example if the vlues for E was low?

As I see it, we must define A and work from there to answer this question.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404279]

Potential eyesight can be measured as a constant (PE) over time (this is what your eye can see in the best conditions).

But eyesight (E) is affected by situations (S) depending on time (T) and place (P).

This gives:

T+P = S for E.

This means that PE can not always be obtained, but there is E on a scale from 0 to ....

For E to be useful, there is also ability (A) connected to E.

My hypothesis is that A can / must be improved in S where T and P affects E so that E has a low value. For example, if E = 0-1, A must be high if a task shall be completed. If E = 4, A must not be very high, since E is high.

Examples for S (affected by T and P) where E is used and affected on a scale:

Warfare. Differs both in T and P. Warfare in the Middle Ages could be performed in very poor light conditions at night (T) and in the woods (P) IF (condition) A was high!

Hunting. Differs both in T and P. Hunting at night demands high ability in A.

Now, one traditional hypothesis gives that "Jack the Ripper" was skilled. T

he question is: Could Jack the Ripper have reached the level of A without having been a doctor for example if the vlues for E was low?

As I see it, we must define A and work from there to answer this question.

Regards, Pierre

Classic

what can one say

[David Orsam]

Classic

what can one say

Well if gibberish (G) is added to waffle (W) into which we throw in nonsense (N) and insanity (I) then we find:

G + W x (N + I) = T

where T is Twaddle.

If T is high, we usually find the cause of it being P.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404279]

Potential eyesight can be measured as a constant (PE) over time (this is what your eye can see in the best conditions).

But eyesight (E) is affected by situations (S) depending on time (T) and place (P).

This gives:

T+P = S for E.

This means that PE can not always be obtained, but there is E on a scale from 0 to ....

For E to be useful, there is also ability (A) connected to E.

My hypothesis is that A can / must be improved in S where T and P affects E so that E has a low value. For example, if E = 0-1, A must be high if a task shall be completed. If E = 4, A must not be very high, since E is high.

Examples for S (affected by T and P) where E is used and affected on a scale:

Warfare. Differs both in T and P. Warfare in the Middle Ages could be performed in very poor light conditions at night (T) and in the woods (P) IF (condition) A was high!

Hunting. Differs both in T and P. Hunting at night demands high ability in A.

Now, one traditional hypothesis gives that "Jack the Ripper" was skilled. T

he question is: Could Jack the Ripper have reached the level of A without having been a doctor for example if the vlues for E was low?

As I see it, we must define A and work from there to answer this question.

Regards, Pierre

Have you been at the Christmas sherry again?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Good to know that the 3B rule is alive and well.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Mornington Crescent.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404284]

Classic

what can one say

Hi Steve,

Yes, ha ha.

But how do you define A?

Letīs say A=rather high ability to mutilate a body.

Is A on a rather high level because (causal explanation) of trial an error in S (situation) caused by (causal explanation again) T (time) and P (place) where T is time spent in P dark places?

Or is A on a rather high level because (again) of T (time) and P (place) where T is time spent in education in a P school?

I.e. is A dependent on similar situations where there was T time spent in P dark places - or on a very different situation, i.e. the learning situation in a school?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404332]

Hi Steve,

Yes, ha ha.

But how do you define A?

Letīs say A=rather high ability to mutilate a body.

Is A on a rather high level because (causal explanation) of trial an error in S (situation) caused by (causal explanation again) T (time) and P (place) where T is time spent in P dark places?

Or is A on a rather high level because (again) of T (time) and P (place) where T is time spent in education in a P school?

I.e. is A dependent on similar situations where there was T time spent in P dark places - or on a very different situation, i.e. the learning situation in a school?

Regards, Pierre

Irrelevant to the issue of the thread.

You cannot put complex physiological processs such as eyesight into a something approximation a poor simultaneous equation.

Or have you acquired the knowledge to understand how eyesight works?

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404346]

Irrelevant to the issue of the thread.

You cannot put complex physiological processs such as eyesight into a something approximation a poor simultaneous equation.

Or have you acquired the knowledge to understand how eyesight works?

Steve

Steve,

of course you can. It is just a model for discussion.

What do you think - if ability of mutilating a body was rather high, was it because of the ability to work in the dark or because of the ability to operate on people in good lightening conditions?

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404362]

Steve,

of course you can. It is just a model for discussion.

What do you think - if ability of mutilating a body was rather high, was it because of the ability to work in the dark or because of the ability to operate on people in good lightening conditions?

Pierre

OK

Low light would mean the killer probably had skill and may have worked in low light before. That is if THE ORGANS WERE TARGETS.

If on the other hand the object was just to mutilate and disembowelled the light is secondary to the desire to do so.

The comments by all the experts are based on working in good modern lighting, they may have little or no experience of working in low light.

The comments suggesting lighting would be a factor is therefore possibly questionable from the perspective.



Steve