|
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Copy this into your address bar for the report.
http://www.freshwater-fishing.org/spray
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 223
Location: minneapolis | Wow
 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Don't crucify me for this but in the Sawyer County Racord last week there was a side bar to an article about this and John Dettloff had taken himself out of the voting for this. Whether he did it on his own or a higher power in the hall "recommended" it who knows.
Corey Meyer
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | The Hall had four professors who refuted the photo analysis of the WRMA report. You also have to remember that the Hall has many eye witnesses’ affidavits of folks that either saw the fish or weighed it. It hard to disallow eye witness accounts. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Mr. Detloff did not vote.
They have a compelling report that states why they kept it as the record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Looks like a lot of wasted effort to me, on both sides, as it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Definately won't matter when I bonk that big mamma this year on Green Bay! |
|
| |
|
| I stand corrected, but still feel the influence was probably reflected in the voting. The best part about it is we don't have to hear about it any more, right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Fishing the weeds | I'm glad that nonsense is finally over. Now let's go catch that 70#er. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wow is right!
It took well over an hour to go through the FWFHF ruling, and (though I certainly don't hold a PhD in Mathematics) from what I can tell the WRMA assumed some facts not in evidence. And I had forgotten about the signed affidavits, including that of the Postmaster. Pretty compelling is right...
(Now... anybody wanna talk about the Malo musky?)
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/16/2006 5:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | I just finished reading the entire report and it was actually entertaining in a Hayward Hall of Shame sort of way. It was written to be intentionally obscure and out there so that most of the musky guys won't read it. And by taking this position they are really saying musky fishermen are too stupid to reply intelligibly to. If you get rid of the shi* in their report (it would be about 2 pages then) you find their basic agrument is that Dan Mills made too many assumptions....then THEIR guys go ahead and make more assumptions...which of course, you aren't supposed to be able to follow because of pages of meaningless explanations which have little if no relevance most of the time....to do their calculations. I'm sure in searching for THEIR guys nobody gave them a different answer then they wanted. Tell me right now after reading that report what facts did Dan Mills assume that weren't in evidence?? Can't do it immediately can you....what a bunch of horse puckey. They get after Mills for making assumptions and then go ahead and accept some of those assumptions for their own report.....huh? Is it just me or does that seem to be an odd thing to do.....man, I hope the sun comes out soon up here...the winter is getting long.
They really didn't address the taxidermy issue except to say the taxidermist was wrong and stick their tongues out at him. Their biggest agrument is that thousands of people saw the MOUNT....the obviously fudged mount....but what else could you expect.
So many who are tired of this ask so what? What significance does it have to me? Just go out and catch a 70 lb musky. Nice thought, but will almost certainly not happen if nature doesn't allow them to get that big. It seems nearly all really verifiable fish indicate the top end of musky is 60 pound range...maybe up to 65. Only selective genetic breeding may produce a larger musky but that would kind of defeat the purpose wouldn't it. You could always hope for a genetic freak but they would be pretty darn rare.
They had a chance to actually attempt to bring real credibility to the issue of musky world records and their pocket books just couldn't let them do it. Is that the laughter of Louis Spray I hear???? He's still laughing after 57 years.
You go Louie,
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Arlington Heights, IL | I have one question. Where in any part of the Hall's report do they show that there experts ever even read the report created by the WRMA, which was the bases for the protest? OK two questions. Why wouldn't the Hall want their experts to review the scientific study conduct by an independent and unbiased company, which again was the bases for the protest? Simple questions, but instead of simple answers, we get a very confusing report by the Hall, where the only refuting of the scientific study presented in the protest by the WRMA comes from the Hall itself and not any of their experts. Who's report is biased here, you don't have to be a scientist to figure this one out.
Jim Stella |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Doc,
Well stated, sir. Very well stated. |
|
| |
|
| Just catch a 50lber. out in front of Indian Trails Resort and it sure to become the next world record! |
|
| |
|
| One more thing, the fact that Detloff didn't vote on this issue couldn't be more irrelevant. I am quite sure he spent every waking hour convincing those who would vote to keep the record and then we he had the needed votes he backed out of the process.
The just of the hall report is that if you create a well documented fraud they will accept it as a new world record. |
|
| |
|
| Muskie Pat - 1/16/2006 4:20 PM
I'm glad that nonsense is finally over. Now let's go catch that 70#er.
Have fun going after that 70lber. They simply do not exist. (Except in Paul Bunyan/Babe Blue Ox land). |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I guess I didn't get the impression that the FWFHF's experts *didn't* read the WRMA report as much as I got the impression that the FWFHF didn't want their experts to be biased by the results. I mean, think about it--in all likelihood every one of those 4 experts could simply Google the WRMA and go right to their website and find that information. I will tell you I thought that the FWFHF's report could have been written better, and they should have used a spell checker. There were a few mistakes that made it past their editors. But I didn't see how it was over the head of most Musky fisherman; at least not most that I know.
And the "facts not in evidence" I referred to was simply the points made regarding the accurate vanishing points apparently needed for accurate calculations within the software. I admit some of those references to the WRMA's report being based on assumptions were a bit obscure--but I do think they (FWFHF) have a point when they say that more than a little doubt has been cast on the validity of the method used to determine the maximum size that the fish could have been. And given that doubt, they made the only decision they really could have--to let the record stand.
Finally, disregard the testimony of ALL of those people who saw the mounted fish and only consider the affidavits of those who saw the fresh fish. Does anyone really believe that several people lied on Louis Spray's behalf? Do you think that most of those people knew the ramifications of testifying that Spray's fish was almost 3 inches longer than one caught by Cal Johnson only three months before? Is there really a high probability that Spray found all those people (including a US Postmaster, who's entire career would be at in jeopardy if he were caught lying) and got them all to make consistent statements? I am beginning to think that this is really not about finding the truth as much as it is about discrediting Detloff & the FWFHF. I mean--it can't be about discrediting the Hayward area as Johnson caught his fish 10-15 miles down the road...
While I don't hold a PhD in Mathematics I am a scientist and I have to tell you that it just doesn't seem that probable to me. It doesn't mean I side with the FWFHF, or the WRMA for that matter: In fact I think there are some interesting points made by both sides. But the FWFHF report makes more sense scientifically. But that's what great about this country--each is entitled to their own opinion.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Fishing the weeds | ChrisS,
I don't fish for records and personally don't give a #*^@ whether someone catches the world record or not. I fish for the enjoyment of fishing. It just seems to me that whenever a record stands for a long time people are alway's questioning the validity of it. Maybe it's possible that his fish was a genetic freak. I don't know. And to say it's not possible to catch a 70# Muskie is really insinuating that we know everything about nature and the Muskie, which we all know is not the case. Otherwise catching these fish wouldn't be a challenge. And it seems to me that there are a lot of "Experts" on this and other forums that seem to have all the angles and the facts pertinant to this case but, strangely never testified at the hearings. Now why is that do you think? Just my opinion and that's all! Pat
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | can anyone please tell me where i can find information as to what methods of investigation and what evidence was used to discredit the lawton and hartman fish (maybe even this walleye record i hear was thrown out)? i'd like to make a comparison for myself as to how each investigation was conducted and decide whether all were held to the same standards.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | The Record Tiger is 54" and 51lbs this record has not been disputed that I am aware of, I have seen replica mounts for this and the Spray fish side by side at a show and must say I did not see much of a difference, what does this mean? Based on the ruling it sets a unrealistic goal for Musky anglers now with that being said I hope somebody if not me proves this wrong and gets a new record, and has all the proper documentation, tons of pics, hundreds of affidavits and what ever else is needed to authenticate the catch.
BOTTOM LNE: Does this affect me in any way? NO not really, I will just keep fishing and enjoying my time on the water as often as I can
__________________ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | LOL!! I can't wait to outdo what someone else did. It's my lifes goal to beat others at unimportant things. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | JohnMD,
The Cal Johnson fish was only 2-3 inches shorter then Spray's fish was, and doesn't look much difference in those pictures either. To my knowledge, I don't think that fish has been challenged either. I am not an expert in photography but I did find it interesting to read that part in the FWFHF report about the perspectives imparted on the "apparent" sizes of the fish in the 40's & 50's, compared to those shot with today's cameras.
I am just curious--do you think this had anything to do with your observation?
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | I'm just going by what I saw, Now granted I do not know where the Taxidermist got thier measurment from but based on what I saw there was not much of a difference in physical size so I do not see how a Fish of similar dimensions could be 16lbs apart in weight. again does this Affect me in any way? the answer is still NO I love this sport and the only goal I am looking for is my next personal best
|
|
| |
|
| Doc,
What the HOF did was identify the limitations of the software used by DCM and call into question the "confidence" of there calculation. And yes, the basis of their rebuttal rested on the "assumptions" that DCM used to input the values into the software. The software seems limited when a number of unknown, critical variables are present. And in hindsight, it does not seem that the use of this software would have been the best course to take in analyzing the photo.
What DCM seemed to do to with a fair degree of accuracy, was establish a length of the "plane" in which the musky was presented in the photo. Then using this "plane" length, the HOF had the PhD's use another method to determine the length of the fish.
There really is only ONE question remaining to be answered in my mind. Which analysis provides more confidence for the true length of Spray's fish. Put emotions aside... and study the TWO methods of determination, scientifically and without bias... and which calculation holds a stronger argument. Mr. Worrall has shown a passion for science, so I think he'd agree with me that this is the right course for this topic.
This situation is similar to something found in my profession. I take a lot of statistical samples in my line of work. Based on the method in which I take samples, the size of the population and the population of my sample size, I can determine an overall cofidence level in my selected sample. Beit 90%, 95%, 99%, etc. We need to do the same with these two methods. After reading the hall's report, "same plane, direct scaling" seems to be a stronger method and provide a higher confidence level. However, I can be swayed back into WRMA's corner if... IF... assessing the variables they used, can provide a HIGHER confidence level in their method over the Hall's method. The battle isn't between WRMA and HOF, its between the principles of "same plane, direct scaling" and the software program DCM used.
So saith the Monk. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Monk,
Very well put. Thank you for stating so nicely what I could not find a way to iterate.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
I agree, completely. When the collective somke clears, both sides will have a chance to present whatever argument they might defending the actual applications used and peer reviews done, etc. I'd REALLY like to see the smoke clear. |
|
| |
|
| Yeah, I'm still coughing here :). This argument has been going on for far too long, however I think we are getting closer to the finish line. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | looking at the report and the pictures of the fish I just question how on earth that fish was suppose to be just shy of 70 lbs and 5 feet 3.5 inches and 31+ girth...look at some of the 50-55 lbers from the last 5 years and it just seems like there is no way that fish is as big as it was "suppose" to be...maybe cameras were different or something back then..but he's 5'11" and the fish is suppose to be only 7.5" shorter than him? well whatever...someone please go catch a 70 lber somewhere and put it all to rest !!!
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Very well put Monk. Who's science holds up? The name calling is getting very old. The whole thing is giving our sport a big black eye, IMO.
The postmaster's affidavit is a solid piece of evidence that cannot be so easily dismissed, either. It doesn't matter who notarized a document... it matters who signed it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 34
Location: Forest Lake Minnesota | I haven't heard anything from the IFGA so what does it matter what the hall of fame thinks.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Location: Duluth, MN - Superior, WI | I think it is funny that the Hall of Fame is putting all their cookies in a jar, based on the documentation and eyewitness. I‘m no expert on the situation but take a look at what I observed when I was looking at the documentation on the Hall of Fame web page.
(Photo #1) The Post Office
Look at how he, Jack signed his name on 10/20/49. Look at his K’s. I also think it is funny that the t’s in (Length and Girth) are pointed down. Deferent from the T in (Date). (Maybe) that was added after the fact. Like I said I’m no expert!!! I think it would be nice to have an analysis of it and other hand righting from Jack and Louie.
(Photo #2) Jack Reinke affidavit
Going back to how Jack signed his name on 10/20/49 in the post office to 10/28/49 eight day later it is deferent. What I see is that in eight day Jack all a sudden changed Not only how he signed his named but also penmanship!!!!! I think the kicker is look at the Notary!! It is Inez Spray!!!! Isn’t that Louis Spray wife?
(Photo #3-#4) I just cut both signatures and increased the size so you can see the deference. I don’t recall seeing this in the info from the WRMA or NFWFHF.
Edited by ckarren 1/17/2006 5:30 PM
Attachments
----------------
 photo #1.jpg (60KB - 185 downloads)
photo #2.jpg (75KB - 204 downloads)
photo #3.jpg (24KB - 169 downloads)
photo #4.jpg (21KB - 179 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I'm sorry... What are you contending?
Maybe he scratched out a note on the day the fish came in and put a quick signature to it--then signed the typed affidavit in a more "official" manner when the situation called for it. I do it all the time--sign my name 40-50 times daily in chicken scratch, but when I get an official document to sign I generally take my time to make it a bit neater. But it's still the same me, and I think you can see sufficient similarities between each signature to tell that it was probably the same guy who signed both.
I don't know what to say about Spray's wife being the notary who took witnessed his affidavit. But what is the significance? At some point, you have to take people at their word. We empower certain people in our society with special priveledges. The fact that Spray's wife was a notary public doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy to defraud the entire musky fishing world. In fact, Spray probably subjected himself to unnecessary ridicule by *having* his wife notarize those statements. Maybe there was no one else around? Who knows...
I am not criticizing you here--you are entitled to your opinion just as everyone else here is. But I am merely trying to point out that there may be a perfectly logical explanation for all of these issues. But it seems that many people are trying to polevault tick turds and blow things up into something they are not. I personally will await the WRMA's rebuttal (there's NO way we have heard the last of this) and try to continue sifting through the facts of the issue; then formulate my own opinion. But in reality it doesn't really matter much what any of us think--because none of us appear to be math professors or qualified "photographatologists" (I just made that up). So we are all just spectators at the tennis match and the FWFHF just returned service from the WRMA.
Wake me up when the ball hits the net...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Arlington Heights, IL | Monk,
I agree with your statement about seeing which science plays out. My problem was with how the Hall handle this protest. In my view the Hall was anything but unbiased. The hall was given a protest and instead of dealing with the protest, they went out and got experts who would corroborate the size of the fish. How many experts did they send their picture to and how many of those experts came back and said the fish was smaller then the stated length? We know for a fact that one expert they contacted thought the fish was quite smaller and it wasn't because the Hall made that information public. How many others were there? That right there shows that they had already made up their minds that the record would stand. Then we have the article published in a paper by a director of the Hall, who tries to discredit the protest report, in a public forum, all before the Hall had even finished their review of the protest submitted. How is that unbiased? You have another director with the Hall, who makes a statement, something to the tone that it wasn't a couple of local Hayward people who decided to disqualify the Lawton fish, but a Board of Governors made up of 40 some members, yet when it came to this protest, the Hall, lead by this same person, stated that the Board of Governors would not be involved in deciding this protest, but instead it would be a small group of local Hayward people. I'm no expert, I'm not stating one way or the other whether the Spray record is valid or not, what I'm saying is that the way the Hall handle this protest was extremely biased and that is a shame.
Jim Stella
Edited by Jim Stella 1/17/2006 7:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | To castmaster,
The Lawton fish was DQed when the family of Art lawton sent the Hall some pictures and on one of those pictures was a picture of the current WR and it was listed as 48+ pounds on the photogragh. It was then the Hall took steps to DQ it.
As for Len Hartman's fish, he asked that they be removed from the records.
Edited by muskie! nut 1/17/2006 7:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | Why the kangaroo court then? Why then did the same body who voted to remove the lawton fish not vote on the spray fish?
Does a postal worker get fired for lying? Why will it now cost 1500 bucks to contest a record?
|
|
| |
|
| To Fishermuskie
The IGFA doesn't recognize the Spray fish as the record since it was shot. The WRMA report would probably mean nothing to them. The IGFA recognizes the Johnson fish as the record.
|
|
| |
|
| Jim,
As I stated on MH, bias or not... WRMA has to address the accruacy of "same plane, direct scaling". If their true goal is to identify the largest musky, this must be done.
Two studies, two results. I'm sure if put through the scientific grinder, one will fall out as the more accurate report. Based on what I have seen, the Hall seems to be the stronger argument. Ussually the simpler method stands up to scrutiny better, and thats what I'm seeing here. |
|
| |
|
| Question? How could the Hall have voted on this on Monday, printed all that stuff up and got it on their web site by 1 PM? My guess is that EBrown was not very forthcoming the Thursday night before when he said that they had not even voted yet.
And why didn't he just say the vote and press release would be Monday, (even though we know better) and closed to the public and certain media? Guess he had already called reporters before his statement on MHM too. Slippery stuff indeed! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | The arguments used in the Hall of Shames' retort to the WRMA that is used better science are ludicrous. It is comparing apples to oranges and saying look this is a tangerine. Makes no sense....just like their analysis. Why weren't the academics given the direct WRMA report so they could specifically outline the errors in it? Seems the experts at the Hall of Shame did that for us. If there truly is a scientist in here look at the background of those submitting reports about the length of Sprays' musky. You have a commercial group, DCM, who is actually in the business of making of living in the real world by their analysis of lengths, etc....versus university professors who generally have little, if any, real world experience. I say this knowing my wife may read it over my shoulder.....she being a university professor.....and I may be sleeping on the couch for a while.
You can ask anyone trained in a university setting.....doctors, dentists, scientists......you learn what the academicians teach you while you are in school and hope to heck when you get into the real world there is enough time to apply your knowledge practically before you go belly up. Nearly all the practical, day to day learning I got in dental school came from the real world dentists who volunteered on day a week, or so, to come in and make sure we didn't mess to many people up. Most times the university idealic world has little to do with real world applications.
So if you were going to stake your existence on an academics opinion or one who does this in the real world what would be your choice?? The Hall of Shame says all these assumptions were made? Huh....what are they? Of course they will agree certain assumptions can be agreed to if it fits into their analysis but otherwise it is "unscientific". What a bunch of hubris. I assume each of these PhD's have degrees in photographic analysis also....you kidding....they don't? (There is a reason it is PhD....we all know what BS is.....then we have MS...more of the same......and then Phd.....piled higher and deeper....;-)).
The Hall of Fame's report, obviously prepared after the Monday vote, was done in haste because it rambles and stumbles around with lots of trivial detail and provides NO ONE of credibility in the photography field who refutes what DCM reported. They don't even bother to really address Doug Petrousek's analysis (a Spray fish believer until this report) of the mounts....so obviously distorted. Yet, in the same breath, uses the mounts as proof that Spray's fish was as big as stated.....eh? (That's Canadian for "huh"....didn't want Thorpe to feel left out). If any professional organization answered a serious challenge in the fashion the Hall of Shame did they would be laughed out of existence. Unfortunately, it is just sad.
Is that you mocking us Louie.....laughter I hear......you go Louie...
I'm not going to wake up with a musky head in my bed am I?
Brian |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jim Stella & DocEsox,
You guys both raise some excellent points, no question about it.
I am a University-trained scientist who has learned the "real world" aspect in practice and smell what you are cooking Esox. And Jim made a great point about the possible number of PhD experts that came back to the FWFHF with a size in agreement to that hypothesized by the WRMA group--I agree that would be very interesting information. Because they didn't specifically mention it, the FWFHF does indeed leave themselves open to speculation for just that reason. But I wonder if they didn't think of that? You would like to assume that they *didn't* leave any such information out of their report, but the fact that they don't specifically mention it is unfortunate. As I said before, I think their report could have been written better, thus leaving fewer doubts on these issues--because if we have thought of these issues here, certainly someone at the FWFHF did as well...
But as far as I can tell (and from what others have said here), the FWFHF paper does raise some valid points regarding the invalid assumptions made by the WRMA group in doing their analysis.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/18/2006 6:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | All the arguments about the software and camera's perspective, etc. aside, let's compare some fish.
Here's one with a LEGIT 30" girth. Picture was from the deck of the boat and above the angler, not flarttering to the fish's size at all.
(LOUIE69-11600DPIFULLLENGTH_sm.jpg)
(newphoto_prof_gallian_assesses_sm.jpg)
(louwithmountoutside_sm.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
get-attachment.asp.jpg (138KB - 509 downloads)
LOUIE69-11600DPIFULLLENGTH_sm.jpg (40KB - 183 downloads)
newphoto_prof_gallian_assesses_sm.jpg (14KB - 216 downloads)
louwithmountoutside_sm.jpg (12KB - 165 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | WOW...that thing looks FAT! I disagree Steve--I think that picture is quite flattering to the fish's girth. Maybe it's the size of the angler, but that fish looks fat to me.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was getting at the fact the top of the fish is featured center in Ms. Strutz's photo. If the picture had featured the same angle as Louie's fish, I just can't believe that his fish's girth would be MORE. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I understand. Out of curiousity, how long was that fish?
I guess when you look at the pictures of Spray's fish (63.5 inches, 69.69 pounds) then Cal Johnson's fish (60.25 inches, 67.5 pounds) there isn't much of an apparent difference...at least to my eye. But there is a 3.25 inch difference in length which only accounts for an extra 2.19 pounds weight. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the whole girth vs. length issue can be misleading. And apparently (as the FWFHF report states) so can the technology inherent in the camera used to take the photos.
God help whoever who catches the next world record--and wants to release it! If you didn't have a video camera recording the whole event (and then some) you would NEVER convince anyone that it was a legitimate catch.
TB |
|
| |
|
| tecetka,
I would say, God help them even if they keep it.
Apparently, pictures, skin mounts, and sworn affidavit's aren't enough to convince people. It's pretty easy to find an 'expert' to do photographic analysis, propose taxidermy fraud, and attack the character of any witnesses.
It's not like there is an official way to score musky, like there is for deer or bear (with a drying period and an established method).
If I catch a 70 lber, I'm not going to even go thru the hassel. Cripes, you'd have to fly in the Pope for a blessing.
Even then there'd be a bunch of armchair experts casting doubts and analyzing the Pope's signature for discrepancies.
Who cares. All this effort is like having a movie hall of fame or the rock and roll hall of fame pick the best movie or song. Gimme a break. What a colossal waste of time. The WRMA is doing as much to promote musky fishing as what watergate did for politics. Drags it right down into the mud and makes everyone cynical.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | sworrall says "Here's one with a LEGIT 30" girth"
How do you know that is a fact when Patrica never measured the girth?
Not saying that I don't believe it, just want to know how you know when the girth was never measured? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| Every year, people catch fish bigger than Spray's fishes..bigger than any of his fish...and you know, they get shafted because one guys out of control, egotistical lies ruined it.
why hasnt anyone caught a 70 pounder to just put this to rest?? because there might not even be a 70 pound musky out there...who knows? maybe so..
More musky anglers are reaching/fishing world records waters than every before, and still they dont hit 70 pounds. Every year i see pics of fish bigger than Sprays. it absolutely BLOWS MY MIND his fishes still stand.
So, the people who truely are chasing the record might possibly going after a fish that doesnt exist. and when they do reach the mid 60 pound range...they cant keep it to put it in the record book...LIES LIES LIES.
Actually...just from a naked eye..i believe 90% of 12 year old children can tell the different from Spray's fish actually 60 pounders....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Keep in mind the 'records' and other large fish that were removed after an investigation by one of the Hall officials out east were 'duly sworn' and had witnesses to the sizes as well. There was alot of oneupsmanship and 'lore' happening back then. Tell me, honestly, do you really think Patricia's fish is smaller than Louie's? How about the other recent really big fish? None are supposed to be anywhere near 70# and certainly are not anywhere near 63".
Gerard, chiiilll, I was simply referring to information posted here when the fish was caught by 'A Blonde and Her Boat' herself. Here's the link.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22... |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I knew I had seen that picture before...thanks Steve. What a fantastic fish.
And that was a good one by "Release?" about having to fly the Pope in for a blessing on a world record musky! It certainly does not seem to me that the concepts of a "World Record" musky and "Catch, Photogragh & Release" are congruent. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are mutually exclusive in this day and age.
Though I do fully intend to see what it feels like to get a WR musky when I pull one out of Green Bay this fall (hey, it worked for Louie!). Nah...on second thought, I will probably just call it a 68 pounder and toss it back in!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/18/2006 3:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Release?, you have it completly and totally backward! It's the FWFHoF that is giving musky fishing a black eye, it's certainly not the WRMA!
The FWFHoF is wasting their members money and now, once again, forcing the WRMA to waste additional time and effort on a record that should have been taken down with the rest way back when, or all of them left alone like SWorrall said.
Everyone acts like the FWFHoF is the 500lb ape ruling the roost. I think it's the other way around, just look at the people on either side and read both reports, the FWFHoF has some major hurt coming their way soon.
My thinking is they just poked a stick at a caged 500 ape and should have checked the lock first because it's open and I'd bet most here can guess where that stick is going to end up! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
| Food for thought...I'm not intending to express pro or con for either side here. The hall's report show a control photo with some solid conversation surrounding the use of that control photo. Has anyone produced a control photo of someone of Louie's exact 5'11" height and build with a 63.5" 69# 11oz replica muskie hanging from a rope tied to an oar? If Louie's fish is legit, it should be possible to generate one of these control photos that duplicates near exactly the photos that are available. If the size of Louie's fish is exaggerated, then producing a similar photo should be difficult/impossible. We all know this photo shoot could produce a control photo that makes the fish seem much larger that the photos of Louie with his fish.
D² |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | You are right on...don't let people tell you any different.
I saw the same thing...though not as quickly as you did...Nice Find!!!
A professional should really look at this.
Attachments
----------------
BUSTED2.jpg (103KB - 168 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | For clarification--you are saying that those two signatures were not written by the same hand?
I might have missed it, but did the WRMA paper cite any purported inconsistencies in the signatures on the affidavits--or with the fact that Inez Spray was the notary? I didn't see it in there.
My money is on variations in the same person's signatures--not inconsistencies.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/18/2006 9:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | I think that is not Reinke's signature on both...it is not really like one is merely sloppier than the other...the actual writing movements seem really different...but I think it is DEFINITELY something that should be looked at...not by ametuers like us, obviously...
What do you guys think of these two photos? I scaled them according to the angler's height...
Attachments
----------------
DoofusLJ.jpg (160KB - 1441 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | If you caught a legitimate WR you would have nothing to worry about and be done confirming your catch to reporters within 6 hours provided you had a cellphone...
Well...assuming you do NOT take pictures of it behind a building and then forbid anyone to see it until the mount is done...
But who in their right mind would ever do THAT? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | IGotTheFeverBIG - 1/19/2006 12:10 AM
I think that is not Reinke's signature on both...it is not really like one is merely sloppier than the other...the actual writing movements seem really different...but I think it is DEFINITELY something that should be looked at...not by ametuers like us, obviously...
Great idea...handwriting expert to evaluate these signatures. That is probably forthcoming.
Good job on the picture editing by the way. But how did you know the far away from the fish the camera was in the Spray picture? It looks to me like the Spray fish is slightly farther away than the other fish. This obviously wouldn't affect the relative scaling between the angler and the fish though.
TB
|
|
| |
|
| Hey Fever,
Great job matching those two photo's. I find it fitting that J Dettloff would actually use this photo to prove their argument. That 51 incher looks to be as big or slightly larger than old chin whiskers. I would love to read Larry Ramsell's take on this whole business. I'm sure he has a story to tell. Larry, are you out there?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Wally:
Yes, I am out here and have been following the news reports and the threads on three different message boards. Hall did a great "controlled spin."
And YES, I DO have a story to tell, but it will have to wait awhile, while I put it together along with others, and it will include far more (including Lawton) than just the current Hall Report, which by the way, I am only about a 1/4 of the way through.
So far, I have seen several "holes" in that Hall report large enough to toss a basketball through. Fevers side by side photo's above (thanks to the Hall for the "control photo") pretty much says it all. "same plane, direct scaling" indeed!
I am glad that I disassociated myself from the Hall before they released that report!
Don't look for me back out here for awhile, got work to do, including getting the "fat lady" sitting in the dressing room another box of bon-bons. She hasn't even thought about warming up to sing yet. To quote Yogi, "It isn't over until its over!"
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
Make sure that Lady is good and fat before she sings! I can not believe that absolte arrogance of these magnificant shameless recort keepers. keep us posted. I'd also be interested in hearing from Brad L. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Ramsell,
Superb post, sir. |
|
| |
|
Location: Duluth, MN - Superior, WI | Thanks, IGotTheFeverBIG.
That is what I tried to do but I did not have a good photo editing software. Also if you look at the Post Office note, look at the “K” in muskie. I also think it is funny that the “T” is deferent from the Date and Witnessed to the length and girth. This makes me think that the length and girth was added after the fact form someone else.
And if you read the affidavit from most of the other it is just saying, “the largest muskellunge that he had ever seen.” How hard is that to get!!! If most anybody seen Ms. Stutz’s fish they would also think it was a record and most certain, “the largest muskellunge that he had ever seen.”
Like I sayed before I’m no expert on this but the writing is on the wall. If you were around Louie I just think you would need chest waders because the $hi# was deep.
You know what is sad. I named my dog after him. He had me believing at one time.
-Corey
Edited by ckarren 1/19/2006 11:21 AM
Attachments
----------------
fake2.jpg (151KB - 190 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
Thank you. Hope you like this one too:
I thought a letter I just ran across might be of benefit at this point in time. I received it from Hall President John Dettloff some time ago during his Lawton investigation (he and I had been at odds during his investigation):
"...I must say I have a lot of admiration for you because you aren't putting your feelings above the truth. Now that you know all of the facts, you have the guts to care only about making sure our muskie history is corrected and correcting any injustices that were caused by falsifications. That is the mark of a great historian and, believe me, I'll make sure to publically support you the best I can and to relay these thoughts...So I think you have nothing to worry about. Your involvement in this matter may be late in coming but is, never the less, very important in helping to insure this matter of a falsified world record isn't swept under the rug, our history corrected, and any injustices done to the true world record holder are rectified."
Well folks, my principals haven't changed, but I guess John's "public support" of me doesn't apply to Louie.
Musky regards,
Larry Ramsell
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | I assume more people will start playing with these pictures, and you will see a lot more comparison's like mine, only better. Awareness will serve to uncover the truth. It's only a matter of time...
ckarren- GUH-REAT post. Even an non-pro can see that little "k" is all wrong. If you go through the REST of those affadavits, they are very vague and non committal. Excellent points. At least by the ones with NO conflict of interest.
But just that one frogery ALONE...proves FRAUD...tosses out ALL of Spray's records...not my rules, THEIR'S...
Doesn't it seem like Louie handed over the second Affadavit in 1979 to the FWFHF and NOT Field & Stream? I wonder why he did not want both looked at at once...?
If you were around Louie you would have to keep an eye on your wallet...;)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Fantastic Posts Larry...I can't praise your class and dedication enough...between your work in the WMRP, your Knowledge of History, and your support of the Truth in the WR controversy...
I guarantee 200 years from now, YOUR NAME will be associated with the Mighty Muskellunge more than any other human being...yes even Lou Spray...;)
Thank you for...just being you...I mean it.
Edited by IGotTheFeverBIG 1/19/2006 9:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | The fact that Detlofff used a 51" musky for his example here and not a replica of the actual spray fish would lead me to believe he does actually believe the fish is real either. |
|
| |
|
| History tells us that ALL cover-ups get exposed in due time, theFWFHoS couldn't have been more obvious. Tick-tock,tick-tock |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| HGN - 1/23/2006 8:30 AM
History tells us that ALL cover-ups get exposed in due time, theFWFHoS couldn't have been more obvious. Tick-tock,tick-tock
Usually they are exposed because someone keeps a real record, or spills the beans. Nobody has spilled the beans on this one. I do not see anywhere that states these signatures that so much is made of are actually signatures of who is there,or just a list of who is there. I loved somebody claiming that academia should not be involved in the analysis of this fish. Of course most of the technique and methodology devoloped to deal with these type of problems come right from academia to start with, and, this is the type of inane problem they love to deal with. Somebody should get these photos to MIT and Harvard graduate classes, bet they would love them. It(the anti-academia argument)is an extended version of how people try and blow off intelligence by claiming "well, he might be book smart but he doesn't have any common sense". If memory serves that same individual making the argument has in the past lifted up his own certificates etc. as proof of his own veracity in arguments, LOL, but maybe my memory is slipping. Either way, I think I will let them figure this one out by themselves without my comments on their proofs or lack thereof. I just read this thread. Funny stuff. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I hope the next round will be more conclusive. Recreating the exact picture parameters should not be impossible, should it? Sue could make the fish in a day out of Wally World craft cloths and fillers, I bet. Or, she could wait until the Goon trip and use the fish she intends to catch. |
|
| |
