|
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | With all due respect John, I would like to thank you for your thread on the Johnson mount (on MH)...it PROVES the Johnson mount was augmented (and therefore NOT "authentic").
Dettloff wrote: "there needs to be an explanation why those fins are 8.7% (or 2.7 inches) further forward on the mount than what is shown on the photograph of the fish with the least distortion...I asked my taxidermist, Al Smith, about that and he responded, 'You could easily have the pelvic fins end up forward an inch or two, depending on how you stretch the skin. It is never my concern on where the fins end up positioned on a mount, rather I do my best to fit the skin on the form.' Other taxidermists have also confirmed that the pelvic fins can drift further forward, depending on how the skin is stretched over the form....So there is nothing unusual about the pelvic fins on the Johnson mount being 2 to 3 inches further forward."
Larry: So John, IF KAHMANN "STRETCHED" THE SKIN ENOUGH TO MAKE THE PELVIC FINS 2 TO 3 INCHES FURTHER FORWARD, SHOULD ONE FIGURE THAT IT WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE UNREASONABLE JULY GIRTH OF 33 1/2 INCHES? AND IF SO, SINCE THE FINS WEREN'T REMOVED FROM THE SKIN (AGREED TO BY CAL JOHNSON III), JUST WHERE DID THE "EXTRA" SKIN BEHIND THE PELVIC FINS COME FROM???????????
Dettloff concluded: "Finally, had 6 inches or more been added to the Johnson mount behind its pelvic fins to augment its length (as claimed by the naysayers), the additional forward position of the pelvic fins would have been much more than a mere 2.7 inches. In order for this significant claimed addition to have been made, the pelvic fins would have to be much closer to the pectoral fins than the anal fin…. and they are certainly not. The impossibility of their own theory only serves to disprove itself by virtue of its own implausibility." John Dettloff
Larry: Nice "smoke & mirrors try John, but it just doesn't wash! When one does the calculations on BOTH the photo of the fresh fish AND the photo of the mount, the percentage of overall length dimension BETWEEN THE PARIED FINS remains nearly constant. It IS the ADDITIONAL LENGTH (of approximately 29%) BEHIND THE PELVIC FINS THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AWAY, your "pelvic drift" notwithstanding!!!
I do believe you have stuck your foot in it this time!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | I for one appreciate that people care enough about the integrity of the musky record to take a stand. I've been visiting Hayward my whole life. The mount at the Moccasin bar amazed me as a child. It stirred something inside me that something so large could be swimming in my lake. I had thought to myself, "one day this record will be broken". Thirty years later(for me), and the record still stands. Musky fishing has grown in popularity a million-fold. Huge fish have been taken, yet none large enough to break this record. Common sense tells me something ain't right.
It's a noble task (taken on by imperfect people) to right a fabricated record fish. Larry has dedicated his life to this mission. Of course it's gotten personal along the way. But the spirit of Larry's goal is benign. Continue on Larry, the musky community needs someone like you. I wish that your goal is achieved before your lifetime. Hayward will always be an amazing place, an amazing musky fishery- with or without claim to the "world record musky".
Mike Witowski |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
Personally I don't think there are many muskie fishermen out there that believe the Spray or Johnson fish is legit. I think that something has to be done but going on the internet and rebutting everything that is said is the wrong way to do it. More people are getting annoyed rather than captivated by this bantering.
Just my 2 cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | John Dettloff's reply to accusations of the Johnson mount being augmented.
"Cal Johnson mount proves to be authentic"
" (Regarding proper fin identification, please take note that the musky's pelvic fins are located on the bottom mid section of the its body and its pectoral fins are located just behind its gill cover.)
Regarding Cal Johnson’s mounted world record musky, some individuals have made the observation that the paired set of fins located on the bottom mid section of the fish (known as pelvic fins) appear to be further forward on the mount of the fish than they do on the photographs of the fish. From that observation some people have jumped to the false assumption that a six inch or more section must have been added behind the pelvic fins to add extra length to the fish, in an effort to turn a 52 inch to 54 inch long fish into the mount (which today measures close to 59 inches in length). This unsupported theory, however, proves to be impossible.
While this observation that the pelvic fins seem further forward on the mount is correct, there is a logical explanation for this. After a careful comparison of the of pelvic fin locations in each of the five photos of the fish, perspective proves to distort where those fins appear to be located by as much as 4%. This translates to making the pelvic fins appear to be up to1¼ inches further forward in one of the photos. Obviously, the fins are in the exact position on all the photographs; however, they appear to be 1¼ inches further forward in one of the photos.
This photographic illusion is proven by measuring the distance of how far forward the pelvic fins are located between the anal fin and the pectoral fins in each of the photos of the Johnson musky. Then compare the proportions of that distance to the overall distance between the anal fin and the pectoral fins. The proportions range from 34% to 38% forward, hence the 4% or 1¼” photographic illusion. The laws of perspective dictate that the photograph taken from the furthest distance away will be the least distorted and thus will give the most accurate pelvic fin location of 38% forward.
This photographic illusion explains only part of the observation why the mount’s pelvic fins appear to be further forward. Because the pelvic fins are 46.7% forward on the mount, there needs to be an explanation why those fins are 8.7% (or 2.7 inches) further forward on the mount than what is shown on the photograph of the fish with the least distortion. The first logical question to ask regarding this observation is, “Does this forward pelvic fin drift occur on other mounts?” The answer is, “Yes, it does.”
The first thing I did when I made this forward fin drift observation was look at my own musky mounts and measure how far forward their pelvic fins were. Sure enough, they indeed were noticeably further forward on their mounts than they were on the actual photos of the same fish. I asked my taxidermist, Al Smith, about that and he responded, “You could easily have the pelvic fins end up forward an inch or two, depending on how you stretch the skin. It is never my concern on where the fins end up positioned on a mount, rather I do my best to fit the skin on the form.” Other taxidermists have also confirmed that the pelvic fins can drift further forward, depending on how the skin is stretched over the form.
Further checking up on this pelvic fin drift issue, I checked another of Karl Kahmann’s musky mounts that is on public display at the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame Museum: Rollie Meister’s 41 1/2 pound 53 inch long musky. (To see the photos of both the mount and the actual fish, please go to caljohnson.net. I was unable to import the photos here.) Sure enough, it is obvious that the pelvic fins of this musky are indeed further forward on the mount than they appear in the photo of the same fish. Simple ratio calculations of this variance reveal the pelvic fins to be 2.7 inches further forward on the mount than they are on the actual photo of the same fish. Not only does this is the same forward pelvic fin drift distance show up on the Cal Johnson mount, but forward fin drift is known to occur on other taxidermist’s mounts as well. So there is nothing unusual about the pelvic fins on the Johnson mount being 2 to 3 inches further forward.
Finally, had 6 inches or more been added to the Johnson mount behind its pelvic fins to augment its length (as claimed by the naysayers), the additional forward position of the pelvic fins would have been much more than a mere 2.7 inches. In order for this significant claimed addition to have been made, the pelvic fins would have to be much closer to the pectoral fins than the anal fin…. and they are certainly not. The impossibility of their own theory only serves to disprove itself by virtue of its own implausibility."
John Dettloff
HUH??
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL |
To all that said "Enough", "Let It Go", "It Doesn't Matter", now you see why. There has finally been a reply by Mr.Detloff.
And what a reply it was!
"PELVIC FIN DRIFT"?? lol
And you have determined that the "pelvic fin drift" is 1 1/4"s forward on the mount? Try about 4 "es. And why wouldn't this "Pelvic Fin Drift" occur to the rest of the fins if it was a matter of skin stretching during the taxidermy procedure?
Speaking of "Pelvic Fin Drift", why hasn't this phenomenon ever been brought up before in the last 60 years? I will admit that I have never heard the term before, but maybe it slipped past me. Could be!
But, I'm sure SOMEONE out there would have brought this up years ago regarding the Johnson Mount!
You said "Further checking up on this pelvic fin drift issue, I checked another of Karl Kahmann’s musky mounts that is on public display at the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame Museum: Rollie Meister’s 41 1/2 pound 53 inch long musky. Sure enough, it is obvious that the pelvic fins of this musky are indeed further forward on the mount than they appear in the photo of the same fish".
Maybe ol' Karl embellished Mr. Meister's Musky mount also.
I'm very happy that I had a replica done of my personal best (55"), it would have been VERY disappointing to have had a skin mount done, and receive it with the pelvic fins right next to the Anal fin due to "Pelvic Fin Drift"!
Mr. Detloff, I'm sure that someone would pay to have several reliable Taxidermists cut into the back of, or some other means, and inspect the Johnson mount, to put this "MYSTERY" to rest. JUST DO IT!
After reading your reasoning above, it reminds me of a guy named Rod Blogoyavich.
It's disturbing to know that there are people out there that don't care if the true holder of the WORLD RECORD MUSKY has been over-shadowed by embellished hoaxes!
Phil Blanck
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| What if the pelvic fins are in the right place after all, and the anal fins and the tail drifted backwards about 6"? That would explain the discrepancy, wouldn't it? |
|
| |
|
| Kudos Larry for challenging this
This world is built on falsification an fictional delusions
To many Idol this,Idol that
this is not the world we generation of anglers should leave for future generations
Its nice to see those involved making fronts on the issue which all should benefit
as un-pleasant as it may seem,ask yourself
How many of you have had the courage to make wrong right no matter the consequences of what other may think of you?
This is the attitude that makes things done and get done for the interest of all.
If it were not for those that challenge and oppose suspicious things in all walks of life,
What kind of world would it really be
Maybe the fictitious NWO would exist |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I believe Mr. Dettloff owes the entire Johnson family the benefit of another professional photogrammetist before publishing a book about the life and times of Cal Johnson. Without a professional endorsing the length of Mr. Johnson's fish there will always be a cloud of doubt surrounding the size. Further, a book featuring Mr. Johnson's record will only draw more attention to this fish controversy and the truth will inevitably work its way to the surface one way or another.
>Therefore, I will personally pay the cost for any certified photogrammetrist if John Dettloff accepts the results.<
John Dettloff (who openly admits to only being an "amateur photogrammetrist"), claims to have found proof that the "conclusions were invalid" in the WRMA professionally rendered solution. This being the case, the WRMA would have no problem with him pointing out these discrepancies to a certified neutral party photogrammetrist. He obviously understands and believes in the science itself if he is an "amateur photogrammetrist".
In my humble opinion, it is incumbent upon John Dettloff to do his mandatory due diligence to resolve this issue before publication because it would be such a train wreck for the Cal Johnson family legacy if this fish was featured in a book today, but then independently determined to be not as large as claimed tomorrow.
In essence, my offer will ensure his legacy is a reflection of what he truly was; one of the fore fathers of conservation, a true sport fishing pioneer, all-around good person. Cal Johnson Sr. was so much more than this record that it would be shameful not to seek out and embrace the truth before hand because an adoring public would certainly be more receptive once the cloud of doubt is gone... either way.
I would like to point out that these records were more of a "fun thing" in Cal's era; muskie-fishing records were not taken as seriously as they are today. For instance, it is incredibly telling that Louie Spray sent Cal a telegram during Cal's radio acceptance speech after he broke the record in 1949, wherein he promised Cal he was going to come out of retirement and break his record by the end of the year.
As we know, Louie had no problem breaking the record and good-natured Cal simply sent along his congratulations. Talk about having fun with it, what an exciting era in muskie fishing!
Most sincerely,
Jerry Newman
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 |
Larry:
You can determine for yourself if the skin mount has been augmented in about 15 minutes with a ruler and a calculator so there is actually no need to open the case.
Just use John Dettloff's measurement of 6 ¼" from the tip of the snout to the posterior of the eye on both the skin mount and fresh fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | While Dettloff has not come right out and said her knows more about Muskies than Larry, he certainly portrays himself as being a Muskie expert and enough of an expert to decide which fish should be the world record to boot.
My point is this: If John Detloff is not a very good fishermen, and I have seen nothing to indicate he is, then how can he declare himself to be the one deciding which fish is the World Record? What credibility can he have? So, he owns a resort. Big deal. What does that have anything to do with it? He say he is an amateur at about everything, so why give the keys to an amateur?
I just don't see where John Detloff has any credibility on the entire world record subject. Where does his "expertise" come from? Other amateurs in Hayward who know less?
Just wondering....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | Show me the jawbone!!!
|
|
| |
|
| Detloff,
Why won't you let the mount be inspected? It seems like this would solve alot of the dispute. Probably because you know the outcome. It is disappointing that records of the fish that I love is shrouded with such dishonestness. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Somebody please catch a new record and have it varified by the pope and and anyone else within a 5 mile radius. That just might put an end to this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | esoxarcheaologist - 1/21/2010 9:20 PM
THE FACT THAT WRMA IS UNABLE TO TELL ANYONE PUBLICLY WHERE THE RIGHT HAND VANISHING POINT IS DERIVED FROM is the "smoking gun". They used the wrong one. As a result 91 pages that were
easily refuted shillouttes (incorrectly spelled, sorry, sled) innuendo, conjecture and photo anaysis, all boiled down to the "technical assessment".
EA...
So...if they are wrong on the right hand vanishing point I will again ask here as I have in other posts... Just where is the right hand vanishing point that you clain? Many have heard you claim it is the "smoking gun" so why not just come out and say where you feel the vanishing point is? If it is such a huge issue, why not put your side out there for everyone to know? For those of us who are doing what we can to stay objective (not that we have any sort of decision-making ability in it, but an interest nonetheless), that kind of information is pretty key to making an objective conclusion for ourselves...
I believe many are waiting to hear your answer... Will you ever be open enough to actually state it?
Steve
Edited by VMS 1/21/2010 10:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And, EA, please present the information in a less caustic manner. Let's all try a little harder to keep the personal stuff out of this, except for FSF who usually injects some badly needed humor. Wellllllllll.....maybe even FSF. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Hhhhmmmmm.........what's wrong with this picture?? Can we find the errors?? 
Edited by fins355 1/22/2010 8:26 AM
Attachments
----------------
 CJ cmp.2.jpg (117KB - 156 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 968
Location: N.FIB | if it`s not spray it`s johnson,same old same old,same outcome,nothing changes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Fins, your mount doesnt have the same markings as it did when it was alive. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | fins355 - 1/22/2010 9:21 AM Hhhhmmmmm.........what's wrong with this picture?? Can we find the errors?? ;) I'm really hoping the fish in the middle isn't supposed to be represented by the fish on the bottom... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| guest, thanks I've seen and mounted a few big fish. LOL!!
Mr Musky & Will Schulz,
The fish shown have no relation to each other. The point is to show anatomical differences between....
#1 Cal Johnson's mount
#2 A pic of MI record 50lb 8 oz. fresh fish
#3 pic of a skin mounted 52" MN fish
#'s 2 & 3 were enlarged to the approx. legnth of the CJ mount.
Compare the size of the CJ head to the other 2.
Compare fin placement
Compare the overall look of CJ mount to the other 2 pics.
I guess I should have made the purpose of the comparison more clear.
I just thought the differences were interesting, especially the size difference in the heads.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | fins355 - 1/22/2010 1:22 PM Mr Musky & Will Schulz, The fish shown have no relation to each other. I thought that was where you were going but I also thought you might be showing how the fresh dead fish looked after mounting. Sorry for the confusion and if it seemed like I was suggesting that you are anything but a top notch artist. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I feel all this crap makes the FWFHF a joke. They have certainly lost my respect and have no credibility as far as I am concerned.
We need a new organization recognized as the keeper of the fishing world records....Then who cares what John and the FWFHF does or says.
Keep up the great work Larry and Jerry!
The WRMA should publish a World Record Musky List with fish they know are legit.
Edited by Jomusky 1/22/2010 12:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Ditto. And I'm grateful to M1st for providing a forum for this discussion. |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | "The impossibility of their own theory only serves to disprove itself by virtue of its own implausibility."
"The possibility of my own theory only serves to prove itself by virtue of it's own plausibility."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 706
Location: Richland Center, WI. | Guest - 1/21/2010 9:26 PM
Detloff,
Why won't you let the mount be inspected? It seems like this would solve alot of the dispute. Probably because you know the outcome. It is disappointing that records of the fish that I love is shrouded with such dishonestness.
I did not realize that John Detloff owned the mount. I thought it belonged to the Moccasin Bar.
Ken |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| I’ve seen that mount in person several times. The Moccasin Bar wouldn’t be quite the same without it. Actually, I wouldn’t even have gone in there to eat/drink if it weren’t for that fish mount being in there.
To be honest, I don’t think I’d be any less impressed with it to learn that it had been altered a bit. Or disrespect Cal any if that was the case, as that just may have been commonplace at that time for fisherman to do. (Doesn’t seem that the whole ‘world record’ matter was quite as serious to them as it seems to have become now; maybe more of a friendly contest.)
Along with enjoying seeing Cal’s fish mount in Moccasin Bar when in Hayward, I always kind of enjoyed checking out the FWHHF every so often. It’s a classic; a great place for people serious or not so serious about fishing to spend some time.
That’s why I’d really like to see John choose to stop coming up with new websites or another newspaper article or postings to defend Cal’s ‘record’, and just let it be examined. If you’re wrong, John—so be it. We’ll all get over it, and life goes on. It just doesn't make sense to me to keep arguing over the old pictures, when this fish still has a present-day mount to be examined. But that's just me...
Whether it remains on the record books or not, I’d still enjoy looking at the mount (it was a great fish no matter what), and still fish the Hayward area, and still visit the Museum now and then. As I’m pretty sure most other people would.
|
|
| |
