|
|
| Steve - you were kind enough to ask for some context under the guise that very few people on this board would understand what I was talking about.
I would like to conclude your request and I hope you appreciate why someone might post as simply a guest. I think anyone who is interested would find it informative:
My best micro - Cliff Notes version since I am remote. Apologies in advance for any editorial, but this is the way I see it:
On or about 10/2003, two very fine musky anglers started a campaign to authenticate or disprove the existing records as they stood at that time. Initially, there was an idea of disputing past records based on probability. The case went something like this....the mathematical impossibility is that no one will ever be able to catch so few fish (less than 50?) and have 3 60lbers without having any high 40s or other 50s. To catch multiple muskies over 50lbs, you need huge numbers.......
Never mind, a whole litany of baseball records that still exist from the 30's and 40's, and the recent update on the Linder's catch of 28 muskies in 6 days on Lac Court Oreilles (sp?), but perhaps the best agrument against this initial case was made by Roy Crawford who stated one of the key elements of catching big fish is that they have to have existed at the time and location caught. To believe that Spray caught these records, you have to believe that Cal Johnson's and Robert Malo's big fish were real. If so, then it appears that big fish did exist in Hayward in those days. By the way, I'm not interested in debating this, it's just a chronology from one persons vantage point.
Anyway, fast forward to on or about 9/2004, WRMA began a campaign drive to help fund the photo analysis being conducted on various record fish. As I understand it, the the first firm that was formally engaged by WRMA was a group called Visual Geometry Solutions, which is located in England and a team of maybe two or three people was headed by Geoffrey Cross. VGS was provided with various Spray photographs and the initial intention was to start with the early record and work their way up to the big enchilada.
Puportedly, Larry Ramsell inadvertently provided VGS with the reported dimensions. Some some reason that I never understood, but purpostedly the WRMA felt this tainted the entire process and model that they had already built and funded.
That logic never seemed right to me on many levels and can be debated some other time.
Again, fast forward, the WRMA then found DCM.
In speaking with Dr. Geoffrey Cross is is my understanding that they could complete the original analysis that they were commissioned to do. It sounds to me as if they are operating under a non-disclosure agreement (my assumption) or that they have some very high professional standards / ethics, which would be commendable.
To conclude, if the WRMA would release their rights in the model, it could then be used by an independent third party. In fact, there was an offer to buy the rights to the model from WRMA (at one point), which is why I made the buy-out comment in the post above.
Hopefully, that is enough context.
Respectfully.
| |
| |
|
Visual Geometry Solutions