|
|
Posts: 7
| I have read many threads on this topic, and multiple times. And I apologize for even bringing this up for a topic that has been destroyed countless times. It is possible there is something I am missing.
The discrepancy in the length of the mold seems to be the biggest issue for the WRA...it is the point that Doug Petrousek and Larry Ramsell mention repeatedly. It is gospel that the fork length on the mold is 52"....and the way most people measure a musky would put that at 56" with a pinched tail. Which is drastically larger than the stated "maximum" of 54 for this fish that is referenced repeatedly.
Attached is a fresh 51.5-51.75 fork, that the angler is calling 56.25.
The stated 52" fork on the mold + 4.5" pinched tail + 0.5" open mouth (most anglers measure a fish with the hand in the gill cover and the jaw becomes somewhat protruded, maybe not always 0.5" worth, but it is noticeable) + 1" for the unknowns of mangled/dangled/frozen/thawed and the benefit of the doubt to dozens of people that measured it live = 58"
What am I missing?
The second issue presented by the WRA is the pixel counting in the yard stick photos. Pixel counting is a technique that a 6th grader could do for you, it is not forensic photo analysis.
Attached is my father holding two 60" pool cues. One just slightly closer to the camera. When using the larger one that is closer to the camera as a guide, the visually smaller one is less than 57" using the exact "photo analysis" described in the WRA official report. It took me 2 minutes to take this pic and make the "calculation" to "prove" a 60inch pool cue is only 57inch. If anyone doesn't trust my numbers or photo, go re-create it yourself, which I cannot believe the WRA or someone else has not done already.
My example is using the familiarity and structure of the human body and a very simple object like a pool cue, and it is still hard to notice much difference in the relative distance to the camera, yet it has made 3" difference. Now add the complexity of the photo you are analyzing, and the relative planes becomes very hard to determine - along with the fish's tail disappearing into the grass, which is a huge issue that no one seems to acknowledge...two people can measure a fish an inch different under good conditions, now we have the tail of a fish not hanging in a lengthened/pinched manner, but instead resting on and in the grass.
And how can WRA give themselves any credibility with their photo analysis, when you consider this: I re-did the exact procedure described, and found the total length to be as calculated by them at 53.4", and then I calculated the fork length using said technique. It came out at 51"...consider that this is 51" WITH a hyper extended jaw which is adding at least an inch to the fish, agreed? So now we have a photo that instead shows a 50" fork length by the WRA's method, when they are saying in the other half of their argument that the fish definitely has a 52" fork....my point being, that clearly this pixel counting is not accurate.
Not only are both of the main arguments weak, but they do not even agree with eachother.
What am I missing?
The suggestion that 9 pounds of water was added to this fish makes assumptions that I can't definitively speak against...but ones that I am very reluctant to accept.
The anatomy of a fish does not leave an open cavity that could readily accept several pounds of water, nevermind 9. When big fish take on big meals, there is a process that takes hours to undergo where the stomach and skin of the fish is literally stretching and morphing to accommodate the meal...not the filling-a-water-balloon scenario that is being depicted with the suggestion that a 4L jug worth of water was casually forced into the stomach of this fish during the hose-down process. And from what I understand, the fish was weighed more than once, and even transferred between lodges between weighings? And this added water cooperated and stayed in place for this process?
Yes, the fish's weight could have been compromised to some degree at some point, but the length disputes are where the WRA emphasis has been placed. That fish would have been measured 100x that day, and I wouldn't value pixel counting or LR's frozen unfresh measure as holding a candle to what dozens of eyewitnesses saw first hand.
LR, as someone with extensive resource access and interest in this topic, over all these years have you never had access to a 55+" musky that died for whatever reason that you could recreate a fresh length/weight comparison to a handled & mangled & frozen & thawed length/weight?
This comes from someone completely removed from the musky industry and community. I have no slants on the issue, I am just reading the report and the threads.
Aaron Wiebe (Future World Record Holder)
Attachments
----------------
 51.5 Fork.png (100KB - 284 downloads)
57%22 Pool Cue.JPG (110KB - 308 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Nice try Aaron, but no sale. Your methods are far from correct, especially your "fork length measurement...it is measured in a straight line from the tip of the jaw of the fish to the center of the tail and from there to a vertical line between the two tail tips or the "pinched" tail tips together and has NEVER been more than three inches on that fish (two in the mount) or Martin Williamson's 61 1/4 pounder (three inches) or any other I have measured. Your "generosity" with your additions to length are beyond reason.
As for the possibility of water having been added, 9 pounds is slight more than one gallon (US measure) and would EASILY fit into the stomach of that fish.
And by the way, did you note that the throat of O'brien's fish was slit, making the "hanging measurement" even longer than it would have been normally?
I'm not buying your "pool cue" analysis either, sorry.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/5/2013 2:11 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7
| You aren't "buying" my pool cue analysis? I used the exact technique used for arriving at the 53.2" on the yardstick photo...I re-did it myself on the yardstick photo, and also got 53.2" to make sure I was doing it exactly the same. If you still do not "buy" my pool cue analysis, take me up on my challenge, as I said, and go do it yourself, it took me 2 minutes to do this, and surely you spent longer than that replying.
Larry, are you saying that a pinch tail measurement is only going to add 2" from a fork tail measurement? No historical references need to be made, just reference any photograph of a big fish on a bump board. There are hundreds of them available to you, and none of them will support that 2" is the difference between fork and pinch measure.
As I said, I cannot speak definitively on whether or not 9 pounds of water would actually fit in the stomach of this fish. Should you be speaking definitively that it can? My comment was that basic fish structure does not allow for it, without considerable force and stretching...which makes me wonder why you describe it as "EASILY"...yes I picked up on the stress relayed with your use of the capslock.
I addressed the hyper extension of the jaw (which is the same point as the slit throat). Read what I wrote again, if you need to, and I do not mean that disrespectfully.
Edited by Aaron Wiebe 1/5/2013 3:00 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Aaron, with all due respect, you are about two years late to this debate and it has been debated ad nauseum. The mold of the fish (basically cast in concrete, 'er plaster) has no bias and has never been refuted and it has the fish at 54 inches. End of that story.
Since records are by weight, see if you can do what no others have been able to do and explain the 9 pound weight loss in 8 days. As a point of reference, we recently re-weighed a 58 pound muskie that had been weighed on a certified scale. 54 days later and still frozen (as was the O'brien fish when re-weighed) it weighed just over 58 pounds (including the small amount of plastic wrap placed on the fish by the taxidermist). NO weight loss in 54 days for this fish vs. 9 pounds in 8 days for the O'brien fish. Explain that and we can continue to debate, otherwise you are kicking a dead horse. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Well said Larry; there’s simply no way this disproves any of the information contained within the WMA's report. The ridiculous almost right angle “tail (tale) pinch” explanation is just an another lame attempt at misdirection by someone with an obvious agenda. I see no valid reason to address it any further.
Aaron, I’m curious how you could be “completely removed from the musky community”, yet still have interest and access to a 55” muskie? You need to go back to the drawing board and at least try to present something with substance because to answer your question, that's what you're missing .
How about an extra credit assignment? Measure the O'Brien skin mount (like we did) and then try to defend how a supposedly 58” fish could (or would have been) reduced to under 54” without any wrinkling of the skin. If there's any validity to what you're saying there should also be a rational explanation for this as well.
FYI: This skin mount information was purposely left out our report because the dimensions of a skin mount can be altered. However, they have always been enhanced before, like the Spray and Johnson mounts. It should be pretty intriguing to an unbiased researcher like you Aaron that the actual skin mount length so perfectly coincides with the WMA mold cast length. Or is this just going to be more hard physical evidence that you can explain away with a couple of pool cues?
Edited by Jerry Newman 1/6/2013 2:59 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7
| Hey guys, point taken on the argument being over and had. I knew that was the case but had never read the WRA report until now.
But...
The people arguing against you over the past two years, have been defending the fish, and not discrediting the report. I have read and sympathized with your frustrations that people are addressing the fish as a whole, and not the report. Now I am speaking directly to your report, and you are asking me to answer on the weight loss (Larry) and the mount (Jerry)...issues separate from the report....Do you see the irony?
Larry, I have seen and personally measured big fish at very different lengths. The mold is of a 52" fork length musky, correct? If I am missing something with that, please let me know. If it is a relaxed 52" fork, I think many members on this forum would measure it at 55-57" on a bump board (agreed, this is not 58", but the stance of the WRA has always been that this fish is a MAXIMUM 54).
Larry, the weight loss scenario is NOT apart of the WRA review, that is separate, and very much turns the focus on you, which is something the WRA and you have been careful to stay away from. The description of your measurements of the fish are very sloppy...that said, I do believe you weighed it significantly lighter - and probably around 9 pounds. I do not think the freezing has anything to do with it, and included that in my list to just point out the extensive handling (mishandling) between the two weighings. I have never had a steak lose weight in the freezer, and appreciate the inclusion of the 58 pounder example you provided, which reinforces that steak scenario. The photos of the fresh fish in the bottom of the boat, compared to in your hands a week later, show a fish that has been dehydrated, manhandled, you name it. Once again, admittedly, I cannot speak definitively on whether 9 pounds of slime/fluid/dehydration is anywhere close to possible in the course of a day or two or more, can you? The written account is that the fish was hung for hours and then placed in a warm freezer for a time before freezing. I will spin it a different way, IF your measurements were totally accurate and IF we knew there was NO way it could have lost that much weight...I still would not be sold on the WRA report. Which is all about the length. That is where my comments were pointed.
Jerry, my agenda that you mentioned is to catch the World Record myself :P ....which would make mentally agreeing with the discounting of this fish serve that "agenda". 60 pounds is an easier target than 65. My comments about being "completely removed from the musky community" were to deflect the predictable comments from you that I had an agenda, and you went straight there in your first paragraph anyways!!!! I guess my point was that I am not a guide, or a musky man, that has a longstanding opinion on this fish to sway. My opinion is being based completely off of what is being told in these threads. If you guys know deep in your hearts for other reasons that this fish is not legit and are using the WRA report to justify that, you need to do better.
The "ridiculous right angle tail pinch" is how most people measure fish. I am not arguing some fantastical thing. Go watch the measurement of the Andy Hutter fish. The jaw is out to the bumper, a comment is even made on that, and the tail is swivelled back and forth at a noticeable angle to find the longest tip. I have seen musky measured this way in many videos in the boats of the industry's most credible names. I am not discounting it one bit, it is how most people, including myself, measure.
Jerry, why are you mocking my pool cue analysis? I am speaking politely to you. I want the truth, just like you do, right? The pool cues do a great job of showing the inaccuracies of the pixel counting used in the WRA report. The photo analysis that the WRA places complete credibility in, gives the fish 52-53" WITH a massively hyper extended jaw...which makes it closer to 51-52", and the mold is of a supposed 54" fish. So either you are proving that it isn't the mold of the fish, or your arguments do not agree with eachother.
You are both calling me to address other angles... Lets stick to the WRA report. I'm just a kid reading it, and neither argument works. And I wanted it to work, I brought no doubt into my reading.
Edited by Aaron Wiebe 1/6/2013 7:07 PM
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | “Jerry, why are you mocking my pool cue analysis? I am speaking politely to you. I want the truth, just like you do, right? The pool cues do a great job of showing the inaccuracies of the pixel counting used in the WRA report."
There's probably no polite way to tell somebody their pool cue analysis is nothing more than inaccurate bunk. Amateur analysis like yours does not hold one drop of water in this ridiculous pixel count debate you're trying to drum up. The WMA reports analysis was conducted by a highly credentialed professional, not by some amateur like you in a basement. If you're so confident you have somehow managed to disprove the WMA's expert, please follow proper protocol and obtain an expert that will back you up.
Tell you what; I'll offer you the same deal I offered to the Hall of Fame. I invite you consult with the expert of your choice and if they can disprove our experts position after reviewing the report... I'll pay for it. This should be a no-brainer for someone who really “wants the truth”… as you say.
There's nothing else worth discussing until then. I'm out... Good luck! | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wow, cool...here we go again, huh?
I think this is why they make you hold the yardstick *in the same plane* as the object being measured. And while some people might say I'm no smarter than a 6th grader, I'd like to think I could hold my own against most of them.
The reference object (person) in the above pool cue examples is not in the same plane as the object whose length is under question (pool cues). Therefore there is the issue of perspective to contend with, and that much Mr. Wiebe is correct about. However in the image of Mr. O'brien's fish that I evaluated a year or so ago, the fish and the yardstick were in the same plane. Ergo, no perspective need be dealt with--and we can simply use "direct scaling" to estimate the length of the object in question. So the relative position of the angler or the lady in the other picture is absolutely irrelevant to any sort of length determination made from those images. It's a red herring, as it were. Run the above experiment again with both cue sticks in the same plane as the reference man (and give a known length for him), and I'll tell you how long the sticks are...within a margin of error.
So the problem then in the case of Mr. O'Brien's fish was not that the yardstick and the fish weren't in the same plane--it was that the margin of error around the calculated length was not in agreement with the stated length of the fish. And keep in mind that those measurements were calculated, as Mr. Ramsell indicated, on a hanging fish whose "throat had been cut." In other words, the estimated length of the fish would have been MORE than the live length.
I'll put my calculations up against any 6th grader you can send my way on this.
Edited by tcbetka 1/9/2013 8:05 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Hhhhmmmm....I think Aaron actually has a point. Even Dan Mills from DCM in the WRMA report alludes to the ruler not being in the same plane as the center of the fish where it should be to get a correct measurement.
Dan Mills said..."Both of these are measured from bottom of tail to tip of jaw. The discrepancy I believe comes from the ruler being held more in-plane by the woman. She is gripping it more lightly and with a narrower grip so it appears to be hanging a little more vertical and in the same vertical plane as the muskie."
Notice he said "more in plane". That indicates that neither ruler was in fact actually IN the same plane. If the ruler were in the same plane, that would give a 3rd measurement in which the fish would actually be larger since the ruler would have to be moved back to be "in plane" with the centerline of the fish's body.
Around and round we go eh? LOL!!
DougP
Edited by fins355 1/10/2013 2:58 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I haven't looked at the images of the O'Brien fish in months, but I seem to remember that while there was indeed a portion of the yardstick that was not in the same plane as the centerline of the fish, the remaining portion of the yardstick either WAS in the same plane, or (as I seem to recall) appeared to be out-of-plane in the opposite direction. In other words, if one half of the yard stick in in front of the plane holding the fish, and the other half (or an equivalent proportion) was behind the plane holding the fish's centerline, then mathematically-speaking it's a wash... Whatever effect the perspective error from the portion of the ruler closer to the camera, would be offset by the error introduced by the portion farther from the camera. When I read that statement you quoted Doug, I took it to mean that he was explaining the discrepancy between calculated lengths obtained from the two different pictures. Since the yardstick was more closely aligned with the center of the fish in the image with the woman standing near it, I believe Mr. Mills felt it necessary to explain the disparity between the length values calculated from each image. But the yard stick was still, I believe, well within the acceptable range to support a calculation of the fish's length using direct-scale techniques.
The other thing to realize is that the fish is MUCH wider than the yard stick was. So for all practical purposes as long as the ruler was neither in front of or behind the extremes of the fish's body, then the margin of error should account for any discrepancy obtained in the calculation as I understand it. This is no doubt one reason why Mr. Mills in fact states a margin of error; and my calculations (which I believe are explicitly detailed in another thread on the forum) agree with his calculations fairly closely. At the time the only images I had to work with were the lower-resolution ones available online. And while I did not speak to Mr. Mills about this, it was my understanding that he had images of a higher quality than those I was able to obtain. Therefore although there was a slight discrepancy between his calculations and those made by me, I am quite confident that they were close enough given the materials I had to work with.
Both sets of results (Dan's and my own) were nowhere near the reported length of the fish. I seem to recall that my calculations showed the fish in the images to be slightly longer than his results--but BOTH sets of calculations showed the fish to be well short of the reported fork or total lengths. So I stand by my previous work; and I seem to even recall reading in Dan's report that he considered the yard stick to lie in a plane close enough to that occupied by the fish. Therefore I really do not see any possible way that the fish in those images is anywhere near the 58" total length claimed in previous reports.
Edited by tcbetka 1/10/2013 3:25 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| MMMmmmm....once again. I'm not sure I really understand a lot of your post Tom, sorry. Either the yardstick is in the proper plane for accurate photogrammetry or it is not. Dan Mills implied that neither photo showed a proper plane alignment, so how could he proceed??????
A better pic would have been, as attached, to determine a more accurate solution to length if the yardstick could [somehow] be proved to be layed against the skin of the fish and not an inch or two or ??? more in front or behind.
I still think Aaron has a valid point!
Edited by fins355 1/10/2013 7:06 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Tryin' to post the pic.........
(O'Brien hanging arrow.jpg smllr.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
O'Brien hanging arrow.jpg smllr.jpg (60KB - 788 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| The pic used by DCM was actually a quartering pic of the fish with the ruler [maybe] in plane with the belly and pec fins. The distance between the belly and center of the fish would make a difference in the true determination of the length of the fish. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yea, and I cannot for the life of me access Mr. Mills' report on that fish. Here is a link to the thread (and post) here on MF though, where I showed the math as to how I arrived at the conclusions I reached.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=64...
I do not recall Dan Mills saying that the yard stick was too far out of the plane of the fish to invalid estimations of length based upon use of the direct scaling method. Maybe you can post a link to the report, and I'll go through it again briefly. I remember it was pretty short and a relatively easy read.
Nice to "see" you again Doug--long time, no see!
Edit: You'll have to scroll down on that page a bit, to get to my post with the numbers. The link doesn't take us to the direct post, apparently.
Edited by tcbetka 1/10/2013 7:05 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8772
| The pool cue analysis above does indeed show a 3" discrepancy. 2.97" to be exact. The flaw there is that they are not in the same plane, and not hanging vertically. It's easy to create an illusion when you don't have gravity working against you. It's not a matter of pixels, it's a simple matter of scale. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | But you are still missing my point...or I am missing yours.
My point about the pool cue examples is that you cannot use the man's height as a "direct-scaling" reference because, as has been stated, the pool cues are not in the same plane as the man you'd be using as a reference. But if they WERE in the same plane (forget that the two cues aren't in the same plane for a minute), then you could. And in that case, providing that the camera was of sufficient distance from the man/cues, I would argue that if the cues were anywhere within the distance interval between the back of the man's back and the front of his body, then you COULD use one to direct scale the other. In other words, if the distance between the camera and the objects was many times greater than the distance between their centerlines, then it could be considered negligible in terms of affecting the overall validity of the results. I'll give you an exaggerated example.
It's sort of like saying that a moon of Jupiter is at the same distance from Earth as Jupiter is, because both Jupiter and its moon are SO FAR from Earth, that the true differential in their distances with respect to Earth is irrelevant. Obviously if the moon of Jupiter is directly in front of Jupiter (between it and Earth), then the Earth/Jupiter distance is a bit farther than that between the Earth and Jupiter's moon. But because the disparity in distance is so great, one could consider the distance between Jupiter and its moon to be negligible in this problem.
OK so obviously that was a sensationalized example, because the differential of distances between the yard stick and the fish, and both objects and the camera, is much closer in the case of the pictures of Mr. O'Brien's fish. However if we assume that the camera is 15-20 feet from the fish/yardstick, and that the centerlines of the fish and the yardstick are within a couple inches of each other, then the margin of error would account for such error For example say that there is 2" between fish and stick divided by 180" from camera, and you have a 1.11% error. Now apply to the estimate for the length of the fish, and you'd have to have an interval of confidence of +/- 1.11% around your calculated length. It would take more math than I want to do right now, but basically you could find a relative distance differential that would allow you to be accurate on the fish's length to 95%...or even 99%. But suffice it to say that the farther away from the camera the fish and yardstick are, the less important any distance between their centerline becomes. The question is whether or not it does in the matter of Ken O'Brien's fish, and I'd say that's one of the reasons for the confidence interval as given in Mr. Mills' report.
Sorry for the obscure example, but I wanted to make it clear why I don't consider the distance between the yard stick and the fish an issue in this case. Again, I don't have the report right in front of me, but I recall thinking at the time that Dan Mills didn't consider that fish/yard stick distance to be a deal-breaker. Therefore neither did I.
Edited by tcbetka 1/10/2013 8:10 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Let's forget the photogrammetry.
Let's forget even my measurement of the frozen fish at 54 inches.
Let's not forget the mold measurement of 54 inches, but let's also consider some NEW facts:
Dr. Bernard Lebeau (who did the egg count on the O'brien fish) measured the thawed fish at...you guessed it, 54 inches!!
And, after many months of stonewalling and then finally compliance with a "Freedom of Information Act" request from a former President of Muskies Canada, the Cleithra measurment from the O'brien fish was obtained. The determination by the Cliethrum Project of fish length was 128.26cm OR 50.5 inches (assumed fork length), making total length....yep, you guessed it, roughly 54 inches!!!
Can we put this to bed now?
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/10/2013 9:33 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | OK Larry. So you're saying: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a...
(54" musky?) | |
| | |
Posts: 8772
| Tom, my point is that two hanging objects, in the same plane relative to each other, can be used to estimate length with astonishing accuracy if the length of one of the objects is known. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yea, sorry...I was directing that last response to Doug's last post. I thought of that after I read yours. My oops--I should have made that more clear!
Sorry. | |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The fish was about 54" | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Apparently! | |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Hi Tom...Hi guys...yea, I haven't been around for awhile.
My only point here was that I don't think the pics used by DCM were very good for the purpose to be used. I think it to be inaccurate based on the pics used...I also think Dan Mills should have said that.
I don't want to beat a "dead fish" , so to say, but there are still a lot of ?'s that haven't been answered.
Larry you mentioned that Bernard LeBeau measured the fish at 54" after thawed....why didn't he bring that discrepancy to the attention of the ROM and the OFAH? He must have known the fish was considered the [pending??] Canadian record. Didn't he know that Dr. Casselman signed off on the fish on the record application as being 58"?....maybe he didn't care about that.....just asking??
Seems that if he knew Dr. Casselman verified a 58" length on the record application that Dr. casselman would want to know that his measurement was 54"....4" shorter??
If a customer brought a 58" musky [by his fresh measurement] for me to mount and I measured the fish at 54" after being frozen and thawed, I would certainly call my customer to tell him the discrepancy. Can you imagine his response if I didn't say anything to him and mounted the fish as 54" [measurement after thawed] and expected him to accept that without any explanation. I don't think he would be very happy.....
OK...alot of this [along with your measurement] was "overlooked" at the time and just recently brought to light by the WRMA [WRA] investigation....OK.
I have to say that after taking some further looks at some of the 'evidence" I still have some ?'s that I don't think will be answered.
DougP
Edited by fins355 1/11/2013 10:33 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I don't see why the pictures weren't good. I wish I could find the report, but can't seem to locate it online any more. Maybe I have it on my file server...I'll take a look.
But even the pictures I had to use were of sufficient resolution to pretty clearly see the tips of the rostrum and tail of Mr. O'Brien's fish. And although the yardstick maybe wasn't perfectly vertical, I think it was about as good as could be expected. Certainly there's a margin of error, but when you actually looked at the pixel counts on the images, it was pretty clear as to the length of the fish hanging there.
Note though... I have never said that O'Brien DID NOT catch a 58" musky. There was simply not enough information to reach that conclusion. All I said after running the calculations I ran was that, in my opinion, the fish in those photos was not a 58" musky. And Dan Mills apparently agrees, as his report was pretty clear on the matter.
EDIT: I found the report. I looked at the images, and they are absolutely fine IMO. The image with Mr. O'Brien holding the yard stick shows that yard stick to be slightly less vertical than the image with Ms. Grisdale. And in fact THAT is what Mr. Mills noted as a possible explanation for the discrepancy between the lengths calculated from each image. I did recall that correctly.
The last thing I am going to say on this matter, is that rotational angle of the fish has absolutely no relevance or bearing whatsoever on the length calculations. So long as the yard stick is very close to an imaginary line from the tip of its rostrum, to the tip of its tail, then that's all we care about...because that is how we measure total length. The belly of the fish has no bearing at all. As long was one can clearly measure the length from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail, and the yard stick is very close to lying in that same plane (and the camera is sufficiently far away from both objects), then I believe direct scaling can be applied.
Therefore, and for the n'th time: The fish hanging in those images is not 58"...not even hanging. And when taken with the reports of Mr. Ramsell's measurement, and the reported length of the mold, I think the conclusion speaks for itself.
I'm out.
Edited by tcbetka 1/12/2013 10:09 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Well, we can disagree on the photos used by Dan Mills, the rotation of the fish absolutely has something to do with the results. I would still submit that the ruler is NOT in the same plane as the center line of the fish.....therefore the pics used by DCM cannot be accurately scaled. However, it's evidently too difficult for me to explain in this forum. I think if we could sit down and examine the point I'm trying to make with the photos we would be in closer agreement.
The thing is...I don't believe the fish to be longer than 54" either. I just don't believe the DCM report, using those photos, can be very accurate and certainly not accurate enough to have the OFAH remove the record.
There are still many strange things about this fish that go unanswered.
DougP
Edited by fins355 1/12/2013 10:37 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 1/12/2013 10:34 AM
Well, we can disagree on the photos used by Dan Mills, the rotation of the fish absolutely has something to do with the results. I would still submit that the ruler is NOT in the same plane as the center line of the fish.....therefore the pics used by DCM cannot be accurately scaled.
SNIP...
DougP
Yes, I would welcome the chance to sit down with you and discuss this, because I do not agree at all with your conclusions (besides the one about the fish being about 54" in length).
I will mention something I forgot to add in my last post. It should be noted that the degree that the yard stick and central axis of the musky are parallel, is of no consequence. As long as the yard stick is very close to the same distance from the camera as is the fish, you can use it (as an object of known length) to scale the fish (and object of unknown length). In other words, the yard stick could be completely perpendicular to the fish...as long as it and the fish are the same distance from the camera. All you need is an object of known dimension, and who cares if their axes are parallel...
So Mr. Mills' statement about the discrepancy between the two calculations was actually in reference to the yard stick being more in-plane with the fish in the image with Ms. Grisdale. I think I may have mis-interpreted his statement, and just wanted to clarify.
Edited by tcbetka 1/12/2013 11:04 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | fins355,
The fish was 54". | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Just home from the Chicago Musky Show...
Fins355 wrote: "Larry you mentioned that Bernard LeBeau measured the fish at 54" after thawed....why didn't he bring that discrepancy to the attention of the ROM and the OFAH? He must have known the fish was considered the [pending??] Canadian record. Didn't he know that Dr. Casselman signed off on the fish on the record application as being 58"?....maybe he didn't care about that.....just asking??
Seems that if he knew Dr. Casselman verified a 58" length on the record application that Dr. casselman would want to know that his measurement was 54"....4" shorter??"
Doug, as is too often the case in these matters, you have several facts/information wrong.
When Bernard did his measurement, he had no clue what claim had been made for fish length. He was engrossed in working on his Doctoral Thesis and merely stopped by the ROM to count the eggs and while there measured the length...end of that story. Second, Dr. Casselman didn't "sign off" on anything!! It was Dr. Crossman that identified species (ONLY) and signed the affidavit in that regard only. Dr. Crossman verified nothing on the record application. Dr. Casselman maintains to this day he never saw the fish or the mold!
| |
| | |
Posts: 280
| Tom, we can just agree to disagree about the photos and the DCM report. That's fine.
I just believe the DCM report using those photos to be inaccurate and therefore invalid.
Steve...LOL! I agree that the fish was 54", I just don't put any credibility in the Dan Mills findings regarding the fish.
Larry, yes, my mistake, I meant to say Dr. Crossman signed off on the fish. I got my "C's" mixed up! LOL! I just find it strange that with all these professionals measuring this fish at 54" and the fish being the potential Canadian record, the largest muky EVER caught in Canada, that none of them would question the lenght discrepancy in the application to OFAH.
I also agree the 9lb. weight loss is unexpainable.
I know that many of you want this issue closed. I see no harm in raising legitimate questions to get some credible answers. I see no reason to not want to discuss this further since the fish is only "out", as you say Larry, in the minds of some of us and NOT in the eyes of the governing body...the OFAH. They say the fish was legit. How can they be convinced otherwise without some ironclad proof?? So half the musky community believes the fish is smaller than claimed and half [?] believes the fish to be legit.....great!
So if a newcomer to the musky community wants to know what the Canadian musky record is, where do they find it? They find it within the official holder of Canadian fishing records, the OFAH and THEY list the record as Ken O'Brien's fish......hhhhmmmm???
Lots of time effort research and discussion and the record remains unchanged in the "official record keeping books. Oh well....
DougP
Edited by fins355 1/13/2013 9:31 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | fins355,
Record keeping organizations (for the most part) won't accept the truth. The whys of that is another story. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 1/13/2013 9:10 AM
Tom, we can just agree to disagree about the photos and the DCM report. That's fine.
I just believe the DCM report using those photos to be inaccurate and therefore invalid.
snip...
DougP
I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't accept the DCM evaluation as being "valid" science? I mean, those techniques are used countless times in many cases, each year. And after all, he DID come up with results consistent with the reports now verified by other methods. Certainly Mr.Mills could have had access to the information regarding Larry's measurement of the fish when he generated his report--but he wouldn't have had knowledge of the calculated length based upon measurement of the cleithrum data, as this was just verified in the past 4-6 months. I personally verified his calculations using the images included in his report, and although they weren't exactly the same...they were very close. I'd trust his numbers more so than mine even, given that I had images of lesser quality.
So I am not at all sure what you have a problem with Doug, regarding those images. I am very confident that his results represent the true and accurate calculated length of the fish in those images, within the stated (published) margin of error. And since they've since been corroborated by independent means and he did get the right answer, I don't see where the problem lies.
But let me know if you're going to be in the Green Bay area at all, and I'll take you to dinner. We'll discuss it at length. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Doug (fins355): Yep, records are a mess. Wrote this recently:
Records; The Irony Of It All!
Let’s face it, historical muskie world records are a mess. Since John Dettloff set out in the early 1990’s to return “King Louie” to the top of the muskie heap, the historical records have gone continuously down hill since. After he succeeded in getting Art Lawton’s world record either disqualified or “set-aside”, he became emboldened and went after the other non-Hayward (WI) world records and other record class catches. With the unwitting complicity of the then two record keeping organizations and a few outdoor and muskie magazines he managed to basically destroy all of the non-Hayward world records back to 1939 with the exception of the two from Eagle Lake, Ontario in 1939 and 1940. Why he never attacked them is a mystery to me…perhaps he didn’t think he could get the job done on them. While as it turns out he was correct in the records he “chose” to attack, his Achilles Heel was in his steadfast refusal to give the same consideration to the Hayward records (Spray’s 1949 record was supposedly caught near his Flowage resort) and he and the Hall of Fame Board, when upholding the Spray record, failed miserably to apply the same standards to Spray as they had to Lawton. A shameful use of politics and tourism by the Hall board, all of whom were Hayward business folks with a strong bias. With regard to the IGFA, they set aside Lawton’s record and then replaced it with the bogus O'brien fish and then replaced that one with the bogus Johnson fish and then refused to apply the same standards to it as they had Lawton and to this day leave it standing, facts notwithstanding. I believe, they just didn’t wish to make waves in the outdoor magazine world, since Cal Johnson had been an icon there.
In the last decade, the Internet Muskie Record Wars have raged on and on and on. Many folks have had their minds changed back and forth and many too, have just hunkered down with their beliefs and wishes, usually refusing to use common sense with the evidence. With more and more facts coming forward as more research was done and people come forward or were found, and of course, the WRMA (now WMA) began their investigations with the use of scientific photogrammetry at the core of their findings, we can now be confident that through that work and considerable other evidence, the vast majority of the heretofore “top echelon” of historic muskie records were bogus! Photogrammetry has conclusively shown that the top four records were far shorter than claimed; Lawton, Spray 1949 (and including his 1940 record), Johnson and O’brien. This, combined with all the other new evidence and findings leaves nothing to doubt about this fact in my mind. Since there is compelling evidence too against the Hanser record and the two Haver records and the supposed third Spray record and insufficient data exists to conclusively put the “stamp of approval” on the two Eagle Lake records, we are left at an impasse as to just what our Muskellunge World Record is. As an aside, even if the two Eagle Lake fish were legit, it still remains fact that other than a possible “freak”, muskies just don’t normally grow beyond the mid-fifty to sixty-pound mark!
Now comes the “Irony“…Dettloff was only able to convince the state of Michigan to remove their Haver State record; the Lawton fish is still the New York State record; the Spray 1949 fish is still the Wisconsin State record and the O’brien fish is still the Canadian record. Yes folks, the state of affairs in the muskie records world are still a bloomin’ mess!!!
Stay tuned, maybe things will turn for the better in the next few months. | |
| | |
Posts: 7
| There seems to be plenty of evidence for the fish being around 54"...my comments were directed at the "official report", which did not do a good job of proving that, unfortunately.
TB, yes you missed my point completely with the pool cues. The man standing behind them is of no consequence. I used one pool cue to measure the other pool cue....similarly to the "report" using the yard stick to measure the musky. You are incorrect in your comments that "as long as they are close, you can get an accurate measurement"....THIS is what I was demonstrating. One of the pool cues is closer to the camera, and accounts for a perceived 3" difference in length, yet it is NOT noticeably closer - the man looks to be holding both pool cues in front of him on nearly the same "plane". Which is why I compared this pixel counting calculation as a technique worthy of a 6th grade classroom. There is no science behind it.
Edited by Aaron Wiebe 1/16/2013 1:23 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I went back and re-read your initial post Aaron, for now about the third or fourth time. After reading your last post, I think I can see the point that you are trying to make. However I still disagree with your assertion that the yardstick is significantly out of plane with the fish in either of the two images in the WMA report. I didn't have any others to go by incidentally, so I hope those are the ones you're referencing as well. Anyway, I think it appears quite evident that the stick is being held very close to being co-planar with an imaginary line extending, through the center of the fish, from the tip of its rostrum, out the fork of its tail. In other words, it is VERY close to being in the same plane as the central axis of the fish. Contrary to what has been mentioned in this thread about the rotation of the fish, I simply do not believe that has any bearing whatsoever on the calculation of estimated length of the fish in the images. It's the central, pin-point, axis of the fish we're interested in--not it's belly. As long as we can get a pixel count from snout to the tip of its tail, and from end-to-end of an object of know length hanging in the same plane (no matter the relative angle between the two), then one can be used to direct-scale the other. And it sounds like you do agree with that much.
So then really the only thing still under debate here, is how "co-planar" the yardstick is with the fish. Am I getting that right? I also should say that I *do* in fact think that using a pixel count measurement of a known-length object to find the length of an object of unknown length IS, in fact, "science." I don't know what else you'd call it? While it may not be "Rocket Science," it certainly still requires knowledge of some mathematics (ratios), and an appreciation of how the viewing angle of two co-planar objects might affect the interpretation of their apparent lengths. That's trigonometry...certainly geometry at the very least. That's why I somewhat pooh-poohed the notion about "sixth-grade" intellect being able to solve this particular problem. And then when you start to consider the effect of moving the yardstick farther out of plane with the fish, it certainly gets more and more complicated--especially when the camera is relatively close to either object.
Anyway, it's still an interesting debate...and one that no one is really ever going to solve beyond a reason of a doubt. All things considered, and as everyone here pretty much seems to agree, the fish in those images is a 54" musky. I feel that the mathematics supports that assertion, but obviously you (and Doug) do not. So be it. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it, as it's not going to change the outcome of this whole deal...
| |
| | |
Posts: 7
| I am not saying the musky and the yardstick are significantly out of plane. I am saying that it only takes a slight difference in plane and camera angle to make a huge difference in the pixel counting results. Do you agree that the pool cues appear to be on the same plane? They are exactly the same length, and with just holding one slightly closer to the camera, one of the cues perceives to be 3" longer when analyzed by pixel "science".
Besides this very practical example (the pool cues) which Larry and Jerry immediately dismissed as invalid....consider that the "science" you are using places the musky at 52" in one photo and 53" in the other photo, WITH a hyper extended jaw that is contributing an inch or more to the perceived length in the photo. Would you agree it would be more fair to call it 51-52 based off the pixel science considering this? Which would mean the pixel science puts it 2-3" shorter than the 54" that every other argument points to.
The main arguments do not even agree with each other, which is a major stumbling block in the way of labelling any of this "science". In my opinion, anyways.
Edited by Aaron Wiebe 1/16/2013 3:47 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7
| The WRA has good intentions and valid concerns, but my third party perception (being on the fence about the validity of the fish) is that they have lost their credibility by leaning on unproven arguments...and when those ones lose momentum, the spokespeople for the WRA shift to "well then how do you explain THIS?!?!?!"....one "argument" at a time....the WRA is supposed to be bringing sanity to the debate, instead of contributing to the opposite. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, there are "qualitative" tests, and then there are "quantitative" tests--and this direct-scaling business (using pixel count) is definitely more of a qualitative test. While it will result in an estimate for the length of the fish in this case, it is NOT going to give you an exact answer as to the length of an object whose length is in question. But Dan Mills never said it would--as his report clearly states that there is a margin of error surrounding his calculated length. For one thing, you cannot guarantee that the fish and the yard stick are in *exactly* the same plane. They most certainly are not. That's one of the reasons that there's a confidence interval around those lengths Dan obtained. But they certainly do appear close enough to at least get you close--and that "close" (in this case) results in a length far below the 58" length apparently reported for this fish. Therefore even though you think the results to be somewhat less accurate than you would like, the fact that they are so far from the reported length should tell you something. And just because you think they should be FARTHER from the 58" length, doesn't mean they aren't valid results. Science is not about absolutes. If the length is shown to be far less than reported using the direct-scaling technique from the yardstick in the image, then you have no choice but to debunk the stated length of the fish, on that basis alone. Whether they are 10% off, 15% off or 50% off is of no consequence. It simply hasn't passed the test of "reasonableness."
Now combine that with Larry's measurement, the measured length per the mold, and (most recently) the length estimate based upon cleithral data, and what do you have? A sub-58" musky is most likely what you have. Other than the physical measurement of the fish and mold, these other methods are non-exact. There is a confidence interval around each of them, no one ever said there wasn't. But just because the pixel counts of the fish and yardstick don't agree with what you think they should be, doesn't mean they aren't absolutely valid. In fact, I believe they are quite valid indeed. But of course you're free to disagree.
Edited by tcbetka 1/17/2013 12:10 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7
| Ya, well worded. The way it was described and used in the report was much more concrete and unreasonable than your explanation of it. Despite being inaccurate...it certainly does contribute to the length being suspicious. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well-put. I for one still have some problems with how that whole thing went down, but there's nothing I(we) can do about it at this point. So you just look at the evidence either for or against the fish. And simply put, the fish in those pictures is NOT a 58" musky. Even if it's off by 10%, for example, that makes it only 53-54" (58" * 10% = 5.8"). Far short of the reported length, assuming that the musky in those images is indeed the one claimed to be a 58" fish.
Incidentally, there was another (similar) thread a year or two ago, regarding the Lawton musky. Larry Ramsell made available a couple images which I analyzed and did similar calculations. I wrote up a "report" showing how I did the math on that fish, and it turned out that the fish in the picture was nowhere near the 62-63" length reported. But my point then, as it is now, is that we can only evaluate the fish in THAT image as being of a reported length. So in the Lawton case, my conclusion was that I could of course not say that Lawton never caught a 63" musky--only that my math showed that it wasn't the fish in THAT picture. Same goes with O'Brien then--the man might have caught a 58" musky for all I know. But I'd bet the ranch that it wasn't the one in the picture that appeared in the WMA report.
Anyway I don't want to confound the matter, but I just thought I'd mention the Lawton fish pictures that went around a year or two ago. If you are looking for something to do on a cold winter night, you might dig up the thread here...if you've not already seen it. It's a pretty good read, as there were some great posts by several fellows.
EDIT: Here's a link to that thread. The math is posted on the last page. Note that the reported length of that fish was apparently 64.5"! I had forgotten this...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=65...
Edited by tcbetka 1/18/2013 9:33 AM
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | Aaron Wiebe - 1/16/2013 3:54 PM
The WRA has good intentions and valid concerns, but my third party perception (being on the fence about the validity of the fish) is that they have lost their credibility by leaning on unproven arguments...and when those ones lose momentum, the spokespeople for the WRA shift to "well then how do you explain THIS?!?!?!"....one "argument" at a time....the WRA is supposed to be bringing sanity to the debate, instead of contributing to the opposite.
Aaron, I assume that you are satisfied with the incredibly patient and thorough explanation from Mr. Betka?
To answer your question in a nutshell; Dan Mills, the expert we used for the photo analysis calculated a maximum length for Mr. O'Brien's Muskie of approximately 54”, and although there appears to be evidence that the fish was even shorter, there is ZERO physical, scientific, or photographic evidence that it was any longer. Therefore, although the WMA report was unable to satisfy your desire to know exactly how long this fish was, we would hope that you knowing that the maximum length of 54.4” would be enough to satisfy your curiosity regarding validity.
Frankly Aaron, I find it very intriguing that you continue to post such baseless innuendo for no apparent reason. You may very well be “just a kid reading it”, as you say on page one, but after about 10 years of very similar ridiculous online exchanges with John Deltloff and company, I'm always suspicious of first-time posters… and have just grown tired of this type of nonsensical debate.
The fact of the matter is your verbose review has been thoroughly dispelled by Mr. Betka without much effort and is now the only thing that's trying to “lean on unproven arguments”. Actually, your review is not leaning anymore because it fell flat on its face. It appears that your inability to deliver a clear and consistent line of reason has completely evaporated, and these little non-factual jabs are really the only thing that is “contributing the opposite”. If you're not John Deltloff (or one of his cronies), please accept my apologies and sincere offer to pursue this further by contacting the expert of your choice.
If your expert can invalidate the findings in our report, and somehow prove this fish was actually longer than 54.4”, I'll pay for it. Fair enough?
Edited by Jerry Newman 1/25/2013 9:42 PM
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | tcbetka - 1/18/2013 9:24 AM
And simply put, the fish in those pictures is NOT a 58" musky. Even if it's off by 10%, for example, that makes it only 53-54" (58" * 10% = 5.8"). Far short of the reported length, assuming that the musky in those images is indeed the one claimed to be a 58" fish.
Tom,
For the record, that is the claimed 58” O'Brien record in those images, there is simply no debate due to the 30+ pictures of the fish/video that positively identifies it.
Actually, the photo analysis conducted by Mr. Mills has the maximum hanging length of Mr. O'Brien's Muskie at 53.4” with an added +1” margin of error to give this fish every benefit of the doubt. The hanging maximum of 54.4” is just as valid today as it was the day the report was released and although Aaron seems unwilling to accept Mr. Mills expert calculations, it certainly appears he is willing to accept yours.
Thank you sir!
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, it's pretty straightforward. There's no real Photogrammetry involved as I see it, because the yardstick and fish are very close to being in the same plane. So it's just math, and my math skills are much better than my skills in photogrammetry.
My only purpose in making the comment about not being able to rule out O'Brien *ever* having caught a 58" fish, was to point out that MY intent was simply to investigate for myself the feasibility of the fish in those images. Just as in the case of the Lawton fish, after extensive review and study (especially for the Lawton images), I can say with a very high level of confidence that the fish in question are nowhere near as long as purported to be. Neither is a record fish, based upon my evaluations. | |
| | |
Posts: 833
| I apologize if this is a dumb question. Has anyone ever reversed engineered a lengh x girth formula (I know weight is what matters) to determine the dimensions for a fish to have weighed what the O'Brien fish reportedly weighed at the given length estimations?
My thought is that the recent catches on Mille Lacs were total porkers and they didn't break 60 pounds. I would have to imagine that even at 58" (not saying that is true) the girth of a fish close to 70# would have needed to be ridiculous.
I'm just curious, not looking to fan the flames.
Edited by Brad P 1/29/2013 4:23 PM
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | Brad P - 1/29/2013 4:20 PM
I apologize if this is a dumb question. Has anyone ever reversed engineered a lengh x girth formula (I know weight is what matters) to determine the dimensions for a fish to have weighed what the O'Brien fish reportedly weighed at the given length estimations?
My thought is that the recent catches on Mille Lacs were total porkers and they didn't break 60 pounds. I would have to imagine that even at 58" (not saying that is true) the girth of a fish close to 70# would have needed to be ridiculous.
I'm just curious, not looking to fan the flames.
Considering the length of O'Brien's fish was in fact 54", it seems fairly obvious that the dimensions were "reverse engineered" to closely fit the 800 formula.
58x30 = 65.25
Edited by Jerry Newman 1/30/2013 10:55 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 833
| Thanks, I wasn't looking to debate the fish, I leave that to Mr. Ramsell and others who know far more about it than I do. I was just curious about how the formula would play out and whether or not it would kick out a ridiculous number for the girth. I bet at 54" it would kick it an obnoxious number.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Acutally Brad P, not so "ridiculous" as the girth is squared in the formula, so 54 x 31 comes close at 64.87 without being toooo "obnoxious", although a 31 inch girth is, while not impossible, extremely unlikely.
For the umteenth time, the formula is merely an estimate that I believe, based on the actual weighing of several large muskies on a certified scale before release this fall, the formula usually overestimates the upper end fish (over 50-pounds) by 5 to 7 pounds!...If you want to say it, you should weigh it!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/31/2013 8:14 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 833
| Thank you for the response. Now for the task that really matters: Catching my own 50#. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Brad P - 1/31/2013 4:02 PM
Thank you for the response. Now for the task that really matters: Catching my own 50#.
Actually, Larry and I have talked about the application of the 800 formula for released fish quite a bit the last few years, and although 54x31” might be possible with a freak muskie like Williamsons, this would also have to be the dead girth. The live girth would have to be somewhere upward of 32”, well off the chart for the girth to length ratio for muskies. I've been playing around with weighing my own released fish and then reducing the girth accordingly. My best guess is that anywhere from a ½” to 1” reduction in live girth depending on the size of the fish yields a fairly accurate formula weight using the standard 800 formula. The reasoning behind this research is that the 800 formula was developed using hundreds of dead fish whose girths would have been greater if they were measured while still alive.
Getting back to O'Brien; I would be lying if I said that I did not believe in O'Brien when the WRMA started on this quest way back when. Even as the rumors of this fish being just another “water balloon” began to surface, I can remember thinking that even if that did happen, there might be no way to prove it. I was certainly surprised at what we found and being a man of my word (knowing I was going to get my teeth kicked in again) I was obligated to make this information public.
The bottom line on O'Brien is that it was submitted on an official record application as being 58” long, and that my friends is simply not possible based on several separate pieces of corroborating hard scientific and circumstantial evidence. In our modern-day court systems, typically the eyewitnesses are the most inaccurate source of information. Many people have wrongfully been put to death based only on testimony, and many people have more recently been acquitted based only on contrary scientific DNA evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but when our own court system has overruled witnesses statements so many times (sometimes under strenuous objections to the contrary) in favor of hard scientific evidence, well that good enough for me.
The fact of the matter is that people lie and (much like Spray and Johnson) these yellowing affidavits are hardly worth the paper they are written on when they fly in the face of overwhelming scientific and circumstantial evidence.
Good luck this summer with that first 50" Brad! | |
| |
|
