|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The more time that I spend on the web sites the more I come to realize that either people are intentionally misleading (most tend not to use their names) or they have a limited knowlege and'or understanding of what they're posting about. I hope to cure some of that on my website in the near future by putting all of the pertinent facts and information from my book...for free!
I do think that it is worthwhile to post facts in the hopes that people will understand what the heck has happened.
For example: For people questioning the justification of the WRMA to challenge records, they should keep in mind that the musky record challenges began when a local Hayward citizen,, not then affiliated with the Hayward based Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame (FWFHF), challenged the Spray record.
The difference between the local resident and the WRMA is the WRMA represents more individuals, not just one with a personal agenda and future personal gain.
A main difference in the challenges is the WRMA's included a peer reviewed technical assessment while the local resident's includes an amateur photo comparison. Another difference is the local resident's challenge placed his ackowledged idol as the world record holder while the WRMA's challenges the validity of measurements..
The greatest injustice is that when the WRMA sent their challenge to the FWFHF the local resident took responsibility for the evaluation because he was then chairman of the FWFHF Board of Directors!!
The local resident is Mr. John Dettloff!! The board of director's were all local business people!!
This local resident and FWFHF board members didn't appreciate the challenge so they CHANGED THE RULES to require a $1,500 fee for all future challenges! Accordingly, the Johnson musky has not been submitted to the FWFHF as a challenge, only to the IGFA since they recognize Johnson as the world record holder. Of course this didn't stop the FWFHF from commenting recently. They commented to the WRMA's later offer and sent the WRMA a reminder that if they wish to challenge that'll need to submit a fee. This may happen. Stay tuned.
BUT BACK TO THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEW THREAD. WHAT A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY HAS PRESENTED ITSELF.
When Dettloff got Lawton tossed out, there was no mount to verify against the photo. When the WRMA used a scientific method that was peer reviewed to debunk the Spray recordS there were also no mounts available to be examined as they had "conviently" burned up in a fire. However, the photogrammetry analysis of the 1940 and 1949 mounts indicated that the mounts had been tampered with (read exaggerated in size).
"Apparently", the same problem exists with the Johnson mount (done by the same taxidermist that did the 1940 Spray fish) and is readily apparent to anyone with a basic knowledge of muskie anatomy. To wit:
When one examines the distance from the front edge of the front "paired fins" to the front edge of the rear "paired fins" and then compares that with the distance between the front edge of the rear "paired fins" to the front edge of the "anal fin" on the FRESH FISH, one finds that (and similarly is the case with almost all muskies) that the distance of the latter is approximately 62% of the former...the distance between the rear fins and the anal fin is less than 2/3's of the distance between the paired fins.
HOWEVER, when one makes the same comparison on the mounted fish, that percentage for the rear paired fins to the anal fin becomes closer to 91%!!! There is ONLY ONE LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THIS HUGE DISCREPANCY...THE MOUNT HAS BEEN ALTERED AND ADDED TO BETWEEN THE REAR PAIRED FINS AND THE ANAL FIN.
NOTE: Cal Johnson III "AGREEDED" with me at the musky show that the rear paired fins HAD NOT BEEN MOVED ON THE MOUNT!
And now for that wonderful "new opportunity". Since the Cal Johnson mount is still available, opening the case and making a detailed examination could accomplish several things at once:
1) It would immediately prove or disprove the validity of the Johnson record fish.
2) If it is found to be valid, it would disprove the photogrammetry and remove suspicion from the Spray muskies (as to size only) as well!
3) Obviously, it would also prove the Dettloff discrediting of the size of the Lawton muskie incorrect as well and open the way for reinstatement.
While I know Mr. Dettloff would love to see the first two happen, it is that third one that will cause him to endeavor to disuade Cal III and the mounts owner to keep the case sealed (anyone with any knowledge of the facts totally discounts Dettloff's supposed Lawton "recant witness" as nothing more than getting an old man to say ONLY what he wanted to hear and get him to sign a Dettloff prepared affidavit 35 years after the fact that seemed to counter two previous affidavits done at the time of the catch...a sham!).
BUT THE FACT REMAINS...UNLESS THAT CASE IS OPENED AND THE MOUNT OF JOHNSON'S MUSKIE IS CAREFULLY EXAMINED AND X-RAYED, THERE SHALL FOREVER REMAIN A CLOUD OF DOUBT OVER IT REGARDLESS OF CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian to ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | I like how they positioned the weeds in front of the questionable area, to try to help with a diversion away from the obvious over-space between the rear fins & anal fin. 
Attachments
----------------
 IMG_0001.jpg (62KB - 358 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| If they don't allow it to be opened then they obvouisly are hiding the fact that it is not the real deal, If it was mine and it was the real deal I would have no problem with xrays and what not!. For them to claim it is the world record then they need to prove it 100% espicially since they have the mount. The real world record holder should settle this with a lawsuit, either step up or step off!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 124
| Thank you Larry.
Lee Tauchen
http://LeeTauchen.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | Devils advocate....sorry.
Attachments
----------------
IMG_0002mod.jpg (145KB - 253 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Even though the WRMA is proud of the Johnson report, we understand that the research may have also hurt people. Our hope is that everyone understands that this unpleasantness is inherent with any record protest and that it has never been our intent to hurt anybody. Even though some may still consider it a personal attack on Mr. Johnson, we can only assure you that it has given us no pleasure.
Out of respect for the Johnson family, I decided to call Mr. Cal Johnson III this morning. Not knowing what to expect, I was pleasantly surprised with the flow of our conversation and although it seemed almost surreal to both of us, we agreed to talk to each other again. With that said, the WRMA has made an offer to the Johnson family, but will respectfully wait for their decision before sharing the nature of this publicly.
With so much different opinion out there, it is understandable that some of these online discussions have occasionally spiraled out of control. However (and with all due respect), please do not lump the WRMA in with other like-minded people who are not as considerate while expressing their opinion. We would like to make one thing perfectly clear, I am the sole spokesperson.
The WRMA has presented the scientific and mathematical findings (both Spray and Johnson) for consideration and have only asked for a technically sound assessment from the record keepers. To this day, both of our reports remain unchallenged (even by the lowest of professional standards), and the FWFHoF has steadfastly declined our standing offer to cover the costs for a neutral party professional of their choice.
Further, we will not participate in any back-and-forth discussions, particularly those with anonymous rocket scientists and archaeologists who seem to have a predetermined agenda. For instance, why should we debate "where the vanishing point is" when the WRMA has offered to pay for a neutral party professional?
With that said, we remain confident that the vast majority of informed muskie enthusiasts agree that we have done exactly what we promised to do so far, and that both of these reports contain the most accurate information offered by either side.
Edited by Jerry Newman 1/17/2010 11:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Excellent posts, thank you Mr. Ramsell and Mr. Newman! I think I'm part of the silent majority who can hardly believe these fish are still records.
I'm reluctant to post this but also find it ironic that we have this one guy (Detlof) telling us to accept something that is percent fiction when he is not an expert in anything yet he still thinks he can convince us that he was able to find major problems with both of those peer reviewed reports and that mount is really a 67 lb July fish with a 33 1/2 girth.
It would be great to hear what kind of laser tool he used on that mount to supposedly defeat the WRMA 'bad science' so that people can know the specs and how accurate it really is. He claims the WRMA eye measurement is wrong with his dime store research but gives no proof that he even knows which end is up or how to operate it. Guess he assumes we will just accept his word on it because he is has nothing to gain and his method just has to be more accurate than a trained professional photogrammetrist. Seriously, does he really think we are that stupid?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 129
Location: North Metro - Twin Cities | Great post Larry, the picture is very telling. The mount is so obviously manipulated it’s ridiculous. Like many of us I grew up idolizing these records and their captors but it has become so clear how distorted the claimed sizes and weights of these fish are. |
|
| |
