Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... > Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> CAL JOHNSON SUMMARY REPORT |  |
| Message Subject: CAL JOHNSON SUMMARY REPORT | |||
firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Jerry Newman - 12/18/2009 11:39 AM firstsixfeet - 12/17/2009 10:23 PM "I would urge people to go look at this pic enlarged though, it seems to speak pretty clearly when you look at it full sized and closely check the reference points for the rod, and the position in relation to Cal's feet and body. For a good enlargement look here it is a little tough when looking at the article since it doesn't enlarge. If you have the flat pack of Extra Gum(similar to other flat packs) you will note that the pack edge is almost exactly the length of the rod, and when you move it to the fish, voila, once again almost exact. Seems to bear out the fact that this fish was a big long bugger. My need for collaborative science is satisfied by this pic." Sixfeet: Although the WRMA appreciates your interest and input, you must remember that even if the rod was as long as claimed, it is "leaning" against the sign and angled away from the camera. This singular point is key because it simply cannot be accurately used for any type of direct scaling. Therefore, this new photo provides no additional evidence to support the claimed length, the only new evidence is that more of Mr. Johnson's waist is now revealed to use as a visual aid. If anything, it should be blatantly obvious to the naked eye that Mr. Johnson's muskie could not have the claimed 33 1/2" girth. The girth of the muskie should (at the very least) be comparable to 5'9" Johnson with an average waist size. The harsh reality is that Mr. Johnson's record muskie is just another thinly built July caught fish that simply could not have possessed such an extraordinary girth, and by way of extension could not have weighed anywhere near 67 1/2 pounds. Getting back to the length, the WRMA has secured a professionally prepared peer-reviewed scientific report proving the fresh muskie was in the low 50" class and the skin mount was dimensionally augmented to represent a 60" class muskellunge. I wasn't actually offering anything to the WRMA, and in fact my only offering would be that it might be best if the group dissolved. I will also venture that "blatantly obvious" things are really difficult to discern in this whole discussion. It wouldn't be much of a discussion at all were things "blatantly obvious". In what year did Johnson die? | ||
| Jimbo |
| ||
Posts: 222 | which one is bigger? hmmmmmmmmmm.................. Attachments ----------------  larry2.jpg (46KB - 2331 downloads) | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Cal Johnson’s 1947 world record musky creates a new splash…A Rebuttal from Muskie Historian Larry Ramsell This link is to the titled (in black) article. http://www.haywardwi.com/articles/2009/12/16/news/doc4b2963814dfa78... Cal Johnson’s 1947 world record musky creates a new splash (actually it was 1949…LR) Status attacked, defended by Terrell Boettcher News Editor Published: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:51 PM CST I will excerpt the pertinent parts of this article with my rebuttal to follow each part: TB article: “…The WRMA bases its assertions on the science of photogrammetry, as practiced by DCM Technical Services of Toronto, Ontario. DCM analyzes old photographs of fish to determine how large the fish actually are. In its report, the WRMA claims that DCM’s analyses of three old photos shows the Johnson fish to be no longer than 52 inches.” LR rebuttal: First of all, DCM is not in the business of analyzing old fish photographs. The primary business is one of accident reconstruction and DCM’s Dan Mills is the foremost north American expert in the field of photogrammetry, which IS admissible in a Court of Law. Secondly, the WRMA report concluded that the Johnson fish’s length was a “…maximum possible length of 54 inches (when lower jaw measurement is utilized)…” NOTE: the WRMA’s “Johnson Summary Report can be found at: www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.org TB article: “…Earlier this year, the IGFA rejected the WRMA’s effort to get the IGFA to disqualify the Cal Johnson muskellunge world record. In a letter to WRMA president Rich Delaney, the IGFA’s conservation director, Jason Schratwieser, said, “We simply do not feel that the photogrammetry analysis is sufficient for us to rescind this record. I do appreciate the time and passion that your organization has put forth on this, but we are resolute on this matter.”” LR rebuttal: Following is another quote from IGFA’s Schratweiser: ““…Our main rationale for not agreeing with your report’s results is we do not believe that you can accurately determine the weight of a three dimensional object, such as a fish, from two dimensional picture. ..” If this is indeed the case, why then does the IGFA have the Lawton fish in “set-aside” status? They claimed to me that the question of the photo was the reason, but in the Johnson case, they switch horses and make the above comment. They cannot have it both ways and be fair. TB article: “…Hall of Fame statement ”Emmitt (sic) Brown, executive director of the Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame in Hayward, said the claims presented by the WRMA “have been floating around for a while now.” He said the WRMA report “is the usual drivel from the usual suspects touting the usual flawed and self-serving logic and science as fact. The fact is, Cal Johnson's 1949 record muskellunge is on public display at the Moccasin Bar in Hayward. It’s the original fish in its original form. It is, unquestionably, a 60-inch fish."” LR rebuttal: That the Hall refuses to acknowledge photogrammetry as “science” is but a lame excuse, especially when they merely used Dettloff’s “amateur” photo analysis to disqualify the Lawton record. And another thing most folks seem to be missing here…the WRMA’s report SUPPORTS that the Johnson mount is in the ball park claimed!!! If DCM acknowledges that and then uses the mount to PROVE that the fish shown in the fresh fish pictures is NOT as big as claimed! Brown continues: “Documenting that fact “is that when you look closely at the scales that run lengthwise on the fish (mount displayed at the Moccasin Bar), they are all perfectly intact,” Brown said. “There’s not one disruption of the scale lines running back and forth. They quite conclusively prove that that fish was not augmented. There is no ‘filler’ put in to make it 60 inches. It’s actually 60 1/4 inches. I’ve talked to several taxidermists about this. They say that even using today’s technology, there’s no way you could augment a fish and not disturb that scale line, much less (likely) that it was augmented 60-some years ago in 1949. Both lines and scales are absolutely undisturbed from the tail to the head of the fish.”” LR rebuttal: This is just simply NOT TRUE and I have shown same to the author of this article! There IS an interruption in the lateral scales and it doesn’t take the fish being out of the case or a magnifying glass to see it directly above the rear paired fins, obviously where the mount was augmented and there is a crack. The taxidermist was a world class museum taxidermist, having worked 25 years for the Field Museum in Chicago. He knew how to make an animal look realistic or even enhanced. Working with wax was known in those days and it would have been a simple matter for him to replicate the original scales. TB article: ”Moreover, a photo of Johnson and his fish and fishing rod, never before published until this issue of the Sawyer County Record, shows conclusively that the fish is as long as listed, according to the Johnson family and to musky fishing historian John Dettloff. LR rebuttal: This just simply is NOT true! First of all, the affidavit submitted by Johnson to Field & Stream did NOT say what the rod was that was used (see affidavit photo in the article or in “A Compendium of Muskie Angling History” Volume I, 3rd Edition, page 219). And even if the rod used was identified elsewhere by Johnson there is absolutely NO PROOF that the rod in that photograph is indeed the one Johnson was using that day!! NONE. Dettloff continued: ““Our history is important, and it must be accurate,” Dettloff said. “This is a very famous piece of outdoor history for Hayward. It’s something Hayward should be proud of. There’s a little clique of people trying to shoot it down. I’m sure it’s based on jealousy.”” LR rebuttal: Muskellunge history IS important, not just the Hayward muskellunge history and Mr. Dettloff has lost sight of that fact. He simply refuses to apply the same standards and methodologies that he used to derail the Lawton record to the Spray and Johnson records, otherwise he would concur with the WRMA’s findings and not oppose them. TB article: “Dettloff bought an identical South Bender 411 rod on E-Bay. It measures 58 3/4 inches. The photo of rod and fish shows that the WRMA’s claim that the fish is 52 inches long is “totally absurd,” Dettloff said. “Their preconceived goal is to make the fish smaller than it is. The WRMA report is done with a lot of slants and innuendo,” he said. (Editor’s note: The WRMA report is available on the Internet at www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.org.) Again, there is NO PROOF that this is indeed the rod in the photograph (unless Dettloff wrote it on the photo as he likely did with his Lawton “smoking gun” photo) and I’m not buying that. And again, the WRMA report concluded the Johnson fish was 54 inches, not 52 as stated above. It is NOT the WRMA’s goal to make the fish smaller, it is Mr. Dettloff’s goal to make the Johnson fish bigger than it really was, pure and simple and good for business. There are no ‘slants or innuendo’ in the WRMA report, just Dettloff’s wish for readers to believe so. Dettloff continued: “Looking at the camera angle and distance of the photographer from Johnson and his fish, “the rod is in the same plane as the fish,” Dettloff said. “The fish is longer than the rod. It’s in the ball park of 60 inches.” Johnson himself stood 5-foot-9 inches. The fish’s tail is about one foot above the ground and its head is two-three inches above the top of his head. There’s minimal distortion.”” LR rebuttal: Again, this rod is a moot point as it cannot be proven what rod is in the photo. As for Johnson’s height, in 2006 Dettloff claimed “…Johnson was 5-feet-seven-inches tall. I’m the only one that knows and has that information and if anybody else tells you anything different they don’t know what they are talking about.” (A Compendium of Muskie Angling History, Volume I, 3rd Edition). Well, obviously Dettloff doesn’t know what he is talking about since now in 2009 he has Johnson growing 2 inches!!! Come on John, you tried the same BS with Spray and it didn’t work and no one should buy this change either. Dettloff continued: “Looking at the WRMA report (which is available on the Internet at www.wrma.org), I am so glad we have the "rod photo" of Cal with his fish and the rod next to his fish.” I feel this photo is critical in further verifying his record catch as it gives a simple and very accurate length corroboration to his musky's reported length of 60 1/4 inches. I want to stress that, because the rod and the object it is measuring (the fish) are more or less the same length, it gives a much more accurate calculation than when merely using a much shorter line segment (such as the eye to upper jaw distance) as a known distance.” As previously discussed, the rod is a moot point as it cannot be proven to be the rod used and simply could not be anymore accurate than the measurements in the WRMA report which were done with a computer. Dettloff continued: “Back in July 1949, Johnson’s fish was weighed on two certified scales. The certification was sent to Field and Stream magazine. Two days after receiving a letter from Johnson, the magazine certified the musky as the world record. They requested an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the scales, and the names of two to three additional witnesses to the weighing and measuring. Field and Stream “treated this fish with the full scrutiny that a world record deserves,” Dettloff added.” LR rebuttal: Here again, Dettloff puts up a “smoke-screen” CLAIMING that the two scales used to weigh the Johnson fish were certified. HOWEVER, there is NO EXISTING DOCUMENTATION that either scale was “certified”! The affidavited witnesses all signed one document when in fact not all witnessed the weighing on both scales. And Field & Stream certainly did NOT give Johnson’s fish full scrutiny, despite what Dettloff would have you believe…I have seen the Field & Stream files and I know better!!! Dettloff continued: “…In an article on his catch, Cal Johnson said the new world record muskellunge’s “stomach was empty. Its body did not have a blemish. It is planned to display this great fish at many sportsmen’s shows, but its permanent home will be in Hayward Wisconsin, near the waters where it grew to such prodigious size.”” LR rebuttal: I challenge the newspaper (or anyone for that matter) to conduct a survey of ten dozen muskie anglers that routinely catch numbers of large muskies. I doubt that any will agree that a July fish that was “empty” would ever approach the weight claimed unless “extremely” obese, which Johnson’s fish was not. TB article: “…As far as the mount at the Moccasin Bar is concerned, Dettloff said “it’s hard to measure, because it has minor curves and mounts do shrink.” The mount “is in the five-foot ball park. There’s nothing glaring against it being a five-foot fish.” LR comment: As I have noted previously, the WRMA report concedes that the “MOUNT” of the Johnson fish is in the ball park of the length claimed. Where the rub comes is that the fresh fish just does NOT measure up to the mount. If one compares the distance between the two sets of paired fins vs. the distance between the rear paired fins on the fresh fish and then does the same exercise with the mount, it immediately becomes clear “where” the mount was enhanced to make it come up to the “claimed” length. TB article: “The skin mount was produced by taxidermist Karl Kahmann in 24 days, much less than the usual time frame, Dettloff said. “It’s a beautiful work of art. But they (WRMA) are calling Kahmann, the family and the witnesses liars.” LR rebuttal: Why is it all right for Dettloff to call the Lawton witnesses liars but professes outrage when the same is done with another bogus fish?? In fact, most of the Lawton witnesses in recent years produced a second set of affidavits upholding the size of the Lawton muskie, but it fell on deaf ears and blind eyes re: Dettloff and the Hall of Fame! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Dettloff continued: ““Keep in mind that even having the WRMA's eye to upper jaw calculation be off only one-half inch and it will skew their total length calculation by five inches,” Dettloff added. “I measured Cal Johnson's mount with a laser measuring device and did indeed find the WRMA's eye-to-upper-jaw calculation of 5.669 inches to be off by 9/16 of an inch. The actual measurement proved to be 6.25 inches when measured with lasers. This error alone is very significant and skews their result by five inches. LR rebuttal: Here again Dettloff tries to sway opinion with “smoke and mirrors” and an outright lie!! Just one week prior to this article being published, Dettloff contacted Dan Mills at DCM and asked for clarification of the measuring points in the WRMA report…he did NOT know! Mills didn’t tell him and referred him to the WRMA. He never contacted them, yet here he is one-week later with bogus calculation (likely “back-calculated”) to arrive at a figure needed to make the Johnson fish “appear” to be as long as originally claimed. SHAME ON YOU JOHN DETTLOFF!!!!! I don’t know how you sleep at night. Here is part of what his email asked of Mills: “…Can you tell me to what part of the eye this distance was measured to? Was it from the tip of the lower jaw to: 1) the forward edge (the edge closer to the jaw) of the eye socket or 2) the centerline of the eyeball, or 3) the back edge (the edge closer to the tail of the fish) of the eye socket? Because the eye socket is close to an inch wide (from edge to edge), it is an important piece of information to known when doing this calculation.” He did NOT know, but still “manufactured” some bogus measurements. Out and out fraud…Sheesh! I won’t even respond to Dettloff’s next comment as it is so far off base. TB article: “…A conservation pioneer “The sad thing (about the WRMA’s attack on Johnson) is that Cal did so much in his lifetime to set the stage for so many of us to make a living” in the fishing and tourism industry, Dettloff said. “He opened the door. He was a pioneer. He championed conservation and environmental issues when it wasn’t popular in the 1920s and ‘30s. He wanted to save the sport for future generations. He saw the bigger picture: sportsmanship, ethics, conservation, size limits. This (world record musky catch) was something he accomplished toward the end of his life. His doctor told him three years previously that he had three to six months to live, with a heart condition and rheumatic fever. When he caught this fish, he knew it might be his last day. He was an outstanding citizen in our sport.” LR rebuttal: Once again Dettloff tries to make the angler a hero to garner support for him, regardless of what the scientific evidence says. No one would ever argue against Johnson’s career and that he did many great things…and personally, I feel that since Johnson knew he was dying he wanted to do one last great thing for Hayward tourism, which was at a low ebb after WWII. Why else would he “give away” a world record mount that is now privately owned? TB article: “Louie Spray fish” No need to rehash this here other than to state that again only what the Hall and Dettloff wanted known got made public. The Hall did and has steadfastly REFUSED to hire their own photogrammetrist as was RECOMMENDED TO THEM BY THE MATH PROFESSOR’S who were unhappy with how the Hall interpreted their work on the Spray fish although they used that work to uphold the bogus Spray fish! Have they no shame at the Hall of Fame??? It was NOT “poor science” as Hall director Brown claimed. Why is the Hall reluctant to have their own Photogrammatic experts hired? Are they afraid of the results? In fact, I’ll wager that the WRMA would PAY for THEIR expert to review and comment on Dan Mills DCM peer-reviewed report!! LR conclusion: Mr. Boettcher then proceeded to drag another questionable fish, the Malo muskie, into the mix even though it had nothing to do with the current issue AND it was highly inaccurate and outdated…poor research at best! Perhaps it was merely a shot at me for not supporting the bogus Hayward “records”! He also wrote that the Hall “lists” the Malo fish in their record book, when in FACT, Mr. Dettloff and Mr. Brown conveniently removed that fish several years ago so “Louie” would appear to have no contenders!! A SHAM OF EPIC PROPORTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dettloff will likely be displaying the Johnson mount again at the Chicago Musky Show. If so and you attend, take the time to look CLOSE at the mount, the crack above the rear paired fins and the “added” distance between those paired fins and the anal fin and compare that to the fresh photo that he will also have there…it will be eye opening for you! In the meantime, have fun with these photo’s: (note: I couldn't get them to attach, so am sending the entire rebuttal to Mr. Worrall for inclusion in the Article's section and it will include the photos. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Muskellunge Historian | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8774 | Funny how folks can look at a picture of any fish caught today and tell you length and girth within 1/2", and if the angler says it was 53"x26" they unanimously agree he was lying; but they can look at the picture of Johnson's fish and say it was really 67-1/2 pounds with a 33.5" girth? Somebody's full of crap here. Seems to me that all the biggest muskies these days are coming from everywhere else BUT Northern Wisconsin and the best answer anyone can come up with as to why is that "oh, you just don't hear about them..." I tend to think that if an ecosystem had the potential to produce several fish of that caliber 50 years ago, that with todays catch and release ethic, size limits, closed seasons, and everything else that is done to presevre the fisheries that the fishing would be even BETTER. Maybe our conservation efforts are only effective outside of Hayward? | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | The rebuttal sounds like a lot of "he said vs. he said". Is a photogrametist more or less scientific than a rainmaker? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32884 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | More, by a long shot, Jay. | ||
| Flambeauski |
| ||
Posts: 4343 Location: Smith Creek | If Hayward's "journalists" (I use this term loosely) are going to support this B.S. I've spent my last dollar in Sawyer county. | ||
| Buckman |
| ||
| There is another picture of Cals fish that I'm surprised that WRMA or anyone else hasn't posted or looked at. That picture, the fish is held below Cal's head, close to his body and Cal's head is to the left of the fish. That photo shows a different angle and the fish's girth appears much larger than these pics. Not saying one way or another, just, if you are going to comment on the photos, look at all the photos. | |||
| John |
| ||
| I guess the only thing I have left to say on this is the old saying: there are 3 sides to every story- your side, their side and the truth... I really think this holds true in this whole WRMA vs. Hayward thing. Yes, we do need to obtain truth regarding the records... Hayward should just let go of the record, they look stupid. The WRMA and associates is not in the right either- they have let this battle become personal and that really hurts their credibility. John | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32884 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The report is not personal at all. My comment wasn't personal, either, it was a reminder this fellow who claims jealousy as a motive is not a credible source for a commentary in the first place...nothing personal at all. I believe Mr. Ramsell speaks for himself in his answer, not the WRMA. Correct me if I'm wrong, Larry or Jerry, please. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I have not read the report and only read about half of this thread. Somewhere it says you cannot measure the fish because the case cannot be opened? That is not true, there are all kinds of laser methods to measure items from afar. Simplest here would be laser that shines at 90 degrees from a rod that it slides on. Position the laser spot on any part of the fish, then slide laser along rod until it is positioned on another part of the fish. Jaw length etc should be within 1/8 inch using this method. There are all kinds of laser methods using mirrors, or in this case, the reflections off the mirror-like plexiglass box to make calculations. Guest | |||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20211 Location: oswego, il | Guest, nobody is questioning the length of the mount so measureing that fish will prove very close to the claimed length. They should just open up the cast and let it be inspected. Emmett Brown needs to put his money where his mouth is. | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | John - 12/18/2009 5:58 PM I guess the only thing I have left to say on this is the old saying: there are 3 sides to every story- your side, their side and the truth... I really think this holds true in this whole WRMA vs. Hayward thing. Yes, we do need to obtain truth regarding the records... Hayward should just let go of the record, they look stupid. The WRMA and associates is not in the right either- they have let this battle become personal and that really hurts their credibility. John John: With all due respect, please do not indict the WRMA along with other people who might be making personal attacks. Larry, Steve and others certainly speak for themselves, I am the soul spokesman for the WRMA. The WRMA realizes that an indictment against Mr. Johnson and his witnesses could be considered a personal attack. Even though we are very proud of the effort, it certainly gives us no pleasure to indict Mr. Johnson. Our hope is that everyone would understand that this type of unpleasantness is inherent with any protest of this scope and nature. I'm supremely confident that if you review the posts I have made here you will agree that every effort was made to avoid precisely what you have accused us of. I can assure you that your concern is our concern and we will continue to make every effort to remain above the fray. As a matter of fact, this is one of the reasons why we did not release our report over on Muskie Hunter. Further, please keep in mind that we are moving on to Mr. O'Brien's record now, so this should not be construed as a WRMA versus Hayward thing. Our approach has always been to start from the top down and the top two just happen to be from Hayward. That's it and that's all. We remain hopeful that at least the vast majority of ardent muskie fishermen concur that the WRMA has done exactly what it promised to do so far, and that only the "provable truth" is contained within our report. Edited by Jerry Newman 12/18/2009 9:24 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32884 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks Jerry, good answer! | ||
| Larry Jones |
| ||
| Get It Done! OBrien or Williamson muskie needs to be established as the new world record very soon! Capt. Larry | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| If the rod in the photograph is a South Bender 411 (which it very well may be) that measures 58 3/4 inches, that rod would look and measure much longer with Dettloff's caliper if it was straight up and down because the tip of the rod would be much closer to the camera. This is the ONLY thing relevent about that rod. | |||
| esoxarcheaologist |
| ||
Posts: 5 | I'll temporarily go against the heard mentality on the board. As a preamble, I have not read the Cal Johnson report and I haven't immersed myself in this thread. I did spend considerable time with the Spray report. Hopefully, that does not mean I am automatically stricken, because I do believe there is an abundance of material that does have merit. The fact is the WRMA is 0-2. Remember, at the Hall rebuttal for the Spray report there were 15 reporters and a dozen + people from the public (please don't gripe about how there were no formal invites). The point is they had a 55" mounted fish that had shrunk to 54" in the mount process hanging in front of a life size photo of Spray. The Hall used this since it was close to the 53.6 inch conclusion of the DCM report. Many an honorable industry professional were on-hand who concluded that clearly the Spray fish was clearly greater than 54 inches. Without going into all that debate, the WRMA did not learn any lessons from that failure. Instead, they trotted out the same old process of silhouettes (as mentioned, clearly and easily refuted by anyone who will to go through the effort), peer reviews (good stuff, but see Climategate, or more famous peer reviewed papers that professed that birth control pills cause cancer or the Cardiac Diet that beef was bad for your heart when it was known not to be true). The same taxidermist and the same photomodeler program and DCM. By the way, for those of you who do not know, DCM did not write any of the mathematical formulas that are included in the photomodeler program and there is quite a bit of debate surrounding that subject. We could talk vanishing points ad naseum. The photomodeler gives an answer but it does not give an answer for each unknown point, how good is that point in the x, y, z direction. Using Rubine square and other formulas it does not tell you for each input how good that number is. Instead of going a different direction, the WRMA trotted out the same failed methodology and I, for one, applaud the IGFA! In order to be genuine in their quest for answer, I will propose and ask this of the WRMA...... Please either allow me to purchase or provide a "release" of any WRMA interest in the model created by Visual Geometry Solutions. Try approaching this from a different angle. I will create my own independent group to have Visual Solutions conduct a similar project. If you are not willing to do that, then enough. Finally, I don't need to hear about how VSG could be tainted by having a length disclosed. There are multiple tests that can be conducted to determine accuracy of the model. And, by the way, it's not the only model out there in the universe of this art / science. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | I like this guy already! | ||
| John |
| ||
| Esoxarchaeologist: You are making me laugh.  Which member of the Hayward mafia are you? John | |||
| MJ Hayward |
| ||
| Esoxarcheaologist wrote "The same taxidermist and the same photomodeler program and DCM. By the way, for those of you who do not know, DCM did not write any of the mathematical formulas that are included in the photomodeler program and there is quite a bit of debate surrounding that subject. We could talk vanishing points ad naseum." So are you saying the math of photogrammetry is flawed or specifically the software used. Where is this debate about photogrammetry? If you want to mention it then back it up. Also I can't say with this software, but it is standard in all photogrammetry calculations to acutally calculate the associated errors...they are called residuals and are very much attached to the accuracy of each point (feel free to look up residuals and least squares...that is how you play this "if you mention it back it up" game). You started to sound like you actually knew something about photogrammetric measurements then you went off like that. Followed up with this Rubine square comment....also not part of any photogrammetry that I have heard of...not like the Samuelson sqaure....hey look, I can make up BS names for math to sound edumacated too. Also, if you have not immersed yourself in this second report but rather only the Spray report then how exactly do you know that is the "same old failed methodology"? Before everyone goes off that I am a WRMA plant...I am not, I just actually stayed awake in some of my math classes at university. I can put up with debate back and forth on peoples opinion of these record because everyone is entitled to theirs but when someone actually tries to say something and hold it out as definative but is just talking from their butt then think they need to be held accountable...that and I agree with John that we have a bit of Hayward mafia on here. MJ | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Again, whether or not the rod in the photo IS a SouthBender 411 is a moot point (and it cannot be proven that it is). There is ZERO proof that the rod in the photo is the actual rod used by Johnson...period! It's angle or location means zip. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Whether or not the rod in the photo was used by Johnson is a moot point ( and it cannot be proven that it wasn't). The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not this is a SouthBender 411 and if it is, it's angle and location mean everything. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest wrote: "Whether or not the rod in the photo was used by Johnson is a moot point ( and it cannot be proven that it wasn't). The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not this is a SouthBender 411 and if it is, it's angle and location mean everything." LR: Not so. Show me the doumentation that states Johnson used a SouthBender 411...it is NOT on his affidavit. "Perhaps" he later indicated such a rod was used (?) but was it just because South Bend was one of his sponsor's if so (and we have no record stated that Johnson said elsewhere that was the rod he used). | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | Esoxarchaeologist: It is difficult to believe that a person can have that much insight and interest in both records without having even looked at the Johnson report. You rattle off how many people were present at the Hall of Fame's closed press conference, the size of the mount used, and other irrelevancies regarding Mr. Spray's record. Please at least take the time to read the Johnson report so you can comment or ask informed questions about the subject matter. Regarding your comment that the WRMA failed in both attempts, we disagree. It appears that the overwhelming consensus (to those who have read the report) is that neither fish is near a legitimate record. Considering that it was the "sole" responsibility of the FWFHoF and IGFA to remove these records, they are the ones that failed (us). To this day, both of our reports remain unchallenged even by the lowest of professional standards. Before you decide to leapfrog back into attempting to dissect the DCM peer-reviewed Johnson report in the future, we ask that you first research the three-page mathematical facts addendum. In this exercise the WRMA compares Mr. Johnson's fresh fish to a perfectly round cylinder, and unless Mr. Johnson's fresh fish was basically round, the sworn dimensions on the affidavits have been dismissed. http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/Mathematical_Facts.pdf Lastly, you have presented yourself as someone who is not sincere about representing the truth when you say that you have not read the Johnson report, yet applaud the IGFA's decision. Therefore, until such a time as you can mount a reasonable challenge to this small addendum, we will just accept your statement regarding our work as having "an abundance of material that does have merit". | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Guest wrote: "Whether or not the rod in the photo was used by Johnson is a moot point (and it cannot be proven that it wasn't). The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not this is a SouthBender 411 and if it is, it's angle and location mean everything." LR: "Not so. Show me the documentation that states Johnson used a SouthBender 411...it is Not on his affidavit. "Perhaps" he later indicated such a rod was used (?) but was it just because South Bend was one of his sponsor's if so (and we have no record stated that Johnson said elsewhere that was the rod he used)." What difference does it make if Johnson actually used the rod in the photo to catch the fish? He may be showing a SouthBender 411 in the photo only because this particular rod has a length comparable to the fish. This may be his way of proving the length of the fish is accurate. Why is there a measuring stick being held against O'Brien's fish in some of the photo's? | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| esoxarcheaologist, You say, "Without going into all that debate, the WRMA did not learn any lessons from that failure. Instead, they trotted out the same old process of silhouettes (as mentioned, clearly and easily refuted by anyone who will go through the effort,...". Consider this: When a fish (or cardboard silhouette) is held in front of a person, it's length will appear to increase by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8' from the person but only 7' from the fish, a fish length of 52.5" would change to 52.5" / .875 or 60". This CANNOT be refuted by you or anyone else. The silhouette comparison that you dismiss SUPPORTS the photogrammetry that you also dismiss. These silhouette comparisons should be reason enough to dismiss these records all by themselves. The people of Hayward should try this silhouette comparison themselves so they are sure the card board mock-ups used by the WRMA were indeed the stated length. After doing so they should be convinced that both records should be disqualified. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | THis is one other thing that Dettloff and the Hall of Shame (where records are concerned) continually IGNORE, the silouette comparisons. When the Hall held their "private" (by invite only) press confrence to pull off their sham upholding of the Spray record, they TOTALLY ignored the silouette comparison, something Dettloff used in a major way when getting the Lawton record disqualified and the same with the Johnson fish. WHY IS THAT??? I'll tell you why...because they had NO counter for it and chose to ignore it hoping the "chosen few" they invited wouldn't bring it up. Pure and simple, it is a SHAM, a COVER-UP and a CONSPIRACY all rolled into one. I really don't know how Dettloff and Brown can live with themselves or how they sleep at night. But they smile all the way to the BANK!! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Muskellunge Historian www.larryramsell.com | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| GREAT post Larry! Like I said, photogrammetry isn't even needed. Another thing to consider is the silhouette comparisons do not add the additional side to side thickness of a real muskie into the equation. If this was factored in the discrepancy would be even GREATER because the silhouette would have to be held out even further! | |||
| esoxarcheaologist |
| ||
Posts: 5 | Pointerpride -- Thanks for the compliment (I think) MJ -- You have asked a few questions. Initially, I will try to answer two of the questions. To recap: So are you saying the math of photogrammetry is flawed or specifically the software used. Where is the debate about photogrammetry? Sometimes the best way to answer a question is with a question, which is same thing I asked of Jerry Newman: If the WRMA is genuine in their quest to uncover the truth, then will the WRMA "release" their interest in the model created by Visual Geometry Solutions? I would think the simple answer to that question would be "yes" despite the rejection by the Hall and the IGFA. The WRMA already "believes" that their point is proven. Thus, there is no reason in retaining any right to a model that they neither intend to employ nor have any interest in using. So while I wait for an an answer from the esteemed Mr. Newman (trust me, I do respect him even though I am confident that he and the WRMA are entirely incorrect on the records issue), I will answer the question above in two parts: PART ONE: 1.) Can you tell me whether the individual who performed the "photogrammetric" analysis used by WRMA is a "CERTIFIED" photogrammetrist? That would be a great place to start in answering your question about the ART / science of photogrammetry. Most certified photogrammetrists that I have had the occasion to be in front of tend to be rather specific, precise and (perhaps) even a bit arrogant. In all cases, if they are a CERTIFIED photogrammetrist, you can bet that they will tell you that, they will state that in their resume, it will be shown in any vitae and C.P. will be included in any correspondence. In the case of the individual used by the WRMA, I have not seen this designation represented in his Curriculum Vitae, website or any other description that includes his name. The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing has approximately 6,600 members. The breakdown by membership is as follows: 30% remote sensing, 28% GIS, 21% photogrammetry, and 16% surveying. As of March 2000, there 610 CERTIFIED photogrammetrists in the society, which is less than 10% of the membership. These percenatges seem to say alot about the people who practice photogrammetry: they are not the majority of the membership and certified photogrammetrists are a rare breed. In 1999, 13 people took the CERTIFIED Photogrammetrist exam and the exam has an average pass rate of about 30%. ASPRS certification is an official recognition by one's colleagues and PEERS that an individual has demonstrated professional integrity and competence in their field. I hope that provides enough detail of the size and selectivity and level of expertise one must reach to become a certified photogrammetrist. You can tell by the selectivity of the field why CERTIFIED photogrammetrists tend to adopt certain positions that they do. Other the other hand, the WRMA individual is trained collision re-constructionist who uses Photomodler extensively. I believe in the Spray report his official designation was a Btech (bachelor of technology). Why would you hire a collision re-constructionist to analyze the dimensions of a 50+ year old picture? The correct answer might be because that individual is a certified photogrammetrist and has worked in this the field of photogrammetry for twenty plus years, is eminently qualified in the field of photogrammetry, is highly respected among his colleagues (read other certified photogrammetrists) etc. etc. etc. PART TWO The science of perspective geometry includes an inter-mingling of human interpretation of what point is used to measure what (i.e. it relies on judgement skills). Please refer to the bevy of qualifications / expertise required to be a certified photogrammetrist. Photomodeler is an "off-the-shelf" computer program. From what I know, it requires two strong vanishing points. In Spray's 1949 picture, the left hand vanishing point is very strong. 2.) Can you tell me what point / object was used as the basis for the right hand vanishing point? While I haven't reviewed the data in a long time, it seems to me that the right hand vanishing point was established using the lower window of structure, which is below Spray's right elbow. Is that correct? If you could let me know, that would be great and it would certainly help to answer your question about flawed math. I am aware of two known vanishing points in the Spray picture that will provide an accurate answer. Any certified photogrammetrist worth their salt who was going to peer review the photomodler technique would recreate the exact sequence and technique used. Everything that someone else did in a photogrammatic analysis must be provided, the order in which it was done must be provided, then the review becomes similar to reading a book. To verify the method in a photogrammetric sense, the method must be regenerated. The reason is so very obvious so the reviewer can be sure that he has not made a mathematical error or a procedural error. I hope that provides some "back up" about the quality of representation, the level of expertise and understanding one might need in order to rigorously apply photogrammetry. If you are able to provide answers to both of my questions, then that will go a long way toward understanding why both the Hall and the IGFA rejected these claims. Edited by esoxarcheaologist 12/26/2009 2:32 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32884 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And this information should be provided to you by the WRMA....why? You haven't described what your interest in the WRMA investigation is, what your association, if any, is to the Hayward Hall, it officers or interested parties, and offer nothing but to say you think the conclusions are incorrect. You last post is a classic 'Look over THERE!' attempt, IMO, to distract from the fact you at first were obviously misinformed, at least according to your initial posting, and you admitted to not even reading the current report. Pretty much everything you stated in your last post can be found by using a Google search, but you still have quite a bit of the information backwards or just plain wrong: The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing http://www.asprs.org/ Note this paragraph: 'There is a distinction between certification and licensure. Simply stated, ASPRS certification is official recognition by one’s colleagues and peers that an individual has demonstrated professional integrity and competence in their field. As such, the ASPRS voluntary certification program is considered "specialty certification." It is not a substitute for licensure as, for example, a Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. Licensure is a legal act on the part of states to protect the public health, safety and welfare. It is a procedure by which various state and local governments require the licensing of certain professions, practices, trades, etc. under formal statutes and ordinances to protect the well-being of its citizens. Licensure may be required by your local state, county, etc. whether or not you secure certification.' As of 2000? It's 2010 in a couple days, grab a calendar and take a look. Now what was that 'certified' question you asked again? How about answering the initial questions asked of you and then tell us if you followed Jerry's advice? You can't be seriously suggesting you could offer peer review, are you? You might be a bit more cautious when addressing who's intent is 'genuine' in any efforts whatsoever until you let us all know exactly who you are and what your interest in the World Record staying in Wisconsin really is. We know nothing of your background or education, qualifications to challenge anything the WRMA or for that matter anything anyone has stated.... you register here and post just twice...both to this thread. A vested interest, perhaps? If so, what might that interest be? | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... > Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |