|
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Larry Ramsell - 4/7/2011 1:40 PM
So where do we go from here?
Hopefully fishing |
|
| |
|
| After reading through all of postings this is what it sums up to, An expert who believed this fish to be legit now says it is not. People who were witnesses at the time all decided to keep the real size a secret. The people from the MNR were duped, as was the taxidermist, and the biologist who measured weighed and opened the fish up. The scale which read 65lbs has no bearing. Some of the members of Muskies Canada were also in on this conspiracy and hid the true size as well. The owners of the resort didn't disclose the real size because they wanted to use this fish to increase business. The fish although mounted and on display for everyone to see cannot be accurately measured, because even if it is 58in long it would be inconclusive because possibly the taxidermist somehow added 4inches to the fish in order to reach its claimed length. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| So you discount the photos showing the yardstick next to the fresh fish and the cast from the mold made by the R.O.M.........
Do you also believe all the witnesses to the Spray fish and the legitimacy of the Lawton fish?
DougP |
|
| |
|
| Go measure the fish at the ROM. It will tell the truth.
Larry said that there was no reason to because he has seen the fish.
He only "thinks" he's seen it!!!!!
I've seen it. It's Giant alright. A Giant Lie!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "real": Not necessary, the WRMA report has the ROM fish with a tape measure on it and it does tell the truth, the O'Brien fish was NOT 58 inches long...period. When I handled and measured the "real fish", it measured 54 inches. The DCM photogrammetry and the ROM mold merely confirm and further prove that that fish wasn't 58 inches long. Hopefully soon, the referened "Omerta" will disolve and someone will come forward, OR, someone that was there that has some information and/or photographs that hasn't been made public will come forward. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Mr. Larry Ramsell,
With all respect for you and the findings found on this fish, seems like pretty solid evidence, I have a question. Did you (or others involved) not measure the fish when you went to see it back in 1988? Seems like that would have been an important part of the investigation. Also as the report above the picture of you holding the fish says you re weighed the fish? Why were non of these important facts discovered back than (8 dsys after the catch)? It just seems like it would have been easier to prove the fish a falsehood back in 1988 before it was made the new record than now in 2011. If this question was already answered on this thread or in the attached report a apologize. I read a lot but not all of it.
Thanks,
Andy |
|
| |
|
| Doug P
I see you only addressed a very small part of my statement. This has nothing to do with old Lou or Lawton. These were fishermen who had a record of stretching the truth so to speak, and it all came down to prize money. O'Brien had no reason to do any of those things. He wasn't searching for fame or financial reward. You still can't explain how everyone else from the MNR to the biologist missed the size and weight, and to try to insinuate that all those people were in on this and nobody ever let the cat out of the bag over the last twenty years seems pretty far fetched to me. As well as a very insulting implication to a great many people. If you don't believe that fish is a record that is fine with me. I can respect that, but this organized conspiracy is a bit extreme. Out of all those people who were there not one comes forward to say that it was only 54in, including those Muskie Canada fishermen, who are some very honest men. As far as Ontario laying claim to the record most Canadian muskie fishermen that I know could care less! Maybe someone should contact O'Brien or the biologist and see if they have something to say. If people are really searching for the truth their input might help clear the air. Post some other photos taken of this fish, maybe the one with the 4inch rapala in its mouth. That is just one fishermans opinion and I will leave it at that. Matt |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Musky-Skunk/Andy: You need to read the entire thread. This has been covered. If you would like additional information, it can be found FREE on my web site. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Matt, I understand your points. There IS a lot that can't be explained and I don't claim to have the answers. I don't believe that All or even any of the witnesses had a conspiracy to misstate the length or weight and I don't believe Ken O'brien cared one way or the other.
I do think that some people have some 'splainin' to do, however. Yes, the biologists and some others who actually handled and worked with the fish.
For me, it comes down essentially to the mold.
I will assume the mold was a plaster 2 part mold which was and is still used extensively in crime scene investigations which is allowed as evidence in courts of law and is also used in museum and commercial technique as well.
The mold that was made was a "study mold" used to replicate the natural appearance of the fish without any accentuated action such as an open mouth striking pose and drastic curves. Generally museums prefer very natural poses rather than that seen in commercial taxidermy. This type of mold will be THE most natural in representing the true size of the fish.
Unless it can be shown that the fish that was molded by Kevin Hockley at the ROM museum was NOT the fish caught by Ken O'brien, then the mold in existence is THE best evidence [probably valid in a court of law] that shows the true lenght of the fish. there is no getting around it......it is an EXACT duplicate of THE fish.
That , for me, is the end of the story. All the other evidence just ads to the weight.
I make no claims of any conspiracies....maybe just some incompetence.
just to clarify..... the picture of the fish from the ROM is a cast, aka a blank, from the mold made by Hockley. I assume the mold is still in existence in it's original form. The blank which was cast from the mold can be altered in any number of different ways, as in adding a larger head, etc.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/7/2011 7:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Esox 65... I read what you posted and it really was a waste of your time....not worth responding to anyway.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Guys....IF the mold that was done by the ROM is a mold of THE fish caught by Ken O'brien there is really no where to go except to disqualify this fish. The mold is like a finger print....and it points the finger at a fish that is much smaller than claimed.
DougP |
|
| |
|
| Just for the record when O'Brien landed his fish it was taken to a resort owned by a Mr. G Grisdale. Grisdale had a 60lb scale which the fish bottomed out. The fish was then brought over to Deer Horn Lodge where it pulled the scale down to 65lbs even. This information came from The Toronto Star in an article written by outdoor writer Mr. John Power. I'm sure that O'Brien can substantiate this claim one way or the other. Among those present at the weighing of this fish was a Mr. P. G the president of Muskies Canada at the time who removed the cleithrum bone. ROM ichthyologist Dr. Ed Crossman the worlds foremost musky scientist will age the fish along with resident expert Dr. John Casselman who concluded this fish was 29 years old give or take a year. In my opinion these people are the real experts. If someone has doubts, these are the folks to talk to in an open forum. I will say no more. Thanks for allowing me to share my point of view. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Esox65: I too read what you wrote and basically agree with DougP. Just for fun however, here is my response to your "historian" comment:
World English Dictionary
historian
— n
a person who writes or studies history, esp one who is an authority on it
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Definition of HISTORIAN
1: a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis
2: a writer or compiler of a chronicle
Matt: Just to "correct" your "Just for the record", I'm afraid you have it wrong. The fish first went to J. Grisdale's resort; then to G. Grisdales resort where it stayed. It was never taken to Deer Horn Lodge...the owner of Deer Horn Lodge, Derek Chantler brought his scale to G. Grisdales resort. The 60 pound scale that was at Grisdales was missing its weight indicator, but you are correct that the fish did bottom that scale out according to my information. However, I do not know where at in the whole process THAT attempt at weighing took place. It is moot, since we have already acknowledged that the fish registered 65 pounds on the Deer Horn scale. As I stated previously, I am unsure at this point if all of that weight was pure fish weight. At 54 inches in length, that is a bit of a reach and the "loss" of 9 pounds in 8 days still begs for explanation.
|
|
| |
|
| I think the main evidence lies with the with the 58" measurement taken by Wilkinson & Co. I know he is considered beyond reproach by some, but he is also the one who did the interview claiming he personally measured it lying flat at 58". In a word, impossible based on the WRMA evidence. If I were to reenact that day I would guess that the fish came in and there was a lot of excitement to begin with and everyone wanted to share in it. Understandable, but it's pretty obvious that whoever else agreed to stretch the tape to 58" would be interested in seeing to it that water was added via the hose before weigh in. From what I've seen of the before and after pictures, it already had water added to it hanging at the stair case, and 9lbs is no accident. The honest and reputable people that witnessed the 65lb. weight were flat duped, they saw the 65lbs but I would guess not the 58". Ken O'Brien was clueless, so let's rule him out as a suspect with both the tape and the water. If you are really interested in the truth, question the guys on the business end of that tape measure, not the people who witnessed the scale reading. Hope this helps and good luck.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Esox65 - 4/7/2011 9:03 PM
Please explain the posting permissions that where over the line?? Then maybe you can remove the parts that you deem to be unfit and re post the dismantling of the report....the vast majority of what I wrote was well within the lines.
Larry...that does not make you a Bonafide Historian..it may make you a student of history but not an actual historian. Calling yourself one is a slap in the face to all of those who actually are recognized by a degree as a Historian
I'd venture to say you have it backwards. A degree in this or that field is what makes you a student in that field, NOT the other way around. A law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, any more than a degree in accounting makes you an accountant. A degree in history? Makes you a student of history...
It's what you do in your career that makes you what you are, NOT what you studied in college. |
|
| |
|
| dcmusky - 4/5/2011 8:13 PM
Boy I'm sure glad with all the problems we have in Wisco with tribal spearing, Mich. muskie spearing and Minns polititons trying to stop muskie stocking we have an organization that goes after whats importaint. What a crock, why don't we consentrate on what's importiant, the fish that are still ALIVE!
Dan Crooms 54
And what's so wrong about it acovering all of the above bases? We've always got somebody like you to deal with the tribal spearing and political issues. The WRMA prefers to deal with the accuracys of records. To each his own. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 4/7/2011 9:20 PM
Esox65 - 4/7/2011 9:03 PM
Please explain the posting permissions that where over the line?? Then maybe you can remove the parts that you deem to be unfit and re post the dismantling of the report....the vast majority of what I wrote was well within the lines.
Larry...that does not make you a Bonafide Historian..it may make you a student of history but not an actual historian. Calling yourself one is a slap in the face to all of those who actually are recognized by a degree as a Historian
I'd venture to say you have it backwards. A degree in this or that field is what makes you a student in that field, NOT the other way around. A law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, any more than a degree in accounting makes you an accountant. A degree in history? Makes you a student of history...
It's what you do in your career that makes you what you are, NOT what you studied in college.
Does this apply to say doctors and enlisted military? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| BenR - 4/7/2011 10:04 PM
esoxaddict - 4/7/2011 9:20 PM
Esox65 - 4/7/2011 9:03 PM
Please explain the posting permissions that where over the line?? Then maybe you can remove the parts that you deem to be unfit and re post the dismantling of the report....the vast majority of what I wrote was well within the lines.
Larry...that does not make you a Bonafide Historian..it may make you a student of history but not an actual historian. Calling yourself one is a slap in the face to all of those who actually are recognized by a degree as a Historian
I'd venture to say you have it backwards. A degree in this or that field is what makes you a student in that field, NOT the other way around. A law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, any more than a degree in accounting makes you an accountant. A degree in history? Makes you a student of history...
It's what you do in your career that makes you what you are, NOT what you studied in college.
Does this apply to say doctors and enlisted military?
Ben, I'd say that applies to everyone. One of the first guides I fished with regularly had a full time guide business, tournaments, sponsorships, seminiars, pro staffers, the whole deal. 20 year career in the guide business. His degree was in theater. Does that mean he is an actor? I have a music degree. I run my own consulting business. Am I more of a musician than someone who actually makes their living at it and never got a degree in it? What about Jim Saric? He's got a degree in geology... does that make him geologist? It's like anything else - a piece of paper that you paid tens of thousands of dollars for doesn't make you ANYTHING. It's what you DO that makes you what you are, degree or no degree. |
|
| |
|
| How about a committee from Muskies Canada take a little drive up to the ROM and measure the mold. Easy enough? If the problem still exists, then determine who added 4" and take appropriate action. Arguing about the definition of a historian is not going to solve anything. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | I would hope that the actual mount could be looked at. Larry you stated that the skin would have to be removed and examined. Could the fish be looked at from the backside without destroying it? IMHO, it would seem by looking at photos and then the mount we would be able to know where to look for the augmentation. I was under the impression the Jonhnson fish could be looked at in this manner without it's destruction. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Why look farther than the mold? Unless the fish was made out of lead, the mold should tell you everything you need to know about how much the fish would have weighed. And I STILL don't get why Mr Ramsell is mentioned in ANY of this. He didn't do it. I get that someone with information and knowledge and a desire to find the truth is a huge threat to the bull#*#*ters of the world, but as far as I know he was on the sidelines on this one...
Edited by esoxaddict 4/7/2011 11:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
| The picture they use for this measurement has the fish hanging with the gills cut. They say nothing about the cut gills though.
glen |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | Wilkinson mentioned it in an interview with Larry .
Edited by muskellunged 4/8/2011 1:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Todd M wrote: "I would hope that the actual mount could be looked at. Larry you stated that the skin would have to be removed and examined. Could the fish be looked at from the backside without destroying it? IMHO, it would seem by looking at photos and then the mount we would be able to know where to look for the augmentation. I was under the impression the Jonhnson fish could be looked at in this manner without it's destruction."
LR: Todd, I have looked at the actual mount. The way that it is mounted, one can see completely around it. Other than having stretched the girth slightly (not abnormal), the mount hasn't been "augmented" in the manner of the Johnson mount by adding 6 to 8 inches in length by adding additional skin. Make no mistake, as has been mentioned before, the O'Brien fish was a tremendous fish. The manner in which the mount was done actually makes it look somewhat grotesque...surreal if you will and doesn't do the fish real justice, no matter what the size was...impressive, yes, but lifelike, not so much due to weird curving of the body and the adding of eyelids...
esoxaddict wrote: " Why look farther than the mold? Unless the fish was made out of lead, the mold should tell you everything you need to know about how much the fish would have weighed. And I STILL don't get why Mr Ramsell is mentioned in ANY of this. He didn't do it. I get that someone with information and knowledge and a desire to find the truth is a huge threat to the bull#*#*ters of the world, but as far as I know he was on the sidelines on this one..."
LR: Good point EA...there becomes a point where weight per inch is beyond reason I suppose...this may be it. And thank you for asking why I keep getting sniped at...as you point out, I "didn't do it" or commission it. I suppose I should have been more diligent in the beginning and challenged the shortcomings I found more vigorously and been more diligent in checking out the "yardstick". But, as I have also noted previously, I haven't been prone to attempting to discredit past record fish, but when such things as valid, scientifically done findings such as have been done by the WRMA, it makes one take a more critical look at things and ask the hard questions and begin to compile the other obvious clues.
glen wrote: "The picture they use for this measurement has the fish hanging with the gills cut. They say nothing about the cut gills though."
LR: Glen, actually it wasn't the "gills" that were cut, it was the "throat (where the heart is) that was severed to kill the fish. Hanging, it can be seen in some of the photos a gap of about one inch, ADDING length to the fish if anything. THAT has been considered an additional benefit to the fish in the final analysis. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 341
Location: Passaic, NJ - Upper French River, ON | It's like anything else - a piece of paper that you paid tens of thousands of dollars for doesn't make you ANYTHING.
.... I think the statistics are that you make $1mil more over your working lifetime with a college degree. Buys a lot of expert analysis.
|
|
| |
|
| The mount is not the key as Larry indicated. So long as the stomach contents were not removed prior to the mold being made, fill the mold up with water, drain and weigh it if you think a 54" fish can weigh 65. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | It is interesting that some things that are seemingly unimportant take on more importance during a somewhat of a brainstorming session such is taking place on this forum. For instance, after my previous post last nite, I realized while lying in bed that my two-part exchange with ToddM regarding the mount was even further unnessary. I realized that I had forgotten that in my files I have a color photo of the taxidermist with the freshly mounted fish before it was complete or painted...in other words, just the plain skin mounted on the form. From that it is very easy to see that there had been no hanky-panky with the length of the fish at that point. After that, length could only be affected minimally by adding a bit of length to the tail.
Another flashback that I had was my initial reaction when I first open the fish after removing it from the freezer in 1988...I thought to myself, this fish doesn't look much bigger than the one I had just caught less than a month previously; a 52 inch, 44 1/4 pounder. I quickly realized however when I picked it up after unwrapping it, that it was considerably heavier...nearly 12 pounds more as I later learned upon weighing it. The length was much closer to mine when I measured the frozen fish at 54 inches.
For what it is worth...
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/8/2011 8:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
| How did the girth of O'Brien's frozen fish appear to compare to the girth of your 52", 44 1/2 pounder? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | JD: Quite similar and slightly larger...both were "hawgs". |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Larry. By the way, what was the girth on your 44 1/2 pounder? |
|
| |
