|
|
| Larry,
I saw that the MCI person who prepared the affidavits for O'Brien told you in an interview that he didn't remember the name of the biologist that he called in from Perry Sound or if this biologist was present during the weigh-in. You were also told that Lloyd Thurston "supervised" the weighing along with John Power.
Question: The MCI person you interviewed also told you that the biologists supervisor was Lloyd Thurston. From that we know that the biologist must have been the person who actually weighed the fish. So how could the person you interviewed not know if the biologist was present? Or not know his name for that matter?
And why hasn't the biologists name ever been mentioned by ANYONE? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious:
Actually, no the unknown (field) biologist did not weigh the fish. Mr. Thurston did, along with John Power. It is unknown to me if the field biologist stayed around for the weighing or not.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/28/2012 1:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Larry,
I was just going by what the person who prepared O'Brien's affidavits told you in the interview. He said Lloyd Thurston "supervised" the weighing along with John Power. This makes me wonder who Lloyd Thurston and John Power were supervising if it wasn't the biologist. To me, to supervise means to watch over someone else.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Wouldn't be much to "supervise" other than the hanging of the fish on the scale and "reading" the weight. I imagine he meant they called out the weight reading.
As I recall too, I was told the fish went directly from the "hanging on the porch" to hanging on the scale without being lain on the ground...so, if there did happen to be accidental or purposeful water within the fish, it stayed there.
"IF", the 65 pounds was indeed the TRUE weight of that fish, WHY would they add to the length dimension when records are kept by weight? Just doesn't make sense. And of course too, we now know John Power admitted to a close friend that the weight too was bogus...end of story. |
|
| |
|
| "Wouldn't be much to "supervise" other than the hanging of the fish on the scale and "reading" the weight. I imagine he meant they called out the weight reading."
With all due respect Larry, calling out the weight reading sure doesn't sound like "supervising" to me. To me it sounds more like he was making sure the weighing was done the way he wanted. How did you come to the conclusion that Lloyd Thurston did the weighing? Did you hear a different story from someone else?
I also feel we shouldn't be so quick to exonerate Lloyd Thurston. Lloyd not only saw to it that the scale was properly certified but also apparently saw to it that no photos or video were taken of the fish hanging on the scale or the fish being measured. You were also told in the interview by the person who prepared the affidavits for O'Brien that most people were taking photos and the event was even video taped and yet no known photos or video has ever appeared of the most important parts of the event. To me this is incredibly damaging! I would think both Muskies Canada and the MNR would have wanted people to see the scale reading as well as the fish being measured.
|
|
| |
|
| "As I recall too, I was told the fish went directly from the "hanging on the porch" to hanging on the scale without being lain on the ground...so, if there did happen to be accidental or purposeful water within the fish, it stayed there."
Very interesting! This would work out perfectly for them. They could fill the fish with water and then say they didn't want to get the fish dirty which may add to the weight. Whoever weighed the fish must have also taken care to keep the fish in an upright position after removing the rope that was used to hang the fish. Remember you were also told in the interview that the rope was removed before the fish was weighed. All the more reason for the people involved not wanting the weighing to be photographed or video taped.
"IF", the 65 pounds was indeed the TRUE weight of that fish, WHY would they add to the length dimension when records are kept by weight? Just doesn't make sense. And of course too, we now know John Power admitted to a close friend that the weight too was bogus...end of story.
My take Larry is that they figured a 58" length would be more appropriate for a 65 lb. muskie.  |
|
| |
|
| I do know what you mean though Larry. IF the fish truly weighed 65 lbs. it wouldn't matter how long the fish was and like you say, it would be senseless to falsify the length and taint an already legitimate record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Why on gods earth would anyone want to claim a world record in Musky fishing??????????????????????? Good Lord people, Spray, Johnson , Lawton and the list goes on ,all liars, all cheats and now Obrien's in question as well. Why would anyone want to put one forward today when 500 men are going to challenge it? I cant think of one fish over 60 pounds that is not beaten down and attacked every year. This is the one thing that is ruining this sport. The jealousy, the self proclaimed experts and down talking of anyone who puts forward a potential world record. Its killing this sport. Of all the things in this sport that are fantastic this topic ruins it completely. Leave it alone people. |
|
| |
|
| Where is Magnum PI when you need him |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Sorry Kingfisher....the dark fingerprints on the muskie community are the bogus fish that have been claimed to be "records" when they have now been shown to be questionable at best and bogus at worst. The truly sad thing is that the muskie community has not stepped up and demanded that the organizations which sanction these undeserving fish remove them and search for a qualified "record"which should hold the record.
The "leave it alone mentality" does nothing for establishing integrity in the muskie record keeping. Musky record keeping has been and is now shown to be a joke by a group [WMA and supporters] looking for the truth and many of you want to discredit them rather than placing blame where it belongs.
Unfortunately record keepers of WR muskies specifically; NFWHF, IGFA and now OFAH have chosen to disregard professionally prepared evidence challenging their muskie records without even so much as a well presented convincing rebuttal to the damaging report by the WMA. For reasons known only to them they have accepted record fish which have been shown to be smaller than claimed. This should cast a shadow over the integrity and motivations of these organizations and the membership should demand a "house cleaning" to bring them back from the "dark side' and into the sunlight where they can stand scrutiny from the musky community without any fear of being accused of incompetence, cronie politics or simple coverup and fraud.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious (George):
Your post after my last post is reaching and making unfounded statements and I refuse to go there. There has been absolutely no evidence or indication that Mr. Thurston had any part in any possible foul play in this matter.
DougP: You are right on target! Sorry Kingfisher Mike, just concentrate on your lure making and maybe someone will catch a legitimate giant on one of your lures. |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
What exactly did I say that you considered far reaching? If people are going to photograph and video tape an event does it make sense to leave out the most important parts of that event? Who was it that prevented the weighing and measuring from being photographed and video taped?
The person you interviewed told you that Lloyd Thurston "supervised" the weighing along with John Power. Your statement: "I imagine he meant they called out the weight reading." is what I would call far reaching. Lloyd Thurston could not "supervise" himself therefore could not have weighed the fish!
There was obviously an agenda here and the fish becoming the record was obviously a joint effort and whether or not you want to believe this is your decision.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious wrote: "What exactly did I say that you considered far reaching? If people are going to photograph and video tape an event does it make sense to leave out the most important parts of that event? Who was it that prevented the weighing and measuring from being photographed and video taped?"
LR: First of all, I think you are making too much of the word "supervise". Mr. Thurston and John Power weighed the fish, period. And who said that the weighing and measuring wasn't photographed? In fact, Mr. Gasbarino stated that a late friend of his did photograph the measuring. I'm sure too, someone photographed the weighing, although no photos of same have come forward...but then what would that prove? If the scale "read" 65 pounds, it read 65 pounds. The scale nor the photos would "know" what was in the fish. I have a copy of one video tape, but the weighing and measuring was not included. I don't know why other than the possibility that the person that shot it wasn't there for the weighing and measuring as it appears to be at the end of the episode.
Curious wrote previously: "With all due respect Larry, calling out the weight reading sure doesn't sound like "supervising" to me. To me it sounds more like he was making sure the weighing was done the way he wanted. How did you come to the conclusion that Lloyd Thurston did the weighing? Did you hear a different story from someone else?"
LR: HERE Curious is one instance of "far reaching". You seem to be saying you KNOW that Mr. Thurston "controlled" what was and what wasn't done during the process. You have no basis in fact. I was told that Thurston and Power did the weighing, I never said Mr. Thurston did it alone.
Curious also wrote above: "I also feel we shouldn't be so quick to exonerate Lloyd Thurston. Lloyd not only saw to it that the scale was properly certified but also apparently saw to it that no photos or video were taken of the fish hanging on the scale or the fish being measured...
LR: Here again you "reach" and condemn Mr. Thurston with NO basis in FACT!
Curious ended above with: "You were also told in the interview by the person who prepared the affidavits for O'Brien that most people were taking photos and the event was even video taped and yet no known photos or video has ever appeared of the most important parts of the event. To me this is incredibly damaging! I would think both Muskies Canada and the MNR would have wanted people to see the scale reading as well as the fish being measured."
LR: Agree that this aspect is damaging and correct. I find it amazing that no one has come forward with additional photos or video, but again, other than the measurement, which we KNOW is incorrect, what would they prove UNLESS someone has a photo of the measurement that "conclusively" shows the fish to be 58 inches long. I suggest that no such photo or video exists. The photo the WMA submitted to DCM analysis, along with the two molds, proves beyond doubt that the fish could not have been as long as claimed. Any one with a modicum of common sense can see this.
Curious' last comment: "There was obviously an agenda here and the fish becoming the record was obviously a joint effort and whether or not you want to believe this is your decision.".
LR: You apparently misunderstand my position. I AGREE with this assessment. I don't however, agree that Mr. Thurston was a part of this seeming "joint effort" conspiracy. I believe it was three MCI members, two of which aren't now talking and the third helping to spread a heavy "smoke screen", and the late John Power, the Toronto Star reporter who confessed to Stan Nowocin that the O'brien fish was bogus.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/30/2012 12:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Hurrah Kingfisher You make great lures and a great point. Course you dont make a livin tearing people down. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Simple fisherman....it's too bad you think this effort to find the truth is about character assasination. The fact is that the WMA, previously the WRMA had a stated mandate to scrutinize the current WR muskies. It would be more helpful and interesting to this thread if you actually had something to add in the defense of any of the WR fish held on the books in spite of the thorough debunking by the work of the WMA. Those who hold with perpetrating any old and new hoax are the real black eye to this or any sport. Those who stand in the way of the truth and perpetuate falsehoods are those who should be shunned by true sportsmen and women. Do you hold these records up as standards for our younger generation to admire and aspire to? I think not. The record keeping organizations and any organization not willing to do their utmost to find the truth should be ashamed of themselves and be called out. The decisions by the various record keepers and the silence by chapters of M.I. and M.C.I. and various publications concerning these bogus records is depressing.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I'm just afraid that our fisheries folks/DNR might use the current records as a reason to steer their management strategies away from trying to create trophy fisheries. If they can point to this or that record that far outweighs anything being caught today, it's not a stretch for someone along the way to jump to the conclusion that current practices aren't working, and that the money and time should be directed to other areas. |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
Unless a photograph or video comes forth showing the weighing and measuring what Paul Gasbarino told you is meaningless and no assumptions should be made regarding the existence of such things.
A photograph or video showing the fish weighed 65 lbs. would CONFIRM that's what the fish did weigh while it was on the scale and that IS important because it would at least confirm what the witnesses saw. Same with the measuring.
Do we agree that the fish would have to remain vertical in order for 9 lbs. of water to remain inside the fish? If so, consider that Lloyd Thurston was the one who took O'Brien's fish down from display to wrap and place in George Grisdale's freezer. In doing so he would have noticed much of the water running out as only a small amount remained when you unwrapped the fish.
Interesting don't you think?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious:
You are STILL off base! First of all, Paul Gasbarino has told me NOTHING.
Your second paragraph basically says what I've already said and maintained on several occasions. I don't think anyone here doubts what the witness "saw" during the reading of the scale weight. It is merely the supposition that "all that glittered wasn't gold". Personally, I now have no doubt that there was sufficient water within the fish during the weighing to register 65 pounds on the scale. Probably not the entire 9 pounds, but a lot. And again, no photos of the weighing have come forth.
And yes, I agree that the fish would have had to "remain vertical" after hanging in order for any amount of water to remain inside the fish during weighing, and I have reported that is in fact what transpired according to what I was told. And where, may I ask, did you discern the "fact"(?) that it was Mr. Thurston "...who took O'Brien's fish down from display to wrap and place in George Grisdale's freezer." There is zero evidence to support YOUR claim here as well. Hence, your statement: "In doing so he would have noticed much of the water running out as only a small amount remained when you unwrapped the fish." is once again REACHING and unfounded, when there is no evidence of this either!
In fact Curious, the video and the "series" of photographs that I have clearly indicate that the fish was handled considerably AFTER the weighing and before the fish was placed into the freezer. THIS "placing in the freezer" was not done by Mr. Thurston, he only again became involved when he removed the fish from the Grisdale freezer after my visit 9 days later, and delivered it to Dr. Crossman at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.
So, "Interesting don't you think?", no. Please get your facts straight if you wish to continue this discussion. |
|
| |
|
| It must have been kinda tricky to get 9 pounds of water into a fish with 40 people standing around......it takes very little water to flush a fishes stomach contents. |
|
| |
|
| "You are STILL off base! First of all, Paul Gasbarino has told me NOTHING."
LR: In fact, Mr. Gasbarino stated that a late friend of his did photograph the measuring.
He may not have actually told you this but you sure made made a point about what he stated!
"And where, may I ask, did you discern the "fact"(?) that it was Mr. Thurston "...who took O'Brien's fish down from display to wrap and place in George Grisdale's freezer. (Note: I got the information from your latest Compendium for crying out loud!) There is zero evidence to support YOUR claim here as well. Hence, your statement: "In doing so he would have noticed much of the water running out as only a small amount remained when you unwrapped the fish." is once again REACHING and unfounded, when there is no evidence of this either!"
Zero evidence? The person you interviewed told you that Lloyd Thurston did indeed take the fish down from where it was being displayed after the weighing and then placing it in George Grisdales's freezer. Are you now saying that everything this person told you is a lie? And you say I need to get my FACTS straight?
You claim Lloyd Thurston and John Power weighed the fish. There is now an affidavit out there that claims Power admitted the fish was bogus. How could John Power know the fish was bogus without Lloyd Thurston knowing the same thing?
You have absolutely no way of proving anything I've said isn't true. Until you can prove me wrong I'd think twice about writing off anything I've brought out.
I thought we were on the same side but I'll let you figure out everything on your own from this point.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious George: We're about done since it is obvious you merely want to debate unfounded minutia that you cannot prove. I do stand corrected about Mr. Thurston placing the fish in the freezer, but unlike your version, it was done long after the weighing. Nothing was said about him "taking the fish down". You obviously didn't read my book real close.
It is obvious too, from this thread and others, that you merely wish to continue to make trouble via unfounded hypothesis that can neither be proven or dis-proven at this point. Yes, we are on the same side, re the record, but I'm not on the "dark side" with you! I'm done with your rants. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry Ramsell - 1/30/2012 9:26 PM
Curious George: We're about done since it is obvious you merely want to debate unfounded minutia that you cannot prove. I do stand corrected about Mr. Thurston placing the fish in the freezer, but unlike your version, it was done long after the weighing. Nothing was said about him "taking the fish down". You obviously didn't read my book real close.
It is obvious too, from this thread and others, that you merely wish to continue to make trouble via unfounded hypothesis that can neither be proven or dis-proven at this point. Yes, we are on the same side, re the record, but I'm not on the "dark side" with you! I'm done with your rants.
Larry you know Im not tossing stones at you. You and I have had this discussion face to face. What I find just insane is that every fish over 60 pounds have been called out as fakes. I have read your book through and through and I have to believe some of those guys were telling the truth. Some were obviously lying. Obrien's fish was a Pig. Williamson's fish was a pig. The constant onslaught is what I find to be a huge turn off. This is taking away from the excitement. It takes away from the chase, the folklore and mythology of these grand beasts.
I just sent 72 Brand new 8 inch Magnum Slashers up to Joe McComber (Joe Flo) in Quebec. Maybe we do see that monster on one of ours. I send a lot of baits up there. But no matter. I find the attacks on the old records to be tiring and over done .
(To everyone) But more important is this, Anyone bringing one forward today would be insane. He or she will be torn to freaking pieces by these wolves. I want so badly for a legit 70 pound Musky to be killed Just to shut them all up. This needs to happen . I want to see it in my life time. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
I understand and share your frustration. No one hates it more than I do, but I also want to know the truth and just what is the "real" potential growth of the species. These "grand beasts" just do not seem to attain the size required to weigh 70 pounds.
I resent being called a "Wolf", but I shan't let that deter me from the pursuit of the truth in Muskie record matters. And, not ALL 60 pounders have been taken to task, at least from my end or perspective. Yes, O'brien's fish was a pig, but it just was not 58 inches long and likely didn't weigh 65 pounds. Williamson's fish too was a pig and I don't believe anyone has said it didn't weigh 61 pounds 4 ounces. It just wasn't a "certified" weight. He likely didn't pursue certification because of the bogus fish, supposedly larger, already on the books!!
I think your frustration, as noted by others, should be directed at the record keepers, who choose to put their collective heads in the sand and ignore the obvious. I don't think you want to chase a "ghost" that doesn't exist. "Folklore and mythology" is fun, but it isn't REAL.
Mike, I hope you get your wish, but God forbid you or someone using one of your lures catches a legitimate 62 pounder and is denied a record because the record keepers choose to ignore science and common sense and continue to list bogus fish...and even they cannot agree on what the record is! THAT is where your anger should be directed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Exactly. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Even if someone catches a 70 lb fish and it is certified by John Cassleman, Larry Ramsell and the Pope, at a public weighing in Yankee Stadium they will be crucified on here because they didn't release it |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, that person will not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/30/2012 2:00 PM
I'm just afraid that our fisheries folks/DNR might use the current records as a reason to steer their management strategies away from trying to create trophy fisheries. If they can point to this or that record that far outweighs anything being caught today, it's not a stretch for someone along the way to jump to the conclusion that current practices aren't working, and that the money and time should be directed to other areas.
I highly doubt this would ever happen. We don't care what the records are and for the most part don't even know what they are without looking them up. We aren't in the business of producing world records. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry Ramsell - 1/31/2012 12:51 AM
Mike:
I understand and share your frustration. No one hates it more than I do, but I also want to know the truth and just what is the "real" potential growth of the species. These "grand beasts" just do not seem to attain the size required to weigh 70 pounds.
I resent being called a "Wolf", but I shan't let that deter me from the pursuit of the truth in Muskie record matters. And, not ALL 60 pounders have been taken to task, at least from my end or perspective. Yes, O'brien's fish was a pig, but it just was not 58 inches long and likely didn't weigh 65 pounds. Williamson's fish too was a pig and I don't believe anyone has said it didn't weigh 61 pounds 4 ounces. It just wasn't a "certified" weight. He likely didn't pursue certification because of the bogus fish, supposedly larger, already on the books!!
I think your frustration, as noted by others, should be directed at the record keepers, who choose to put their collective heads in the sand and ignore the obvious. I don't think you want to chase a "ghost" that doesn't exist. "Folklore and mythology" is fun, but it isn't REAL.
Mike, I hope you get your wish, but God forbid you or someone using one of your lures catches a legitimate 62 pounder and is denied a record because the record keepers choose to ignore science and common sense and continue to list bogus fish...and even they cannot agree on what the record is! THAT is where your anger should be directed.
Larry, I consider you one of the leading experts on the species. You were not included in my wolf comment. As I said I am not throwing stones at you. I was venting in general because every year its the exact same thing. First Spray, then Johnson, and on and on and on and on. One of these guys had to be telling the truth. Unless of course all fishermen are Liars and in that case all records for all species are suspect. There is no way to change these old records because there is no way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they were falsified. I just don't buy(all) the evidence presented. We have dead people who cant defend themselves, Field and Stream , old beam scales versus newer digital scales and testimony recorded. I am sure there was a Liar or two in the bunch but I just don't believe they were all Liars.
A world record is not a fish that is easily found and caught. It cant be. It must be a mythical one in a million monster. Just because Mike and Marc have not caught one doesn't mean they don't exist. Mother Nature has a way of turning scientists and our best experts and fishermen into buffoons all the time. My guess is about the time this industry gets the record reduced to say 62 pounds a 70 pounder will be caught. It will be contested by no less then 500 guys who simply will not believe it. For anyone to say they simply do not get that big is daring Nature to slap them down. There are no absolutes in Nature.
Look at the farce with Global warming. Man spent trillions of dollars trying to curb emissions and One volcano erupting wiped out all the trillions we spent. Nature has a way of humbling men. It always has, always will.
Larry , if you say the record keepers are at fault Ill buy that. I think there is merit in that. I don't think any of them at field and stream had any Idea of the microscope their records would be put under. Just let me say, After all this fighting over these records when the 70 pound fish is weighed and certified please give me my due. On that day all this will be a huge waste of time, money and Aspirin. Until then, good luck to you all. As for us we are sharpening hooks, tuning lures and making plans to travel for our first trip to the Mighty St. Lawrence. My wife has that uncanny knack for getting the one in a million fish. Maybe her luck holds out and she waltzes into Larry's next book. Tight lines. Mike
|
|
| |
|
| larry why dont you put that video on youtube ?i am sure a lot of guys would like to see that
tks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kingfisher/Mike wrote in part: "...There is no way to change these old records because there is no way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they were falsified. I just don't buy(all) the evidence presented..."
LR: Mike, I and MANY others beg to differ. You either aren't looking at the evidence with an open mind or you haven't seen it all. Buy it or not, the science cannot be denied.
Mike continued in part: "...A world record is not a fish that is easily found and caught. It cant be. It must be a mythical one in a million monster..."
LR: Mike, I have always said, "Never say never." I, like you, like to dream and "hope" that it is true and not "mythical"!
More Mike: "...
For anyone to say they simply do not get that big is daring Nature to slap them down. There are no absolutes in Nature..."
LR: I hope you are correct Mike, but to date, history and scientific proof says otherwise.
pepsiboy wrote: "larry why dont you put that video on youtube ?i am sure a lot of guys would like to see that tks"
LR: If I had even the slightest clue how to do so, I would, but you don't know what you are asking of this technologically challenged old timer! LOL
Actually, the VHS video doesn't do much of anything to relieve this debate, other than to demonstrate that "Curious George" doesn't have a full grasp of the facts and sequence of events of that fateful day and therefore, as I noted previously, I will ignore his last post where additional suppositions without basis in fact are put forth and will not answer his questions based on his hypothesis. I know the answers, but it would only lead to further baseless hypothesis on his part. |
|
| |
