|
|
Posts: 8774
| Certifications aside for a moment...
All the evidence and all the research done to date shows the Johnson fish to me much smaller than claimed. Where is the research showing that the record was legit? Where's the math? Where's the science? It's easy to point fingers at someone else and announce that they don't know what they are doing when you don't like their results. But where's the research, where's the analysis, where's the math that shows it WAS legit? If you're so confident the record was legit, why not produce some actual scientific rersearch showing that is was?? IF the WRMA can screw up that bad in their use of photogrammetry is sould be a piece of cake to use that same science, from those certified in photogrammetry to show the Johnson fish was legit.
I've seen no such evidence. Where's the math, exoxarchaeologist?? I want to believe the Johnson fish was as big as the records say it was, and nobody has been able to convince me. |
|
| |
|
| Esoxarcheaologist,
You said, "I am aware of two known vanishing points in the Spray picture that will provide an accurate answer."
In other words you are able to determine where the second vanishing point is more accurately than the photomodeler software. You expect anyone here to believe this? Are you a so-called CERTIFIED photogrammetrist? If you are why don't you identify yourself? If you can prove the DCM results are inaccurate why haven't you done so already? |
|
| |
|
| Esoxarcheaologist,
You also said, "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."
Most people have never even heard of a photogrammetrist and yet you claim to have been in front of SEVERAL that were CERTIFIED?
Why were you contacting these people? Obviously you didn't get the answer from them that you were looking for otherwise you would have used it. And why did you contact several? Evidentally you weren't satisfied with the first response even though the person was "certified".
If you were ever truly in front of any certified photogrammetrists, don't try to tell me that you didn't contact them. A person doesn't just stumble into more than one "certified" photogrammetrist.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I think Steve busted the so called Archealogist big time....Pointer you like this dude?
He's full of B.S.
The WRMA report deals with a very well and proven science. The report was done by an outside unbiased group then peer reviewed independly and again unbiased.
Unreal that people cant read the report and come to a simple basic conclusion.
Johnson and Spray were con men.
Edited by thescottith 12/28/2009 1:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| Since nobody else will say it... I will. Obviously esoxarcheoligist is either John Dettloff or one of his associates/friends. That was painfully obvious to me at least after his first post.
John |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Eloquent (and accurate) rebuttals people! We appreciate your support, thank you!
Esoxarchaeologist:
Leapfrogging past the Mathematical Facts addendum will not make it go away. If you cannot explain how this record did not possess mathematically correct dimensions "here" on Muskie 1st, your "look over there" strategy will certainly not bode well for you in the future either.
To enlighten those with only a casual interest, the Mathematical Facts addendum is basically an immovable obstacle for those who support this record because the debunked measures were recorded on sworn affidavits. An affidavit that contains material errors is not an asset, it is an indictment. Why would somebody lie about the dimensions of a fish if the weight was accurate? Further, the newly discovered photograph provides strong visual evidence that this slender JULY caught muskellunge could not have the professed 33 ½" girth.
However, even though Esoxarchaeologist is an anonymous poster, the WRMA still takes any accusation like this very seriously. Quite frankly, we are all growing increasingly tired of the FWFHoF's ongoing rhetoric that our reports contain "bad science" based only on a biased amateurs opinion. This latest salvo by Esoxarchaeologist appears to be just another unqualified attempt to discount the methodology of a highly credentialed expert without merit or justification.
Consequently, the WRMA officials have decided to make an offer in an attempt to end this nonsense. We will pay 100% of the services for any "certified" photogrammetrist if either record can be proven to be as long as claimed. The WRMA can make this offer because we know both photogrammetric solutions are indeed correct and even peer-reviewed. The Professors the FWFHoF "used" to uphold the Spray record recommended that they obtain their own experts (along with the WRMA) in their letter to the FWFHoF.
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/muskie/brown-02-01-06.pdf
It would seem rather obvious that if there was any truth in DCM using "bad science", this offer would be readily accepted. It is also interesting that someone with a supposed mathematical background is not willing to provide an opinion on the Mathematical Facts addendum.
It can be ignored, denied, but it remains a mathematical certainty.
http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/Mathematical_Facts.pdf
Edited by Jerry Newman 12/28/2009 2:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| I really wish the Johnson fish was legitimate. I want to believe that there is a 70 pound muskie swimming around out there somewhere, that those size of fish were caught, the genes are still there, and the lake ecosystems where these "records" came from can support a fish of that caliber. I want to believe that, but math doesn't lie. Pi IS. The circumference of a circle IS, and even a perfectly round 60" muskie just wouldn't get to 70 pounds.
Not to mention the fact that the length clearly was falsified, too.
It's not going to change how or where I fish or when, bit I am a bit dissapointed that muskies really don't get as big as we all like to think.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Do you think a perfectly round muskie of ANY length actually exists or ever existed? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| Guest - 12/28/2009 3:04 PM
esoxaddict,
Do you think a perfectly round muskie of ANY length actually exists or ever existed?
Nope. And that's the only way that fish could possibly have had a 33.5" girth. There's just no way to manipulate the numbers to make that fish even CLOSE to what was originally claimed. Not length, not girth, not filled full of sand...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Some late-posted random thoughts here, regarding WR Musky size and the Chippewa Flowage in particular, since about every major Musky forum has been discussing the Lawson report/ Spray ‘WR’ Musky’s for the past several weeks.
A matter that’s always perplexed me is, if Spray/Johnson had indeed ever caught fish of the size they purported, why did it never happen again? I realize that there was a time when Musky everywhere were recklessly harvested, but that hasn’t happened for years now. And it doesn’t seem adequate to explain why IF fish of those proportions ever swam in the waters of the Chippewa Flowage, where are they now? If those guys caught 2-3 or more fish like that out of the Flowage, why not ever again? And, why all in that particular time frame? (The Chip was already over twenty five years old then.) Were those guys just particularly lucky? Or were they that much better at finding big fish than anybody else before or since them? I don’t know…maybe so.
For years now I’ve watched excellent Chip guides like Ty Sennett and Tanner Wildes (and several others) post their year-end numbers. And what you see from them and their clients combined for an entire year is actually a relatively small number of plus 50” fish (lower to mid 50’s) coming from that lake, but none close to the Spray/Johnson fish.
These guides and others spend a huge number of hours on the water there---with boats and electronics that enable them to cover more water in a year than Spray or Johnson ever could have. Yet…no fish of the Hayward WR size; or even close. Why? It seems reasonable to suggest that it’s because the fish doesn’t exist. And if not, it’s a stretch for me to conclude it ever did. Perhaps someone might reason that the Spray/Johnson fish were of a genetic species that DID grow that big but were all harvested out of the lake during the slaughter years. And the present-day predominant genetics in the lake do not grow that big. Could be, I guess. But, it’s a logic that’s conjecture at best.
Not trying to dish the Flowage. The Chip is a great lake, and holds some nice Musky. But it’s always troubled me that with the number of people that have fished it over the years (even after the fish have been size-protected and should’ve recovered in size and numbers), and that even with the modern boats and electronics and huge amounts of angler’s hours that are spent catching fish there that nothing even close to the ‘WR’ has been caught again out of the Chippewa Flowage. It seems to defy common sense that this would be the case if those fish once were in there. So the thing that gives me the greatest cause for pause here is the Chips ability---(or lack of?)---to produce a fish like that. No, it can’t result in proving nor disproving whether the Spray and Johnson fish were genuine or not. But it does lead me to being more open to considering reports like Jerry has put forth on the matter.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| Jim, that's a good question. It seems to me that if an area was home to several record class fish, all our conservation efforts would have been successful by now, (like they have everywhere else) and you'd be seeing fish in that size range on a fairly regular basis. But those fish aren't being caught anywhere, even though there are fisheries out there today with growth potential far beyond the lakes in Northern Wisconsin.
And that's the bottom line for me. If I want to catch big muskies, I'm going to fish where there ARE big muskies and not where there once were. Or weren't...
It would be nice to know what the real records are, the ones where the size and weight of the fish actually WAS what they said it was. I'd love to know that, just like most other muskie anglers. But it's sure not going to change how and where I fish. I'll still be out there looking for a big one. And as soon as it swims away, I'll be out there looking for the next one.
|
|
| |
|
| Actually a lake with fewer predators will grow bigger fish than a lake with a lot of them. Don't believe me?? Take two fish tanks and have one tank with ten fish in it and another with two fish in it. Feed both tanks the same amount and see which one grows the biggest fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I went to the Indian Trail resort page on Detloff's site, looked at the big fish contest or whatever the resort has, not one 50" fish out of that resort in 09. didnt bother to check 08 or 07
hmmmm... |
|
| |
|
| I think Detloff might have just cooked his own goose with his measurement of Johnson's eye socket mount measurement . He says Cal's mount measures 6.25" to the back of the eye socket and my old 53" skin mount measures 6 1/4" for the same measurement. This basically proves the head of the Johnson mount was actually from about a 53". I don't see how the same size head could be from a 60+" and 53" muskie anyway.
I just thought it would be good to let the WRMA know what I found, any reward bucks if this turns out to be the case cracker? 
From Detloff's Cal Johnson web site, "The primary reference measurement of 5.669 inches that was generated by a computer program, from which they direct scaled length calculations of the musky, proves to be grossly in error by more than 9/16 of an inch. An accurate laser measurement on the mount reveals this same measurement to actually be 6.25 inches."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I love all the guests that show up for these. What does this prove exactly? That the calculations are not reliable, or that you caught a big headed fish? |
|
| |
|
| Oz on MuskyHunter has it right, dettlof and ramsell are working together to create this situation...they are co-dependent...otherwise it would not matter...they are perhaps playing a bigger scam than louie every could...I find it quite funny and a bit brilliant at the same time.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Has anyone in the past 10-20 years actually adjusted their travel plans to vacation in the Hayward area because huge muskies were supposedly caught there in the 50's? I can't for the life of me see tourism being such a big factor regarding these fish, but maybe I'm missing the point. Anyone care to enlighten me? |
|
| |
|
| I don't think people who know the muskie ropes travel much to Hayward to fish for big muskies. They enjoy the scenery and other very nice things the area has to offer. The people who are being lured there with the record fish are the newcomers who want to try musky fishing. It might be several years by the time they figure out that there are better places to fish for big musky and move on, the next "crop" of people take their place and the cycle repeats. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | People used to. Then they got tired of beating their heads against the wall and decided to go to MN for trophies. |
|
| |
|
| Agree that almost all the musky vets from Hayward in search of 50" musky head to MN, matter of fact all Hayward saw of Ty was his tail lights before he settled down.
What we are talking about is the 1st time people walking threw shows and stuff, they just don't know what to look for and have no idea they are being played by the Hayward "come catch a record" system for all they can get if they are really looking to catch a 50".
The current situation is that Hayward doesn't need it, the town itself (even though build on these records) has plenty of other great things to offer now. Anymore it is one man’s weird obsession to try to convince us of something that we know is just not so. Maybe he needs to head to MN to get his first 50" like the reast of us? |
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
If that 53" muskie skin mount turns out to have the SAME head to body percentage as Cal's fresh muskie you're in big trouble. I requested ANYBODY that has a 54" skin mount to check the tip of the snout to the POSTERIOR of the eye socket and only had this one response. Anybody that does this with a 54" muskie that has a head to total length percentage the SAME as Cal's fresh fish will quickly learn that Cal's mount has the head of a normally proportioned 53" muskie.
|
|
| |
|
| Even if you don't believe in the WRMA findings, it's hard not to believe in the head size thing if what this poster claims is true. Right away, I got a mental picture of that latest 58" St. Larry fish when I read that post, and it was "Only" 58". Wonder how big that head was?
There is no way Johnson's 60" fish could have that small of a head if it was really 60". Common sense, and just looking at the pictures where the head is about average looking for it's size (whatever size it was). I'm all for giving the benifit of doubt to Johnson, but this head size pits a lock on it for me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Look at the pic of that fish taken on the shoreline. That is a big fat fish, and that is a LARGE HEAD. Muskies are not made with a cookie cutter. Each of the pictures unfortunately pull the head back, which shorten the spine, and shorten the overall length of the fish to it's minimum, and also shorten the fish's aspect in every photo. You take pics at different distances and then compare them as equal, but does that really work? Is it missing 5-6 inches or not? I don't think there is any compelling evidence proving that. I don't see the Gelb fish as anywhere near equal to the Johnson fish. And I don't see them as having similar body types either. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | FSF: I might add that you and I have similar body types. Makes about as much sence. See you soon! Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | FSF, you are right, Gelb's fish had bigger girths. Stealing a quote from poster on another site, these new photos only prove there are more photos of the fish.
As far as the tourism thing goes, I have had someone in a booth come to me, hand me a brochure and say "come to the chippewa flowage and catch a world record muskie" direct quote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Todd, you are welcome to that opinon on the girths, I don't share it, but...when you convince the sanctioning bodies of that, let me know.
And BTW, they were dead serious, they WANT YOU to come to the Chip and catch a world record musky. Do you realize how much money you would make them all if you did that?
|
|
| |
|
| Sixfeet, don't you mean they want Todd to come there and spend his hard earned money with virtually no chance of catching a 50"? If what the other post said is true, John Dettlof has never even caught a 50", let alone have a shot at a worlds record.
That's an interesting angle on that new photo Todd, hopefully he puts ALL OF THEM up on the Johnson web site. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| You don't have a reasonable chance to catch a world record Musky in the Hayward area, but you can catch a 50"...every now and then. Nothing like the chances you'll have in several other places. Sennett's year-end totals list 133 fish caught out of the Chippewa Flowage, with only one fish being 50". For you math majors---that's less than 1% of the Musky catch. Not good odds. (Maybe there never were very good odds there?) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | FSF, here is another angle to consider with these fish. They are hurting the lake management. The folks who prop these fish up are dead against raising the size limits, why? It puts a shadow of doubt on the water's abilityto produce that "fish". They lobbied hard against the 50" limit and won, lost on the 45' limit while other guides there were screaming for an increase. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8774
| Todd, that's the point I was trying to make earlier -- having old "records" that show the fishing was light years ahead of what it is now, during a time when they shot every one they caught? That certainly doesn't help ANY of our conservation efforts, and it's a perfect reason not to support any increased size limits, additional stocking, or anything else. |
|
| |
