|
|
| 54" X 30.5" = 62.8 lbs. The actual girth is more imortant than anything. |
|
| |
|
| I would say that if the girth on O'Brien's frozen fish appeared quite similar and just "slightly" larger than the girth of Larry's 44 1/2 pounder then the girth of O'Brien's fish was nowhere near 30.5". |
|
| |
|
| JD - 4/8/2011 9:46 AM
I would say that if the girth on O'Brien's frozen fish appeared quite similar and just "slightly" larger than the girth of Larry's 44 1/2 pounder then the girth of O'Brien's fish was nowhere near 30.5".
Yet probably the most prominent historian in musky records believed until recently that it was a 65 lb fish. I have to think he was pretty impressed with the size of this thing to believe it was substantially more than his 44 lb fish (which is also a giant)
Whether filled with water/lead/bricks whatever, the O'Brien fish was super fat. Look at the pics. |
|
| |
|
| JD
Makes reference that the girth is probably not near 30 inches. Some years back I put a fish in the boat with a 27.5 inch girth that weighed in at almost 50lbs even. I am not a so called EXPERT, but one thing, I will bet anyone on this forum that the girth on that muskellunge is 30inches. By the way, part of my income was made by way of taxidermy, no one added 4inches to that fish. You could pick that out by simply looking at it, if you know what to look for. I'm still curious if Mr. Ramsell plans on talking to the biologists you examined this muskie and ask them why they were unable to measure or weigh the fish correctly. Two of the best in their field yet they both got it wrong. I klnow if I was searching for the truth that I would certainly like to hear their side of the story. Matt |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | JD: I measured my fish's girth at 25 inches fresh out of the water and the taxidermist later measured it at 26 inches.
Getting back to the length of O'Brien's fish, I just dug out my earliest notes, made when I first got the call (an hour after the catch) and my phone interview with O'Brien himself...in both cases, I was told that the length of the fish was 57 inches. So, the confusion deepens.
Matt: The MNR biologists were NOT signatories to the O'Brien affidavit and the claims of weight and length contained therein. Also, I have no personal knowledge that either was in fact directly involved in the measuring or weighing O'Brien's fish, even though they were present and what, if any investigation they did while there at the time. It is the claims on the affidavit that are in question.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/8/2011 10:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
| rook,
You hit the nail on the head. The fish WAS super fat until the water ran out of it. Larry clearly stated the length AND girth appeared very similar and just slightly larger than his 44 1/2 pounder at the time he examined the fish. Supposedly there was a massive amount of eggs found inside this fish AFTER Larry weighed it at 56 lbs. Being there was only minimal stomach contents found inside the fish AFTER it was weighed by Larry, what other than water could have contributed to an additional 9 lbs. in weight and that huge bloated belly? |
|
| |
|
| I thought this was perfect.
"if the stated length of the fish is indeed debunked, then it doesn't take much inference to surmise that the weight could be off significantly as well. In other words, once the length is debunked--then everything of consequence about the fish is pretty much also suspect. "
Assuming the length has already been debunked? No reason to even debate the girth because it will always be suspect right along with the weight. |
|
| |
|
| I don't have a lot to go on because i have never seen the fish other then pictures.
Is it agreeable that i can i use the picture with the ruler as fact??? Experts are telling me the fish is 52"-53" long using that pic. Did they account for the cut throat? If not take off another 1" or 2". The fish is getting real short now. For me this fish is no longer the world record. |
|
| |
|
| What I find interesting is that there were minimal stomach contents found when the fish was examined by Dr. Crossman and yet the belly of the fish appears full in the photos. Whatever was in there, where did it go? 
There was also an article in the June / July / Aug. 2001 issue of Esox Angler by Steve Wickens who said the taxidermist that mounted this fish said it had over 10 lbs. of bullheads in it which is in direct conflict with what Dr. Crossman said. Dr. Crossman said he removed the stomach contents of the fish BEFORE the fish went to the taxidermist and that it had minimal stomach contents.
|
|
| |
|
| JD - 4/8/2011 11:26 AM
What I find interesting is that there were minimal stomach contents found when the fish was examined by Dr. Crossman and yet the belly of the fish appears full in the photos. Whatever was in there, where did it go?
There was also an article in the June / July / Aug. 2001 issue of Esox Angler by Steve Wickens who said the taxidermist that mounted this fish said it had over 10 lbs. of bullheads in it which is in direct conflict with what Dr. Crossman said. Dr. Crossman said he removed the stomach contents of the fish BEFORE the fish went to the taxidermist and that it had minimal stomach contents.
Minimal stomach contents, or minimal "identifiable" stomach contents? I thought there were a couple of bullheads and a bunch of parts of partially digested fish that they didn't identify.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Guys,
Please forgive me for the stupid question here: Is the world record determined by weight or length? If its weight and O'brien's fish was put on a certified scale at the time of capture or shortly after. Isn't that good enough to be recognized? Not trying to be navie with this just can't believe that with the affidavits and Larry Ramsell say that he has no doubt that the fish was 65 pounds when it was weighed. Who cares how long it was.
Again just trying to understand this stuff.
Thanks |
|
| |
|
| Guest,
One recognizable bullhead and a probable second recognizable bullhead and a lot of disarticulated bones which wouldn't weigh much of anything and wouldn't contribute a significant increase to the girth.
When I said "minimal" I was referring to the weight of the stomach contents.
Keep in mind that these stomach contents were in the fish at the time Larry weighed it at 56 lbs. |
|
| |
|
| Hunter4,
The length being falsified on an affidavit destroys anything else it contains including the weight.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | A 54" musky could in the 65-pound neighborhood, I suppose, given it's girth of course.
Take a look at the screenshot of the output of my fish weight estimator program. I used 54x30.5", as I seem to recall seeing 30.5" listed for the girth. At this girth however, the major variations of the weight estimation formulae do not show it getting to 65 pounds.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2011 1:05 PM
Attachments
----------------
 weights.jpg (263KB - 301 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Doesn't matter IF it could be in the "neighborhood. The fish is NOT as long as claimed which taints the record potential. Not to mention the 9lb. weight discrepancy.
DougP |
|
| |
|
| We saw 58" listed for the length too and how much weight did that carry? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| All the "if's" and "what about's" are irrelevant. Prove the mold by ROM to be of some other fish. Prove the 2pics of the fresh fish with the ruler to be false. Prove these or there is no point in if's or maybe's.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tell ya what...IF the cast from the mold at the ROM measured 54" to tip of tail on the show side and 62" on the reverse side, that would average 58" allowing for the curve. IF Larry weighed the fish frozen 8 Days later and it weighed even 63.75 lbs or so and IF the yardstick alongside the fresh fish showed the fish to be 58" this fish would stand as legit.
NONE of that happened.................!
No one...as yet....has been able to discredit the findings of the WMA...
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/8/2011 1:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Esox65,
"It takes more than a few hours to go from fat to thin...it takes months or years."
With O'Brien's fish it only took 8 days.
By the way, what do you think happens to a fat guy's waistline if his stomach is FULL of pizza?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here are the numbers for the stated size of O'Brien's fish (58x30.5), followed by the stated size of Dale MacNair's fish (57x33). As you can see, Dale's fish would blow away the O'Brien fish. I don't know Dale MacNair, or the guide he was fishing with when he caught the musky--but I don't have any reason to doubt their reported measurement. Thus it appears as though the true World Record musky just might be swimming near the 40-acre shoal.
Attachments
----------------
OBrien_fish_stated.jpg (103KB - 300 downloads)
MacNair_fish.jpg (112KB - 295 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | anon Esox65 wrote: ..."Re: the girth.....why does the fishes belly have to be full of fish for it to be fat??? Makes no sense.... A fat guy is still a fat guy even if his stomach is not full of pizza, poutine and ice cream. It takes more than a few hours to go from fat to thin...it takes months or years."
LR: The problem with the O'Brien sequence photos has the fish fresh caught in the bottom of the boat with normal belly, as is the first dock photo at J. Grisdales. Then in the staircase photos (some showing the business end of a hose) the fish is suddenly tremendously "bloated". Then at the last sequence at G. Grisdales dock with the fish again being held vertical by O'Brien, the belly is back to normal. The dock shot with O'Brien sitting also shows the belly greatly bloated, which is understandable the way O'Brien is holding the fish and causing the extension of the belly. So, the stomach contents found by Dr. Crossman have no bearing, as they were still in the fish when I re-weighed it, leaving a lack of explanation of where the missing 9 pounds (water???) and "bloat" went.
Hunter4 wrote: "Guys, Please forgive me for the stupid question here: Is the world record determined by weight or length? If its weight and O'brien's fish was put on a certified scale at the time of capture or shortly after. Isn't that good enough to be recognized? Not trying to be navie with this just can't believe that with the affidavits and Larry Ramsell say that he has no doubt that the fish was 65 pounds when it was weighed. Who cares how long it was.
Again just trying to understand this stuff."
LR: Hunter, I believe you misintrepret some of what I said. Yes, the WR is based on weight, but I said that I believe the scale REGISTERED 65 pounds at the time of weighing, but that I was uncertain if all of that weight was legitimate. When an important item such as length is misstated on an affidavit, obviously intentionally (as noted, O'Brien himself told me originally that the fish was 57 inches, which too has been proven inaccurate by nearly 3 inches), then the entire affidavit becomes suspect. And again, O'Brien did not prepare the affidavit himself, it was done by a Muskies Canada official!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
MUSKELLUNGE HISTORIAN for all of North America
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/8/2011 1:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| It still only measures 54"..............tops.
Edited by fins355 4/8/2011 1:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Esox65,
A 1" ruler / fish difference would have an insignificant effect on the DCM result. Don't start making assumptions unless you are familiar with projective geometry and photogrammetry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Esox 65 says
"That mold has been around forever and a day, no body ever questioned it before. Now it's in question because of the DCM report....which may or may not be correct. Why the silence on the mold until now???"
Why the silence? Because no one has picked up the ball and investigated the fish as did the WMA.
Pretty simple really.
Why was Lawton on the books until '92 when Detloff decided to investigate?
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| ESOX65...we don't need DCM's findings on the yardstick and we don't need geometry. We have the mold, the fingerprint if you will. That is DEFINITIVE. All the rest is just icing on the cake.
Prove that mold to be of a different fish and you may have something. However THAT would open a whole NEW can of worms that would still call for the O'BRien fish to be discredited.
DouGp |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I wish we could see the sequence of all of the photos. I know I have seen most of them here and there, but it would help prove the extra bulge in the tummy!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| SHEESH.....if the mold is not of the O'Brien fish but another fish that is only 54".....could Crossman have done an autopsy on the wrong fish??
MMMM...Nah....I don't think so.
I think Dr. Crossman was more concerned with the science and biology of the stomach content and not the record potential of the fish. The length and weight probably was not a big concern.
I would think Kevin Hockley was more interested in creating an accurate mold of the specimen for the museum and not the reported length the fish. The fish was what it was when Hockley made that mold. How could that fish possibly be 58" long as claimed and come out to be only 54" when the cast is measured from the mold. It CAN'T!! From the pic of the cast the mold looks very well done and anatomically accurate.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/8/2011 2:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Esox, your passion is commendable, but you should consider giving up already, at least here. Either that, or head over to the ROM and try to prove the mold cast measurement was somehow falsified by the WMA. The important thing is the length, unless you can disprove the 58" as sworn to on the affidavit, nothing else really matters because everything else becomes tainted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I like these 2 side by side. What happened?
Attachments
----------------
O'brien evidence.jpg (10KB - 664 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| KenK - 4/8/2011 2:17 PM
I like these 2 side by side. What happened?
Hmmm. Nothing fishy there huh esox65?
If anything it looks like that fish should have gained 9 lbs after being caught. Interesting how that belly filled right out. |
|
| |
