|
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Oh, come on everyone. It is obvious what happened here.
First, while the fish was hanging there, an isolated thunderstorm came up that dumped about a gallon of water right down the Muskies throat. It was a VERY isolated thuderstorm of course.
And then some kid took the measuring stick and removed a four-inch section from it and then glued it back together. Dang kids are always doing stuff like that. Give a kid some glue and a knife or saw and one never knows what they will do. One just hopes they destroy something cheap.
Or maybe someone tried to revive the fish and filled it up with water in an unsuccessful attempt to bring it back to life. Could have happened.
Doubtful though. Most likely someone saw an opportunity of some sort...
I bet that little extra water helped tourism over the years. I wonder how many people drove all the way to Georgian Bay and spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the vain hope to catch a fish like the one that wasn't? Anyone on this forum? Hmmm? 
It seems there may have been a few "suckers" involved in this whole thing. Reminds me of all the people who run out every year and buy the new "hot" lure. Muskies like "suckers" all right. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Thanks Larry
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Esox 65......give it up..............
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Odd one doesn't see that in all the record fish...plenty of vertical hold images of big dead fish from that era. |
|
| |
|
| Esox65,
You are correct in that it is impossible for that 1" not to have an effect. However, it takes more than a 1" ruler / fish difference to cause a SIGNIFICANT effect. The pixel count of the ruler would increase very little being 1" closer to the camera. The difference in the two photos DCM analyzed was only 1.1" and this difference was caused by the ruler being over 2.5" closer to the camera in the photo showing the shorter result.
There is no possible way that ruler could be far enough in front of the fish to understate the length by 4.6". That ruler is almost, if not touching the fish and it would have to be over 13" in front to understate the length by 4.6".
This coupled with the fact that the DCM results are supported by the length of the mold and Larry's own personal length measurement.
Time to throw in the towel! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Esox65 - 4/8/2011 4:56 PM
KenK - 4/8/2011 2:17 PM
I like these 2 side by side. What happened?
All those precious organs we protect when we hold the fish horizontally, have slide down the fish after being held vertically for hours... [...]
Slid down into WHAT? The empty back 1/3 of the fish that's usually hollow? |
|
| |
|
| Hey Larry and Steve W.....if you guys want to just fish, give me a holler. Muskie season is open here in Ohio. I nabbed my first OH muskie of the season yesterday. LOTS more fun than dealing with mis or un-informed folks. I won't even MENTION this thread........promise!
ErieBoy75 (Fran Stack) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | VERY tempting.... |
|
| |
|
| JD,
I have to disagree with you on your comments. The line used to measure the fish extends from the tip of the lower jaw to the tip of the tail. The ruler is clearly offset from this line by a considerable distance, probably close to 1 ft. Part of that distance is lateral offset; however, the line representing the length of the fish is also further from the camera than the ruler. A difference in distance of 6 inches between the fish and ruler will result in an apparent reduction in the length of the fish of more than 4 inches.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | While I am no expert in photometric analysis, the ruler and the horizontal axis (long axis) of the fish, look to be about the same distance from the camera to me. Thus it should be a pretty good scale to compare the fish's length. Actually, both images seem to be about like that--the ruler and the average midpoint of the fish along its horizontal axis at about the same distance from the camera.
I can't see how DCM's analysis isn't a pretty good estimation of the total length of the fish, to be honest.
EDIT: OK, I actually ran the numbers on the lengths of the fish in those two photos. Using my Mac, I grabbed a screenshot of each image, and then zoomed in as close as I could get without causing significant pixelation artifacts. Here are the numbers I got:
Image #1 (O'Brien + fish)
fish: 791 pixels
stick: 547 pixels
Estimated fish length = (791 / 547) * 36 = 52.06"
Image #2 (woman + fish)
fish: 985 pixels
stick: 684 pixels
Estimated fish length = (985 / 684) * 36 = 51.84"
So my lengths are actually shorter than those calculated by DCM. However I had to do my calculations by eye, determining the measure points from a screenshot blown up as far as possible; whereas DCM had higher-resolution images to work from, as indicated by the stated pixel counts in their report. So I would definitely favor their results over mine. I just thought it was interesting that I actually got results that were *smaller* than those reported by DCM!
Very interesting, indeed...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2011 8:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Guest,
I have no idea what you're talking about. The line being laterally offset will have no bearing on the pixel count of the ruler as long as the ruler and the fish are the same distance from the camera. Also, a distance of 6" between the fish and the ruler will NOT result in an apparent length reduction in the length of the fish by more than 4". And how do you come to the conclusion that the ruler is 6" closer to the camera than it is to the fish? |
|
| |
|
| The amusing part in all of this is that the O.F.A.H. requests that a photo be submitted with the ruler and the fish being the same distance from the camera and yet we are being told that both Mrs. Grisdale and Mr. O"Brien failed to provide what was requested. |
|
| |
|
| In the most recent large specimen of the larger musky species, Ken O'Brien's 1988, 65-pounder, Dr. Lebeau found over 85,000 eggs.
1996 Musky Hunter's Almanac That may account for some extra weight, no one has mentioned that possibility. |
|
| |
|
| Matt, the eggs were in it when Ramsell weighed it. It wouldn't matter if it was 2 million eggs, #56 is still #56, and 54" is still 54". |
|
| |
|
| If the yardstick is in front of the fish, it's apparent length will be increased by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8' from the fish but only 7' from the yardstick, the apparent length of the yardstick would change to 36" / 7/8 (.875) or 41.143". This would cause the length of the fish to be understated by 5.143". For every inch the yardstick is in front of the fish, the fish would be understated by .429". Therefore, if that yardstick is 6" in front of the fish, the length of the fish would only be understated by 2.57", NOT more than 4" as claimed by the "Guest".
I find it amazing that some people feel their opinion carries as much weight as a professional photogrammetrist.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | JD - 4/8/2011 10:32 PM
If the yardstick is in front of the fish, it's apparent length will be increased by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8' from the fish but only 7' from the yardstick, the apparent length of the yardstick would change to 36" / 7/8 (.875) or 41.143". This would cause the length of the fish to be understated by 5.143". For every inch the yardstick is in front of the fish, the fish would be understated by .429". Therefore, if that yardstick is 6" in front of the fish, the length of the fish would only be understated by 2.57", NOT more than 4" as claimed by the "Guest".
I find it amazing that some people feel their opinion carries as much weight as a professional photogrammetrist.
Also, this particular professional photogrammetist doesn't state that the yardstick was in front of the horizontal plane of the fish's midline. There is nothing at all mentioned about a scaling factor in Mr. Mills' statements. He just does the math, which implies that no scaling factor was needed, which further implies that the yardstick and the midline of the fish are in the same plane--at least enough so for his satisfaction. And it certainly looks that way from gross inspection of the images.
He states:
"Taking measurements from the image with O’Brien I get 52.3” +/- 1”. In this image, the 36”ruler is 2901 pixels long and the muskie is 4215 pixels long. (4215 pixels X 36”) / 2901 pixels = 52.3”.
Taking measurements from the image with the woman I get 53.4” +/- 1”. In this image the 36” ruler is 3001 pixels long and the muskie is 4452 pixels long. (4452 X 36”) / 3001 pixels = 53.4”.
Sounds like he's pretty satisfied of it to me (edit: especially for the second image, with the woman holding the yardstick). So although I certainly cannot explain the discrepancy between the weights (or the fact that the 58" length measurement was obtained in front of a whole bunch of people), I'd have to say I agree with his assessment. It seems like very simple math here to me.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 5:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
| There are some who say that people knew the fish wasn't that big and they mislead the public in order to promote business to their area. You had the president from M.C. there to view the fish, members from Muskies Inc there who saw the fish, the biologists who , if there were examining this fish surely would have taken down length and girth and weight measurements for their logbooks and all the other people hanging around. Doesn't it seem odd that for those involved in this cover up would then openly let Mr.Ramsell measure and weigh the fish. When some of them knew it wasn't really that large. For twently years Mr. Ramsell knew the fish measured 4 inches short and 9lbs light yet just last year openly declared it a record. I think it would be in our best interest if we let the Canadians worry about their records and we should worry about ours. |
|
| |
|
| JD,
Another swing and a miss. As an amateur photogrammetrist you showed your lack of understanding again. Your calculation of 41.143 as the apparent length of the yardstick is ok for the eight ft distance (I used seven ft in my calculation). Your statement that “this would cause the length of the fish to be understated by 5.143 inches” would be correct if the fish was one yardstick length long. However, the fish is 1.5 yardsticks long. That length understatement now increases to 7.714 inches (1.5x5.143). If the yardstick and the centerline of the fish are offset by 6 inches, the understatement of length is 3.857 inches (using my seven ft assumption, the understatement of length is 4.154 inches).
TCBETKA,
The photo of the casting with a ruler can be used to get a indication of the depth of the fish (approximately 10.75 inches). The photo of O’Brien with the fish shows the following:
(1) the fish is rotated between 45 and 60 degrees so that the belly of the fish is pointed toward the camera
(2) the ruler is in front of the right fin of the fish (this fin is hidden by the ruler)
(3) the distance between the top of the ruler and the tip of the lower jaw is approximately 8 inches (use the yardstick to measure this distance)
When the fish is hanging vertically, the center of gravity of the fish will be directly below the point where the rope is attached (see picture provided by KenK which shows a side view of the fish hanging vertically). It is clear from KenK’s picture that, when hanging vertically, there is a considerable offset between the belly of the fish and a line that passes through the rope attach point and is parallel to the gravity vector. It is clearly well over half the 10.75 inch depth of the body. This data suggests that the line used to measure the length of the fish can easily be 6 inches further from the camera than the yardstick.
|
|
| |
|
| TCBETKA,
Refresh my memory. Is this the same professional that used the length of a thumb hidden by a leather glove to calculate the length of a fish and claim an accuracy of 0.1 inches?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Guest...explain the measurement of the cast from the mold. Seems to support the photogrammetry very well.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I disagree with this, Mr. Guest.
All we are interested in here is imaginary line from the tip of the snout to the longest portion of the tail; which is the horizontal axis of the fish. This is exactly the same thing as the horizontal axis of an aircraft, which is the imaginary line from the tip of the aircraft's nose, to the very back of its tail. This is NOT influenced by the center of mass/gravity, and as such we couldn't care less about the center of mass of the fish either. An aircraft rolls about its horizontal axis, as does this fish when suspended as it is in those images. Because gravity holds both the ruler and the fish in relatively vertical orientations with respect to the ground, any such rotation of the fish simply does not effect its horizontal axis. So if horizontal axis of the ruler remains roughly parallel to the horizontal axis of the fish (thanks to gravity), then we're good to go. In other words, the rest of the fish simply doesn't matter.
Now, since the ruler appears to be about even with the tip of the lower jaw, then at the very least that end of the yardstick is in the correct plane. Thus the worst case scenario here is that the lower end of the ruler is slightly out of plane with the horizontal axis of the fish. Thus we would need to employ some trigonometry to determine this differential. However since the upper half of the yardstick does appear to be in the same plane as that imaginary line, and one of the premiere photogrammetrists in the world doesn't seem to be worried about it, then I would argue that the discrepancy simply wouldn't be as large as you are making it out to be.
Don't believe me? I don't really care--because Dan Mills evidently does, for the most part. Otherwise, he would have been forced to use some sort of scaling factor to account for the discrepancy between the planes of the yardstick and the fish. As it is however, he simply states a margin of error of +/- 1" to account for "perspective and the possibility of the fishes tail touching the ground." I don't know why he chose that degree of accuracy, but since he has undoubtedly forgotten more about photogrammetry than I'll ever know, I feel pretty comfortable accepting his margin of error.
So my point is that it really doesn't matter what the rest of the fish is doing. The fish can be rotated 45, 60 or even 90 degrees--and as long as the horizontal axis of the yardstick is very close to being parallel with the horizontal axis of the fish, then that yardstick can be used as an accurate measuring device in these photos. But the +/- 1" margin of error specified in this case still puts the length of the fish nowhere near the stated length of 58 inches, as Mr. Mills so nicely illustrates.
TB
EDIT: I was writing this post when Mr. Guest posted about the gloved thumb. I know nothing about this, so Mr. Guest will have to enlighten me in this area, please.
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 7:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
| JD - 4/8/2011 10:32 PM
I find it amazing that some people feel their opinion carries as much weight as a professional photogrammetrist.
None of this explains the mold measurement, but anyone notice......
- the photogrammetrist's first measurement falls well short of LR's actual measurement?
LR's measurement at 54 included the head a overlapping the neck (from the cut). Presumably it was frozen with a bit of a curve as well (unless perfectly straight)....yet he came up with 54.
Not 51. Not 52.
So the guy is not perfect. |
|
| |
|
| Guest (esoxarchaeologist)?,
Nobody ever claimed an accuracy of 0.1" from a thumb hidden by a glove. I recall + /- 3".
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I consider Larry Ramsell to be a very good friend of mine, and have the utmost respect for his body of work in the musky world. However although I find his measurement eight days after the fact to be most interesting, I don't necessarily feel that it is relevant in this case. What I mean is that Larry's measurement simply isn't needed to discredit the stated measurement (58") of this fish. It appears as though the photogrammetry is really all that is needed to disprove this stated length, and in one sense, Larry's measurement only introduces a potential confounding variable--the degree of head deformity imposed by the throat having been cut.
Don't get me wrong here--I do feel that Larry's inspection of the frozen fish is very valuable in the sense that he has a tremendous amount of handling large fish during his career. Therefore if his impression was that the fish is not consistent with it's stated size, then that definitely means a lot to me. However I think it's unfortunate that people are bringing up the issue of "degree of overlap" due to the throat being cut; when a simple analysis of the two images included in the WMA report should be more than adequate to show that significant concern exists as to the true length of the fish.
TB |
|
| |
|
| JD - 4/9/2011 8:20 AM
Guest (esoxarchaeologist)?,
Nobody ever claimed an accuracy of 0.1" from a thumb hidden by a glove. I recall + /- 3".
Nope - rook.
And claim was +/- 1".
|
|
| |
|
| Guest,
1940 Spray fish... + / - 3". Better do your homework. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Is this what you guys are talking about?
"The final lengths for each of the Muskies were found to be:
1940 Muskie length – 54.8” +/- 3”
1940 Muskie width – 9” +/- 1”
1949 Muskie length – 53.6” +/- 1.5”
1949 Muskie width – 8.7” +/- 0.5”
Obviously both fish fall well short of the 59-¼” X 32 ½” and 63 ½” X 31 ¼” claimed by
Mr. Spray. Though the length discrepancy is glaring, the claimed girth is equally
overstated - and just as troubling."
I don't see any 0.1" accuracy claims in there, but didn't peruse the entire Spray report. Maybe Mr. Guest can cite the page number for us?
TB |
|
| |
|
| JD - 4/9/2011 8:42 AM
Guest,
1940 Spray fish... + / - 3". Better do your homework.
Talking about O'Brien fish.
|
|
| |
|
| Guest,
How does a thumb being hidden by a glove relate to the O'Brien fish? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/9/2011 7:29 AM
TCBETKA,
Refresh my memory. Is this the same professional that used the length of a thumb hidden by a leather glove to calculate the length of a fish and claim an accuracy of 0.1 inches??
Please cite the source where this degree of accuracy is claimed. I cannot find any reference whatsoever to a gloved thumb/hand in the O'Brien report, or to a 0.1" degree of accuracy. Please stop being evasive with your answers.
Notwithstanding your unwillingness to use your real name in this thread, any remaining credibility you have in this discussion is fading fast. So please either cite your source on this reported degree of accuracy, or retract your statement.
TB |
|
| |
