Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... > Now viewing page 8 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> WMA O'Brien Summary Report |
| Message Subject: WMA O'Brien Summary Report | |||
Guest |
| ||
| I find it interesting that supporters of these bogus records try to make a point by questioning somebody's credentials like this instead of working at disproving the data. The case against O'Brien is about as cut and dried as it gets, unless you're in the camp of. 1. The DCN expert calculations are off. 2. There's some hanky-panky going on with the mold measurement. 3. Larry Ramsell didn't know what he was doing, or lied about what he found. 4. The above closely matching body of evidence showing it was 54" is just some freak coincidence. A trip to the Royal Ontario Museum with camera and tape measure in hand is all you really need. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Matt wrote: "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..." LR: Matt it is very obvious that you are unfamilar with that area and Mr. Grisdale. Little promotion is done and Mr. Grisdale, unless someone has provided him with one, still doesn't have a scale capable of weighing a fish of that caliber. His place is small and normally full, so promotion is unnessary. Matt continued: "You had the president from M.C. there to view the fish..." LR: Let's visit this "M.C. President" (Muskies Canada) thing. Again, I'm not going to name names, but if you wish to research it further, I'd guess you can find out...Yesterday I got another email from a PAST (after the fact) M.C. President. Here, edited, is part of what he has to say: XXXX XXXXXXXX (President of MCI) (at the time of the O'Brien catch...LR) was the one who exclaimed "the WR should be in Canada". Strong statement! More from Matt: ...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..." LR: Matt, you speak as if you "know" what the folks there, including the biologists, did or know/knew. What is YOUR source or proof? Matt continued: "...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..." LR: Matt you make assumptions that you have no knowledge of. Those there had no idea I would make the trip up there to check out the fish. I did so with the permission of Mr. O'Brien, after I had interviewed him on the phone. "Those involved" as you infer, had no idea or control at that point. Matt finishes: ...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." LR: And for all of that time, my findings had been made known...as far as "openly declared it a record", I merely went with the status at that time. I had no knowledge of the WRMA findings or that the mold photo existed. I had, as I have always done initially, given the benefit of "my" doubt to the fish...I always have wanted to believe and always will, but I will let the FACTS dictate the TRUTH! As is the case with the misguided IGFA and NFWFHF, the OFAH willl have to make up their own mind, but it is now apparent that something isn't right with the O'Brien Canadian record. All of this amatuer photogrammetry going on here isn't going to solve a thing, the MOLD doesn't lie, and remember, even O'Brien said the fish was shorter than 58 inches right after the catch!! Splain that... | ||
| JD |
| ||
| TB, Also consider what the "Guest" said about the yardstick. He claimed my results were only valid if the fish was 36" long. This isn't true. 36 / 7/8 (.875) = 41.143". This is the length the yardstick will appear regardless of what it is being compared to 12" behind it. The apparent length of the yardstick is what is being affected by being 12" closer to the camera. The ratio of the camera distances is what affects the perceived length of the yardstick. It has nothing to with the length of the fish. This guy is just trying to confuse everyone. | |||
| glen |
| ||
| The fish is hanging by its lower jaw with its throat cut. Experts are telling me the fish is 52"-53" long using that pic. Did they account for the cut throat???? | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| YES, it's stretched out even longer with a slit throat and belly full of water. Heck, you can pretty much just look at the pictures and see it's nowhere near 58". | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right... This isn't even "photogrammetry" really, it's basically just simple geometry. With respect to the two images that show a yardstick that is essentially in the same plane as a fish of a stated length, it's a very simple matter to use the ratio of the unknown length (fish) to the known (yardstick) length, and determine the maximum length that the fish could be. If part of the yardstick is farther away from the camera and part of it is closer to the camera, one can argue that it's probably just a wash--and at least get a basic idea of a *reasonable* value for the length of the fish. All we're really doing here (and all Dan Mills did) is to simply show that the fish could not have been 58" as reported, with any reasonable degree of certainty. Again, this is a basic test of "reasonability," and it sure doesn't look like this fish can pass muster in that regards. TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
TCBETKA, | |||
| fins355 |
| ||
Posts: 280 | All this is very interesting.......but, I'll just go with the dimensions shown on the existing cast from the Kevin Hockley mold. Pretty much destroys the 58" length. How are ya gonna discredit that????? DougP | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | ...and I'll just go with the two images of the fish, shown with yardsticks, that Dan Mills used to determine that 58" was not a *reasonable* value for this fish. I don't even care about the mold. And as I mentioned, Larry Ramsell's measurement, although certainly supportive to Mr. Mills' calculations, really isn't even necessary. I'll have to go back and look at the other picture that Guest mentions, because I haven't looked at it in that context. But I still don't feel that it's necessary to do anything other than use the two images I mentioned above. Given that the yardsticks shown in each image were truly 36" long, then I don't see any way that the fish could have been 58". It's pretty simple really, as has been repeatedly stated before. TB | ||
| JD |
| ||
| TB, What I was referring to was projective geometry and how far the yardstick would have to be in front of the fish in order for the fish to be understated by 5.143". The DCM results are 52.3" and 53.4". Obviously 5.143" added to either of these results would put the fish in the 58" range. However, I think everyone should agree that there's no possible way the yardstick is 12" in front of the fish in either photo and that's what would be required for the fish to be as long as claimed. Keep in mind this was with the camera being 7' from the yardstick and 8' from the fish. The yardstick then appears to be 41.143" in relationship to the length of the fish instead of 36" causing the 5.143" understatement. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/9/2011 11:14 AM TCBETKA, WARNING: Long response forthcoming... I think I see what you're getting at here Guest--but I think it's still irrelevant. If the center of mass of the fish is sufficiently off its horizontal axis, it might swing a bit--so as not to hang directly vertical. I would agree with this. However there are two things you need to consider: First, the center of mass is likely to be closer to the horizontal axis of the fish that you might think, because this axis is located ventral (towards the abdominal cavity) to the backbone. Hence there will be mass located dorsal to the horizontal axis as well--and thus the center of mass will not be far enough from the horizontal axis to give enough of a moment arm to create that much of a discrepancy. Put more simply, the fish hangs more vertical than you think. The second point, and the more important of the two, is that as long as the horizontal axis of the ruler is still in the same plane as that of the fish, it shouldn't matter much *how* much the tail swings due to an off-axis center of mass. If the yardstick is held parallel to the long axis of the fish, then the yardstick is still a valid device on which to base the fish's length. So, looking at the first image of the fish with Mr. O'Brien, about the only thing that might be a bit off (given your argument) is the distance from the plane of the rule to the plane of the fish's horizontal axis. But as I mentioned before, since the tip of the rule is very close to the lower jaw of the fish, this is really only off near the tail of the fish. Thus I do not believe that the degree of parallelism seen between the axes of the yardstick and the fish deviates excessively between the upper end (at the jaw) and the lower end of the "extended" yardstick, where it would be if it was long enough to extend the entire length of the fish. And from that picture (since it is only 2D) we simply cannot say that there is significant enough deviation between those two axes to matter whatsoever--and Dan Mills obviously did not feel there was, because he does not employ any scaling factor to correct for any such error. In fact, to properly account for any such (increasing) deviation as the ruler neared the caudal end of the fish, I would argue that one would actually have to integrate this distance, and then average it along the length of the fish, to achieve a scaling factor. This then could be used to determine how much of a differential there was between the *average* distances from the camera to the fish and the yardstick. But then you'd have to do the exact same thing for the yardstick, unless it was hung on a stationary support and allowed to hang perfectly vertical; only under the influence of gravity. While this is an interesting discussion however, I still do not see that there is going to be enough of a difference in the average distance along the fish's length, to change the perspective enough to account for the 4+" length error between the stated length of the fish, and Mr. Mills' calculated values. So I think his results are acceptable to cause the fish's reported length to fail the test of reasonableness. Furthermore, I think it's highly unlikely that you could ever come up with enough distance between the two axes to account for enough of a differential in perspective, to make the fish scale to 58". I just don't think it will happen. And by the way--for all you (or I) know, Ken O'Brien made a conscious effort to hold the yardstick parallel to the "slope" of the fish as it hung...thus making this whole discussion moot. Then enter Larry Ramsell and his 54" post-mortem measurement, and then throw in the cast made of the fish...and something smells a bit "fishy" around here. I vote for a length of approximately 54". TB | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8782 | So let me get this straight: 1. We have two pictures of the fish next to a yardstick that clearly show the fish to be around 54" at most 2. We have a mold of the actual fish that shows the same thing 3. The fish was actually weighed at 9 pounds less than the stated weight 4. Photographic analysis and all of the research done by the WMA show the fish to be significantly smaller than claimed 5. Larry Ramsell, independent of the WMA/WRMA, has uncovered evidence that shows similar results on his own On the other side we have: 1. People who claim the WMA is on a witch hunt to debunk legitimate records for the sole purpose of inflating their egos 2. People who claim Larry Ramsell's research shouldn't matter because, lacking a degree in "fish size determination" he's not an "expert". (nevermind the fact that he's dedicated more years of is life to musky research than many of us have lived) 3. So and so who knows so-and-so who was there and would never lie or make a mistake, honest. 4. A few other people trying to baffle everyone with a lot of facts and figures and calculations, none of which can explain the photos OR the mold 5. The "just leave it alone" crowd, who tell us to just "believe", because they would be happy if the WR muskie was listed at 95 pounds, so nobody would ever be tempted to kill another one, anywhere, ever again. That about sum it up? | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Surprisingly, that about does it. And if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck... Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 1:14 PM | ||
| JD |
| ||
| Guest, Why are you playing games? The length of the yardstick is the only thing known in the photo and it's 36" length will appear to be 41.143" in relationship to the image of the fish if it is 12" in front of it. And why are you using the smaller of the two measurements? Dan Mills clearly states that 53.4" best represents the length of the fish. He also never said that the yardstick was EXACTLY the same distance from the camera as the fish. | |||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8782 | tcbetka - 4/9/2011 1:11 PM Surprisingly, that about does it. And if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck... I am guessing that this will be the last post on this topic before it gets locked down. I believe this video is oddly relevant. http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/the-meaning-of-life/ff7da06c... | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I see what he's trying to say JD. He's saying that the big belly swings the fish far enough from the plane of the yardstick, that there might be a resultant discrepancy in perspective enough to account for the 4+" length differential. That would be pretty tough when only the bottom half of the fish (below the center of mass) swings out to any degree; and it's only gravity accounting for the swing. Needless to say, I disagree with his theory. EDIT: Interesting duck video. It is "odd"...I'll give you that. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 1:37 PM | ||
| JD |
| ||
| TB, I see what he's trying to say too and I also totally disagree with his theory. What I find interesting is that he avoids any discussion about the length of the mold of O'Brien's fish made by Kevin Hockley at the ROM. As Doug P. has pointed out, a cast made from the mold of the fish itself is like a fingerprint and a 58" fish (cast) is not going to become 54" unless someone removed a section from it. He also writes off Larry's 54" measurement that is confirmed by both the DCM results and the length of the cast made from the original mold. He also hasn't mentioned the 9 lb. weight loss that everyone knows isn't natural. I think this guy just enjoys irritating people. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | You're probably right on all accounts. I don't mind exerting a little effort to debunk arguments like that either though, because it never hurts to explore (and exhaust) all possibilities. When you exhaust all other possibilities, then whatever is left (however improbable) becomes the best explanation. But it never hurts to hear all of your opposition. In this case the best explanation is likely the fact that this fish, although witnessed by a lot of people, is probably not as large as it was once made out to be. TB | ||
| Matt Schiller |
| ||
| It is sad when someone puts out an open and honest counterpoint without being insulting only to find out it has been deleted. This forum loses credibility when you have to fight Larry's battles for him. I urge you to put up my posting and let him answer it for everyone to see. Matt | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You need to push your chair back and argue your points without the personal vitriol. We don't, never have, and never will allow personal insult and infighting here, and offer absolutely no apology. We openly encourage open and reasonable debate ----while ensuring here will BE no 'battles' or train wreck fights to distract from the real issues. If you want to rumble with Mr. Ramsell, use your email. The credibility of OutdoorsFIRST as a publication has been based on forthright and reasonable exchange for a decade, and that's why this discussion is taking place on MuskieFIRST. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
TCBETKA, | |||
| JD |
| ||
| Guest, Obviously the 52.3" result means the yardstick is further in front of the vertical plane of the fish than the 53.4" result meaning it could be tossed out. However, a difference of only 1.1" is quite minor and does show consistency. 53.4" calculations: Yardstick 12" in front (41.14" / 67.42% = 61.02"), yardstick 6" in front (38.4" / 67.42% = 56.96"). From this I can understand your position. However, I feel the other evidence dismisses the possiblity of any of this actually taking place. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | EDIT: This is for Guest Actually, I did not miss your point...and I disagree with you on BOTH accounts. First, since the fish is normally horizontal in the water, it's horizontal axis, by convention, would run the longest distance of its body. This is from a two-dimensional X-Y coordinate system, where the X-direction is labeled horizontal. Maybe the term "longitudinal axis" would be more descriptive, but those two names (horizontal and longitudinal) are commonly used interchangeably in a two dimensional coordinate system. And since we don't typically consider yaw movements in fish, I took a liberty. But with that said, in respect to a hanging fish it is the longitudinal/horizontal axis that points upwards--just as the longitudinal axis of an aircraft points up and down (vertical) when it is going straight up or down. In other words, the direction that the body is traveling or oriented at a given instant has no bearing on the nomenclature of its axes. So I disagree with your assessment that this should be called the "vertical axis" of the fish. By convention, that is incorrect. (If you prefer, we can use "craniocaudal," "rostrocaudal" or "anterioposterior" to describe the longitudinal/horizontal axis, and "dorsoventral" to describe the axis oriented 90 degrees to that first axis. Technically speaking, these would all be correct...but I think you'll agree that they are a bit more cumbersome.) Now with respect to your comment about the fin in KenK's photo...no, I believe I got your point. But you need to consider the PLANE that the fish's rostrocaudal axis lies in. The axis can be thought of as being only a pinpoint in diameter, running the entire length of the fish from the longest point of its snout, through it's tail. And the fish can be rotated around it in any orientation--just as an aircraft can be rotated about its anteroposterior (longitudinal) axis in any orientation. But the longitudinal axis is the longitudinal axis, no matter how the fish (or the aircraft) is pointed. It's simply a pinpoint line that runs through the object from nose to tail. So in the case of a hanging fish, if the yardstick and the longitudinal axis of the fish are coplanar, and the two are sufficiently close together while the camera is at a much greater distance from either, relatively speaking, and perpendicular to the plane that the fish & ruler both lie in, then you can essentially consider the two (yardstick and fish) to be at the same distance from the camera. They don't even have to be parallel to be useful--as long as neither extends so far (relative to the distance from the camera to the plane they lie in) as to become nearer to or farther from the camera. So while there may be an issue with curvature of a fish's back that might confound a straight line measurement, you should be perfectly able to use a device of known length to determine the length of an unknown object such as this fish; providing they are coplanar and are sufficiently close together. It doesn't even have to be a ruler, as long at its length is known. It's a simple ratio! If they are *not* in the same plane, then you have to do some fancy photogrammetric science, and that's what guys like Dan Mills are for. Otherwise, any dipstick such as myself can easily figure this out with some simple geometry. Therefore my argument is that the rotation of the fish in the O'Brien picture simply doesn't matter. As long as the ruler is held roughly parallel to the fish and in the same plane as it's longitudinal axis, then you're golden. Measure away. I certainly hope this ends our little debate on this issue, because the horse is long-past dead on this one. You seem to be the only person remaining with any significant doubt that Dan Mills' calculations are valid. I think he's done an excellent job, and although I got different values (because I used images with lower resolutions) I can find no reason to doubt his results. So the last word is yours, good sir. TB...out! Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 5:44 PM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
TCBETKA, | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I understand what you are saying. It's a shame it took several pages to understand that you meant "direct scaling," as I am well aware of that term...lol. I apologize if I contributed to the confusion in that sense. I know I said my last post was my last with you on this, but since we got the misunderstanding resolved, I'll give it one last shot. If you look at the picture of the fish, it's rotated at about 45 degrees or so, towards the camera. Now look at the angler himself, and where on the fish he is holding the yardstick. He is NOT holding it at the front edge (nearest the camera) of the fish, nor does he appear to be holding it at the back edge (furthest from the camera) of the fish. Rather it looks as though he's holding it at about the midpoint (front edge to back edge) of the fish--which is about the approximate position of the longitudinal axis of the fish. So one could argue that even though the fish is indeed rotated, its longitudinal axis and the yardstick are still coplanar in a plane perpendicular to the camera's viewpoint. And since the two appear to be very close together with respect to the distance from the camera, I think it's safe to assume that you can simply use direct scaling to determine the "approximate" size of the fish (given the stated margin of error). At least that seems to be the assumption made by Mr. Mills as well, given that he didn't employ a scaling factor. So when you consider that the ruler and the fish's longitudinal axis are quite close to being in the same plane, the 1" margin of error seems very reasonable. Also remember something here that's VERY important--all you really have to do is determine (using this technique) that the stated length of 58" is not reasonable. Once you've established that, then the rest of the stated measurements on the fish are suspect--and the fish is essentially discredited. So even if the ruler and the fish's longitudinal axis are not perfectly coplanar and perpendicular to the camera, the differential looks to be quite small--small enough to yield results within the stated margin of error. Now you might not agree with my argument in the first paragraph above, and it is completely within your right to disagree. However when you consider the supporting evidence (Larry Ramsell's measurement of 54" and the length of the cast of the fish), I'd say Mr. Mills has done a fine job, and the evidence seems to support my argument more so than it does yours. Anyway, I should add in closing that I appreciate the opportunity to have debated this with you rationally, and I must say that I have been pleasantly surprised that you didn't resort to the typical "anonymous poster" BS. So thanks for that! Of course you can feel free to disagree, and (again) have the last word. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2011 8:11 PM | ||
| horsehunter |
| ||
Location: Eastern Ontario | Could a 54 inch fish tape 58 inches if laid on a dock and measured over the body in the same manner that the center line length of a boat will be much less than the measurement around the gunnel. The New Brunswick fish weighed 60 lbs at just under 51 inches. Is it correct tha LR weighed the fish using a bathroom scale. | ||
| JD |
| ||
| horsehunter, The person that measured the fish at 58" said the total length was the length of the fish along the flat surface of the dock and was taken with a tape measure from the tip of the longest jaw to the tip of the tail. The two scales Larry used to weigh the fish were determined to be accurate by Ontario Weights and Measures. | |||
| ManitouDan |
| ||
Posts: 567 | Hopefully not opening up any new can of worms because it's not my intention but has Mr Ramsell ever documented the capture of a historically large ski and found the story to be true ? everything he examines gets washed away from what I've witnessed (20 plus years does that make me an expert ?) lastly a jab at the scientific community who sets rules that are accepted as the gospel because their colleague's say so (see the entire global warming hoax) I see a bunch of that mentality on this discussion. Joe at State U studies this stuff it has to be true. MD | ||
| fins355 |
| ||
Posts: 280 | I would like someone to show me how a 58" muskie is professionally molded and cast and the cast measures 54" tops........is still in existence and anatomically accurate. Seems that no one wants to explain that..... DougP | ||
| ManitouDan |
| ||
Posts: 567 | 1) the cast was wrong 2) the cast was of a different fish 3) the taxidermist was hammered drunk 4) the taxidermist was a WMA member ? | ||
| Jump to page : < ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... > Now viewing page 8 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |