|
|
Posts: 280
| Good answers.....LOL!!
No cigar.....you lose! LOL!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Actually your #2, if proven, is the ONLY explanation.
|
|
| |
|
| ManitouDan, was the person who took the picture with O'Brien and the woman also a member of the WMA? Come on man, open your eyes.
You do bring up a good point referencing all these big muskys that the stories (Actually the size of the fish) just didn't checked out on. For those not keeping up with it, it's in fact EVERY kept musky over #65 has now been debunked!
Rather than suspect some diabolical and sinister plot by the WMA or Ramsell, is it possible muskys just don't get that big? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | @ManitouDan...
So you're saying:
1) The taxidermist who made the cast made a significant mistake, or was just plain inept.
2) The taxidermist who made the cast was careless (or just plain stupid), and didn't take the time to verify that he was working with the correct fish. (How many other 58" fish do you think he was working with at the time, by the way?)
3) The taxidermist who made the cast was drunk for *days*, because although I've never made a cast of a large fish myself, my guess is that it takes more than a few hours (or a day) to get it completed. So apparently he wasn't sober enough to figure out he got a little thing like the SIZE wrong, at any time during this period?
4) I may be mistaken here, but I don't believe that the WRMA/WMA existed until the late 90s; or maybe after the year 2000. So it seems highly unlikely, unless you believe in time travel, that the taxidermist who made this cast had anything whatsoever to do with the WMA.
But other than that, these are some very interesting theories you have there sir.
Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2011 12:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I'd bet if you asked Larry, the researchers, and everyone in the WRMA/WMA they would ALL tell you that they wished the O'Brien fish (and all the others) held up to the scrutiny. It probably would have been much easier for everyone involved if all the results supported the records being accurate. I'd also venture to say that nobody involved was happy to find out that muskies really do not grow as big as we all like to think.
Fortunately we have people who are willing to put forth a great deal of time and effort to find out the truth as it pertains to the actual sizes of said fish. Considering the response from the believers, and the personal attacks that have followed? Would YOU be willing to stick your next out and disclose such information? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Last first: esoxcpr, you have hit it right on the head...I HATE the fact that so many record fish didn't "measure up" (no pun intended). I always gave them the benefit of the doubt for many years. What a can of snakes was opened in 1992! Now we apparently have no clue how big these durn fish can get, although not all muskies over 60 pounds have been debunked (see following).
"Guest" in responding to Manitou Dan wrote: "You do bring up a good point referencing all these big muskys that the stories (Actually the size of the fish) just didn't checked out on. For those not keeping up with it, it's in fact EVERY kept musky over #65 has now been debunked!"
LR: This is just not so...photogrammetry has never been done on Art Lawton's 69-15, nor Ruth Lawton's 68-5, nor Art's 65-13, which even John Dettloff, who is responsible for starting this entire "debunking mess", could find a problem with it. Could one of those three fish just possibly be our World Record? (This should start some more/new "fun"!).
Or, how about the two Eagle Lake fish???
Oh, forgot another of Manitou Dans questions...YES Dan, there have been many big fish I have written about that are still true! Your 20 years of reading must have been very selective.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/11/2011 3:52 PM
Attachments
----------------
 65-13 Art 1959.jpg (7KB - 643 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| Larry I didn't intend to harass you about your passionate love of muskies and of the history of the sport. Personally speaking it just gets old hearing how nearly every famous fish was a hoax or the anglers were such jackwagons they couldn't measure NOR weight a fish correctly . (or at worst just plain ol liars) It's like a high profile case that heads to jury and EXPERT lawyers swear to testimony that are polar opposites of one another. MD
Edited by ManitouDan 4/11/2011 3:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Manitou Dan wrote: "gotta love floating the idea that the Lawton fish just might legit LMAO ! if nothing else at least 1 reader finds this thread great entertainment."
LR: Tell me Dan, just what proof or evidence do you have that Lawton's fish wasn't "legit"? I think I made a pretty good case for it when I debunked Dettloff's "investigation" of Lawton's record and it can be read free on my web site. Have you read it?
Dispite the fact that the IGFA was hypocritical leaving the Lawton record in "set-aside" status due to photograph but leaving the Johnson record intact because they said determination couldn't be made from a photograph, the state of New York still recognizes the Lawton fish as do many anglers. What is the real truth? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | Larry's article on Art Lawton Disqualification.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/02.22.2006/1012/Did.Former...
Capt. Larry |
|
| |
|
| newbie to this history, so help me out here.....you (LR) think that OBrien (most documented/witnessed WR catch in history?) was a fraud, but Art and Ruth Lawton caught 3 fish north of 65??
|
|
| |
|
| How about SIX north of 60?  |
|
| |
|
| rook - 4/11/2011 7:28 PM
newbie to this history, so help me out here.....you (LR) think that OBrien (most documented/witnessed WR catch in history?) was a fraud, but Art and Ruth Lawton caught 3 fish north of 65??
I think he is saying that in his findings you can say the Obrien fish is not as large as claimed. Then he said there are still fish that have yet to be disqualified and why not give them the benefit of the doubt until they are also most likely disqualified. Just helping out a rook...BR |
|
| |
|
| Lawton's 69-15 HAS been disqualified and rightfully so. Why hasn't another thread been started about this? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There have been. Several, over the years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Thanks for that link Capt. Larry, but it isn't the whole story...which is available on my web site.
rook wrote: "newbie to this history, so help me out here.....you (LR) think that OBrien (most documented/witnessed WR catch in history?) was a fraud, but Art and Ruth Lawton caught 3 fish north of 65??"
LR: rook, I said no such thing re O'Brien, but the evidence makes it suspect. Re Lawtons, I merely said they haven't been disproven and no photogrammetry has been done on them.
Guest wrote: "How about SIX north of 60?"
LR: Same answer as above re the Lawton's.
BenR responded to rook: "I think he is saying that in his findings you can say the Obrien fish is not as large as claimed. Then he said there are still fish that have yet to be disqualified and why not give them the benefit of the doubt until they are also most likely disqualified. Just helping out a rook...BR"
LR: Ben, you almost have it correct...the O'Brien "Summary Report" is NOT mine. Re the Lawton's you may or may not be correct.
Guest wrote: "Lawton's 69-15 HAS been disqualified and rightfully so. Why hasn't another thread been started about this?"
LR: Guest, did you read what I posted above regarding that Lawton "disqualification"...hardly concrete and therefore, not "rightfully so." If you wish to start another thread, do so, but have enough balls to "own it" and sign your name (real one please).
sworrall wrote: "There have been. Several (threads), over the years.
-----
Steve Worrall
OutdoorsFIRST Media
www.outdoorsfirst.com
F7 wrote: "LR, When I or one of my buddies catch the WR in GB dont even bother to try and contact us. You will get nothing from us, not a thing, not a picture not ameasurement nothing, not even a call back.
LR: Bryan that is your choice, but you'd better give me your last name and the names of your buddies, so I don't bother you.
F7 continued: "What gives "YOU" the right to scrutinize, what gives "YOU" the right to discredit the people who were actually there at the time not 8 days later. What credibility do you have LR???? A license, a degree, a doctorate certificate.....must have something."
LR: For the umteenth time Bryan, I DIDN'T PREPARE THIS "O'BRIEN SUMMARY REPORT. I have discredited no one! I only provided MY findings and photographs to the WRMA. My "credibility" is one of a muskellunge historian of over 40 years and a journalist, sent there to get the story for Fishing Facts Magazine.
F7 rants on: "Really WHO are you??? What qualifications do you have?? Nothing Zilch. In my books you are a nothing, a nobody!"
LR: And anon. "Bryan" who are you really??? Obviously nothing more than an anon. sniper that is afraid to own his post and put his real name to it!!
Bryan finishes: "Eat your heart out boys the record is the Obrien Fish from GB and I got just as much credibilty to say that than LR who has waited 20 plus years to discredit."
LR: Could "possibly" be Bryan, but you and your buddies have some "serious" explaning to do to justify that comment...and for the last time, I haven't discredited anyone...the FACTS may have however.
Edit: I see by the time I finished this resonse, F7's post had been removed, and justifiyably so, but my skin is fairly thick and I didn't mind responding to someone that is obviously upset...albeit with the wrong person(s). It shall be up to Mr. Worrall whether or not he edits this post as well.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/11/2011 8:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | You know after 9 pages and dozens and dozens of posts, it just simply amazes me (and others) just how many seem to overlook the most obvious and also the most damaging thing in the WRMA report...THE MOLD! All the rest is merely secondary. Disprove the mold and the "bloat" in many of the photos and the O'Brien fish should remain atop the Canadian heap. To do otherwise is merely an exercise in futility and a venting of frustration, something I can identify with, regardless of what some of the posters here think of me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Geeezzz, Larry ... I hung my hat on that all along!
The mold and cast is the most damaging evidence IMHO....it's just like a finger print. This was a well done mold, anatomically correct, which corraborates all the other negative info.
WOW!! who's this F7 guy...?????
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/11/2011 9:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, I would agree. There seem to be a number of folks getting all worked up about a report that simply states the opinion of a group of people. It doesn't carry any "official" weight with any of the record-keeping bodies, who can simply ignore the information and leave the fish in the record books.
So I can't figure out why people get so irked at this stuff? If you don't like it, don't read it. Or, better yet, maybe try to understand the argument in an objective fashion, as presented by the people you don't agree with. Who knows--they just might be right! Of course, I can't imagine that a fisherman would ever exaggerate the size of a catch!?!?
Sort of reminds me of the line... "The stars might lie, but the numbers never do."
Prophetic, if you ask me.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2011 9:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| BenR,
You ask, why not give the Lawton fish the benefit of the doubt?
LR: "I always gave the fish the benefit of the doubt (wrong in hindsight) and in fact often attempted to "justify" record claims... ."
Should this same mistake be repeated?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guest": My comment you refer too pertained to ALL record class fish, SOME of which we now know are bogus and perhaps SOME were ok. All haven't been PROVEN to be bad! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry didn't undertake the investigation to gather evidence on the O'Brien fish, the WMA did. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Someone please explain the mold. |
|
| |
|
| LR: What a can of snakes was opened in 1992! Now we apparently have no clue how big these durn fish can get... .
We have a lot better idea of how big they can get now than we did before 1992. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Bill Hamblin, Larry's old Almanac partner showed up on MHM and he says he is in possession of a VHS tape of the fish hanging and Muskies Canada guys going over the fish. I wonder if anyone even knew that tape existed! That would be interesting to see!!
Edited by KenK 4/12/2011 2:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| esoxaddict......there are many ways to make a mold. However, I believe this mold was probably a 2 part mold made from molding plaster.
Basically the fish is thawed, cleaned and the body cavity may have to be filled with something to eleviate wrinkles and lack of muscle tension. Air may be injected into the cavity to fill out the void.
I'll try to keep it simple.
Step 1, position fish in a bedding material built up to the 1/2 point of the body. The pelvic and ventral fins are removed and molded separately. The caudal, dorsal and anal fin remain attached.
Step 2, pour initial splash coat of plaster on side of fish. This is a thin coat meant to pick up detail. After that has set up, a thicker reinforced layer of plaster is applied.
Step3, the fish is then turned over to mold the other side in much the same way.
Step4, after plaster has set hard, the 2 sides are separated and the plaster allowed to cure.
Step 5, After curing for maybe a week or 2 or more depending on temp and humidity the plaster mold is cleaned and prepared for the casting. Casting was probably done using a polester resin [fiberglass] which is poured and swished in the mold and allowed to cure. Each side is done with a coat of resin or two and the more is applied and the two halves are joined to set up hard.
When sufficient hardening time has elapsed, the plaster halves are separated and we have the cast [or blank] of the fish in the exact dimensions prior to molding.
There's a lot more to it but those are the basics.
Molds are used in forensic science and criminal investigations and in general science extensively.
When done properly they are about as good as a fingerprint, an EXACT duplicate of what was molded.
Kevin Hockley's mold appears to be very well done which one would expect from a museum taxidermist.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/12/2011 2:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Ken...it would be VERY interesting IF someone had video of the measuring and the weighing,eh?
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | That would be very interesting indeed! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Thanks, Doug!
So how is it possible for the end result to represent anything other than the exact length and girth of whatever (fish in this case) you made it out of? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Well EA, it's NOT possible for the end result to have a shorter length than what the fish actually was.
The girth is more variable because of what may or may not have been in the belly at one time  .
I don't see how the mold evidence can be overcome unless it can be proven that the mold was not of the O'Brien fish.
The skin mount could be studied but that is a little more "iffy".
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/12/2011 3:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ken:
I too have a copy of the video you mentioned, but it isn't much help re this situation. |
|
| |
