|
|
| by the way, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that post has been deleted two times. Thanks for letting it stand. Seriously, Steve. Its appreciated.
The simple story is that the model is already made and available for use. Why don't you use it?
Or if you're not going to use it; meaning the WRMA or WMA or whatever iteration it is being called these days; then let someone one else use it. Geoffrey Cross is willing to let an independent third party use the model if the "rights" to the model are released. Perhaps, a buy-out?
As you know, the story has already been told; there is an entire group of photogrammetrists who simply disagree about the effectiveness of photomodeler and how it can be used in certain situations. That statement is not conjecture, it is fact.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm pretty sure very few people have a clue what you are talking about. Clear it up, please. |
|
| |
|
| Hey CS maybe I can clear this up in "three simple words"....save your usual song and dance. THREE WORLD RECORDS....LMAO! Everyone knows same likelihood him catching those records as Green Bay not watching the Super Bowl this Sunday. How about you just come clean and admit that 3 muskies in his day is closer to the truth, that's pretty generous because this includes the ones "KING LOU" shot off bridges. Give it up already, your king has no clothes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Ok,
You people who log on as Guest are really starting to tick me off !!! you need to man up and state your NAME ! Otherwise what you say means very little....... When someone with a Name has an opinion,..... that adds creditability to an issue ......
Quit hiding, and MAN UP........ Be creditable. State your name, man .
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Know what? Length still seems to be the issue when it is weight that counts. So, perhaps we should forget about ALL the photographic "solutions" that have been done and concentrate on that. Besides, Spray didn't "catch" ANY of his three records unless the poachers he got them from (the first one never was paid) tossed them to him!
Chew on that for awhile. |
|
| |
|
| If the measurements have been falsified on an affidavit the stated weight also becomes meaningless.
Chew on that for awhile. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Let's not muddy up the debate by attacking unregistered users. I think many of us know who they are anyway. This is great discussion and as long as the unregistered guests are civil does it matter? Imho if they did post their names it would sidetrack all discussion on the issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| Larry Ramsell - 2/3/2011 8:04 AM
Besides, Spray didn't "catch" ANY of his three records unless the poachers he got them from (the first one never was paid) tossed them to him!QUOTE]
Elaborate on that matter, Larry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS said: "If the measurements have been falsified on an affidavit the stated weight also becomes meaningless."
LR: So true CS, so that tosses all of Louies fish out and Johnson's too for that matter! Measurement falsified AND not even caught by the anglers...how blind is the NFWFHF re both Spray and Johnson and the IGFA re Johnson?
Jim: Simple elaboration; I talked to the poacher that provided Spray's first "record" fish (AS HAS DETTLOFF!) and his brother provided the second one. They weren't involved in the third, but knew who was. They were also involved in the taking of the Malo fish, so there goes that one too CS, sorry.
So, that leaves Lawton still at the top; fish caught; properly measured, weighed and witnessed and accepted by Field & Stream, the "original" establisher of that world record, dispite what Dettloff tried to conjur up to get rid of him to make way for king louie the liar...SAD part is that Dettloff KNOWS Spray's fish are bogus!!
As an aside, if you feel the need for some kind of world record, just stay at Dettloff's resort and he'll help you get it like he did in 2009 with the shared all-tackle and 20 pound line class record released tiger muskie. Even the folks that hang around Indian Trail said that fish was mid to upper 40 inch class, NOT the 53 inches submitted for record. John knew better, but heck, when it comes to publicity for Indian Trail, the Chippewa Flowage and Hayward, what's a few inches here and there? In fairness to the angler involved, many folks figured he just made an honest mistake in remeasuring the "rope" he used to obtain length since he had no measuring device with him. And where was Hall director Emmett Brown's head when he accepted the fish for record...no mistaking the size discrepancy when looking at the photograph, which appeared in the Hayward paper.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/3/2011 1:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Now we all know why Lawton's fish was disqualified by the NFWFHoF and why it was 'set aside' by the IGFA. Because LENGTH is just as important as weight and neither record keeper felt Lawton was honest about the length. They both felt the length was falsified on the affidavits. |
|
| |
|
| Just so you know, I'm in full agreement about the record tiger muskie release. That fish is nowhere near 53" and the NFWFHoF should be ashamed of themselves for accepting this fish as a 20 lb. line class record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: Your comment is purely conjecture and of course you cannot prove what you say. The TWO Lawton affidavits speak for themselves and one was prepared and witnessed by a Field & Stream representative. THAT sir is unrefutiated FACT. THe supposed third Dunn affidavit was prepared by Dettloff and said exactly what HE wanted it to say 35 years after the fact of Dunn's two affidavits done at the time of Lawtons Field & Stream entry. Dettloff showed no shame in his attempt to discredit Lawton for the glory of his "God" Spray! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Larry ... could you research your records and let us know how many days before/after groundhog's day this subject pulls you into the web forums? ...
i think you could set your watch to this argument each season |
|
| |
|
| Dettloff showed no shame in his attempt to discredit Lawton for the glory of his "God" Spray! i don't for one second think the Spray fish is legit. that said, i sometimes wonder who's more obsessed with it: Dettloff or Ramsell. you may not worship Spray but you visit his church more than most, Larry... |
|
| |
|
| I don't have to prove what I say, the record keepers have proven it for me. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | this argument is beyond a joke....anyone who has caught or been in the boat with a few low to mid 40 lb fish knows with 100% certainty the Spray fish was nowhere NEAR 69 lbs....I'm betting the 68 votes are a mix of people that have never been around 40 lb fish ...or part of the Hayward mafia! ;o)
Winternet. Luv it. Not. |
|
| |
|
| And that holds true for the Lawton fish as well. Who lied about more 60+ pounders? Lawton or Spray? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Dettloff . . . .because he has lied about all of them. Oh sorry did I spell his name wrong. 
Corey Meyer
Edited by muskymeyer 2/3/2011 3:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I think that sprays fish was not even close to being legit. However there is a pic of a musky caught by a net in butternut lake that could be way over 69 pounds. I think Spray wouldve tried to claim that fish but the pic was from the late 1800's. Looking at that pic is what makes me believe that the record could fall anytime.I have seen alot of pics and caught a few fish, but this fish makes them all look small. Maybe it had a giant gene disorder or something. Its amazing that nobody ever talks about that pic, knowing alot of you guys saw it. My two cents worth!!!! |
|
| |
|
| The lying was done by the anglers who supposedly caught the fish. No need to bring anyone else into this.
|
|
| |
|
| I think that sprays fish was not even close to being legit. However there is a pic of a musky caught by a net in butternut lake that could be way over 69 pounds. I think Spray wouldve tried to claim that fish but the pic was from the late 1800's. Looking at that pic is what makes me believe that the record could fall anytime.I have seen alot of pics and caught a few fish, but this fish makes them all look small. Maybe it had a giant gene disorder or something. Its amazing that nobody ever talks about that pic, knowing alot of you guys saw it. My two cents worth!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why not, Chris? Back awhile ago we challenged this guy the guy for what amounted to trying to profit from a complete fabrication (CFMS) and there seems to be a pattern there.
The very REASON the WR is now from Hayward is this guy's actions. How can you separate the actions of this guy from this debate? He's the very basis for the debate, plain and simple.
Not the first time some pretty 'broad' ( nice way to say stretching the truth) statements have been made to draw tourists to an area and a specific business, but this one messes with the World Record Muskie, which isn't and that makes some folks fairly angry. Now, that doesn't mean that any of the other standing or fallen records of the era are any better or worse, but the underlying story here isn't that one or the other was real, it's the motivation, actions, and clear conflict of interest involved in bringing the record back to Hayward. |
|
| |
|
| I completely agree with what you're saying about the CFMS. However, the reason a Hayward fish is the IGFA record is because they believe Johnson's fish is larger than O'Brien's or Lawton's. They removed the Lawton fish for the SAME reason the NFWFHoF did. The ONLY reason the IGFA doesn't recognize the Spray fish as being the largest of all is because it was shot during the landing process which is not acceptable by them for WR recognition. The Spray fish would be listed as the record by BOTH record keepers if it hadn't been shot during the landing process.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?'
No.
And a few folks disagree, quite a few agree.
And there you have it. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Do you feel Lawton's fish was as large as claimed? Yes, or no? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | 110 pounds....
Attachments
----------------
 110lb-musky.jpg (95KB - 597 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Sled: It varies with the severity of the winter, alignment of planets etc., so no set time frame. Besides, we're between muskie shows.
Sworral: VERY well stated. Had it not be for Dettloff's messing with records to clear the way for louie the liar, we wouldn't be having these discussions.
CS: Being shot is not the only IGFA rule that Spray's fish violated. The "claimed" six hooks he was using on his supposed sucker rig was a violation too, even though legal at the time, as was shooting, although since he didn't really catch the fish, that too was a moot point.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Personally, I do not.
the guy weighs 110 maybe... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | srugots4u - 2/3/2011 3:40 PM
I think that sprays fish was not even close to being legit. However there is a pic of a musky caught by a net in butternut lake that could be way over 69 pounds. I think Spray wouldve tried to claim that fish but the pic was from the late 1800's. Looking at that pic is what makes me believe that the record could fall anytime.I have seen alot of pics and caught a few fish, but this fish makes them all look small. Maybe it had a giant gene disorder or something. Its amazing that nobody ever talks about that pic, knowing alot of you guys saw it. My two cents worth!!!!
Where's the pic at? I like looking at old black and white musky pics.
Edited by bobtodd 2/3/2011 4:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Bobtodd: That "HOAX" was actually perpetrated in 1908. Fun stuff, but not so! |
|
| |
