|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I'm sorry... What are you contending?
Maybe he scratched out a note on the day the fish came in and put a quick signature to it--then signed the typed affidavit in a more "official" manner when the situation called for it. I do it all the time--sign my name 40-50 times daily in chicken scratch, but when I get an official document to sign I generally take my time to make it a bit neater. But it's still the same me, and I think you can see sufficient similarities between each signature to tell that it was probably the same guy who signed both.
I don't know what to say about Spray's wife being the notary who took witnessed his affidavit. But what is the significance? At some point, you have to take people at their word. We empower certain people in our society with special priveledges. The fact that Spray's wife was a notary public doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy to defraud the entire musky fishing world. In fact, Spray probably subjected himself to unnecessary ridicule by *having* his wife notarize those statements. Maybe there was no one else around? Who knows...
I am not criticizing you here--you are entitled to your opinion just as everyone else here is. But I am merely trying to point out that there may be a perfectly logical explanation for all of these issues. But it seems that many people are trying to polevault tick turds and blow things up into something they are not. I personally will await the WRMA's rebuttal (there's NO way we have heard the last of this) and try to continue sifting through the facts of the issue; then formulate my own opinion. But in reality it doesn't really matter much what any of us think--because none of us appear to be math professors or qualified "photographatologists" (I just made that up). So we are all just spectators at the tennis match and the FWFHF just returned service from the WRMA.
Wake me up when the ball hits the net...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Arlington Heights, IL | Monk,
I agree with your statement about seeing which science plays out. My problem was with how the Hall handle this protest. In my view the Hall was anything but unbiased. The hall was given a protest and instead of dealing with the protest, they went out and got experts who would corroborate the size of the fish. How many experts did they send their picture to and how many of those experts came back and said the fish was smaller then the stated length? We know for a fact that one expert they contacted thought the fish was quite smaller and it wasn't because the Hall made that information public. How many others were there? That right there shows that they had already made up their minds that the record would stand. Then we have the article published in a paper by a director of the Hall, who tries to discredit the protest report, in a public forum, all before the Hall had even finished their review of the protest submitted. How is that unbiased? You have another director with the Hall, who makes a statement, something to the tone that it wasn't a couple of local Hayward people who decided to disqualify the Lawton fish, but a Board of Governors made up of 40 some members, yet when it came to this protest, the Hall, lead by this same person, stated that the Board of Governors would not be involved in deciding this protest, but instead it would be a small group of local Hayward people. I'm no expert, I'm not stating one way or the other whether the Spray record is valid or not, what I'm saying is that the way the Hall handle this protest was extremely biased and that is a shame.
Jim Stella
Edited by Jim Stella 1/17/2006 7:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | To castmaster,
The Lawton fish was DQed when the family of Art lawton sent the Hall some pictures and on one of those pictures was a picture of the current WR and it was listed as 48+ pounds on the photogragh. It was then the Hall took steps to DQ it.
As for Len Hartman's fish, he asked that they be removed from the records.
Edited by muskie! nut 1/17/2006 7:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20218
Location: oswego, il | Why the kangaroo court then? Why then did the same body who voted to remove the lawton fish not vote on the spray fish?
Does a postal worker get fired for lying? Why will it now cost 1500 bucks to contest a record?
|
|
| |
|
| To Fishermuskie
The IGFA doesn't recognize the Spray fish as the record since it was shot. The WRMA report would probably mean nothing to them. The IGFA recognizes the Johnson fish as the record.
|
|
| |
|
| Jim,
As I stated on MH, bias or not... WRMA has to address the accruacy of "same plane, direct scaling". If their true goal is to identify the largest musky, this must be done.
Two studies, two results. I'm sure if put through the scientific grinder, one will fall out as the more accurate report. Based on what I have seen, the Hall seems to be the stronger argument. Ussually the simpler method stands up to scrutiny better, and thats what I'm seeing here. |
|
| |
|
| Question? How could the Hall have voted on this on Monday, printed all that stuff up and got it on their web site by 1 PM? My guess is that EBrown was not very forthcoming the Thursday night before when he said that they had not even voted yet.
And why didn't he just say the vote and press release would be Monday, (even though we know better) and closed to the public and certain media? Guess he had already called reporters before his statement on MHM too. Slippery stuff indeed! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | The arguments used in the Hall of Shames' retort to the WRMA that is used better science are ludicrous. It is comparing apples to oranges and saying look this is a tangerine. Makes no sense....just like their analysis. Why weren't the academics given the direct WRMA report so they could specifically outline the errors in it? Seems the experts at the Hall of Shame did that for us. If there truly is a scientist in here look at the background of those submitting reports about the length of Sprays' musky. You have a commercial group, DCM, who is actually in the business of making of living in the real world by their analysis of lengths, etc....versus university professors who generally have little, if any, real world experience. I say this knowing my wife may read it over my shoulder.....she being a university professor.....and I may be sleeping on the couch for a while.
You can ask anyone trained in a university setting.....doctors, dentists, scientists......you learn what the academicians teach you while you are in school and hope to heck when you get into the real world there is enough time to apply your knowledge practically before you go belly up. Nearly all the practical, day to day learning I got in dental school came from the real world dentists who volunteered on day a week, or so, to come in and make sure we didn't mess to many people up. Most times the university idealic world has little to do with real world applications.
So if you were going to stake your existence on an academics opinion or one who does this in the real world what would be your choice?? The Hall of Shame says all these assumptions were made? Huh....what are they? Of course they will agree certain assumptions can be agreed to if it fits into their analysis but otherwise it is "unscientific". What a bunch of hubris. I assume each of these PhD's have degrees in photographic analysis also....you kidding....they don't? (There is a reason it is PhD....we all know what BS is.....then we have MS...more of the same......and then Phd.....piled higher and deeper....;-)).
The Hall of Fame's report, obviously prepared after the Monday vote, was done in haste because it rambles and stumbles around with lots of trivial detail and provides NO ONE of credibility in the photography field who refutes what DCM reported. They don't even bother to really address Doug Petrousek's analysis (a Spray fish believer until this report) of the mounts....so obviously distorted. Yet, in the same breath, uses the mounts as proof that Spray's fish was as big as stated.....eh? (That's Canadian for "huh"....didn't want Thorpe to feel left out). If any professional organization answered a serious challenge in the fashion the Hall of Shame did they would be laughed out of existence. Unfortunately, it is just sad.
Is that you mocking us Louie.....laughter I hear......you go Louie...
I'm not going to wake up with a musky head in my bed am I?
Brian |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jim Stella & DocEsox,
You guys both raise some excellent points, no question about it.
I am a University-trained scientist who has learned the "real world" aspect in practice and smell what you are cooking Esox. And Jim made a great point about the possible number of PhD experts that came back to the FWFHF with a size in agreement to that hypothesized by the WRMA group--I agree that would be very interesting information. Because they didn't specifically mention it, the FWFHF does indeed leave themselves open to speculation for just that reason. But I wonder if they didn't think of that? You would like to assume that they *didn't* leave any such information out of their report, but the fact that they don't specifically mention it is unfortunate. As I said before, I think their report could have been written better, thus leaving fewer doubts on these issues--because if we have thought of these issues here, certainly someone at the FWFHF did as well...
But as far as I can tell (and from what others have said here), the FWFHF paper does raise some valid points regarding the invalid assumptions made by the WRMA group in doing their analysis.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/18/2006 6:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | All the arguments about the software and camera's perspective, etc. aside, let's compare some fish.
Here's one with a LEGIT 30" girth. Picture was from the deck of the boat and above the angler, not flarttering to the fish's size at all.
(LOUIE69-11600DPIFULLLENGTH_sm.jpg)
(newphoto_prof_gallian_assesses_sm.jpg)
(louwithmountoutside_sm.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 get-attachment.asp.jpg (138KB - 506 downloads)
LOUIE69-11600DPIFULLLENGTH_sm.jpg (40KB - 181 downloads)
newphoto_prof_gallian_assesses_sm.jpg (14KB - 215 downloads)
louwithmountoutside_sm.jpg (12KB - 160 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | WOW...that thing looks FAT! I disagree Steve--I think that picture is quite flattering to the fish's girth. Maybe it's the size of the angler, but that fish looks fat to me.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was getting at the fact the top of the fish is featured center in Ms. Strutz's photo. If the picture had featured the same angle as Louie's fish, I just can't believe that his fish's girth would be MORE. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I understand. Out of curiousity, how long was that fish?
I guess when you look at the pictures of Spray's fish (63.5 inches, 69.69 pounds) then Cal Johnson's fish (60.25 inches, 67.5 pounds) there isn't much of an apparent difference...at least to my eye. But there is a 3.25 inch difference in length which only accounts for an extra 2.19 pounds weight. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the whole girth vs. length issue can be misleading. And apparently (as the FWFHF report states) so can the technology inherent in the camera used to take the photos.
God help whoever who catches the next world record--and wants to release it! If you didn't have a video camera recording the whole event (and then some) you would NEVER convince anyone that it was a legitimate catch.
TB |
|
| |
|
| tecetka,
I would say, God help them even if they keep it.
Apparently, pictures, skin mounts, and sworn affidavit's aren't enough to convince people. It's pretty easy to find an 'expert' to do photographic analysis, propose taxidermy fraud, and attack the character of any witnesses.
It's not like there is an official way to score musky, like there is for deer or bear (with a drying period and an established method).
If I catch a 70 lber, I'm not going to even go thru the hassel. Cripes, you'd have to fly in the Pope for a blessing.
Even then there'd be a bunch of armchair experts casting doubts and analyzing the Pope's signature for discrepancies.
Who cares. All this effort is like having a movie hall of fame or the rock and roll hall of fame pick the best movie or song. Gimme a break. What a colossal waste of time. The WRMA is doing as much to promote musky fishing as what watergate did for politics. Drags it right down into the mud and makes everyone cynical.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | sworrall says "Here's one with a LEGIT 30" girth"
How do you know that is a fact when Patrica never measured the girth?
Not saying that I don't believe it, just want to know how you know when the girth was never measured? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| Every year, people catch fish bigger than Spray's fishes..bigger than any of his fish...and you know, they get shafted because one guys out of control, egotistical lies ruined it.
why hasnt anyone caught a 70 pounder to just put this to rest?? because there might not even be a 70 pound musky out there...who knows? maybe so..
More musky anglers are reaching/fishing world records waters than every before, and still they dont hit 70 pounds. Every year i see pics of fish bigger than Sprays. it absolutely BLOWS MY MIND his fishes still stand.
So, the people who truely are chasing the record might possibly going after a fish that doesnt exist. and when they do reach the mid 60 pound range...they cant keep it to put it in the record book...LIES LIES LIES.
Actually...just from a naked eye..i believe 90% of 12 year old children can tell the different from Spray's fish actually 60 pounders....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Keep in mind the 'records' and other large fish that were removed after an investigation by one of the Hall officials out east were 'duly sworn' and had witnesses to the sizes as well. There was alot of oneupsmanship and 'lore' happening back then. Tell me, honestly, do you really think Patricia's fish is smaller than Louie's? How about the other recent really big fish? None are supposed to be anywhere near 70# and certainly are not anywhere near 63".
Gerard, chiiilll, I was simply referring to information posted here when the fish was caught by 'A Blonde and Her Boat' herself. Here's the link.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22... |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I knew I had seen that picture before...thanks Steve. What a fantastic fish.
And that was a good one by "Release?" about having to fly the Pope in for a blessing on a world record musky! It certainly does not seem to me that the concepts of a "World Record" musky and "Catch, Photogragh & Release" are congruent. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are mutually exclusive in this day and age.
Though I do fully intend to see what it feels like to get a WR musky when I pull one out of Green Bay this fall (hey, it worked for Louie!). Nah...on second thought, I will probably just call it a 68 pounder and toss it back in!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/18/2006 3:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Release?, you have it completly and totally backward! It's the FWFHoF that is giving musky fishing a black eye, it's certainly not the WRMA!
The FWFHoF is wasting their members money and now, once again, forcing the WRMA to waste additional time and effort on a record that should have been taken down with the rest way back when, or all of them left alone like SWorrall said.
Everyone acts like the FWFHoF is the 500lb ape ruling the roost. I think it's the other way around, just look at the people on either side and read both reports, the FWFHoF has some major hurt coming their way soon.
My thinking is they just poked a stick at a caged 500 ape and should have checked the lock first because it's open and I'd bet most here can guess where that stick is going to end up! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
| Food for thought...I'm not intending to express pro or con for either side here. The hall's report show a control photo with some solid conversation surrounding the use of that control photo. Has anyone produced a control photo of someone of Louie's exact 5'11" height and build with a 63.5" 69# 11oz replica muskie hanging from a rope tied to an oar? If Louie's fish is legit, it should be possible to generate one of these control photos that duplicates near exactly the photos that are available. If the size of Louie's fish is exaggerated, then producing a similar photo should be difficult/impossible. We all know this photo shoot could produce a control photo that makes the fish seem much larger that the photos of Louie with his fish.
D² |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | You are right on...don't let people tell you any different.
I saw the same thing...though not as quickly as you did...Nice Find!!!
A professional should really look at this.
Attachments
----------------
BUSTED2.jpg (103KB - 166 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | For clarification--you are saying that those two signatures were not written by the same hand?
I might have missed it, but did the WRMA paper cite any purported inconsistencies in the signatures on the affidavits--or with the fact that Inez Spray was the notary? I didn't see it in there.
My money is on variations in the same person's signatures--not inconsistencies.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/18/2006 9:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | I think that is not Reinke's signature on both...it is not really like one is merely sloppier than the other...the actual writing movements seem really different...but I think it is DEFINITELY something that should be looked at...not by ametuers like us, obviously...
What do you guys think of these two photos? I scaled them according to the angler's height...
Attachments
----------------
DoofusLJ.jpg (160KB - 1436 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | If you caught a legitimate WR you would have nothing to worry about and be done confirming your catch to reporters within 6 hours provided you had a cellphone...
Well...assuming you do NOT take pictures of it behind a building and then forbid anyone to see it until the mount is done...
But who in their right mind would ever do THAT? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | IGotTheFeverBIG - 1/19/2006 12:10 AM
I think that is not Reinke's signature on both...it is not really like one is merely sloppier than the other...the actual writing movements seem really different...but I think it is DEFINITELY something that should be looked at...not by ametuers like us, obviously...
Great idea...handwriting expert to evaluate these signatures. That is probably forthcoming.
Good job on the picture editing by the way. But how did you know the far away from the fish the camera was in the Spray picture? It looks to me like the Spray fish is slightly farther away than the other fish. This obviously wouldn't affect the relative scaling between the angler and the fish though.
TB
|
|
| |
|
| Hey Fever,
Great job matching those two photo's. I find it fitting that J Dettloff would actually use this photo to prove their argument. That 51 incher looks to be as big or slightly larger than old chin whiskers. I would love to read Larry Ramsell's take on this whole business. I'm sure he has a story to tell. Larry, are you out there?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Wally:
Yes, I am out here and have been following the news reports and the threads on three different message boards. Hall did a great "controlled spin."
And YES, I DO have a story to tell, but it will have to wait awhile, while I put it together along with others, and it will include far more (including Lawton) than just the current Hall Report, which by the way, I am only about a 1/4 of the way through.
So far, I have seen several "holes" in that Hall report large enough to toss a basketball through. Fevers side by side photo's above (thanks to the Hall for the "control photo") pretty much says it all. "same plane, direct scaling" indeed!
I am glad that I disassociated myself from the Hall before they released that report!
Don't look for me back out here for awhile, got work to do, including getting the "fat lady" sitting in the dressing room another box of bon-bons. She hasn't even thought about warming up to sing yet. To quote Yogi, "It isn't over until its over!"
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
Make sure that Lady is good and fat before she sings! I can not believe that absolte arrogance of these magnificant shameless recort keepers. keep us posted. I'd also be interested in hearing from Brad L. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Ramsell,
Superb post, sir. |
|
| |
|
Location: Duluth, MN - Superior, WI | Thanks, IGotTheFeverBIG.
That is what I tried to do but I did not have a good photo editing software. Also if you look at the Post Office note, look at the “K” in muskie. I also think it is funny that the “T” is deferent from the Date and Witnessed to the length and girth. This makes me think that the length and girth was added after the fact form someone else.
And if you read the affidavit from most of the other it is just saying, “the largest muskellunge that he had ever seen.” How hard is that to get!!! If most anybody seen Ms. Stutz’s fish they would also think it was a record and most certain, “the largest muskellunge that he had ever seen.”
Like I sayed before I’m no expert on this but the writing is on the wall. If you were around Louie I just think you would need chest waders because the $hi# was deep.
You know what is sad. I named my dog after him. He had me believing at one time.
-Corey
Edited by ckarren 1/19/2006 11:21 AM
Attachments
----------------
fake2.jpg (151KB - 188 downloads)
|
|
| |
