|
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey Dan, did you read the WMA mission statement and what Jerry posted in the first post of this thread, or just say something uniformed off the top of your head?
|
|
| |
|
| Yes but I don't see how this nonsense helps the future of muskie fishing? |
|
| |
|
| I was not aware that is not part of the WRMA.
Re: the weight loss...You are only accounting for blood which it would have lost beofre the 65 lb weight. Our bodies are anywhere between 50-75 % water....how much of a fishes body is comprised of water?? Certainly 9 pounds worth of it.
Re: The measurement discrepancy...Really...WHO CARES. The world record is based on weight.... The fish weighed 65 pounds. Whether it was 50 inches or 70 inches is moot. It weighed 65 pounds, that is really all that matters...Isn' it?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nonsense to you, perhaps. Some people do care about where reality might be in how big these fish really get. Not interested? Then don't read it, and don't belittle muskie fanatics who actually do have the same interests as you and are and will be (if you don't drive them away with your comments) actually as active as you and are your ally. Just because conservation is necessary and important and a tough fight doesn't mean folks can't be very interested in other aspects of the sport.
Guest, if that fish weighed 65 pounds, then yes. There's the rub, I guess. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | It certainly doesn't look like a meter stick to me, judging by the pictures contained in the report; and Dan Mills states this in the report, as well. |
|
| |
|
| I realize people care, but at least the Obrien fish is in the realm of claimed weight. You can believe 65lbs and not look like an idiot. The other fish from WI/NY you cannot claim the same thing...BR |
|
| |
|
| tcbetka - 4/5/2011 8:30 PM
It certainly doesn't look like a meter stick to me, judging by the pictures contained in the report; and Dan Mills states this in the report, as well.
Really?? doen't "look like" a meter stick. Please post a picture of what a meter stick "should" look like.
As far as Dan Mills states in his report....Is Mr. Mills in possesion of said "odd" meter stick..has in been analized for accuracy??
Again WHO CARES about the length. It is not the determining factor in it being a record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Well said, Ben.
Guest, take a breather. Seriously.
'I started marking numbers up and down from #16 since that was a
clear one to identify and begin marking from . Using that, zero ended at the top of
the ruler and the bottom increment was 36. It is a yardstick.' |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | The O'Brien Summary Report is only nine pages total, except the contact information we submitted to the OFAH for verification purposes. After initially reviewing the evidence, we determined there was no reason to examine other photos, or question other witnesses. A professional identified it as a yardstick, and that same professional determined the max length of the hanging fresh fish. Unfortunately, the fish does not meet OFAH protocol regarding length verification, please reread that section of the report.
I think it's important for some of you to realize that Mr. Ramsell was obviously willing to give this fish every benefit of the doubt, exactly the same as he did with Spray and Johnson before we began compiling those reports. He has always answered every question, and we always had unfettered access to his library of information.
Frankly, I think we are lucky to have somebody like Larry who has spend his life documenting muskie history for us. I also think we are just as lucky to have had someone who was willing to drive 900 miles to get the "scoop" on O'Brien. I guarantee you that his only intention was to verify the fish, he obviously did not want to drop a bombshell some 20 years later. I personally know he finds the ridiculous state of the current records deeply upsetting... and this type of unpleasantness certainly gives me no satisfaction either. However, I am very proud of the reports and supremely confident we uncovered the truth with Spray, Johnson and O'Brien.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Funny Stuff - 4/5/2011 9:05 PM
tcbetka - 4/5/2011 8:30 PM
It certainly doesn't look like a meter stick to me, judging by the pictures contained in the report; and Dan Mills states this in the report, as well.
Really?? doen't "look like" a meter stick. Please post a picture of what a meter stick "should" look like.
As far as Dan Mills states in his report....Is Mr. Mills in possesion of said "odd" meter stick..has in been analized for accuracy??
Again WHO CARES about the length. It is not the determining factor in it being a record.
Well, a meter stick...is one meter long. As in 100 centimeters. As in, numbered from 1 to 100. As in not numbered 1 to 36. As in, NOT the same thing as is pictured in that image in the WMA report. (You'll note the image on page 3 of the report, with the angler holding a stick with 36 equally spaced numeric graduations marked on it.)
I'm not interested in this fish's weight, because I (personally) am not interested in whether or not it's a record. I just don't care. But what I *do* care about, is the process by which this judgment has been made. I'm interested in the technique(s) and method(s) used to determine that in fact this fish is in all likelihood, about four inches shorter than the reported length...obtained in front of an estimated 400 people. That's a lot of wool to pull.
So you ask who cares about the length? Well, I'll throw it back to you--who cares about the weight? All the analysis in the world isn't ever going to put the fish back on a certified scale, in a fresh state, ready to again be verified. However if the stated length of the fish is indeed debunked, then it doesn't take much inference to surmise that the weight could be off significantly as well. In other words, once the length is debunked--then everything of consequence about the fish is pretty much also suspect.
THAT, is why I'm so interested in the length.
Apparently, there are a few individuals belonging to an organization based in Illinois, who are also quite interested.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | I think one could argue that the fish was different and/or measured differently each of the three times mentioned in the report. The head of the fish as larry holds it frozen does not appear to have the head extended from it's separated throat.
The weight decrepancy cannot be explained.
It does now throw in some new interesting arguements. The hall has been using sworn affidavids as an excuse to keep the hayward records intact. Does this report now invalidate those arguements? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes Todd, that may be...but the WMA report makes conclusions based on a length calculated from an image of the (hanging) fish with a yardstick, held by the angler himself. Actually, there were TWO lengths calculated from TWO images of TWO views of the hanging fish, pictured with a yardstick. And these lengths were within about an inch of each other; both *less* than Larry Ramsell measured about 8 days later.
Also, the fact that these two calculated values were based upon a hanging fish, pretty much precludes error based upon incomplete extension of the head. Sir Isaac Newton has seen to that...
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Excellence posts Tom!
I think it is important to note that three completely different methods of the WMA length verification process all yielded startlingly similar results, each individual method effectively multiplied the reliability several times over.
Further, having someone of Larry's stature measure the fish at 54" (when he was expecting 58") is pretty telling too. Think about the logical thought process he would have went through when he first measured it at 54", yikes! He must have double-checked everything, and he certainly knew how to measure (and weigh) a fish accurately. Can you think of anyone else you would rather have verify a fish of this caliber?
On a lighter note, "You can believe 65lbs and not look like an idiot" was a great statement by Ben. The incredibly sad part for me is that this was truly a magnificent specimen, (certainly the largest of the big three) and we will never really know just how big it was. It will be interesting to see if the OFAH removes this record, and if so, under what pretense (length or weight). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Iowa | Jerry Newman - 4/5/2011 11:08 PM
we will never really know just how big it was.
Someday we all will find out, in a better place...
Matt Percival
Edited by Big Perc 4/5/2011 11:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Big Perc, I think we have already found out. Understandably many people are dissappointed and upset.
The photogrammetry obviously is very damaging. However, the mold which was made from the thawed fish at the Royal Ont. Museum is , IMHO, just as damaging, if not even more so. The cast from the mold clearly shows the fish to be considerably shorter than claimed. It is very close to impossible to mold a 58" inch muskie and have the cast measure inches less without taking a section out of the fish b4 molding. Even so, why would anyone want to do THAT?? Museums tend to be very concerned with accuracy. The cast appears to be very well done with proper anatomy. Just look at the pic of the cast sent by Kevin Hockley.....
The other issue is weight. A weight loss of 9 lbs. in a period of eight days while the fish is frozen is inexplicable from a natural occurence.
Aside from the photogrammetry and weight loss, which is enough to discredit the length and weight, the cast from the mold speaks volumes AND is still in existence.
Doug Petrousek
Edited by fins355 4/6/2011 8:35 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I like what Doug said, pictures like that don't lie and the mold is still around and that 9 pound weight loss cannot be explained as something that happens naturally when you freeze something. Getting mad and pointing fingers at Ramsell or WMA is the equivalent of getting mad at a cop when you get pulled over for speeding. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | So why is it OK to basicallly call all the eyewitnesses including the MNR liars but no one claims that maybe Larry Ramsell and his weights and measurments are false? Seems like he always has the agenda and wouldn't be past fudging numbers.
Edited by Obfuscate Musky 4/6/2011 9:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | After reading this thread three times, I thought I had better make a few comments. As is always the case with threads like this, it is upsetting to see the "snipers" come out and post anon...and almost always with incomplete information. After this post, I shall only respond to questions asked by those considerate enough to "ask" rather than "accuse" and sign their names. Anon's can go to, well you know.
First and foremost, I am not a member of the WRMA/WMA. I was briefly early on, but decided to drop out and keep my distance and see where it went. As Mr. Newman noted, I have always repsoned to WRMA questions and have always made my library of photos and information available to them.
I scratched down a few notes where I thought a reply was needed, but may have missed one or two...if so, ask (and sign) and I'll try and answer.
Muskellunged asked about "shrinkage". Having done a fair amount of checking, it is conclusive that "bones don't shrink". Other "stuff" might, but as Mr. Worrall pointed out, water and anything with water a part thereof "expands" when frozen a short time.
The question of the "measuring stick" has come up a few times...let me make it perfectly clear, the misconseption that it was a "Canadian meterstick" was MY error. I had mistakenly assumed that since it was deep into Canada, it would naturally be a "meterstick", since Canada is on the Metric system...as I and all of you learned just recently, the measuring stick was IN FACT, a US yardstick measuring 36 inches, not the 39.37 inches contained in a meterstick. That three and a third inches is about the amount of length "missing" when one factors the "plus" into the DCM maximum of 54.4 inches. Does this explain the discrepancy between affidavit length and actual length. I do not know. I do know that I measured the frozen fish at 54 inches and the molds confirm my measurement.
Yes, there were many credible people present that day in 1988. I have spoken to quite a few, including some closely involved in the process. Was there a "conspiracy" by a few or several as mentioned? I don't know, I had always thought it near impossible, but I did have a past Muskies Canada President (after the fact), who originally believed in the O'brien fish but hasn't for several years, tell me a few things after the report came out (with some editing):
"Well ,pictures dont tell a lie,
1) inflated and deflated stomach
2) Your weighing some weeks later (actually 8 days...LR) and 9 pounds difference (impossible for dehydration to occur)
3) XXXXX at XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX 'Knows the Truth' but is un-willing to speak about (it) due to reprisals and negative effects to his business
4) Certain MCI executives (at the time) determination to make The World Record Muskie " Canada's belonging" !!!!! Absolute BS
Said among many and MCI exec is not as credible or believable as some might make them to be (Personal experience)
The Law of 'Omerta' surrounding this fish is simply disappointing. Sadly dishonest people come and live everywhere and making such an impossible or improbable wight to attain is simply un-reasonable and defamatory to the sport."
WOW! Make up your own mind. Hope I didn't start a war.
In addition, one of the more important folks involved that day (who shall also remain nameless), when asked again recently, after the DCM O'brien photo analysis about this length discrepancy that he had originally confirmed to be 58 inches, became somewhat hostile and told the person asking the question (who shall also remain nameless) to "Leave it alone. It is what it is." You'll have to make up your own mind just what he meant, but he was an MCI Exec.!
As for the charge that I am "late", that too is incorrect. And again, I didin't do the investigation, the WRMA did. I have made these facts of length and weight discrepancy known right from the beginning...it is very apparent that those making these unfounded charges do not have complete information. In addition, it was me, that got the O'brien fish disqualified at one point several years ago due to what I thought was a discrepancy with the scale. I was in mistaken.
As has been pointed out, the WEIGHT is key in record determination of a world record, so let's approach that subject, which will no doubt keep this thread going for some time; Where did the NINE POUNDS (not eleven as one poster said...I weighed the fish at 56 pounds on two different scales, not 54) go? I have been tortured with that question since the day I weighed O'brien's fish (with his permission I might add before someone jumps on that). In my book I made an attempt to "justify" weight loss, but... At this point, I have NO DOUBT that 65 pounds weight registered on October 16, 1988 for the O'brien fish was accurate. What I am uncertain about, is if ALL OF THAT WEIGHT WAS LEGITIMATE. And so here goes another bag of snakes being opened...some questions to ponder;
1) Why did the fish go from "normal" to "bloated" and back to "normal" in that days sequence of photographs from J. Grisdale's dock, to G. Grisdales stairs, to G. Grisdales dock, in the photos taken that day?
2) What part, if any, did the "hose" in some of the photographs with the fish hanging, play? NOTE: I was told by an MCI Exec. that the "business end" of the hose was down at the dock, but in a re-review of the original photos, I found three that had the "business end" at the fish while hanging at the staircase, where the "bloated" photos occurred before and after the fish was weighed.
To answer Mr. Worrall's question about the throat being cut, that was done immediately after the fish was boated to kill it ("only way I knew" according to Mr. O'brien). In the original color photos, which I have, there is a pool of blood in the bottom of the boat. How much blood does a muskie contain? I don't know, but likely not too much. By the way, the muskies Heart is in the throat right where O'brein made his cut, so obviously the heart isn't too big.
As a bit of an aside, Mr. O'brien didn't really care or grasp the importance of his catch AND he did NOT even prepare the affidavits! In fact, he no longer even has the mount...it is on display in Gananocque, Ontario, away from where it was caught.
And NO, Mr. Tollefson (Ob. Muskie), I have NO "AGENDA" here or with any other historical record fish, other than the TRUTH!! But thanks for your lack of confidence, even though you don't even know me.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian for all of North America
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/6/2011 10:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Larry Ramsell - 4/6/2011 9:50 AM
And NO, Mr. Tollefson (OM), I have NO "AGENDA" here or with any other historical record fish, other that the TRUTH!! But thanks for your lack of confidence, even though you don't even know me.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian for all of North America
Obviously you lack confidence in the same way to the eyewitnesses and MNR officials that were there and verified it. Why should I trust you more than the MNR officials that were there? Do you know the eyewitnesses and the MNR officials that were there? If not, pot meet kettle.
Edited by Obfuscate Musky 4/6/2011 10:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | OM: If you knew even part of what I know, you too would now "lack confidence". I will say however, that I ascribe ONLY the witnessing of the weight to one of the MNR Officials. He witnessed what the scale "read". I have no idea whether or not he personally measured or witnessed the measuring. He did NOT sign the Affidavit. As for the other eyewitnesses to the Affidavit, YES, I do know them, as well as many of the other eyewitnesses that were there that day.
As an aside, I have pondered the question of the length discrepancy to one of the Scientists that viewed the fish at the Royal Ontario Museum where the first mold was made. I wondered why no one there noticed. I have recieved no response.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/6/2011 10:12 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Ramsell is entitled to his opinion, even though he once fought tooth and nail supporting the Spray as well as the Lawton and Malo fish. Up here most Canadians believe this fish to be the real deal. I know people who were there when this fish was caught and weighed as well as measured and they agreed with the original numbers. |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | Good work Mr Ramsell. Your dedication to find the truth no matter what the blow-back is, is admirable. Keep fighting the good fight! For every one of your detractors I'd venture a guess that twenty-five others who appreciate greatly your sacrifice to our sport! You exhaust every piece of information available and like any good sleuth remain objective and let the facts add up and then come to a conclusion. Your detractors are interested in something besides the truth, it appears. Thanks! Mike
Edited by muskellunged 4/6/2011 10:34 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Canadian Angler: My "opinion" is swayed and often changed by FACTS, particularily the science based report of the WMA with regards to the Spray and Johnson fish. In this case of the O'brien fish, you folks "up there" can choose to believe what you want, but you'll have a seriously hard time justifying O'brien's fish being 58 inches long when science and MOLDS prove otherwise, regardless what your "people who were there" say. Your only hope now is to make your case (using your name) for the 65 pound weight. That is yet to be settled to everyone's satisfaction, although the disappearance of almost 4 inches of length makes that case harder to make. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Rather than attacking the messenger, how about explaining the weight loss AND the mold that still exists.
This is no longer a matter of trusting eyewitnesses. It's a matter of FACTS that show the fish to be shorter AND lighter than claimed.
Believe what you like, but the FACTS remain and they discredit the fish
Doug Petrousek |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Just to clarify as well, the mounted fish is not at long as the claimed length? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Todd, as far as I know the mount has not been examined and is not part of the investigation.
The Cal Johnson fish sorta throws the credibility of a mount out the window.....
The MOLD is a "smoking gun".....with a red hot barrell!
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/6/2011 10:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I have a few questions for all those who claim this is some sort of witch hunt, or an attempt to simply discredit old records:
What makes you believe that? Take a look at who participates in the WMA. What possible benefit would there be to intentionally discredit legitimate records? I've been following this for some time, and the only intent I've seen from anyone is just strictly for verification. Nobody is trying to re-create history, just to represent it accurately. And in the process, there has been overwhelming evidence that the current records were falsified. Why hold fast to old bogus records? Wouldn't you rather accept that we are in the middle of the best muskie fishing era in recorded history?
|
|
| |
|
| People should also consider that one of the requirements for record acceptance by the O.F.A.H. is a photo of the fish with a ruler held alongside it with the ruler and the fish being the same distance from the camera. The results of the photo analysis should be all that's necessary to disqualify this fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Why would Casselman not make mention of the size descrepencies? |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Ramsell you made the remark about me not signing my name, yet in your first posting you mention several people who you refer to as nameless. If it is your intention to be credible do you not think it would only be logical to name these individuals. By doing that, you can then prove your point and support your theory. Anyone can say "This person said this or that person said that." I applaud your effort as long as it is sincere. |
|
| |
