|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I'll say this...a 8-9 pound weight loss after 1 week in a freezer is IMPOSSIBLE!!
Can't happen. '
This is a fact. It takes a MUCH longer time to 'dehydrate' a frozen fish than 8 days, and takes a freezer that's really running peak asnd an unwrapped fish...especially to the extent of this loss. I worked for a taxidermist receiving fish, freezing them, and delivering them to him for a few years, and I was curious enough to actually weigh a few before and after. A couple ounces, sure. Pounds? No.
'You are portraying yourself as an expert in this field with statements like "impossible"'
Esox65, you tend to be very argumentative and belligerent while going too far in challenging folks to the point of accusing and attacking, and this was one of your blandest posts.
Your trend has a red flag on your posts, almost all of which have been on this thread and the other covering this subject.
Doug is right on the skin mount issue unless the taxidermist did some augmenting. Shorter? No. I can't tell you how many tines a customer came in with a fish that was supposed to be a specific length, but when I measured it before writing up a ticket while it was still fresh found it to be shorter than the customer measure...odd, huh? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | So you're saying that it is your understanding that the actual mount *is* 58" Steve?
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Good one, Tom...
I can say this..if it isn't, it never was. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom, LOL!! No apologies needed...  I'm glad we seem to be on the same side of the question here, eh? LOL!
I haven't been on the boards much until this issue either.
You are correct about "sublimation". As used in the freeze dry process it is the changing of a solid substance [ice] into a gasseous state without going through the liquid phase. Works very well but is not a "quick" process. It also requires a vacuum chamber to do it correctly. Dehydration can and does occur in freezers, of course, but is not really the same.
I actually did freeze dry in '83-'84 until I discarded it and went back to conventional taxidermy.
I admit to this whole "record book" thing being disappointing for me.......but I believe it is important to have a credible set of records.
I hope your recovery is going well...
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Steve...I believe it's possible to take a 54" fish and mount it w/o patching in pieces to reflect a 58" length without the average person picking up on the augmentation. That's why a mounted fish would have to be closely examined and not just taken as "gospel' if it measures 58".
It would not be "anatomically correct" but........58"
That's also why the dimensions of the C. Johnson mount would not really prove much to me ......unless it would measure 54" which it certainly does not. LOL!!
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/10/2011 8:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Agreed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Esox65 - 4/11/2011 1:44 PM
[...]
Nobody, nobody!!! Can say that beyond a shadow of a doubt, unless they have personally caught a 65 pound muskie...weighed it...hung it in the sun, stuffed it in a freezer and then re-weighed it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that as fact unless you have done that as a controlled experiment....my guess is there isn't a single person on this forum who has. [...]
Using that line of thinking, nobody has ever caught a 65# muskie, either. Until someone actually has, it is impossible to claim that one exists, or ever existed.
You don't have to be an expert to figure out that the fish in question was not 65#, all it takes is the ability to read and a wee bit of common sense. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Sorry, you're still blowin' smoke...
There was no "basement analysis". LOL!
Photogrammetry was done professionally, all scales used were certified accurate, mold was done by a professional museum taxidermist, cast from mold done by same taxidermist and Dr. Crossman examined stomach contents.
The results shown from above do not support the 65#, 58" original findings.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that somethin's fishy with this fishy....
BTW, I CAN say the weight loss is impossible......in fact, I did say it....so, don't believe me, that's fine with me.
If that fish "hung in the sun all day" as you say, the skin and fins would have been a dried out wrinkled mess. All the musky guys present would have let that happen, eh? Maybe they kept wetting it down to keep it from drying out? If so, I doubt if dehydration would have been a problem.
You're scenario's just don't make sense.
YOU can still believe in this fish and the others that have been discredited, fine with me.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/11/2011 2:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
| 65, so what you're saying is in order for someone to really prove this weight loss theory "impossible", somebody must first have a 65 lb musky to begin with even though none that size has ever been weighed before. Are you just arguing to argue?
I suppose several 30-35 lb muskys only losing mere ounces and NEVER losing anything close to#4 1/2 lbs would not satisfy you either? Give it a minute................. How's this, O'Brien currently has many solid indictable counts against it and you can't come up with a single reasonably valid explanation for even one of them.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Guys....the 9lb. weight loss by the O'Brien fish is a smidge more than 14% of total body weight.
Do your own experiment with your freezer. Go buy 20 lbs of ice. Put that in your freezer after reweighing if you like, to get an accurate weight.
After 8 days re weigh your ice.......see if it has lost 2.8lbs which is 14% of 20 lbs .
If it did lose 2.8 lbs, then in 7 weeks it should disappear from your freezer.
Has anyone had ice in their freezer more than 7 weeks without it disappearing?
So at 14% weight loss per week, O'Briens fish would be a "fish chip" in 4 weeks LOL!!
Edited by fins355 4/11/2011 2:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Something IMO that is important hasn't been discussed yet. I'm talkin' about the girth.
Let''s say the fish was only 54". Larry said it weighed 56 lbs out of the freezer. The pics of it fresh and the pic out of the freezer are markedly different in girth. By the standard formula for a 54" fish to weigh in at 56 lbs. it would have to have a 29" girth. Larry's after freezing pic does not look anything close to a 29" girth.
Something happened to that fish between fresh and frozen and by Larry's own weighing it wasn't a garden hose.
|
|
| |
|
| I just don't see any way that fish could have weighed or measured what they said it did after reading the WMA website. I think the truth is always worth the effort, nice work guys! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | Ah yes, it's winter..
Attachments
----------------
 dead-horse.jpg (27KB - 341 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
| Muskiemetal - 1/17/2012 7:36 AM
Ah yes, it's winter..
It is? 60 degrees with lightning and thunderstorms here...no winter in sight this season... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Blizzard conditions here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
| sworrall - 1/17/2012 8:38 AM
Blizzard conditions here.
I'm BEYOND envious~!!!!!!
I want snow down here in the biggest and worst of ways. I'm one of those that likes Winter, LOTS of snow and good, thick, safe ice on the lakes....none of which we have... :shrug:
Carry on with the fish debate....
|
|
| |
|
| It's all ridiculous. There is no reason to believe that a fish that is accepted as a record fish by state authorities, was anything less than what it was revcorded as being. This goes whether the fish was caught in the Georgian Bay, St. Lawrence River or the Chippewa Flowage. I would give credit where credit is due unless the angler is proven to be a fraud by admission; or the admission of a verifying witness. People just don't care that much that they are going to lie as to whether a fish weighed 55 pounds or 65 pounds. How many of the pros out there today lie to the state authorities about what they catch? |
|
| |
|
| It IS ridiculous! Nobody ever admitted that the Spray and Johnson fish were frauds either so these records should also remain in place. It's a good thing that the principle weight witness of Art Lawton's former world record DID recant his original statement otherwise this fish would still be recognized as the world record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Metal...
G d'it!!
You Killed Kenny!!
Edited by VMS 1/17/2012 1:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Nothing going to happen the OMNR & OFHA say the record stands.....anyone wanting to dispute should not have waited over 20 years |
|
| |
|
| "Nothing going to happen the OMNR & OFHA say the record stands.....anyone wanting to dispute should not have waited over 20 years"
The thread is about what SHOULD happen with the O'Brien record, not what DID happen. Are you saying if fraud is discovered after going unnoticed for twenty years it's no longer a fraud? |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Ramsel held the fish 7 days after capture why did he not say somthing then. I personally know 3 people who were there I will accept their word. The skin mount on display at Muskie Mikes in Gan. does not look 58 inches but who knows what happens during that process, it's a lot bigger than my 54 inch |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell Did say something about the fish. He said he measured it at 54" and that it weighed about 56 lbs. on two different scales. Larry wasn't there to challenge the fish, he only wanted to see it for himself. If he had wanted to challenge the fish at that time he would have found that the mold/cast of the fish supported his length measurement.
Words don't mean much without supporting evidence. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 380
Location: Michigan | Richard Clark's latest catch is the largest release in recent times imoho. Had he thumped it or not, I think it is the fish to beat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| Chasin50 - 1/17/2012 7:00 PM
Richard Clark's latest catch is the largest release in recent times imoho. Had he thumped it or not, I think it is the fish to beat.
x2 |
|
| |
|
| What does Rich Clark's latest catch have to do with what should happen with the O'Brien record now?
Besides, how can Rich Clark's recent catch be the fish to beat when it's true size is unknown? What it comes down to now is who has the most impressive photo and this is very deceiving as it may be due to perspective. Consider that many people felt the recent 55" x 29" looked larger than Rich Clark's recent catch.
|
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 1/17/2012 3:08 PM
Ramsel held the fish 7 days after capture why did he not say somthing then. I personally know 3 people who were there I will accept their word.
You are just horsing around here right? If you look at the facts, it's just like the 3 people you know are telling you something is blk when you can see that it's white. Forget about the mold and Ramsell for a second and look at the picture of it hanging fresh on the day it was caught NEXT TO A RULER FOR GODS SAKE!
If they made it longer it's a pretty safe guess they could have made it weigh more too eh. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Bottom line the record stands .........CATCH A BIGGER ONE...... I kinda wish Sal had harvested the 55 X 29 |
|
| |
|
| No, the bottom line is the fish is bogus and now you are supporting THEM because they are your friends. To use your line of reasoning, why stop at O'Brian while we still need to beat Louie? You should tell your friends to come clean and admit their mistake, otherwise it will just be another nagging thing that dogs them for the rest of their lives. What's so hard about the telling the truth? |
|
| |
|
| "Bottom line the record stands .........CATCH A BIGGER ONE...... I kinda wish Sal had harvested the 55 X 29"
Why would you wish that Sal had harvested the 55" x 29" if you believe O'Brien's fish was truly as large as your friends say it was? Since when is a 55" x 29" larger than a 58" x 30.5"? |
|
| |
