|
|
| Something I haven't seen anyone bring up......Does anyone really think these MNR/MCI guys would lie and stake their substantial reputations on this fish and then send it to the ROM to be studied by scientists?
Wouldn't one assume the scientists would weigh and measure it, and they'd be publicly embarrassed for a fish caught by someone they didn't even know?
If it was 54 inches (which i still find hard to believe) isn't it more likely that the fish was mis-measured (stretched temporarily after hanging for hrs) and lost some fluid from the cut throat?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | SV wrote: "Here is a pic of the fish still in the boat. Blood is from the slit throat. The girth is there even though no garden hose or even any water for that matter."
LR: SV, the photo didn't come thru, but since I have an original of it, it was easy for me to see that "most" of the liquid in the bottom of the boat is water. The girth, while impressive, simply does not match the vastly bloated photos of the fish hanging. In some photos it appears that the belly is nearly twice as wide as the back of the fish, but in the later photos it is back to the shape in this photo and the original dock photo. This continues to beg for explanation. Bones don't shrink, but skin does expand, hence the length loss confusion and the "bloat" and weight loss confusion.
Guest: The photogrammetry photos, with the yardstick, were taken after the fish had hung and was hanging AND the throat visibly cut and with about a 1 inch spread and it still came up nearly 4 inches short.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/17/2011 11:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 4/17/2011 11:11 AM
SV wrote: "Here is a pic of the fish still in the boat. Blood is from the slit throat. The girth is there even though no garden hose or even any water for that matter."
LR: SV, the photo didn't come thru, but since I have an original of it, it was easy for me to see that "most" of the liquid in the bottom of the boat is water. The girth, while impressive, simply does not match the vastly bloated photos of the fish hanging. In some photos it appears that the belly is nearly twice as wide as the back of the fish, but in the later photos it is back to the shape in this photo and the original dock photo. This continues to beg for explanation. Bones don't shrink, but skin does expand, hence the length loss confusion and the "bloat" and weight loss confusion.
Guest: The photogrammetry photos, with the yardstick, were taken after the fish had hung and was hanging AND the throat visibly cut and with about a 1 inch spread and it still came up nearly 4 inches short.
Larry - the photogrammetry photos came up short of your own measurements. I don't put any stock in them compared with the other stuff.
Also, if you are saying the girth in the photos (which you've had for 20 yrs) don't match up....why were you so sure a year ago that this was a legit fish?? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think that Mr. Mills did a fine job, actually. I put a lot of stock in them--especially in light of Larry's measurement, and then the mold of the fish.
The two photogrammetric measurements are pretty close to the 54" value that Larry got, when you consider the stated margin of accuracy. The first one was 52.3 +/- 1", but this picture had the fish at an oblique angle to the camera, making it much more difficult to see where the tail ended exactly. The second image shows the fish more clearly from a lateral view, and the end of the tail is more clearly defined. Thus the 53.4 +/- 1" measurement agrees more closely with Larry's 54" measurement.
Check out this picture I found on another site. I read that Mr. O'Brien was about 5'8" (68") tall, but I don't have any way to verify that other than hearsay. But when you see that both he and the fish are approximately in the same plane (at the edge of the steps), the discrepancy in their lengths appears quite significant.
TB
Attachments
----------------
 Obrien_hanging1.jpg (135KB - 820 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| I agree with your assessment of Mr. Mills body of work, every bit of it.I see Musky Hunter finally shut the O'Brien thread down when things got out of control.Imagine that?Thank goodness because Esoxarchaeologist was back attacking the work Mr. Mills did on Sprays 1940 record.Pathetic.I would like to see archaeologist put that picture of drunken Louie up here and try to convince us that fish was a even 40lbs let alone 60. He has posted here before and I would bet my boat he reads these.I double dare you!You might be able to go about your "attack the messenger theme" over there because those folks let that go and overlook the obvious.Nice job Mr. Mills! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Pathetic is right...
The only explanation for the mold is that the fish SHRUNK? Seems the taxidermists (who would KNOW) all say that's not possible.
The explanation for the 9lb weight loss is from loss of blood? It's not a cattle, it's a muskie. 9 pounds? Pick up a gallon of milk. YOU wouldn't lose that much blood if someone removed your head!
The people who were there would never lie? Of course not. Not musky anglers, they're the most honest bunch of folks out there!
And whenever anyone points any of that out, they say you can't tell the size of a fish from a picture, and therefore the photogrammetry is meaningless... It wasn't meaningless when the Lawton fish was DQ'ed. What changed???
And then we have a guy who is tossing around everything that was wrong with the Spray fish investigation.
All that nonsense aside... If ANYBODY out there had ANYTHING that could dispute the findings of the WMA, it would have been plastered all over every website and every magazine by now. They'd be shouting it from the rooftops instead of sitting here attacking everyone who is just trying to find out what the biggest muskie ever caught actually WAS.
Makes me wonder if maybe they just don't want to find out how bit they REALLY can get because they'd have to stop telling everyone how many 55"x30" fish they've had in their boat...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | It is interesting. Most of us believe Spray's, Johnson's and Lawton's fish to be short. They too had sworn affidavides. Did they all lie or maybe not closely witness the length and weight measuremts? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| They all lied! |
|
| |
|
| I just went over and reread that silly explanation on MH. The fish shrunk LMAO! I can just hear them scheming now yeah yeah CS we'll get Al to say it shrunk and then attack Mills credibility, that worked pretty good with Johnson they'll never figure out who is hehe. Its pretty funny how somebody researched "shrinking Al" and found he guided at John Deloffs Indian Trail Resort. If you think about it, probably the only desperate angle that they could argue in light of the WMA evidence against. They are pathetic! |
|
| |
|
| If they didn't closely witness (positively see) the length measurements and the weights they had no business signing the affidavits. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, I read that thread over there as well--and could certainly see why it got locked. This is one of the MAIN reasons I dislike records. That being said, I believe I know who you're talking about. I don't know Mr. AH, but I thought that one of the posts he wrote raised a couple good points.
As I've stated previously in this thread, I couldn't really care less if O'Brien's fish is the WR or not. I am simply not interested in the record. However I would have liked to have seen the WMA report include two things, both of which Mr. AH mentioned: First, I would have liked to have seen an independent evaluation of Mr. Mills' work. Not that I think he's wrong mind you, because I do not. But I knew it was only a matter of time before someone pointed out that there was no peer review, and criticized the WMA for it. Of course it is by no means too late to have this completed now, but the horse has gone over the dam on that one...if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors. I've done a (very) rudimentary check on Mr. Mills' size estimates, simply as a "sanity check" on the values--and indeed, they seem reasonable to me. But I'll be the first to admit that as a photogrammetrist, I make a good doctor.
But the second thing that I'm a bit uncomfortable with (as I've said several times) is that I simply cannot explain how all those people were there--yet the measurements (length and weight) still got messed up apparently. Whether this was done intentionally or accidentally, is not for me to decide. I will admit that I do not know the history of the events of that day, other than what I've pieced together from various sources on the Internet. However I would have liked to see the WMA's report include interviews with a few people who actually witnessed the measurement of the fish. Before someone points out that these people (included in the report) could have simply lied again...I realize that. However at the very least, it would have given the majority of the people who are not familiar with events of that day, a better idea of just how things went down after the catch. There's too much speculation and misunderstanding, and it only leads to more of the same.
All this being said, the pictures do not support the stated length of 58" in my humble opinion. I agree with the WMA report in that aspect. And while I have no interest in what fish is truly the World Record musky, my interest in this case is in finding the truth. People keep telling me how the musky industry isn't large enough to warrant much money for research to benefit the species. Well, no matter how large our sport is or isn't within the entire fishing industry, we'll never get anywhere unless we can demonstrate that we are taking steps to police ourselves. These WR fish debates are ugly, no doubt about it. And many people say that the WMA's continued effort(s) gives our sport a black eye. I respectfully disagree. I would argue that if anything, it shows that there are people within the sport who aren't afraid to go against the grain a bit, if it means that we can get to the truth.
Of course, anyone can feel free to disagree.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Shrank is right up there with pelvic fin drift!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Good post Tom, however, I don't think a peer review is really needed here. The rules of the OFAH state that the ruler must be along side the fish in the same plane.
If this was violated that's another problem withthe fish.
As far as interviewing witnesses I think that would only cause more problems since then it would be MORE of personal credibility attack which some people seem to object to.
Here's what we have;
#1...3 weighings on 3 different scales that have been shown to be accurate. One scale showed a 65lb. weight witnessed and viewed by we don't know how many and haven't heard from ANY. Two of those scales show the fish to weigh 56lbs. by LR after frozen for 8 days. A 9lb. discrepancy.
#2.A measurement submitted for record book taken lying flat on dock @ 58".
#3. A measurement 8 days later by LR while frozen showing 54"
#4. A measurement taken from a mold/cast made at the ROM showing a max 54" measurement.
#5. Photogrammetry showing fish to be no more than 54.4"
So, we have 2 of the 3 scales used showing the fish to be lighter than claimed.
We have 1 measurement [record book] by, was it Warren Wilkerson [?], or someone yet to be determined, who we haven't heard from, to claim the fish was 58"
We have 3 measurements by 3 independent parties to show the fish to be no more than 54.4". The mold by the ROM being the most accurate.
The 9lb. weight loss cannot be logically explained to be caused by any natural occuring event.
The 4" length loss cannot be expained.
The mold cannot be explained.
Why any of the witnesses have not come forward...cannot be explained.
The claimed record at 65lbs and 58" cannot be explained......
'cause it was never that big.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/18/2011 5:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | While I certainly agree that the fish appears less than the stated length, I think a number of your points are argumentative. At the very least, I would like to have seen additional steps taken to address objections that were sure to come. I mean, I support the conclusion that the fish wasn't 58"--yet I have these questions. What is to be expected from those who do NOT support the conclusion?
I am only stating my opinion, but I simply think that there could have been more effort in some areas: For instance, to provide a narrative of the events of the day. I believe I've heard about as many different theories for how the hose was involved, as I have for the Grassy Knoll conspiracy. What would it have hurt to lay it out? Who measured the fish to be 58" laying flat? Who signed the affadavits to certify these things?
My point is simply that the three-pronged attack of the WMA has left many questions unaddressed; and I think that's unfortunate, because I think they might have missed opportunities to dispel some of their criticism before it even gained momentum. Thus I think their work seems underwhelming to many folks, and that truly is unfortunate. There seem to me to be too many points left open to interpretation, when it comes to the "eye witnesses." That has bothered me from the start, and still bothers me.
But in the end, I guess it is what it is.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2011 6:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I guess I don't see which points are "argumentative".
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I don't think the points you mention Tom are the responsibility of the investigation.
Events of the day....who's gonna admit to augmenting???
Seems like anyone who was there....ain't talkin'!
Edited by fins355 4/18/2011 6:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| BTW, I think most/all of the "criticism" of the report has been pretty much "hot air" with no substance at all.
DougP |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom you ask what is to be expected from those who don't support the WMA conclusions.
I would expect a reasonable rebuttal to show the evidence to be in error.
We haven't had anything close to that!! NOTHING!! LOL!! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well I'm not an attorney, but for starters how about these:
1) We have 1 measurement [record book] by, was it Warren Wilkerson [?], or someone yet to be determined, who we haven't heard from, to claim the fish was 58"
2) The 9lb. weight loss cannot be logically explained to be caused by any natural occurring event.
3) The 4" length loss cannot be explained.
4) The mold cannot be explained.
5) Why any of the witnesses have not come forward...cannot be explained.
You are contending that, because these things have not been satisfactorily explained in support of the fish, they add up against the fish. However the lack of evidence doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.
Again, I do not believe the fish is of stated size. I've gone on record (several times) saying just that...and I truly believe it. But that is my personal opinion. However I am a scientist, and strive to look for all possibilities. The photo evidence is very problematic to those supporting the fish, in my opinion. And I happen to agree with several of your conclusions, argumentative or otherwise. But since I don't know enough about some of them to formulate an opinion, I would rather not speak out on those either way.
Look, I'm not trying to be difficult here--but I'm only suggesting that there could have been more done to discredit potential criticism *before* it even occurred. But as I mentioned many posts ago, the WMA published this report (in its brevity) knowing full well that it would be met with a higher level of scrutiny given the history of their previous reports. That tells me that they are very confident in their case, and that means something. I just think there could have been more included (as noted above) to paint the picture with a little more definition for the rest of us, is all.
But it is what it is.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2011 6:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI |
BTW, I think most/all of the "criticism" of the report has been pretty much "hot air" with no substance at all.
DougP
I would agree with this, for the most part. Except for a very few solid counterpoints, I haven't heard much other than speculation and supposition.
So I'll certainly give you this one.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2011 6:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom, I agree........except...LOL!!
I just think it would have been a real mess for the WMA to try and interview witnesses that may have been present that day. I wouldn't even know how they would begin to do that.
There was going to be a "loyal opposition" to the report. I think it was much better to do the investigation based on the salient points and let the rest sort itself out.
There are certain facts that just can't, or at least haven't, been explained to even consider a possibility of this fish being legit.
Although there is evidence in favor of the O'Brien record, the preponderance of the evidence discredits it, to a very large degree, IMO.
There is also evidence in the Lawton and the Spray and the Johnson and the Haver fish....etc., yet I believe those all to be bogus also.
To their shame, some of the record keepers have used very selective reasoning and choice in their removal of some of these fish from the record books.
Edited by fins355 4/18/2011 7:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Fair enough. I don't share the same opinion, but it matters very little at this point. The report has been published, and the dust is still settling. The court of public opinion is in session, and it remains to be seen what the final outcome will be...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Sadly, I think the records will remain the same.......the "informed" public opinion may see the fish as less than claimed.
I guess I was hoping for more from the "record keepers"......silly me!
Dougp |
|
| |
|
| So.....who signed the affidavit? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Seriously?
 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Not that easily explained.....I'm sure many of the "high profile" musky people that were present are very much aware of this site, the WMA report AND the discussion.
Many of the Canadian guides have already mentioned that they know people who were present. Tell me they haven't felt the neeed to contact any of them??
Seems we haven't heard from anyone....yet. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Absolutely they are aware of the controversy.
I was surfing for this issue over the weekend, and found a Canadian fishing forum site. As you might imagine, they discussed this fish a lot--in fact they discussed it a lot back in 2008 even. A more recent thread I saw also discussed the fact that there was a lot of discussion elsewhere on the Internet.
They know...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I had to do a little research about the witnesses and the measurement.
I went to Larry Ramsell's World Record Compendium Vol.1 on page 472, re: an interview with Warren Wilkinson.
Larry asks Warren; "The affadavit for the O'Brien's fish measurement is 58- inches. Was that a hanging measurement? "
Warren answers; "No, the total length was the length of the fish along the flat surface of the dock and was taken with a tape measure from the tip of the longest jaw to the tip of the tail."
Warren goes on to say that "WE also measured the girth at the same time at 30.5 inches."
So in saying WE, I would assume there was more than one person who witnessed the actual measuring. I don't know who they might be, but I think Warren may be able to tell us.
He also may be able to explain the discrepancy between HIS measurement and the cast from the mold ......maybe, maybe not.
Dougp
Edited by fins355 4/18/2011 9:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| For what my opinion is worth: (which ain't much)
What good are witnesses??? Unless they actually measured and weighed the fish themselves, or were close enough to either process to have actually seen the meaurements or the weight, simply being there and seeing the fish when it was caught doesn't mean a thing. Why would the WRMA interview people who had nothing more than their opinions to go on? That's not sound science, and that's not studying the evidence. That's just relying on the opinion of someone who saw the fish from a distance and is no more qualified to judge the length, girth, or weight than anyone else who just fishes for them.
I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that the people involved with the record keeping organizations probably wouldn't know a 65# muskie if it bit them on the ass. I suspect many of them have never fished for muskies, seen a muskie, caught a muskie or held one in their hands. So they're at the mercy of someone who says this or that fish was such and such a size and weight...
When you apply science and math to something like this, you have to trust the people whose JOB it is to make such calculations, because quite simply, they know a hell of a lot more than YOU.
It's like ANYTHING. The people who know, KNOW. The rest, no matter how hard they try to pretend, do NOT.
I trust that the folks involved in this investigation know more than the rest of us, buy the simple fact of who they are and what they have done.
Here's a question for those who are attempting to discredit the science, math, and the work of the WMA/WRMA:
How many muskies have you actually seen in real life, handled, weighed, measured, etc. that are 65#? None? What about 55#? Still none? How about 50#? LEGITIMATE 50# fish... Bueller??? Anybody who can raise their hand, and say they've actually been within 10 feet of more than one 50# muskie in your life, raise your hand!
If there actually IS anyone out there that meets those criteria...
What do YOU think about the O'Brien fish, based on what you have experienced??? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Actually, interviewing witnesses IS science. Science involves observation and reproducibility. Science involves searching for the truth, and if interviewing witnesses is what it takes, then that's what you do. The problem is in finding the people to talk to, and getting them to talk. If there are several (many, in this case) people involved, then this can get very time-intensive, and also very expensive. But eyewitness reports are indeed a form of evidence--as long as those reports are credible. The problem is that you have to talk to the witnesses to make that determination; to sort through just which observations are credible (and thus yield "reproducible" results), and which are not credible. Wouldn't you be interested in the observations of 50 people, for example, if 48 of them didn't actually see the fish weighed or measured but were simply told about it by the two that did see it? The only way you're going to know that though, is by talking to those 48 people.
TB |
|
| |
