|
|
Posts: 444
| An eye witness is worthless IMO, how many dudes are serving 20 to life because of eye witness testimony only to be let free years later due to DNA...which I'm pretty sure DNA is some kind of fancy science stuff that trumps eye witness testimony...
one, two or thousands of people can be duped into believing something pretty easily...IMO |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 4/18/2011 9:17 PM
...SNIP
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
Very good point Doug...very good indeed. It would be very good to find out how many people actually did the measuring/weighing. The other thing that I unclear about is when the cast of the fish was made. Was this before it was frozen or after? Does it matter for the outcome? You'll know much more about that than I will.
But NOW you're talking like a Scientist!
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | thescottith - 4/19/2011 6:56 AM
An eye witness is worthless IMO, how many dudes are serving 20 to life because of eye witness testimony only to be let free years later due to DNA...which I'm pretty sure DNA is some kind of fancy science stuff that trumps eye witness testimony...
one, two or thousands of people can be duped into believing something pretty easily...IMO
I'm not saying that eye witness reports trump everything else--for just the reason you mentioned (they can be wrong). But they are certainly part of the investigatory process. If the witness is credible, the value of their testimony (which is based upon their observations) can be very significant indeed. Also, don't forget that witnesses can be discredited based upon the reports of *other* witnesses. What if you could show, through interviewing a bunch of witnesses, that there were a group of folks there that day that conspired to present this fish as something it wasn't--would you consider that to be worthwhile? I certainly would. I'm not at all saying that's what happened, because I simply don't know. But that's my point...you won't know, if you don't ask. How could you know? Any attempts to say "these witnesses were mistaken or lying" is purely argumentative. Prove it.
Just because someone presents himself as an "eye witness" to an event, doesn't automatically make him credible. If that person is shown to be misleading the process (either intentionally or unintentionally), then that's one more piece of evidence in the case.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom, I agree that interviewing the witnesses could be an interesting part of the investigation. I just think the logistics for the WMA would be [nearly] impossible.
After all is said and done it would still come down to the weight and the length discrepancies which can't be explained.
You asked; "The other thing that I unclear about is when the cast of the fish was made. Was this before it was frozen or after? Does it matter for the outcome? You'll know much more about that than I will. "
According to Larry's interview with Warren Wilkinson [WW] in his WR Compendium, Warren said;
"After most folks had left, Lloyd Thurston [LT]wrapped the fish and plsced it in George Grisdales freezer where it remained until you [LR] removed it 8 days later. After your visit, LT then took the fish to Dr. Crossman at the ROM in Toronto. Immediately after the catch, Paul Gasbarino removed a cleitherum bone and got it to Dr. Crossman as well for aging."
WW went on to say that the fish was taken to Dr. Crossman on We. the 24th, right after LR's visit to see the fish at Grisdale's resort.
In a letter to LR, DR Crossman said; "I removed the stomach contents from O'Brien's fish when we were preparing it for the model's we made here at the ROM. The mold for those models was made before the fish went too the taxidermist."
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Esox65.....you may be right in saying that some witnesses may have contacted the respective record keepers. Then again, maybe not.
As far as I know, even the record keepers have not acknowledged receipt of the O'Brien report although I have been told they have sent copies when the report came out.
Courtesy would require a reply to acknowledge receipt of the challenge I would think.
Opinions of the "resident experts" are, I agree, just opinions.
However, there are facts on the table that have NOT been adequately explained which are, by themselves, enough to discredit the reliability of the original info provided for record consideration, IMHO.
The O'Brien fish has been challenged with solid photo evidence of the fish and the mold. The record keepers need to respond to this challenge.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/19/2011 7:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ok, for those still interested, here is some more regarding three of the major witnesses, some of which is still unfolding.
On the Muskies Canada website/message board a member made a comment that Paul Gasbarino, Muskies Canada President at the time, was present when Ken O’Brien caught his claimed 65 pound by 58 inch muskie in October of 1988. Paul’s response:
“Frank is right! I WAS THERE! However, as this was not a Muskies Canada member who caught the fish, we deferred to others for the official weight, and length measurements. We DID measure the fish afterwards, and I removed the cleithrum bone. I believe my few pictures, before I ran out of film, are much better than any others that I have seen, particularly none with a yardstick being held up, which means absolutely nothing. The throat cutting was through cartiledge material, underneath the jaw, and there was zero blood-loss. Someone mentioned weighing on a bathroom scale, and that's what Larry Ramsell did. One of my photographs, with Ken O'Brien, will clearly indicate this, and is one of the reasons why a frozen O'Brien fish would appear shorter, as that throat section was inserted inside its' mouth, and the head bent over to make it fit in the freezer. When we measured the fish for our own interest, and to confirm the length and girth measurements, it was lying on the dock. The head and throat area were aligned as if it wasn't cut. Unfortunately, the person who photographed these measurements, as I was removing the bone, has passed away, and they are not available for comment. Although I think the overall discrediting process is totally unfair, there is nothing we can or should do about this, as it is really none of Muskies Canada business. It's too bad that the person who signed this affadavit now look like a deliberate exaggeration - and it was NOT!! If there was a dispute over the authenticity, it should have been done years ago, when the people who signed the affadavit were still alive!! We should NOT pursue this matter any further.
Paul (Gasbarino)”
LR: Interesting he so easily dismisses the yardstick! As for the head being bent over when I remeasured the fish, all one need do is look at my photo in the Summary Report., the lower jaw is in line with the fork of the tail and certainly isn’t hiding 4 inches of fish length!! And it didn't need to be "bent over" to fit into the freezer it was in. As for the photos of the “measurements”, I’d submit that although that “person” has passed away, the photos should still be extant. I’d also submit that it appears that he is trying to sweep it under the rug saying “…it is really none of Muskies Canada business.” As for …”the person who signed the affidavit, how about this comment I received regarding one of them in an ongoing email. It is referring to Toronto Star Outdoor Writer John Power and what he supposedly told the “X” person referred to (nameless for now, but a good friend of Power’s):
“I had a chat with XXXX this passed weekend. I talked to him about Obriens fish and how it was proven to be a lie....He chuckled and says. ' Powers told me it was a lie way back when'. Its funny how people hold things back without mention. He's known all along about it and never gave it a second thought…”
Lastly, I’d like to remind you what the person in my book, Warren Wilkinson (previously unnamed in my posts, but noted by DougP recently) when asked last winter by a friend of mine what he thought about the WRMA/DCM photo analysis re the yardstick. He became somewhat “hostile” and told my friend to “Leave it alone. It is what it is.” You can make up your own mind what he meant, but Warren is the one who claimed the 58 inch length measurement, the 30 ½ inch girth measurement AND is the one who PREPARED THE AFFIDAVITS FOR O’BRIEN!!!!!!
Now, does ANYONE have ANYTHING positive or affirmative to add on behalf of the O’Brien fish…so far there has only been supposition. It WAS a GIANT fish (I watched the video again yesterday), but it certainly doesn’t appear even there to be close to 58 inches long. The weight and girth I can’t speak to, but then the approximately 9 pound weight loss has yet to be satisfactorily explained.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/19/2011 7:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 4/19/2011 7:45 AM
Tom, I agree that interviewing the witnesses could be an interesting part of the investigation. I just think the logistics for the WMA would be [nearly] impossible.
After all is said and done it would still come down to the weight and the length discrepancies which can't be explained.
Agreed. It would be very difficult, and expensive. As I am not part of the organization, I have no idea of their financial means in this regards. Keep in mind that I meant no disrespect to them by stating that I would like to have seen other things included in their report. They know more about this than I do, because I just came into the mix a week or so ago. Thus I am only looking for as much fact as I can find on this matter.
You asked; "The other thing that I unclear about is when the cast of the fish was made. Was this before it was frozen or after? Does it matter for the outcome? You'll know much more about that than I will. "
According to Larry's interview with Warren Wilkinson [WW] in his WR Compendium, Warren said;
"After most folks had left, Lloyd Thurston [LT]wrapped the fish and plsced it in George Grisdales freezer where it remained until you [LR] removed it 8 days later. After your visit, LT then took the fish to Dr. Crossman at the ROM in Toronto. Immediately after the catch, Paul Gasbarino removed a cleitherum bone and got it to Dr. Crossman as well for aging."
WW went on to say that the fish was taken to Dr. Crossman on We. the 24th, right after LR's visit to see the fish at Grisdale's resort.
In a letter to LR, DR Crossman said; "I removed the stomach contents from O'Brien's fish when we were preparing it for the model's we made here at the ROM. The mold for those models was made before the fish went too the taxidermist."
DougP
Ah...thanks. For some reason, I have not been able to lay my hands on his books. I don't know where they are. I have two or three of them, but do you think I can find them right now? I cannot get around too well yet after surgery 12 days ago, so I haven't been able to go down to my basement and go through my entire library. So I appreciate your quoting those sections for me, as it helps a lot...and does refresh my memory. I'm sure I read those sections before, but it's been some time.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 65,
'Yep Seriously....this is a pretty good example or the ignorance I was referring to. '
Apparently, you have no sense of humor. And, I've already warned you about being rude and insulting. I won't offer that courtesy again.
You have absolutely no clue how large this community is. That is also obvious.
'Why would they care to come on here and rumble with the resident "experts" whose opinion's mean squat. '
There's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't and several that they might, especially if there is something definitive to offer that clearly defends and helps prove out the original claims of length and girth of this fish. And there would be no 'rumble' if these folks were, unlike you, reasonable and straightforward offering something of substance. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Larry Ramsell - 4/19/2011 7:57 AM
Ok, for those still interested, here is some more regarding three of the major witnesses, some of which is still unfolding.
....SNIP
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell,
Muskellunge Historian
VERY interesting stuff Larry. Very interesting indeed! Thank you for posting, as it helps me tremendously.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| WOW!!
This gets more and more incriminating...................
There is yet more to come... me thinks! LOL!!
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 4/19/2011 8:12 AM
...SNIP
There's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't and several that they might, unless they had something definitive to offer that clearly defends and helps prove out the original claims of length and girth of this fish. And there would be no 'rumble' if these folks were, unlike you, reasonable and straightforward offering something of substance.
Not to stick my nose in this, because that's not my intention. However I can tell you that in the two years I recently spent as VP Research for MI, I talked to MANY people on the phone or via email, from coast to coast of North America. I talked to people all across the range of the muskellunge. I cannot tell you how many times guys from Washington state, or eastern Canada would tell me they read my posts on MuskieFIRST, or other forums. People throughout the industry read these message boards, you can bet on it. I don't have to tell you Steve, as you know far better than I. But for anyone else reading this post, there are WAY more people paying attention to these threads than you might think. It isn't just a WI, MN, IL, MI thing at all.
Are there local boards for areas like Georgian Bay and the St. Lawrence river? Sure there are. But that doesn't mean that the same people don't keep tabs on what's going on here. The Internet is boundless, especially when it only takes a few milliseconds to access a website. Guys want to know what's going on throughout the industry, and this is one of the best places to find out.
TB |
|
| |
|
| I've been following this whole thing right from the start. I spoke with Mr.Ramsell earlier on in this forum. ( And disagreed with his findings at the time) After all has been said and done, as well as speaking to some MC members who have been around for a long time, what they had to say to me and taking into account the photos with the yardstick. I must sadly admit that something isn't quite right. I have seen the mount, though it was years ago, the girth is very large and the length hasn't been tampered with ( it doesn't look like the Johnson mount) but it is reasonable to believe this fish is 54inches long. Maybe it's time we all found something else to talk about. Musky fishing is supposed to be fun and bring anglers together. It would be best I believe if we all tried to remember that. No fish is worth this much aggravation. Just my 2 cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| CA, I'm glad you agrree that there are "issues" with the O'Brien fish.
I don't find this to be aggravating at all. I find it to be very interesting. I, and I'm sure many, many others, would like to know just how big these fish really get. I would like to have truth in the records.
I'm glad you follow this, just sorry you find it to be less than fun.
DougP |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Canadian angler, that pretty much echoes what Larry said. I noticed Jody Mills said "amen" over on MH, and if anyone should know, he should because he's right there in Woods Bay. I think the best way to put a permanent end to this would be if one of those witnesses recanted. There's not much doubt now who that should be, and him trying to sweep it under the rug is not going to make it go away. But an admission of some of the guilt allows for forgiveness, and that would allow an end to the petty squabbling once and for all. It would be pretty much like Len Hartman then IMHO, everyone has long ago forgiven him. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Sadly, I don't think any of this is going to go away until someone catches a fish that absolutely dwarfs everything that's been caught to date. Unfortunately, when that happens, there's only going to be one way to verify it, and that process starts with a tire iron. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Iam really confused and don't know what to think but either way it puts no money in or takes any out of my pocket.
I have talked to three of the witnesses and they say they know what they saw
Most of the MC guys had caught large 50"plus fish and knew what they were looking at
At some point it must have pulled a certified scale down to 65 lbs
I was pi$$ed off that it wasn't caught by someone targeting muskies as I'm shure were others
The picture beside the porch does not look to be 58 inches
The Toronto Star picture with the horizontal hold looks much bigger than my 54 inch fish (mine was skinny)
In this picture I could believe 65 lbs
Pictures of some of my 48 and 50 inch fish look bigger than my 54
Although I have never killed a musky that I know of I almost wish Dale McNair had kept his fish
Crossman had the fish in his possession and as a scientist and department head didnt question it
Musky season opens in 6 weeks and I can get back outside and off the winternet |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I believe it's entirely possible that some witnesses saw the certified scale read 65lbs. That isn't really the issue. The fish may have weighed 65lbs at some point....before it lost the bloated belly.
No one has refuted the mold/cast, the fingerprint....
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | For those who argue that they wouldn't submit a potential record fish if they caught it, that's your choice I guess. But it seems like success would depend upon the steps you take to document the fish.
With O'Brien's fish, there were people there with a video camera. All that would have had to have happened is for one of the tens (if not hundreds) of people there to say "why don't we videotape the certification process?" Voila, problem solved...it's on video. As long as the scale is certified and the ruler is true, then it's as plain as the nose on your face. We might argue whether or not the thing was filled with water to bolster its weight before certification--but that would be a GOOD problem to have now. At least we'd know that the length is as stated. We don't even have that now.
This isn't rocket science here folks. At some point, a conscious decision was made by someone who was present that day to submit the fish for WR consideration. That same someone should have made sure that the fish was beyond reproach. Cross the T's and dot the I's...twice. Ask one of your buddies: "What else could go wrong with this? What have I forgotten?" Shoot, ask two of them. What can it hurt?
They apparently didn't think to do this however, and thus here we are.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Doug, I think we could put everything else aside and have all the evidence we need just from the mold. No matter what anyone says or thinks or saw or did, the mold will tell you the true length and girth of the fish. Using that, it's just a matter of using the formulas to determine the approximate weight. If it comes within a reasonable margin of 65#? Fair enough. If it's closer to 55#? Well, it's still a giant fish, no doubt. But it's not a world record, and it never will be. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
The mold was made AFTER Larry weighed the fish at 56 lbs. The two scales Larry used to weigh the fish were confirmed to be accurate by Ontario Weights and Measures. There certainly isn't any need to use weight formulas on a fish that was already weighed. The length of the mold CONFIRMS the length of the fish to be far less than what was reported. The length being falsified on an affidavit is enough in itself to warrant disqualification. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think this one has matured. Not much left to say, so it will be moved to the research forum. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| That's cool Steve, but we haven't heard the last of this yet. LOL!!
There are still a couple shoes that are gonna drop.
Stay tuned guys....!!
EA, you're right saying that the mold is all we need. But as JD says there is really no need to use any formulas for an application for record book that was incorrect.....
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I think at the time weight was the only requirement for the Molson Big Fish Contest where the fish was orrigionally entered |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Well, somehow it made it to the O.F.A.H. Ontario Record Fish Registry where a correct measurement is required along with a pic with a ruler alongside the fish in the same plane......
The FWFHF & IGFA have similar requisites.
I don't think anyone cares much about the Molson contest.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/19/2011 4:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | OFHA grandfathered the old Molson records |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If there's more to talk over, then we'll leave the thread where it was... |
|
| |
|
| The fish was weighed on a certified scale at 65 #s. Whether it was 58,56 or 54" doesn't matter. To discredit this fish, you have to go after the scale and prove it wasn't cerified. You also have to go after the people that signed the weight affidavit and get some to recant. The water hose theory does not cut it. The girth looks just as "bloated" on the stairs as it does in the boat w/ the stupid gaff still in her face.
When you think about it, what makes more sense, a 58" - 65# or a 54" - 56#. I and some of you out there I'm sure have probably caught 54". Personally I have never had one heavier than the mid to upper fortys. 56# on a 54" fish is pretty hard to swallow.
I think the grey area in this ordeal is more who froze the fish, was it the O'brein fish that Larry reweighed and measured and was it the OBrien fish that ended up at the ROM. More room for doubt along that evidence trail than the trail you guys are following IMO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Thanks Steve.......
horsehunter.....do you know what year the OFAH took over the Molson records?
Edited by fins355 4/20/2011 7:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| SV.....actually, the length does matter if the record book application is shown to be innaccurate in measurement. The weight discrepancy over the 8 day period is incriminating and unexplained.
Your chain of custody theory is very weak at best. Warren Wilkinson explains that Lloyd Thurston wrapped the fish after it was displayed for 2-3 hrs. and placed it in George Grisdales freezer where it stayed until LR reweighed it 8 days later. After LR's visit , Thurston took the fish to Dr. Crossman at The ROM. It was NOT reweighed by Dr. Crossman [there is no indication of it being remeasured] but he did examine the stomach contents which contained 1or 2 bullheads and a lot of disarticulated bones.
Dr. Crossman seems to indicate that he was present when the mold was being made just after removing the stomach contents.
DougP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | Off topic, I would like to say that Steve Worrall without question created a world record forum. This has been a very interesting discussion, and I continue to visit to see whats next. |
|
| |
