|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | pepsiboy: My response was not with regard to the rules of the Modern Day Muskellunge World Record Program as O'brien's fish could not comply and therefore won't be considered. My video response was based on the fact that both record keeping organizations had sanctioned his fish and in fact IGFA listed it as the all-tackle record after Lawton was "set-aside". Now however, there appears to be a problem with it and I suspect the WRMA will make their findings known before spring. |
|
| |
|
| Put a fork in it already !!!
This whole thread has been hashed into mush.
If we get breaking news that some angler has caught a legitimate 70 pound muskellunge and it is vetted, weighed, sniffed over, photographed, videotaped, witnessed by the multitudes and goes down as the next irrefutable world record there will still be pillow biters out there who just can't stand it and will still gripe.
That will still prove to be a glorious day because once and for all MOST OF US WILL SHUT UP.
Oh ya, BTW... all those fish "I caught" were lies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry, I love one of your statements in this thread. You said if we ever have a 70 pounder it will be a freak. I totally agree. And that is what a world record should be. A Total freak. Not an average or above average Fish. It should be a total freak. Like the worlds fattest man, The worlds biggest dog, the worlds tallest human etc etc etc . The world record is out there. Its a total freak. Its a 61 to 65 pound Fish that is one 7 to 9 pound pike away from being over 70 pounds. Timing is everything and Luck is the determining factor. Skill will most likely not land this fish. Its a Late fall or early Spring fish when her fat content is at its peak and she is packing it on for the winter. She may or may not be egg laden but she will be freak of nature. Not an average or even above average fish. And I am sure she will be disputed by more than half of the known musky world no matter how much proof is provided. Now quit the bickering and go catch her. Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 2/7/2011 11:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
| LR..."My point of noting both Eagle Lake fish were F & S certified was merely to show that both underwent scrutiny and passed and, again, not even Dettloff has had any problem with them..."
Spray's fish was also F & S certified and underwent scrutiny which this poll indicates is meaningless. And since when has Dettloff's opinion become important to you? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS: Dettloff's opinion isn't important to me. I was just making the point that when he was on his crusade to eliminate most of histories top muskies, he never touched either of the Eagle Lake fish, even though Coleman's fish topped Louie's first record before the ink was dry. And again, no one has had any problem with Walden's fish but you. Why didn't you answer the rest of my questions?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CS,
The horse you have been beating is officially dead, and I bet Larry is wearying of the constant twisting around of the same questions. Enough already. And, watch your tone and remain at least borderline respectful of everyone else in the conversation, please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| sworrall - 2/5/2011 11:10 PM
Some folks may be recruiting to get the number of yes votes up, that's not unusual. [...].
Really??! That's something, but I'm not even sure what. And despite their efforts, 86% of us still believe the records were falsified. I think we've gone through enough reasons why, so here's a chance for the believers to chime in:
If you believe the spray and Johnson fish records are legitimate, WHY?
I've never seen anything that even made me raise an eyebrow and think for a moment that those fish were as big as claimed. So where's the proof? Where's the evidence? Where is the science behind it? |
|
| |
|
| It should also be noted that at the time Martin Williamson caught his fish measuring to the fork of the tail was NOT the accepted method. In fact, the size limit was increased to 54" (total length) shortly after he reported his fish as being 53.5". This is likely the reason why the 'fork length' story was started. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Your statement: "If you believe the spray and Johnson fish records are legitimate, WHY?"
Because they are F & S certified! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| CS - 2/7/2011 3:08 PM
esoxaddict,
Your statement: "If you believe the spray and Johnson fish records are legitimate, WHY?"
Because they are F & S certified!
So... despite #*^@ing information from a variety of credible sources, despite all the research by the WMRA and others, despite the fact that the biggest fish being caught today that are quite obviously larger than those "records", despite EVERYTHING that has transpired since then, the fact that they are "F&S certified" is enough to convince you? Even though the guides, resort owners, and even the biologists will tell you that they just don't get that big, and none in recent years have even come close to being that big...
Interesting.
Sooo... If a 100# Muskie was "F&S certified", would you believe THAT too? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | CS - 2/7/2011 3:08 PM
Because they are F & S certified!
lol...he must be just messing with people. |
|
| |
|
| LOL, Sprays record was shot down by their own experts!
The world record muskie controversy
Douglas N. Arnold, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics
and Director, Institute for Mathematics and its Applications
* Letter of 2/1/06 from Arnold, Gallian, and Goldfeld to Emmett Brown. (This letter calls for the creation of an independent panel to examine all the evidence. The Duluth News Tribune front page story reported on it on February 23, 2006 and put this question to their readers in the day's Quick Poll. After 48 hours and 242 votes, the results were 77% in favor.)
Background. According to the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame, the all tackle world record muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) was caught by Louis Spray on October 20, 1949. Recently the size of Spray's fish has been disputed and the record brought into question. More information can be found at the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame website and at the website of the World Record Muskie Alliance.
On November 28, 2005, Scott Allen of the Executive Board of Trustees of the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame contacted me. He sent several copies of a single photograph of Spray with the record-winning muskie and asked if it were possible mathematically to estimate the fishes height from the photo, given that Spray was 6' tall. He wrote: "We need someone of highly credible mathematics background (preferably a Dr. of Mathematics) to do the calculation of the length of the fish in the photo. We expect the entire process to take less than an hour. Unfortunately, we cannot offer any compensation accept a big thank-you in our monthly publication (called The Splash) distributed nationally to all of our members, and the media."
Here is my memo responding to the query. (The memo includes several diagrams and photos, shown in low resolution below. Click any image to see a higher resolution version.)
It is important to note that I was provided with only a single photo (and this photo did not contain any of the parallel lines that were critical to the analyses made by others using other photos).
Update. On January 16, 2006, the Hall of Fame announced that it was upholding the record. Three mathematicians were quoted in the Hall's report, Professor Joseph Gallian of University of Minnesota at Duluth, Professor Dorian Goldfeld of Columbia University, and me. We are all three concerned that the Hall did not fully understand the results of our analyses and also are all concerned by the manner in which the Hall chose to communicate with us. On February 1, 2006 we wrote this letter to Emmett Brown, the Executive Director of the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame, about this. We have not yet had a response from Mr. Brown or anyone else at the Hall. In the interest of furthering understanding of what mathematics has to contribute to the determination of the validity of this record, we are sharing our conclusions with all interested parties. Some key points from the letter are:
* There is no disagreement among Professors Gallian, Goldfeld and myself in this matter.
* None of us is willing to say, based on the limited information made available to us and the limited investigations we have made thus far, whether or not we believe the record is valid.
* The credibility of the results of our analyses depends not only on the mathematics, but also on the assumptions that we were asked to make, or chose to make and explicitly state.
* We believe that a much more definitive result can be obtained from the photos which are available.
* It is our recommendation that an independent group, including experts on mathematics and photogrammetry, be impaneled, supplied with the all known photos of the fish in original format, and allowed to pursue the evidence as they feel most justified.
Two other university professors were quoted in the Hall's decision: Bonnie Higgins of the Department of Technological Studies, Bemidji State University, and William F. Brown of the Department of Art at University of Evansville. After the letter was made public Professor Higgins wrote me, saying "I support your letter of February 1, 2006 to Emmett Brown, and, in particular, the recommendation than an independent group of experts be impaneled, provided with the full information available and allowed to pursue the evidence as they feel most justified," and Professor Brown wrote me that "n reading all the related materials I would agree to your thoughts of requesting another review from outside sources."
Last modified February 21, 2006 by Douglas N. Arnold, [email protected] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The NFWFHF's response exactly paralled that called upon by their experts in the Lawton examination; i.e., obtaining the use of outside photogrammetry experts to have the photos examined. Likewise the result was the same; The NFWFHF failed miserably by failing to heed the advise of their experts. In the Lawton case they chose to toss it out without further review and in the Spray case they chose to keep it in without further review...Think the FIX was in, in both cases? I certainly do! The NFWFHF is a disgrace to muskellunge record keeping. |
|
| |
|
| Here's another article that probably makes John Dettlof want to puke.
SIAM NEWS
Fish Story: Math Weighs In, Muskie Comes Up Short
July 6, 2006
Michelle Sipics
In 1949 a two-time record holder for muskie fishing caught another monster of a muskie: Put on the books as 63 and a half inches and 69 pounds, 11 ounces, the fish set another world record. It's doubtful that the angler, Louis Spray, could have predicted that his 1949 catch (nicknamed Charlie) would be at the center of a heated debate 57 years later.
What's most intriguing about the controversy over 57-years-dead Charlie and a fisherman who died in 1984 is that the director of the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications is right in the thick of it.
Late last year, IMA director Douglas Arnold was contacted by Scott Allen of the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame, which oversees many world records, including those held by Spray. Allen sent Arnold a photograph, black and white and a bit grainy, of Louis Spray holding his 1949 prizewinner.
He had a bit of an odd request.
Allen asked Arnold to estimate the length of the fish, given two pieces of information: the photograph, and the fact that Spray was six feet tall. Anglers often use the known length of a fish to determine whether a claimed weight is reasonable, based on loose ratios of length to weight. A human comparison: If a medium-build man claimed to weigh 200 pounds but was only 5'5", the weight claim has a good chance of being inaccurate. It seems that Spray was suspected of that famous fisherman's habit: exaggerating the size of his catch.
Arnold, himself an avid fisherman, decided to tackle the problem. His conclusion probably wasn't as definitive as Hall of Fame officials would have liked. Mathematics, he said, couldn't absolutely answer Allen's question based only on the photograph and Spray's known height. But it could provide an upper bound on the muskie's length: "The only conclusion that we can draw with certainty," he wrote in a memo to Allen, "is that the fish is shorter than 63 inches, perhaps considerably so." Basic projective geometry showed that Charlie hadn't eaten his Wheaties---not 63 and a half inches worth of them, anyway. And if the muskie's length fell short of Spray's claim, its weight would almost certainly be well below the record as well.
This wasn't a surprise to the World Record Muskie Alliance, which had already submitted a 93-page "Spray Summary Report" to the Hall of Fame in October of 2005. The group's conclusions? Among other things, Spray's behavior pre-Charlie "points to the Spray all tackle 1949 World Record being completely bogus." The report indicates, for example, that photographs of Spray's 1940 and 1949 record fish are mislabeled on Spray's personal stationery, on postcards he had printed, and in his autobiography, with the 1940 catch being listed as the 1949 muskie, and vice-versa. The report also cites numerous other photo "mix-ups," and in regard to one such error involving his 1940 catch, states that
We at the WRMA feel it a greater likelihood that a muskie angler be unable to properly identify pictures of his own children before being unable to distinguish an alleged photograph of his second world record fish from one supposedly representing a much smaller specimen.
In other words, in the opinion of the WRMA, Spray's record claims are almost certainly false. In addition to their investigation of Spray's character, the group commissioned a private company to perform a photogrammetric analysis---the determination of measurements and camera positions from photos---of multiple images, including Spray with his 1940 and 1949 catches. According to their results, Charlie was even shorter than Arnold's upper-bound estimate: They placed the muskie's length in a range of approximately 52 to 55 inches.
The Hall of Fame disagrees (in fact, the two groups even disagree about the spelling of "muskie," with the Hall of Fame preferring "musky"). The Hall's decision---regardless of Arnold's "muskie memo," WRMA's objections, and continued debates---is that Spray's record will stand.
The decision has riled not just anglers, but many mathematicians as well. Scott Allen, it turns out, also contacted Joseph Gallian of the University of Minnesota Duluth and Dorian Goldfeld of Columbia. Curiously, Arnold and Goldfeld were given completely different photos, and Gallian eventually received both. While the three mathematicians drew different numerical conclusions from the evidence they were given and the assumptions they were asked to use, all three were angered by the Hall's decision---as were many others.
"A bunch of people sort of took up the call," Arnold says. "There have been calls and newspaper articles and things like that, but the Hall has basically said, ‘We've done our analysis and we don't foresee looking into it any further.'" According to Arnold, the Hall has actually changed its rules: A $1500 filing fee is now required for any challenges to its records.
Is mathematics being ignored in a situation where it could provide a valuable service?
"I think it's slightly worse than that," the IMA director says. "I think it's being manipulated . . . that there's an attempt, by giving out limited evidence and going to different people, to come up with a point of view that supports a decision that perhaps they had already come to in any case."
Arnold cites the Hall's giving different photos to the three mathematicians, instead of providing all three with all available evidence, and asking the mathematicians to accept what he considers dubious assumptions. The mathematicians, moreover, have received no response to their suggestion that an independent commission of experts be formed to examine the matter. The WRMA has put its weight behind that recommendation, stating that it would abide by such a commission's conclusions.
It's unlikely that the question of Charlie's size will ever be answered with absolute certainty. The building that housed the mounted fish was destroyed in a fire in 1959, and Spray committed suicide in 1984; at any rate, it is doubtful that his testimony would shed any additional light on the matter. Still, Arnold believes that an independent commission given all the evidence could actually settle the controversy, using both geometry and photogrammetry.
"I think if you were to look at all the evidence, you might well be able to get something fairly definitive. Of course it's not guaranteed," he says. "But I think that good math and good science could pretty much put the issue to rest, if people were willing to pay attention to it."
For the record: IMA director Doug Arnold demonstrates that the same 48" plank, held by the same 5'10" man, can appear substantially larger or smaller, depending on the angle and position of the camera.
***
Spray described his fishing career in an autobiography titled Looking Back At That Phase Of My Muskie Days. The interested reader can purchase the book, albeit at a high price: One of the 2000 copies reportedly printed sold for more than $1000 on eBay in 2004.
Those unwilling to make a financial investment in the debate can consult the following resources:
Doug Arnold's documentation of the debate: http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/muskie/;
The National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame's Web site: http://www.freshwater-fishing.org/; and
The World Record Muskie Alliance Web site: http://www.worldrecordmuskiealliance.com/.
Michelle Sipics, a student in the graduate program in science writing at MIT, is spending the summer as an intern at SIAM News.
|
|
| |
|
| I find it remarkable that the "Yes" vote count on this poll, remember this began as a poll, is now at 79. That is well up from where it had stood stagnated at 12 votes for so long while the "No" votes remain steadily where they have been.
Suddenly we have a large influx of new people on this thread interested in casting votes on this poll who were previously not there?
-OR-
We have folks chiming in with multiple votes from their cell phones, no IP, or a different location on a PC with a different IP address in order to spin the reality that had been established and stood at a stable number for quite a while. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I never voted at all. I tend to think Johnsons fish is (more legit then sprays) But dont really have an opinion of either. So could not in good conscience cast a vote either way. The Johnson fish looks like a freak to me. If the mount was not doctored the fish could have been legit. But I dont know any facts so I didnt vote. It sure is a big mount. But I dont have an opinion either way. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Guest - 2/7/2011 11:27 PM
I find it remarkable that the "Yes" vote count on this poll, remember this began as a poll, is now at 79. That is well up from where it had stood stagnated at 12 votes for so long while the "No" votes remain steadily where they have been.
Suddenly we have a large influx of new people on this thread interested in casting votes on this poll who were previously not there?
-OR-
We have folks chiming in with multiple votes from their cell phones, no IP, or a different location on a PC with a different IP address in order to spin the reality that had been established and stood at a stable number for quite a while.
Wow. Talk about grasping at proverbial straws. That's desperation at it's finest, right there. "Keep voting, we're up to 15%!!"... Ummm...
The poll numbers obviously don't represent reality, not by any stretch. If even ONE person really believed the Spray and Johnson fish were legitimate, they'd have spoken up by now, and been able to provide at least one half-baked reason why the two fish were believeable. I've been waiting this whole time for something, ANYTHING that would make me think "hey, you know what? Maybe they WERE that big!" because I really want to believe it's possible to catch a 70# muskie in Wisconsin. I actually came here hoping someone could convince me, despite all the information that's out there that even someone who has never seen a muskie would have a hard time disputing.
It's been weeks. Hundreds of posts, from everyone on both sides of the issue. Articles, history, photo analysis...
One would think that someone so bent on upholding these records would at least try to come up with a convining argument, but there's been none. That tells me that they've got nothing. They can't even lie well enough to convince anyone, or even make an attempt. Short of being able to manipulate the poll to show slightly less than overwhelming evidence that nobody believes records? I'd say the folks in the "they really were that big" camp have failed. Miserably. AGAIN.
I guess the old saying is true: "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt"...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| firstsixfeet - 1/10/2011 2:00 PM
The Devil Made Me Do - 1/7/2011 11:54 AM
Simple poll: do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?
Yes!
Still here, still believe it, all of it, the stories, the myths, all true! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | esoxaddict, I think I love you! XOXO...LOL. Beautifully said and in the 10 ring of the bullseye!!
Your quote "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt"... also nailed Dettloff during last years debate over Johnson's mount on MH when he tried to convince everyone that the pelvic (rear) fins on the mount were so far forward of the anal fin due to "pelvic drift"during mounting. Obviously, the only reason the pelvic fins would need to be moved that far forward by the taxidermist is to obtain an unnatural girth dimension. Of course after John failed in that meager attempt, he opted to follow your quote when I asked him then to explain why if "pelvic drift" did occur, then where did ALL THE EXTRA SKIN in the mount behind the pelvic fins come from...he has remained silent to this day and I think that pretty much says volumes.
Kingfisher Mike: I'm surprised that while you spent several days in front of the Johnson mount at the musky show you didn't take a closer look at it. The crack above the pelvic fins where skin was added; greatly enhanced fins and tail with backing by the taxidermist to the tune of 1/2" of length for the fins and 3/4" of length and height to the tail fin, along with maximizing all other movable features of the mount like jaw spread; upper lip extension to the sides by over 1/2" etc. But then John didn't turn the light in the mounts case on to allow too close of scruitny to the unknowing masses.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
I like stories too. Like....Star Wars, and Avatar in movie form, and Lord of the Rings in book form. Middle Earth was a cool place as one can tell from the illustrations, and believe me; Frodo lives!  In my heart of hearts, this is a truth.
Led Zeppelin even wrote a song mentioning Mordor and Gollum. It's a classic.
Monster, even Beast WR class for certain Muskies in the Chip, hanging out in the deep deep water far, far away from all human contact, avoiding all anglers like a plague, and hunting in wolf packs up on the bars at night in what the Master of the Math Requests of the Great Hall described as a Spooky Fashion; assuredly those recent creatures of the Chip even were hunting occasionally (literally) a few hundred yards to a half mile up into the woods quite often according to the Machine That Plots The Track, which may, according to some sources, explain the reduction of the King's deer herd in recent years. Those fish are truly mystical creatures, intelligent to a fault and able to avoid capture of any kind by all but a couple amazing Warriors back in the remember whens of Muskie lore, stories still whispered around the fires of the Annointed Association Inns late into the night, but long after the young children have gone off to their night's sleep.
Yet according to the one who is the great Teller of the Stories and Traveler on little strips of carefully formed wood across the long, cold winter snows of the Deep North of the Hay Ward, it only takes one cast on the Mythical Mysterious Chip to capture one even larger than that mythical monster of Lore, as long as one stays in the magically endowed Resort Association Inn and has read the Life and Times carefully. Very carefully.
We were told by other Tellers of the Story, for many Years of Our Lord, that the place some called the New of York had similar and perhaps even mightier beasts, but the Teller of the Stories from the Hay Ward has stricken that beast down from the great stories during a Great Quest for the Truth. He alone was appointed to this task by those who did not believe the Great New of York Monster was as mighty as the Wolf Pack Monsters of the Mystical Chip. It to this day is a mystery who the great warriors and leaders of men were who sat at the Table of that great Council of the Chip and commissioned the Teller of the Stories to Quest to the New of York in search of their Great and Personally enriching Truth.
Though many new Warriors have now taken up the the Quest to capture and contain, even for just a while, at Great Personal Risk and Expenditure a like monster to the Great Chip's legendary beasts, alas none are to be found across the world, not even in the legendary and treacherous reaches of the Georgina, the Water Named After The Great Predatory Bird the Eagle, yea even the mysterious and Murky Depths of the Wabi Goon of the Great White North, not on the waters where those of the Great White North's Council of the Pinnacle of Muskie Knowledge proclaim the beast to be to this very day as told to the masses during the Great Second Meeting of Great Muskie Minds in the place some call the Indiana. This Great Meeting was commissioned by the Lords of the Muskies Of Inc to tell what is the Truth of it all, and though they told of the possibility, that yes, those VERY waters of the New of York were to possibly hold that Beast...alas, none are to be found.
It seems the Age of the Legendary Beasts has passed, and the Reign of the Much Smaller Beasts time has come. The Warriors of the Great Chip had surely vanquished the Beast.
Or perhaps, as the Led Zeppelin once sang; Gollum, and the Evil One, crept up and slipped away with her.
It IS obvious Gollum likes fish. He lives as well, under the new moniker of DD. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Now you're starting to get it.
Without the mystery, there is no reason to cast and cast again... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry,All I saw was a huge mount. I dont know squat about fin drift or anything to do with how someone would add length to a mount. It looked real old and cracked to me. Color was yellowing and in all fairness it looked like a Musky to me . The reason I said it is more legit then Sprays is because there is mount to study. But Like I said before , I dont have an opinion either way. If it was indeed doctored then it should be tossed out. I have no way of proving anything so I just dont consider either spray or Johnson in my view. Im waiting for the freak. I think Dales fish was a freak but we will never know because it went back. I think the New brunswick fish was a freak. I dont look at records and mounts and try to disqualify them. I enjoy the lore, the mythical creature stories, and the chase as it is. Lets all just go fish. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
I always understood that. The mystery is just a bit smaller for me than it was years ago, but what's really real big is really real big. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kingfisher wrote: "I dont look at records and mounts and try to disqualify them. I enjoy the lore, the mythical creature stories, and the chase as it is. Lets all just go fish. Mike"
Mike, I never did either, in fact in my first "Compendium" I tried to find anything I could to substiantiate the record class fish; ALL of them. But then along came a young, self-proclaimed "ex-pert" (former drip under pressure), named Dettloff, that was smooth talking, but he had a hidden agenda and upset the record applecart. Well, that is except for the fish of his Hayward hero's. He didn't play fair and now he has dug himself and the NFWFHF (and the IGFA with the Johnson fish)) into a deep hole with regard to muskie records, and that my friend is one heck of a sad state of affairs. A disservice to muskie anglers that FAR exceeds anything Spray and others may have done!
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
Your question: "Sooo..., If a 100# muskie was 'F & S certified' would you believe that too?"
Why don't you ask Larry that question? In the Lawton review he used this as a MAJOR selling point.
Editor's Note: Because he asked YOU, so knock it off. Last request. |
|
| |
|
| The Professors hired by the NFWFHoF recommended the creation of an indepenent panel because they themselves couldn't say one way or the other if Dettloff was right or wrong. If they had agreed he was wrong they would have said so themselves. In no way, shape, or form did they agree with the results obtained by DCM.
Editor's Note: They were not asked to. They definitely DID say enough to alert the Hall something was very wrong with the fish, and they were not at all happy with the way the communications were handled and information exchanged. It's also clear the Hall 'misinterpreted' the results they offered, and ignored the pleas to pay appropriate attention. |
|
| |
|
| As far as the former Canadian record by Edward Walden being legit, consider this:
Edward Walden fish...31" x 59"...Girth is 52.54% of the length
Ken O'Brien fish...30.5" x 58"...girth is 52.59% of the length
The photos of these two fish should appear strikingly similar and yet they don't resemble each other at all. O'Brien's obviously is very fat for it's length while Walden's is a supposedly a "snake" with a 31" girth.
Photogrammetry is obviously unnecessary in this case. |
|
| |
|
| The story I've heard is that the lower fins were removed on Johnson's fish during the mounting process and were reattached in the wrong location. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Not possible unless the taxidermist was either trying to stretch the fish or doing something else to augment the mount. If one 'removes the fins' which is just plain stupid, the resulting holes in the skin leave little doubt where they go when re-attached.
Ever been around a skin mount in process?
|
|
| |
