|
|
| 400 people saw this fish - For people who actually have stayed in that area it would be impossible for 400 people to view the fish that day.
If you have actually stayed at Grisdales place, correct me if I am wrong but between his place and the marina just not enough people to come to view a fish. 50-100 people maybe since a tournament was going on. It was also October so not like heavy boat traffic at marina. It is also a long ways by car from the main road.
There is also the garden hose used to wash down the fish after slitting the throat. Maybe when they weighed it water was still in the fish - later water gone. Could have been by mistake. Why no photos of scale with 65 pounds with fish? There was 400 people right - cameras were around?
For a fish of this size and that a muskei tournament was going on you would expect to see photos of all angles including the 65 pound scale with no garden hose. I have stayed at Grisdales and have talked with him. Grisdale loves to promote his business. It was a big fish and we can all agree 56 pounds minimum.
The 61 pounder caught in 2000 should be Canadian record.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CA: Even though you still refuse to acknowledge who you are, I will answer your post since it is valid and not an "attack".
First of all, this thread was begun by the WMA to disclose their finding on the O'brien fish. Anything over and above that has nothing to do with their report. As I have pointed out in my book, it is often necessary to "leave out names" for various reasons when doing record fish investigations. Since the science and conclusions were not mine, I don't feel I need to disclose names and create problems here...at this time. If you choose not to believe what I posted sans the names, that is entirely your choice...I'm not selling anything, merely trying to pass along additional information that I feel germain to the O'brien record fish story for you and the other readers. I am not making a case to the "record keepers", as they choose to ignore FACTS and SCIENCE anyway. Mine is not a "theory", but rather the gathering of information and the presenting of questions that may arise therefrom. Should the record keepers become interested in what I have presented and wish to have the names of the involved/unnamed individuals, I will then make them known. I will not however, name them here in this forum where they can be, prehaps unfairly, attacked without knowledge and ability to defend themselves and explain what truly happened that fateful October day in 1988.
My reason for asking for posters to "own" their posts, is that it tends to keep the anon. sniping at a bare minimum. Why are you afraid to post your name? You'll have to trust that my reasons are "sincere". If you cannot that is your choice. |
|
| |
|
| As I said before, the photos of MR. O'Brien's FRESH fish with the ruler do NOT confirm the reported length of the fish which is a REQUIREMENT for record acceptance by the O.F.A.H. This is a fact and not a theory therefore if the O.FA.H. wants to remain credible it must disqualify this fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Guest" wrote: "...The 61 pounder caught in 2000 should be Canadian record."
LR: Off on another tangent, but I disagree. First of all, the Ontario/Canadian record prior to the O'brien fish was a 61 pound 9 ounce fish from Eagle Lake in 1940. While there is no certification extant for that fish, the fact that it held the record for 48 years rules AND the SMALLER, 61 pound 4 ounce fish caught in 2000 (by the late Martin Williamson from Georgian Bay), to my knowledge, was NOT weighed on a certified scale.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Kinda hard to run away from the simplicity of the ruler..........or the mold.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/6/2011 1:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
| POINT OF CLARIFICATION: I would hope that all readers realize that I am not trying to defend the O'Brien fish here, but rather merely countering a plethora of incorrect information or misinformation. If fulloflakewater truly does have what he claims above, I will be happy to assess it when he finally decides to quit playing games and post it here. And again, I covered the O'Brien fish in great detail in my book and included a wealth of new information there. All supported the O'Brien fish. It would be interesting to see new information/photos after 21 years. Hard to believe, if it truly exists, that it hasn't surfaced before!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Must be the new information has arrived after 21 years, huh Larry?
 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Response to a previous threads quote from fullof: Yes, fullof, or didn't you carefully read my previous posts in this thread? Actually "some" arrived and "some" was there all along and not "seen". And obviously you never did have what you had previously claimed, or you would have come forward sooner, correct? Or are you afraid your friends will ostracize you?
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/6/2011 2:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arZdeg_fL-I |
|
| |
|
| fulloflakewater - 4/6/2011 1:20 PM
POINT OF CLARIFICATION: I would hope that all readers realize that I am not trying to defend the O'Brien fish here, but rather merely countering a plethora of incorrect information or misinformation. If fulloflakewater truly does have what he claims above, I will be happy to assess it when he finally decides to quit playing games and post it here. And again, I covered the O'Brien fish in great detail in my book and included a wealth of new information there. All supported the O'Brien fish. It would be interesting to see new information/photos after 21 years. Hard to believe, if it truly exists, that it hasn't surfaced before!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Must be the new information has arrived after 21 years, huh Larry?
;)
Funny |
|
| |
|
| Just realized....does the Royal Ontario Museum have this on display labeled as a 58" musky and the actual measurement is 54?
|
|
| |
|
| Ok...so let me get this straight...
World Records can now be overturned by one group of individuals??
The criteria for over ruling can come from analyzing a picture
Molds (not the fish) are what they can base their measurments on (the smoking gun....ahh NO)
Speculation as to distance in a photograph are OK.
Speculating that a fish cannot lose 9 pounds from dehydration will be accepted
1 individuals word is greater than the masses
Heresay is acceptable
Certified scales do not matter any more
Actual certified weights hold no merit
Eye witness affidavits are useless
The ACTUAL mount of the fish will not be analyzed
Seriously I would like the WMA to a run a control on their photographic analysis. Take some known lenghts of fish you have caught and submitt them...See what the out come is.
With all due respect Larry I find no good reason why any one should take your word over the word of anybody else...never mind the individuals who were there THAT DAY. I can speculate on your agenda (sell more books, have your name known), thruth is I wouldn't know who you are other than for this. NONE of the people there that day had and agenda of their own.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I'll say this.....the mold of the fish is an EXACT representation of THE fish itself. The mold has no agenda.
How would you explain the variance between what the mold shows and the purported dimensions of the fish?
How...and why, would Kevin Hockley or anyone, want to counterfeit the mold to a SMALLER size than what was claimed??
Again....say what you like.....disprove the yardstick next to the FRESH fish.
How do YOU know what motivations or agendas ANYONE who was present may have had?
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/6/2011 3:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Funny Stuff,
The photographic requirements were known BEFORE the photographs were taken. The rules for record acceptance by the O.F.A.H. clearly state that the ruler and the fish should be the SAME distance from the camera.
The mold will have the same measurements as the fish itself.
A fish cannot lose 9 lbs. due to dehydration.
The O.F.A.H. knows that having a ruler the same distance from the camera as the fish will result in an extremely accurate length assessment which is why they request this type of photo.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Funny Stuff - 4/6/2011 2:36 PM
Ok...so let me get this straight...
World Records can now be overturned by one group of individuals??
The criteria for over ruling can come from analyzing a picture
Molds (not the fish) are what they can base their measurments on (the smoking gun....ahh NO)
Speculation as to distance in a photograph are OK.
Speculating that a fish cannot lose 9 pounds from dehydration will be accepted
1 individuals word is greater than the masses
Heresay is acceptable
Certified scales do not matter any more
Actual certified weights hold no merit
Eye witness affidavits are useless
The ACTUAL mount of the fish will not be analyzed
Seriously I would like the WMA to a run a control on their photographic analysis. Take some known lenghts of fish you have caught and submitt them...See what the out come is.
With all due respect Larry I find no good reason why any one should take your word over the word of anybody else...never mind the individuals who were there THAT DAY. I can speculate on your agenda (sell more books, have your name known), thruth is I wouldn't know who you are other than for this. NONE of the people there that day had and agenda of their own.
Let's take these one at a time:
1. "World Records can now be overturned by one group of individuals??" World records can be overturned if that group of individuals uncovers legitimate evidence that the records were falsified. If that same group finds that the records were legitimate, no amount of widhing them to be gone will matter.
2. "The criteria for over ruling can come from analyzing a picture" It can if the photographic evidence shows the fish to be smaller than claimed.
3. "Molds (not the fish) are what they can base their measurments on (the smoking gun....ahh NO)" Without the actual fish, a mold can give a pretty good indication of the actual size. And if the mold of said fish is shorter than the claimed length? Well, there's only one way to explain that, and it's ain't "shrinkage".
4. "Speculation as to distance in a photograph are OK." Speculation? Photo analysis and speculation are not the same thing.
5. "Speculating that a fish cannot lose 9 pounds from dehydration will be accepted" Only if it's unreasonable to expect that a 9lb weight loss is likely, mor even possible.
6. "1 individuals word is greater than the masses" That depends on the individual and what they know. It also depends on the masses and what they know.
7. "Heresay is acceptable" Only if you don't want to know the truth. Need I remind you that heresay is why some of the records exist in the first place?
8. "Certified scales do not matter any more" That depends on who witnessed them, and what may or may not have been shoved inside the fish when it was weighed.
9. "Actual certified weights hold no merit" Not if there is overwhelming evidence that indicates they were falsified.
10. "Eye witness affidavits are useless" That all depends on whether those eyewitnesses were lying or not.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | muskellunged - 4/6/2011 2:58 PM Funny Stuff: Larry is a legend, you're some fool who won't own up to your own nonsense. I'll take the guy who signs his name to his words over an anonymous shmo. Larry's agenda: the TRUTH. Yours: mental masturbation
EsoxAddict 4/6/2011 3:29 PM Let's take these one at a time: 1. "World Records can now be overturned by one group of individuals??" World records can be overturned if that group of individuals uncovers legitimate evidence that the records were falsified. If that same group finds that the records were legitimate, no amount of widhing them to be gone will matter. 2. "The criteria for over ruling can come from analyzing a picture" It can if the photographic evidence shows the fish to be smaller than claimed. 3. "Molds (not the fish ) are what they can base their measurments on (the smoking gun....ahh NO )" Without the actual fish, a mold can give a pretty good indication of the actual size. And if the mold of said fish is shorter than the claimed length? Well, there's only one way to explain that, and it's ain't "shrinkage". 4. "Speculation as to distance in a photograph are OK." Speculation? Photo analysis and speculation are not the same thing. 5. "Speculating that a fish cannot lose 9 pounds from dehydration will be accepted" Only if it's unreasonable to expect that a 9lb weight loss is likely, mor even possible. 6. "1 individuals word is greater than the masses" That depends on the individual and what they know. It also depends on the masses and what they know. 7. "Heresay is acceptable" Only if you don't want to know the truth. Need I remind you that heresay is why some of the records exist in the first place? 8. "Certified scales do not matter any more" That depends on who witnessed them, and what may or may not have been shoved inside the fish when it was weighed. 9. "Actual certified weights hold no merit" Not if there is overwhelming evidence that indicates they were falsified. 10. "Eye witness affidavits are useless" That all depends on whether those eyewitnesses were lying or not. Jeff, you're paying a non registered poster credence he is neither owed nor deserves. Your basically letting him use your hand if you catch my drift! Keep it short and simple is my motto at least! Maybe he is a legend too, but who cares what he/she says if she he won't sign his/her name?? Larry, thanks for your tireless work in uncovering the truth about these false records. You have done so with the utmost integrity frfom everything I have seen and heard!! Mike Witowski
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul |
|
| |
|
| This has gottin outa control. What is the purpose of this anyway? |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | Billy - 4/6/2011 3:56 PM Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good-looking. I'm not very attractive.
Edited by muskellunged 4/6/2011 4:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | muskellunged - 4/6/2011 4:07 PM
Billy - 4/6/2011 3:56 PM Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good-looking. I'm not very attractive.
Now thats funny!
Figured I better sign..
Mike Kanaval |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Obfuscate Musky - 4/6/2011 9:49 AM
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.
Great question! And one that I've asked on this very thread twice and both of my posts were deleted right away. In both posts I was not argumentative or negative, just basically asking the same question as you did except I didn't even question Mr. Ramsell specifically.
I give this post about 5 minutes before it's deleted again with no explanation. |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | Great question! And one that I've asked on this very thread twice and both of my posts were deleted right away. In both posts I was not argumentative or negative, just basically asking the same question as you did except I didn't even question Mr. Ramsell specifically. I give this post about 5 minutes before it's deleted again with no explanation.
It's OK for you or anyone else to call Larry a liar, if you can back it up with scientific fact, like Mr. Ramsell does! But to simply trust people's words, no matter their stature, or number, is not good enough for a record musky!
Just my two cents, if it's worth even that
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| muskellunged - 4/6/2011 5:02 PM
Great question! And one that I've asked on this very thread twice and both of my posts were deleted right away. In both posts I was not argumentative or negative, just basically asking the same question as you did except I didn't even question Mr. Ramsell specifically. I give this post about 5 minutes before it's deleted again with no explanation.
It's OK for you or anyone else to call Larry a liar, if you can back it up with scientific fact, like Mr. Ramsell does! But to simply trust people's words, no matter their stature, or number, is not good enough for a record musky!
Just my two cents, if it's worth even that
Please note that I NEVER called anybody a liar. My original posts said that the WMRA was basically calling the people that witnessed the O'brien fish liars and wondered why questioning the WMRA was wrong if the WMRA could question all the witnesses.
|
|
| |
|
| "To answer your question, I feel that the Ken O'Brien 65-pounder should be the current world record of both record keeping organizations (IGFA & NFWFHF), particularily since both organizations certified the fish when caught! A simple "no brainer" really."
"Saric (again): Jim I am amazed that just the bit of information posted here, some factual and most not, has swayed you away from the O'Brien fish. You are far tooooo easy, LOL. You "really" need to read volume I of my book!"
Muskie Regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Saric is right then, huh Larry?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | Esox65 - 4/6/2011 5:11 PM Hey, Funny her...I guess now that I am not an ANON that my words hold just as much value as all other registered user that have a screen name. Actually that would require that you put your REAL last name into either your profile or at the end of your post.  Because I know some of the people who where there that day...good honest people, excellent muskie fisherman, and class act citizens. Many of who have led the charge in sustaining the natural muskie fishery in Canada that we all enjoy. Noone is denying that they are good or honest people. That's the beauty of SCIENCE. Just because you disprove someone, doesn't mean you are claiming they LIED. Your merely saying that the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS STRONGLY THAT THOSE PEOPLE WERE INACCURATE.
Anyways it obvious that many of you have a little bit of a Celebrity crush. Guilty as charged!! Call me naive, but I feel he's earned it!
They ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVICALLY CAN NOT say without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that that fish did not weigh what it was reported to. Right, but if the preponderance of the evidence all points to debunking the record, should everyone leave their heads in the sand???muskellunged
Edited by muskellunged 4/6/2011 5:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I don't know, esox 65. I've known a lot of great muskie fishermen that lie through their teeth. They inflate lengths, they inflate girths... I've known others who just can't judge size or weight by looking at a fish, even when they have it in their own hands.
A crappy mold? I don't know much about making molds, but I can't figure out ANY way to make a mold of something and have it be SMALLER than the actual item in the end.
Celebrity crushes? Now THAT is funny! Has there ever been a celebrity in muskie angling?
Edited by esoxaddict 4/6/2011 5:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | Oh JC already.
Explain to me how 400 people could have truly witnessed the measurements of length and weight.
Unless "witnessing" means standing 50 ft away as a few guys do the measurements and shout them out to the crowd. How could any one of those 400 people truly verify it? Oh yeah, they can't.
Larry even agreed in an earlier post that the weight that day was more than likely accurate on the scale... BUT, how many of the 400 people "witnessed" the suggested stuffing of the fish. I will bet that is a very tight lipped group of guys.
The fishes throat was cut as soon as it hit the bottom of the boat and prior to any weighing. So, is "evaporation" the only explanation for the weight difference? I'm not that naive.
The only explanation I can think of (thinking for myself esox65) is that the 65lb weight is an ESTIMATE of the live weight of the fish. When the fishes throat was cut it obviously lost weight in blood, etc... Considering one gallon of water weighs 8.35 lbs, and guessing that the fish certainly could have lost around a gallon of fluids. 65lbs sounds like a reasonable weight to me at the time it was ALIVE. Unfortunately, there is no way to verify the amount of lost fluids. Is it possible that the guys that day were trying to account for this loss and stuffed a bag of water into the fish?
I really don't see HOW anyone could dispute the length on the other hand. 58" is a lie. Like I read somewhere in another post, if it was a flexible tape or tape measure, it would be fairly easy to get an extra 4" by measuring the curvature of the fish. Possibly good intentioned poeple not even thinking about it at the time. Certainly not the same as a straight line measurment with a bump board. As far as "shrinkage" any idiot knows water expands when frozen!
IMO, good work Larry. The science does not lie. If the claimed dimensions of the fish were true, the mold would prove them. No questions asked.
Huge fish regardless. It is much more believable than the WI record fish but still doesn't completely add up. I believe the fish may have weighed 65 lbs alive but more than a pound or two lost from "evaporation" just doesn't make sense.
-Tyler Martin
Edited by MartinTD 4/6/2011 6:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
Location: Alexandria, MN | One thing is for certain, this entire thread is about the best possible argument for catch and release I have ever seen. Word to the wise: If you are fortunate enough to land a Muskie that you think might be a state, provincial, national, or world record, LET IT GO unless you are prepared to face a lifetime of wrath from nay-sayers, doubters, haters, and whistle blowers. |
|
| |
|
| Where can I go to catch this fish again? looks like a nice fish be it 53 or 98 inches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | "Considering one gallon of water weighs 8.35 lbs, and guessing that the fish certainly could have lost around a gallon of fluids. 65lbs sounds like a reasonable weight to me at the time it was ALIVE."
Tyler,thats unfortunately impossible,verified myself with 4 muskies that died upon capture or release and weighed em and weighed em after freezing some weeks later and gave to biologist whom will autopsy and weigh em again months late (6).
I do know one was weighed between death at capture and re -weigning from biologist it barely lost over 1 pound ,that fish bleed out from hook injuries
Fish lose far less fluid than one might think,a 50 inch muskie contains far less blood then one would even think,really not much
I get your point. But wouldn't you agree that a fish with a slit throat would likely lose much more fluid than a simple bleedout from hook injuries?
IMO, that is like stabbing someone with a pencil OR slitting thier throat - which would cause more blood loss? Obviously comparing a human to a fish can not really be done but you get the analogy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| MartinTD - 4/6/2011 6:26 PM
[...]
I get your point. But wouldn't you agree that a fish with a slit throat would likely lose much more fluid than a simple bleedout from hook injuries?
IMO, that is like stabbing someone with a pencil OR slitting thier throat - which would cause more blood loss? Obviously comparing a human to a fish can not really be done but you get the analogy.
I suppose it would, but certainly not enough to account for 8 pounds. Look at it this way - the average 180# person has about 5 litres of blood. If you lost ALL of it, you'd be talking about 11 pounds. (presuming blood weighs the same as water) Impossible to compare a person to a muskie of course, but I don't think blood loss in this case would account for much more than a pound of weight. |
|
| |
