|
|
| Mr. Ramsell
No need to worry, I am not Mr.Dettloff trying to debate you. I am just an angler and that is all. I have read your latest book and found it very interesting, entertaining and it is easy to see how much time and effort went in to its making. But to be honest with you sitting on the sidelines watching this unfold I find it interesting that once again we are at a crossroads with regards to a record fish. Every GREAT fish over 60lbs at one time or another you have taken issue with. Some of which I agree on your findings, but ,respectfully one can't help wonder if your bottom line is nothing more than reinstating the Lawton fish. All of a sudden after 20 years everything becomes clear. This may be a big deal to some, but many of us have grown tired of this never ending story. Fishing is supposed to be fun, plain and simple. Some on this furom may consider you to be a legend and beyond reproach. To me you are another muskie angler who wrote a very good book and I mean that with the greatest respect. Get two certified muskie one in the 30lb class and one in the 50lb class. With at least two photos from different angles of each fish. Hand them over to the people that preform these tests and lets see how close they really are. With the results of these tests made open to this forum. Then we will all know just how accurate this science really is. I hope very much that the moderator of this site lets this post stand. |
|
| |
|
| A yardstick confirming the length of a fish is not science. Anyone can test the accuracy of this approach themselves. If the yardstick and the fish are the same distance from the camera, extreme accuracy is guaranteed.
Measure the image of the yardstick and then the image of the fish. Then determine what percentage the yardstick is of the fish. You will find that the yardstick is 67.42% of the length of the fish in the photo with Mrs. Grisdale holding the yardstick. 36" / 67.42% = 53.4". Like I said this is not science and a pixel count isn't even needed.
The O.F.A.H. is aware of this and that's why they made this type of photo a requirement for record acceptance.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | All that said (and it's a lot). Who's fish is the real one? I would guess Larry's opinion would be a good one. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
| JD
I am not refering to the use of a yardstick as a science my friend. I am refering to the science of photogrammetry on legitimate fish whose actual size and and weight are known. Except to those who are to perform the tests. Then let the experts have a go at it and see how close their results are to the real length and weight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | I asked this before and I will ask it again. I know the mold is not 58" long. I am to assume the fish is not mounted at it's said length of 58" Why is that then? I am also curious in all the internet debates we have had over these fish over the last decade that the only thing ever stated against against the O'Brien fish previoulsy that is was possibly filled with lake water. Heck I even seen one person infer that perhaps the guy was a little light in his loafers, nothing about the mount or even what larry had put in his book about the fish.
The O'Brien investigation rally puts in perspective for me the arguements the hall has put into defending their fish. The affidavid arguement is completely out the window as is fin drift and all the other crap with the mounts not to mention that friends of the hall have put the lake water arguement out there, which tells me they did not believe this fish was legit anyway.
|
|
| |
|
| dougj - 4/6/2011 9:09 PM
All that said (and it's a lot). Who's fish is the real one? I would guess Larry's opinion would be a good one. Doug Johnson
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/videos/01.09.2010/2124/Larry.Ramsel...
Edited by pepsiboy 4/6/2011 11:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| 4amuskie - 4/6/2011 4:05 PM
This has gottin outa control. What is the purpose of this anyway?
Well, it was just for informational purposes originally from what I can gather.
Then the folks who want the records to remain in place (no matter what evidence comes to light) tried to convince us that everyone who disagress with them is stupid, including the people who are arguably the most qualified to make judgements on the actual size of those records. In fact I think they even tried to convince everyone that those of us that just want to know what the hell really happened are stupid, too.
If my experience in life has taught me anything at all, it's that the next step is that someone will get angry, say something along the lines of "I'm right, and everyone else is stupid!"after which they will take their toys and go home.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| Suffice to say, since first it was the Lawton, then Spray, then Johnson, and now O'brien which a certain self-proclaimed musky expert and historian originally supported, then now dis-allows, what can one believe anymore?
I understand the goal is the search for the truth, but the basis as again enumerated in that video was conversations with those appropriate people involved within those 400 or so in attendance, yet the written affidavits of deceased people supporting those other fish were discounted. Seems the vehicle to the same destination changed colors and can be viewed as shifting to the current flow no matter where the waters had flowed.
For me, strike one, strike two, strike three and yer out!!!!
 |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | I'd like to thank Jerry and the WMA for doing the O'Brien report. I never believed this fish weighed 60lbs, primarily because of the weight Larry got when he weighed the frozen fish.
Larry I would like to know how you resolved the weight difference? Last year you were adamant that you believed in this fish. I asked you on the thread that FOLW keeps referencing how you resolved this weight difference. Your answer was to read your book. I would really appreciate an answer to the question.
We are down to a fish from Eagle Lake that I don't know anything about. I still have all of my chips on the Williamson fish. I believe it is the only legit 60 lber ever caught. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest--
'self-proclaimed musky expert and historian'
Nope. The entire muskie community has recognized Larry Ramsell's life work, and Musky Hunter, both official symposiums, and most in the scientific community I have ever spoken to do as well. Larry and I don't always agree on things, but both of us are willing and mature enough to offer due respect. I suggest you grow up and do the same.
You seem to be missing an important point. Mr. Ramsell didn't conduct the investigation, is not WMA member, and didn't recommend the removal of the record. He offered only the evidence gathered from the folks involved which is and has been a matter of record. His opinion in the past or now on this matter has little bearing on what the WMA offers in this report.
|
|
| |
|
| Thank you Steve!
I can >almost< understand the people who are legitimately upset lashing out but not this fulloflakewater guy who seems to only want to attack Ramsell. He offers up nothing new, and has nothing intelligent to say even though it's obvious he's pretty bright.
For those of you who are legitimately upset and lashing out at Ramsell and the WMA for simply doing their job (whether self-appointed or not). I would like to see a return to the subject matter if you please. You should be over the initial shock and IF you can rationally explain how this fish mysteriously shrunk to 54" hanging when Wilkinson supposedly measured it at 58" flat, everyone here would be willing to listen.
It's not just Ramsell's measurement, the DCM measurement, the mold cast measurement, it is the combination of them that appears to be beyond reproach in this report.
|
|
| |
|
| Bytor, I think the answer is pretty simple, last year Ramsell did not have DCM or the mold cast, these are new developments that drastically changed his opinion. |
|
| |
|
| I dream of someday catching the new world record muskie...................NOT!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| Fulloflakewater -- i read that other (old) thread where you and Larry went at one another, and you claimed....
- you had some pic that would reveal the truth (presumably that the o'brien musky is a fake).
- the musky at ROM isn't the real one???
So, where's the pic? And what do you mean about the musky at ROM not being the real one? Or did i misread or misunderstand? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I don't understand why anyone would be shocked at discovering that a fish's size has been exaggerated. This happens all the time. Whether it is the Spray fish or any number of fish.
I saw a number of obvious exagerations at the Minneapolis Sports show this weekend. One resort was claiming they had a 53.5 inch Northern Pike caught at their resort last year. Just looking at the picture, it was obvious the fish couldn't have possibly been over 48 inches or weighed much more than 25 lbs. The fish had minimal tail flop and guy was holding it with one hand. And it didn't look any larger than a number of mid-40 inch Pike I've caught. There is no way that was a 53.5 inch Esox.
Unfortunately, many, many fish are exaggerated every year. I hate to say it, but over-reporting fish by 3-4 inches is very common. Sometimes it is intentional and sometimes not. But it happens all the time.
I guess the size of the O'Brien fish does matter because it is the Canadian record and provides a great deal of advertising for where it was caught - just like the Spray fish does.
As for me, I had no plans to fish the Hayward area or Georgian Bay anyway. There are just as large or larger fish right here in the Twin Cities within minutes of my house - and Mille Lacs is only 90 minutes away. 
Edited by Herb_b 4/7/2011 9:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
| This information is from December of 2009... I think there was ample concern about furthering the O'brien investigations long before this picture analysis. However, you can lead a horse to water, but getting them to drink is another matter.
12/22/2009 - gbfisher
"I find it truly hilarious that Obrien's fish sits at the ROM and no one cares to actually measure it or take pictures of it with a tape. There is no head with the mold but it's easy to see that the fish is no where near 65 pounds with measurements or by eye.
There are two different fish. The one everyone gets to see ISN'T Obrien's fish. I am talking about the fish we see in the case that goes around to all the fishing shows.
The truth be known is that MC and others decided with their ultimate wisdom to make a record that no one would ever beat."
12/22/2009 - Ramsell
"gbfisher: Andy I don't have to go the the ROM to know what O'Brien's fish looked like...I held it in the FLESH...better than a cast."
12/22/2009 - gbfisher
"You see Larry. That's what makes me wonder. If you saw it personally. I'm not so sure the fish you saw was indeed Obrien's fish. If you went to the ROM and asked the curator to see Obrien's fish. You might be surprised to see it looks nothing like the fish you held. I don't know you personally. I cant say anything negative towards you but and its a big but...Obrien's fish at the ROM, I can guarantee it will bring up many questions as to its legitimacy."
"Larry.
I didnt say it before but now remember that you didnt see the fish the day it was caught. Any thought to the fact that MAYBE you didnt actually see the fish that you believe is Obriens fish?
There's just to many stories behind it if you ask me and is why I say that you should go to the ROM and see for yourself. Im pretty sure you will feel differently about how it went down. Even many years later.
12/22/09 - Ramsell
"Larry: gb I am POSITIVE that the fish I saw WAS the O'Brien fish. I'm not sure what is at the ROM (other than a cast made later), but the fish itself isn't there. The skin mount is in Gananocque."
12/22/09 - gbfisher
"There's just to many stories behind it if you ask me and is why I say that you should go to the ROM and see for yourself. Im pretty sure you will feel differently about how it went down. Even many years later.
12/22/09 - Ramsell
"I don't see how looking at a cast made long after the fact could convience me of anything. I know what I saw."
12/22/09 - gbfisher
"You will see the original mold itself. The one made for the museum records. Not a cast or a skin mount. You will see the fish Obrien caught, not some facsimile.
I know enough to say that the fish they have at the ROM is not the fish we all see. That's my point.
There are people who have seen it but would not say anything as they thought at the time they would lose their business and reputation over a lie. Lots of people behind the Obrien fish.
I for the life of me can't understand how you can be so sure. Just doesn't make any sense from what I have seen. I'm not pointing any wrong doing on your part either.
Hope that helps explain myself..."
12/22/09 - Ramsell
"gb: I am aware that the ROM has an original mold. In my files I have a letter from Dr. Crossman about it. If I recall he said it wasn't very good. I recently moved and my files are in boxes, etc. but I will look for it. I know for a fact that he never indicated in any way shape or form that the fish was anything less than claimed!
As for the current skin mount, it is not something I would be happy about, but it is not a "facsimile" as you indicate. It is the original skin of the fish, regardless of how it is portrayed in the mounting process.
Your innuendo about folks losing their "business and reputation" for saying "something (whatever that would be...I assume you are inferring that the "mold" doesn't appear to be big enough) is a stretch. Got a photo of it with something in it for comparison?
Yes, there were, for good reason "Lots of people behind the Obrien fish." Over 400 people saw it the day of the catch.
I can be sure that the fish I held was the O'Brien fish because I know and trust those that made it possible for me to see it. This isn't a game. Obviously you didn't see the real fish and have doubts about the mold...so be it, I can't change that. "
12/22/09 - gbfisher
"I am not the only one who has doubts about the fish. Even guys who were there the day it came to the dock will say that there is a bigger story behind this fish. They have photos which I have seen as well that put any doubt to rest about the true size of it. Not a WR that's for sure. I'm trying to tell you if you looked for yourself you would change your mind about the fish you think is Obrien's. There's more to this. You say 400 people saw it. Ill trust you on that. I just don't think it was Obrien's fish they saw. I'm also saying if you saw the fish at the ROM you would agree that there is more to this story as well. I cant explain it any other way.
As for the ones in business still today. Hopefully they get a shot at putting the story to rest. Maybe once their business is sold one day.
I had a fish I caught right next to Obrien's fish to compare. It's too bad they didn't let me take a picture of the two of them side by side.Mine on top and Obrien's below. They didn't even want to tell me about who's fish was sitting on the floor because of what I am saying right now. Stretch or not there are a lot of people who know the truth but really couldn't care less.
I say lots of people have been duped!"
12/24/09 - Ramsell
""gb: I am aware that the ROM has an original mold. In my files I have a letter from Dr. Crossman about it. If I recall he said it wasn't very good. I recently moved and my files are in boxes, etc. but I will look for it. I know for a fact that he never indicated in any way shape or form that the fish was anything less than claimed!"
gb/andy: I found my letter from Dr. Crossman. In it he stated that he removed the stomach and the ovaries from O'Brien's fish BEFORE the ROM made the casts. Perhaps this is what is causing you concern as the cast is of an empty fish. And again, he made NO mention of the fish being anything less than claimed.
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!"
12/24/2009 - gbfisher
"Both length and girth are what's in question. Not being empty. The mold is pretty good really and can be measure easily. Just doesnt have a head. I wouldn't ask you to go see it if there want any question to it's size.
I can guarantee you will be surprised. This way it will be you saying what you have seen."
12/25/2009 - Ramsell
"gb: "girth" will still be off since the innards were removed and to suggest that length can be determined without a head is to me a waste of time, especially since I saw the fish in the flesh. I'm not going to drive 1600 miles round trip just to see that cast."
12/25/2009 - gbfisher
"Larry.
I would not be on here asking you to go see it if there wasn't an issue here. You have to see it for yourself to understand. I can't explain it anyway else. Go see the fish. Saying you have seen the fish is not the issue. You have not seen the mold of the said fish.
It will not be a waste of your time. What you saw 20 years ago is not the fish of Obrien's. The mold is though. It will explain what I am yapping about.
If you choose not to see it...well...then the BS will continue.
What I cannot understand is why you of all people would not be interested in what I am implying. You want truth and history?!?!?! Its there for you to see except it is not what you think and a curator saying nothing about its size is not an excuse to not see it. The original curator is dead so you can't just ask him. I am not in a position so ask and take measurements of pictures of it but you are.
I hope this will convince you...."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, where was this information posted? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Bytor/Troy said: "Larry I would like to know how you resolved the weight difference? Last year you were adamant that you believed in this fish. I asked you on the thread that FOLW keeps referencing how you resolved this weight difference. Your answer was to read your book. I would really appreciate an answer to the question."
Troy: Didn't mean to put you off then, but there really is a lot that goes into this whole thing. What you and most here (who haven't been around long enough) first need to understand about me and my historical record fish writings since way back in the 60's and 70's; my first edition book in 1982 and beyond, is that I had ALWAYS been a "reporter" of the known information extant. I always gave the fish the benefit of the doubt (wrong in hindsight) and in fact often attempted to "justify" record claims...never did I set about to discredit ANY world record muskie. The short version answer to your question (now hardly germain with the new findings of the WRMA report) is:
"It is logical to assume the the deyhydration of the O'Brien muskellunge could easily be an accumulative effect of hanging for several hours in the wind and sun, and excessive deydration due to being placed in a warm freezer and being frozen for eight days before being reweighed, not to mention the fishes "slime" weight loss; considerable on a fish of this size" In all reality had this fish been weighed BEFORE it bled out it may have actually weighed more than the 65 pounds it DID weigh the day it was captured."
As you can see, once again I tried to give the fish the benefit of any doubt by attempting to reconcile and justify the "supposed" weight loss. Again, obviously, the damage to the O'Brien fish credibility with the absence of almost 4 inches in length as reported in the WRMA report, that is undeniable, just cannot be overlooked. SOMETHING is AMISS and the weight loss needs better explanation!
As for you fullof...you are still fullof something if you do not produce the "supposed" photograph that you claim to have! As for your last post, gbfisher apparently was correct, since it is the ROM mold that the WRMA used in their report. gb may have also been somewhat confused on some of what he wrote, as there are TWO MOLDS extant. One made by the ROM and another made by a Taxidermist. REPLICA'S of the fish from that second mold (where another "head" was used) has been made and is likely what has been displayed at shows. As I noted previously, the SKIN mount still exists, in fact a friend just forwarded me a photo of ME measuring it in Gananocque almost 3 years ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
There are two different fish. The one everyone gets to see ISN'T Obrien's fish. I am talking about the fish we see in the case that goes around to all the fishing shows.
This part is true, the O'Brien replicas are actually made from a different "larger" fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Steve Worall and the Guest are on target.......Larry Ramsell is NOT the target.
The issue with the O'brien fish is the irrefuttable evidence with the yardstick next to the fresh fish in the photos and the measuring tape on the show side of the cast.
The weighing and measuring by LR 8 days after the catch lends supporting evidence but really doesn't matter.
All that is needed are the 2 pics with the tapes clearly showing the fish is not as long as claimed.
The evidence is on the table and has not been in any way refuted by the defenders of the O'brien record.
This fish needs to be removed from any record consideration
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/7/2011 10:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Larry,
The WMA photo analysis seals the deal, doesn't it?
No sense beating a dead horse.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Here is the photo of me measuring the O'Brien mount.
Oops, darn file is too big, sorry.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/7/2011 11:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
| still not following this "other fish" thing?.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | So if the mount is augmented I hope someone allows it to be examined. Why then fake a fish that is near but not bigger than the current world record? |
|
| |
|
| How long was the O'Brien mount? The pose that it's in appears to make an accurate length measurement rather difficult. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | As I had hoped when this thread started, information is starting to flow both here and from a phone call I got while I was away a short while ago. Let me respond to some recent posts.
Guest
"still not following this "other fish" thing?...."
LR: After my phone call, this "other fish" was further clarified to me. The MOLD made at ROM is the first mold made and is of the complete O'Brien fish. It is what it is. That is the mold photo used by the WRMA. In addition, there are two more molds that are minus the head (don't know why). Initially, a head from a different big fish was used with one of those "headless" molds (I have photos) to make replica's. Apparently, the REPLICA's that exist now and are "promoted" to be of the O'Brien record fish, are of a different fish completely...so, REPLICA's seen at shows in a glass case ARE NOT replica's of the original O'Brien fish!!
ToddM
"So if the mount is augmented I hope someone allows it to be examined. Why then fake a fish that is near but not bigger than the current world record?"
LR: Todd, the O'Brien mount IS augmented girth wise (taxidermist method, not necessarily intentional), but not length wise, if the memory of my friend is sound...I failed to make notes, probably because I don't believe you can trust mounted fish...the Johnson mount is a classic example of what a good taxidermist can do. The only way further examination of the mount would yield any beneficial results would be to completely "de-mount" the fish and examine the skin and that certainly isn't likely to happen (as is the case with the Johnson mount after Dettloff advised him to leave it alone).
JD
"How long was the O'Brien mount? The pose that it's in appears to make an accurate length measurement rather difficult."
LR: JD you are correct that the pose of the O'Brien mount makes it very difficult to make an accurate measurement, another reason I don't put much stock in evaluating that mount further. Again, if memory correct, the mount was about 54 inches long, but don't take that to the bank, as noted I didn't make notes. Perhaps someone in GAN will stop by and try to measure it again.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| So where does that leave us in terms of what fish actually IS the largest muskie ever caught and verified?? The Williamson fish? |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Jeff there is an old fish from Eagle that would be next in line to be the new record for Ontario if they toss the O'brien fish. It's reported weight is slightly more than Williamson's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | esoxaddict asked: "So where does that leave us in terms of what fish actually IS the largest muskie ever caught and verified?? The Williamson fish?"
And Bytor wrote: "Jeff there is an old fish from Eagle that would be next in line to be the new record for Ontario if they toss the O'brien fish. It's reported weight is slightly more than Williamson's."
LR: esoxaddict, that is a very good question. It cannot be the Williamson fish, because it was never "verified" or "certified", nor was it weighed on a certified scale I've been told and it is too late now to have that scale checked.
Bytor, actually the Eagle fish would RETURN to the top spot by default, since it was the Ontario record for 48 years, although it in reality belongs in a "historical list" since there is no existing certification for it.
There are other purported 60 + pound fish on record, but absolute documentation is lacking on some of those too, other than Field & Stream Contest results, which no one today is much willing to accept based on the proven frauds that they had accepted in the past record years. Others with good documentation too, are suspect to many. So where do we go from here?
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/7/2011 1:42 PM
|
|
| |
