|
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | What photo's Can I see, Huh..., huh,,.... can I ,can I ??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I guess it shows you if you don't want to be put under a microscope with doubters on huge catch............THump and no more questions. Thats the only sure way to have it verified. |
|
| |
|
| And if you thump it and have a mold/cast made from the fish itself the mold/cast had better match the "verified" length measurement. 
|
|
| |
|
| It happened in Canada, that being the case I've never heard anyone up there sreaming about how the Lawton fish was a fake and should be removed from the record books. What right do we have to tell them about managing their records. |
|
| |
|
| JS - 1/21/2012 2:05 PMWhat right do we have to tell them about managing their records.
None really. |
|
| |
|
| "It happened in Canada, that being the case I've never heard anyone up there sreaming about how the Lawton fish was a fake and should be removed from the record books. What right do we have to tell them about managing their records."
They couldn't very well scream about Lawton's fish being fake when the one they have as their record is fake as well. A fake is a fake and should be treated as one regardless of where it came from.
|
|
| |
|
| You just made my point, maybe we should worry about cleaning up our own backyard before we worry about everyone else.
Secondly the fish did have a 30inch girth so it is possible it was over 60lbs when first caught. There was a large fish a few years back that was found floating barely alive in New Brunswick with a huge girth. It weighed it at 39lbs or something. When it was removed from the freezer a number of weeks later it weighed 4lbs less at 35lbs give or take. The article is in MHM from 2010. |
|
| |
|
| Sorry it is in the Apr/May issue 2011 |
|
| |
|
| JS,
You make it sound like O'Brien's fish was the only one that's been challenged. You certainly know this isn't true.
As for the 30" girth (actually it was reported to be 30.5"), keep in mind that if the fish had a 30.5" girth at the time it was re-weighed it would have weighed over 56 lbs. And if the girth was 30.5" at the time of the fish was initially weighed it should have been close to that during the re-weighing. There's no possible way the fish could have lost 15% of it's weight due to dehydration and freezing and John Casselman would be the first to tell you this.
Also, the explanation given by John Casselman for the weight loss of the NB muskie was that the fish had absorbed water during the time it was floating just before it was originally weighed. The same was true of the pike he had in his data. There was no "water absorbtion" with O'Brien's fish unless it was from the garden hose.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| Wasn't there alot of blood lost from the Obrien fish as its throat was cut? Could this possibly explain the loss in weight? Yeah I know a lot of these past fish are bogus. But the alliance behind proving these records false just rubs me the wrong way...
John |
|
| |
|
| "Wasn't there alot of blood lost from the Obrien fish as its throat was cut? Could this possibly explain the loss in weight? Yeah I know a lot of these past fish are bogus. But the alliance behind proving these records false just rubs me the wrong way..."
No, O'Brien's fish had bled out before it was weighed.
|
|
| |
|
| hoax hunter I wasn't refering to the 60lb fish out of the St.John read the MHM article. A 39lb fish was taken and weighed, later after it was pulled from the freezer it weighes 35lbs. I find that interesting because of all the debate relating to weight loss, that is all. Read the article, doesn't mean I believe the O'Brein fish was 58in long or 65lbs. I'm just pointing out a documented report of a fish coming out of a freezer weighing less then before it was put in. |
|
| |
|
| That 39lb fish was still barely alive when it was found, so in that case there was no arguement for water absorbtion. |
|
| |
|
| I thought that there was a new musky world record organization that was created a couple of years ago. How is that one working out?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That group looks at new potential records, not the historical records. |
|
| |
|
| "That 39lb fish was still barely alive when it was found, so in that case there was no arguement for water absorbtion."
The NB 60.5 lb. muskie was also said to have been "barely alive" when it was pulled from the water and yet John Casselman still said it may have absorbed water before it was originally weighed. Read the article in the current issue of MH.
O'Brien's muskie was in good shape when it was pulled from the water so no arguement can be made for water absorbtion.
Why don't you ask John Casselman if a muskie could lose almost 15% of it's weight due to the conditions O'Brien's fish was subjected to? |
|
| |
|
| "I thought that there was a new musky world record organization that was created a couple of years ago. How is that one working out?"
No entries have been submitted.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 208
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j-MPZtj42g&feature=related
maybe if this would have stayed hooked?
 let the fun begin!
Edited by Trollindad 1/24/2012 11:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
| "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j-MPZtj42g&feature=related
maybe if this would have stayed hooked?
let the fun begin!"
Let the fun begin on another thread!
|
|
| |
|
| "hoax hunter I wasn't refering to the 60lb fish out of the St.John read the MHM article. A 39lb fish was taken and weighed, later after it was pulled from the freezer it weighes 35lbs. I find that interesting because of all the debate relating to weight loss, that is all. Read the article, doesn't mean I believe the O'Brein fish was 58in long or 65lbs. I'm just pointing out a documented report of a fish coming out of a freezer weighing less then before it was put in."
JS,
If you read that article you should also have noticed that the fish you were referring to was originally 25.75" x 43" and after being frozen 19 months and badly freezer burned it was still 25.5" x 43" (they said it was 41" but admitted that this was due to much of the tail being broken off due to being freezer burned). So here we have the fish only losing 1/2" in girth and they are claiming it lost 4.3 lbs. when a 1/2" loss in girth should represent just slightly over 1/2 pound in weight on a fish of this size.
Also consider that this fish was frozen 19 months for these changes to occur while O'Brien's fish was only frozen for 8 days! Do you honestly feel it's possible for O'Brien's fish to have lost 9 lbs. in weight and 4" in length in 8 days? Do you think you should even be making this comparison of the two fish? Also consider that the 39.5 lb fish didn't lose any length at all after being frozen 19 months!
Also notice in the beginning of that article it says that the 60.5 lb. NB muskie was "almost lifeless" when it was pulled from the water which puts it in the same category as the 39.5 lb fish you were referring to that was "barely alive".
You really must read the latest issue of MH and see what John Casselman had to say about water absorbtion and the 60.5 lb NB muskie.
|
|
| |
|
| hoaxhunter - 1/24/2012 10:46 AM
Why don't you ask John Casselman if a muskie could lose almost 15% of it's weight due to the conditions O'Brien's fish was subjected to?
it's pretty hard to believe that 15% lost
especialy when i am looking at a video like this one!
so listen at 4.40 and listen WELL!!!!!!
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/videos/01.09.2010/2124/Larry.Ramsel...
now we have something to talk!
so let's talk but with respect |
|
| |
|
| OH BRYAN,
Again, why don't you ask John Casselman if a muskie could lose almost 15% of it's weight due to the conditions O'Brien's fish was subjected to?
That video was made before Larry saw the WMA O'Brien report. I see no problem with him changing his position.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Personally, despite what I said on that interview BEFORE I knew the results of the WMA's report, I think the record keepers should take another look. Something is sadly amiss. In fact, a close friend of the key witness Stan (the muskie man) Nowocin, has recently said under oath that John Power admitted to him that O'brien's fish wasn't legitimate and in fact didn't even weigh 60 pounds! That correlates with my findings 8 days after the catch that found the fish weighing just 56 pounds. The photograph of O'brien with the yardstick alongside the fish also PROVES that it couldn't have possibly been 58 inches long. Most know that a hanging fish is longer by at least an inch in that size fish, not to mention that with the cut throat and showing a one inch gap hanging, the case just gets stronger that the fish was no where near the length claimed. SO, I have changed my mind. As I have ALWAYS maintained, show me proof contrary to what I believe and I'll change my mind...I did. The record keepers, OFAH, IGFA, NFWFHF, should do a better job of cleaning their houses, give adequate and fair review to record protests and not be hypocritical from one decision to the next!
As an aside, the MNR person involved in the weighing, Lloyd Thurston, merely witnessed the weight hanging on the scale (he arrived late). He did NOT investigate the fish, its contents or to my knowledge even measure it, nor did he sign any of the affidavits for record claim. He was involved later in getting the scale properly certified, but he would have been unaware had the fish been loaded with water, either by accident or on purpose, prior to weighing.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
|
|
| |
|
| Larry is not challenging the record, he is only part of the WMA report because he reported that the fish only weighed 56lbs/54” in an article in Musky Hunter in 1988. So, I will throw it right back at you, with that information provided back in 1988, shouldn't Muskies Canada have gotten to the bottom of this discrepancy back when he reported it? Why is it now Ramsell's fault that this fish came up short when he reported that from day one and is not even challenging the record?
It's not about Ramsell, the WMA, or even the witnesses at this point. All this new affidavit does is prove that affidavits in general are pretty much worthless, particularly when they fly in the face of hard physical evidence. Which affidavit are you Muskies Canada guys going to hang your hat on now?
It seems to me you've got it totally backwards because you should be mad at the people who originally took a beautiful 50lb fish and defiled it. Seriously, if you're going to be mad about anything, be mad at the mold cast and picture next to the ruler. Why don't you man up and find a problem with either of those instead of lashing out at Ramsell.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| There is no world record period . I believe that both Larry and Paul are honorable men , anyone can be decieved or caught up in the moment and anyone has the right to change their minds with the introduction of new facts , I see the Obrian mount quite often and it is a monster by anyones standard but with all the doubt and contraversy surrounding it kind of voids the claim of world record just as the Johnson and Lawton fish , If there is to be a claim to fame it will have to be judged by the new panel who will be above reproach , All the others well.........Great fish ! |
|
| |
|
| The O'Brien fish stays right where it has been, behind the Johnson and Spray fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Into obscurity as either at best generous exaggeration or at worst, outright hoax. |
|
| |
|
|
"As an aside, the MNR person involved in the weighing, Lloyd Thurston, merely witnessed the weight hanging on the scale (he arrived late). He did NOT investigate the fish, its contents or to my knowledge even measure it, nor did he sign any of the affidavits for record claim. He was involved later in getting the scale properly certified, but he would have been unaware had the fish been loaded with water, either by accident or on purpose, prior to weighing.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian"
Question: If Lloyd Thurston never signed any of the affidavits for record claim how can he be considered an official weight witness? Shouldn't an MNR person's signature be required for the fish to be accepted as a record? Being he did supposedly witness the scale reading why wouldn't he have signed an affidavit confirming what he saw? He saw to it that the scale was properly certified and yet failed to provide his signature as a weight witness? The accuracy of the scale doesn't mean much without this MNR person's signature officially confirming his own scale reading.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Curious: Great question. I'm not sure just who placed him in that position. Yes, he was involved in the official weighing process but did not sign any affidavits to same. Perhaps since an MCI member "prepared" the affidavits on O'brien's behalf, he/they did not wish to involve Mr. Thurston in a false document?!
Record requirement at the time was for a fisheries scientist to "verify species". That was done by Dr. Ed Crossman. The only other signatories to the affidavit were one of O'brien's fishing buddies and John Power and of course, Ken O'brien as applicant. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Larry. I would think Lloyd Thurston would have WANTED to sign an affidavit and MCI would have wanted him to sign one as well. Something just isn't right here!
|
|
| |
