|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Curious - 4/25/2011 6:13 PM
I'll again return to the Lawton rebuttal math.
Photo 2x4 mea. Ph.Act.=A Per in. calc. Fish lgth./photo Calc fish lgth.
1-K 3.750 “ .130 .0347 2.130” “ “ “ 61.38 “ Direct scaled, no perspective involved.
1-K 3.845 “ .130 .0338 “ “ “ “ 63.02 “ Direct scaled, no perspective involved.
1-K 4.000 “ .130 .0325 “ “ “ “ 65.54 “ Direct scaled, no perspective involved.
This shows photo calculations that meet and exceed the claimed length of Lawton's record fish. What do those of you whom have read the rebuttal think? Obviously JD or whomever he is, hasn't read it.
Next, for those interested, we'll take a look at Dettloff's weird calculations where the record fish is hanging from a pipe. A key factor to look for here is why, when Dettloff supplied all of the Standards information needed in his investigation and used in the rebuttal, did he use such a complex method rather than using the Standards in his investigation? Was it to insure he obtained his desired result?
George Langdon
George (or someone)...
Could someone please point me to the photographs that these calculations were made from. I haven't had a lot of time to follow this thread in the past couple of days, so I apologize for not being able to follow the math here. But I would like to do so at some point today. So if someone who be so kind as to post a link to the actual picture(s) that were used to evaluate Mr. Lawton's fish, I would be most grateful. The math doesn't seem terribly difficult, but I need to get a little more background to be able to formulate an opinion on how accurate the calculations are.
I should say that I have in fact read the letter from the three math professors, rebutting the FWFHoF's analysis of Spray's fish--but that's not what I am talking about here. I need to see the Lawton material, as I simply haven't had the time to follow along lately.
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Tom....I think you'll find them on pg. 422 of LR's Muskellunge World Records vol. 1
Maybe Larry can post a better pic.........?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | My apologies to JD/GW. I've got to quit getting up in the middle of the night to do this stuff. In my previous post, while I was basically correct in my first point, I was partially incorrect in the second point. If the board was/is closer, the fish length is lessened, not increased. However, having admitted same, I submit that the current difference of distance is considerably less than the remaining 50% of JD/GW's. I say this because the jaw of the fish is tied to the top of the board, causing the tip of the jaw to be closer to the board than the inside half-thickness of the body below.
Since we know that JD/GW's calculated length's were off by more than 50% of the difference between his calculations and mine, and the "actual" distance of the jaw tip to the board too is considerably less than half the fish's width (a "true" unknown...except for GW's "math"), it is, I feel, safe to say that my calculations are only slightly overstated and within the normal acceptable amount of error.
At any rate, my work is not scientific and the work with the three photos shows just how hard it is to determine fish length from a photograph without using professional photogrammetry. That now will be done as the WMA's Jerry Newman has sent these three Lawton photos to Dan Mills at DCM for review. If photogrammetry is possible with these photos, I shall defer to the expert. The Lawton question may finally be put to rest.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/26/2011 10:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
| LR: Earlier this evening I was going to respond to another post by JD/GW. As I was ready to submit it, I was knocked off the Internet and when I returned, the latest JD/GW post was gone, I assume due to his disrespectful manner. I was going to let it lie, but I gave it a bit more thought and figured responding to his insistence that the Professor's projective geometry should be used could only help my case and ADD inches to the calculations in my rebuttal!
First of all, JD/GW is incorrect in the way he "used" the math that he claimed "shortened" the Lawton fish by 7.68; 7.85 and 8.20 inches respectively from my calculations. In fact, if one were to use his math straight up, fish length loss MUST be REDUCED by ONLY 50% of his calculations, but since he is incorrect, length would actually be INCREASED! Bear with me...since the measuring points are the tip of the jaw and the tip of the tail, we are talking the CENTERLINE of the fish, NOT the side of the fish closest to the camera. That alone would increase HIS conclusions by 3.84; 3.94 and 4.10 respectively. Strike one.
Second, since I used direct scaling of the board and the fish's length off of the SAME photograph, if anything, length should be ADDED and not subtracted from my calculated lengths...allow me to explain. "IF" the board was at exactly the same distance from the camera, i.e., even with the tip of the jaw and the tip of the tail, the measurement of the board used to make my calculations would therefore be MORE than the measurements used in my example and therefore, the calculated length of the fish would INCREASE proportionally!! I won't take the time tonight to do the increased calculations. I'll leave that for someone else to have fun with. My position only gets stronger. Strike two.
So JD/GW, you have incorrectly tried to interject and use the Professor's math trying to skew my findings and calculations and mislead the public, when all you have done is actually ADD fish length to my calculations. Thanks and Strike Three!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
First of all, I'm glad that you are in agreement with John Dettloff that direct scaling should be used in this situation.
You should also be revealing your other calculations found below:
1-G - 54.83"
1-G - 56.18"
1-G - 58.43"
1-J - 58.31"
1-J - 59.83"
1-J - 62 .16"
1-K - 61.38"
1-K - 63.02"
1-K - 65.54"
Avg. = 59.96" (Still 4.54" short of the reported length)
4.25" of perspective from the centerline of the fish (59.96" x 91.75" / 96" = 57.3" which is basically the same result found by John Dettloff.
Using the correct amount of 8.5" of perspective results in the following: (59.96" x 87.5" / 96" = 54.65") which is in the same range as the Spray fish.
My question to you is...how can the camera see the centerline of the fish? The camera sees the side of the fish closest to it. It's not able to see the centerline. The ONLY way direct scaling coud be applied in this situation is if the fish was run over by a steam roller! 
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Ramsell,
I also apologize for the above post as it was sent before I saw your latest one.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | JD/GW:
With all due respect, I think you are missing a couple of my points. First of all, I didn't "average" my calculations of the three photographs because the intent of using them was to show in just one way, just how far off almost identical photographs can affect non-professional photo analysis. I used the one most favorable to show that just perhaps it is possible that Lawton's fish was as long as claimed. I further used them to show the shortcomings of Dettloff's analysis' in his investigation. For instance, in addition to the photo measurement analysis and something we haven't gotten into yet, his "Pipe Height" analysis, is yet another blatant attempt on his part to unfairly discredit the Lawton fish in that he uses smoke and mirrors calculations instead of merely using the Standards information that he himself provided.
In your insistence that 8.5 inches of perspective be used indicates to me that you just do not comprehend what I am trying to say. No "steamroller" necessary. The camera IS in fact "seeing" the centerline of the fish, that being the tip of the jaw and the tip of the tail. Those two points are what they are. It is these two points that the examples length measurements were made from...it is as if the rest of the fish wasn't even there and thickness analysis isn't necessary. It is only the very minimal distance from the tip of the jaw to the board where a modest amount of perspective could be applied, only slightly reducing the calculated length and certainly not reducing it by the nearly 10 inches you proclaim.
I think if anything, this exchange further shows that attempting to establish fish length from a photograph should be left up to the experts and their science! I'm looking forward to what DCM comes up with. You could be right, I could be right, or the truth may lie somewhere in between.
|
|
| |
|
| I must say that these record threads are the silliest posts to ever come up on this board. Maybe I just dont care or have nothing invested, but all you have to do is look at the pictures of those fish and know that either all three of those guys are 7' tall or the fish just are not that long. Why can't we just all be honest about it and move on? |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
I respectfully disagree that the camera is seeing the centerline of the fish. A photo is two dimensional and when the side of the fish that is facing the camera is closer to the camera than the centerline the entire image size enlarges relative to what is behind it. The side of the fish cannot enlarge without taking the centerline with it.
Also, the reason why the various photos showed different calculated lengths is because although the distance between the fish and the board may remain the same, the ratio of the camera distances changes when the camera is moved either closer, or futher away from the fish and the board.. The closer the camera is moved in toward the fish and the board, the more the calculated length needs to be reduced. The photos with the camera being the greatest distance from the fish and the board should give the closest calculations of the true length of the fish. |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
Another point that you should be made aware of when dealing with perspective, the SMALLEST calculated length should best represent the actual length of the fish. The reason being the length of a fish NEVER appears smaller than it actually is unless it is behind what it is being compared to.
You are using your LARGEST calculations in your arguement about the possible length of the fish which is the opposite of what you should be doing. The largest calculated length contains the greatest amount of perspective. |
|
| |
|
| I have been waiting for Larry to respond JD,but guess he is done for now. Your last two posts trigger some questions. In your next to last post, I agree with Larry that you didn't understand what he meant, so let me try. One set of his measuring points were the tip of the jaw and the tip of the tail, whatever distance they are from the camera (A). His second set of measurements were the width of the board behind the fish (B). Because of this, the only area that perspective need be considered it the small distance between the tip of the jaw (A) and the board (B), correct? Isn't that dimension the only one that needs to be considered here for perspective "enlargement"?
With regard to your comments regarding camera distance affecting calculated length, isn't those distances an unknown and therefore impossible to make adjustments for? And could you further explain why the photos with the greatest camera distance come closest to true length of the fish? Also, this kinda goes along with your last post, saying the "SMALLEST calculated length should best represent the actual length of the fish." This causes me some concern, not that I am disagreeing with you, but let us consider the following senario's:
It is before 1992 and there has been no photo analysis done on record muskies. Someone decides to do so. The first fish in line (A) has 20 photographs available for review. 19 of them show the fish to be 63-64 inches in length and 1 shows the fish to be 57 inches. The second fish (B) has 10 available photographs, but only 5 of them have been made public. 4 show the fish to be 62-63 inches and one shows the fish to be 61 inches and unknown to the public, the other 5 show the fish to be 56 inches, but we are unaware of them. The third fish (C) has only one known photograph that shows the fish to be 59 inches long. For the purpose of this example, all fish weigh 1 pound per inch. Which fish is the largest?
Do we accept fish (C) are the largest/record??
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| Correction, I should have said do we accept fish (B) as the record.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| JD (or anyone), after you respond to my previous post, how about tackling the following, copied here for simplicity from Ramsell's website/book (pictures didn't transfer):
"Distance of Top of Pipe to Ground
Dettloff used a complex and subjective method to determine the height of the top of the pipe above the ground in the “group fish photo,” resulting in an underestimate of the size of the Lawton fish. A more accurate determination of this distance was easily obtained by using the standards infor-mation provided in the investigation by Dettloff. This was accomplished by using the standard dimensions of height and thickness of the steps of the ladder, the concrete block and the pipe. Use of this information led to the finding that the actual distance of the top of the pipe above the ground was 71 ½ inches, not the 66 to 66½ inches that was determined by Dettloff in his investigation. This finding indicates an unde-restimate of fish length by 5 to 5½ inches in that investigation (See photo analysis showing this finding).
Calculating the Distance from the Ground to the Top of the Pipe
In the 1992 investigation (page 19), Dettloff went to great lengths, using many “assumptions” and “moving of estimated camera height” by one foot, to arrive at his determination of the distance from the top of the pipe to the ground in the group fish photo (Dettloff photo exhibit #7 [group of nine fish photo]).
Rather than use assumptions and theoretical camera height and then an assumed move of the camera upward by one foot, I took a far simpler approach. I simply used the Standards information, provided by Dettloff, for “actual” known dimensions to apply to items contained in that photograph (group of nine fish with Art and Ruth Lawton and the right side wooden ladder showing) to determine the actual height of pipe top from the ground:
Lawton's%20with%209
My “pipe height” analysis photo and Dettloff’s #3
The ladder Standard for distance between steps is 12.000 inches
The ladder Standard for step thickness is .781 “
By multiplying the above x 5 step spaces, we get 60.000 inches
By multiplying the above x 5 steps, we get 3.905 “
The Standard for the concrete block is 5.625 “
The Standard O.D. for the pipe is 1.900 “
The Total is……71.430 inches
(or 71 ½ inches)
Dettloff’s calculated “estimate” was 66.000 to 66.500 in.
(66 to 66 ½ in.)
Difference is 5.430 to 4.93 inches
(5 to 5 ½”)
By then using Dettloff’s calculations, this “missing” 5 to 5 ½ inches would be added to the (his) calculated length of the fish. Using Dettloff’s “range” finding of 55¼ to 57¾ inches (investigation page 20)*, and adding the missing 5 to 5 ½ inches, we now have a fish length range from 60¼/60¾ inches to 62¾/63¼ inches…very close to Lawton’s claim.
*As an experiment, I used Dettloff’s method of calculating the fish’s length (Dettloff photo #7), and I came up with a result of 58½ inches. Then adding the missing 5 to 5 ½ inches to my result, I came up with a total fish length of 63½ to 64 inches...only 1 or ½ inch below Lawton’s claim.
Dettloff's%20-%20Lawton%20%237
Dettloff photo #7
As a cross check, I then applied the actual Standards determined top of pipe height to Dettloff photo #3 (shown previously). Calculations resulted in a fish length of 64¼ inches, only ¼ inch below Lawton’s claim:
Ground to top of pipe on photo measured 2.274 inches. 2.274 inches divided x 71.43 (Standards pipe top height) = .0318 inch (.0318353)
Fish length on photo measured 2.021 inches x .0318 = 64.27 inches (64.268).
To rough check: 2.021 fish (measurement) divided x 2.274 (measured) pipe top = 89% x 71.43 pipe top = 63.57” fish length.
Therefore, it is obvious to this analyst that the method employed by Dettloff in his investigation to determine the height of the top of the pipe off the ground and subsequent determination of fish length was flawed and should be dismissed." |
|
| |
|
| I forgot to put my moniker on my previous post, sorry. I shall be interested to see what JD or anyone has to say about the discrepancy between actual industry Standards and Dettloff's analysis.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| Curious,
Let's see what Dan Mills comes up with after Larry provides him all nine photos used in his analysis. I see no reason to further debate this issue. All I see coming from this is DCM confirming the fish is at least 7" shorter than claimed and Larry having to admit that John Dettloff's calculated length was right on the money. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Right on the money' was what his deal was all about.
Bring the record back to Hayward, so a DIFFERENT muskie that was no way as large as claimed can hold the badly tarnished jewel less crown.
When someone catches and properly records a real 60 pound to 70 pound muskie there will be a WR muskie. Until that time (if ever this event occurs), we have story, lore and hogwash, depending on who is the story teller. |
|
| |
|
| If Dettloff's analysis of Lawton's fish was correct, it was still considerably longer than the Spray and Johnson fish...how could he be so right on one and so wrong on the other two? Sworrall probably nailed it right on the head!
By the way JD, Curious had some good questions regarding perspective in one of his posts above that you never responded to and it wasn't a "debate", but rather logical questions. How about a response? |
|
| |
|
| Guest,
The point is DCM is about to confirm John Dettloff's calculated length which means the Lawton fish was rightfully removed by both record keepers.
I've already answered the questions about perspective and my calculations compare favorably with John Dettloff's and likely DCM's as well. I'm confident my calculations will be supported by DCM. If my results are confirmed by DCM, Larry owes me an apology. If my results aren't supported by DCM, I'll apologize to Larry. Fair enough?
Another point I'd like to make regarding the Lawton fish at 57". Larry says the side width of Lawton's fish is 16.67% of the length of the fish. This results in a side width (depth) of 9.5". This means the girth of the fish is just slightly more than 26.5" meaning the weight was barely over 50 lbs.
To me this thread is about whether or not the Lawton fish was as large as claimed, NOT about what John Dettloff did, or didn't do with the Spray and Johnson fish.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here's the thing though... How do we know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the musky appearing with Mr. Lawton in the images (G, J & K) is the one he alleges to be the 64.5", 69-15 pound catch?
I just spent 5 hours of my free time over the past two days, reviewing these photographs, and reading all of Larry's material on his website. I've still got another hour or so of reading, but have completed the vast majority of it--including the parts about Mr. Dettloff's conclusions. I found several things which appear (at least as far as I can tell with the material I have available to me) to be blatant bias in his analysis. I don't have the benefit of reading his entire voluminous report though, so I am simply not able to determine how he arrived at some of his conclusions. I also calculated what I feel to be the most likely length of the fish purported (by Mr. Dettloff) to be the one submitted for WR consideration. But who is to say that is the fish alleged to be the WR fish? As Larry Ramsell has pointed out, much confusion surrounds the issue of the image submitted to Field & Stream; the image was fuzzy and another was requested; some were lost, some were found; a missing photo was later found...etc.
Then we have all of the affiants in support of Mr. Lawton's catch. These people were not satisfactorily discredited enough to overturn Mr. Lawton's fish, in my humble opinion! I feel that Brad Latvaitis made excellent points in his letter to the FWFHoF, but (sadly) his suggestions were lost on that body, and no additional investigation was carried out. Incredible.
So all this talk about a picture, though interesting, may simply not be relevant! Until I hear more explanation from Mr. Dettloff as to the assumptions he made to arrive at his conclusions, and (very importantly) to address the criticisms about his handling of the apparent discrepancy in Mr. Dunn's third affidavit, I simply cannot say that Mr. Lawton in fact did not catch a WR musky! There are simply too many questions left unanswered for this not to look like an ill-conceived, biased, sham of an investigation; carried out solely with the ulterior motive of restoring Mr. Spray's 69-11 fish to the WR status.
So that's how much I think of this picture issue...while it might be fodder for debate, I simply don't think it's as relevant as some would make it seem.
I'll agree that the pictures shown (G, J & K) do not add up to a 64.5" fish. My calculations indicate it to be an estimated 58," give or take an inch or so. But we might be talking apples & oranges here folks, especially when you consider all the assumptions Mr. Dettloff seems to have made in order to arrive at the sizes of the fish in some of his analysis. I would very much like to have a one-on-one chat with the man, about mathematics and the formulation of hypotheses...specifically, the introduction of bias into the process of scientific investigation. I just do not agree with some of his conclusions.
Therefore I am not prepared to say that Mr. Lawton does not deserve to hold the WR muskellunge.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here's another wrinkle...
Larry sent me another image ("LawtonNewPic.jpg", attached). Take a look at it. It appears to me to be a different fish. Compare it to the "Lawton 1-G.jpg" image, which I've also attached. Don't look at the fish, to start out with...look at the angler. He appears to me to be wearing different clothing in the two images. His shirt fits looser in the old pics, compared to the new picture. Now look at the waist band on his pants. In the new picture, there's a 'V' in the waist band, above the button. The pants in the new picture also do not appear to be pleated, whereas the pants in the old pic (as well as the other two images in that series) seem to be. Now look at angler's face--it appears rounder than in the old pictures. In fact, he looks more slender in the old pictures than in the new. This suggests that he may have gained weight (or lost weight, depending upon the chronology of these images) between the times these shots were taken. As a physician, my impression is that the angler in the "new picture" is heavier than the angler in the "old pictures."
Now look at the fish. Don't look at the size in comparison to the angler. In the new picture, the fish looks slight darker. It also looks heavier, but it's hard to get an apples-to-apples comparison, as it is rotated and thus not perpendicular to the camera as the fish in the old picture appears.
Now let's talk some math...
Look at the 2x4 holding the fish in the new picture. It's at an angle to the direct line between the camera and the angler. As I can only estimate the angle, I'll suggest 45-degrees as a starting point. Now we'll assume a 4" width of the board. I will freely admit that this could have been a "dimensional" 2x4, with actual dimensions of 1.5" x 3.5," as I found a reference on the Internet where someone reported that their house was built with dimensional lumber as early as 1953. Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume it's a 4" board oriented at approximately 45-degrees from the front of the angler.
Now then, I measured the pixel count of the length of the fish and got 406 pixels. I then measured the width of the board (across the image) and got 18 pixels. So here's the math, again assuming a 45-degree angle:
Board: 18 pixels
Fish Length: 406 pixels
Estimated length = ( 406 / 18 ) * 4 cos 45 = 63.80"
NOTE: Since you are looking at the plane of the image, the apparent distance across the 2x4 represents the cosine of the angle of the board times the 4" length I assumed.
Now, let's look at the Lawton 1-G image (also attached). The fish seems to be more perpendicular to the camera, and (again) appears lighter in color to me. Here's my math on that fish:
Board: 15 pixels
Fish Length: 203 pixels
Estimated length = ( 203 / 14 ) * 4 = 58.0"
Therefore, I submit a couple of observations for consideration and discussion...
1) It appears as though Mr. Lawton was photographed with another (different) fish at some point; besides the fish shown in the "old pics" mentioned above. This other fish seems to be darker in color, and has a body that appears more full, at least to my eyes. It also appears to me to be a larger fish.
2) Mr. Lawton himself appears different between these two images. In the first set of pictures in this thread (Lawton 1-G, -J & -K), he appears to be wearing looser-fitting clothing, be wearing a different style of pants, and be of slightly lighter build.
3) The length of the fish in this new photo seems to be more in accordance with the stated length (64.5") reported by Mr. Lawton, and by those individuals who filed affidavits in the matter with Field & Stream--at least given the assumptions I've made with respect to the angle and width of the 2x4 (45-degrees and 4", respectively).
Finally, I draw no conclusions from these observations. However I can certainly find it quite plausible that the first set of pictures (Lawton 1-G, -J & -K) were of a smaller fish, such as his 49-8 musky; while this most recent photo may well be of a fish of significantly larger proportions. Can I say with certainty that this new photo represents the "missing link" to the WR fish he claimed? No I cannot. However, I do feel that this new photographic evidence (new to me, anyway) suggests that Mr. Mills should be asked to render his opinion as to the possibility that it may be just that.
One last thing... Keep in mind that I assumed that the 2x4 was angled at approximately 45-degrees from the line between the camera and the angler. This angle is quite important! However the resolution of the image I have attached is quite poor, and thus this is only an estimate.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/27/2011 7:23 PM
Attachments
----------------
 LawtonNewPic.jpg (42KB - 608 downloads)
Lawton 1-G.jpg (35KB - 480 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Guest - 4/27/2011 11:40 AM
JD (or anyone), after you respond to my previous post, how about tackling the following, copied here for simplicity from Ramsell's website/book (pictures didn't transfer):
"Distance of Top of Pipe to Ground
Dettloff used a complex and subjective method to determine the height of the top of the pipe above the ground in the “group fish photo,” resulting in an underestimate of the size of the Lawton fish. A more accurate determination of this distance was easily obtained by using the standards infor-mation provided in the investigation by Dettloff. This was accomplished by using the standard dimensions of height and thickness of the steps of the ladder, the concrete block and the pipe. Use of this information led to the finding that the actual distance of the top of the pipe above the ground was 71 ½ inches, not the 66 to 66½ inches that was determined by Dettloff in his investigation. This finding indicates an unde-restimate of fish length by 5 to 5½ inches in that investigation (See photo analysis showing this finding).
Calculating the Distance from the Ground to the Top of the Pipe
In the 1992 investigation (page 19), Dettloff went to great lengths, using many “assumptions” and “moving of estimated camera height” by one foot, to arrive at his determination of the distance from the top of the pipe to the ground in the group fish photo (Dettloff photo exhibit #7 [group of nine fish photo]).
Rather than use assumptions and theoretical camera height and then an assumed move of the camera upward by one foot, I took a far simpler approach. I simply used the Standards information, provided by Dettloff, for “actual” known dimensions to apply to items contained in that photograph (group of nine fish with Art and Ruth Lawton and the right side wooden ladder showing) to determine the actual height of pipe top from the ground:
Lawton's%20with%209
My “pipe height” analysis photo and Dettloff’s #3
The ladder Standard for distance between steps is 12.000 inches
The ladder Standard for step thickness is .781 “
By multiplying the above x 5 step spaces, we get 60.000 inches
By multiplying the above x 5 steps, we get 3.905 “
The Standard for the concrete block is 5.625 “
The Standard O.D. for the pipe is 1.900 “
The Total is……71.430 inches
(or 71 ½ inches)
Dettloff’s calculated “estimate” was 66.000 to 66.500 in.
(66 to 66 ½ in.)
Difference is 5.430 to 4.93 inches
(5 to 5 ½”)
By then using Dettloff’s calculations, this “missing” 5 to 5 ½ inches would be added to the (his) calculated length of the fish. Using Dettloff’s “range” finding of 55¼ to 57¾ inches (investigation page 20)*, and adding the missing 5 to 5 ½ inches, we now have a fish length range from 60¼/60¾ inches to 62¾/63¼ inches…very close to Lawton’s claim.
*As an experiment, I used Dettloff’s method of calculating the fish’s length (Dettloff photo #7), and I came up with a result of 58½ inches. Then adding the missing 5 to 5 ½ inches to my result, I came up with a total fish length of 63½ to 64 inches...only 1 or ½ inch below Lawton’s claim.
Dettloff's%20-%20Lawton%20%237
Dettloff photo #7
As a cross check, I then applied the actual Standards determined top of pipe height to Dettloff photo #3 (shown previously). Calculations resulted in a fish length of 64¼ inches, only ¼ inch below Lawton’s claim:
Ground to top of pipe on photo measured 2.274 inches. 2.274 inches divided x 71.43 (Standards pipe top height) = .0318 inch (.0318353)
Fish length on photo measured 2.021 inches x .0318 = 64.27 inches (64.268).
To rough check: 2.021 fish (measurement) divided x 2.274 (measured) pipe top = 89% x 71.43 pipe top = 63.57” fish length.
Therefore, it is obvious to this analyst that the method employed by Dettloff in his investigation to determine the height of the top of the pipe off the ground and subsequent determination of fish length was flawed and should be dismissed."
So should your calculations. OSHA standards for ladder step widths INCLUDE the thickness of the steps. 12" is from the top of one step to the top of the next. So you've effectively ADDED 3'0" to your calculations by including the thickness of the steps. That aside? Unless you have the actual ladder in the picture? -- measure your ladders some time. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI |
So should your calculations. OSHA standards for ladder step widths INCLUDE the thickness of the steps. 12" is from the top of one step to the top of the next. So you've effectively ADDED 3'0" to your calculations by including the thickness of the steps. That aside? Unless you have the actual ladder in the picture? it's alol crap -- measure your ladders some time.
You might want to rethink that a bit. You are saying it's 3 *FEET* off.
3'0" = 3 feet.
That's a lot of step thickness...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/27/2011 7:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| OK...Tom...I certainly respect what you have done here...wow! lots of work!
But here is my simple high school thought.
In the first pic of Lawton with his hand on the lower jaw of the fish as it hangs, his hand can be no wider [I submit] from his little finger to his first finger [which is fading away] than 4" and that I think is generous.. The length of the fish is no longer than 13.5 times the width of that measurement which = 54". So , Ok, give it a bit for a slight perspective for the hand behind the top of head....that may push it to, mmmm, maybe 55"....tops, IMHO.
Geez, maybe I'm just way off but that's kinda it for me....even after a few adult beverages.
DougP
Edited by fins355 4/27/2011 8:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I've given you the math. Download GIMP (Photoshop substitute), install it, and evaluate the images. It should give you the pixel counts. Then just do the math. Microsoft Paint might do it as well, but I haven't tried that. Of course Photoshop should provide this feature also. I used the Preview application in Mac OS X, which gives me pixel counts automatically.
It's very simple math, really. The only two things that possibly confound this are the actual width of the board, and its angle to the line between the angler and the camera. But as the image is low resolution, I simply cannot discern either of these with any greater degree of accuracy. That is a job best left to someone like Dan Mills. I only present this information to suggest that there might be more to the story than we've been told by Mr. Dettloff. Without his report however, I simply can't say for certain...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Got it Tom....what about my assesment? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I've been a practicing physician for well over ten years now and can honestly tell you that I know of no anatomical rule that specifies the width of a human's hand in respect to their height (or any other body parameter, for that matter). The palm of the hand represents about 1% of the surface area of the body, but this is irrelevant when it comes to using the width to measure something. This is a crude tool that one can use to determine the Total Surface Area of burns.
The human hand is highly variable in terms of its length and width from person to person. Put ten 5'8" people in the same room and measure their hands, and I'll bet no two are the same. Therefore I simply cannot agree with your assessment.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/27/2011 8:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Ok...I'll certainly go with that and bow to your expertise.... although I think the fish is unworthy of all this work and far short of the claimed dimensions. I guess we can wait for the DCM report........whenever that may appear.... 
Edited by fins355 4/27/2011 8:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I just tried GIMP, and it works fine. Select Tools > Measure from the main menu across the top, and you can simply select two points on the screen. The pixel count appears at the lower left in the tool palette. Using GIMP, I got the same pixel counts as I did above, with the Mac OS X application. This was to be expected of course, since it's the picture (not the application) that drives this measurement.
TB |
|
| |
|
| It is all moot OSHA if, as Mr. Betka points out, it was the wrong fish to be analyzing in the first place! But I have a question anyway. Why would both standards be given in the material Dettloff supplied, but not the "OSHA" measurement you give? How long has OSHA been in effect? |
|
| |
|
| typo
meant inches |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I must admit that the whole "Standard" thing went a bit over my head. Where did John Dettloff get that value for the outside diameter of the pipe? He stated 1.900" OD, but pipe comes in many diameters--so where did the 1.900" come from?
Also, with respect to the OSHA specifications for ladders:
1926.1053(a)(3)(i): Rungs, cleats, and steps of portable ladders (except as provided below) and fixed ladders (including individual-rung/step ladders) shall be spaced not less than 10 inches (25 cm) apart, nor more than 14 inches (36 cm) apart, as measured between center lines of the rungs, cleats and steps.
1926.1053(a)(3)(ii): Rungs, cleats, and steps of step stools shall be not less than 8 inches (20 cm) apart, nor more than 12 inches (31 cm) apart, as measured between center lines of the rungs, cleats, and steps.
1926.1053(a)(3)(iii): Rungs, cleats, and steps of the base section of extension trestle ladders shall be not less than 8 inches (20 cm) nor more than 18 inches (46 cm) apart, as measured between center lines of the rungs, cleats, and steps. The rung spacing on the extension section of the extension trestle ladder shall be not less than 6 inches (15 cm) nor more than 12 inches (31 cm), as measured between center lines of the rungs, cleats, and steps.
(Source: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=stand...)
And by the way, these are very likely NOT "OSHA Standard" ladders in the Lawton images, as OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) was created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and was organized in 1971.
(Source: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/osha13guenther.htm)
So where exactly did Mr. Dettloff get all of these "standards"? If somebody could please enlighten me, it would be much-appreciated. I read that entire exhaustive report on Larry's website, but didn't see anything mentioned about how/where those values came from.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/27/2011 9:38 PM
|
|
| |
