|
|
Posts: 2361
| Getting frozen before replying I would say this about girth.
#1 to accept the idea of a girth formula from a photo, you would first have to accept that the formula was accurate(and I don't believe this can be done from a one dimensional photo shoot, so I doubt the veracity of this hypothesis to start), and then, #2 you have to accept the idea that the measurements used were also accurate, which it has been pointed out, may not be the case, and if the measurements were not correct it would magnify the error in the final solution.
A third question arises, which many on here postulate already, were the measurements put forth by the original fisherman accurate? Since the musky record was a weight verified record, and recorded on verified scales with witnesses and affadavits, the question of girth is really moot in the overall conversation, no matter how much is made of it by various factions. It is not a significant statistic in establishing a musky record, it is little more than an interesting statistic. Once again, those records are by weight. This was a fish carrying mass and depth, the length of the body, and it was not of the football shape some of the shorter muskies take, and that so many are using as benchmarks for this fish. Not similar bodies at all. Did it need to be? I don't know. What was the actual cavity shape of this one? I don't know this either. But the fish can weigh what it weighed and have an inaccurate girth measurement, and still weigh what it weighs. That remains the verified and witnessed measurement that needs to be disproven. And I don't think a fantasy girth formula will do it for those aimed on overturning the Johnson fish.
As to the other question posed before the thread was closed, yes I am dense, and my wife often points it out to me, but then again she married me and has stayed with me, so......how good is HER judgement???
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
The measurements were sworn to be accurate by the fisherman and the taxidermist. If the measurements were falsified as is clearly the case, whatever else is on the affidavits is also worthless.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Having not seen the fish nor the measurement of the same, nor the affadavits, I will assume all are as they should be. I am not sure the affadavits attest to the girth, and I am not one that can judge the girth from a picture as so many here seem wont to do. And as I have stated, the girth is not the measure that validates a record, nor is it what has to be proven in error. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | six:
It has NOT been proven that the scales used were certified...period. Dettloff's "alluding" to same is more smoke & mirrors. Let's see the certification documents IF they exist...and believe me if Dettloff had them he would have posted them!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Larry, Larry, Larry, if the scale did not meet certification in the first place, why was there any recognition of this fish as a record? Wasn't that the ruling used to throw out the Malo fish, the true world record musky?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Six:
There "really" wasn't, Dettloff premature Field & Stream letter notwithstanding. Since Spray beat Johnson (supposedly) before the end of the year, he not Johnson ended up on top and there was no reason for F&S to persue Johnson's fish further than awarding him an "honor badge" as alluded to in the F&S letter.
I repeat...there is NO SCALE CERTIFICATIONS in existence...NONE. There was none in the Field & Stream files when they turned them over to the IGFA (I had access to them shortly thereafter as an IGFA Rep.) and there obviously is none in the massive Cal Johnson files that Dettloff has!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian for ALL of North America
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
