|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | ...except if the camera is not at eye-level with Mr. Lawton, or the fish. Then one would *appear* to be disproportionately larger than the other. That's perspective as well, as I recall. I am not prepared to make the "she can't be that big, 'cause the angler'd have to be smaller" argument.
I'll just stick with the math for now, and leave the subjectivity to others...
TB |
|
| |
|
| fins, you are in error in your 68" measurement. You are using the front tips of Lawton's feet as your bottom determinent, when in fact you should be using his heels to outline his 68 inch height. Try that and the distance becomes much closer and would give a far different number when perspective is factored in. I also think your 14-18 dimension is far too great. Place both of your arms at that exact position and you'll see that your dimension is very excessive to the belly of the fish. Bias? I think Tom is on the right track using math to determine KNOWNS, rather than make assumptions that you cannot back up and that attempt to prove your bias. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I believe he is also in error in the marking for the fish's length. I used the distal tip of the lower tail lobe--it appears to be the one closest to the ground, and the one most in line with the lower jaw of the fish.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Ok...fair enough.
I will go on record saying this fish is considerably less than 60", most likely in the mid to high 50 " range.
My projection would be ....55"- 58".....tops.... and I would put my money on 55"-56"
I'll hang my hat on that.
DougP 
Edited by fins355 4/29/2011 7:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I was in a meeting all afternoon today, so I haven't been able to work on this much. I'll work on it again tonight or tomorrow though. I believe there's a way to work out both the size and the angle of the 2x4, with a reasonable degree of certainty. Then, it's a relatively simple matter to estimate the size of the fish.
Then I'll hang my hat on that...
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 4/29/2011 7:05 PM
Ok...fair enough.
I will go on record saying this fish is considerably less than 60", most likely in the mid to high 50 " range.
My projection would be ....55"- 58".....tops.... and I would put my money on 55"-56"
I'll hang my hat on that.
DougP :)
I should say Doug, that I don't necessarily disagree with you (or Brad) on this. Just because I am taking another approach doesn't mean I believe in (or don't believe in) the fish. I am simply taking an approach that maybe hasn't been taken thus far. And if I can show, using this method, that the fish couldn't possibly have been 64.5" or even close--then that's it. Put another way, I am not attempting to *include* the fish as the WR fish on the basis of these pictures alone. I am simply trying to not exclude it solely by photo analysis. Just because I might be able to show that the fish in the picture could be 64.5" (i.e.; not excluded), doesn't mean that I am arguing for inclusion of the fish as the WR. I hope this makes sense.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/29/2011 9:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I find this whole debate on the biggest caught musky of all time ridiculous. How many really good sportsmen lie about their fish? To what end? Is there any evidence that Lawton tried to make money out of his 69er? Has there ever been one witness--with firsthand knowledge--who said that Lawton exaggerated his catches? I'll bet not. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I have reviewed the calculations furnished by Mr. Mills to the WMA (to be shared by Mr. Newman) and have also completed my own calculations of the length estimates for this fish using the "LawtonNewPic.jpg" image (attached). I feel this is the same fish as pictured in the image with the lines across his head and the house in the background. I also feel that this is a different fish than is pictured in the three photos in the "Lawton 1-G.jpg" series (-G, -J & -K images). I came to this conclusion because of how he is dressed in the different photos, but I feel his build to be slightly heavier in the I've attached. I believe I've outlined these reasons in more detail previously, thus I won't belabor the point here. Using GIMP, I scaled the image to 2000 x 3239 pixels. The original pixel aspect ratio was maintained.
I choose to use ONLY the "LawtonNewPic.jpg" image for this evaluation. The reasons for this are two-fold: First, this picture is by far the clearer of the two, and thus it was much easier to evaluate the end points of the measurements I made (edges of the board, front corner of the board, end points of the fish, etc.). The second reason is that the camera seems to be in a more horizontal plane with the head of the fish and the upper portion of the board (near the fish's head) in this image. Since I had an angled (i.e.; rotated) board to deal with, I wanted to make the measurements in a plane that is as horizontal as possible, so that the measurements across the board are as accurate as possible. The other image (with the lines across Lawton's head) simply didn't satisfy these two conditions as well, therefore I choose not to it.
When I made my preliminary evaluation a day or two ago, I kept getting inconsistent results for estimates of the fish's length. It took me a bit to figure that out, but I believe I finally did--the board has a bit of a twist along its length! Certainly there might be a bit of a difference in width above versus below the fish because the camera is "looking down" at the portion of the board under the tail--but I don't feel that this can explain the discrepancy by itself. Rather, I think that the board does indeed have a bit of a twist that occurs along its length. Once I realized this, things got a bit easier.
I took three measurements of the width of the board (from both left edge to the front corner..."left half"; and from the right edge to the front corner..."right half"), both above and below the fish. I then averaged the three values for both halves in each of these two data sets and got a mean value for the board dimensions above the fish, and for the board dimensions below the fish. I then ran my calculations of the fish's length, using both sets of mean values (right and left halves).
So on to the math...
If you could look straight down at the top of the board with the fish hanging on it, you would see that there are two triangles formed by the imaginary line from the camera to the front corner of the board. As there are 180 degrees in a straight line (tangent to the front of the board at this corner) and since the corner of the board is about 90 degrees, the two angles are complementary. They must add up to 90 degrees. So I will call the angle formed from the front corner going left in the image as angle "A", and the angle formed from the front corner going right in the image as angle "B". By trigonometry, the cosine of angle A is the ratio of the left half of the board's image to the board's true width (e.g.; 4" or 3.75"). So using only angle A, we can express angle B in terms of the cosine (90 - A). Remember that the goal here is to determine the angle of rotation of the board; and this does vary with the assumed board size; more accurately, as the ratio of the board's width to it's thickness. But since we do not know the exact size of the board, I had no other choice but to run the calculations for the extremes (2 x 4 and 1.5 x 3.5). Thus I simply did them for all three common sizes.
Again, recall that angle 'A' is the angle that the board is rotated away from the camera, and towards the angler.
Fish length on the image: 2500 pixels
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABOVE THE FISH (mean values)
Left half: 105 pixels
Right half: 68 pixels
2" x 4" board:
Angle A = 52.3 degrees
Estimated fish length = 58.2"
1.75" x 3.75" board:
Angle A = 54.2 degrees
Estimated fish length = 52.2"
1.5" x 3.5" board:
Angle A = 56.5 degrees
Estimated fish length = 46.0"
--------------------------------------------------------------
BELOW THE FISH (mean values)
Left half: 117 pixels
Right half: 58 pixels
2" x 4" board:
Angle A = 44.8 degrees
Estimated fish length = 60.6"
1.75" x 3.75" board:
Angle A = 46.7 degrees
Estimated fish length = 55.0"
1.5" x 3.5" board:
Angle A = 49.1 degrees
Estimated fish length = 49.0"
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION
1) Due to the fact that we do not know the distance from the camera to either the angler or the fish, or the distance between the angler AND the fish, I chose to approach the problem a bit differently than Mr. Mills. Although the imaginary line from the camera to the fish/board is more in the same horizontal plane near the head of fish (i.e.; same height above the ground), the front corner of the board is rounded off in this location. It is "chamfered" a bit. Thus even though the camera is looking down at the board below the tail, I think the results obtained by using these measurements are as reliable...if not more so. Therefore I included both sets of length estimates.
2) The values I have calculated do NOT seem to support a value near the stated 64.5" length of the fish. In fact, they are considerably shorter. This is agreement with Mr. Mills' calculations. Assuming that the board is a full ("nominal") 2" x 4" gives the fish the benefit of the doubt, as much as possible. But even with that, the maximum fish size I calculated was 60.6". This estimated value drops to 58.2" if you use the dimensions of the board *above* the fish; even accounting for the apparent twist in the board.
3) If you use actual board dimensions smaller than 2" x 4", the size estimates drop considerably. If you looked at a sketch of the top view of the board with angles A & B as noted above, it would seem as though angle A should be *greater* as the board's width increases. However you must remember that the determination of this angle varies with the ratio of board width to board thickness. As the width and thickness are reduced by the same amount, there is a greater percentage reduction in thickness as there is in width--and therefore the angle actually increases! This is counterintuitive, and took me a while to understand. But running the calculations two or three times and getting the same results has convinced me that this is indeed the case.
**** CONCLUSION ****
I've calculated the range of fish sizes I feel are most likely, as a function of assumed board width. These are:
2.00" x 4.00": 58.2" - 60.6"
1.75" x 3.75": 52.2" - 55.0"
1.50" x 3.50": 46.0" - 49.0"
Thus although I do not feel that the fish in the "LawtonNewPic.jpg" image is the same fish as in the "Lawton 1-G.jpg" image (or the -J & -K images). And when all is said and done I do not feel that this fish is truly consistent with a stated size of 64.5 inches.
Therefore while it is impossible for me to determine whether or not Mr. Lawton ever caught a World Record muskellunge of 64.5”, I strongly believe that the fish in the attached image is NOT that fish.
I realize that my description may have been difficult to follow, in terms of how I arrived at these calculated length estimates. Therefore I offer to provide a sketch of the angles and the resulting calculations, if anyone is interested. It would take a bit to do because there are one or two sketches involved, along with some math expressions; but I can certainly do it. I simply didn't know how interested anyone would be in following me through on the math, so I didn't transfer my hand written notes to an electronic format. I could always just scan those I suppose, and then attach them in PDF format.
TB
EDIT: After posting, it occurred to me that I had created a copy of the image I mentioned, after drawing several colored lines on it to make the measurements easier. Therefore in case someone wants to try to reproduce my measurements and calculations, I'll go ahead and attach this second copy. Because if a 300KB limitation on attachment size, I had to scale it back down--but you can simply use GIMP or Photoshop to rescale it back up to 2000x3239, so that the numbers should agree.
Edited by tcbetka 4/30/2011 1:54 PM
Attachments
----------------
 LawtonNewPic.jpg (42KB - 363 downloads)
LawtonBigPic_LINED.jpg (115KB - 462 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | More Lawton
What an incredible jigsaw puzzle; I was motivated by Mr. Betka’s perseverance and depth of search for the truth and by his looking for and finding new ways to analyze the Lawton photographs. So, I dug out my Lawton photo file and starting looking for ways to analyze the pics different than what I had done previously.
During the MuskieFirst exchange on this subject, Mr. Betka came to the conclusion, as had I quite some time ago, that the series of 29 photos, thought at one time to all be of Lawton’s record fish, may have indeed been two different fish. But were they? After spending a considerable number of hours pouring over dozens of photos, I find myself still wondering. Allow me to explain.
What I discovered still has me scratching my head and trying to get it completely sorted out in my mind. Consider some of the things I found and my attempts determine just what they meant:
1) First, based on photo sizes (from ORIGINALS), I determined that AT LEAST four (4) different cameras were used.
2) Next came the realization that from these multiple cameras that produced the photographs, some of the series of like photos that initially were thought to come from one camera, were found to be in reality, from two different cameras.
3) The most commonly known photograph, the single one published as the world record fish in 1957, shown with Lawton holding the fish and no board used, was indeed from a camera totally different than produced any of the other photographs (CAMERA #1); there were no other photographs of this fish from this camera. There was no film identification number, but the paper style and size was unique to this photograph. The photo was not dated on the back by Lawton, but a blow-up of this photo was dated “9/57” on the front by Lawton.
4) The greatest number of photographs, including the series of individual fish shots and SOME of the “group of nine” series, were taken with CAMERA #2 and the film identification number (#528) on most of them. Others from this camera had no identifier. From a number of these photos, it was fairly easy to determine that Lawton had DIFFERENT clothing on in some of them; different pants, different belt and possibly a different shirt (more later). Some of the #528 photos however, had clothing identical to the “commonly known photo” (see #3 above). These photos too, were hand dated “9/57” on the back by Lawton.
5) The “new” (description used as an identifier only on MuskieFirst) photograph #1 (aka as the “Molle” photo); the one with the obviously different shading from Lawton’s head up as if it may have been the last photo on the film, was indeed too, the ONLY photograph in the archives with its particular film identification number (#668). While there were other photos of the same size, indicating the same or an identical type/film size of camera as CAMERA #3 (to come), these other photos had a different film identification number (#645). This photograph however, had Lawton in different pants and belt, but the shirt is the same as the photos in the #528 film. This photograph too, was hand dated “9/57” on the back by Lawton.
6) CAMERA #3 took some of the photos of the “group of nine” and identified by film size, had either no film number or film number (#645) on them. It was this camera or one similar/same film size, that took “new” Lawton photo #2 (next). All were dated “9/57” on the back by Lawton.
7) “New” Lawton photo #2 (identifier used on MuskieFirst) was taken by CAMERA #2 as identified by film number (#528). The fish however, matches the fish in “new” photo #1, film number #668 with Lawton wearing a different shirt in each photo. This photo too, is dated “9/57” on the back by Lawton.
8) In another photo of Lawton holding the fish without the board (the only other one), one I marked 1-N, the clothes Lawton is wearing match the clothes in the “commonly known photo” and is of a similar pose. However, this photo is much clearer than the common photo. From this photo is easy to determine that the marks/damage on the back of the fish in “new” photo’s 1 & 2 (at the base of the skull; immediately ahead of the dorsal fin and on the left side of the dorsal fin) do NOT exist in this photo. This gives further credence to the possibility of there being two different fish in these numerous photographs (which Tom Betka’s length research seems to indicate); that if they are the same fish, the damage occurred after some of the photos were taken and that if they are of the same fish, some time or days elapsed between photo shoots. This latter hypothesis is further supported by the knowledge gained from these photographs that Lawton had two different sets of clothes on in various photos. This photo too, was dated “9/57” on the back by Lawton.
9) Finally, CAMERA #4. It is this camera that took the photo series that included 1-G; 1-J and 1-K, the photos that convinced Mr. Betka that the fish in these photos was different than the fish in the “new” photos. The film from this camera was numbered (#514). In these photos, Lawton is wearing the same belt that he is wearing in photo #668, however, the shirt he is wearing is a striped shirt unlike any of the shirts in any of the other film series photographs. Also of great importance is the fact that the board holding the fish is considerably TALLER than the board used in the other film series photographs, supporting further, Mr. Betka’s and my belief that there were two different fish involved.
Some Conclusions
Based on the interpretation of some of the information noted above, it appears quite certain to me that there were two different fish involved. While a case could be made to the contrary, if there was only one fish involved, then an appreciable amount of time passed between some of the photo series and individual photographs.
The fact that one particular film number (#528) has photographs covering both sequences would indicate that this time frame was a relatively short one. Since the “group of nine” and the subsequent “commonly known photograph” (albeit possibly the incorrect one-photos at the time were known to be lost and/or rejected by the magazine publishers) were taken at the same time; one week BEFORE the supposed record catch, it is altogether possible that Lawton did indeed catch a much larger fish the following weekend (as supported by the Paul Martin affidavit) and due to the publishing confusion, the wrong photographs were published.
One other possible hypothesis exists; The photographs were all taken on the same day and Lawton had to change clothes because of blood/slime or whatever. This hypothesis however, is lessened by the anatomical differences (facial fullness, slightly different hair and seeming weight difference) noted in Lawton’s by Dr. Tom Betka.
Having said all of the above, I will now go on record as agreeing that the fish in the “new” photographs is not consistent with a 64.5” muskie. I had indicated that I would defer to the experts and now that “science” has finally been done on the Lawton fish in these photos, the jury can no longer be out regarding these particualr fish. The photogrammetery of Dan Mills of DCM and the stalwart mathematics work done by Dr. Betka indicate with a high degree of probability that Lawton’s muskie or muskies shown in these photos were clearly not of a fish that large. Their findings do however lend credibility to the possibility that two different fish were in play during the 1957 scenario. I will also go on record as saying that I believe that the witnesses did in fact attest to witnessing the weighing of a fish that tipped the scales at 69 pounds and 15 ounces. As with the O’Brien fish, I am not however, certain that the weight that they witnessed was in fact “all fish” IF these are the only photos in existence.
Now that we have finally been able to close the book on Lawton, the fact that in part, John Dettloff was “partially” correct that Lawton’s fish didn’t measure up, it BEGS the question as to why, if he was right on Lawton, how could he be so far off on the Spray and Johnson records, that “science” too has proven to be bogus?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| WHEW!! LOL!!
So we are agreed then that the focus is now on the O'Brien fish with the report by the WMA on the table, eh?
DougP |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, the length of that fish was a little easier to determine, given that it was hung next to a 36" ruler. So although there still remains an unresolved issue regarding which witnesses actually "witnessed" the thing being measured and weighed, the length (or the lack thereof) seems to be a major issue there.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| The mold is conclusive.....nothing else needed. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Attached are the calculations for the estimates I've posted above. I've also included a sketch showing the angles, and how the length estimates were determined.
Enjoy!
TB
Attachments
----------------
LawtonBoardDrawing_Calculations.pdf (52KB - 792 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Everything examined thus far points to Mr. Lawton not catching/possessing a fish anywhere near as long/large as claimed in 1957. In light of this, and other previous research conducted, we have all mutually agreed the Lawton case is now officially closed. Here is the e-mail I received from Dan Mills.
"Here is the analysis, with attached spreadsheet for clarification. I really cannot tell you definitively how big the fish was, but I was able to establish a range.
I don’t like the idea of measuring the fish from the width of the 2x4 in the best case scenario, but even less when you have to compensate for depth by estimating an angle. I looked at the images per your request and came up with an estimate of the width of the 2x4 in pixels. My purpose of doing that in each image was to determine which images had slant present in them. After looking at that, I measured the width of the 2x4 in pixels. I came up with a pixel count of the 2x4 width in my spreadsheet. There are too many variables in this method of analysis in my opinion.
I included a few calculations in the spread sheet on the images that had the fish hanging very close to parallel to the camera film plane (pixel width of 2x4 was same top and bottom). Using those images, I estimated fish length using the 3.5” and 4” widths for a 2x4. The 3.5” is more likely since, even back then, rough cut was the norm to my knowledge…although more available than today. Given that it might be a 4” 2x4 I did an analysis on that too. I came up with 51-53” on the 3.5” 2x4 and 58-60” on the 4” 2x4. This is a good range but also very sensitive since a 3.5 to 4” scale measurement is not the preferred method. I would say the fish falls somewhere in the middle of that range.
I also did an analysis of the images using Lawton’s height of 68”. The calculations are included for the slanted board ones but really are of no relevance since it goes back to too many unknowns to be reliable. I looked at the three images that had the fish parallel to the film plane. That provided a maximum length. With the fish being ahead of Lawton, any length calculation of the fish using his height would be an over-estimation. How much of an over-estimation is hard to determine but the fish is substantially ahead of Lawton so the calculated measurement is a BIG over-estimation. Using the three images with the fish parallel to the film plane, the fish has a measurement of 64.8 to 67.4”. Since the smallest number is an over-estimation, we can toss the 67.4”. 64.8” is still MUCH longer than it actually is since the fish is a minimum of a foot ahead of Lawton, and possibly even more. This analysis fits well into the mid 50’s range that the 2x4 width analysis averages out to.
If you want further analysis done on these images, please give me a ring and we can decide on further steps, but it will be hard to resolve the length to any greater accuracy.
Take care,
Dan"
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | For those interested in "my opinion of the approximate size" of the fish examined so far. From largest to smallest...
1988 Ken O'Brien 54" / 56 pounds
1957 Art Lawton 55" / 45 pounds
1949 Louie Spray 53" / 40 pounds
1949 Cal Johnson 51" / 35 pounds |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I would agree with your statement about the Lawton case being closed Jerry. Until and unless another image surfaces showing a fish of greater size, I don't think there's anything more we can do.
For the sake of argument, even if we took the approach where we aggressively pursued trying to get Lawton's fish reinstated as the IGFA World Record muskellunge, we simply don't have grounds to make such an argument given these photos. That's what folks need to realize here. Personally speaking, it isn't like I spent the 20-30 hours or so I've spent on this in the past two weeks, only to try to disprove his fish. I took the approach where I assumed and argued that this WAS a WR fish! Then I went about trying to prove myself wrong. Unfortunately I was successful; and there isn't really any other approach I can take, as far as I can see.
At some point I would still like to read Mr. Dettloff's report, but it doesn't seem as urgent any longer...
(Another thing added to my "to do" list.)
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | Tom,Thank You for all the time you spent on the Lawton Fish Pictures. I finaly feel that the Lawton Record got an honest good detailed look at all the pictures.I always had in my mind that none of the Lawton Picures showed a fish that could have been as big as claimed.I just wanted all the old fish from the top down all getting an equal evaluation.I now wait to see where we go next,what fish will hold up!
Could we get down to Art Barefoot?
Capt. Larry D. Jones |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | It was my pleasure Larry. I did the best I could with what I was given to work with, but there were certainly some assumptions that had to be made. For example, it hasn't been mentioned yet, but I had to assume that the board holding the fish was far enough away to allow me to treat the light rays from either edge, and the front corner of the board, as being parallel to each other. Otherwise you can't use right-angle trigonometry because, well...the angles aren't 90 degrees! Then you have to get into the law of sines which requires that you do more calculation, after you've estimated just how far off 90 degrees that the one angle is. Worse yet, you'd have to use the law of cosines, which would have gotten downright ugly in this case. In fact I'm not even sure I would have been able to come up with much of a length estimate at all, had I used either of those laws; it would have certainly taken more work. But I think it's safe to say that the camera was far enough from the fish to allow me to treat the two triangles as right triangles, and complete the calculations. As long as the camera was at least 8 feet from the board, a change in the angle of view of 1 degree means only about 0.014" of offset. So as far as I can determine, it would take a significant amount of target width to get to the point where there's enough error in my calculations to significantly affect the estimated length of the fish.
Thus although some assumptions had to be made because I simply didn't have any other choice, I think we all gave the fish the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. But even with this going for it, the length estimates still came up well short of 64.5 inches, under the best case scenario. Under any of the other scenarios, the estimated length of the fish is even farther from the stated size. So that's it then--at least for the fish in this picture.
I posted my solutions so hopefully others will review and critique them and correct any errors I may have made; and in that case we can take another look at the fish. But when three of us, working independently and using different methods of calculating length estimates, arrived at lengths that were (basically) much closer to each other than to the stated length of the fish...the gig is up, I'd say.
Game over.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/1/2011 8:14 PM
|
|
| |
