Location: Green Bay, WI | JD - 4/28/2011 10:50 AM
The photo sent to Larry by Mr. Lawton's nephew is NOT a "newly discovered" photo and was likely the last photo on the role of film used a week before Mr. Lawton supposedly caught his world record. The photo you have been provided is I believe one of twenty-two taken of the same fish and they all can be seen in "A Compendium of Musky Angling History, Second Edition, Chapter 3, p. 178. Make special note of the second photo in the first row and the third photo in the third row.
Well as I indicated in my previous post, it was new to me. Maybe the use of the "old" and "new" terminology was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. I apologize for the confusion. I haven't looked in Volume II of the Compendium in quite some time, so I didn't recall seeing it. It isn't in the material I read on Larry's website. And since he told me that everything I needed to review was there, I didn't go any further. It was after I finished reading that material that he sent me the other two images. So again, it was "new to me."
I don't believe there ever was a picture taken of a muskie a week later when Mr. Lawton supposedly caught his world record.
From Larry's interview with Art Lawton from "A Compendium of Musky Angling History" 3rd Edition, Vol. 1, p. 331:
Larry: And I remember in our previous conversation, you told me that the weather that day you took the picture was bad, almost didn't even get a picture of the fish.
Art: That's right. I came near to not getting, well, I almost had to fight to get my brother to come out and take the picture. We didn't have a, well, I had a little camera, but for some reason or another that wasn't working, or we didn't have film, and that picture was taken late in the afternoon. It was well, almost dark.
In talking with Larry yesterday after he sent me this "new" picture I used, I understood him to say that in fact there was AT LEAST one picture--and he stated that there may in fact have been TWO pictures of the fish Mr. Lawton claimed as the WR. Larry sent me both of them, and they appear quite similar. Mr. Lawton appears to be wearing the same clothing, and be of the same build in both. And since this picture was more clear, I used this one. However I did the math on the other image (with the line across the angler's face), and it basically agrees with the math on this picture, within about 1" as I recall.
TB, does it appear to you like it's almost dark in the "newly discovered" photo? Also, if the camera wasn't working or didn't have any fim in it how could the picture have been taken?
No, I'll admit that it definitely does not appear almost dark in that image. I cannot explain your other points, other than to reiterate that Larry advised me that at least one picture was taken (by report), and Larry believed there to have actually been two pictures taken. But Mr. Lawton's quote (you posted it above) says they did indeed get a picture taken.
Larry: Note: On September 22, 2006 I received a letter from Lawton nephew Art Molle following up on a earlier letter he had sent me with what he believed to be a newly found photo of Lawton's record fish. that letter said in part...I still believe the picture...is the worlds record, as he (Art) apologized for having only one photo left in his camera. I believe the line across photo at face, head and roof level was caused by being the last photo... .
As I mentioned above, the angler appears to me to be wearing the identical clothing, and the fish appears to also be very similar, in BOTH pictures Larry sent. And since the math was very similar when I computed the estimated length for pictures, I find it reasonable to assume that there are indeed two images of the same fish. Now whether or not this is the "World Record" fish, I do not know. As I stated in my earlier post--I am not claiming this is the missing link to the Lawton issue. I am simply suggesting that this is a different fish to those in the three images previously presented in this thread (Lawton 1-G, -J & -k).
As I pointed out this was NOT a "newly discovered " photo and nobody should have been led to believe that it may have been.
You need to go back and re-read my previous post. I clearly indicated that it was new to me, and this thread. I should have used a different word to indicate chronology with respect to this thread, but I think a rational person could read my post(s) and understand the point I am making.
You are simply being argumentative here, in my opinion. No one ever said this was a brand new picture...as in, never seen by anyone before.
Also TB, you as a physician should realize that a substantial change in Mr. Lawton's weight is highly unlikely in only one week.
Who said anything about there only being a one week difference in time? I don't believe I did. I have no idea how much time elapsed before those sets of pictures were taken. For all I know, the "new picture" I posted could have been taken well before the "old pictures" previously posted in this thread (Lawton 1-G, -J & -K), and then maybe Mr. Lawton lost weight. I cannot make this determination using only the information I've been given.
As a physician, the angler in those two set of pictures appears to be of different physical build. The angler in the set of three images appears more slender than the angler in the picture I posted most recently. That is my observation, and you are of course free to disagree.
I feel all twenty-two photos should be submitted to Dan Mills to get his opinion on if they indeed were all of the same fish. If he feels they are no further photo analysis is necessary.
Agreed. Submit them all to Mr. Mills for further study. I don't think anyone here would have a problem with that at all--except for maybe the person(s) that have to pay his fee!
TB |
