Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )
Moderators: Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Lawton muskies
 
Curious
Posted 4/22/2011 8:54 AM (#494432)
Subject: Lawton muskies


I have read the entire and very long thread on the O'Brien fish as well as all past world record posts both here and on the other sites. One thing that continues to escape me is why almost everyone is so quick to dismiss the Lawton fish. It seems fairly obvious to me that John Dettloff engineered the Lawton disqualification to get his buddy Louie back on top and further manipulated the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame to keep him there despite the fact that he and the Hall board failed to use the same criteria on Spray's record as he had used on Lawton's fish.

Also, I read the whole story of the Lawton fish in the MF archives and feel that a very strong case was made to totally discredit Dettloff's Lawton investigation and, as was posted on the O'Brien thread, not even Mr. Dettloff could find a problem with Lawton's 65 pound 13 ounce fish from 1959. "IF" Lawtons 1957 fish wasn't as big as claimed, and that is seemingly yet to be satisfactorily proven, why then isn't anyone supporting the 65-13?

I probably will start a furor with this thread, but I just can't understand why so many are so willing to sweep the Lawton fish that was on top before Dettloff started his crusade to get and keep Spray on top, under the rug. I'd like to see some fair and serious debate about this issue. If you are not interested, don't post. Clowns not welcome. Are we willy-nilly tossing aside historical records while failing to support the real top dog?

George Langdon
fins355
Posted 4/22/2011 9:05 AM (#494433 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


I'll take a shot at this......I think Dettloff made a good case against Lawton's 69-15. I think that fish was bogus. I think that because of an obvious fraud that was perpetrated by Lawton AND Hartman back in that time none of Art Lawton's [or Ruth's] fish should be considered. Len Hartman also made a good case to NOT consider any of his fish OR Lawton's fish caught from that era on the St. Lawrence when he confessed to "loading" his fish.

Yeah, I think Dettloff saw an opening to get the Spray fish back on top. That was a good motivation.

I think John Dettloff did a good thing in beginning an investigation and disqualifying Lawton's fish. Unfortunately he neglected to continue his search for the truth.

Hmmmm....I wonder why?

The WRMA picked up the ball a few years ago and IMO, discredited both the Spray and Johnson fish. As the WMA they also have shown O'Brien to be smaller than claimed.

I don't believe we have a 60lb. fish that can be shown to be beyond question as a world record. We're going to have to move below 60lbs. for a legitimate record......Just me.

DougP

Edited by fins355 4/22/2011 9:13 AM
Curious
Posted 4/22/2011 9:30 AM (#494436 - in reply to #494433)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Thank you Doug for your considerate response. If I may, I'd like to challenge a few of your points. You said you thought Dettloff made a good case against Lawton's 69-15. Have you read the rebuttal of that investigation and considered the possibility that the Lawton fish could possibly have been as large as it was said to be?

You say it was an obvious fraud by Lawton, but you offer no proof besides Dettloff's questionable and highly motivated investigation. Yes, Mr. Hartman confessed to loading his and his wife's fish, but he offered zero proof that the Lawtons were doing the same thing, so to assume that they were based on only hearsay is just plain wrong. What do you have to say about that?

I think you gave Mr. Dettloff far too much credit considering what he did to the Lawtons a good thing, but you certainly are correct that he neglected to continue his search for the truth...why should he, he got what he wanted, and now everyone blindly accepts his "work" as gospel. Where is the proof that he was correct?

Why hasn't the WRMA/WMA done photo analysis on at least three of the Lawton fish?

You say you don't believe we have a 60 pound fish that can be shown to be beyond question, but you offer no comment on the Lawton 65-13. Have you looked at the photo of that one? Dettloff couldn't debunk it, so even if you buy his finding on the the 69-15, what about this one. IF one bad (which hasn't been proven), all bad should apply, why is one of Hartman's fish still recognized?

George Langdon
fins355
Posted 4/22/2011 9:43 AM (#494439 - in reply to #494436)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


George, I should go back and read the rebuttal to Detloff's investigation, it's been awhile. You're speaking of the report by Larry Ramsell, I assume.

I'm not sure Dettloff's proof was questionable. The photo evidence seems pretty conclusive. I need to refresh my memory....

The WRMA/WMA moved on to Spray after the Lawton fish was disqualified, as I think they believed Lawton to be bogus after accepting the Dettloff investigation.

I haven't paid much attention to the 65-13......will do when I can.

You have a good point about Hartman's remaining record. I guess in his defense I would say that it is a more modern record that was well documented.

Also, I mounted that fish for Len so I measured the fish personally @ 54". I did not reweigh it.

I gues I have something of a vested interest in that fish so I will admit to a certain prejudice. LOL!!

However, I guess if info came about to PROVE that fish not eligible for the record book, I would hope to be able to put my bias aside.


Edited by fins355 4/22/2011 9:46 AM
Guest
Posted 4/22/2011 9:54 AM (#494441 - in reply to #494439)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Doug, you are right about the rebuttal. It can be found complete here:

http://www.larryramsell.com/DOCS/World_Record_Controversies.htm#Art...

Starts about half-way down, but the real meat is 3/4 of the way down. I think you will find that Dettloff's proof was highly questionable!

Perhaps the WRMA moved on too quickly? It's still not too late.

At any rate Doug, I think you will find the 65-13 one heck of a fish.

As for Hartman's remaining record Doug, did you realize that fish was claimed by Hartman to be two different fish with two different weights? Sad but true. Length is immaterial as the two weights were very close, within a couple of pounds. I'm sure you did a great job mounting it. His record weight for that fish is the lesser claimed, so I guess no harm, no foul. But if he lied about his other records, should that one stand?

George Langdon
fins355
Posted 4/22/2011 10:08 AM (#494444 - in reply to #494441)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


I'll take a look at LR's report ASAP.

Could you tell us your primary reason for thinking JD's evidence on Lawton to be suspect?

Yes I heard Hartman claimed that fish 2x....I'm not a big fan of doing that! LOL!!
Still, I think the weight and lenght were properly verified.
Lenght IS important in record book application/affadavit IF it is found to be significantly shorter than what is claimed.
I'll have to look into the 65-13, I guess.....
Curious
Posted 4/22/2011 10:21 AM (#494448 - in reply to #494444)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Doug my primary reason is that I believe the rebuttal completely blows Dettloff's photo analysis out of the water. His methods were sloppy and two examples in the rebuttal show that Lawton's fish may have been a big as claimed. And then there are the witnesses and their affidavits and re-affirmation affidavits and Dettloff's imporper handling of the Dunn affidavits and the ignoring of the Martin affidavit, and more.

I agree length is important for records, but weight is the ultimate authority. I have no problem with this Hartman record standing, but this isn't about Hartman now is it?

George Langdon
JD
Posted 4/22/2011 10:47 AM (#494453 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Out of fairness John Dettloff's entire Lawton investigation should also be shown here before debating this issue.
ManitouDan
Posted 4/22/2011 11:08 AM (#494460 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 538


You can't question JD's work --He's an "expert" . yes thats sarcasm towards other self or appointed "experts" in the field of muskie disqualification.

Can someone remember the exact details of Gene Burucki's 57 pounder ? there seems to be some question about can these fish really reach 60 pounds -- there was some delay before weighing Burucki's fish, HATE to bring up the topic of weight loss after a fish dies but I was thinking there was a serious delay in weighing that fish. It could have been a 60. MD
fins355
Posted 4/22/2011 11:26 AM (#494464 - in reply to #494460)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


That brings into question Art Barefoot's fish @ 59-11 after being in a freezer for 18 [?] days b4 being weighed.

If the Barefoot fish lost as much as O'Brien's it would have weighed 68-11....[lol!]
JD
Posted 4/22/2011 11:30 AM (#494466 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


ManitouDan,

Gene Burucki's muskie weighed 56 lbs. 11 oz. 3 days after being frozen. I wouldn't call 3 days a serious delay.

Curious
Posted 4/22/2011 11:45 AM (#494472 - in reply to #494466)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


JD, it is my understanding from reading everything I could find on this subject, that Dettloff's 91 page report is Copyright and has never been pubilshed to the public. However, I believe in the rebuttal cited above, there is a point-counterpoint using the information from Dettloff's investigation and it is my opinion that his investigation was indeed made to look as amatuerish as it was, not to mention biased. Additionally, it is pointed out the many occasions where Mr. Dettloff used a method to find fault with Lawton's fish and then he and the NFWFHF board failed miserably to use the very same criteria when examining the Spray fish. One can only conclude that Dettloff had the Hall board in his pocket and they all wanted the Hayward hero upheld. Absolute and undeniable bias indeed. He got what he wanted.

George Langdon
JD
Posted 4/22/2011 11:44 AM (#494470 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


My take on Art Lawton's 65-13 is that the fish in the photo ia a considerable distance in front of Mr. Lawton. Projective geometry tells me that fish is nowhere near the length claimed and IF it weighed 65-13 it was "loaded".
Curious
Posted 4/22/2011 11:54 AM (#494473 - in reply to #494470)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


JD, while you are indeed correct that Lawton's 65-13 is in front of him, it is absolutely right next to his body, not "...a considerable distance in front of..." and it is easy to compare the length of the fish with Lawton's 68 inch height. It is not hard to believe that this fish was 62 1/2 inches long.

What proof, if any, can you offer that it was "loaded"? I believe we all know the answer, but I'm sure you will have something to add.

George Langdon
JD
Posted 4/22/2011 12:03 PM (#494477 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Curious,

I agree that the Lawton and Spray fish were not held to the same standard, however, what I'm saying is that John Dettloff's investigation was enough to convince me that he proved his point about Lawton. And without people seeing the entire content of his investigation this debate shouldn't be taking place.



Curious
Posted 4/22/2011 12:07 PM (#494480 - in reply to #494477)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Well JD, if Dettloff's investigation convinced you, you obviously haven't read the rebuttal cited above. By the way, if you have it, perhaps you could post it in the article section for all to see and then you wouldn't feel bad about this debate.

George Langdon
JD
Posted 4/22/2011 12:17 PM (#494483 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Curious,

You are entitled to your opinion about Lawton's 65-13 being held right next to his body but I totally disagree.

I have read the rebuttal above and it hasn't changed my opinion in the least regarding the size of Lawton's fish. You have your opinions and I have mine so lets just leave it at that.

Curious
Posted 4/22/2011 12:25 PM (#494485 - in reply to #494483)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


That's fine JD, whatever you wish, but you haven't explained how if Dettloff had no problem with Lawton's 65-13, that you disagree with that. Or does JD stand for John Dettloff and you are trying to cover your tracks?

George Langdon
JD
Posted 4/22/2011 12:34 PM (#494487 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Curious,

I don't feel I have anything left to explain. How John Dettloff felt about Lawton's 65-13 is of no concern to me. I'm telling you my own opinion of this fish as well as the other fish caught by the Lawton's.
Canadian Angler
Posted 4/22/2011 1:20 PM (#494496 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Early last week I still considered the O'Brien fish to be legit, quess what I now believe that I was wrong, it is what it is. I don't agree with Mr. Ramsell on everything he writes or says, but relating to that Canadian fish  yes he was very correct. With regards to the Lawton fish I have what I think may be the latest compendium by L.Ramsell. One of the photos shows Lawton holding a 60lb plus fish that is supposed to go 61 inches or something like that. I think the fish was rated as the 13th largest. My point being is if that fish went 54inches long and 4olbs it still might be a stretch. Lawtons caught some good fish, real good fish just like Len Hartman. But they were never that big. I ordered Dettloff's book Topwater Tactics  a few years back and spoke to him for awhile and asked him some very honest questions. He told me when he received the photo from the Lawtons of the record fish it already had 49lbs written on the back of it. I believe him, I don't think that the Spray fish is a record, any more than the Lawton fish. After talking to Mr. Dettloff I think that he really believes Spray's fish was 69lbs and just like you or me or any one else on this forum, he is entitled to his opinion. I found him to be very polite and at no point did he throw any digs or cheap shots at any of the other more noted muskie personalities of the day. As I said that was just my experience from one conversation.
Guest
Posted 4/22/2011 1:46 PM (#494502 - in reply to #494496)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


from Canadian Angler, "After talking to Mr. Dettloff I think that he really believes Spray's fish was 69lbs and just like you or me or any one else on this forum, he is entitled to his opinion. I found him to be very polite and at no point did he throw any digs or cheap shots at any of the other more noted muskie personalities of the day. As I said that was just my experience from one conversation."

Yes CA, Mr. Dettloff is entitled to his "opinion", but that doesn't make it so. I think you need to read in the rebuttal the other side of the story regarding the Dettloff "Smoking Gun" photo that you refer to. No, he didn't have to throw any cheap shots when you talked to him, he had already done that at the Lawton witnesses in his lame investigation. That he got his way apparently makes him bullet proof. I found my information in MF archives at,

http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/pdf/mf_050108.pdf (Lawton rebuttal May 1, 2008)
Guest
Posted 4/22/2011 1:31 PM (#494498 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


I don't think Len should have been allowed to register any record fish based on his previous indiscretions. Case in point, he tried to get more mileage out of the one Doug mounted by claiming it was too different fish as I recall.

I'll take a shot at this Lawton question now. I don't think it matters if Detlof didn't have a problem with the 65, why would he once he got what he wanted and the WR went down? I agree that Detlof's intentions were super slippery, but that doesn't change the content of his investigation. If you're going to cite the 65lb, then you also have to cite Ruth's 68lb, and Arts lower 60. As a matter of fact, put pictures of all their 60lb claims and dates up here and let the chips fall where they may.

To me, their claim of 6-60lb fish (and how many 50lbers?) in the span of about 6-8 years (off the top of my head) should speak volumes. Not only that, all their fish were supposedly caught only fishing weekends, and then only in something like the September/October time frame. When Hartman's claims were still considered valid, they kind of supported each other. But when Len confessed Lawton's claims were no longer supported. Len even indicted Art as I recall, why would a guy do that unless he was just being truthful. Not only that, nobody else was catching 50lb fish on the river, let alone 60lbers.

Didn't Art Claim he only had one or two pictures of that fish at the time, then Detlof was able to uncover basically a whole roll in his investigation. Why would Art lie about not having any more pictures of his WR unless he has something to hide? I don't need any fancy science to tell me the Lawton script reads like Spray with there multiple 60lbers when nobody else could even catch one. At some point in time common sense should be used to identify BS as obvious as this.

I'm out, fair enough?
Guest
Posted 4/22/2011 1:45 PM (#494501 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


To accept Lawton's 65lb and put blinders on for the one Canadian angler cited (I agree 100% on his evaluation ) is removing common sense from the equation. In a nutshell, in order to accept one of Lawton's fish, you must accept them all. Keep in mind that Mr. and Mrs. were fishing in the same boat, almost as one person. Although the Mrs. herself may not have been privy to the exaggerations, that does not change the fact that her 68lb claim absolutely defies belief. In my opinion, Mrs. Lawton and O'Brien may not have known their fish did not weigh or measure as claimed too. Entirely possible!
Seriously?
Posted 4/22/2011 2:19 PM (#494506 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


I think you're all nuts... Not one of the fish argued about surpass 60 lbs - plain as day. . . I scratch my head at why the controversey even exists - NONE of the mentioned fish should be in the running for a world record. Take a long look at those boys fish and then look at recents caught by Sondag, Clark, Hammernick, the list goes on.. Half of the fish Ramsell puts in his rants on his website are little more than 48 inches and maybe 40 pounds at best. The closest to 55 lbs that I can tell is the O'brian fish.
Guest
Posted 4/22/2011 2:31 PM (#494509 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


I wholeheartedly agree with "seriously"! Before this thread goes any further look at O'Brien's 55lb fish and then look at Lawton's fish (any of them) and honestly say that they look a minimum of 10% bigger than O'Brien's.
JD
Posted 4/22/2011 2:36 PM (#494511 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Guest,

You hit the nail on the head. Common sense should prevail.
Guest
Posted 4/22/2011 2:44 PM (#494515 - in reply to #494511)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Why should "common sense" prevail here when so many seem so quick to dismiss the scientific work produced by the WRMA and WMA? How many really post here without having read much of anything except some of the drivel posted by many anonymous posters here?
Seriously?
Posted 4/22/2011 2:41 PM (#494514 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


And while the O'brien fish is said to be 65lbs, I don't see it looking much bigger then Dale McNares fish... With todays stocking efforts, modern equipment, increased number of musky anglers and the overall quality of the musky anglers we have out there these days, does anyone REALLY believe those guys, like Lawton and his wife, caught that many MONSTER's? Google search 65 or even 70 pound fish and look at the images... Tell me their muskies look anywhere near 70lbs. Look at the length of some 57 - 59 inch muskies.. And to think there are really people out there who believe any of the argued about records are pushing 55... amazes me!
LarryJones
Posted 4/22/2011 2:53 PM (#494520 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1247


Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY
IGFA set aside the Lawton muskie,they have not totaly tossed it out yet! The WMA needs to go back and look at it,if your going to disqualify the rest of the old big muskies,look at them all.Personaly I believed in the Williamson muskie,but certified scale was not used,so its out to.

Capt. Larry D. Jones
Sam Ubl
Posted 4/22/2011 2:56 PM (#494522 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies





Location: SE Wisconsin
Williamsons 61 pounder... and somehow those ancients are suppose to add up to nearly 70 lbs?

Edited by Sam Ubl 4/22/2011 2:57 PM



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(muskie_williamson_l.jpg)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(3muskierecords.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments muskie_williamson_l.jpg (124KB - 656 downloads)
Attachments 3muskierecords.jpg (54KB - 656 downloads)
Guest
Posted 4/23/2011 8:40 AM (#494646 - in reply to #494522)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Interesting side by side comparison of the Johnson and Lawton fish. While the heads of the fish look to be fairly close to the same size, there is no way that the Johnson fish's body is anywhere near as long as the Lawton fish.
Trophyhunter1958
Posted 4/23/2011 9:28 AM (#494653 - in reply to #494646)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies





Posts: 67


Take a look at the Bob Walters fish from last fall and a few of the others that have come out of the St Lawrence in the last few years , could the Lawtons have been catching all the monsters they claimed ,possibly' does anyone really believe they were records ,not likely but they are what they are BIG FISH and unless you were there we should all show respect , the record will fall soon with the new group of gentlemen that shall oversee the future records , Louie , Art and Cal all have my respect as they put the time in to catch truely big fish ,records they are meant to be broken Go for 70LBs and be undisputed or let it go !!!!! Bill
PSYS
Posted 4/23/2011 9:36 AM (#494656 - in reply to #494653)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies





Posts: 1030


Location: APPLETON, WI

Trophyhunter1958 - 4/23/2011 9:28 AM ... Go for 70LBs and be undisputed or let it go !!!!! Bill

+1 to this.

Does it really matter?  Has anyone here even come close to catching a 60+ pound class musky?  Would you be willing to post pics of this beast?

Not sure why all of the heartfelt opinions about something that may or may not have happened so long ago even matters?  Why don't you guys get out of the house, tie on a Pounder and go release some steam...  :-)  

JD
Posted 4/22/2011 2:58 PM (#494523 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Guest,

You say the IGFA has said on many occasions that they didn't buy Dettloff's investigation. Did the IGFA tell you this? If they didn't, how would you know this is true?

And if they did tell you this, why is Lawton's fish no longer the IGFA record?
Guest
Posted 4/22/2011 4:36 PM (#494546 - in reply to #494523)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


JD it is obvious that you aren't current, nor have you read a lot of what is out there. This has been covered many times in various posts, especially those referring to the IGFA as hypocritical using the Lawton photo as an excuse to set aside Lawton's record and at the same time saying size cannot be determined by photograph when trying to justify keeping the Johnson record listed. Try and keep up if you are going to chime in, ok?

esoxaddict
Posted 4/22/2011 3:04 PM (#494525 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 8249


I'd venture to say that there are very few people out there who ACTUALLY believe that the record(s) in question were legit. The more information and research that comes out, the less likely it becomes that these fish were what they were claimed to be. Nobody who has read any of the reports can possibly deny that.

I suspect it has much more to do with people trying to save face at this point, and largely due to fear that the ACTUAL world record fish that are being caught and released today would have and will be killed if all the past records are proven to be false. It's a noble stance to want to preserve the biggest muskies ever known to roam our waters, but I think hindering the truth undermines everything that we've accomplished in muskie management. Let me explain:

There are vast amounts of money, manpower, and effort going into creating and maintaining trophy populations across their range. Having a record (or records in this case) that are completely false paints an unrealistic picture of what is truly possible in terms of maximum growth. It's my believe that we currently ARE producing the biggest muskies in history, which goes a LONG way to getting effective management strategies implemented elsewhere. When you are producing 50# class fish, however, and upholding old (false) records in the 70# range?? Well, that leads people to think that either our management strategies aren't effective, or that trying to maintain populations of true giant muskies is just a waste of resources. If we prove that we are growing them bigger than any time in history, that's an undisputed success in management practices, and it's all we need to point to as a reson to implement similar strategies elsewhere.

fins355
Posted 4/22/2011 3:08 PM (#494529 - in reply to #494525)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


I think EA said a "mouthful"....agreed!

LarryJones
Posted 4/22/2011 3:22 PM (#494530 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1247


Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY
Another Williamson muskie picture.


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(williamson 2.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments williamson 2.jpg (9KB - 193 downloads)
Guest
Posted 4/22/2011 3:28 PM (#494531 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


instead of arguing back and forth about Deittleoff's report, why not just leapfrog past that and look at all the claimed #60 fish of the Lawton's. I don't think further reports are needed, those fish are so bad it would be a waste of time and money. Capt. Larry, do you really think that fish was 64 1/2"?
Lens Creep
Posted 4/22/2011 4:48 PM (#494550 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 123


If I remeber correctly, one reason Lawton's fish didn't count was that it was PROVEN that he submitted to Field and Stream magazione the exact same photo of the fish said to weigh 69+ when he entered a fish said to weigh 49+lbs. I believe they were the record keeping organization of the day and clearly figured something was awry when they found they had the same fish pictured trying to win 2 different weight classes. I know I read this somewhere, but can't recall where and don't know it to be fact. Maybe someone else can chime in if they heard this as well.
Curious
Posted 4/22/2011 5:10 PM (#494556 - in reply to #494550)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies


Well it is evident that several people have very strong positions and most are unwilling to do research to "see" if they might be right or wrong, such as Lens Creep, rehashing something that has been fully explained, should he care to read the rebuttal. Others, it appears, delight in just muddying the water.

For the more serious, how about this from the rebuttal regarding Lawton's fish:

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 “

1-K 3.845 “ .130 .0338 “ “ “ “ 63.02 “

1-K 4.000 “ .130 .0325 “ “ “ “ 65.54 “

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?

Next, for those interested, we'll take a look at Dettloff's weird calculations where the record fish is hanging from a pipe.

George Langdon
LarryJones
Posted 4/22/2011 5:22 PM (#494557 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1247


Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY
Guest,I never said that I believed that the Lawton fish was 64.5" long.I'm saying that the Lawton record muskie and the others he caught should be subected to all the same sientific method used in WMA studies of the other old muskie record fish.If they prove to all be bogus,so it be,just give those fish the same look over to be fair accross the boards!
Jerry Newman
Posted 4/22/2011 10:42 PM (#494621 - in reply to #494557)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Location: 31
I would be happy to submit the images for a DCM analysis if somebody else is willing to pay for it. The WMA is already in the process of a redirection strategy toward conservation and the current membership did not sign up for this like before. If you are serious, I will be happy to get a quote. I might even throw away $100 out of my own pocket just to keep everyone happy. I am not interested in debating this.

Edited by Jerry Newman 4/22/2011 10:44 PM
sworrall
Posted 4/23/2011 9:54 AM (#494660 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 31764


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Guess I don't need your advice on how I should feel about the WR or how strongly I feel about finding out how big muskies really do get.

esoxaddict
Posted 4/23/2011 12:15 PM (#494684 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 8249


"Go for 70 pounds"...

I've seen nothing in 7 years of chasing and studying these fish that leads me to believe that they actually GET that big. Even the guys who fish trophy waters exclusively will tell you that they've only seen one or two fish in their lifetime that might have possibly been at that 60"/60# mark. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere. But how can you dismiss the science, dismiss the research, dismiss the biologists, and dismiss the guys who have spent their lives chasing big muskies for a living, on the waters most likely to produce the biggest muskies?? You don't believe the mountain of evidence in front of you that most of the world records were bogus, even though much of it is overwhelming and undisputable. But you believe in a 70# muskie that nobody has ever caught or seen? Interesting.
Trophyhunter1958
Posted 4/23/2011 4:56 PM (#494717 - in reply to #494684)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 67


esoxaddict - 4/23/2011 12:15 PM

"Go for 70 pounds"...

I've seen nothing in 7 years of chasing and studying these fish that leads me to believe that they actually GET that big. Even the guys who fish trophy waters exclusively will tell you that they've only seen one or two fish in their lifetime that might have possibly been at that 60"/60# mark. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere. But how can you dismiss the science, dismiss the research, dismiss the biologists, and dismiss the guys who have spent their lives chasing big muskies for a living, on the waters most likely to produce the biggest muskies?? You don't believe the mountain of evidence in front of you that most of the world records were bogus, even though much of it is overwhelming and undisputable. But you believe in a 70# muskie that nobody has ever caught or seen? Interesting.


Never said i didn't believe the facts ,just respect the oldtimers who caught a lot of big fish, i personaly believe Larry has shown that he is a honorable and knowledgeable Muskie Historian and is very competent , the way i see it is if it's not 70 lb's then it will always be questioned and compaired to the "Historical" records , i would like to see all the big girls set free , that i believe 100% and when you take that into consideration the more that are released the better the fishery will be and yes i do believe there is a 70 swimming where i fish ! two 5 lb walleye in a sixty makes what ?
fins355
Posted 4/23/2011 4:59 PM (#494718 - in reply to #494717)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


I'm not sure we've even seen a 60...........anywhere...
esoxaddict
Posted 4/24/2011 2:53 AM (#494780 - in reply to #494717)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 8249


Trophyhunter1958 - 4/23/2011 4:56 PM

esoxaddict - 4/23/2011 12:15 PM

"Go for 70 pounds"...

I've seen nothing in 7 years of chasing and studying these fish that leads me to believe that they actually GET that big. Even the guys who fish trophy waters exclusively will tell you that they've only seen one or two fish in their lifetime that might have possibly been at that 60"/60# mark. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere. But how can you dismiss the science, dismiss the research, dismiss the biologists, and dismiss the guys who have spent their lives chasing big muskies for a living, on the waters most likely to produce the biggest muskies?? You don't believe the mountain of evidence in front of you that most of the world records were bogus, even though much of it is overwhelming and undisputable. But you believe in a 70# muskie that nobody has ever caught or seen? Interesting.


Never said i didn't believe the facts ,just respect the oldtimers who caught a lot of big fish, i personaly believe Larry has shown that he is a honorable and knowledgeable Muskie Historian and is very competent , the way i see it is if it's not 70 lb's then it will always be questioned and compaired to the "Historical" records , i would like to see all the big girls set free , that i believe 100% and when you take that into consideration the more that are released the better the fishery will be and yes i do believe there is a 70 swimming where i fish ! two 5 lb walleye in a sixty makes what ?


I'm no scientist, but a 60# fish that has just eaten more than 16% of it's weight? That's not a fish that's still going to be eating, and if my chance it DID, the stomach contents would explain exactly why the fish weighed what it did.

Again, I am not saying that 70# is not possible under the ideal circumstances. A freak of nature, full of eggs, and full of food just might make it to 70#. But in my opinion, that would be a fish the likes of which none of us have ever seen. And if a true 70# fish is ever caught? I think it will remove all doubt about the legitimacy of every fish we have ever seen, including all of the current records.
LarryJones
Posted 4/24/2011 8:17 AM (#494796 - in reply to #494780)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1247


Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY
One thing to consider along with egg mass is a muskies diet late in November to early December what they are gourging on,here it was 7 to 8 inch gizzard shad when the fattie in the picture was caught.When you bring these fatties into the boat they spit up partialy eaten shad and excreet long goose looking droppings all over your boat from the fishes rear.The attached fish picture of one of the late Andy Luchovick's giant muskies shows what the right diet can do to make fish big.
This muskies was only 50" Long but the girth was 29 1/2" and bottomed out a 50 lb Bogagrip scale.One fish that I witnessed was 55 1/2" X 29" that was not weighed and was quickly released back in 1999.Now catch a 56 to 57 inch muskie with the same build and we could be over 60 lbs with ease.I to do not think 70 lbs is possible,but 65 lbs could happen.These fish are thick from head to tail and always weight a couple lbs more then any of the formulations used to calculate weight.

Edited by LarryJones 4/24/2011 8:39 AM



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(Andy Fattie.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments Andy Fattie.jpg (8KB - 326 downloads)
tcbetka
Posted 4/24/2011 8:47 AM (#494802 - in reply to #494796)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
I really do not understand why so many seem to have a problem with a musky getting to 65 or even 70 pounds. If the fish's length is over 55" and their girth pushes over the 30" mark, it's quite possible.

Let's consider Larry's example of the Luchovick fish Larry just mentioned. The first attachment below shows a screen shot of my fish calculator estimates for that fish. The average weight is 51.2 pounds, well in agreement with the weight mentioned by Larry. Now look at the second image below. These are the measurements of Ryan Dempsey's fish from the Fox River in Green Bay, back in April 2005. He caught the fish while walleye fishing, and it was measured and released after photos were taken. He was fishing with a very experienced angler who also guides professionally. I have never met these guys personally, but I did speak to Ryan on the phone about the fish in 2007, and I have no reason to believe that these measurements weren't true. I am recalling these dimensions from memory, but I believe the fish was 56 x 33.5 (it may have been 56.5 x 33). So for a fish of those dimensions, you can see the weight estimations. The average is 72.3 pounds.

Now, what's so hard to believe about a 65 pound fish?

The Williamson fish was apparently sterile, as I understand it. But O'Brien's fish had about 850,000 eggs in her ovaries, according to a report from Dr. Lebeau, a PhD researcher who examined the ovaries and counted the eggs. So it seems that not all giant females are sterile. So what's so hard to believe about one of these fish getting to over 65 pounds, especially when she's feeding for an upcoming winter? I simply don't get it. The Kapuscinski (et al) paper from 2006 shows the growth model from the Green Bay population projecting a maximum length of just over 60 inches; and that was an incomplete growth model at that, with only a couple of fish over 50" represented in the data. So it's very possible that this number could actually be under-estimating what this population can do!

There are credible anglers here in the Green Bay area who have told me they've had fish on and up to the boat, that were pushing 57-58" in length. These guys have caught a number of fish in the 50+ inch range, so they know big fish. And we've seen a few fish actually caught out here in the 55-58" class within the past couple of years. Those are documented. So tell me again how they don't exist?

I have no problem believing in the possibility of a 65-70+ pound fish in Green Bay. Just because you haven't seen one where you fish, doesn't mean they don't exist.

My $0.02...

TB

EDIT: By the way, the Dempsey fish was this fat, yet it still chased down a 5" stick bait. So tell me again how fat fish won't feed?

Luchovick fish: 51.2 pounds average
Dempsey fish: 72.3 pounds average

Edited by tcbetka 4/24/2011 9:02 AM



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(LuchovikFish.jpg)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(DempseyFish.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments LuchovikFish.jpg (85KB - 188 downloads)
Attachments DempseyFish.jpg (87KB - 212 downloads)
Curious
Posted 4/24/2011 9:11 AM (#494806 - in reply to #494780)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies


JD I've looked over your math post again re the Lawton 65-13. While I make no claim to be a math expert, I see a LOT of assumptions being made and some percentages given without explanation to origin. Hardly scientific such as the DCM reports of the WRMA. Your math is probably correct, but I'll take the advice of a previous poster in this thread and use "common sense". There is no way, your math included, that Lawton's 65-13 is 14 inches shorter than he is. Perspective and formula's aside, when you look at the photo, the tail is right at the top of Lawton's foot and the tip of the jaw is nearly even with the top of Lawton's head and there is little perspective there as the camera height is on that end. Hardly leaves 14 inches or air. More like the 6 inches I noted previously.

Fins I don't agree that JD has hit a home run, just created more food for thought. And by the way, just what evidence are you referring to regarding the Walden and Coleman fish? I've never read anything published that is definitive in that regard.

rook, from what I've heard, no one has ever claimed that the Williamson fish was weighed on a certified scale. Ramsell reported that it was weighed on a "calibrated balance beam scale".

George Langdon
Larry Ramsell
Posted 4/23/2011 12:43 PM (#494690 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1204


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Been working outside for a few days and got a call this morning about this thread. Must say there are some interesting posts and the "usual" junk. Sure would be nice to see a civil discussion, especially on this matter. Obviously anyone who has read my work or rebuttal to the John Dettloff bogus and sneaky investigation into Lawton, where he chooses and picks just what truths he wants to believe and demeans the witnesses and the Lawton family, along with using smoke and mirrors and 91 pages of bunk to confuse the record keepers and media, knows what I think of "an historian gone awry". I find it sad that he has basically gotten a pass in this whole matter when his ultimate agenda was to ignore HIS Lawton methods with regards to the Spray records and led the sham upholding of Spray's record with the also shameful NFWF Hall of Fame.

At any rate, as pointed out above, I believe I did a very through job of completely discrediting Dettloff's Lawton investigation. Did Lawton catch the world record? Don't know, but neither does Dettloff and the same can be said about Spray and Johnson, and I guess possibly now too, O'Brien.

Perhaps esoxaddict said it best above. Sure makes sense! After more than 55 years chasing these #*^@ green fish, I fall into the category of having seen only ONE fish that I thought was 60/60 or close....NOTHING bigger, and I've fished all the top muskie waters in North America.

My rebuttal to the Dettloff investigation, cited and referenced above pretty much speaks for me re the Dettloff/Lawton matter, so I shan't comment further.

Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
JD
Posted 4/23/2011 12:46 PM (#494692 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Curious,

If John Dettloff did not have a problem with Art Lawton's 65-13, he certainly should have and so should you.

1959 Art Lawton 65 lbs. 13 oz. 32" x 62.5"

The fish is being held in front of Mr. Lawton.

The side to side thickness of a muskie is approximately 27.23% of it's girth. 32" x 27.23% = a side to side thickness of 8.71" for Mr. Lawton's muskie. If Mr. Lawton's muskie was perfectly round it would have a side to side thickness of 10.19" (32" / 10.14 = 10.19").

This means we KNOW the side of the fish facing the camera is AT LEAST 8.5" closer to the camera than Mr. Lawton if the girth of the fish was 32".

Because we KNOW the fish is AT LEAST 8.5" closer to the camera than Mr. Lawton, the apparent 62.5" length must be reduced by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 7' 3.5" (87.5") from the fish and 8' (96") from Mr. Lawton, 62.5" x 87.5" / 96" (.9115") = an actual fish length of 56.97".

56.97" would be the length of Mr. Lawton's muskie IF it was resting tight against Mr. Lawton's body. The fish appears to be about 3.5" in front of Mr. Lawton. 3.5" + the side to side thickness of 8.5" = 12" With the camera being 7' from the fish and 8' from Mr. Lawton, a 62.5" muskie should appear to be 71.43" which is 3.43" TALLER than Mr. Lawton at 5' 8' (68"). 62.5" / 7' / 8' (.875") = 71.43" - 68" = 3.43".

"Curious" claims the muskie appears to be 62.5" when compared to Mr. Lawton's height of 68". The side of the fish facing the camera fish being 7" from the camera and 8' from Mr. Lawton will result in an actual fish length of 54.69". 62.5" x 7' / 8' (.875) = 54.69".

Curious
Posted 4/23/2011 7:11 PM (#494729 - in reply to #494692)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


JD, now that you have been outed by Mr. Worrall, care to share with us just what exactly are your qualifications and who you really are? I'm intrigued by your post and math. Do you have credentials to back it up or are you more of "best in school" mathematician like John Dettloff? I'll look forward to your honest reply and in the meantime, I'll study your post further.

George Langdon
Curious
Posted 4/23/2011 7:15 PM (#494730 - in reply to #494729)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


And by the way JD, even Dettloff gave the Lawton 65-13 a length of 59 inches. Sure your math and assumptions are correct?

George Langdon
fins355
Posted 4/23/2011 7:41 PM (#494735 - in reply to #494729)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Curious....Not sure that anyone has really been "outed". I'm also not sure that credentials really matter if the math works.
I refer you to Dr. Arnold's finding's [Spray report] to the ratio of camera distance.
Seems that JD is right in the ballpark ...and may have hit a home run.
Just me...but how can you dispute his math....???



Edited by fins355 4/23/2011 8:06 PM
sworrall
Posted 4/23/2011 2:05 PM (#494698 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 31764


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
In the interest of reasonable disclosure, JD uses two other identities or shares his PC with the other two (not likely); Conservation Guy/Chris Petersen. Look up what this guy has posted on this and other subjects, and...there you have it.
rook
Posted 4/23/2011 5:59 PM (#494720 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


New to this stuff relative to you guys, but just to be clear -- someone claims to have caught 5 fish north of 60 lbs, and there are people here who believe in them????

Does anyone have a pic of the Walden fish?

The Williamson fish - does anyone know for sure it wasn't weighed on certified scales? Seems like that guy was a serious musky hunter, though if he didn't believe he had a potential record may not have cared.
fins355
Posted 4/23/2011 7:31 PM (#494733 - in reply to #494720)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


rook... I think the Williamson fish is not a contender. There is good evidence that it was never weighed on a certified scale and rumor has it that it was never really accurately measured. BIG fish...but ????
rook
Posted 4/23/2011 7:53 PM (#494737 - in reply to #494733)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


fins355 - 4/23/2011 7:31 PM

rook... I think the Williamson fish is not a contender. There is good evidence that it was never weighed on a certified scale and rumor has it that it was never really accurately measured. BIG fish...but ????


Don't know the details, but if he was as big a musky hunter as reported probably would have measured the trophy of his lifetime.
If he didn't measure on a certified scale (does anyone actually know that), then maybe because he didn't believe he had a record so didn't bother?
fins355
Posted 4/23/2011 7:57 PM (#494738 - in reply to #494737)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


I don't think there is any evidence that he weighed his fish on a cerified scale

Too bad..............
fins355
Posted 4/23/2011 8:17 PM (#494743 - in reply to #494720)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


rook..I think there is enough evidence to bounce the Walden fish AND the Coleman fish.....sooo, I think that puts us below 60#'s.

HMMMM...who's on deck??? Mr. Art Barefoot????

Edited by fins355 4/23/2011 8:19 PM
rook
Posted 4/23/2011 9:02 PM (#494750 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


If Williamson's fish was examined by the MNR (Arunas Liskauskas?), is there a chance they weighed and measured it?

Who said it wasn't measured on a certified scale....?
Guest
Posted 4/24/2011 9:45 AM (#494815 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Although it is an interesting discussion whether a musky can get to be 60-65-70lbs, it's really not the subject matter. This whole discussion could be over with somebody posting 1 photograph. Art Lawton 61-4 1960.

Rook said, "New to this stuff relative to you guys, but just to be clear -- someone claims to have caught 5 fish north of 60 lbs, and there are people here who believe in them????"

This is wrong rook, it was actually 6 fish north of 60 lbs between 1956 and 1962, not to mention 3 fish over 58 lbers. I want to hear if ANYONE (including Larry Ramsell) believes in this 61-4 after looking at the picture. Curious is only willing to argue technicalities and certain points like a lawyer defending a man he knows is guilty.



tcbetka
Posted 4/24/2011 10:13 AM (#494824 - in reply to #494815)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
Actually, it is the subject matter. When people start arguing that Lawton's fish weren't real because they can't get that big...it becomes relevant indeed.

I cannot say that Lawton's fish were or were not as big as claimed. However I am very confident that muskies can in fact "get that big," and therefore I don't feel it is valid to use this to try to discount his fish. That is all I am saying.

TB

fins355
Posted 4/24/2011 10:20 AM (#494826 - in reply to #494824)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Tom....whether or not they CAN get that big, we have not had a verifiable fish that is shown to be undeniably over 60#'s.....IMO.

Curious....I have pretty good info from a reliable source that the Coleman & Walden fish can be shown to be less than claimed by essentially the same "math" that has been used on Spray, et al.
But, we haven't gotten down that far yet, so no use elaborating. We still have O'Brien to deal with by the OFAH....we know, I think, what the FWFHF & IGFA will say about the WMA challenge .....if anything at all.

Edited by fins355 4/24/2011 10:22 AM
Curious
Posted 4/24/2011 10:32 AM (#494828 - in reply to #494826)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


fins I think you have made your own point. The "Spray, et. al." math has done nothing to convince the record keepers and is struggling to convince the majority here. That the record keepers however, have ignored the WRMA/DCM "SCIENCE", is basically, shame on them. We have however, no such science on any of the Lawton muskies. I saw that the WMA's Jerry Newman is willing to put up $100 of his money to get the Lawton fish done, but have yet to see any other takers. Probably isn't real cheap, but I don't think it is beyond reach either.

So many quick to condemn, but so few willing to put their money where there mouth (keyboard) is.

Regarding the Walden and Coleman fish fins, I think you are jumping the gun by making the statement you did about verifiable 60 pounders, so Tom's post does indeed have merit.

George Langdon
fins355
Posted 4/24/2011 10:43 AM (#494830 - in reply to #494828)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


I may be jumping the gun about Walden & Coleman, agreed. That remains to be seen.

I think we know why the "record keepers" took the position they did w/Spray/Johnson. I think the math was just fine in the reports.

Tom's post is potentially very possible, though in my mind not probable....we just haven't seen verifiable evidence yet. I just don't/won't believe a 60# fish....yet.

I guess I just don't see the point in going back to the Lawton fish when their credibility is so "tainted".

Edited by fins355 4/24/2011 10:49 AM
Curious
Posted 4/24/2011 1:08 PM (#494847 - in reply to #494830)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


I guess fins, that your comments take us full circle. You say the Lawton's credibility is "tainted", but by what? Dettloff's poorly done and rebutted "investigation". I for one am not buying it. With almost all of Dettloff's points rebutted and "his" credibilty shattered therein and with his Hall of Fame games of upholding ONLY the Hayward 60 pounders when scientific evidence proves otherwise, I simply cannot agree with you.

You are entitled to be a non-believer where muskies over 60 pounds are concerned, but to say conclusively that it isn't or hasn't been so, just merely your opinion without substantiation.

George Langdon
fins355
Posted 4/24/2011 2:46 PM (#494861 - in reply to #494847)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Curious.....fair enough. I admit to not having taken time to study LR's rebuttal to Dettloff. I should and hope to.
I agree with your points about the FWFHF....too bad.

I still think that I can say with calculated common sense authority that we have yet to see a genuine undeniable 60# fish.

But , yes it is only my opinion. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it...LOL!

DougP
Curious
Posted 4/24/2011 3:08 PM (#494864 - in reply to #494861)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


DougP

I'll help redirect your focus and repeat two key elements from page two of this thread for you to zero in on.

For the more serious, how about this from the rebuttal regarding Lawton's fish:

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 “

1-K 3.845 “ .130 .0338 “ “ “ “ 63.02 “

1-K 4.000 “ .130 .0325 “ “ “ “ 65.54 “

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?

Next, for those interested, we'll take a look at Dettloff's weird calculations where the record fish is hanging from a pipe.

George Langdon
rook
Posted 4/24/2011 3:18 PM (#494866 - in reply to #494861)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


fins355 - 4/24/2011 2:46 PM

Curious.....fair enough. I admit to not having taken time to study LR's rebuttal to Dettloff. I should and hope to.
I agree with your points about the FWFHF....too bad.

I still think that I can say with calculated common sense authority that we have yet to see a genuine undeniable 60# fish.

But , yes it is only my opinion. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it...LOL!

DougP


So Doug - whether its a verified world record or not, you don't believe in the Williamson fish? He lied about a weight that would not have given him any record?
fins355
Posted 4/24/2011 4:07 PM (#494873 - in reply to #494866)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Curious ...I have to do some more reading b4 I can respond to your post. Hard to find time.

rook.....Williamson obviously had a BIG fish, but since we have not seen any indication of a weight from a certified scale it's a mute point.
His fish just can't be accepted as a proven fact.....as far as indicated weight.

Edited by fins355 4/24/2011 4:49 PM
IM Musky Time
Posted 4/24/2011 3:16 PM (#494865 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 243


I do have to agree that in looking at all of the photos together in Mr. Ramsell's Compendium (first time for me---heresy, I know), the reported sizes are more laughable than ever. There are some nice fish in there, but most are obviously nowhere near what we know modern day size structures are. Unless those older fish were just a lot more dense

Being a former journalist myself, I think it's unfortunate that reported sizes are being linked to Mr. Ramsell's research. When you go to interview someone for a story, you are taking their word for it and you put your information together based on the facts they provide. If you went to every story and told the subject of your interview they are a liar on your way out, you wouldn't have anyone to interview after a while.

Some people say they don't care about the world record or what the biggest fish out there are.....I find that kind of hard to believe based on the number of responses to these threads. Thanks for the entertainment in the "off season"---I've really enjoyed all the good reading.

Edited by IM Musky Time 4/24/2011 3:17 PM
Art got prize money
Posted 4/25/2011 9:05 AM (#494951 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


"Next, for those interested, we'll take a look at Dettloff's weird calculations where the record fish is hanging from a pipe. George Langdon"

GL, do you have NO comment on the false claim of Lawton's 6 fish north of 60, especially the picture of that skinny one he claimed was 61-4? This was supposed to be a serious discussion about Lawton muskies, as in plural. Or, are you only interested in talking about 2 pictures that kind of look remotely possible, as in I only have this weak shaky defense. Who cares about some weird calculations on that fish when do you don't need to make any calculations on that 61-4 to know it's BS, same with 6-60s in 7 years. In a word, the Lawton claim starts with "unbelievable". Shouldn't a serious discussion start by examining all the evidence first?

"Curious is only willing to argue technicalities and certain points like a lawyer defending a man he knows is guilty."

How true, give it up already please!
Guest
Posted 4/25/2011 10:05 AM (#494965 - in reply to #494951)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Appears like someone making multiple posts with various bogus names or merely as guest. "Art" can you conclusively prove that the photo you refer to is the correct photo for the 61-4. I guess I must bow to your great powers, since that photo alone is hardly proof, but you seem to think otherwise...DCM science on far, far better photos has been insufficient to convince the record keepers, I hardly think one mushy photo in the dark where everything can't be seen is enough to convince many folks that Lawton's fish are falsified, if in fact it really is the correct photo. Keep in mind that the 7 year span of the Lawton claimed 60 pounders, the Seaway was undergoing construction and fish were uprooted and on the move unlike ever before, or likely again. Never say never unless you can PROVE it.

Do "I" believe all of the Lawton fish? Can't say for sure, but I can assure you that the proof offered to unseat Lawton's all tackle record falls far short of the mark to do so!

Spray's 1940 record photo appears far too small too, but it too hasn't affected the record keepers in the north, his 49 fish still sits atop the heap.

Oh wait, I think I just got it...since the Lawton fish is from NY it must be bogus, but Spray's from the WI Home of World Record Muskies must be legit; hence Johnson gets a pass as well...all the other pretenders, sorry, you're out; heck, didn't Dettloff disprove ALL other 60 pounder except the Hayward ones and the two from Eagle? Gee, wonder what will happen when someone in Minnesota nails one over 60? Most would probably release it, but if not???
JD
Posted 4/25/2011 10:48 AM (#494970 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Curious,

From the Feb. 1, 2006 letter to Emmett Brown
Executive Director
National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame
P.O. Box 690
10360 Hall of Fame Drive
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843, from the three Professors:

"However, since the fish is clearly in front of the angler, the length 63" must be reduced by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. For instance, if the camera is 8' from the angler but only 7' from the fish, the fish length would change to 63" x 7' / 8' or about 55". This is the origin of Prof. Arnold's statement the "the only conclusion that we can draw with certainty is that the fish is shorter than 63", perhaps considerably so."

Joseph Gallian, Ph. D.
Professor of Mathematics, University of Minnesota Duluth
Morse Alumni distinguished Professor of Teaching

Dorian Goldfeld, Ph. D.
Professor of Mathematics
Columbia University

Douglas N. Arnold, Ph. D.
Professor of Mathematics, University of Minnesota
Director, Institute for Mathematics and its Applications.

Curious, what exactly don't you understand about the statement from the Professors? All your calculations are based upon the fish being as thin as a piece of paper! Because you failed to factor in the side to side thickness of the fish, all your calculations MUST BE REDUCED by a factor equal to the ratio of the camera distances. Lawton's record has a reported girth of 31.75". Again, the side to side thickness of muskie with a girth this size is at least 8.5". Also, the tail of the fish is clearly in front of Lawton's foot, not right above it.

Art got prize money
Posted 4/25/2011 11:01 AM (#494974 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


In all sincerity, any musky man worth his salt should be able to look at that fish and discount the balance of his fish, especially you, seaway project or not. It's not some great power, just a tiny dash of common sense. *Nobody* and I mean nobody, believes that skinny fish could possibly weigh 60. You don't have to believe me, start another thread with a picture, you and that Lawton fish would get sooo laughed at! You say prove it's bad, I'll throw it right back at you, prove it's good, same with Ruth's 68lb. The long and "short" of it is those Lawton records are not worth the paper they are written on, and you know it!
JD
Posted 4/25/2011 11:03 AM (#494976 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Curious: "There is no way, your math included, that Lawton's 65-13 is 14 inches shorter than he is. Perspective and formula's aside, when you look at the photo, the tail is right at the top of Lawton's foot and the tip of the jaw is nearly even with the top of Lawton's head and there is little perspective there as the camera height is on that end. Hardly leaves 14 inches or air. More like the 6 inches I noted previously."

Curious, you accept that Spray's 1949 fish is 18.4" shorter than Spray's height yet you figure there's no way that Lawton's fish can be 14" shorter than Lawton?

Perspective aside? What exactly is that supposed to mean?

JD
Posted 4/25/2011 11:38 AM (#494981 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Curious,

"DougP

I'll help redirect your focus and repeat two key elements from page two of this thread for you to zero in on.

For the more serious, how about this from the rebuttal regarding Lawton's fish:

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 “ (61.38" x 7' / 8' = 53.7")

1-K 3.845 “ .130 .0338 “ “ “ “ 63.02 “ (63.02" x 7' / 8' = 55.14")

1-K 4.000 “ .130 .0325 “ “ “ “ 65.54 “ (65.54" x 7' / 8' = 57.34")

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?

JD: I think the rebuttal is hogwash!

Next, for those interested, we'll take a look at Dettloff's weird calculations where the record fish is hanging from a pipe."

George Langdon

JD: Forget about the pipe! More accurate post calculations for Lawton's fish are shown above.
Guest
Posted 4/25/2011 12:44 PM (#494990 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Another thing on that Seaway Project theory.

Back in the day, it was generally considered that these giant fish were always deep and the dynamite blasting caused them to relocate and become more available to anglers. One of those anglers was Len Hartman, who later admitted to cheating. You remove Len from the equation, and you're only left with Art. If this theory holds any water, somebody else should have been able to catch them besides Art. Right? Len was probably a better angler than Art too, how come he never got a 60lb musky?

I know you're going to like this little analysis too?

If you look at the Field & Stream contest entries for 1956 through 1962, the Lawton's managed to beat the Harman's every year EVEN THOUGH THE HARTMAN'S WERE CHEATING. Keep in mind that Len was a full-time fisherman, and Art only a weekend warrior. Any rational explanation for this?

Here's my explanation, Art was a better cheater!
Larry Ramsell
Posted 4/25/2011 12:54 PM (#494993 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1204


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
To JD (George W) and Guest (Jerry N). As I took a bit of time to cool off from my outside work and catch up with this thread I find you guys going off the deep end for some reason. If you don't wish to do the proper work on the Lawton fish, fine, just let it be. Folks that wish to find out the truth can do their own research. But until you take the time to "do it right". George W's continuous rants and UNPROVEN math can go suck wind. George if you don't like my rebuttal, just come on here out in the open and quit hiding behind a number of anon. board names and disprove it. You make assumptions without fact and then try and convince people that you are some sort of expert. I have seen your latest "work" regarding the Walden and Coleman fish, and if anything is "hogwash", that certainly fits the bill. Just try and sell that to the folks on Eagle Lake. You want to take shots at my work, be a man about it.

Play fair or don't play, I've got better things to do. If others on this board want to play your silly games, fine. I'll be back only if courtesy prevails and I get my outside work done.
esoxaddict
Posted 4/25/2011 1:15 PM (#494998 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 8249


Why muddy the waters with unsubstantiated analysis? Why not let the WMA and the profesionals they have hired do what it is they do? It's intereting reading, but the fact remains that people way more qualified than any of us (Mr. Ramsell aside) have gathered and studied all the evidence they can find on these fish. We can hem and haw until the cows come home about who said what to who and who lied and who didn't, but it's not going to change the fact that these particular fish either were or were NOT what they were claimed to be. If the experts determine that there is enough doubt about the sizes of these fish to warrant removing them as world records, what else is there to debate?

When this all started, the only fish I honestly didn't believe was the Spray fish. Considering all that has come to light since? We're getting closer to a fish that can actually be beaten. That may open up a whole other can of worms when that fish is actually caught this fall. I just have to wonder.... When someone does catch it? What will everyone have to say for themselves?
JD
Posted 4/25/2011 3:38 PM (#495026 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


esoxaddict,

Muddy the waters? I find it amazing that you would call the results obtained from using the projective geometry as explained by the Professors as a form of unsubstantiated analysis. The Professors ARE professionals and the large side to side thickness of a muskie with a 32" girth is a fact, NOT an assumption. Calling projective geometry UNPROVEN math is simply ridiculous. I don't recall anyone having a problem with what the Professors said about the Spray fish being about 55". Math doesn't lie and they used it to determine a result basically identical to the photogrammetric analysis performed on the Spray fish without anyone paying a penny. The same is true for the Lawton fish if people would just open their eyes.

Curious
Posted 4/25/2011 4:57 PM (#495045 - in reply to #495026)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


JD/George W? Again you merely make assumptions re the above measurements of the Lawton fish AND those measurements were NOT made on the basis of where the fish is in relation to Lawton. ONLY the board and fish lying against it were used...you should pay more attention. So, your incorrect assumptions are what is bogus here. This math has nothing to do with the Professors math. And if it did, just how would you possibly know how far the camera was from the fish and Lawton? Didn't think you had any real clue. Yep, worked on Spray's fish but NOT the example shown from the Lawton rebuttal! Try again if you wish.

George Langdon
Larry Ramsell
Posted 4/26/2011 12:57 AM (#495142 - in reply to #495026)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1204


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
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
sworrall
Posted 4/25/2011 5:08 PM (#495047 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 31764


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
'Play fair or don't play, I've got better things to do.'

Ditto.
Curious
Posted 4/25/2011 6:13 PM (#495057 - in reply to #495047)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies


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
tcbetka
Posted 4/26/2011 8:43 AM (#495172 - in reply to #495057)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




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
fins355
Posted 4/26/2011 9:25 AM (#495179 - in reply to #495172)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




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.........?

rook
Posted 4/25/2011 7:09 PM (#495072 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Doug P -- a question for you....all concrete proof aside, which fish do you think was biggest? Williamsons? A Lawton fish? Something else?

Which do you believe is the biggest, whether 100% provable and weighed on a digital scale or not...
fins355
Posted 4/26/2011 8:05 AM (#495161 - in reply to #495072)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


rook......I don't believe any of the Lawton fish to be 60#'s. Too many shenanigans!
I also don't believe Spray or Johnson hit that mark.
The O'Brien fish has been effectively disqualified IMO.

So, Williamson....yeah, big fish, 60#'s , maybe....there is more to learn there also.
The Walden and Coleman fish are still ???? for me.

Not much has been said about the Art Barefoot fish @ 59-11. Maybe there is a problem there too??

LR seems to be very much plugged in to Lawton's 65-13.....mmmm, not for me.
So, I didn't really answer your question 'cause right now, I just don't know....

DougP
Larry Ramsell
Posted 4/26/2011 10:11 AM (#495186 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1204


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
JD
Posted 4/26/2011 10:46 AM (#495192 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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!

Larry Ramsell
Posted 4/26/2011 1:11 PM (#495218 - in reply to #495192)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1204


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.

JD
Posted 4/26/2011 10:51 AM (#495194 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Mr. Ramsell,

I also apologize for the above post as it was sent before I saw your latest one.

guest
Posted 4/26/2011 1:40 PM (#495224 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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?
JD
Posted 4/26/2011 2:00 PM (#495232 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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.
JD
Posted 4/26/2011 2:22 PM (#495237 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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.
Curious
Posted 4/27/2011 10:37 AM (#495447 - in reply to #495237)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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
Curious
Posted 4/27/2011 10:41 AM (#495448 - in reply to #495447)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Correction, I should have said do we accept fish (B) as the record.

George Langdon
Guest
Posted 4/27/2011 11:40 AM (#495461 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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."
Curious
Posted 4/27/2011 11:44 AM (#495463 - in reply to #495461)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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
OSHA
Posted 4/27/2011 7:42 PM (#495559 - in reply to #495461)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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.
tcbetka
Posted 4/27/2011 7:57 PM (#495562 - in reply to #495559)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
OSHA
Posted 4/27/2011 9:18 PM (#495584 - in reply to #495562)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


typo

meant inches
JD
Posted 4/27/2011 12:48 PM (#495479 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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.
Guest
Posted 4/27/2011 1:53 PM (#495491 - in reply to #495479)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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?
sworrall
Posted 4/27/2011 1:03 PM (#495483 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 31764


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.
JD
Posted 4/27/2011 3:33 PM (#495509 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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.

tcbetka
Posted 4/27/2011 4:00 PM (#495515 - in reply to #495509)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
tcbetka
Posted 4/27/2011 6:32 PM (#495544 - in reply to #495515)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(LawtonNewPic.jpg)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(Lawton 1-G.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments LawtonNewPic.jpg (42KB - 181 downloads)
Attachments Lawton 1-G.jpg (35KB - 178 downloads)
fins355
Posted 4/27/2011 8:05 PM (#495564 - in reply to #495544)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
tcbetka
Posted 4/27/2011 8:15 PM (#495567 - in reply to #495564)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
fins355
Posted 4/27/2011 8:19 PM (#495570 - in reply to #495567)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Got it Tom....what about my assesment?
tcbetka
Posted 4/27/2011 8:25 PM (#495572 - in reply to #495570)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
fins355
Posted 4/27/2011 8:29 PM (#495576 - in reply to #495572)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
tcbetka
Posted 4/27/2011 9:06 PM (#495582 - in reply to #495576)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
Guest
Posted 4/27/2011 9:09 PM (#495583 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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?
tcbetka
Posted 4/27/2011 9:24 PM (#495586 - in reply to #495583)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
Lens Creep
Posted 4/28/2011 5:51 AM (#495619 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 123


Hand width was a factor in the disqualification of the world record walleye, so I wouldn't discount that method altogether. The average man's hand IS 4 inches across, and because of that they found that the record walleye caught by Mabry Harper so many years ago could not have been the length stated. Funny side note, he also gave a girth of the fish, which was long before anyone came up with the lengthxlengthxlength divided by girth deal many use to find approximate weight nowadays. Using his own figures that walleye would have weighed just slightly over 41lbs, not even close to the claimed weight of 25+lbs. Cheers.

Edited by Lens Creep 4/28/2011 5:56 AM
tcbetka
Posted 4/28/2011 6:34 AM (#495622 - in reply to #495619)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
I still don't buy it Brad. Not at all. So you'll have to show me where you're coming up with the average hand width data, please. Then you'll have to account for the fact(s) that:

1) There appears to be space between Lawton's fingers, and thus his hand width isn't the only thing at issue here.
2) The hand is not in a horizontal orientation (parallel to the ground), and thus it appears that his fingers overlap.

If you draw a vertical line through the lateral margin of his right middle finger, you'll actually cut through the fifth finger. Thus the hand is by no means aligned horizontally. So given the genetic variability of the human body, along with the unknown dimensions of his hand, I believe it would be a mistake to try to use three fingers in an attempt to estimate the length of a fish on a 44 year-old photograph; especially when they aren't oriented in a way that makes such a comparison straightforward.

We know (from an interview Lawton did at the time) that the board was a 2x4. However we don't know for sure if it was a nominal (rough sawn) board, or a dimensional piece of lumber. I found a PDF reference online last night, called History of Yard Lumber Standard Sizes (Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1964), that suggests that dimensional lumber sizes were used in this country as early as the late 19th Century, actually. And the use of dimensional lumber was apparently widespread as early the 1920s, as far as I can tell from skimming through the 59-page document. I'll certainly attach a copy to this post, if anyone is interested. The point though is at least we have an object in the photo, of some known size, that we can use in making estimates of the fish's size. Certainly you'll need to account for the possibility that the board wasn't a full 4", or that it's not at a 45-degree angle to the camera/angler line. But at least we're controlling variability to some degree. As I understand it, nothing we'll ever be able to do with this (or any) photo can result in a perfect result--there's always going to be a margin of error. Hey--I mean we have two pictures of O'Brien's fish, roughly in the same plane with a yardstick...and we still can't get a definite answer. So what can we expect in this case?

The point here is that if you really want to investigate the issue, then this new photo should be subjected to thorough scrutiny. The entire matter should be given its due diligence, by an impartial entity. Or not. It really makes no difference to me, to be honest. I have no horse in this race, other than that I want to know the truth. Could the fish in the image possibly be near the 64.5" length claimed by Lawton? Could there possibly have been a mix-up at Field & Stream, resulting in the use of the wrong image as that of the WR fish? Could all of the affiants have lied in a conspiracy to elevate Lawton's fish to WR status under false pretenses? Certainly these things could have occurred. Did they occur though? Who knows. I certainly don't. But I humbly submit that it sure doesn't seem like the matter got an unbiased investigation back in 1992; at least not from reading the material Larry has posted on his website. And since he includes volumes of letters and direct quotes from many parties (which were of course published in his book), I have no reason to believe that these are not factual. I would imagine he'd have gotten a phone call or two from an attorney by now, if these things were not true.

But until I have a chance to read Mr. Dettloff's full report on the Lawton matter, I am very uncomfortable with some of the assumptions that seem to have been made. But this is not a startling new revelation on my part here--Brad Latvaitis had many of these same concerns way back in 1992! They just seem to have been ignored, unfortunately...

TB

Edited by tcbetka 4/28/2011 7:03 AM
Lens Creep
Posted 4/28/2011 7:04 AM (#495625 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 123


Personally, I don't think any of the "old" records were legit, but that's beside the point. As far as the hand thing, there's nothing scientific about it. The average man's hand is 4 inches across at the base of the fingers. Measure yours. Mine is. Doesn't matter if your fingers are spread or not, we're talking averages here, ballpark range. I'm sure the photogrammetry, or whatever they call it would produce more accurate results, but a few of the old pictures of various fish species show guys holding the fish up horizontally with their hand width clearly visible. That gives you a "ballpark" width to use to give you a possible range you can determine regarding the length of the fish. Far from scientific, but usable to a degree. Good day Tom. Hope all is well with you.

Edited by Lens Creep 4/28/2011 7:06 AM
tcbetka
Posted 4/28/2011 7:13 AM (#495626 - in reply to #495625)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
You certainly may be correct about the old records not being legitimate. I can't argue with the fact that there seem to have been some "liberties" taken in some cases. I still disagree with the hand width thing--checking three different sites seems to give me three different values. So we can agree to disagree, and move on.

But I'm well anyway, for the most part. Feeling much older today though...LOL.



TB
fins355
Posted 4/28/2011 7:34 AM (#495631 - in reply to #495626)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Glad you're doing well on the mend Tom.

I still hold w/ my high school analysis of the fingers relationship to the fish length.

I maintain that the 3 fingers on Art's hand can be no wider than 4".
At that, which I believe to be generous, the fish cannot be longer than 54-55".

To have three fingers of a hand in that position measure 4" or more you would have to have a true GIANT, which we know Art was not.
Try it yourself......

Calipered along the line of the fish 4" fits 13.5 times = 54".

That's plenty solid for me. We are talking approx. 10" short of claimed lenght!!

DougP



Edited by fins355 4/28/2011 7:50 AM
tcbetka
Posted 4/28/2011 8:28 AM (#495643 - in reply to #495631)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
I guess that I don't know where you mean when you say "the 3 fingers on Art's hand can be no wider than 4"." Where exactly are you estimating that length...across the knuckles at hand? On my hand, it's slightly less than 4" across the knuckles of the 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers.

But I simply don't see the point in trying to debate how wide three fingers on his hand were, especially when we don't even know that we're talking about the same part of his hand. And then we'd have to agree on a reasonable value for that measurement, when the fingers of the hand are obviously not pressed against one another snugly. That's just too much variability for my comfort level, my friend.

TB
JD
Posted 4/28/2011 10:50 AM (#495670 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


TB,

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.

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.

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?

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 pointed out this was NOT a "newly discovered " photo and nobody should have been led to believe that it may have been.

Also TB, you as a physician should realize that a substantial change in Mr. Lawton's weight is highly unlikely in only one week.

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.
tcbetka
Posted 4/28/2011 11:24 AM (#495680 - in reply to #495670)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
Guest
Posted 4/28/2011 11:14 AM (#495677 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


JD did you not read carefully Mr. Betka's post? He made clear that the clothing Lawton has on is DIFFERENT than the many other photos of the commonly known fish. According to Larry, the IGFA also agreed that this fish was DIFFERENT than the others. I think Mr. Betka made a good case for that as well in his post. Why don't you just admit your TOTAL BIAS and give it a rest?
JD
Posted 4/28/2011 11:26 AM (#495681 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Guest,

Even if the clothing was different it would be meaningless. I would EXPECT someone to change their clothes if they were trying to pull off what Art Lawton did.

I'd have to hear it from the IGFA that they felt it was a different fish. Even if they did they obviously didn't feel it was any larger than the fish in the others photos.

tcbetka
Posted 4/28/2011 12:08 PM (#495688 - in reply to #495681)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
JD - 4/28/2011 11:26 AM

...SNIP

I'd have to hear it from the IGFA that they felt it was a different fish. Even if they did they obviously didn't feel it was any larger than the fish in the others photos.



All I can tell you is that this is what Larry Ramsell told me. I'm sure he'll be along at some point today, and then maybe he will comment directly on who at the IGFA made this statement.

TB
TB
Posted 4/28/2011 11:35 AM (#495685 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


The fee for looking at the photos should be minimal because no photogrammetric calculations will be needed. All that's needed is an experts opinion as to if all the photos appear to be of the same fish.

Below is powerful evidence that Len Hartman was telling the truth about the Lawton's cheating during his confession:

"A Compendium of Musky Angling History", 3rd Edition, Vol. 1, p. 330 from Larry's interview with Art Lawton:

Larry: There's always the question that's asked me, why didn't you mount this world record fish?

Art: Well I had three or four mounted up in the attic which you saw.

Larry: Right, they're sitting there gathering dust as has been written in articles. One of them I would say is close to a 60 inch fish and it's laying there gathering dust (actual mount length which I measured later was 57 inches and I learned it was Ruth's 60 1/2 pounder from 1956 registered at 63 1/4-inches fresh length).

A 6 1/4-inch difference between the mount and the fresh fish says it all!
tcbetka
Posted 4/28/2011 12:04 PM (#495687 - in reply to #495685)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
Heh, now I'm apparently talking to "myself" here...

OK, well, I'll bite. Mr. Mills is an expert in photogrammetry--not in muskellunge identification, as far as I know. So while he might be able to look at a series of pictures and tell you if they were taken from similar camera positions, at similar heights, etc., I seriously doubt that you're going to get him to say "it's the same fish in all those 20 pictures." How could anyone say that?

According to Wikipedia: Photogrammetry is the practice of determining the geometric properties of objects from photographic images.

So maybe I don't understand what it is that you expect of him on this, but I am pretty confident that he's not evaluating the specific fish in the pictures...he's evaluating the geometries of the images, trying to ascertain how large the fish is, or could possibly be. Sure, he might be able to say that two fish look similar due to their sizes, or similar markings or discolorations on the tail or somewhere else--but do you think he's going to look at a fish and evaluate every one of its distinguishing markings? That's not going to happen, I'll bet.

So don't be surprised if his report isn't as conclusive as you expect.

TB

Edited by tcbetka 4/28/2011 12:18 PM
Larry Ramsell
Posted 4/28/2011 12:52 PM (#495706 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1204


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
Ok Tom, I'm back in, but first we are going to get the other major player straightened out...JD (and several other names, i.e., "Conservation Guy" and "Chris Peterson" among likely others, IS GEORGE WILL, CHIEF RESEARCHER FOR THE WMA/WRMA.

My suggestion to George would be to stop the cherry picking of stuff from my books that make HIS postition, when in fact several of his "picks" have already been retracted. The most recent and blatant is his comments regarding the "new" photos as you discussed. As George should know, since he has both recent Edition's of my Compendium, that in the 3rd Edition I retracted all previous support of anything Dettloff, especially his chapter in the 2nd Edition that contained the numerous Lawton Photos "THOUGHT" at the time to all be of Lawton's record fish (and by the way, there were 28 total, not 22 which proper research would have noted).

It was when I was preparing my rebuttal to Dettloff's investigation that I discovered that there did indeed appear to be two different fish involved in those 28 photos. At least two of them were indeed these "new" photos being discussed here (and could be more), one of which was indeed the Lawton's nephew (Art Molle) photo. What Tom has discovered, the difference in pants and facial features is new to me, but I did find that the belt buckle and shirt in the "new" photos were different than the ones in the other photos. Since the original photographs are undated, I cannot ascertain if they were taken the same year or not.

As for the IGFA, it was Conservation Director (and former records head) Jason Schratweiser that agreed absolutely that these "new" photos were of a different fish than the "commonly known" Lawton record fish photos.

I agree with Tom that Dan Mills isn't an expert in fish ID, but his work can determine if there is a difference in size as Tom has calculated. Tom has determined by clothes and physical features that these photos were taken at different times and perhaps the "new" photos are of the record fish!

Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
Guest
Posted 4/28/2011 1:59 PM (#495717 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


Larry,

I plan on having a talk with Jason Schratweiser. Like I said, if he absolutely agrees that it's a different dish he obviously feels it still isn't the photo they are looking for. Maybe after reading your rebuttal to John Dettloff's investigation he felt the necessary photo would have to be much darker than any he has seen.

JD
Posted 4/28/2011 2:44 PM (#495727 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


TB,

I apologize for using your initials as mine in my other post. Now, getting to the point, being you cannot explain why it definitely does not appear to be almost dark in the photos of Lawton's supposed WR when Mr. Lawton claimed this to be the case, I'm finished with this discussion. This debate always ends up right where it started and I've totally lost interest in it.
Guest
Posted 4/28/2011 3:16 PM (#495730 - in reply to #495727)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


I don't believe JD that anyone has said this new photo is the "supposed WR", rather they have said it is a photo of a different and possibly larger fish, and if so, might possibly be Lawton's world record fish. And just how "dark" did you want it to be since you seem to be hanging your hat on that "seeming" discrepancy? Oh yea, I forgot, you have totally lost interest...yea, right.
fins355
Posted 4/28/2011 5:29 PM (#495760 - in reply to #495730)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Ok.......now that we're all friends....here is my position on the calipered measurements using Art's fingers.

The measurement indicated on his fingers fits into the length of the fish 13.5 times. In order for that fish to measure 64.5" the indicated measurement of his fingers must be 4.77".
Try it yourself guys.....not a chance that Art's fingers as indicated measure anywhere near that.

I gave his fingers a generous measurement of 4". That would put the fish at approx. 54". Exactly 54".....no, not exactly.....but a heck of a long way from 64.5"

Actually I think you would be hard pressed to make a case for a 3.5" width on Art's fingers.

I think most of us can understand this very easily
DougP

Edited by fins355 4/28/2011 6:21 PM



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(lwtn msky.jpgsmll.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments lwtn msky.jpgsmll.jpg (29KB - 195 downloads)
Guest
Posted 4/28/2011 6:41 PM (#495779 - in reply to #495760)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


That's why photogrammetry should be left to the expert! I think TB's method is far more reliable and his calculations far exceed yours. But nice try. Sure seems to be a lot of Lawton bias out there. That is probably why Dettloff got away with what he did in the first place.
fins355
Posted 4/28/2011 6:48 PM (#495782 - in reply to #495779)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


You're right about photogrammetry...this is just common sense, eh? LOL!!
DougP
tcbetka
Posted 4/28/2011 7:58 PM (#495797 - in reply to #495782)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
I have no problem with a "common sense" method at all Doug. But you haven't even defined your measuring points in unambiguous terms. They may seem obvious to you, but I simply do not know where exactly you're assuming that 4" length. Thus I cannot speak intelligently on your estimate of the fish's length...so I would prefer not to speculate.

I feel very strongly that one should always strive for a "test of reasonability" in instances such as this. I call this a sanity check. However that doesn't change the fact that your test for sanity has to itself be sane. But since I don't know exactly where you are proposing the 4" length to be used, I cannot apply your test.

That's all I'm saying...

TB

EDIT: d'OH! I should have looked at your picture before posting! I see your marks now...lol. Let me download the image, and check the pixel counts. I'll post a new response with my comments.

Edited by tcbetka 4/28/2011 8:00 PM
tcbetka
Posted 4/28/2011 8:19 PM (#495800 - in reply to #495760)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
fins355 - 4/28/2011 5:29 PM

Ok.......now that we're all friends....here is my position on the calipered measurements using Art's fingers.

The measurement indicated on his fingers fits into the length of the fish 13.5 times. In order for that fish to measure 64.5" the indicated measurement of his fingers must be 4.77".
Try it yourself guys.....not a chance that Art's fingers as indicated measure anywhere near that.

I gave his fingers a generous measurement of 4". That would put the fish at approx. 54". Exactly 54".....no, not exactly.....but a heck of a long way from 64.5"

Actually I think you would be hard pressed to make a case for a 3.5" width on Art's fingers.

I think most of us can understand this very easily
DougP



OK, here we go...

I measure the fish in your image at 448 pixels. I then measured the distance between the two lines you drew, along Mr. Lawton's knuckles, at about 23 pixels (inside to inside). So given your allowance of 4" the math is this:

(448 / 23) * 4" = 77.9" fish length

Obviously, the fish isn't 77.9" in length. However you now have to realize the issue of perspective, as Mr. Lawton's knuckles are slightly farther from the camera than the fish. But I still don't think that this will account for the large discrepancy. More importantly, I am not so sure the assumption of 4" is valid. I am 6'3" and my hand measures about 3.75" across the third, fourth and fifth knuckles. My hand is over 9" long, and over 6" wide from the radial surface of my thumb, to the ulnar surface of my hand near my pinkie finger. Therefore I see no way that Mr. Lawton's hand could be 4" in the space you've defined with your lines. In fact, I would think it would be closer to 3" actually.

But let's re-run the calculations with a value of 3.5"...

(448 / 23) * 3.5" = 68.2" fish length

Account for some perspective error given the fish is closer than the angler's hand, and you're very close to being in the ballpark of the stated length of the fish (64.5").


TB

EDIT: Doug, hit this link:

http://www.gimp.org/

Download GIMP and install it. Then open the image with it, and use the Tools > Measure tool to measure the fish, and then along the angler's knuckles between your two lines. I rounded to the nearest pixel, and got 448 (fish) and 23 (knuckles). I cannot explain the answers you're getting with your caliper method, but I've worked these numbers out SIX times now, and keep getting the exact same answers. By the way, you can also scale the image (Image > Scale Image) to whatever you want it to be to make it easier to see the edges of things.

Sorry, but I just cannot reproduce your results.



Edited by tcbetka 4/28/2011 8:54 PM
Lens Creep
Posted 4/29/2011 6:18 AM (#495841 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 123


With his arm straight out like that he must be 2 feet behind the fish, probably 2.5 feet from the near side. That changes the perspective quite a bit. If he were standing at the same distance as the fish it would probably fill the length from his chin to right under his knees. If Art was a short guy then this fish must have been mid-50's in length. I have no problem with the method fins355 uses. I really don't care about records anyway. People in the USA are too hung up on who's the best at everything instead of just enjoying sports in general.
tcbetka
Posted 4/29/2011 6:39 AM (#495844 - in reply to #495841)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
Well but we are using the knuckles on his right hand as a scale for estimating the length of the fish; and those knuckles are only a few inches farther from the camera than the fish is. So while I certainly agree that there is a perspective error in the fish, I don't think it's very significant...not 2-2.5 feet worth.

I agree with you about the obsession with records though Brad. I don't care much about the actual World Record. However I do care about accuracy, and about the truth. Therefore I believe that these things should be investigated thoroughly in an objective, unbiased fashion. But I don't think that has happened in this case. I must withhold my final opinions until I've been given the opportunity to read Mr. Dettloff's 1992 report on his investigation, but I have several concerns in this regards.


TB

Edited by tcbetka 4/29/2011 6:47 AM
Lens Creep
Posted 4/29/2011 6:53 AM (#495851 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies





Posts: 123


Well if I hold my arm out like that AND account for the depth of the fish it measures about 32 inches total. I'm no photogrammetrist, but to me that would account for a big difference if both Art and the fish were at the exact same distance from the camera. The camera angles do play a role. If I can I'll post a couple pictures tonight of what a difference that can be. Have a good Friday Tom.
tcbetka
Posted 4/29/2011 7:05 AM (#495854 - in reply to #495851)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
I see your point, but consider this...

The knuckles of the angler's right hand are in close proximity to the (imaginary) line between the tip of the fish's lower jaw, and the distal tip of the lower lobe of its tail. So for all practical purposes, it's as though the angler's body wasn't even there.

Imagine the fish hanging in space, with a 4" ruler located right next to its left gill plate. This "ruler" is the angler's right hand; specifically, the knuckles of his 3rd, 4th & 5th fingers. The angler can be 10 feet away, and that doesn't affect the estimated length of the fish one little bit. In this case, it's the distance that the "ruler" is away from the fish that is relevant. And since his knuckles are quite close to the imaginary line I defined above, there is only a little bit of perspective error to address. But since we don't know how far away from either object (knuckles or fish) the camera is, we'll need someone like Mr. Mills to render an opinion on that error.

In other words, my calculated estimates are based upon a direct scaling method, and thus I freely admit that there IS some error in my numbers. But not being a formally-trained photogrammetrist, I believe this is the best I can do. I do not believe the error to be all that significant...certainly nowhere near 6-8".

TB

EDIT: I should also add that this 4" value we are using is likely incorrect. I think it's probably closer to 3.5" or so, based upon a comparison to my own hand as I mentioned in a previous post. But the problem is that we'll probably never know the length of Mr. Lawton's knuckles, simply because he is deceased. The only reason I even did this calculation using the unknown length, is because you guys brought up the comparison between this part of the angler's hand and the fish. Doug's caliper-based value is nowhere near what I've calculated, based upon pixel counts of these two lengths (knuckles & fish) taken from the image he posted. I cannot explain that discrepancy.

Edited by tcbetka 4/29/2011 7:19 AM
fins355
Posted 4/29/2011 8:47 AM (#495878 - in reply to #495854)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Tom...I can explain the discrepancy....I was incorrect in my original calculations.

I don't really understand how I did that , buuuutt....like the young lady on my GPS says, I'm "recalculating". LOL!!

Here's where I'm at now.
I agree that the fingers are probably much less than 3.5". Probably somewhere between 3 -3.25". This of course is the variable.

The fingers measurement fits the length of the fish 18.33 times. If the fingers are 3.25" wide then the 3.25" x 18.33 = 59.5".
If the fingers measure 3"wide then the 3" x 18.33 = 54.9"
Moving smaller on the width of the fingers obviously will reduce the length of the fish, example....2.90" x 18.33 = 53.1"

For the fish to measure 64.5 inches his finger width would have to be 3.5".

I think I have moved closer to your pixel calculations Tom but I think the fish still shows to be considerably shorter than 64.5",

Just me , I guess.

I probably should leave this calculation to the "pros".


DougP


tcbetka
Posted 4/29/2011 9:12 AM (#495888 - in reply to #495878)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
Well, try the GIMP application and play around with it a bit. It isn't Rocket Science here Doug...you're just measuring an image using pixel counts. Give it a shot and verify my numbers yourself. I may certainly have made a mistake.

On another note...

I've been working on this a bit more this morning. My hypothesis is that we can use the ratio of the sides (thickness vs width) of the board, to determine what it's actual size is. For instance:

Board (Side Ratio)
================
2 x 4 (1 : 2.000)

1.75 x 3.75 (1 : 2.143)

1.5 x 3.5 (1 : 2.333)

The idea here is that if we can measure the width of the board and compare it to it's thickness, we can tell whether or not this is a true 2" x 4" board (nominal lumber), or something other than that such as would be seen with a piece of dimensional lumber. If we can hone in on that a bit more, then I think our length estimate of the fish will improve considerably--simply because we are reducing variability in the calculations. So, using GIMP, this is what I am trying to accomplish. I've made some progress thus far, but it's slow-going.

The problem is that you must resize the image in order to more clearly define the edges--but you must also maintain the pixel aspect ratio, in order for the ratios to remain valid. So I've resized both images to 2000 x 2812, and made some preliminary measurements. You also have to pay attention to the angle of each side from the horizontal, so that you can duplicate that same angle along the board where you choose to measure the distances. The black & white picture doesn't allow you to easily discern where the board stops and the grass starts below the fish's tail, though. So I am having to make a series of measurements, and then I will basically take an average and then calculate the ratio. The other way to do it would be to calculate the ratio of each individual set of pixel counts (measurements), and then average those ratios. I'll think about that a bit more, but am inclined to simply average all the ratios to come up with a working value.

Although I am still working on this, I am fairly confident that this board is probably NOT an actual 2" x 4" board. Most of my calculations are coming out in the 2.1-2.2 : 1 range, suggesting that this board may have in fact been a 1.75" x 3.75" piece of lumber. However the process is still ongoing, so don't take that to the bank just yet. I do not think it's a 1.5" x 3.5" board though, but I'll keep trying to hone in on it a bit more. One final thought, pointed out by Larry, is that this board was likely not a new board--and thus may have been swollen with moisture, or had it's corners (or edges) chamfered, or something like that. So that's why I think it is important to make a series of measurements along the board where possible, and then average these ratios.

Stay tuned.

TB

Edited by tcbetka 4/29/2011 9:15 AM
tcbetka
Posted 4/29/2011 10:12 AM (#495896 - in reply to #495888)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Location: Green Bay, WI
Ah...interesting.

Because the angle of the board is different between those two images, the ratios for the board's width and thickness will not be the same in each image. So I am working with the image Doug posted, trying to come up with a good value for the angle of the board and its actual size...

TB

Edited by tcbetka 4/29/2011 10:15 AM
fins355
Posted 4/29/2011 10:26 AM (#495902 - in reply to #495888)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


Here's my last thought [I think] on this Lawton fish.
The photo shows the known height of Art Lawton and the claimed length of the fish.
If this fish was in the same plane [side by side] as Art, he would be only 3.5" taller than the fish.
Since we know the fish is obviously in front of Art [at least the dimension shown, I submit] the fish should be at LEAST as long as Art.
Obviously, it is not.
It is virtually impossible with that perspective for this fish to be as long as claimed.

Credit to Lenscreep for bringing that issue up.......

Sometimes things are simpler than we try to make them.

Great that you're doing your investigation Tom, but I think it's not needed to show this fish to be much shorter than claimed.

DougP

Edited by fins355 4/29/2011 10:39 AM



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(lwtn rcrd cmp.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments lwtn rcrd cmp.jpg (44KB - 185 downloads)
tcbetka
Posted 4/29/2011 10:45 AM (#495906 - in reply to #495902)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




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
Guest
Posted 4/29/2011 11:05 AM (#495911 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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.
tcbetka
Posted 4/29/2011 11:48 AM (#495917 - in reply to #495911)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
fins355
Posted 4/29/2011 7:05 PM (#495996 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
tcbetka
Posted 4/29/2011 7:17 PM (#495998 - in reply to #495996)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
tcbetka
Posted 4/29/2011 9:43 PM (#496016 - in reply to #495996)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
Cast
Posted 4/30/2011 10:55 AM (#496056 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies


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.
tcbetka
Posted 4/30/2011 12:53 PM (#496072 - in reply to #496056)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(LawtonNewPic.jpg)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(LawtonBigPic_LINED.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments LawtonNewPic.jpg (42KB - 173 downloads)
Attachments LawtonBigPic_LINED.jpg (115KB - 263 downloads)
Larry Ramsell
Posted 4/30/2011 12:55 PM (#496073 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 1204


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
fins355
Posted 4/30/2011 1:32 PM (#496077 - in reply to #496073)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




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
tcbetka
Posted 4/30/2011 1:40 PM (#496079 - in reply to #496077)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




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
fins355
Posted 4/30/2011 2:08 PM (#496085 - in reply to #496079)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




Posts: 280


The mold is conclusive.....nothing else needed.
tcbetka
Posted 4/30/2011 9:41 PM (#496147 - in reply to #496085)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




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
----------------
Attachments LawtonBoardDrawing_Calculations.pdf (52KB - 567 downloads)
Jerry Newman
Posted 5/1/2011 9:06 AM (#496193 - in reply to #496147)
Subject: Re: Lawton muskies




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"

Jerry Newman
Posted 5/1/2011 9:14 AM (#496195 - in reply to #494432)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
tcbetka
Posted 5/1/2011 10:44 AM (#496206 - in reply to #496195)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
LarryJones
Posted 5/1/2011 6:05 PM (#496266 - in reply to #496206)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
tcbetka
Posted 5/1/2011 7:59 PM (#496285 - in reply to #496266)
Subject: RE: Lawton muskies




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
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Lake of the Woods Tourism

(Delete all cookies set by this site)