|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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 |
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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 |
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
| 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? |
|
| |
|
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,
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.
|
|
| |
|
| 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! |
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1280
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 |
|
| |
|
| 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.
|
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
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
Attachments
----------------
 lwtn msky.jpgsmll.jpg (29KB - 325 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| You're right about photogrammetry...this is just common sense, eh? LOL!!
DougP |
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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. |
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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. |
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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
Attachments
----------------
lwtn rcrd cmp.jpg (44KB - 317 downloads)
|
|
| |
