Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> My Review on the O'brien Review |
| Message Subject: My Review on the O'brien Review | |||
tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | fins355 - 1/13/2013 9:10 AM Tom, we can just agree to disagree about the photos and the DCM report. That's fine. I just believe the DCM report using those photos to be inaccurate and therefore invalid. snip... DougP I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't accept the DCM evaluation as being "valid" science? I mean, those techniques are used countless times in many cases, each year. And after all, he DID come up with results consistent with the reports now verified by other methods. Certainly Mr.Mills could have had access to the information regarding Larry's measurement of the fish when he generated his report--but he wouldn't have had knowledge of the calculated length based upon measurement of the cleithrum data, as this was just verified in the past 4-6 months. I personally verified his calculations using the images included in his report, and although they weren't exactly the same...they were very close. I'd trust his numbers more so than mine even, given that I had images of lesser quality. So I am not at all sure what you have a problem with Doug, regarding those images. I am very confident that his results represent the true and accurate calculated length of the fish in those images, within the stated (published) margin of error. And since they've since been corroborated by independent means and he did get the right answer, I don't see where the problem lies. But let me know if you're going to be in the Green Bay area at all, and I'll take you to dinner. We'll discuss it at length. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Doug (fins355): Yep, records are a mess. Wrote this recently: Records; The Irony Of It All! Let’s face it, historical muskie world records are a mess. Since John Dettloff set out in the early 1990’s to return “King Louie” to the top of the muskie heap, the historical records have gone continuously down hill since. After he succeeded in getting Art Lawton’s world record either disqualified or “set-aside”, he became emboldened and went after the other non-Hayward (WI) world records and other record class catches. With the unwitting complicity of the then two record keeping organizations and a few outdoor and muskie magazines he managed to basically destroy all of the non-Hayward world records back to 1939 with the exception of the two from Eagle Lake, Ontario in 1939 and 1940. Why he never attacked them is a mystery to me…perhaps he didn’t think he could get the job done on them. While as it turns out he was correct in the records he “chose” to attack, his Achilles Heel was in his steadfast refusal to give the same consideration to the Hayward records (Spray’s 1949 record was supposedly caught near his Flowage resort) and he and the Hall of Fame Board, when upholding the Spray record, failed miserably to apply the same standards to Spray as they had to Lawton. A shameful use of politics and tourism by the Hall board, all of whom were Hayward business folks with a strong bias. With regard to the IGFA, they set aside Lawton’s record and then replaced it with the bogus O'brien fish and then replaced that one with the bogus Johnson fish and then refused to apply the same standards to it as they had Lawton and to this day leave it standing, facts notwithstanding. I believe, they just didn’t wish to make waves in the outdoor magazine world, since Cal Johnson had been an icon there. In the last decade, the Internet Muskie Record Wars have raged on and on and on. Many folks have had their minds changed back and forth and many too, have just hunkered down with their beliefs and wishes, usually refusing to use common sense with the evidence. With more and more facts coming forward as more research was done and people come forward or were found, and of course, the WRMA (now WMA) began their investigations with the use of scientific photogrammetry at the core of their findings, we can now be confident that through that work and considerable other evidence, the vast majority of the heretofore “top echelon” of historic muskie records were bogus! Photogrammetry has conclusively shown that the top four records were far shorter than claimed; Lawton, Spray 1949 (and including his 1940 record), Johnson and O’brien. This, combined with all the other new evidence and findings leaves nothing to doubt about this fact in my mind. Since there is compelling evidence too against the Hanser record and the two Haver records and the supposed third Spray record and insufficient data exists to conclusively put the “stamp of approval” on the two Eagle Lake records, we are left at an impasse as to just what our Muskellunge World Record is. As an aside, even if the two Eagle Lake fish were legit, it still remains fact that other than a possible “freak”, muskies just don’t normally grow beyond the mid-fifty to sixty-pound mark! Now comes the “Irony“…Dettloff was only able to convince the state of Michigan to remove their Haver State record; the Lawton fish is still the New York State record; the Spray 1949 fish is still the Wisconsin State record and the O’brien fish is still the Canadian record. Yes folks, the state of affairs in the muskie records world are still a bloomin’ mess!!! Stay tuned, maybe things will turn for the better in the next few months. | ||
| Aaron Wiebe |
| ||
Posts: 7 | There seems to be plenty of evidence for the fish being around 54"...my comments were directed at the "official report", which did not do a good job of proving that, unfortunately. TB, yes you missed my point completely with the pool cues. The man standing behind them is of no consequence. I used one pool cue to measure the other pool cue....similarly to the "report" using the yard stick to measure the musky. You are incorrect in your comments that "as long as they are close, you can get an accurate measurement"....THIS is what I was demonstrating. One of the pool cues is closer to the camera, and accounts for a perceived 3" difference in length, yet it is NOT noticeably closer - the man looks to be holding both pool cues in front of him on nearly the same "plane". Which is why I compared this pixel counting calculation as a technique worthy of a 6th grade classroom. There is no science behind it. Edited by Aaron Wiebe 1/16/2013 1:23 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I went back and re-read your initial post Aaron, for now about the third or fourth time. After reading your last post, I think I can see the point that you are trying to make. However I still disagree with your assertion that the yardstick is significantly out of plane with the fish in either of the two images in the WMA report. I didn't have any others to go by incidentally, so I hope those are the ones you're referencing as well. Anyway, I think it appears quite evident that the stick is being held very close to being co-planar with an imaginary line extending, through the center of the fish, from the tip of its rostrum, out the fork of its tail. In other words, it is VERY close to being in the same plane as the central axis of the fish. Contrary to what has been mentioned in this thread about the rotation of the fish, I simply do not believe that has any bearing whatsoever on the calculation of estimated length of the fish in the images. It's the central, pin-point, axis of the fish we're interested in--not it's belly. As long as we can get a pixel count from snout to the tip of its tail, and from end-to-end of an object of know length hanging in the same plane (no matter the relative angle between the two), then one can be used to direct-scale the other. And it sounds like you do agree with that much. So then really the only thing still under debate here, is how "co-planar" the yardstick is with the fish. Am I getting that right? I also should say that I *do* in fact think that using a pixel count measurement of a known-length object to find the length of an object of unknown length IS, in fact, "science." I don't know what else you'd call it? While it may not be "Rocket Science," it certainly still requires knowledge of some mathematics (ratios), and an appreciation of how the viewing angle of two co-planar objects might affect the interpretation of their apparent lengths. That's trigonometry...certainly geometry at the very least. That's why I somewhat pooh-poohed the notion about "sixth-grade" intellect being able to solve this particular problem. And then when you start to consider the effect of moving the yardstick farther out of plane with the fish, it certainly gets more and more complicated--especially when the camera is relatively close to either object. Anyway, it's still an interesting debate...and one that no one is really ever going to solve beyond a reason of a doubt. All things considered, and as everyone here pretty much seems to agree, the fish in those images is a 54" musky. I feel that the mathematics supports that assertion, but obviously you (and Doug) do not. So be it. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it, as it's not going to change the outcome of this whole deal... | ||
| Aaron Wiebe |
| ||
Posts: 7 | I am not saying the musky and the yardstick are significantly out of plane. I am saying that it only takes a slight difference in plane and camera angle to make a huge difference in the pixel counting results. Do you agree that the pool cues appear to be on the same plane? They are exactly the same length, and with just holding one slightly closer to the camera, one of the cues perceives to be 3" longer when analyzed by pixel "science". Besides this very practical example (the pool cues) which Larry and Jerry immediately dismissed as invalid....consider that the "science" you are using places the musky at 52" in one photo and 53" in the other photo, WITH a hyper extended jaw that is contributing an inch or more to the perceived length in the photo. Would you agree it would be more fair to call it 51-52 based off the pixel science considering this? Which would mean the pixel science puts it 2-3" shorter than the 54" that every other argument points to. The main arguments do not even agree with each other, which is a major stumbling block in the way of labelling any of this "science". In my opinion, anyways. Edited by Aaron Wiebe 1/16/2013 3:47 PM | ||
| Aaron Wiebe |
| ||
Posts: 7 | The WRA has good intentions and valid concerns, but my third party perception (being on the fence about the validity of the fish) is that they have lost their credibility by leaning on unproven arguments...and when those ones lose momentum, the spokespeople for the WRA shift to "well then how do you explain THIS?!?!?!"....one "argument" at a time....the WRA is supposed to be bringing sanity to the debate, instead of contributing to the opposite. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, there are "qualitative" tests, and then there are "quantitative" tests--and this direct-scaling business (using pixel count) is definitely more of a qualitative test. While it will result in an estimate for the length of the fish in this case, it is NOT going to give you an exact answer as to the length of an object whose length is in question. But Dan Mills never said it would--as his report clearly states that there is a margin of error surrounding his calculated length. For one thing, you cannot guarantee that the fish and the yard stick are in *exactly* the same plane. They most certainly are not. That's one of the reasons that there's a confidence interval around those lengths Dan obtained. But they certainly do appear close enough to at least get you close--and that "close" (in this case) results in a length far below the 58" length apparently reported for this fish. Therefore even though you think the results to be somewhat less accurate than you would like, the fact that they are so far from the reported length should tell you something. And just because you think they should be FARTHER from the 58" length, doesn't mean they aren't valid results. Science is not about absolutes. If the length is shown to be far less than reported using the direct-scaling technique from the yardstick in the image, then you have no choice but to debunk the stated length of the fish, on that basis alone. Whether they are 10% off, 15% off or 50% off is of no consequence. It simply hasn't passed the test of "reasonableness." Now combine that with Larry's measurement, the measured length per the mold, and (most recently) the length estimate based upon cleithral data, and what do you have? A sub-58" musky is most likely what you have. Other than the physical measurement of the fish and mold, these other methods are non-exact. There is a confidence interval around each of them, no one ever said there wasn't. But just because the pixel counts of the fish and yardstick don't agree with what you think they should be, doesn't mean they aren't absolutely valid. In fact, I believe they are quite valid indeed. But of course you're free to disagree. Edited by tcbetka 1/17/2013 12:10 AM | ||
| Aaron Wiebe |
| ||
Posts: 7 | Ya, well worded. The way it was described and used in the report was much more concrete and unreasonable than your explanation of it. Despite being inaccurate...it certainly does contribute to the length being suspicious. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well-put. I for one still have some problems with how that whole thing went down, but there's nothing I(we) can do about it at this point. So you just look at the evidence either for or against the fish. And simply put, the fish in those pictures is NOT a 58" musky. Even if it's off by 10%, for example, that makes it only 53-54" (58" * 10% = 5.8"). Far short of the reported length, assuming that the musky in those images is indeed the one claimed to be a 58" fish. Incidentally, there was another (similar) thread a year or two ago, regarding the Lawton musky. Larry Ramsell made available a couple images which I analyzed and did similar calculations. I wrote up a "report" showing how I did the math on that fish, and it turned out that the fish in the picture was nowhere near the 62-63" length reported. But my point then, as it is now, is that we can only evaluate the fish in THAT image as being of a reported length. So in the Lawton case, my conclusion was that I could of course not say that Lawton never caught a 63" musky--only that my math showed that it wasn't the fish in THAT picture. Same goes with O'Brien then--the man might have caught a 58" musky for all I know. But I'd bet the ranch that it wasn't the one in the picture that appeared in the WMA report. Anyway I don't want to confound the matter, but I just thought I'd mention the Lawton fish pictures that went around a year or two ago. If you are looking for something to do on a cold winter night, you might dig up the thread here...if you've not already seen it. It's a pretty good read, as there were some great posts by several fellows. EDIT: Here's a link to that thread. The math is posted on the last page. Note that the reported length of that fish was apparently 64.5"! I had forgotten this... http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=65... Edited by tcbetka 1/18/2013 9:33 AM | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | Aaron Wiebe - 1/16/2013 3:54 PM The WRA has good intentions and valid concerns, but my third party perception (being on the fence about the validity of the fish) is that they have lost their credibility by leaning on unproven arguments...and when those ones lose momentum, the spokespeople for the WRA shift to "well then how do you explain THIS?!?!?!"....one "argument" at a time....the WRA is supposed to be bringing sanity to the debate, instead of contributing to the opposite. Aaron, I assume that you are satisfied with the incredibly patient and thorough explanation from Mr. Betka? To answer your question in a nutshell; Dan Mills, the expert we used for the photo analysis calculated a maximum length for Mr. O'Brien's Muskie of approximately 54”, and although there appears to be evidence that the fish was even shorter, there is ZERO physical, scientific, or photographic evidence that it was any longer. Therefore, although the WMA report was unable to satisfy your desire to know exactly how long this fish was, we would hope that you knowing that the maximum length of 54.4” would be enough to satisfy your curiosity regarding validity. Frankly Aaron, I find it very intriguing that you continue to post such baseless innuendo for no apparent reason. You may very well be “just a kid reading it”, as you say on page one, but after about 10 years of very similar ridiculous online exchanges with John Deltloff and company, I'm always suspicious of first-time posters… and have just grown tired of this type of nonsensical debate. The fact of the matter is your verbose review has been thoroughly dispelled by Mr. Betka without much effort and is now the only thing that's trying to “lean on unproven arguments”. Actually, your review is not leaning anymore because it fell flat on its face. It appears that your inability to deliver a clear and consistent line of reason has completely evaporated, and these little non-factual jabs are really the only thing that is “contributing the opposite”. If you're not John Deltloff (or one of his cronies), please accept my apologies and sincere offer to pursue this further by contacting the expert of your choice. If your expert can invalidate the findings in our report, and somehow prove this fish was actually longer than 54.4”, I'll pay for it. Fair enough? Edited by Jerry Newman 1/25/2013 9:42 PM | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | tcbetka - 1/18/2013 9:24 AM And simply put, the fish in those pictures is NOT a 58" musky. Even if it's off by 10%, for example, that makes it only 53-54" (58" * 10% = 5.8"). Far short of the reported length, assuming that the musky in those images is indeed the one claimed to be a 58" fish. Tom, For the record, that is the claimed 58” O'Brien record in those images, there is simply no debate due to the 30+ pictures of the fish/video that positively identifies it. Actually, the photo analysis conducted by Mr. Mills has the maximum hanging length of Mr. O'Brien's Muskie at 53.4” with an added +1” margin of error to give this fish every benefit of the doubt. The hanging maximum of 54.4” is just as valid today as it was the day the report was released and although Aaron seems unwilling to accept Mr. Mills expert calculations, it certainly appears he is willing to accept yours. Thank you sir! | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, it's pretty straightforward. There's no real Photogrammetry involved as I see it, because the yardstick and fish are very close to being in the same plane. So it's just math, and my math skills are much better than my skills in photogrammetry. My only purpose in making the comment about not being able to rule out O'Brien *ever* having caught a 58" fish, was to point out that MY intent was simply to investigate for myself the feasibility of the fish in those images. Just as in the case of the Lawton fish, after extensive review and study (especially for the Lawton images), I can say with a very high level of confidence that the fish in question are nowhere near as long as purported to be. Neither is a record fish, based upon my evaluations. | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | I apologize if this is a dumb question. Has anyone ever reversed engineered a lengh x girth formula (I know weight is what matters) to determine the dimensions for a fish to have weighed what the O'Brien fish reportedly weighed at the given length estimations? My thought is that the recent catches on Mille Lacs were total porkers and they didn't break 60 pounds. I would have to imagine that even at 58" (not saying that is true) the girth of a fish close to 70# would have needed to be ridiculous. I'm just curious, not looking to fan the flames. Edited by Brad P 1/29/2013 4:23 PM | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | Brad P - 1/29/2013 4:20 PM I apologize if this is a dumb question. Has anyone ever reversed engineered a lengh x girth formula (I know weight is what matters) to determine the dimensions for a fish to have weighed what the O'Brien fish reportedly weighed at the given length estimations? My thought is that the recent catches on Mille Lacs were total porkers and they didn't break 60 pounds. I would have to imagine that even at 58" (not saying that is true) the girth of a fish close to 70# would have needed to be ridiculous. I'm just curious, not looking to fan the flames. Considering the length of O'Brien's fish was in fact 54", it seems fairly obvious that the dimensions were "reverse engineered" to closely fit the 800 formula. 58x30 = 65.25 Edited by Jerry Newman 1/30/2013 10:55 AM | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | Thanks, I wasn't looking to debate the fish, I leave that to Mr. Ramsell and others who know far more about it than I do. I was just curious about how the formula would play out and whether or not it would kick out a ridiculous number for the girth. I bet at 54" it would kick it an obnoxious number. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Acutally Brad P, not so "ridiculous" as the girth is squared in the formula, so 54 x 31 comes close at 64.87 without being toooo "obnoxious", although a 31 inch girth is, while not impossible, extremely unlikely. For the umteenth time, the formula is merely an estimate that I believe, based on the actual weighing of several large muskies on a certified scale before release this fall, the formula usually overestimates the upper end fish (over 50-pounds) by 5 to 7 pounds!...If you want to say it, you should weigh it! Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/31/2013 8:14 AM | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | Thank you for the response. Now for the task that really matters: Catching my own 50#. | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | Brad P - 1/31/2013 4:02 PM Thank you for the response. Now for the task that really matters: Catching my own 50#. Actually, Larry and I have talked about the application of the 800 formula for released fish quite a bit the last few years, and although 54x31” might be possible with a freak muskie like Williamsons, this would also have to be the dead girth. The live girth would have to be somewhere upward of 32”, well off the chart for the girth to length ratio for muskies. I've been playing around with weighing my own released fish and then reducing the girth accordingly. My best guess is that anywhere from a ½” to 1” reduction in live girth depending on the size of the fish yields a fairly accurate formula weight using the standard 800 formula. The reasoning behind this research is that the 800 formula was developed using hundreds of dead fish whose girths would have been greater if they were measured while still alive. Getting back to O'Brien; I would be lying if I said that I did not believe in O'Brien when the WRMA started on this quest way back when. Even as the rumors of this fish being just another “water balloon” began to surface, I can remember thinking that even if that did happen, there might be no way to prove it. I was certainly surprised at what we found and being a man of my word (knowing I was going to get my teeth kicked in again) I was obligated to make this information public. The bottom line on O'Brien is that it was submitted on an official record application as being 58” long, and that my friends is simply not possible based on several separate pieces of corroborating hard scientific and circumstantial evidence. In our modern-day court systems, typically the eyewitnesses are the most inaccurate source of information. Many people have wrongfully been put to death based only on testimony, and many people have more recently been acquitted based only on contrary scientific DNA evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but when our own court system has overruled witnesses statements so many times (sometimes under strenuous objections to the contrary) in favor of hard scientific evidence, well that good enough for me. The fact of the matter is that people lie and (much like Spray and Johnson) these yellowing affidavits are hardly worth the paper they are written on when they fly in the face of overwhelming scientific and circumstantial evidence. Good luck this summer with that first 50" Brad! | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |