THE WRMA REPORT
FOLLOWED A TWO PART APPROACH
First,
they took photographs of the mount of the Johnson musky with a
calibrated camera, from which they used a PhotoModeler program
to come up with two reference calculations off the mount. The
reference calculations they arrived at were: 1) the distance
from the musky’s upper jaw to the eye (5.669 inches) and
2) the distance from the musky’s upper jaw to the point where
the gill cover meets the fishes body (10.209 inches).
Secondly, they used these two reference calculations to
extrapolate three sets of “partial” length calculations of the
musky off of three photos of the fish by using direct
scaling computations. (See PHOTOS 1, 2, and 3) It
should be noted that the “partial” length calculations that were
arrived at in the report did not include the total length of
the musky; rather, they spanned the distance from the
musky’s upper jaw down to the upper tip of its tail fin. The
WRMA then added 8/10 of an inch to that result to make up for
the extra length of the musky’s lower jaw that wasn’t
included.
The
concept of direct scaling from photos is that if one reference
dimension is known to be accurate, using that
dimension and its corresponding length on a photograph, other
dimensions on that same photograph (in this case, the length of
the musky) may be able to be determined using ratio
proportions. The accuracy of direct scaling, however, is
dependent on both how much perspective will come into play and
on the accuracy of the known in the photo.
LIMITATIONS TO
DIRECT SCALING
There are significant
limitations that must be realized when using this method of
direct scaling, especially when one attempts to use a
comparatively short line segment as a known to measure a much
longer object in a photo. Keep in mind that whatever the
error is with a shorter “known” line segment in a photo, the
overall error of the final result will be multiplied by how many
times larger the unknown object is. For example: if you are
trying to calculate the length of an object that may be 60
inches long by using a “known” which is only 6 inches long, if
there happens to be just a ½ inch error in the known distance…
the overall error in the final result will be (5 inches) or
ten times greater than the original error in the known distance.
This leads us to another
important factor that must be considered when direct scaling an
object on a photo: knowing where the horizon (or camera
height) is in the photo. Furthermore, once you know the
camera height in a photo, the following rule of perspective
always applies: For objects that are in the same plane, the
further an object in a photo is away from the horizon (or camera
height), the smaller it will appear relative to an object of
equal size closer to the horizon.
(See on the right for an example of this concept.)
Note how the rulers, which each measure exactly 12 inches in
length, progressively appear to be shorter beneath the upper
blue ruler. (Note that the camera level was at the junction of
the upper black and blue rulers.)
Relative to this issue of
perspective, the WRMA report had stated that all of their
length calculations resulted in an overestimation of the
musky’s true length. This statement proves to be in error
because for two out of three of the photos used in their report
(PHOTOS 2 & 3), the camera height was just below the
musky’s head (close to where the “known” reference calculations
were taken). Consequently, their length calculations of the
musky for those two photos were understated and NOT
overstated.
HOW ACCURATE ARE
THE REPORT’S REFERENCE MEASUREMENTS?
How
accurate is the 5.669 inch upper jaw to eye calculation that the
WRMA report used as one of their two reference calculations for
direct scaling? Surprisingly, this critical piece of
information was not included in the WRMA report. The first thing I looked for in the report was
to what part of the eye was this distance measure to?
Because the eye socket of the musky measures a full one inch in
diameter, knowing the end point of this distance is crucial to
checking the report’s validity. Remember, even a half inch
error in this measurement will yield a nearly 5 inch error in
the report’s length calculations. When I contacted the
people who did the calculations in the report and asked for this
information, they refused to answer me.
Figuring out to what part of the eye socket was this
distance measured to was not difficult. It only required taking
the proper proportions that were given in the WRMA report and
then, using simple ratios, plotting on the photos to what part
of the eye were these measurements made to. Because their
numbers were so specific, it was fairly easy to figure out and I
encourage others to do the same. After I discovered that the
distance in question extended from the musky’s upper jaw to
the posterior edge of the eye socket, I then went right to
the Johnson mount to check up if this distance truly measured
5.669 inches.
Because there was glass on
the case of the mount, I used a device with two parallel lasers
to shoot the beams through the glass and onto the fish. After
checking this measurement five times, I found the upper jaw
to the posterior edge of the eye socket distance to be 6.25
inches and NOT 5.669 inches!! This error alone, of more
than 9/16 of an inch, skews the report’s result by more than 5
inches and invalidates their conclusion that the Johnson musky
couldn’t have been more than 54” in length. And after realizing
that for two out of three of the photos (PHOTOS 2 and 3)
the high camera height even further understated the
WRMA’s calculations of the musky length, it puts the length of
the Cal Johnson musky right in the 60 inch class… which is what
is was registered as being in the first place.
With the WRMA’s proven
error of more than 9/16 of an inch in arriving at the wrong
upper jaw to eye distance of 5.669 inches, it comes as no
surprise that their length calculations of the distance from the
Johnson musky’s upper jaw to the upper tip of its tail fin in
PHOTOS 1, 2, and 3 of 50.7 inches, 49.6 inches, and 49.3
inches respectively, were so far off. Compounded with the facts
that in PHOTO 1 the musky was bent so significantly,
in PHOTO 2 the end point of the upper jaw was
completely obscured, and in both PHOTOS 2 and 3
perspective understated their calculations to some degree,
this explains why the WRMA report was so far off in attempting
to calculate the length of the Johnson musky.
Because this reference
measurement is obviously stretched on both PHOTOS 1 & 2
and it is not fully in view in either PHOTOS 2 & 3,
attempting to use the upper jaw to gill flap reference as a
“known” to scale off of would yield only inconclusive and
questionable results.
THE PHOTOS OF CAL’S RECORD MUSKY
The poor quality of two of the photo images (which actually
were newspaper/magazine clippings), the differing positions of
the fish (one of which showed a significant bend in the musky’s
head), and the fact that in the only real photo (PHOTO 2)
the end of the musky’s upper jaw was totally blocked from view
makes the validity of the WRMA’s method of length calculation
questionable from the start.
There are two other photos
of great quality that the WRMA never used in their report.
The first, shown here on the left, shows a great image of
Cal holding his fish on a gaff. Clearly, this quality photo
shows how thick and well proportioned this musky was from head
to tail. To think that this was merely a 40# class fish is
absurd.
The photo shown above shows a newly discovered photo of Cal
Johnson holding his musky, which had been tucked away amongst
his personal papers and photos for nearly 60 years. This
photograph provides us with an additional piece of evidence
which indeed further supports the documented length of his
musky. For pictured just to the left of Cal’s musky, standing
nearly vertical and very close to being in the same plane as the
fish, is the actual rod (a SouthBendor 411) that he used to
catch his fish.
It has
been very well documented in many different places that Cal had
caught his record musky on the SouthBendor 411 rod, a rod which
is well known to have been a 4 foot 11 inch long fishing rod
(58¾” to be exact, when measured with a tape measure).
Actually, whether or not Cal caught his musky on that rod is
irrelevant. The only thing that matters when attempting to use
the rod in the photo to scale the fish against it…. is that it
is indeed a SouthBendor model 411 rod.
As you can see by the left hand photo above,, which shows
the butt of the SouthBendor 411 model rod close up, if you
compare it to the zoomed in image of the rod butt in the photo
with Cal and his musky, there is no doubt that it is the same
model rod. While this rod is slightly angled against the
sign that it is leaning on, although it does indeed lose some of
its vertical height on the photo, we are talking about the
rod only losing from ¾” to 1 ½” at most. It is pretty easy
to see that the rod butt is kicked away from where the base of
the sign post meets the ground by about a foot (give or take a
couple of inches). When you assign an approximate adjusted
vertical height of 57¼” to 58” to the rod in the photo and use
that distance to direct scale the length of the musky, the
musky length still comes out noticeably longer than the rod and
remains in the 60” class (59” to 59.8” to be exact).
This is
an easy approximation for you to check out at home by taking a
59” long stick and leaning it against a wall with the butt end
pulled 12” away from the wall. Measure the vertical height of
the rod above the floor and you will see that the rod only lost
about 1” in height.
THE FIELD &
STREAM LETTERS
The report falsely stated
that because a larger musky (the Louie Spray musky) was caught 3
months after the Johnson musky, Cal’s fish was never given the
full scrutiny that a world record entry would have normally
received. This couldn’t be further from the truth because I
have original correspondence between Cal Johnson and Field &
Stream that shows that Field & Stream not only
identified his musky as a world record fish only two days after
it was caught, but they also requested all the required
documentation that was expected of a world record entry at the
time. Keep in mind that Louie Spray didn’t register his musky
until nearly 3 months after Cal had caught his fish. The Spray
catch never happened yet and Field & Stream certainly
could not have foreseen into the future that someone would catch
a larger fish. Of course they gave Cal Johnson’s musky full
scrutiny, as evidenced by the following letters on July 26, 1949
and August 16, 1949.
(CLICK
HERE TO SEE THE TWO FIELD & STREAM
LETTERS TO CAL)
Take special note in
the letter of July 26th that, contrary to the
report’s claim that Field & Stream never acknowledged
Johnson’s musky as a world record, Field & Stream
identified Cal’s fish as a world record only two days after it
was caught. In that letter, Field & Stream acknowledged
they had given Johnson a fishing contest entry blank to fill out
and return and they also were very specific in requesting
photographs and an affidavit attesting to the scales that were
used, as well as an affidavit from 2 or 3 additional witnesses
to the weighing and measuring of the fish. On that letter,
Johnson himself recorded that he sent in the requested info on
August 2nd.
The
next letter from Field & Stream, dated August 16th,
acknowledged they had indeed received the information from Cal
along with his response letter of August 2nd.
The
WRMA report has a number of other sections that make additional
false or unsupported claims against the Johnson fish. While
many of their statements that are speculative, trivial, or
irrelevant don’t even warrant comment, I will address a few
points that should be corrected.
In a
section where the report compares the side width of the Johnson
musky to the side width of the Gelb musky (a 53” long fish),
they not only reduced the Johnson musky’s length (and
correspondingly its side width) down to the same scale as the
Gelb fish for comparison purposes… but they also incorrectly
indicated the boundaries of the side width of the Johnson fish on the photo.
Such a comparison gives the false impression that the Johnson
musky’s side width was less than the side width of Gelb’s fish.
However, once you enlarge the Johnson fish to the proper scale
of 60¼” and once you realize that the shadowed area alongside
the right edge of the Johnson musky in the photo is actually
additional side width that the WRMA missed, it becomes
evident that Johnson’s fish does not have a smaller side
width than the Gelb fish. This extra side width that was
missed by the report gives the Johnson fish conservatively an
additional ½ to ¾” of side width and, consequently, more girth.
Furthermore, in a section where the report assumed an
(incorrect) lesser girth measurement off of a photo of the
vertically held Johnson musky, the WRMA completely failed
to realize that a girth taken on a musky while it is lying down
on the ground and having its belly distended always measures
significantly more. I’ve measured and girthed many hundreds
of muskies over the past 38 years and know this to be true.
Lastly,
the section in the WRMA report that used up five pages worth of
space talking about silhouette comparisons to the Johnson musky
proves nothing because there are far too many unknown variables
involved and assumptions made to yield anything which could be
considered as reliable evidence.
They
give this section far too much credibility when none exists.
They have no idea of the focal length or camera distance or even
how far out the musky was held by Johnson to come up with
anything but more speculation…. speculation which is easily
dispelled by all of the overwhelming above mentioned supportive
facts on the Johnson fish.
Regarding the silhouette comparisons that I included in my Art
Lawton world record musky report back in 1992, the WRMA has
wrongly attached far too much importance to a mere visualization
exercise that I had included. The Lawton musky was
disqualified for only two reasons: 1) the primary weight
witness recanted his story and said he did not weigh or measure
the fish, and 2) a new photo of the musky that Lawton claimed as
his world record musky dramatically proved that this fish was
much smaller than claimed. If either of these two very
specific things wouldn’t have happened, the Lawton fish never
would have been disqualified.
By
comparison, there have been no recantations of any of the
affidavits supporting the Johnson musky. In fact, Cal Johnson’s
son, who was witness to both the catch and the weighing &
measuring of this fish, signed an additional affidavit in 1993
that pointedly attested to his witnessing of this catch and
weighing and measuring of this fish. The affidavits stand as
very strong documentation that can not be just casually
dismissed and cast aside.
Click Here To See The
Affidavit For The Cal Johnson World Record.
Secondly, the photos of the Johnson musky all support his catch
to be in the size class he claimed it to be… with absolutely
no solid proof of any kind showing that the fish was smaller
than claimed. In fact, the newly released photo even
further backs up the fish to be a 60” class fish.
On top of all of this indisputable evidence, the mount of Cal
Johnson’s musky is impossible to ignore and the WRMA’s only
response to its existence is coming up with wild conspiracy
theories that aren’t even possible as to how this mount was
greatly augmented. Although some modern taxidermists who don’t
want to accept the Johnson fish may claim it is possible to pull
off such a feat in less than a month,
taxidermists who are familiar with the methods that were
employed to mount the Johnson fish have stated emphatically that
creating the Johnson fish out of a much smaller fish (40# class)
within the narrow time frame that was available without having
the augmentation be evident would have been basically
impossible.
The Cal Johnson Mount Proves to be Authentic
Regarding Cal Johnson’s mounted world record musky, some
individuals have made the observation that the paired set of
fins located on the bottom mid section of the fish (known as
pelvic fins) appear to be further forward on the mount of the
fish than they do on the photographs of the fish. From that
observation some people have jumped to the false assumption that
a six inch or more section must have been added behind the
pelvic fins to add extra length to the fish, in an effort to
turn a 52 inch to 54 inch long fish into the mount (which today
measures close to 59 inches in length).
This unsupported theory, however, proves to be totally without
merit.
While this observation that the pelvic fins seem further
forward on the mount is correct, there is a logical explanation
for this. After a careful comparison of the of pelvic fin
locations in each of the five photos of the fish, perspective
proves to distort where those fins appear to be located by as
much as 4%. This translates to making the pelvic fins
appear to be up to1¼ inches further forward in one of the
photos. Obviously, the fins are in the exact position on all
the photographs; however, they appear to be 1¼ inches further
forward in one of the photos.
This photographic illusion is proven by measuring the
distance of how far forward the pelvic fins are located between
the anal fin and the pectoral fins in each of the photos of the
Johnson musky. Then compare the proportions of that distance to
the overall distance between the anal fin and the pectoral
fins. The proportions range from 34% to 38% forward, hence the
4% or 1¼” photographic illusion. The laws of perspective
dictate that the photograph taken from the furthest distance
away will be the least distorted and thus will give the most
accurate pelvic fin location of 38% forward.
This photographic illusion explains only part of the
observation why the mount’s pelvic fins appear to be further
forward. Because the pelvic fins are 46.7% forward on the
mount, there needs to be an explanation why those fins are 8.7%
(or 2.7 inches) further forward on the mount than what is shown
on the photograph of the fish with the least distortion. The
first logical question to ask regarding this observation is,
“Does this forward pelvic fin drift occur on other mounts?” The
answer is, “Yes, it does.”
The first thing I did when I made this forward fin drift
observation was look at my own musky mounts and measure how far
forward their pelvic fins were. Sure enough, they indeed were
noticeably further forward on their mounts than they were on the
actual photos of the same fish. I asked my taxidermist, Al
Smith, about that and he responded, “You could easily have
the pelvic fins end up forward an inch or two, depending on how
you stretch the skin. It is never my concern on where the fins
end up positioned on a mount, rather I do my best to fit the
skin on the form.” Other taxidermists have also confirmed
that the pelvic fins can drift further forward, depending on how
the skin is stretched over the form.
