81lb Bass?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

"Does anybody feel like Pete Vican is being cheated here?"
Why would he be cheated? Didn't he catch one hell of a fish himself? I'm glad for him.

Agree with Slip. Why would Peter Vican feel cheated?

[JohnR]

Questions regarding the image of the bass measuring at 51"

I took the image from F&S, enlarged it (correctly, resampling 110% several times) and to me, it appears as though the tape measure is not flat on the ground but lifted up a bit where held. That, coupled with the bottom left location where the snapshot was taken, would make the "51 inches" getting tossed around shorter than the actual length due to the perspective of the shot.

I'm 20 something years past my higher-math prime (pun?) so I don't have the mental capacity to crunch without disastrous effect, but I can and did simulate my theory scaled down a bit and confirm - good enough for me - that the fish is longer than 51"s.

Someone smarter than me please confirm this - or debunk it - mathematically...

Re-sized image:

http://www.striped-bass.com/images/w...4-enlarged.jpg

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Questions regarding the image of the bass measuring at 51"

I took the image from F&S, enlarged it (correctly, resampling 110% several times) and to me, it appears as though the tape measure is not flat on the ground but lifted up a bit where held. That, coupled with the bottom left location where the snapshot was taken, would make the "51 inches" getting tossed around shorter than the actual length due to the perspective of the shot.

I'm 20 something years past my higher-math prime (pun?) so I don't have the mental capacity to crunch without disastrous effect, but I can and did simulate my theory scaled down a bit and confirm - good enough for me - that the fish is longer than 51"s.

Someone smarter than me please confirm this - or debunk it - mathematically...

Re-sized image:

http://www.striped-bass.com/images/w...4-enlarged.jpg

You see the 2" in front of head? I mean common... Who would take a pic like this? would you?? Be honest John! The fish was never rewieghed on a certified scale! There is a reason 80 % of the people on some of the other forum polls think its BS!!!

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by CowHunter

You see the 2" in front of head? I mean common... Who would take a pic like this? would you?? Be honest John! The fish was never rewieghed on a certified scale! There is a reason 80 % of the people on some of the other forum polls think its BS!!!

I gotta run down for dinner, then I'll probably hit the Canal for awhile. I'll try to give you a call tomorrow, or at least I'll leave you my cell number on your voice mail if you're out on the water. I really don't want to get involved in this, but I'm a sucker for behind the scenes intrigue.

[Nebe]

NEBESTAMOMUS HAS SPOKEN!!!

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by CowHunter

You see the 2" in front of head? I mean common... Who would take a pic like this? would you?? Be honest John! The fish was never rewieghed on a certified scale! There is a reason 80 % of the people on some of the other forum polls think its BS!!!

Angle - I am being honest. That photo does not represent 51 inches for me, or anything less than 51 inches. Using that photo as the claim for 51 inches doesn't wash with me. I have not seen anything concrete to debunk that this is not what it is claimed to be.

I see a lot of people trying to debunk it but I have not seen enough to to convince me this is not legit.

[UserRemoved1]

Sorry John I don't buy it. That tape isn't bent. It's straight out. And laid under his dorsal fin. That fish measures less than 50" in that picture.

Originally Posted by JohnR

Questions regarding the image of the bass measuring at 51"

I took the image from F&S, enlarged it (correctly, resampling 110% several times) and to me, it appears as though the tape measure is not flat on the ground but lifted up a bit where held. That, coupled with the bottom left location where the snapshot was taken, would make the "51 inches" getting tossed around shorter than the actual length due to the perspective of the shot.

I'm 20 something years past my higher-math prime (pun?) so I don't have the mental capacity to crunch without disastrous effect, but I can and did simulate my theory scaled down a bit and confirm - good enough for me - that the fish is longer than 51"s.

Someone smarter than me please confirm this - or debunk it - mathematically...

Re-sized image:

http://www.striped-bass.com/images/w...4-enlarged.jpg

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

Sorry John I don't buy it. That tape isn't bent. It's straight out. And laid under his dorsal fin. That fish measures less than 50" in that picture.

Tape is not flat on the ground. The zero is, the hand is not. It is below the dorsal in front and several inches above the tail.

More reading: Story and Photos: Potential World Record Striper

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

Sorry John I don't buy it. That tape isn't bent. It's straight out. And laid under his dorsal fin. That fish measures less than 50" in that picture.

No way that tape in the picture is flat to the ground. It was shot either as he was putting it down or lifting it up.

[UserRemoved1]

And I just fell off the turnip truck. Sorry but that tape is NOT on the ground it's about 2" above it...but it IS in a direct straight line under the fish. We could sit here arguing about this all day. Not me. I still don't believe this picture. There's another shot of the mouth of the fish with a tape. 5" across the mouth. That also don't say 81lb. I've caught 30lbers with bigger mouths than that.
Off to work enjoy the conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

No way that tape in the picture is flat to the ground. It was shot either as he was putting it down or lifting it up.