Perhaps its linked to those objects stacked up in the background of the unedited photos that Eddie refuses to take a guess at identifying, Mac Macarty also saw and Mr Hatton is point blank ignoring my questions on....
Here's The Evidence...Martin Gay's 50lb Common Carp
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps its linked to those objects stacked up in the background of the unedited photos that Eddie refuses to take a guess at identifying, Mac Macarty also saw and Mr Hatton is point blank ignoring my questions on....
Cliff Hatton
Well-known member
Benny: you need to understand the sheer cut-throat intensity of carp fishing at the time. A carping sleuth happening upon the venue and armed with an untouched photo could have identified the rather unremarkable back-drop - and Martin did not want to risk this.
Ray said "The whole thing is pointless". No, Ray, it's anything but pointless.
Sam: I'm quite aware of the BRFC's criterion for the carp record and I'm not asking anybody to re-write anything. Neither is Eddie. Neither was Martin. We couldn't care less, frankly.
Eddie and I seek only to show the angling world how an authoritative body - The Carp Society - trashed the impeccable reputation of a truly outstanding angler out of sheer spite and frustration.
Let's see what Eddie comes up with...eventually!
Ray said "The whole thing is pointless". No, Ray, it's anything but pointless.
Sam: I'm quite aware of the BRFC's criterion for the carp record and I'm not asking anybody to re-write anything. Neither is Eddie. Neither was Martin. We couldn't care less, frankly.
Eddie and I seek only to show the angling world how an authoritative body - The Carp Society - trashed the impeccable reputation of a truly outstanding angler out of sheer spite and frustration.
Let's see what Eddie comes up with...eventually!
thecrow
Well-known member
Hence me asking what it was in the photographs that caused the club committee members that saw them to say that "the water looked English"
If there were things in the background why not just come out and say what they were? they must have been very definitely English to be able to identify the water as English.
Cliff Hatton
Well-known member
Crow!!
I expect better things from you
!!
There was nothing to suggest it was anything but English...the background was typical of any number of rough, grassy, bushy surrounds to be found in England.
I expect better things from you
!!There was nothing to suggest it was anything but English...the background was typical of any number of rough, grassy, bushy surrounds to be found in England.
sam vimes
Well-known member
So essentially it's nothing more than the continuation of an age old feud. That's fine, good to know exactly what the motivation is. It also demonstrates quite nicely just how many unimportant red herrings are being thrown in just for the sake of continuance of the feud. The vast majority of folks that have become embroiled in it are little more than dupes.
Shame that the then CS trashed your mate's good name, but I'd suggest that anyone that really mattered didn't take a blind bit of notice anyway. As for the rest, believers or not, it matters not a jot.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Cliff , hindsight is wonderful , but you may have been simply better off publishing your articles and not allowing comments if what you wanted to achieve was a refutation of what the Carp Society said.
Fora are not the ideal way to debate a tricky subject they are too linear , people don't read all the posts , people get upset and emotional and simply try to score points.
I think these threads might have muddied the water so much that it's now difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.
Your friend obviously inspired great loyalty in his friends and what a great gift that is.
thecrow
Well-known member
I only posted because of your answer to another post, this one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benny said:Therefore there must be something in the photo that might identify the water
Yes, that's right, Benny
Cliff Hatton
Well-known member
Benny wrote: "Cliff , hindsight is wonderful , but you may have been simply better off publishing your articles and not allowing comments if what you wanted to achieve was a refutation of what the Carp Society said.
Fora are not the ideal way to debate a tricky subject they are too linear , people don't read all the posts , people get upset and emotional and simply try to score points.
I think these threads might have muddied the water so much that it's now difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.
Your friend obviously inspired great loyalty in his friends and what a great gift that is"
There's very little there I would disagree with, Benny...
Sam said "It also demonstrates quite nicely just how many unimportant red herrings are being thrown in just for the sake of continuance of the feud" Sam: the entirety of Paul Selman's version is a red herring. Not a jot of anything Eddie or I has written is.
Fora are not the ideal way to debate a tricky subject they are too linear , people don't read all the posts , people get upset and emotional and simply try to score points.
I think these threads might have muddied the water so much that it's now difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.
Your friend obviously inspired great loyalty in his friends and what a great gift that is"
There's very little there I would disagree with, Benny...
Sam said "It also demonstrates quite nicely just how many unimportant red herrings are being thrown in just for the sake of continuance of the feud" Sam: the entirety of Paul Selman's version is a red herring. Not a jot of anything Eddie or I has written is.
apart from the bits you made up :wh
Ray Daywalker Clarke
Well-known member
Sorry Cliff,
It is pointless. You go on about this fish being a record, NO it isn't, never has been, never will be.
Facts, No true record of the fish weight, No Witnesses, Photos with blank backgrounds, with the old chestnut to protect the water. You and Eddie have had the chance to put the record straight. Yet have failed to do so, I wonder why.
Just what is the TRUE reason behind this ????
I am know thinking the same as many others, that these fish are not from the UK at all. It seems that the carp society got it right after all.
Even now, if you could prove 100% that the fish are from the UK, it makes no difference, as there is nothing that backs up the weight of the fish.
Spiders has 50lb scales that bottom out with Perch in the sling.
thecrow
Well-known member
itsfishingnotcatching
Well-known member
Yep, those Nile Perch from the Manchester ship canal take some landing
One Witness, the mans wife and given Eddie and Cliff were mean't to be close friends you would of thought between them they could agree to name the water after all these years just to put to this bed and be done with it and if the fish were caught abroad then so be it, its not the end of the world.
As well as the bits he is omitting to tell us. For example, the presence of a stack of Kayaks in the background of the unedited photos.
This would probably indicate a Kayak rental or club was operating on the water.
How many lakes in southern England have a Kayak club on them ? Can’t be many can it… and it would sure narrow the search down as to which water it was. Conversely I hear they are allot more popular abroad …Canada for example, it’s a Kayakers paradise isn’t it.
Of course the other possibility is that some passing Kayakers rowing round England just happened to be at the same lake as Martin Gay & stack their boats in the exact same spot at the exact same moment a record Carp was having its photo taken. Who knows, maybe they unrolled the grey chain link fence at the same time to stack them behind
So the question of if Kayaks appear in the unedited photos is very relevant to this thread indeed. And people should ask themselves why Mr Hatton is avoiding answering this question. Given the 1000s of words he has written about what is NOT in the photos..i.e the lack of a power stations & its chimneys, does it not strike you are quite amazing that he is not prepared to contribute even 1 word to something that IS in the background ?
Cliff Hatton
Well-known member
Philip: every new day sees another ridiculous comment from you. You have now taken to the invention of 'facts'. Please desist.
EDITOR
EDITOR
bennygesserit
Well-known member
As well as the bits he is omitting to tell us. For example, the presence of a stack of Kayaks in the background of the unedited photos.
This would probably indicate a Kayak rental or club was operating on the water.
How many lakes in southern England have a Kayak club on them ? Can’t be many can it… and it would sure narrow the search down as to which water it was. Conversely I hear they are allot more popular abroad …Canada for example, it’s a Kayakers paradise isn’t it.
Of course the other possibility is that some passing Kayakers rowing round England just happened to be at the same lake as Martin Gay & stack their boats in the exact same spot at the exact same moment a record Carp was having its photo taken. Who knows, maybe they unrolled the grey chain link fence at the same time to stack them behind
So the question of if Kayaks appear in the unedited photos is very relevant to this thread indeed. And people should ask themselves why Mr Hatton is avoiding answering this question. Given the 1000s of words he has written about what is NOT in the photos..i.e the lack of a power stations & its chimneys, does it not strike you are quite amazing that he is not prepared to conntribute even 1 word to something that IS in the background ?
I have never seen any previous mention of kayaks only a fence and a sign
EDITOR : Please stop being rude to me.
It really would be a welcome change if you could just give a DIRECT answer for once. I have re-read your post several times and it does not answer the question does it.
Was there anything in the background of the photos that could have been Kayaks ?
Yes or No ?
eddiebenham
Well-known member
Hi Philip..........................I've just logged on after a couple of weeks ( due to my Wife being ill and Hospital appointments etc. all of which concentrates the mind elsewhere) and also I have been gathering material for the article that you do not want me to publish. I see that you are still curious as to what the objects were, and you are rather keen on your kayaks theory. If you refer to my post dated 19.10.2015 and what I said in that post then that is all I have to say. "Behind the fence was a stack of objects that I could not make out, and it would be a wild guess if I tried to identify them"
Philip, I can tell you that your 'Kayaks stacked against the fence' theory is covered in the article I am currently compiling and if you can show a little patience then I think you might (possibly ?) get your answer. Hopefully I should be able to send it to the Editor in time for Christmas.
Crow................. I haven't forgotten you............. I've had very little time lately due to my Wifes' health problems (and all the Christmas demands) to do any of this stuff, but I been trying to incorporate the info you were after into the article. It has however proved very difficult to do this and so I will now have to deal with it as a separate issue. I will try to post it tomorrow for you.
Eddie Benham
thecrow
Well-known member
Things happening at home are of far more importance than any answers I have asked about, please don't worry about when the answers come and I hope your wife makes a speedy recovery.
Hi Eddie. I didn’t say it was a theory.
You made it clear your not going to make any attempt at identifying those objects. That’s your choice which I respect so there's no point mentioning it again in an article.
I have now asked the same question to Mr Hatton whose been silent on the subject apart from one derogatory mail that did not cleary answer the question. It would be nice to get a straight answer. Was there anything in the background of the photos that could have been Kayaks.
Yes or No ?
I am sorry to hear about your wife Eddie. That is of course far more important than anything here.
You made it clear your not going to make any attempt at identifying those objects. That’s your choice which I respect so there's no point mentioning it again in an article.
I have now asked the same question to Mr Hatton whose been silent on the subject apart from one derogatory mail that did not cleary answer the question. It would be nice to get a straight answer. Was there anything in the background of the photos that could have been Kayaks.
Yes or No ?
I am sorry to hear about your wife Eddie. That is of course far more important than anything here.
Last edited:
- Status