Here's The Evidence...Martin Gay's 50lb Common Carp

[eddiebenham]

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.

Hi Philip..................Thank you for your kind thoughts, much appreciated.

Quite right it was me that said it was your theory, which is how I saw it. The reason for not giving you a yes or on answer is that it is very difficult to do so and I think this may be why Cliff has not responded.

The 'objects' we saw were difficult to make out as they were stacked behind the fence and although visible it was not possible to identify them as anything in particular, so, as I have already said, anything would be a wild guess. As I recall, the 'objects' were stacked in a pile but did not reach the top of the fence, but (I think) about halfway up. They were not on a trailer or anything like that, just in a pile.

In view of the fact that I, Mac and Cliff, could not identify the objects, then I would say that Kayaks could not be ruled out, but it could have been canoes, sailing boats, surf boards, tree logs, timber of some kind, building material for a wooden hut, anything really.

Philip, I know that you're not keen on me writing another article, but I am doing so, and you will find some small reference to Kayaks. Please take the time to read it as I feel it contains some important and revealing information (and some previously unpublished photos - though not the ones you wanted).

Eddie Benham

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 ----------

Thank you for answering my post Eddie however it is this post that I made before the one you quote that I would be interested in being answered although from what you have posted there would seem to be no answer to the questions raised about their believing the water to be English.

While I understand that you and others were good friends of MG and would have taken his word for them being English most on here were not an require a bit more information to make their minds up.

there is one other thing that concerns me with the identification of the water as English that is, of all those that saw the photographs how many had seen photographs of Canadian waters to enable them to say the water in question was English and not Canadian?

The other things you posted about others changing their stories doesn't interest me as it has nothing to do with where these fish were caught and only serve to cloud the issue, I am purely interested in finding out what it was other than trusting MG that made them believe that the fish were English that others not knowing MG would be able to believe.

Eddie are these the testimonies you refer to ?



[COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]John Reed: I can recall a chain link fence and some grass. There was no view - just Martin and the common. It looked like an English lake to me. I believed then and I still believe that the fish was English.[/COLOR]

Why did he "believe that the fish was English, what was in the pictures he saw that convinced him?


Gwynne Davies: It definitely wasn’t Canada and there was nothing in the photo to even suggest it was. I am absolutely sure it was an English fish.

Again what made him sure it was an English fish? what did he see to convince him of that?



Micky Tilbrook: It looked English to me. There was grass and trees but I don’t recall any horizon. I believe it to be an English common, not from Canada.

Do Canadian waters not have grass and trees? again he believes it to be English why?



[COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]Alan Blackford: I don’t recall anything in the photo to suggest that it was anywhere but in England. Grass and trees but certainly no mountains or anything that looked foreign. I believe the fish to be English.[/COLOR]

Again grass and trees, it could have been anywhere, again he believes it to be English why?



[COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]Mac McCarthy: Ed and I were shown the photo before the meeting. As Ed will confirm it showed a grassy bank behind which was a chain link fence with a notice on it. There were some items behind the fence which we not able to identify. No horizon, just trees in the background.[/COLOR]

Even more grass this time with a fence and some trees in the background, all things that can be found both in England and in other countries



[COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]Eddie Benham: As per Mac. We were shown the photo in the car park and I said to Martin “You told me you would never fish in France” to which he replied “I didn’t, I caught it over here”. Mac also heard him say this as well as stating that it was caught in the UK.[/COLOR]



[COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]That is six of us saying there was nothing at all in the photo to even remotely suggest a “foreign” lake, certainly not 'mountains' as has been suggested elsewhere.[/COLOR]

The last statement above is the reason for me asking why they believed the water to be an English one, what was it that convinced them, was there something identifiable on them that would lead them to believe it was English?


There is nothing in those testimonies to show why they thought that the water was an English one, what is there within them are generalisations and statements about it not being Canada. The testimonies read as if they were given fairly recently, if they were not please forgive me but at the time they first saw the photographs there would have been no mention of Canada would there, were the CS already involved then? If they are recent perhaps they could give their reasons for believing it was an English water, i.e. what they saw they made them believe it was.

A while ago I posted a picture of my lad with a fish, where do you think it was taken? England, France, Belgium, Rumania, what I am trying to get over is that without anything in the picture unless you know the water (and I am sure that you don't) to identify which country it is its impossible to tell where it is so I will if I may ask again, how did they know it was an English water?

As for the rest about PS and the CS I am not interested in what they had/ have to say I am purely interested in an answer to the question that has gone unanswered several times during this thread. That they believed it was English is neither here nor there.

There is just one other statement from a post by Cliff on this thread that needs some consideration I think, I post it below.

that Eddie has NO IDEA where the secret venue might be situated.

Hi Crow..................Thank you for your kind comments, much appreciated.

You are correct in saying that the testimonies were given fairly recently, as they were given prior to the publication of this article, so that would be before 4.9.2015. You are also correct in stating that at the time they first saw the photos there would have been no mention of Canada. So the Carp Society would not have been involved then as it was prior to Martin showing the photos to Robin Monday the following weekend.

So they are talking in 2015 from memory of a photo they saw in 1989.

When I first spoke to them I asked them if they could remember anything from the photo and I told them that it had been said to contain Mountains or Canadian or foreign scenery.

John Reed and Micky Tilbrook both said it looked like an English lake.

Alan Blackford said that there was nothing in the photo to suggest that it was anywhere but England.

Mac and myself never mentioned England.

Gwynne Davies said that it definately wasn't Canada.

On the basis that they were asked if the photo contained Mountains or something foreign looking then an answer of 'it looked English' is what one might expect.

I summed this up by saying 'that is six of us saying there was nothing in the photo to even remotely suggest a "foreign" lake, certainly not "mountains" as has been suggested elsewhere.

You have gone on to say that there is nothing in those testimonies to show why they thought the water was an English one so I went back to them and asked if they could elaborate for us.

John Reed.........It had a familiar sort of look about it, typical English looking with a chain link fence and concrete posts, the sort of fence that was in common use on lakes around then. Lots of English looking trees as well.

Gwynne Davies....You asked me if there were Mountains or anything like Canadian scenery and I said it wasn't Canada. I don't remember anything in the photo that looked foreign in any way either.

Micky Tilbrook....I've driven across Canada and have fished for White Sturgeon so I do have some knowledge of Canadian waters. I have seen photos of Canadian waters with grass and trees, and yes, some of them do have an 'English' look to them. But I can tell you that the banks of Lake Ontario look nothing like that in the photo I saw.

Alan Blackford...I can only repeat what I said before. I don't recall anything in the photo to suggest that it was anywhere but in England.

Some time back Cliff made the point that the photo would not provide conclusive proof that it was an English water, and neither do any of the above comments.

But the point is that not one us saw anything 'foreign' in the photo.
Martin showed the photo to 13 people, only one of whom was not an angler, and not one of us saw anything 'foreign' apart from Robin Monday. So why was that ? What did Robin see ?

You posted a picture of your lad with a fish, and said, "where do you think it was taken ? England, France, Belgium, Rumania" and "without anything in the picture unless you know the water (and I am sure you don't) to identify which country it is its impossible to tell where it is".

Well for a start I don't think it's the warm water outlet at Lennox.

What does not appear in the photo of your lad is anything 'foreign' looking (as far as I can see) and this was the point of the testimonies. So what, I wonder, needs to be in a photo of an angler holding a carp that would indicate it being somewhere 'foreign' ? Only Robin Monday knows the answer to that one I'm afraid. However, you have stated that you are not interested in what they (PS and the CS) had/have to say.
I entirely disagree with you on this as it is what they have said that led to me writing my articles in the first place and it needed to be challenged.

Finally, Crow, you finish by saying that there is a post on this thread that needs some consideration....'that Eddie has NO IDEA where this secret venue might be situated'.

Well now I do have some idea where.

But the problem is Crow, that if I told you I knew, and if I took you there, (that's not an invite for a trip to Canada by the way), and if I showed you the actual swim where Martin caught his carp, how would you know it was the actual swim or even the actual lake ?

There would be no proof, only my word, and would that alone be good enough ? Probably not I would say.

Crow, there is more to come in my forthcoming article which I hope will enable many readers to come to a conclusion. Some of it will seem a bit repetitive to those who have closely followed this and the other articles and posts, but I have noticed that some posters have obviously either not read or incorrectly read some things that have been written. Please be sure to read it to the very end, I am sure that you will make a comment of some kind.

Eddie Benham

 

[bennygesserit]

Eddie you write with an impartial style in this last post that adds real gravitas to what you say but as you say there is no concrete proof.

James writes in the same convincing manner enough to convince me that there are many elements of truth on both sides.

Its a tremendous story and a great thread but don't you think you might be wasting your own time now - I don't think the fish will be officially recognised as a record or a retraction offered from what is left of the Carp Society

 

[tonybull]

Eddie

Take me to the lake and show me the swim.

 

[Michael Loveridge 2]

Eddie you write with an impartial style in this last post that adds real gravitas to what you say but as you say there is no concrete proof.

James writes in the same convincing manner enough to convince me that there are many elements of truth on both sides.

Its a tremendous story and a great thread but don't you think you might be wasting your own time now - I don't think the fish will be officially recognised as a record or a retraction offered from what is left of the Carp Society

BENNY , AT NO POINT DURING THIS MAMOUTH TREAD HAS ANYBODY EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS FISH BEING CLAIMED AS A RECORD .
Its the last thing in the world Martin would have thought of , he was not interested in records , thats the whole point !

 

[bennygesserit]

BENNY , AT NO POINT DURING THIS MAMOUTH TREAD HAS ANYBODY EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS FISH BEING CLAIMED AS A RECORD .
Its the last thing in the world Martin would have thought of , he was not interested in records , thats the whole point !

Michael Cliff wrote this -
"Benny wrote: "Seems obvious to me , while a record is not being claimed ( though sometimes people slip and refer to it as the 50 ) the thread seeks to dispel the rumor that Martin ( allegedly ) lied about where the fish was captured"

That's basically it, Benny. It's an attempt to convince the angling public of what Eddie and I believe is true because Martin was a long-established family friend to us both and we absolutely know he wouldn't have lied to us. Our campaign is also designed to reveal to the angling public the absurdity of Paul Selman's desperate, ill-conceived fairy tale about mountains, then Canadian power stations, 'non-indigenous species', warm water outlets, lake-side lay-bys where Martin had a wash and brush-up before the photography...and other such nonsense. Eddie will be writing again before too long, Paul...........

....and Dorset and Sam: Martin's carp would have been a record common carp. That's the significance."


if you look at other related threads elsewhere on other fora the fish is often referred to as the record breaking common.

 

[dorsetandchub]

No but passing the BRFC's stringent conditions would help secure acceptance of both the fish's British credentials and MG's claims. If the evidence is that strong, what's the reluctance?

Very simple, everybody involved knows it isn't. They've admitted they can't prove the British case and that's why those of who insist on absolute proof will only go as far as to say MG caught some big carp - from somewhere.

There are enough instances of dodgy claims, fishy (excuse pun) behaviour and these are only exacerbated where money, fame or public feuds are involved.

The correct and accurate reporting and recording of fish weights (50lbs is 50lbs and NOT 48lbs) are paramount and standards cannot be lowered or sidestepped because an angler was somebody's friend.

Do it properly or don't do it at all.

 

[eddiebenham]

actually, IF those statements above are correct as a whole and can be proven to be so, then there is the proof that MG has at least once in his life LIED,,, OMG!!

This is an example of what I referred to as posters not reading things properly.

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

Hahaha i have to laugh at this still going on. Martin Guy says at one point, that Robin Monday had acknowledged to him on the phone that he (martin guy) had never told Robin Monday about the fish on the phone. So they had spoken to each other about the fish.

Martin Guy then goes on to say, that he had NEVER MET OR SPOKEN to Robin Monday. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing i don't know what does.

It's all so long ago,
there isn't anything thats proves anything either way.

MOVE ON.

My previous post refers to this one. Completely and utterly wrong.

 

[bennygesserit]

This is an example of what I referred to as posters not reading things properly.

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------



My previous post refers to this one. Completely and utterly wrong.

yes but everyone admitted their error there Eddie and apologised

 

[eddiebenham]

Eddie you write with an impartial style in this last post that adds real gravitas to what you say but as you say there is no concrete proof.

James writes in the same convincing manner enough to convince me that there are many elements of truth on both sides.

Its a tremendous story and a great thread but don't you think you might be wasting your own time now - I don't think the fish will be officially recognised as a record or a retraction offered from what is left of the Carp Society

benny....concrete proof is a difficult one. I've already produced documentation that puts Martin in Essex when he was supposedly in Canada and that has been largely ignored.

Martin never claimed any record nor did he want to, he just wanted to be believed and his catches to be accepted as English fish. The weighing and witnessing of his carp would not have stood up to a record claim and I'm sure he knew that.

What Cliff and I have tried to do is put up a case that Martin was unfairly treated and condemned on poor evidence.

Eddie Benham

 

[bennygesserit]

benny....concrete proof is a difficult one. I've already produced documentation that puts Martin in Essex when he was supposedly in Canada and that has been largely ignored.

Martin never claimed any record nor did he want to, he just wanted to be believed and his catches to be accepted as English fish. The weighing and witnessing of his carp would not have stood up to a record claim and I'm sure he knew that.

What Cliff and I have tried to do is put up a case that Martin was unfairly treated and condemned on poor evidence.

Eddie Benham

Martin did go to Canada though and may have caught fish there.
What does the following mean

"I've already produced documentation that puts Martin in Essex when he was supposedly in Canada and that has been largely ignored."

He did go to Canada at some point and may have caught fish there

I am sure you are familiar with this thread

Martin Gays 48lb Canadian Common | General Carp Angling | Fishingwarehouse Forum

which names several prominent anglers and purports that they know the fish were caught in Canada , so from an independents point of view who should be believed ?

I am sorry if that sounds insulting !

 

[thecrow]

Hi Philip..................Thank you for your kind thoughts, much appreciated.

Quite right it was me that said it was your theory, which is how I saw it. The reason for not giving you a yes or on answer is that it is very difficult to do so and I think this may be why Cliff has not responded.

The 'objects' we saw were difficult to make out as they were stacked behind the fence and although visible it was not possible to identify them as anything in particular, so, as I have already said, anything would be a wild guess. As I recall, the 'objects' were stacked in a pile but did not reach the top of the fence, but (I think) about halfway up. They were not on a trailer or anything like that, just in a pile.

In view of the fact that I, Mac and Cliff, could not identify the objects, then I would say that Kayaks could not be ruled out, but it could have been canoes, sailing boats, surf boards, tree logs, timber of some kind, building material for a wooden hut, anything really.

Philip, I know that you're not keen on me writing another article, but I am doing so, and you will find some small reference to Kayaks. Please take the time to read it as I feel it contains some important and revealing information (and some previously unpublished photos - though not the ones you wanted).

Eddie Benham

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 ----------



Hi Crow..................Thank you for your kind comments, much appreciated.

You are correct in saying that the testimonies were given fairly recently, as they were given prior to the publication of this article, so that would be before 4.9.2015. You are also correct in stating that at the time they first saw the photos there would have been no mention of Canada. So the Carp Society would not have been involved then as it was prior to Martin showing the photos to Robin Monday the following weekend.

So they are talking in 2015 from memory of a photo they saw in 1989.

When I first spoke to them I asked them if they could remember anything from the photo and I told them that it had been said to contain Mountains or Canadian or foreign scenery.

John Reed and Micky Tilbrook both said it looked like an English lake.

Alan Blackford said that there was nothing in the photo to suggest that it was anywhere but England.

Mac and myself never mentioned England.

Gwynne Davies said that it definately wasn't Canada.

On the basis that they were asked if the photo contained Mountains or something foreign looking then an answer of 'it looked English' is what one might expect.

I summed this up by saying 'that is six of us saying there was nothing in the photo to even remotely suggest a "foreign" lake, certainly not "mountains" as has been suggested elsewhere.

You have gone on to say that there is nothing in those testimonies to show why they thought the water was an English one so I went back to them and asked if they could elaborate for us.

John Reed.........It had a familiar sort of look about it, typical English looking with a chain link fence and concrete posts, the sort of fence that was in common use on lakes around then. Lots of English looking trees as well.

Gwynne Davies....You asked me if there were Mountains or anything like Canadian scenery and I said it wasn't Canada. I don't remember anything in the photo that looked foreign in any way either.

Micky Tilbrook....I've driven across Canada and have fished for White Sturgeon so I do have some knowledge of Canadian waters. I have seen photos of Canadian waters with grass and trees, and yes, some of them do have an 'English' look to them. But I can tell you that the banks of Lake Ontario look nothing like that in the photo I saw.

Alan Blackford...I can only repeat what I said before. I don't recall anything in the photo to suggest that it was anywhere but in England.

Some time back Cliff made the point that the photo would not provide conclusive proof that it was an English water, and neither do any of the above comments.

But the point is that not one us saw anything 'foreign' in the photo.
Martin showed the photo to 13 people, only one of whom was not an angler, and not one of us saw anything 'foreign' apart from Robin Monday. So why was that ? What did Robin see ?

You posted a picture of your lad with a fish, and said, "where do you think it was taken ? England, France, Belgium, Rumania" and "without anything in the picture unless you know the water (and I am sure you don't) to identify which country it is its impossible to tell where it is".

Well for a start I don't think it's the warm water outlet at Lennox.

What does not appear in the photo of your lad is anything 'foreign' looking (as far as I can see) and this was the point of the testimonies. So what, I wonder, needs to be in a photo of an angler holding a carp that would indicate it being somewhere 'foreign' ? Only Robin Monday knows the answer to that one I'm afraid. However, you have stated that you are not interested in what they (PS and the CS) had/have to say.
I entirely disagree with you on this as it is what they have said that led to me writing my articles in the first place and it needed to be challenged.

Finally, Crow, you finish by saying that there is a post on this thread that needs some consideration....'that Eddie has NO IDEA where this secret venue might be situated'.

Well now I do have some idea where.

But the problem is Crow, that if I told you I knew, and if I took you there, (that's not an invite for a trip to Canada by the way), and if I showed you the actual swim where Martin caught his carp, how would you know it was the actual swim or even the actual lake ?

There would be no proof, only my word, and would that alone be good enough ? Probably not I would say.

Crow, there is more to come in my forthcoming article which I hope will enable many readers to come to a conclusion. Some of it will seem a bit repetitive to those who have closely followed this and the other articles and posts, but I have noticed that some posters have obviously either not read or incorrectly read some things that have been written. Please be sure to read it to the very end, I am sure that you will make a comment of some kind.

Eddie Benham

Eddie

Thank you for taking the time to ask the other committee members their reasons for thinking the water was an English one, unfortunately it is as I suspected in that there was nothing that was in the photographs that identified the water as definitely English it was just their own feelings of it being English. Because of this even if the photographs were available the mystery would still not be solved because as you said about my lads photograph its impossible to tell just from that unless the water is known to you.

The question of what the CS and PS thought doesn't really bother me, there were in those days as now some very large ego's in Carp fishing in fact probably more so then so I tend to ignore their part in all this as they may have had a personal gripe with MG as MG seems to have had with the modern Carp scene in those days, once again there will be nothing in the photographs to identify the water.

I cannot recall saying (and I am not trawling back through all of this) that you had no idea where the water was, I can recall Cliff saying something along those lines in answer to someone else (at least I think I do) you are correct though that even if you took me to the exact swim it would prove nothing.

One final thought, as there was/is a difference between what the committee members say they saw and what Robin Monday say's he saw on photographs.

Is there a chance that different photographs were seen by Robin Monday? and it was this that he recalled, is it possible that MG fished in Canada while on holiday and it was these photographs that Robin Monday saw?

 

[Philip]

The reason for not giving you a yes or on answer is that it is very difficult to do so and I think this may be why Cliff has not responded.

The 'objects' we saw were difficult to make out as they were stacked behind the fence and although visible it was not possible to identify them as anything in particular, so, as I have already said, anything would be a wild guess. As I recall, the 'objects' were stacked in a pile but did not reach the top of the fence, but (I think) about halfway up. They were not on a trailer or anything like that, just in a pile.

In view of the fact that I, Mac and Cliff, could not identify the objects, then I would say that Kayaks could not be ruled out, but it could have been canoes, sailing boats, surf boards, tree logs, timber of some kind, building material for a wooden hut, anything really.

His Eddie nice to see a subtle but telling shift from you from total heels dug in there is no way I am guessing what the objects are to now begrudgingly agreeing they could be - Kayaks, Canoes, sailing boats….or strangely …timber ! …how you can mix the first 3 up with the last one even at a distance is interesting….still nice to see some progress.

Lets see if Mr Hatton is going to stick his neck out further than you on it…its Xmas so you never know.

 

[bennygesserit]

His Eddie nice to see a subtle but telling shift from you from total heels dug in there is no way I am guessing what the objects are to now begrudgingly agreeing they could be - Kayaks, Canoes, sailing boats….or strangely …timber ! …how you can mix the first 3 up with the last one even at a distance is interesting….still nice to see some progress.

Lets see if Mr Hatton is going to stick his neck out further than you on it…its Xmas so you never know.

I was wrong canoes had been mentioned from the fishingwarehouse thread

Mentally shred, then incinerate any suggestion or statement you ever read or heard that there had been mountains in the background - it's simply untrue. More to the point, it’s a downright lie, one that can ONLY be attributed to an individual Carp Society member because he is the ONLY member of the Carp Society to have seen the pics. As with all those of us who saw the ORIGINAL pics, Martin Gay kept schtum about where they were taken and we, frustrated, simply accepted his decision. On the OTHER hand, that ONE Carp Society member could not BEAR being left in the dark and, exasperated at this affront to his status, cunningly exploited Martin’s intention never to let the background be shown. Knowing this, that ONE Carp Society member could say whatever he wanted and never be disproved!
Well, disciples of the Holy Canon of Carp Fishing can choose to believe that ONE Carp Society member if they so wish OR they can believe me (and I saw all the pics before anyone else) and others.

Six of us in the Moor Hall & Belhus Angling Society SAW those photos and can solemnly swear that the blanked-out portion conceals only grass, a fence and, possibly, canoes (the background was indistinct) It was, of course, blanked-out for the purposes of press-circulation and the publicity that might well have led to the carps' whereabouts being identified (and everybody did that...and still does!) And here's another thought...if Martin had shown photos of himself with mountains in the background to that ONE Carp Society member why wouldn't he show them to me and at least 6 other close friends? WE certainly didn’t see any mountains - think about that! And apart from anything else, his friends know that Martin never fished in Canada! He went to see relatives and to hike in the forests…he didn’t put an Alan Bramley split cane carp rod in the hold of a 737 for god’s sake!

It is to the lasting shame of all of those largely respected Carp Society grandees that they have continued to brazen-out their apparent belief in their colleague’s word when, by now, they must all know it to be a lie. They have chosen to propagate the lie because firstly, they can’t bear the thought of being duped by one of their own; and secondly, a pleasure fisherman catching such an incredible fish on dead-simple tackle (and not telling them where from) is just too much to handle! They’re simply in too deep to do a volte face – but you know the truth, don’t you fellas!
I think we all know the identity of the ‘ONE Carp Society member’ but, well, I’ve chosen not to rub it in. But one thing’s for sure – we don’t get a peep out of him OR his colleagues – do we? I said….do we!
Cliff Hatton

 

[Philip]

& heres something else Mr Hatton also said Benny..

Philip: every new day sees another ridiculous comment from you. You have now taken to the invention of 'facts'. Please desist.

EDITOR

 

[tonybull]

benny....concrete proof is a difficult one. I've already produced documentation that puts Martin in Essex when he was supposedly in Canada and that has been largely ignored.

Martin never claimed any record nor did he want to, he just wanted to be believed and his catches to be accepted as English fish. The weighing and witnessing of his carp would not have stood up to a record claim and I'm sure he knew that.

What Cliff and I have tried to do is put up a case that Martin was unfairly treated and condemned on poor evidence.

Eddie Benham

Eddie

MG went to Canada and you don't know for sure how many times he went and therefore you don't know all the dates he went and therefore you don't know if he fished for Carp out there.

He could of caught those big Carp in Canada two years before he showed you and anyone else the photo's so proof MG was in Essex on xyz date don't mean the Carp were not caught in Canada.

You and Cliff may think you the knew the man well, but you can never get inside the head of another person and know why they do what they do and in this instance I think you and Cliff have got it all wrong.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

This is an example of what I referred to as posters not reading things properly.

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------



My previous post refers to this one. Completely and utterly wrong.

More badly written than anything else.

Sorry to hear about your wife Eddie, i hope she has a speedy recovery.

Health is more important than this thread.

It's clear to me we are not going to get the proof needed to say this is an English fish, and it doesn't matter anyway, it's long gone.

Plus i am past Jackanory tales.

 

[eddiebenham]

yes but everyone admitted their error there Eddie and apologised

Hi benny................yes, I did notice that as well, and that was the proper thing to do. I was just making the point to demonstrate that not everybody reads what is written properly and occasionally comes up with a distorted version of what they think they read.

Eddie Benham

---------- Post added at 12:46 ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 ----------

Eddie

MG went to Canada and you don't know for sure how many times he went and therefore you don't know all the dates he went and therefore you don't know if he fished for Carp out there.

He could of caught those big Carp in Canada two years before he showed you and anyone else the photo's so proof MG was in Essex on xyz date don't mean the Carp were not caught in Canada.

You and Cliff may think you the knew the man well, but you can never get inside the head of another person and know why they do what they do and in this instance I think you and Cliff have got it all wrong.

tony.................that doesn't explain how he had open sores on his left hand (which are clearly visible in the photo) when he showed Mac and I the photo in the Car Park, and why would he wait two years to tell Robin Monday or anyone else. We haven't got it wrong at all, I can assure you that we did know the man very well.

Eddie Benham

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Hi benny................yes, I did notice that as well, and that was the proper thing to do. I was just making the point to demonstrate that not everybody reads what is written properly and occasionally comes up with a distorted version of what they think they read.

Eddie Benham

Yes but it was badly written also. Just to demonstrate what is not written correctly.

This is like a roundabout, No Proof.

These fish weren't English, if they were, you would have proved it long ago, and now its a matter of trying to dig yourselves out of a bigger hole IMHO.

Stop all the B, and come up with the facts, if you have any, which i doubt.

No need for another article, just show the Photos in full and name the water.

 

[ciprinus]

Hahaha i have to laugh at this still going on. Martin Guy says at one point, that Robin Monday had acknowledged to him on the phone that he (martin guy) had never told Robin Monday about the fish on the phone. So they had spoken to each other about the fish.

Martin Guy then goes on to say, that he had NEVER MET OR SPOKEN to Robin Monday. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing i don't know what does.

It's all so long ago, there isn't anything thats proves anything either way.

MOVE ON.

Eddiebenham, please read and absorb the above post,

actually, IF those statements above are correct as a whole and can be proven to be so, then there is the proof that MG has at least once in his life LIED,,, OMG!!

Eddiebenham, please read and absorb the above post,

This is an example of what I referred to as posters not reading things properly.

Eddie, if you have read and understood the above posts you will understand my chagrin directed toward you for implying that i am in someway illiterate, my above post refers to the wording of the post quoted and authored by Ray Daywalker Clarke, and if you have followed the instructions to 'read and absorb the above posts' you will note that i was in no way errant in my wording, now while i apologized to cliff for the post it was for the fact that i didn't go back for about the 20th time and refresh the original post in my own mind but NOT for the contents which when read in context becomes correct.
now, while i would be the first to offer apology for an implied insult i hold no one up to my own standards, read into that as you will.

oh btw, i hope your wife gets better soon, not what anyone would want at anytime nevermind this close to xmas, and on that note i would wish you and your family a reason to celebrate a happy xmas and the same to all FM members

 

[tonybull]

Hi benny................yes, I did notice that as well, and that was the proper thing to do. I was just making the point to demonstrate that not everybody reads what is written properly and occasionally comes up with a distorted version of what they think they read.

Eddie Benham

---------- Post added at 12:46 ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 ----------



tony.................that doesn't explain how he had open sores on his left hand (which are clearly visible in the photo) when he showed Mac and I the photo in the Car Park, and why would he wait two years to tell Robin Monday or anyone else. We haven't got it wrong at all, I can assure you that we did know the man very well.

Eddie Benham

Eddie

Back winding on a fish won't give you open sores on what ever hand your using to hold the reel handle with. Never known it to happen to anyone I've ever fished with or its never happened to me.

Years ago lots anglers especially match anglers used to back wind instead of using the clutch and they were not walking around with open sores on their hands.

You obviously believed anything you was told at the time and never questioned it. Where's I question people if they want to tell me half stories holding back the important parts.