Gaymire: Are the Monsters Still There?

Status
Not open for further replies.

eddiebenham

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Location
Upminster, Essex
Wonder why Martin published the photos of the fish in the first place ? Why not just keep it all to himself knowing he had caught those fish and had nothing to prove to anyone else ?

Hi Tony..............I can give you the answer to that. It all started with a letter in Coarse Angler, Volume 13, number 2 dated July 1989. THe letter was from Eric Hodson who wrote " Re. My old friend, Martin Gay's article in the June 1989 issue of Coarse Angler" he went on " I do not know how much carp fishing you and your friends have done, but I find it hard to believe that you have never lost a hook leader".
Martin replied to Erics comments in Coarse Angler, Volume 13 number 4 dated September 1989. He wrote "Finally, Eric asks how much carp fishing I do" and continued with "This season, at the time of writing, I've had 6 short sessions and in that time I've caught 31 carp. The biggest is a 48lbs common. followed by 5 or more over 30lbs, 5 more over 20 lbs and 21 between 11 lbs and 19 lbs. No bolt rigs, no hairs, and no bite offs just 12 lbs line straight through to the hook".

Colin Dyson, the Editor of Coarse Angler, knew Martin very well and approached him regarding writing an article, which Martin did supplying Colin with photos with the background concealed. There is no doubt in my mind that had Martin revealed the background then any angler living close by would have recognised it.
Martin didn't like most carp anglers and they didn't like him (and how) and he knew it would wind them up no end, which of course it did as they stitched him up good and proper.
The headline "The day I broke **** Walker's Record" was not Martins choice, in fact he didn't like it at all, but he allowed Colin to go with it.

Why not keep it to himself ? Well Tony, he told me that he was thinking of writing the article and I said to him that I thought it was unwise and that he should think carefully about it as it would at least have started a massive search by fanatical carp anglers for the water. What he, and my late friend Mac didn't anticipate was the Canada Concoction.

Incidentally, any thing I quote is taken direct from the publications articles and letters, as I have two large scrap books containing lots of original material.
 

tonybull

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
Hello Eddie

Hope your well and Thanks for the answer. Thinking about it all and knowing there are a lot of fish that do get caught and it never gets in the press etc
I've changed my opinion on all of this and don't doubt Martin caught all the fish in question. There are lakes that exist where big fish are present and do get caught but it never gets into the press.
So if it happens now then it could of happened back then but in this case photos were sent to press and then questions were asked but never fully answered.

People either believe it or not.
 

eddiebenham

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Location
Upminster, Essex
There are lakes that exist where big fish are present and do get caught but it never gets into the press.

Hi Tony.............

I'm not too bad thank you and I can still get out fishing now and then.

You may not know that I am a keen Tench angler. I've caught hundreds of Tench over 8 lb including loads of 9 lb'ers and quite a few doubles including two 11 lb'ers and three 12 lb'ers. I've also caught quite a few carp on my Tench gear, the best being a 36 lb'er from Larkfield, which I am told by a Carp angler was known as 'the long common'.

None of the photos or details of my catches were sent to the press and it is only on F.M. that I made them known publicly.
I did it after I wrote the Martin Gay articles to sort of let F.M. readers know that I am an experienced and capable Angler who has caught some big fish. I thought they might be thinking ' Eddie Benham - who's he - never heard of him'.

I am sure, in fact I know, that there are Anglers out there like me who do not publish their catches and only tell a few friends.
DSCF2169.jpg
 

Roto Fryer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2001
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
0
Location
Bangkok
Hi, Phil! didn't think it'd take you long! :)

No, it wouldn't make sense. I'm never going to say where it is and that's that! The purpose here (Bad One) is to state categorically that I now know the water's whereabouts for sure and that I can be equally sure in my condemnation of the scurrilous rubbish that was peddled by ol' CoCo the Clown, as 'Nobby ACA' dubbed him. This really IS 'closure'.

Because you can't! end off. put up or shut up! interesting that this time you "state categorically that I now know the water's whereabouts" which was exactly what you said before. Should we assume that this statement shows you were economical with the truth beforehand?:wh:wh:wh
The onus to prove truth is with the claimant! you claim so you must prove or forever be seen as a liar.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
3,393
I would'nt have put it quite like that myself but he does have a point :wh
 

Cliff Hatton

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
4
Location
Mid Wales
Because you can't! end off. put up or shut up! interesting that this time you "state categorically that I now know the water's whereabouts" which was exactly what you said before. Should we assume that this statement shows you were economical with the truth beforehand?:wh:wh:wh
The onus to prove truth is with the claimant! you claim so you must prove or forever be seen as a liar.

Before when, Roto?
 

Roto Fryer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2001
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
0
Location
Bangkok
tonybull on 04/09/2015 15:55:30
avatar
Another good read :)
thecrow on 04/09/2015 17:37:57
avatar
Enjoyed that and look forward to all being revealed on Monday A bit ironic that on the page from the second link there is an advertisement for a "Canadian Waggler" :D
Michael Loveridge 2 on 04/09/2015 18:58:49
avatar
What a great well put together response . I have fished a lake this year with so called primitive tackle , a 10 foot MK1V , And a Mitchell 300 and a pretty run of the mill hook .... size 4 , Oh and sweetcorn Landed Carp to 26lbs , tackle perform perfect , after all if it was good enough for Walker and Yates its good enough for me .
The bad one on 04/09/2015 23:25:35
avatar
DING, DING.....what round is it? Seconds out!!!!!! Hope the original photos have turned up because we're a long way past word ping pong :rolleyes:
Roto Fryer on 05/09/2015 03:06:39
avatar
Now we have Martins family branded as liars, pure self promotion, the baiting of a legal professional in open forum ( you had better be very careful here!). when one claims a capture in public it is up to the claimant to show the undisputed truth behind the claim. This is a very simple thing to do and the vast majority of record chasers/ holders and or big fsh captors had/have no problem with this. MG could have cleared this up very easily yet could/did not. His family admits he was in Canada on holiday and went fishing for carp but the promoters of truth oops my mistake. The promoters of self once again choose to stir it up and add MG's own family to those aiding his deception. This article is nothing more than self promotion
markg on 05/09/2015 07:14:45
avatar
It could be Lord Lucan in disguise and Shergar and Elvis were in the background with the Marie Celeste floating on the lake, that's my theory. Its just become a argument between interested antagonists. Who said what when, who saw what when, was he in Canada at all. I would like to see this fish proved to be caught in England or Canada beyond all reasonable doubt, no; beyond all doubt. Not based on hearsay and dis information. Character testimony is not enough alone and does not actually prove anything. Vindicate the fish and you vindicate the man, to do that you need to publish the un published pictures and verify them, produce some witnesses who can look at the water and verify the pics were taken there. That's the only way if your ever going to satisfy everyone, otherwise it will always be at best a hung jury. Its never going to happen so whats the point of keeping this story going. Mind you I would buy the film rights, rival Emmerdale any-day, but all good dramas have a satisfying ending, this wont..
Peter Jacobs on 05/09/2015 09:44:55
avatar
Back when this fish was caught I was moving house back to Norway so I never saw any of the publicity at the time. In recent years however I have seen and read an awful lot about these captures but to be totally honest it seems, to my mind, that there are facts and fiction on both sides of the argument together with what seems to be a lot of obfuscation . . . . . . . . A few questions do however spring to mind that maybe some of the main protagonists might be able to answer: 1. Did Martin Gay ever claim the record for this large Carp? 2. If not, then it prompts the question as to, why not? As a prolific specimen angler one might assume that he would have claimed the record, although wanting to keep the location totally secret may have precluded his claim(?)
dorsetandchub on 05/09/2015 11:09:03
avatar
Mr Editor, Sir, Stemming this unnecessary debate is an interesting term as it's a two way street and goes back to a point made in the recent FM follow up. I didn't know Mr Gay and I want to believe that he caught the claimed fish here in the UK. The fact remains, however, that he himself could have "stemmed the debate" from day one with a prop in a photograph to prove, beyond doubt, that they were taken in the UK. I appreciate that he may not have anticipated the furore his claims would cause but I still think a clued-in individual, if going to claim fish on the scale shown, would have opted for the "insurance policy" of photographic proof. To not do so is, arguably, at best naive and, at worst, lays Mr Gay open to the claim of deliberately inciting this situation. I didn't know Mr Gay and I want to believe his claimed fish and their origin but the fact remains, he didn't help himself, did he? He could have done so quite easily, to my mind. He, himself, surely could and, more importantly, should have stifled this debate on day one. He could have taken photography to prove his claims easily and made that available to trusted persons / groups. I want to believe he caught them here, but 99% is not 100% and Mr Gay, it could be argued, omitted that 1% through his course of action. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable with these points. Best to all. :)
tonybull on 05/09/2015 19:05:45
avatar
He could of caught that big fish in Canada anytime, need not of been at the time people think it was.
markg on 06/09/2015 08:11:33
avatar
Back when this fish was caught I was moving house back to Norway so I never saw any of the publicity at the time. In recent years however I have seen and read an awful lot about these captures but to be totally honest it seems, to my mind, that there are facts and fiction on both sides of the argument together with what seems to be a lot of obfuscation . . . . . . . . A few questions do however spring to mind that maybe some of the main protagonists might be able to answer: 1. Did Martin Gay ever claim the record for this large Carp? 2. If not, then it prompts the question as to, why not? As a prolific specimen angler one might assume that he would have claimed the record, although wanting to keep the location totally secret may have precluded his claim(?) I believe you have answered your question, Cliff Hatton said keeping the water secret was "Paramount" to the angler which was also why he never defended his reputation much apart from to a few close friends. To absolutely prove the fish was caught in a English water he would have had to reveal it and I assume the same if he wanted to claim a record. Something I believe will be the only thing needed to dispel any doubts today and as no one will, it will continue to cause a lot of doubt. It does beg the question why he let the fish become public in the first place if the secret identity of the water was paramount.
cg74 on 06/09/2015 17:07:27
avatar
look forward to all being revealed on Monday I think the new evidence will be somewhat underwhelming, rather like all this latest guff has been. It does beg the question why he let the fish become public in the first place if the secret identity of the water was paramount. I've been wondering the same thing since first reading about this whole affair. The thing that amazes and amuses me most is when I read quotes like; " the extraordinarily honest Martin Gay" But he was NOT that honest at all, he lied to gain greater credibility saying the fish was 48lb, when he knew it had bottomed-out his scales which went to 50lb.
fishface1 on 06/09/2015 18:12:42
avatar
25years ago? Along with the captor, the fish will now be dead, so why don't the people who were told about the water, just come forward with it's location now - there's hardly going to be a stampede to fish the place....
tonybull on 06/09/2015 18:39:32
avatar
25years ago? Along with the captor, the fish will now be dead, so why don't the people who were told about the water, just come forward with it's location now - there's hardly going to be a stampede to fish the place.... Not sure anyone else knew where the water was and I still don't believe the water did exist. Because if it was public and could of been seen from the road plenty of other specimen hunters would of come across it and found them fish before or after he did. Gods know what he was trying to prove with the story being published then every excuse in the book why no-one was allowed to know where this was water etc etc
Cliff Hatton 2 on 06/09/2015 20:55:59
avatar
Peter...Dorsetandchub...my previous article included scanned pages of Martin's accounts. They are quite legible. On one, Martin writes that he will not disclose the venue for fear of the hammering the fish will get, and this is the reason he did not claim the record. 'Records' meant nothing to Martin in this case; he was content to have caught that fantastic fish and was determined to keep it and the other superb specimens as safe as possible. Note that Martin didn't exploit the water; he fished it for the last time on August 14th 1990 (he died 12 years later in 2002) having achieved everything he wanted and could reasonably have expected - he says so in the articles. As an inherently honest man with a reputation for meticulous record-keeping and a circle of noted, intelligent angling friends, he expected to be believed in the same way any other angler would be believed for the whacker he'd caught from an 'undisclosed water'. He wasn't bothered if certain people did choose not to believe! Simple as that.
S-Kippy on 07/09/2015 07:29:59
avatar
I fail to see what purpose is served by dragging all this up again. I shall start another page in the Book of Indifference.
Windy on 07/09/2015 09:01:23
avatar
I shall start another page in the Book of Indifference. I would too, but just can't summon up that much interest.....
arthur2sheds on 07/09/2015 11:30:56
avatar
from the outsider's point of view... whichever way it goes, someone's reputation is going to be maligned... Of course from my own point of view, I see the whole affair as a case of sour grapes by those who would've fished the water should the location have been public... So Martin Gay refused to make public the venue...? so what, that's his prerogative. Martin Gay was a great angler, and as with today's top rods, he'll have had his fair share of nay-sayers and detractors... It's a crying shame that the poor man went to an early grave branded as a liar because of the jealousy of other people....
markg on 07/09/2015 12:17:46
avatar
from the outsider's point of view... whichever way it goes, someone's reputation is going to be maligned... Of course from my own point of view, I see the whole affair as a case of sour grapes by those who would've fished the water should the location have been public... So Martin Gay refused to make public the venue...? so what, that's his prerogative. Martin Gay was a great angler, and as with today's top rods, he'll have had his fair share of nay-sayers and detractors... It's a crying shame that the poor man went to an early grave branded as a liar because of the jealousy of other people.... I am not jealous of any of it, and though this might apply to a few I wouldn't mind betting the majority of anglers would just like to know the truth one way or the other. And I think it is a sad thing that those that could put it right don't do so; after all these years. I think its a bit obscene and disrespectful of the angler. Some things should be resolved in life, give the deceased angler some well deserved peace, whichever way it went instead of keep dragging it and him up every few years to satisfy what and whom, not the deceased angler I doubt? Its perverse. Time someone had the guts to step forward and put the whole sorry story to bed. I don't think I am going have anymore to do with it, it has become a bit sick and I am sorry I got sucked into it, not blaming anyone but myself but there you are. R.I.P. mate, life is but a brief moment..
fishface1 on 07/09/2015 18:24:55
avatar
Not sure anyone else knew where the water was and I still don't believe the water did exist. Because if it was public and could of been seen from the road plenty of other specimen hunters would of come across it and found them fish before or after he did. Gods know what he was trying to prove with the story being published then every excuse in the book why no-one was allowed to know where this was water etc etc Me thinks that there is too much smoke and mirrors for this to be true.... From the original article: In his letter to Tim dated 26thFebruary, 1990, when referring to the 13 anglers, Martin goes on to state: “One of them, my longest standing and most trusted mate has not only seen all the photographs including the 30 pounders and others (Robin only saw selected pictures of the 48 pounder) but a fortnight ago was shown the swim” Martin told me that he also took another person (not an angler but one who shared other interests) and showed him the water, if not the actual swim where he caught his English commons. So someone knows (or doesn't) as the case may be......
Cliff Hatton 2 on 09/09/2015 11:34:56
avatar
In fact, Fishface, 4 people know the well-known angler who was taken to the water and shown the swim that produced the 50lber.
fishface1 on 09/09/2015 12:51:05
avatar
Great news - then one of them will mention his name, and/or suggest that he names the water, to hopefully finally put this to bed.
tonybull on 09/09/2015 13:58:30
avatar
Great news - then one of them will mention his name, and/or suggest that he names the water, to hopefully finally put this to bed. Ain't got the bottle
Cliff Hatton 2 on 30/09/2015 08:58:12
avatar
I do apologise, Fishface....the offending post has been deleted, as has yours :)
fishface1 on 30/09/2015 09:17:55
avatar
Thanks Cliff
 

Roto Fryer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2001
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
0
Location
Bangkok
what was the name of the thread?
Nearly in the Net...
By Cliff Hatton 04/09/2015 10:22:00.
you can see it here
including comments
 
Last edited:

Nobby C (ACA)

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
0
Location
leafy green nowhere
Because you can't! end off. put up or shut up! interesting that this time you "state categorically that I now know the water's whereabouts" which was exactly what you said before. Should we assume that this statement shows you were economical with the truth beforehand?:wh:wh:wh
The onus to prove truth is with the claimant! you claim so you must prove or forever be seen as a liar.

I think its meant as corroboration, I know I've repeated myself before.
 

Cliff Hatton

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
4
Location
Mid Wales
I managed to wade through most of all that, Roto. What a monumental waste of time. Just explain how your mate, Coco Selman, could be so '1,000,000 per cent' sure for 25 years that the fish came from the Rockies (complete with copious 'evidence') only to change his story to something completely different but with similar '1,000,000 per cent' surety. It's utter bilge which has revealed his character good and proper.
 

bennygesserit

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
6,052
Reaction score
375
Location
.
I managed to wade through most of all that, Roto. What a monumental waste of time. Just explain how your mate, Coco Selman, could be so '1,000,000 per cent' sure for 25 years that the fish came from the Rockies (complete with copious 'evidence') only to change his story to something completely different but with similar '1,000,000 per cent' surety. It's utter bilge which has revealed his character good and proper.

Cliff I respect your regard for your mate but you must see from an outsiders point of view this is just a self indulgent use of your position as editor in fact its why you took the job in the first place

how many self flagellating threads do you want to submit ?
show us some actual proof , name the water , publish the photos , disprove the nephews account , FFS S or get off the pot
even me who loves a good soap opera thread is bored with this pointless puppy
 

Cliff Hatton

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
4
Location
Mid Wales
Cliff I respect your regard for your mate but you must see from an outsiders point of view this is just a self indulgent use of your position as editor in fact its why you took the job in the first place

how many self flagellating threads do you want to submit ?
show us some actual proof , name the water , publish the photos , disprove the nephews account , FFS S or get off the pot
even me who loves a good soap opera thread is bored with this pointless puppy

I completely take your point, Benny...it's getting on my **** too! However, Eddie Benham and I HAVE largely satisfied those points you mention - and much more: the photo's...minutes of meetings...geologists and botanists reports...letters from Lennox.... As for your 'nephew's account', we never had one! All we had was what CoCo's mate in Canada told us - then hurriedly retracted his mega-blog. There's too much stuff to mention, Benny. However, I think Eddie is going to post again shortly and I think you'll find it interesting.
 

eddiebenham

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Location
Upminster, Essex
I completely take your point, Benny...it's getting on my **** too! However, Eddie Benham and I HAVE largely satisfied those points you mention - and much more: the photo's...minutes of meetings...geologists and botanists reports...letters from Lennox.... As for your 'nephew's account', we never had one! All we had was what CoCo's mate in Canada told us - then hurriedly retracted his mega-blog. There's too much stuff to mention, Benny. However, I think Eddie is going to post again shortly and I think you'll find it interesting.

I was going to put a post on here but it turned out to be rather too much and it turned into another thread.
The 50lber – Let’s see the doubters’ ‘proof’!
 
Last edited:

Roto Fryer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2001
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
0
Location
Bangkok
I was going to put a post on here but it turned out to be rather too much and it turned into another thread.
The 50lber – Let’s see the doubters’ ‘proof’!

it is not up to the doubters to supply any proof! if you claim something you must substantiate it or be seen as liars!
For me you have shown no proof whatsoever at any time when MG was alive or since he has passed. in this light it is only reasonable to conclude that the "evidence" does not and never has existed, After all these years it is
reasonable to conclude that your only motive was and still is to cheat the angling press and public
 
Last edited:

Cliff Hatton

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
4
Location
Mid Wales
Roto: so do you doubt each and every last angler who has reported a big 'un but hasn't told us where he caught it? What's the difference between Martin Gay saying "I caught this whopper but I'm not saying where" and any other angler saying the same?
If you consider nothing Eddie and I have said for so long as proof of your mate's vivid imagination and jealous streak it doesn't say much about your powers of perception does it? Explain the miracle '25 year conversion' then get back to us please. And while you're at it, explain how MG could have been catching carp in Canada when official records prove he was in Hornchurch, Essex. Also, why not take the opportunity to explain how 13 anglers who saw the untouched pics saw a chain-link fence and a notice board while Selman saw 1) The Rocky Mountains, then, 2, 25 years later, Lennox power station.
Get outa here! :)
 
Last edited:

Philip

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
3,393
13 anglers who saw the untouched pics saw a chain-link fence and a notice board

Call me picky but there was also something else of importance in the background of those photos too wasnt there.
:)
 
Last edited:

103841

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
6,172
Reaction score
1,950
Have any of you watched a recent tv series, “Capture” ?

You can’t believe all that you see.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top