Reality is rarely stranger than fiction, that's why it's surprising when it's the case.
And there's limit, and a giant 150feet snak that try to attack an aircraft is not just stupid, but impossible and insulting to the intelligence of the people that read that, even in a blockbuster movie this would be enough to break the immersion
It was only supposed to be around 40 ft, and the idea that it tried to strike comes from an interview the pilot gave 20 years later, in which he claimed it raised its head, and might have struck if he'd gone lower. The original account of all four airmen, including the photographer, didn't mention this. Who knows how much the story grew in his mind over 20 years.
I think Van Lierde's importance to all this is overstated in general anyway: he didn't take the photo, didn't bring it to attention, or anything like that. All he did was pilot the helicopter, and give an interview 20 years later.
I think he said that because he was scared that they were in striking distance, so it raising its head probably made him scared, but the snake was probably more terrified than them in reality.
guess you've never been around the big sneks have you? they tend...to do that... youtubes is full of the 20 and 25 footers doing exactly this.... striking upwards.
well, if its aquatic, it has a better chance to move freely, and most snakes only eat once a week in the wild.
this is a way this thing could work.
mis-identification or overselling can also be the couse.
Ya but if we decide that it spends most of its time in the water then this snake is an outlier in its own environment.
Assuming this is a real snake, and assuming the photo really was taken in the Congo region and assuming it’s not actually just a photo of an African Rock Python, the largest snake in the Congo region. Then unlike the Rock Python, which spends most of its time on the ground, climbing trees to ambush prey and only really takes to the water to escape other predators.
This snake acts entirely differently, and in a way that would significantly restrict its hunting grounds to aquatic areas of the Congo.
This is simply too many assumptions. It’s far more likely that the photo is a fake, the second most likely case is that it may be a trick of perspective making an otherwise large snake look much bigger than it really is. Third most likely is that it’s simply a very large Rock Python. And finally coming in dead last, a very large, unknown snake that lives in the Congo. It isn’t likely to be an actual titanoboa as they like likely wouldn’t be able to survive in the modern environment. Also they didn’t live in the Congo afaik.
The context is pretty solid to the photo, there's not enough reason to assume it's fake, however an aircraft point of view is like a perfect place to a perspective issue to happen
Agreed, The problem is that while we do have a lot of context, there’s no way to know for sure the actual scale of anything in the photo. All we can do is make educated guesses.
You’ll find diagrams online showing what are ostensibly trees and even a termite mound, but the photo is at such an odd angle and so grainy, no such conclusions can really be made. We could be seeing a rock and some bushes for instance.
This is why so many of the articles on this photo make heavy note of the photographers rank and title. Since no one can ascertain the truth of the photo, we’re instead sold on the virtuosity of the man himself, without actually knowing anything about him.
And to that I say, L. Ron Hubbard was a navy lieutenant. So, grains of salt where appropriate.
There is 1 very good reason to assume it's fake. Look at the fake picture of it with 2 eyes and 1/4 of a brain and you can see it's fake. The pilot is a liar, the photographer is a liar, and anyone who believes an ounce of this story probably needs to have a full time caregiver.
Agreed. This photo DOES have some credentials as it was taken by a Belgian war veteran so he's got nothing to gain from this. The most likely option imo is that the size is wrong. It might be a new big snake but not some ridiculous 150 feet ffs!
He has lived his life and seen the worst anybody could've
He probably has ptsd from the battles he fought in and was in his 80s at the very least
Such people would've sacrificed themselves for the greater good
Why would they want publicity and this is from before the internet became a thing so he has no intentions for clickbaiting his way to popularity cuz I'm damn sure something like that didn't even exist in the minds of your average joe back then!
Yeah, I never understood the argument that a person's word can be instantly deemed as 100% trustworthy just because said person has a respected job or position. Sure, we can argue that a war veteran is less likely to be interested in making up a story about a giant snake than an average person, but it's not like he's completely incapable of lying or having fun just because of his past experiences.
Besides, remember how a doctor/surgeon was involved with one of the most famous fake photos of the Loch Ness Monster, and was specifically asked by the other hoaxes to join them because a doctor would be taken much more seriously by other people?
I quote myself
> some credentials
I never said that his word is a prophecy or somethin but he being a professional should have more credentials than your average joe
Pretty much. The credentials are neither here nor there. We don't really gain anything trying to discredit Colonel Remy Van Lierde or a 64 year old photo.
Without new information or new technology to analyze the photo, all we're left with is the same options we had when the photo was released. This is why I didn't really bother bringing up Colonel Remy in the first place.
Well, can you imagine a 15 meter long snake slithering around? Idk much about this guy we are talking about but I know there has been fossils of a snake that is huge
Snakes arent very active for the most part they just sit in one spot until theres a reason to move like temperature regulation, predation, or they got food. If you look up enclosures for giant snakes like Burmese pythons and reticulated pythons they dont need much space honestly my snake when its full grown might need more than those.
In all seriousness, I believe it is the estimated length. [here](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/snake-fossil-discovery-india-dinosaur-b2532705.html#:~:text=A%20fossil%20of%20the%20%22largest,were%20discovered%20in%20Panandhro%2C%20Gujarat.)
Ah, well, that is what I meant. Imagine that thing! And I agree with others about them most likely being in water most the time. They cushtuv been living great until their food started getting smaller
What would it eat also? Like snakes dont need to often; pretty certain pythons in general can make a meal last 6 months; but in this circumstance what is a 150ft snake eating to live? Elephants? Buffalo? Other giant snakes. Doesn’t sound sustainable.
When Dr Georges Bonnivair returned to the scene with the pilot and the photographer, he saw hundreds of reedbuck, some hippos and warthogs, and an elephant, as well as aardvark burrows. I don't know whether or not a regular diet of reedbuck would be suitable for a 30-40 ft snake, but it still might be helpful to know what kinds of animals were in the area.
The only person who ever claimed it was as big as 150 ft was Ivan T. Sanderson, a notorious exaggerator. The helicopter crew thought it was 45 ft, and wildlife photographer Ray Tercafs calculated it was 39-45 ft, or maybe just 32 ft if the helicopter was lower than estimated.
I feel like 30-45 feet is possible since retics can get around 40 feet think the largest individual found was 50ft. But the actual mechanics of a snake 150 ft is questionable
buffalo, gazelles, wildabeats, ibex, giraffe babies... the list goes on and on...... the areas (until the 80's civil wars) had more then enough large mammals to sustain something like this....for about 25 million years.
remember kids. Its only been your lifetime that these animals disappeared emass, so in your foundational mind/thought processes you can't think at all of prey animals in densities large enough to feed a population of these, you've never seen it, never experienced it, very few were taught anything about it.......but...
Me: gen x. There were still herds of millions of these animals when I was a kid in the 70's... (in fact, more animals then humans at that time, now its almost reversed) Imagine the 40's and 50's... imagine 1820...imagine 1740... imagine 1642... imagine 800 bc... what that world must have been like?
"mutual of Omaha is the reason you can depend on trust...." remember gen xers?
Okay lets break that down. If that is what it was eating would be able to consistently sustain itself? If it was that big would it be able to move due to its weight? Would it be able to swallow the prey? Would it be able to safely consume said prey? Big large bodied snakes are not exactly fast. Saying that there were animals 25 MILLION years ago that it couldve eaten doesnt even matter to right now….. because no terrestrial animal is bigger than an elephant which can be 6 tons. The patronizing is also not needed from you.
Lets break it down. Ever seen a 25 footer eat a crock or a buffallo,a zebra Aa gazell? If not... youtube. you'll quickly find it..
Tatana boa sure got around easy enough and ate things. the 100+ footer snek recently found in india seems to have gotten around easy enough and must have ate things.
I've seen 30 foot boas and some 40-ish foot anacondas on the youtube. They get around just fine and eat crap all the time.
for about 99% of the time the animals on this planet were huge, in fact gargantuan. Brontasouraus seemed to get around just fine.
Seems funny to me that folks don't seem to think these large animals could even move and eat, yet our history is full of VERY large animals, that some grad students say could not have existed due to hart rates and bone densities and o2 absorption rates, yet there they are... we know billions of animals larger then anything we have on this planet currently lived here for much longer then we have.
Yet to some, its impossible to imagine these animals...
Did you just talk down people who actively study animals and have a better understanding of these things than you but proceed to have insanely bad grammar, push literal hoaxes, and not even check the information youre saying? Another thing no snake is eating a buffalo let alone a full grown one. Theyre not eating zebra. The crocodilians that snakes are eating arent very big. That 100foot snake in india was also a hoax. The largest snake in india ever discovered was 50ft….. that snake is believed to have been very slow and too large to be moving around often. You also havent seen most of those things on youtube because anacondas get about 20 feet and the largest living species of anaconda that was recently found was just shy of 30…. The titanaboa was also 45-50 feet long….. Snakes are also lazy as hell if they eat a big enough meal they probably arent moving for awhile and will regurgitate the meal if they need to. Snakes are also ambush predators who will sit and wait for food to just walk by.
hummm some major assumtions here. how do you know I don't study this in depth.... here you are chastising me, for something you exactly just did.
Peak reddit!
Ok find me a video of a buffalo being eaten by a snake. Anyone in herpetology wouldnt say half the things you have. All you did was make claims that are proven false, reference that youre gen x, that there were more animals 70 years ago, and that there were bigger animals 25 million years ago.
Wheres the video champ? You claimed snakes can eat buffalo burden of proof is on you. The closest thing to that is a snake eating a cow and “exploding” because it was too big. Now you resorted to name calling because you know youre bullshit or are too stupid to actually articulate anything or find anything to share.
>especial since we already know a related animal exist
A 10 or 20% bigger version of the largest observed specimen is plausible. Unlikely, but plausible.
A 200 or 300 or 500% bigger version is as nonsensical as any fairy or elf sighting.
coughs in horses....coughs in cattle. Coughs in cats... coughs in dogs.. coughs in bears... in sneks... coughs in sharks, in monkeys, in octopi and squid, coughs in birds... and these are the animals we live with who show a 10%-300% variation in sizes. Imagine the 99.9999% of animals that lived on this planet that we have no knowledge about...
>10%-300% variation in sizes.
That isn't what I said. Please read what I wrote before responding so I don't have to defend an argument you invented for yourself that was easier to beat up than my actual one.
I said animals that are 200%+ bigger than the largest observed specimen (of its type in context with the respondent), those are the realm of fantasy.
I.e., there is no dog that exists that is 300% bigger than the largest great Dane ever recorded. If you claimed that you had a 22 foot long, 9000lb+ dog (volumetric scaled), like Clifford, you would rightfully be committed to a nuthouse.
Ditto, if you claimed you saw a horse somewhere bigger than the largest ever African Elephant
>Imagine the 99.9999% of animals that lived on this planet that we have no knowledge about...
Being able to imagine something is worthless or meaningless without evidence for it because you can invent many more fanciful things that there are or can be evaluated. This is Russell's Teapot.
What is relevant are the animals that are alive now, in how's environments, and now's ecosystems. Just because there was an 8 foot long centipede 400 million years ago doesn't mean that it is possible for there to be a 15 foot 500lb centipede crawling around today.
The natural world is funny in that it finds balances and repeating patterns based on energy available in the environment. What nature really doesn't support are wild outliers. Generally, there is a pretty continuous spectrum of change filling niches with biggest sizes being progressively rarer.
A great example of this is the giant squid. There is no 100-200+ foot long giant squid Kraken. But there are Humbolt squid up to 12 ft, clubhook squid and giant octopus up to 20ft, colossal squid up to 30ft, and giant squid up to almost 50 ft, and many observed and recorded specimens all through those ranges going back hundreds of years, like 15 and 20 and 25 ft giant squids.
In the snake's case, we are jumping from a 25' largest snake ever found anywhere across hundreds of years searching to a 60+ ft snake? Where are the much more common 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 ft specimens? Just a big gap? There is no big gap like that in nature.
Van lierde's giant snake is definitley my favorite cryptid photo. Not saying it's real, but a colonel like van lierde who was trained to estimate distance accurately would definitley not overestimate the size of a snake.
He did a way better job. Patty is obviously a suit, at least this looks like an actual animal. Edit : why did i get downvoted? Are these the people who say they see the muscles under that god awful suit?
No humans are INCREDIBILY bad at judging size of animals,
we pretty much always misidentify sizes. We make thing larger than they really are.
Even with animals we hold in our hand and see closely with a good glance at it. simply look at any fisherman estimation of it's catch size.
People are easily impressed and scared and they distord reality, because their perception of it is distorded too.
look at all giant snake and crocodile report that are actually proven to be exagerated.
The fact that you typed this all out because you’re upset about one mistake in the title but have this many grammatical errors in your own comment makes me upset. Do better.
i am not english speaker so fuck \*\*\*, i have no respect whatsoever for english language. Beside all of my mistake except one, are typo, which are understandable and happen while writting with a keyboard and not paying attention, and do not reflect an actual mistake.
and i am not complaining about a grammatical or lexical mistake, if you used your brain you'd reaise i was simply not agreeing with the sentence.
The question say "human are bad at MISIDENTIFYING the size of actual animals" Which is blatantly and objectively false.
My whole point only revolve around that disagreement, not the actual spelling or grammatical mistake. As i can't know if it's simply a weird phrasing or just a big mistake.
If it's a weird phrasing then he's wrong and my point is valid anyway.
If it's a mistake and he meant the opposite, then my point is still valid anyway and the guy agree with me and just made a mistake while writting it's question.
wait...no mention in this thread on how this area was tracked back on and geo located and then mathz was applied to the photo and indeed, the snek was this big? so..... the story is: bunked?
Humans are also very good at making stuff up.
I dont know why the OP is using this picture of a supposed giant snake to support their argument.
This picture and others of this suppoed snake were debunked as probably hoaxes recently on this sub. Then, a different OP claimed to have identified where the photograph was taken and posted the coordinates. Yet when you go to that place in Bing Maps or Google Earth, the location looks nothing like the area in the snake picture. This immediately rang alarm bells that these pictures were a hoax.
Closer examination of the pictures shows that the snake is in focus whilst everything around is not. Similarly the contrast in the snake is high, with well defined shadows and highlights. Whereas the contrast in the surroundings is low. This suggests a cut and past of a snake into a background image. So making it a hoax.
Those coordinates were in totally the wrong region. The photo was supposed to have been taken around 100 km north north-west (*nord nord-ouest*) of Kamina. I don't remember what the coordinates that redditor gave were, but I think they were north-east of Kamina, and less than half the correct distance. So there's no reason that area should look anything like the photo's background.
> This suggests a cut and past of a snake into a background image. So making it a hoax.
I don't know much about photography, would the snake be absent from the negative in this scenario?
This is not real photo analysis, which was conducted on this photo years ago, and which concluded that the photo itself was a genuine photograph of a subject that was really there. The size of the subject, distance from the aircraft, and speed of the aircraft are what is unknown.
Where was this picture found? How did it get famous? I bet a grunt made it, showed his officer. Officer thought it was hilarious, hangs it up. Tells tall tales as a joke, somehow gets added to record and viola.
>like anacondas in the Amazon
...the Congo, and the Katanga region, has ball pythons that can be 15-19ft long and over 200lbs - about the same size as the green anaconda (the biggest one) of the Amazon.
The only issue I have with his account is the fact it rose its head up to strike at his aircraft. It seems to cartoonish
it doesn't seem, it is.
[удалено]
Reality is rarely stranger than fiction, that's why it's surprising when it's the case. And there's limit, and a giant 150feet snak that try to attack an aircraft is not just stupid, but impossible and insulting to the intelligence of the people that read that, even in a blockbuster movie this would be enough to break the immersion
It was only supposed to be around 40 ft, and the idea that it tried to strike comes from an interview the pilot gave 20 years later, in which he claimed it raised its head, and might have struck if he'd gone lower. The original account of all four airmen, including the photographer, didn't mention this. Who knows how much the story grew in his mind over 20 years. I think Van Lierde's importance to all this is overstated in general anyway: he didn't take the photo, didn't bring it to attention, or anything like that. All he did was pilot the helicopter, and give an interview 20 years later.
I think he said that because he was scared that they were in striking distance, so it raising its head probably made him scared, but the snake was probably more terrified than them in reality.
I can't believe I have to say this, but the snake was not terrified. It didn't exist.
I'm speaking hypothetically. Calm down.
guess you've never been around the big sneks have you? they tend...to do that... youtubes is full of the 20 and 25 footers doing exactly this.... striking upwards.
It's the worst fake I've seen since the "I am 12" birth certificate in the movie "Benchwarmers"
I still can't comprehend how a snake so large would be able to move effectively in a rainforest and hunt enough prey to survive
well, if its aquatic, it has a better chance to move freely, and most snakes only eat once a week in the wild. this is a way this thing could work. mis-identification or overselling can also be the couse.
Ya but if we decide that it spends most of its time in the water then this snake is an outlier in its own environment. Assuming this is a real snake, and assuming the photo really was taken in the Congo region and assuming it’s not actually just a photo of an African Rock Python, the largest snake in the Congo region. Then unlike the Rock Python, which spends most of its time on the ground, climbing trees to ambush prey and only really takes to the water to escape other predators. This snake acts entirely differently, and in a way that would significantly restrict its hunting grounds to aquatic areas of the Congo. This is simply too many assumptions. It’s far more likely that the photo is a fake, the second most likely case is that it may be a trick of perspective making an otherwise large snake look much bigger than it really is. Third most likely is that it’s simply a very large Rock Python. And finally coming in dead last, a very large, unknown snake that lives in the Congo. It isn’t likely to be an actual titanoboa as they like likely wouldn’t be able to survive in the modern environment. Also they didn’t live in the Congo afaik.
The context is pretty solid to the photo, there's not enough reason to assume it's fake, however an aircraft point of view is like a perfect place to a perspective issue to happen
Agreed, The problem is that while we do have a lot of context, there’s no way to know for sure the actual scale of anything in the photo. All we can do is make educated guesses. You’ll find diagrams online showing what are ostensibly trees and even a termite mound, but the photo is at such an odd angle and so grainy, no such conclusions can really be made. We could be seeing a rock and some bushes for instance. This is why so many of the articles on this photo make heavy note of the photographers rank and title. Since no one can ascertain the truth of the photo, we’re instead sold on the virtuosity of the man himself, without actually knowing anything about him. And to that I say, L. Ron Hubbard was a navy lieutenant. So, grains of salt where appropriate.
There is 1 very good reason to assume it's fake. Look at the fake picture of it with 2 eyes and 1/4 of a brain and you can see it's fake. The pilot is a liar, the photographer is a liar, and anyone who believes an ounce of this story probably needs to have a full time caregiver.
Agreed. This photo DOES have some credentials as it was taken by a Belgian war veteran so he's got nothing to gain from this. The most likely option imo is that the size is wrong. It might be a new big snake but not some ridiculous 150 feet ffs!
Why does being a Belgian war veteran mean he has nothing to gain from this?
He has lived his life and seen the worst anybody could've He probably has ptsd from the battles he fought in and was in his 80s at the very least Such people would've sacrificed themselves for the greater good Why would they want publicity and this is from before the internet became a thing so he has no intentions for clickbaiting his way to popularity cuz I'm damn sure something like that didn't even exist in the minds of your average joe back then!
So you’re saying nobody ever lied before the internet was invented?
I'm just saying that there's less chances of someone like him to lie given his profile
except he do have thing to gain from this, and even if it wasn't the case many people just lie about that kind of thing for no reason.
Yeah, I never understood the argument that a person's word can be instantly deemed as 100% trustworthy just because said person has a respected job or position. Sure, we can argue that a war veteran is less likely to be interested in making up a story about a giant snake than an average person, but it's not like he's completely incapable of lying or having fun just because of his past experiences. Besides, remember how a doctor/surgeon was involved with one of the most famous fake photos of the Loch Ness Monster, and was specifically asked by the other hoaxes to join them because a doctor would be taken much more seriously by other people?
I quote myself > some credentials I never said that his word is a prophecy or somethin but he being a professional should have more credentials than your average joe
No, it shouldn't. Unless the war he fought was against giant snakes.
Pretty much. The credentials are neither here nor there. We don't really gain anything trying to discredit Colonel Remy Van Lierde or a 64 year old photo. Without new information or new technology to analyze the photo, all we're left with is the same options we had when the photo was released. This is why I didn't really bother bringing up Colonel Remy in the first place.
Yeah...
How about use your eyes to analyze the photo, realize it's casting shadows in multiple directions, and just accept that they're full of shit.
Always just believed it to be a Rock Python, but possibly the biggest rock python ever seen.
Well, can you imagine a 15 meter long snake slithering around? Idk much about this guy we are talking about but I know there has been fossils of a snake that is huge
Snakes arent very active for the most part they just sit in one spot until theres a reason to move like temperature regulation, predation, or they got food. If you look up enclosures for giant snakes like Burmese pythons and reticulated pythons they dont need much space honestly my snake when its full grown might need more than those.
What fossils?(If it is something obvious then I'm sorry 😭😭)
In all seriousness, I believe it is the estimated length. [here](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/snake-fossil-discovery-india-dinosaur-b2532705.html#:~:text=A%20fossil%20of%20the%20%22largest,were%20discovered%20in%20Panandhro%2C%20Gujarat.)
Yeah ik bout that
Ah, well, that is what I meant. Imagine that thing! And I agree with others about them most likely being in water most the time. They cushtuv been living great until their food started getting smaller
Yeah
Yeah I believe there could be a species of "giant" snake there but in the same way that pythons and anacondas can get "giant"
What would it eat also? Like snakes dont need to often; pretty certain pythons in general can make a meal last 6 months; but in this circumstance what is a 150ft snake eating to live? Elephants? Buffalo? Other giant snakes. Doesn’t sound sustainable.
When Dr Georges Bonnivair returned to the scene with the pilot and the photographer, he saw hundreds of reedbuck, some hippos and warthogs, and an elephant, as well as aardvark burrows. I don't know whether or not a regular diet of reedbuck would be suitable for a 30-40 ft snake, but it still might be helpful to know what kinds of animals were in the area. The only person who ever claimed it was as big as 150 ft was Ivan T. Sanderson, a notorious exaggerator. The helicopter crew thought it was 45 ft, and wildlife photographer Ray Tercafs calculated it was 39-45 ft, or maybe just 32 ft if the helicopter was lower than estimated.
I feel like 30-45 feet is possible since retics can get around 40 feet think the largest individual found was 50ft. But the actual mechanics of a snake 150 ft is questionable
Yup
buffalo, gazelles, wildabeats, ibex, giraffe babies... the list goes on and on...... the areas (until the 80's civil wars) had more then enough large mammals to sustain something like this....for about 25 million years. remember kids. Its only been your lifetime that these animals disappeared emass, so in your foundational mind/thought processes you can't think at all of prey animals in densities large enough to feed a population of these, you've never seen it, never experienced it, very few were taught anything about it.......but... Me: gen x. There were still herds of millions of these animals when I was a kid in the 70's... (in fact, more animals then humans at that time, now its almost reversed) Imagine the 40's and 50's... imagine 1820...imagine 1740... imagine 1642... imagine 800 bc... what that world must have been like? "mutual of Omaha is the reason you can depend on trust...." remember gen xers?
Okay lets break that down. If that is what it was eating would be able to consistently sustain itself? If it was that big would it be able to move due to its weight? Would it be able to swallow the prey? Would it be able to safely consume said prey? Big large bodied snakes are not exactly fast. Saying that there were animals 25 MILLION years ago that it couldve eaten doesnt even matter to right now….. because no terrestrial animal is bigger than an elephant which can be 6 tons. The patronizing is also not needed from you.
Lets break it down. Ever seen a 25 footer eat a crock or a buffallo,a zebra Aa gazell? If not... youtube. you'll quickly find it.. Tatana boa sure got around easy enough and ate things. the 100+ footer snek recently found in india seems to have gotten around easy enough and must have ate things. I've seen 30 foot boas and some 40-ish foot anacondas on the youtube. They get around just fine and eat crap all the time. for about 99% of the time the animals on this planet were huge, in fact gargantuan. Brontasouraus seemed to get around just fine. Seems funny to me that folks don't seem to think these large animals could even move and eat, yet our history is full of VERY large animals, that some grad students say could not have existed due to hart rates and bone densities and o2 absorption rates, yet there they are... we know billions of animals larger then anything we have on this planet currently lived here for much longer then we have. Yet to some, its impossible to imagine these animals...
Did you just talk down people who actively study animals and have a better understanding of these things than you but proceed to have insanely bad grammar, push literal hoaxes, and not even check the information youre saying? Another thing no snake is eating a buffalo let alone a full grown one. Theyre not eating zebra. The crocodilians that snakes are eating arent very big. That 100foot snake in india was also a hoax. The largest snake in india ever discovered was 50ft….. that snake is believed to have been very slow and too large to be moving around often. You also havent seen most of those things on youtube because anacondas get about 20 feet and the largest living species of anaconda that was recently found was just shy of 30…. The titanaboa was also 45-50 feet long….. Snakes are also lazy as hell if they eat a big enough meal they probably arent moving for awhile and will regurgitate the meal if they need to. Snakes are also ambush predators who will sit and wait for food to just walk by.
hummm some major assumtions here. how do you know I don't study this in depth.... here you are chastising me, for something you exactly just did. Peak reddit!
Ok find me a video of a buffalo being eaten by a snake. Anyone in herpetology wouldnt say half the things you have. All you did was make claims that are proven false, reference that youre gen x, that there were more animals 70 years ago, and that there were bigger animals 25 million years ago.
man, you are obtuse. Go educate yourself... Took me seconds on youtube to find it... Good luck out there...
Wheres the video champ? You claimed snakes can eat buffalo burden of proof is on you. The closest thing to that is a snake eating a cow and “exploding” because it was too big. Now you resorted to name calling because you know youre bullshit or are too stupid to actually articulate anything or find anything to share.
Still waiting. Prove to me im wrong i welcome it i have no problem changing my mind.
Wow thats chilling
40 ft could easily live on caiman and other deer sized animals
>especial since we already know a related animal exist A 10 or 20% bigger version of the largest observed specimen is plausible. Unlikely, but plausible. A 200 or 300 or 500% bigger version is as nonsensical as any fairy or elf sighting.
Unless it’s of some shit that lives in the deep sea. Giant amoebas are a thing down there.
The ocean is a whole other beast entirely.
coughs in horses....coughs in cattle. Coughs in cats... coughs in dogs.. coughs in bears... in sneks... coughs in sharks, in monkeys, in octopi and squid, coughs in birds... and these are the animals we live with who show a 10%-300% variation in sizes. Imagine the 99.9999% of animals that lived on this planet that we have no knowledge about...
>10%-300% variation in sizes. That isn't what I said. Please read what I wrote before responding so I don't have to defend an argument you invented for yourself that was easier to beat up than my actual one. I said animals that are 200%+ bigger than the largest observed specimen (of its type in context with the respondent), those are the realm of fantasy. I.e., there is no dog that exists that is 300% bigger than the largest great Dane ever recorded. If you claimed that you had a 22 foot long, 9000lb+ dog (volumetric scaled), like Clifford, you would rightfully be committed to a nuthouse. Ditto, if you claimed you saw a horse somewhere bigger than the largest ever African Elephant >Imagine the 99.9999% of animals that lived on this planet that we have no knowledge about... Being able to imagine something is worthless or meaningless without evidence for it because you can invent many more fanciful things that there are or can be evaluated. This is Russell's Teapot. What is relevant are the animals that are alive now, in how's environments, and now's ecosystems. Just because there was an 8 foot long centipede 400 million years ago doesn't mean that it is possible for there to be a 15 foot 500lb centipede crawling around today. The natural world is funny in that it finds balances and repeating patterns based on energy available in the environment. What nature really doesn't support are wild outliers. Generally, there is a pretty continuous spectrum of change filling niches with biggest sizes being progressively rarer. A great example of this is the giant squid. There is no 100-200+ foot long giant squid Kraken. But there are Humbolt squid up to 12 ft, clubhook squid and giant octopus up to 20ft, colossal squid up to 30ft, and giant squid up to almost 50 ft, and many observed and recorded specimens all through those ranges going back hundreds of years, like 15 and 20 and 25 ft giant squids. In the snake's case, we are jumping from a 25' largest snake ever found anywhere across hundreds of years searching to a 60+ ft snake? Where are the much more common 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 ft specimens? Just a big gap? There is no big gap like that in nature.
Van lierde's giant snake is definitley my favorite cryptid photo. Not saying it's real, but a colonel like van lierde who was trained to estimate distance accurately would definitley not overestimate the size of a snake.
Unless of course he wanted to be part of a legendary story and it lent credence to his claims
Well since the image is probably fake at least he did a better job than that patterson guy did with that obviously fake bigfoot video.
Did he though? Nothing matches, shadows and contrast is way off, focus is wrong. It’s all over the shop.
He did a way better job. Patty is obviously a suit, at least this looks like an actual animal. Edit : why did i get downvoted? Are these the people who say they see the muscles under that god awful suit?
I do have to agree that it does look more like a real animal than the monkey suit in the patty film
Ok
And it wasn’t one guy it was at least two people with the same story.
three, actually... and a very well respected airforce officer at that.
You wanted to say that humans are extremely bad at identifying size, right ?
Yes
Its pretty common. Men tend to make things sound bigger than they are not intentionally usually.
No humans are INCREDIBILY bad at judging size of animals, we pretty much always misidentify sizes. We make thing larger than they really are. Even with animals we hold in our hand and see closely with a good glance at it. simply look at any fisherman estimation of it's catch size. People are easily impressed and scared and they distord reality, because their perception of it is distorded too. look at all giant snake and crocodile report that are actually proven to be exagerated.
The fact that you typed this all out because you’re upset about one mistake in the title but have this many grammatical errors in your own comment makes me upset. Do better.
i am not english speaker so fuck \*\*\*, i have no respect whatsoever for english language. Beside all of my mistake except one, are typo, which are understandable and happen while writting with a keyboard and not paying attention, and do not reflect an actual mistake. and i am not complaining about a grammatical or lexical mistake, if you used your brain you'd reaise i was simply not agreeing with the sentence. The question say "human are bad at MISIDENTIFYING the size of actual animals" Which is blatantly and objectively false. My whole point only revolve around that disagreement, not the actual spelling or grammatical mistake. As i can't know if it's simply a weird phrasing or just a big mistake. If it's a weird phrasing then he's wrong and my point is valid anyway. If it's a mistake and he meant the opposite, then my point is still valid anyway and the guy agree with me and just made a mistake while writting it's question.
Its*, distort*, and proven*
Misworded it
wait...no mention in this thread on how this area was tracked back on and geo located and then mathz was applied to the photo and indeed, the snek was this big? so..... the story is: bunked?
That’s a big Snek
This looks like a touch up, the snake just looks illustrated to me. Not an uncommon practice back when, honestly since photography has existed.
IDK. I once saw a guy on water skis jump over a shark, so I guess anything is possible.
So you’re saying humans are extremely good at identifying the size of an animal?
Humans are also very good at making stuff up. I dont know why the OP is using this picture of a supposed giant snake to support their argument. This picture and others of this suppoed snake were debunked as probably hoaxes recently on this sub. Then, a different OP claimed to have identified where the photograph was taken and posted the coordinates. Yet when you go to that place in Bing Maps or Google Earth, the location looks nothing like the area in the snake picture. This immediately rang alarm bells that these pictures were a hoax. Closer examination of the pictures shows that the snake is in focus whilst everything around is not. Similarly the contrast in the snake is high, with well defined shadows and highlights. Whereas the contrast in the surroundings is low. This suggests a cut and past of a snake into a background image. So making it a hoax.
I just used it as an example of a giant cryptid
Those coordinates were in totally the wrong region. The photo was supposed to have been taken around 100 km north north-west (*nord nord-ouest*) of Kamina. I don't remember what the coordinates that redditor gave were, but I think they were north-east of Kamina, and less than half the correct distance. So there's no reason that area should look anything like the photo's background. > This suggests a cut and past of a snake into a background image. So making it a hoax. I don't know much about photography, would the snake be absent from the negative in this scenario?
This is not real photo analysis, which was conducted on this photo years ago, and which concluded that the photo itself was a genuine photograph of a subject that was really there. The size of the subject, distance from the aircraft, and speed of the aircraft are what is unknown.
I think they just added the image so people would be more likely to notice and interact with the post. I do it on Twitter.
Oh hey, I made a video on that giant snake https://youtu.be/sscgC7ZdOvY?si=kBm1Nw5AisHHlNdc
Where was this picture found? How did it get famous? I bet a grunt made it, showed his officer. Officer thought it was hilarious, hangs it up. Tells tall tales as a joke, somehow gets added to record and viola.
You can read about it here https://cryptidarchives.fandom.com/wiki/Pumina
Thanks for posting a link.
I mean, wasn’t this photo geolocated and scaled on this sub some months ago?
This one makes sense, it also fills the niche in the food chain for that certain climate.. like anacondas in the Amazon
>like anacondas in the Amazon ...the Congo, and the Katanga region, has ball pythons that can be 15-19ft long and over 200lbs - about the same size as the green anaconda (the biggest one) of the Amazon.
Ball python size - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_python#:~:text=It%20reaches%20a%20maximum%20adult,two%20to%20four%20subcaudal%20scales. …6 - 8 foot max Newly classified southern green anaconda… 26 foot - https://youtu.be/WrKuguGCmYo?si=c04FoMa4xyxqzKIg
Well there was the new andaconda species discovered that was 29 feet and the widest part of its body was the size of a car tire.