100 foot long Snake photographed in Borneo, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 20-2-2009 @ 01:09 PM by DrumsRfun
reply to post by OKCBtard



Thats what I have been waiting for...an expert to say its not real.
Thank you.
I guess this one is HOAX.


reply posted on 20-2-2009 @ 01:15 PM by OKCBtard
Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to
post by OKCBtard



Thats what I have been waiting for...an expert to say its not real.
Thank you.
I guess this one is HOAX.


I hope that wasn't sarcasm, it is so hard to pick up on it over the internet.
But don't get your hopes up! I am a huge fan of cryptozoology and the giant anacondas that I read about in my books.

Also here is another thread on this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also here is another news link with about the same about of info: news.ninemsn.com.au...




reply posted on 20-2-2009 @ 01:18 PM by DrumsRfun
reply to post by OKCBtard



No sarcasm.
In my one post I asked for a photo expert of any kind to look at this.
I don't know about photos but have interests in snakes.



reply posted on 20-2-2009 @ 01:23 PM by OKCBtard
reply to post by DrumsRfun



Then you may find this article interesting on snakes becoming bigger.


io9.com...


reply posted on 20-2-2009 @ 01:36 PM by DrumsRfun
reply to post by OKCBtard



Its a sign of global warming cough cough.
If it is warmer somewhere then it usually is then chances are the snake is getting in alot more feedings as it digests quicker with heat.
They are VERY adaptable.
There is a breed that actually changed its pigment from brown to black in order to eat more and manage to survive on an island that had food only at certain times of the yr.
Instead of them going extinct,they just adapt.
If this wasn't a hoax then I really would not be surprized to find a 100 foot snake.


reply posted on 20-2-2009 @ 01:47 PM by October
The somewhat "Highbrow" Guardian newspaper have immediatley scoffed at the image on their website without further ado, not even entertaining the exciting "What if this type of creature DID exist" line of thought:

www.guardian.co.uk...

They say this:

"But really. Look at that photo. Look at the scale of the photo. This snake is supposed to be 100ft long. Yet every little green blob on that shot is a tree, and the canopy of even one tree is, at the very least, 10ft wide. There are very many blobs, meaning very many trees. Yet the snake takes up half of the shot."

Maybe their right but man are they stuck up!!

October


reply posted on 20-2-2009 @ 01:52 PM by DrumsRfun
reply to post by October



Well at least we here at ats were willing to ride it out to the end with a little more of an open mind.


reply posted on 22-2-2009 @ 01:14 PM by jfj123
reply to post by October



Well to start, the photos look manipulated so I would tend to call this a hoax.

From what I understand, a constrictors size is dependent upon it's environmental temperature. That's why they were much bigger 60 million years ago.

The article doesn't explain any details regarding how they determined size of the creature.

Is there any additional info?

It would be awesome if true !


reply posted on 23-2-2009 @ 05:23 AM by Gemwolf


Please... I can't believe newspapers would publish photographs without doing just a little research. The (first) photograph has done its rounds on the Internet over and over again.

It's fake. Photo chopped.

It was created for a Crypto contest on Worth 1000 in 2002...

Worth 1000 Entries (11th from top)

Date of post: Profile (See second entry from bottom.)

Edit: As for the second picture: It's been on the Net for a while as well. I strongly doubt that it's real because the "snake" appears to be swimming on the surface of the water, which is pretty much impossible for a serpent that size...


[edit on 23-2-2009 by Gemwolf]



reply posted on 23-2-2009 @ 01:12 PM by St Udio
reply to post by Static Sky



i was ciphering along the same lines...
but i was using the trees as my benchmark... not the 'reported' width of the river

the trees appear full grown, appox 30 ft tall & wide generally

therefore the width of the river at that spot is appox 120 ft
or 4x the trees on the banks

the 'swiggle' in the river appears to be 7x the benchmark trees or appox
a length of 210+ ft... a very unlikely snake, eel, or amphibian


my guess, a drum of chemicals fell off a raft/barge and the contents are leaking out & flowing with the current.


+++


in the 2nd image, we can calculate the flagpole at 24-30 ft tall
now compare that horizontal, serpentine form to the guestimate pole
& one can estimate the unknown form, is on top of the water for its full 60 foot length.
~about the length of a sein (fishnet) that would span the center part of the water channel ~


oh hum
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Strange creatures from Marianas Trench
  Posted 6 days ago with 26 member flags
\'Woolly mammoth\' caught on camera in Siberia
  Posted 5 days ago with 20 member flags
icelandic lake monster spotted! (VIDEO)
  Posted 6 days ago with 16 member flags
Shape-Shifting Dinosaurs by Jack Horner (TED Talk)
  Posted 3 days ago with 6 member flags
Bigfoot Attack...or is the Lizard Man in Georgia?
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags
\'mutant spider fears at nuclear wastelab\'
  Posted 7 days ago with 4 member flags
here is how to catch sasquatch
  Posted 8 days ago with 3 member flags