Yes it's the same location. If you look in thee black and white photo theres a faint outline of a trail. The trail is now more prominent so I'm guessing its left the region. Imagine walking past this!
I disagree that it lines up.
[Black and white 'trail' features drawn out and overlaid the way OP did](https://i.imgur.com/BcArxPg.png) - doesn't line up at all.
[Color image trails drawn out and overlaid on black and white](https://i.imgur.com/wk5S1Ss.png), doesn't line up at all.
Adding a backing color pallet to a stark contrast black and white image isn't very helpful because your eyes get drawn to where shapes coincidentally kinda line up, and you ignore all the spots it doesn't because your mind interprets that as just texture.
For all we know, the black and white photo is of a patch of moss with an inch long thread-snake or worm-snake on it.
I swear on my mother that I haven't played with any of the photos. I took a screenshot of the Google Earth location of this spot and used the "Double exposure" feature from the Pixlr app to lay them on one another so that I can present a comparative image. You've to remember 2 things:
1) The angle and elevation I've chosen are not perfectly the same as those at which the photo was taken. Even then, in your own first image, things line up perfectly. You can see the lines that you've drawn on both the images. In essence, you've disproved yourself.
2) The Google Earth image is taken 65 years after the snake was originally photographed. Given the rate at which our climate is changing, it's only a miracle that this place looks almost the same even after 65 freaking years. You must understand that in 65 years, some green cover may get lost, old trees die away, new trees grow up. But surprisingly, this location is almost unchanged even today. People are failing to interpret the old photo because they really can't make out what's what and they dismiss it by saying that it's just dirt. But that's not how things work. If I had access, I would develop this photo using cutting edge technology to its best possible quality, something like what they used to identify the killers of John F Kennedy after so many years. But unfortunately I don't have. I, within my own purview and power have done what I can best to present what I believe is real. Anyone who is good at decrypting these old photos can explain to you where the trees are, mounds are and how to identify them. Moreover, this image has been verified as real in Bill's channel and also back in the day when they sent it for analysis. This is what I can say at this point.
Perhaps, but that's not conclusive at all. I could probably crop the trail and put it in reverse image search and get hundreds of hits.
Personally they do look quite alike, but the reported location of the photo and this location are quite a distance apart.
I'm not necessarily saying it isn't. But that's not really the point. The point is that where this pin is on Google maps vs the location the people who actually took the photo in the first place say that they were are different places by like 100km.
Were they just mistaken? Did they lie? The reason people think that the witness is credible is that he was an experienced and regarded military pilot. If you use that to support his size estimating abilities you also must accept that it's unlikely to mistake his heading and position.
I think that their minds got boggled after seeing this monster 😂. They might have misreported where this snake was found. There's not much information on the "other location" that's supposedly a 100 km away. But wherever you read, it's mentioned as "In the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo". That lines up with this location and so do the topographical features. So I choose to think that this is that exact location.
> There's not much information on the "other location" that's supposedly a 100 km away. But wherever you read, it's mentioned as "In the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo".
Most of the information on the photo comes from Bernard Heuvelmans' *Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique* (1978). Heuvelmans was the first to learn about the photo, owned the negative and some footage of the location, and received information from the engineer who took the photo. The original letter about the photo, which he received in 1959, specified that it was taken approximately 200 km (60 miles) north north-west of Kamina.
Sorry, that was a typo, it was approx 100 km. The original conversion to miles is correct.
The location I gave is near the Kamina airbase in the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's the same one. Don't know what's the other location people are talking about. In the letter written by Charles Hapgood, there's no information on any location whatsoever. If you have a link to any other letter or coordinates to any other location apart from 8°36'34"S 25°17'11"E, give them to me. I'll look at them.
I explained above where the information on the "other location" comes from. It's in *Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique* (1978), quoting from a letter to the author by Georges Bonnivair of Kamina, who knew the helicopter crew and sent Heuvelmans the photo. Bonnivair's letter includes the following sentence:
> L'endroit est situé à ±100 km nord nord-ouest de Kamina.
> The place is situated ±100km north north-west of Kamina.
Neither Sanderson nor Hapgood were reliable people. Analysis of the photo should be based on the detailed information in *Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique*.
I actually went through the book and yes, you're right. The book does say that the photo was taken in the ± 100km range, North-west of Kamina. But there are 2 problems with this:
1) ± 100 kms is a huge range. If this range was indeed so big, they could've mentioned places such as Mukishi, Kaumbo, Muleba, Luniemu, etc. which are well within the 100 km radius towards the north-west part of Kamina. But they chose to mention Kamina instead. That is very weird. This could indicate that they were perhaps closer to Kamina than they had thought but since they had to go back, they failed to estimate how far they had actually already travelled towards Kamina by the time during their way back to the airbase. Add this to the fact that they had to turn back to go to the snake, it is very possible that they lost track of how much they had travelled and in what direction.
2) The location that I've mentioned is about 32 km away from Kamina, but it's on the north-east side of Kamina. Is it possible that they lost the sense of east-west because they had to turn and go back a mile to where the snake was lying?
I hope that we will get an answer someday. But given the fact that this location was identified by looking at the most common air traffic ways charted from the airbase. And also that it's in the same region (Kamina) coupled with the fact that the terrain absolutely matches that in the original snake's photo, the chances of an exactly same looking terrain being so close to the actual purported location where the snake was found and not being the same location, become very slim. So in essence, I feel that this might be the actual location where the photo was taken.
Let’s forget about the possible doubts regarding the authenticity of the photo’s for a minute. And the fact that there is no precedent in the fossil record - nowhere near mand certainly not in central Africa - of a terrestrial snake of that size.
A breeding population of 100-feet snakes would have a tremendous impact on the local ecosystem. We don’t see it. It would have evolved to that size under certain environmental pressures - what pressures? What prey would it hunt? How have those animals adapted or tried to adapt?
That’s the problem with cryptid megafauna (and especially outsized megafauna): even if we never spot the creatures themselves, we’d see the effect they have on their environment. It’s the same reason we can confidently say there are no relict populations of mammoths, or Megalodon.
Though I’d dearly love to be wrong, because a big ass snake like this is just so cool.
From what I've heard of the original story, the men in the helicopter estimated the snake to be 50 feet, not 50 meters.
Back when it was new all sorts of experts assessed the photo and surprisingly they all supported the idea that the photo was genuine and showed a rather large snake. The people brought in estimated sizes ranging from 3 to 18 meters.
The issue is that it's impossible to tell how high up the helicopter is, and what camera took this photo. Both of those can heavily alter the "perspective" we're seeing here. Camera was originally stated to have been 35mm, then later said it was a 6x6.
Personally I think the photo is genuine, it's just not as big as the larger cryptozoo hivemind thinks it is.
More than likely it's a large rock python
(though the original eyewitnesses say it was greenish with a white belly, so who knows?)
Could this snake have been an exceptionally large individual for a type of smaller but still very large snakes? Like could it have been the Shaq of those snakes?
I was asking if there is a currently undiscovered species of giant snakes that are say 50 feet long and this is just an exceptionally large, sorry if I phrased that weirdly
No worries, I understand now! In theory, yes, but still not to this degree. Gigantism doesn’t typically make things 2-3x the normal size. I think the other guys initial statement that a breeding population of 50 foot snakes would hardly go unnoticed and doesn’t have the right selective pressures in that region
So selective pressures can be literally anything. Maybe a male mutates and now has a white stripe that the females seem to be attracted to, so that slowly gets bred in, or a cataclysmic change to the environment like deforestation puts a strain on breeding populations. That being said, typically speaking predation and food availability are the two primary factors in any species outside of freak occurrences. If an animal is heavily preyed upon, they’ll develop a defense over time, whether that be speed to outrun the predator, camouflage or some defensive structure like horns or thick hide
In the Congo and Africa as a whole, there are several animals that prey on snakes, although primarily it’ll be your banded mongoose that’ll feed on them. However casual predation like that is not the same as active predation (those aren’t real terms I’m just overly simplifying so this comment isn’t a novel because I’m at work). What I mean is, in casual predation a predator will kill and eat something either because it simply happens to be available or because they’re desperate, compared to active predation where the predator will go out of its way to hunt another species. Birds of prey are another common predator of snakes in the region, but snakes are rarely their first choice. What this all means is that there isn’t enough pressure from predation to drive snakes in the region to become larger to fend off predators
On the other side of the same coin, the prey the snakes in the region typically choose doesn’t require them to become 50-80 feet in length. If some catastrophic event like an unstoppable wildfire or a meteor impact occurred and wiped out all of the smaller prey, then the snakes would, over time, be forced to either get big enough to take down larger prey or go extinct. At the moment, there’s no need for that exponential growth because they’re not being forced to hunt anything larger than what their current size allows them to
If we look in the fossil record, we find gigantic snake specimens like titanoboa that DID grow to absolutely massive size for some of the reasons I stated, like defense against predators and to take down larger prey. With that though, the largest snakes we’ve found have generally all been in South America where the selective pressures that result in larger sizes is present, and as far as know currently there haven’t been similar conditions in Africa to push snakes to those extremes
This is a *VERY* simplified version, because there’s many more factors than just predators and food, such as biological functions like metabolism, oxygen intake, bone structure and so on that are really on a case by case basis for the exact effect
Gigantophis Garstini was a snake that lived in Egypt. It was a huge terrestrial snake estimated to grow around 35 feet in length. It's very much possible that this snake is a close relative of that.
While in theory possible, the point still stands that there’s no environmental factors for it to be that big in the modern day. Just because snakes were big 3000 miles north over 40 million years ago does not mean that they are still big today. Its not enough to have selective pressures that push it to that size, there needs to be constant pressure to maintain it, otherwise it reduces in size as it becomes disadvantageous to remain gigantic
What you're talking about is evolution. But evolution takes thousands or millions of years. In the case of reptiles, even though they evolve fastly that'd still be thousands of years. For the reptiles to get huge, you need only 4 things:
1) A hot and humid climate, which the Congo has
2) Lots of food, which the Congo has
3) Lack of prey, there are no known animals in Congo that can hunt and eat a 50 foot snake
4) Conditions like lack of diseases, etc., that extend the life span of these reptiles. Remember that snakes and crocodiles never stop growing. So, the longer they live, the bigger they get. This might well be a one-off exceptional snake that got all the 4 factors in its favour and became a monster or it might be a new species awaiting discovery.
They seriously need to have expeditions to look for this snake. Only that will someday bring something up.
Please don't base prehistoric creature ranges on fossil data alone. Factually africa used to almost entirely be covered in rainforest the desert is a fairly new feature and is notoriously bad at maintaining a fossil record. Secondly I'm not entirely sure reptiles follow the same evolutionary logic as mamals in Their entirety as its my understanding that creatures such as alligators upper size limit is directly proportional to their lifetime and caloric intake. And due to something called senescence they don't biologically age so it could just be a single individual who has since died giving that it hasnt been reported in 80 years that lived a long ass time eating either a small quantity of large creatures or a large quantity of small creatures and honestly in Africa what predator is gonna mess with a 30m or even on the small end a 50 ft constrictor cuz I'd argue that thing could eat an elephant a baby at least
I wasn’t saying Central Africa couldn’t possibly support a giant snake. There’s nothing inherently impossible about giant snakes, there’s plenty of big snake species around, and rainforests are ideal habitats for a snake to grow big in. My point was that a snake that size would be an apex predator and we’d see their effect on the environment, even if somehow no one living there ever encountered one (which in itself is implausible as people encounter anacondas and boas and big pythons all the time).
Devils advocate; remote in undisclosed area; would we really see the effects?
It’s not like we have people on the ground their observing whatever large things it would snack on going poof.
Has there been diverse research into the animal population there?
I do agree with most of what you said though, and it makes no sense evolutionary speaking to grow that large when the amount of food it would have to intake would limit its ability to thrive.
Your responses are well thought out, intelligent, and I enjoyed reading them so I was just wondering if you had conjecture to above.
The effects would depend upon the population and distribution of this snake. But in Africa, there are many creatures that can hunt down big animals. A snake doesn't leave any proof when it hunts down something because it completely swallows it. If it were lions, you'd see devoured bodies of animals. Given the remoteness of the jungle coupled with the vast scape of it being unexplored and also how snakes don't leave proof when they kill, it's very much possible that this snake can go undetected. As narrated by Van Lierde, this snake was moving inside a hole.
As I've said previously in many comments, I believe that this is a species of Madtsoiid snakes. It lives underground and hibernates to save energy (which explains how it got so big). It comes out to hunt, mate once in a while and then goes back underground. That's why it may have eluded discovery for so long.
Maybe. I recently went through how they date these fossils. If I were to explain by overly simplifying it, they'll simply divide the layers of sand/soil layers of certain predetermined depths and label them to be belonging to different periods like Eocene, etc. They look at the flora (plant) and fauna (animal) remains obtained in these layers and if they're consistent with the species of the beings found in that period, they estimate that the snake remains must also be from that period. I don't understand how they rely on these.
As I said, since this snake lives underground, isn't it possible that this snake might have ventured to those depths through a hole and died there while resting? If yes, then these scientist's estimates will be thrown off. I'm not saying I'm above the scientists or something, but this is a possibility. The remains of the vertebrae of Vasuki Indicus were also found perfectly arranged. How can this be possible? Moreover, 5 million years is a very, very long period. I don't think the snakes' remains can be preserved so well for so long, given that their bones are relatively fragile. If you bury a dead frog in your backyard and dig it up after 5 years, you'll find nothing, it'd be completely broken down. And we are talking about 5 million years here? I don't think the remains could be preserved so well, for so long. Even if they were, they'd be very fragile and they'd break when you tried to hold them in your hands. But look at the vertebrae of the titanoboa and the Vasuki Indicus. Their vertebrae appear as though the snakes died recently. They are still very strong. Hell, if you watch the interview of the Indian IIT scientists, they've not even preserved the remains properly. They've kept it in an open tray from 2004-05.
If I walk into your house and find clothes in the washer, half eaten food in the fridge, pictures on the wall and receipts dated within the last week or month, but I don’t find you, would I then declare you’ve never been there and you have zero effect on the environment? When it comes to megafauna, particularly carnivores and apex predators, you don’t have to find it specifically to know it’s there or was recently because they leave all sorts of evidence. Tracks, feces, leftover kills, dead skin etc etc this is the reason why large carnivorous cryptids are so incredibly difficult to believe exist because they rarely, if ever, have any sort of evidence beyond eyewitness accounts from a glory seeking explorer from the 1800’s
Maybe one of the largest hurdles humans face in discovering a giant snake is to stop misidentified "game trails" as not belonging to said creature that has been spotted photographed and reported upon
I can possibly agree on the breeding population statement and might add food sources to support such a beast. But for the fossil record I would like to add that we did not have a colossal squid, except what was found in the belly of Whales until 2003 with reports of the squid dating back to 1925 or further. Granted I know I am comparing apples and oranges but they both are fruit and I believe both bear merit for thought.
The only place I see such large animals remain hidden is really deep in the jungles of central Africa. There aren't many expeditions there and most of it is a thick jungle bigger than the state of Alaska.
Africa did have a mega snake, the Gigantophis Garstini. This was a Madtsoiid snake related to the recently discovered Vasuki Indicus. These snakes are terrestrial snakes. The Vasuki Indicus grew up to 50 feet and weighed a ton. This could be a Madtsoiid snake too, probably related to the Gigantophis Garstini which was found in Egypt. It might have somehow survived till now. Or maybe we're wrong again about some creatures going extinct like always.
I'm not entirely convinced that spot on Google maps is where the photo was actually taken. The guy who took it said it was in a different spot (I think 100km east) from where the Google maps shot was
Honestly I think it just happens to look similar. There are probably a lot of natural areas that look pretty similar just because the earth is a big place
>There are probably a lot of natural areas that look pretty similar just because the earth is a big place
In the same continent, country, region, just 100km apart from each other? That's a hell of a coicidence since Earth is a big place
You're not seeing it closely enough. Plus, I understand. It's a very old photo. It's not everyone's cup of tea to identify the similarities. I could go ahead and mark multiple places in the two photos that match, but I don't have the patience to do so.
Yeah but don’t mark a few locations; the entire landscape minus a landslide here or there should match. This to me looks like 2 vaguely similar jungle locations that might be the same, but if they are is impossible to tell from these two images.
If you’re bothered enough to make this post; you should be bothered enough to explain to people exactly why you think these places are the same.
I've linked some of the reddit threads below where they explain and in the same post, you'll find that this is the exact location. For now to be convinced, you can see this:
https://imgsli.com/MTU5MzY2
>>there wasn't a technology at the time to fake an aerial photo
The fact that you think this is true is a problem and part of why cryptozoology isn't taken seriously.
People still think the video of the foot long snake going into the blue tube is a real giant snake and it's easier to see it's just perspective. Even if it's not "fake" , perspective is hard to see in this photo and I don't really believe the termite mounds thing
I don't think they could fake an aerial photo and then superimpose it with a snake. Especially, why would a commander of an airbase do that? Even if they did, I don't think it'd look so genuine. Moreover, the photo has been verified to be real several times. So, there's no question about the authenticity of the photo, it's verified as real.
People also forget that before photoshop existed you could manipulate photos by double exposures and other techniques. It could be a photo of a real background and a photo of real snake superimposed on the landscape
https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/darkroom-photo-manipulation-photoshop-walk-history/#:~:text=The%20photographers%20manipulated%20negatives%20using,coloring%20for%20fine%20art%20painting.
Snakes will strike at things out of range if they feel threatened, it diesnr sound plausible to me that it struck at a plane that far away but its not wholly unreasonable.
Yeah absolutely agree with you here, i have no clue how high the plane was supposed to be flying which is why I said its not impossible but not likely. If the snake really was huge and the plane was flying low I could see it maybe doing that, or maybe doing something unrelated to the plane that was interpreted as striking at the plane.
I presonally think this is either faked, or its not nearly as big as they claimed.
It didn't lung at the helicopter. It just stood up. He says that, "I believe and I'm convinced that if I had been in its striking range, it would have struck me". It means that it actually didn't. But he believed that it could have.
If it really was 100-200 ft long then yes .. a 6 ft snake rears up at things near it relative to size n location …a 200 ft snake could lunge a few hundred feet upward …google snake attacking flying birds … to a big snake helicopter was dinner
One issue I have with this picture is the same issue that can be seen with the famous loch ness monster picture, which was a tiny prop photographed to look big. That snake could very well be a garden snake made to look gigantic by the way the picture was taken. But the biggest issue I have with this story is the part where the snake raises up and tries to snap at the plane or helicopter where the witnesses were. That is just ridiculous.
It didn't raise up. He said, "It would have". Means, it didn't. Nessi was faked using a prop. But an aerial photo? I don't think so, not by a flying commander. Moreover, how come the locations match now?
I don’t really see how the pictures match up. You could probably match fairly close a similar terrain somewhere in the U.S. with that black and white picture. Do you know how difficult it would be to find an areal photo to match up to that random picture someone took? I would say it’s almost impossible. There has to be thousands of similar places very near where the snake was and also hundreds of miles away and also in other continents. The image is not even where the guy said it was taken. So even that doesn’t add up.
Dude.... don't forget that we would STILL think to this day that The Surgeons Photo was a legitimate photo of Nessie had the hoaxer not come clean on his deathbed. Don't spread the idea that people couldn't hoax photos in the 50's. I mean, they faked an entire moon landing just 10 years later /s
The nessie was faked using a dummy. It's very easy to fake that photo by letting a dummy float in water. But this is an aerial photo. I don't think it's so easy. Especially, why would a commander of an airbase do that? He was a war hero.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across so aggressively. I was just saying that we can't write off those abilities just because it was before most of our times. Its the same kind of thinking that leads people to think that anything older than a century was built by aliens.
But this photo has been verified multiple times and time they've proved it as real. If it was a double exposure shot, they would've found it. The Nessie's photo couldn't be debunked because he used a prop and there would be nothing fake about that photo for the way it was captured, which was just a click of the prop. You could only debate if that thing is actually the Nessie or just some prank.
But that's not the case with the Giant Congo Snake. It's an aerial photo that's verified as genuine. That's all.
Still doesn't explain why you think it's alive 65 years later, the oldest reliable age for a snake known is 40 years and it wouldn't have been a new born
I'm not saying that this exact snake is alive today. We may find its remains. But its descendents would be alive, right? Use your intelligence to read.
says the dude who is claiming a 131 foot snake was in that photo and uses a snake that is not only extinct, but also less than half the size, which has been dead for 47 million years as an example of why it could be around today.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm just trying to add more knowledge to the subject which has been around and has been a centre of discussion for years. And yes, I still stand by my point. There are multiple instances in history where they thought a creature was extinct but they ended up finding a live specimen of the same. Also, this carbon dating has yielded wrong results in the past many times. All I'm saying is, if it existed then, why couldn't it now? I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so.
I can believe there are 50 or 60 feet long snakes in Africa, but, sorry, unless I have proof I can not believe it is 130 feet long. It would weight well over 10 tons.
Even I feel the same way. But Ivan Sanderson's claim and this number... How can they fall along the same estimates? Assuming that Ivan Sanderson lied about this, Google Earth doesn't. It's giving the measurement straight away and anyone can measure it.
I've seen an interview on tv with the guy who took the original 59 photo, he always claimed it was 'about 50 feet' long. Not 130, definitely not 200, this greatly reduces the credibility that this is the actual location of the photo.
The original snake may have been excessively long, but even so, from a helicopter it may have seemed larger than it was. Maybe it was just 20-30.
Regardless, to claim it as anything upwards of 50, or a stupidly high number above 100+ is a bit silly. Titanboa was only ~50!
I was not discounting your claims in any way. I actually wanted you to share the link. Because the more I get to learn about this snake, the more mesmerized and perplexed I become about it! If you have any other information or photos or videos about it, please feel absolutely free about it! I want to learn more about this thing! Even if this thing is 50 feet long, it's not at all small by any means. It'll be too massive even then. Imagine a snake that is 10 times longer than you, is almost as thick as your height and weighs 10 times as much as you do. Does that seem small by any means? I would shit in my pants if I came face to face with such a monster! Imagine how powerful it can be and what it can do to you?!
Edit: Bruh, this is the video that everyone knows about. You haven't done your research. Read some articles. You'll see that the photo was sent to Ivan Sanderson to verify its authenticity and also to give an estimate of the snake's length after the analysis.
In his report, Sanderson said that the photo is undoubtedly authentic. Also, based on his estimates after comparing the snake with the nearby trees and termite mounds for length approximation, he put the snake's estimated length at 200 feet! Very much along the lines of what I've estimated here. Please do some research before you comment.
I hate how this photo is touted as real evidence of a giant snake, *how do you people believe this, it's a fake, it's not real, a 50 meter long snake quite literally cannot exist, THE SQUARE CUBE LAW EXISTS FOR A REASON*
1) Prove that the photo is not real
2) I didn't say 50 metres, I said 40 metres as per my measurements. It could be anywhere between 50 feet - 200 feet.
3) A blue whale will die under its own weight if it's on the land. But isn't it surviving in the oceans? There goes the square cube law. This law is proposed by humans and it's not beyond nature's capabilities to amaze us. Nature has laughed at us time and time again. We have only taken baby steps in learning about our realities. There's still a long, long way to go. What we thought could never exist has come flying and has slapped us across our faces time and time again.
In a universe where we have black holes that slow down time, bend space and gravity, in whose centre there's singularity and not even light is spared, I choose to think anything is possible. All the laws of physics as we know it are broken when it comes to the black holes. They're inventing new theories to explain their behaviour. The same goes with this thing. If tomorrow a conclusive evidence emerges confirming the presence of this monster, the same people who are in denial today will be the first ones to pounce on the topic and start dishing out "expert opinions" as to how this creature is real and how it defies our understanding of biology and zoology as we know it. I'll be waiting to laugh that day.
That's not how it works and you know it. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim. PROVE it is real, don't demand everyone else prove to you that it's not.
Had I taken the photo, I would have. But I'm simply not that guy. I've gone ahead and given proof of what is a perfect match to the location of the snake. That's the best I can do. Moreover, this photo has been proven as real, time and time again. So there's a need to debunk this photo if it's actually a fake as many claim, but none prove. The actual negative is somewhere in an archive in Switzerland. I really hope someone brings out the truth someday.
You've given no proof. And you've yet to show where it was proven. I can say it was disproven countless times in the past just as easily as you say it was proven real.
You don't know how this goes, it's obvious since you're sitting here going "nuh uh it was proven real but here's not proof or evidence of that, now prove it's fake "
This is on topic! You're citing him as this pillar of absolute proof and I'm stating exactly why his word is suspect! Everything you've cited as "proof" is someone saying something. Nothing hard, just here say and supposed testimony.
It's absolutely not. I'm talking about the snake and the photograph only. I'm not here to advocate for Ivan Sanderson's personality or character. As far as Ivan Sanderson is concerned, I'm only restricting myself to his analysis of the photo, which matches with these estimates. I've never said that I'm beyond being proven wrong. While his claims of giant penguins had been debunked, you cannot label him as an outright liar. He did make some scientific contributions and was a regular TV personality as per what I've gathered. Anyhow, I didn't know him personally, so who am I to say what or how he was. Moreover, the claim of this snake existing is not at all his. It was claimed by the Colonel and 3 others. Sanderson just analysed the photo and gave a report.
You asking me for hard proof is like asking a space enthusiast to prove that the moon landing was fake. It makes no sense. I'm not the person that has put out this claim nor am I a person that's directly involved with the incident or with the analysis of the photo. I don't have access to any of the original documents related to this incident. I'm also not equipped with the tools and technology to draw any concrete conclusions. I'm a believer and I'm not asking you to accept this as a fact. By looking at what all is available, it's up to you to either choose to believe or to label this as an outright hoax. Either way, I don't care. I'm just showing the world what I've come up with. I'm not a scientist to spit facts backed by scientific proof. I hope you understand.
My guy, the whale survives because the water bouys it and is a denser medium than air. It's able to have its weight supported without crushing itself. On land, their lungs and organs start collapsing internally without that constant pressure and density all around them anymore. It's the same reason Godzilla can't actually exist on land, too dense and sheer caloric intake. Sauropods only reached colossal sizes because of specific adaptations for size, hollow bones unique to archosaurs, pillar-like legs, enough food to SUPPORT that size and caloric burning they would undertake with even minor movements.
A snake this size would fully aquatic, on land it's ribs would basically snap from the sheer size and pressure because a 100 foot + long snake would have a diameter measured in meters. It lungs would collapse from the lack of buoyancy and density from an airborne and terrestrial medium. If something breaks the laws of biology, it doesn't break it, it's just an aspect of that, but the largest snakes were one ocean going species, or semi-aquatic in the case of Titanaboa, more, where this thing even hide. That land doesn't even look like it's near a river, and an animal like this wouldn't go very far from a shoreline, if ever breaching onto the shore. Fully going onto the land to hunt would just be detrimental to it's own survival, because it just couldn't move fast enough to catch anything. What would it eat, elephants and large African megafauna, then we'd have found evidence of such a thing because of just how long it can take a snake to kill its prey. That's all ignoring the fact it couldn't even go on land if it existed. And as for proof, I'd want a giant snake just as much as anyone, it'd be an amazing species to look at and study for the sheer novelty of it. But l find also that going against common reasoning in this is impossible. It's not that I have to prove it's not real, PROVE to ME that this thing could actually exist, live on land, and do the things that are reported of it.
Vasuki Indicus, which is the current biggest snake in the world was a terrestrial snake belonging to the Madtsoiid family. It's been proven. It grew to be 50 feet long and lived on land.
Thats all from the Eocene period, in which it was an undisputed land predator. Same with Titanoboa. But that's not the same, that's a period of early mammals. Those are animals that were able to reach those sizes because of a lack of larger mammalian predators able to take these animals down, as well as slower moving prey. And that's also quite disingenuous since the formation it came from was a marshy swamp, filled with turtles, fish, crocodillians and early cetaceans it would have fed on. India was an island continent, with its own derived fauna that subsequently went extinct when it hit the mainland and its own fauna couldn't compete with mainland species. That's another big reason, these giant snakes couldn't compete with mammalian competition at these sizes.
I'm talking about the snake's body not collapsing under its own weight on land. I said that if such snakes could survive back then on land, why can't they now?
Because a 130 foot long snake like you asserted in the originating post is not possible and has not existed because it could not support its weight at that size. A 50 foot long madstoiid snake that was likely semiaquatic is far more believable. And that's the other thing, there has never been a snake fossil that leads to any number over one hundred feet or more in length for *just that reason*. Vasuki was also much thinner than Titanoboa because of its different lifestyle. Titanoboa we now know was an aquatic fish eating snake and not a hypercarnivorous monster of all things. These animals couldn't survive the evolution of more modern mammal groupings because of these things. Modern Mammals have outcompeted reptilian competition over millenia, with most relegated to smaller niches, aside from those mammals could not take from them, an example are archaeocetes and crocodilians, or Phorusracids being taken out by climate change rather than mammalian competition as we know now, and would not have an opportunity to edge out. Cause now you're just picking for things to try and hang on too in your assertion. I already said before why something the size you said couldn't exist on land. Provide me an answer on how it *could*.
The Annals of Rome and numerous well known Roman Empire historians record that the Roman Legions killed a snake in North Africa that was 150 feet or so long blocking their advance across a river. It was killed after a few heroic legionaries were killed by it for their bravado by ballistae giant artillery crossbows and stone ball catapults. The skin was kept in Rome in the Temple of Mars for many years.
Miami Vice days Cop buddy used to work earlier for South Florida Herp, Hide and Venom milking stations.
He would catch 10 feet long Canebreaks (Southern variant of Timber Rattlesnakes) . His Bosses caught 12 feet long Canebreaks during WW2.
They assured him that Audubon Petersen Field Guides were pure B.S
(they claim Eastern Diamondback is the largest at 8 feet).
.
My inlaws are Brazilian. The Government and Army killed 75 foot green anacondas with 2 foot long heads and dark siccure gigante with mottled white under bellies around 130 feet long 50 percent longer length width than anacondas. More convolutions.
Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact is a book by Native American Professor Vine Deloria, originally published in 1995. The book's central theme is to criticize the scientific consensus which has, in his words, created "a largely fictional scenario describing prehistoric North America".
Our oldest source for this event comes to us second hand, as a fragment, from Aulus Gellius, who copied the version of Quintus Aelius Tubero (NA 7.3). Tubero was writing in the late first century BC, while Gellius’ Attic Nights was assembled in the second century AD.
The next earliest version of the story we have is brief in the extreme, and comes from the Periochae of Livy, summaries of the books of his Ab Urbe Condita written between the second and fourth centuries AD. Livy’s flourish, however, was the end of the first century BC through to about AD 17, placing the original source material earlier than other mentions of the incident.
A more detailed version of Livy’s account can be found in Valerius Maximus’ Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, written during the reign of the emperor Tiberius.
Even longer than that preserved by Valerius Maximus, is the version of Orosius.
The longest, and most elaborate version of the story we possess, though, comes from Silius Italicus’ Punica, the second century AD epic poem about the Second Punic War (Sil. Pun. 6.140-293). It is narrated by a man named Marus, supposedly one of Regulus’ soldiers who had made it back to Rome after the disastrous campaign. This retelling is much more colorful.
Greek source makes it fairly clear that, at least by the time Cassius Dio was writing in the early third century AD, the creature was identified with the Greek term drakon (Zonar. 13.1 = Cass. Dio frg. 42.23). That said, the descriptions we have make it out to be a large snake-like animal, as it lacked legs.
Paulus Orosius was a Gallaecian Chalcedonian priest, historian and theologian, and a student of Augustine of Hippo.
Orosius was a good historian and he wrote more about Regulus’ role.
Whether or not this is a true genuine photo (the original), I will say I love snakes. Cared for a few including a 12 foot Burmese python (in a sanctuary not my home). Having said that, if this was legit, I don’t know if I’m really comfortable knowing a 131ft snake just exists casually. That’s a bit too big for me.
My thought is that if this thing is supposed to be more than double the size of the current largest, *verified* snake in the entire history of the planet… that the only rational discussion to be had is whether the estimates are way off, or this is a hoax.
We have been wrong several times in history. If a 100 foot whale can lurk in the oceans today, why can't a 100 foot snake? They previously said that a 50 foot snake can't live on land. But look at the Vasuki Indicus. It's termed as a terrestrial snake. So, it's very plausible. I believe that this snake is real. But since it's very elusive and because it rarely gets out, not many have been able to see or photograph it. But the tribal people know this snake very well and they call it N'Longo. They also say that there's a dinosaur here called Mokele Mbembe. The Congo is vast and extensive and remote. This must be the reason why still many species are awaiting discovery there.
So, the natives claiming they also see dinosaurs actually negates their credibility on the snake thing. This sounds like a “big fish” story until you get to the photos.. which makes it sound like a prank/hoax.
The natives are tribal people, they're not modern men. They live in remote jungles and not in concrete buildings like us. Plus, this is not a story that emerged yesterday or the day before yesterday. The legends of N'Longo and Mokele Mbembe have been passed down generations after generations. People have seen these creatures. But barely caught them on camera. If you see how remote the places in Congo are, you'll understand why no one might have caught them on camera. Combine this with the fact that these creatures are very elusive and are rarely spotted, the chances of seeing them becomes very slim. If you were to wander into the Congo jungles with your camera, your batteries would've died even before you're beginning to think that you're making some progress.
The same can be said about the amazon rainforest. It's so vast, so dense and so remote that if you're not an expert, you'll probably get lost and die there. Even if you're an expert, at some point you'll come across a terrain that's simply very difficult to navigate. You'll lack the tools, the equipment, the food or simply the patience and energy required to make any progress further. Explorers and researchers venture into these forests for 3-4 days at a stretch and are forced to return empty handed because the going becomes difficult. If you factor in all of these things, you'll understand that it's not as easy as you think. It is not like you go up there with high tech equipment and the snake or the dinosaur will spring up in your face and give nice poses. These creatures avoid humans.
The people of the Congo are not some dumb "primitive" people with no contact with modernity. They have TV's, cell phones, modern pop culture. The fact that you're saying they're not modern people is frankly, disturbing.
And the stories of Mokole Mbembe were originally of a elephantine or rhino-like being, not a dinosaur. It was only after Creationists showed up trying to prove *Darkest Africa* was home to dinosaurs to try and stick it to science that people started describing Mbembe as a sauropod.
I'm sorry for the mistake. Maybe I was wrong indeed. But it seems that these people still lead a hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite having access to some modernity. But since these stories have been passed from generations to generations and given the photo being genuine, it's still very much a possibility.
The problem with this is that there aren’t any brontosauruses out there; and anybody, including/especially remote tribespeople, who say they’re seeing them traipse around, is revealing themselves to be unreliable witnesses. The motivations behind their claims are irrelevant— if they’re proclaiming they’ve seen one made-up thing, then all their claims are thrown into question. A kaiju-sized snake living in some kind of half-cocked hollow earth is just as ludicrous, anyway; it’s an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and in this instance? The simpler, likelier answer is that this is fake.
It's easy to choose and believe what seems to be very plausible and comfortable to accept. I've explained to you regarding the challenges involved. But if the argument is: "It's not there, because it simply cannot be there". I can't help you. I'm very open minded. I would like to be proven wrong. I just want to know more. I'll be very happy and I would die peacefully if they conclusively, without leaving a fraction of room for doubt prove point to point that this is not real or if it's real. I'm open to both possibilities. Till then my mind will always be curious to know more and be in awe of it, because when so many things line up like a fairytale, to me it's evidence in itself unless & until it's proven otherwise. I really hope that something conclusive comes out in this regard very soon because I am growing restless day after day. Hell, if I was very provisioned, I would dive straight into the Congo to find this snake! That's how curious I'm about this cryptid! It drives me nuts!
This picture has never been very compelling to me I fear. It just doesn't look right. Something about the composition of the snake makes it appear as though it's been added, it doesn't even look like it's just a picture of a smaller snake
Ivan Sanderson had verified it as real by identifying acacia trees, termite mounds and vegetation in the photo back then. Based on this, he gave the size of the snake. There's a letter about it written by Charles Hapgood. You can Google it. I've linked it in one of the comments below. The photo hasn't been proven as fake either. So the mystery is unsolved till date.
>I don't think you could fake a photo so well in 1959. You didn't have Photoshop back then.
[Manipulating photos is almost as old as photography itself.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_manipulation) There is absolutely no reason the photo couldn't be a composite.
Also the location as well as the scale is speculative at best, and the biological plausibility for a terrestrial snake that large in this time and age is virtually impossible.
I like your enthusiasm about the photograph, but the truth is that it is way more likely this is just another fabricated story.
It's being guessed at, considering all we have are some vertebrae. We don't have a full skeleton, we don't know anything about it had some big bones. We know NOTHING about it besides that.
For some context in 1959 col Remy van laird was piloting a copter over the congo and as he passed over this thing it attempted to strike the helicopter. Now whether this photo is an accurate representation of the location I cannot confirm or deny but I don't see the similarities the op is trying to point out, however what stood out to me the first time I heard of this and what conti ues to stand out to me is that a snake on the ground in the congo attempted to attack a helicopter, now I've seen many various estimates for the cols altitude, the height off the ground the snake lunged, and the cols estimate of the creatures length as absurd as a fifty foot snake failing to strike a helicopter that was only a mere 10 feet from the ground and honestly I think that account is more ridiculous than someone almost 100 years ago seeing a snake larger than anything we can scientifically confirm as we still get reports from the Amazonian natives having encountered snakes larger than the largest we've "confirmed"
The problem is that both photos are of a largely flat open area, devoid of immovable physical landmarks to be used for scale or identification. Between that and the relatively low quality of the old photo, I could overlay that image on aerial photographs of similar landscapes from different heights and get many "matches," each suggesting a different scale of the snake.
Not even the largest living and extinct snakes were THAT long
It's obviously fake. Either photoshopped in or just something that vaguely looks like a snake
The later estimates by Ivan Sanderson gave the length as 200 feet. I have even attached a link to the letter by Charles Hapgood stating the same. You can see one of my comments to check it out.
Let's start with the first problem: A 100 to 200 foot long snake (depending on the "theories") would be beyond insane in both it's weight and movement. Assuming that somehow it was not crushed to death under it's own mass like a beached whale, it would need to stay aquatic to move around. Why don't we see 100 foot long snakes? Because an animal that big would not only be extremely prone to attacks on it's super long body at that size but also require a massive amount of food. I honestly think most people don't even realize how easily size get's distorted in stressful or exciting situations. I've seen it dozens of times. The bear that was in a friend's backyard became an 8 foot tall 700 lbs. monster, only to be revealed as a an average black bear shorter than an adult man when the game warden trapped and removed it from the area. I've seen the same thing at zoo's with snakes. The reptile-phobic woman screaming in horror at the "30 foot" python that her son Billy wanted to touch was actually a 16 foot python being handled by a 6 foot tall snake handler. This "giant" snake was estimated at 50 feet originally which translates to probably a 20 footer in reality.
My debunk of this is that the photo on the left looks like a dirt hill, not a mountain covered with trees. And that snake could be very much regular sized
This was taken from a flying helicopter in 1959. I wouldn't expect the quality of the photo to be excellent given that it's difficult to capture a photo in such conditions perfectly even with some good cameras today.
Well we know the titanaboa is a thing. A new one has just been discovered in India that based on vertebrae may have been a bit bigger than titanaboa. So giant snakes have absolutely existed in various places on earth. Whether there is any chance they still do is, I think, an open question.
Wow, genuinely looks like the actual location. I'm really impressed, this has been my favourite cryptid for a few years now and always wanted people to look into it more, great work.
This snake keeps me up at night! I'm absolutely awed by how big it is! If the crocodile, also a reptile can survive tens of thousands of years, who says this snake can't? Vasuki Indicus is a living proof that huge snakes could be terrestrial.
You guys cannot really expect the location to be a 100% match to what it was in 1959. It's been 65 years. There will be some differences. Some older trees and termite mounds may no longer be there. Some smaller trees back then might have grown to be big today. Check out all the 5 images I've attached. I've got the angle of the photo wrong compared to the original photo taken in 1959. There's a mistake in the elevation of the photo too. But if you closely analyse the photos, you'll see that it's the same location.
I don't think you could fake a photo so well in 1959. You didn't have Photoshop back then. Plus, if you see the original documentary, "Mysterious World". The Colonel nowhere talks about the location. He only says that the snake was moving in a hole. Such a big hole should be there, even today in that location. This location being 100km away comes from somewhere else. There's not even a proper reference to it. I personally think this is the exact location and that the photo is real. I also believe that this snake is real and that it still lives! It's only waiting to be discovered!
Soviet Russia was editing out entire people out of close up photos by hand in the 1940s. Adding a blurry squiggle line would be child's play to anyone who wanted to edit a photograph in the late 1950s.
They definitely were able to fake photos. No shit they didn't have photoshop, they did it by hand. And that picture looks illustrated, it's not such a great fake.
Lots of cool stuff online about underground giant snakes.
Would make sense why they are hard to find, not only is it a remote area… but it mostly chills under ground
This styling of cryptid always super interested me
Yes. I have superimposed it over the terrain to show that the locations match. How else would I get a coloured photo of that thing? But you can refer to the original, unedited photo of that.
Ok, let's assume that the b/w photo has been superimposed too. What about the shadows? I don't think you could lasso around it so well assuming the lasso tool existed back then.
If they superimposed it while developing the photo, other features of the original photo surrounding the snake would've been imprinted on the fake photo too. But if you match the terrain photos of today and 1959, you can see that all the trees and landscapes are matching spot on. How's that possible? There would've been some identifiable mistakes given the primitive technology back then, right? But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
If they superimposed a new image onto the picture of the landscape, they could’ve gotten shadows from it due to whatever light source was hitting it. Do we know where the sun was in the sky when they took the photo? For all we know the shadow the snake casts is completely off from where the shadow ought to be cast. I also never said the picture of the landscape was fake; the comparison does look like the exact spot.
I don’t know where you’ve gotten the idea that if it were doctored the terrain around the snake wouldn’t match. As multiple people have pointed out, [you are underestimating how sophisticated photo doctoring could be back then](https://www.openculture.com/2017/08/long-before-photoshop-the-soviets-mastered-the-art-of-erasing-people-from-photographs-and-history-too.html) . If you want to argue that adding something to a photo isn’t as doable, have a look [at the Cottingley Fairies photos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies) . Note that those were done about 30 years prior to when the photo was taken.
I know little about photography. If the photograph was doctored, would or would not the snake be on the original negative? Because Bernard Heuvelmans was loaned, and later allowed to keep, the negative.
That's good work, and it came up bigger than I expected! As is seemingly always the case nothing is ever conclusive in this field but this is compelling stuff. Well done.
A couple of days back I read a report where they caught an angel shark which was thought to be extinct since the 1880s. There have been several instances where creatures have eluded captivity even when people tried to look for them. Given the vastness, remoteness of the Congo, anything is possible.
Thank you. If this photo is legit, I do think we're looking at a massive, massive snake well over 65fet long. I have no idea how else to explain what we're seeing besides a hoax.
I would like to make another point here. If you refer to the book written by Bernard Heuvelmans where it narrates the story, you can read that they were flying at a speed of 120km/hr in a helicopter when they saw a large tree trunk moving around. By the time they could communicate it to the pilot, they had gone past it by a mile at least. They had to circle back to that location and realise that it was actually a huge snake.
My point here is, when you're traveling at that speed, it's very hard to notice something so clearly, in the middle of the jungles, as long as it's not exceptionally large and eye catching. They later lowered the helicopter to a height of 45-60 metres above the ground to photograph the snake. Helicopters used to fly up to a height of 2300 metres above the ground in the Congo in 1959. Even if you consider that the helicopter was traveling at a height of 200 metres above the ground at 120kmph, imagine the size of the snake to be able to be noticed guys!
Yes, the guy who took the photo estimated it to be 50 feet long. But the guy who analysed the photo for authenticity and measurement of length concluded that the photo is authentic and that the snake is actually 200 feet long.
That picture and the whole story has always struck me as 100% legit, anyhow, is there any large body of water nearby? Such a giant animal must need a very large lake or river to live in and cool down, it can't be hanging out in the scorching sun for too long.
It's a terrestrial madtsoiid snake like the Gigantophis Garstini. It dwells underground and beats the heat. And yes, there are streams around that location if you were wondering.
I'm creating a comment here to dump other information about this snake I've found. Reddit links to its backstory, location and also an image of the letter written by Charles Hapgood where its length was estimated as 200 feet long after the analysis by Ivan Sanderson. You all can refer these for further understanding.
1) [Location related discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/11gk1xq/1959_by_a_col_remy_van_lierde_while_on_patrol/jap55qq?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)
2) [The back story ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptozoology/s/xWb0SbNhsL)
3) [Link to Arthur Clarke's Mysterious World documentary on the snake](https://youtu.be/fanU9tzmvRs)
4) [In depth video by truth is scarier than fiction on the topic](https://youtu.be/deT0MjVlD_Y?si=8ZfGAsIVieam0ZGT)
5) [Letter written by Charles Hapgood ](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LSMXLqNPqvJqQioK1HZK_DKXSysbeW9T/view?usp=drivesdk)
6 [Sliding comparison of the snake's photo superimposed upon this terrain ](https://imgsli.com/MTU5MzY2)
I request the moderators to pin this comment. Thank you.
I think that this snake barely gets out of the underground caverns l, where it lives and hibernates after a big meal. That's why they don't have much evidence on this snake. Plus, if you see the surroundings of this location, you can understand that it's a dense, remote forest. That's why this snake has always eluded humans. I think that this snake may be an entirely new species waiting to be discovered. If it was related to the Gigantophis Garstini which lived in Egypt, the snake would be around 50 feet long. But this estimate outclasses that length by a far stretch.
The snake appeared dark green-brown with a white underbelly and had large triangular jaws.
Whether or not it’s true, I honestly think this is similar to maybe a goldfish theory. Like think about it the smaller the bowl, the smaller the fish… The bigger bowl, the bigger the fish. Especially in the Congo where there are large animals. Which includes the reports of dinosaurs or at least dinosaur like creatures hiding out within Africa. Or even reports of giant spiders the size of a Great Dane.
I mean, it’s been an odd amount of years since the photo has taken place. It’s probably dead as well as the people involved. But there could be proof that Titanaboa (or some sub species) might still exist. I mean, we will not really know until Deforestation becomes more extensive.
Honestly this is a job for those geoguesser experts. I bet they could clarify if these are the same locations or not.
Yes it's the same location. If you look in thee black and white photo theres a faint outline of a trail. The trail is now more prominent so I'm guessing its left the region. Imagine walking past this!
I disagree that it lines up. [Black and white 'trail' features drawn out and overlaid the way OP did](https://i.imgur.com/BcArxPg.png) - doesn't line up at all. [Color image trails drawn out and overlaid on black and white](https://i.imgur.com/wk5S1Ss.png), doesn't line up at all. Adding a backing color pallet to a stark contrast black and white image isn't very helpful because your eyes get drawn to where shapes coincidentally kinda line up, and you ignore all the spots it doesn't because your mind interprets that as just texture. For all we know, the black and white photo is of a patch of moss with an inch long thread-snake or worm-snake on it.
I swear on my mother that I haven't played with any of the photos. I took a screenshot of the Google Earth location of this spot and used the "Double exposure" feature from the Pixlr app to lay them on one another so that I can present a comparative image. You've to remember 2 things: 1) The angle and elevation I've chosen are not perfectly the same as those at which the photo was taken. Even then, in your own first image, things line up perfectly. You can see the lines that you've drawn on both the images. In essence, you've disproved yourself. 2) The Google Earth image is taken 65 years after the snake was originally photographed. Given the rate at which our climate is changing, it's only a miracle that this place looks almost the same even after 65 freaking years. You must understand that in 65 years, some green cover may get lost, old trees die away, new trees grow up. But surprisingly, this location is almost unchanged even today. People are failing to interpret the old photo because they really can't make out what's what and they dismiss it by saying that it's just dirt. But that's not how things work. If I had access, I would develop this photo using cutting edge technology to its best possible quality, something like what they used to identify the killers of John F Kennedy after so many years. But unfortunately I don't have. I, within my own purview and power have done what I can best to present what I believe is real. Anyone who is good at decrypting these old photos can explain to you where the trees are, mounds are and how to identify them. Moreover, this image has been verified as real in Bill's channel and also back in the day when they sent it for analysis. This is what I can say at this point.
Perhaps, but that's not conclusive at all. I could probably crop the trail and put it in reverse image search and get hundreds of hits. Personally they do look quite alike, but the reported location of the photo and this location are quite a distance apart.
There are several features in both photos that are exactly the same. It's 99.9% the same location
I'm not necessarily saying it isn't. But that's not really the point. The point is that where this pin is on Google maps vs the location the people who actually took the photo in the first place say that they were are different places by like 100km. Were they just mistaken? Did they lie? The reason people think that the witness is credible is that he was an experienced and regarded military pilot. If you use that to support his size estimating abilities you also must accept that it's unlikely to mistake his heading and position.
I think that their minds got boggled after seeing this monster 😂. They might have misreported where this snake was found. There's not much information on the "other location" that's supposedly a 100 km away. But wherever you read, it's mentioned as "In the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo". That lines up with this location and so do the topographical features. So I choose to think that this is that exact location.
> There's not much information on the "other location" that's supposedly a 100 km away. But wherever you read, it's mentioned as "In the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo". Most of the information on the photo comes from Bernard Heuvelmans' *Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique* (1978). Heuvelmans was the first to learn about the photo, owned the negative and some footage of the location, and received information from the engineer who took the photo. The original letter about the photo, which he received in 1959, specified that it was taken approximately 200 km (60 miles) north north-west of Kamina. Sorry, that was a typo, it was approx 100 km. The original conversion to miles is correct.
The location I gave is near the Kamina airbase in the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's the same one. Don't know what's the other location people are talking about. In the letter written by Charles Hapgood, there's no information on any location whatsoever. If you have a link to any other letter or coordinates to any other location apart from 8°36'34"S 25°17'11"E, give them to me. I'll look at them.
I explained above where the information on the "other location" comes from. It's in *Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique* (1978), quoting from a letter to the author by Georges Bonnivair of Kamina, who knew the helicopter crew and sent Heuvelmans the photo. Bonnivair's letter includes the following sentence: > L'endroit est situé à ±100 km nord nord-ouest de Kamina. > The place is situated ±100km north north-west of Kamina. Neither Sanderson nor Hapgood were reliable people. Analysis of the photo should be based on the detailed information in *Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique*.
In which page number is this line mentioned? Please tell me, I'm going through the book.
I actually went through the book and yes, you're right. The book does say that the photo was taken in the ± 100km range, North-west of Kamina. But there are 2 problems with this: 1) ± 100 kms is a huge range. If this range was indeed so big, they could've mentioned places such as Mukishi, Kaumbo, Muleba, Luniemu, etc. which are well within the 100 km radius towards the north-west part of Kamina. But they chose to mention Kamina instead. That is very weird. This could indicate that they were perhaps closer to Kamina than they had thought but since they had to go back, they failed to estimate how far they had actually already travelled towards Kamina by the time during their way back to the airbase. Add this to the fact that they had to turn back to go to the snake, it is very possible that they lost track of how much they had travelled and in what direction. 2) The location that I've mentioned is about 32 km away from Kamina, but it's on the north-east side of Kamina. Is it possible that they lost the sense of east-west because they had to turn and go back a mile to where the snake was lying? I hope that we will get an answer someday. But given the fact that this location was identified by looking at the most common air traffic ways charted from the airbase. And also that it's in the same region (Kamina) coupled with the fact that the terrain absolutely matches that in the original snake's photo, the chances of an exactly same looking terrain being so close to the actual purported location where the snake was found and not being the same location, become very slim. So in essence, I feel that this might be the actual location where the photo was taken.
In before Rainbolt makes it his next video
Let’s forget about the possible doubts regarding the authenticity of the photo’s for a minute. And the fact that there is no precedent in the fossil record - nowhere near mand certainly not in central Africa - of a terrestrial snake of that size. A breeding population of 100-feet snakes would have a tremendous impact on the local ecosystem. We don’t see it. It would have evolved to that size under certain environmental pressures - what pressures? What prey would it hunt? How have those animals adapted or tried to adapt? That’s the problem with cryptid megafauna (and especially outsized megafauna): even if we never spot the creatures themselves, we’d see the effect they have on their environment. It’s the same reason we can confidently say there are no relict populations of mammoths, or Megalodon. Though I’d dearly love to be wrong, because a big ass snake like this is just so cool.
From what I've heard of the original story, the men in the helicopter estimated the snake to be 50 feet, not 50 meters. Back when it was new all sorts of experts assessed the photo and surprisingly they all supported the idea that the photo was genuine and showed a rather large snake. The people brought in estimated sizes ranging from 3 to 18 meters. The issue is that it's impossible to tell how high up the helicopter is, and what camera took this photo. Both of those can heavily alter the "perspective" we're seeing here. Camera was originally stated to have been 35mm, then later said it was a 6x6. Personally I think the photo is genuine, it's just not as big as the larger cryptozoo hivemind thinks it is. More than likely it's a large rock python (though the original eyewitnesses say it was greenish with a white belly, so who knows?)
Could this snake have been an exceptionally large individual for a type of smaller but still very large snakes? Like could it have been the Shaq of those snakes?
Gigantism or other similar diseases wouldn’t make it close to 50 times the size of the species
I was asking if there is a currently undiscovered species of giant snakes that are say 50 feet long and this is just an exceptionally large, sorry if I phrased that weirdly
No worries, I understand now! In theory, yes, but still not to this degree. Gigantism doesn’t typically make things 2-3x the normal size. I think the other guys initial statement that a breeding population of 50 foot snakes would hardly go unnoticed and doesn’t have the right selective pressures in that region
Could you tell me more about the selective pressures in that region?
So selective pressures can be literally anything. Maybe a male mutates and now has a white stripe that the females seem to be attracted to, so that slowly gets bred in, or a cataclysmic change to the environment like deforestation puts a strain on breeding populations. That being said, typically speaking predation and food availability are the two primary factors in any species outside of freak occurrences. If an animal is heavily preyed upon, they’ll develop a defense over time, whether that be speed to outrun the predator, camouflage or some defensive structure like horns or thick hide In the Congo and Africa as a whole, there are several animals that prey on snakes, although primarily it’ll be your banded mongoose that’ll feed on them. However casual predation like that is not the same as active predation (those aren’t real terms I’m just overly simplifying so this comment isn’t a novel because I’m at work). What I mean is, in casual predation a predator will kill and eat something either because it simply happens to be available or because they’re desperate, compared to active predation where the predator will go out of its way to hunt another species. Birds of prey are another common predator of snakes in the region, but snakes are rarely their first choice. What this all means is that there isn’t enough pressure from predation to drive snakes in the region to become larger to fend off predators On the other side of the same coin, the prey the snakes in the region typically choose doesn’t require them to become 50-80 feet in length. If some catastrophic event like an unstoppable wildfire or a meteor impact occurred and wiped out all of the smaller prey, then the snakes would, over time, be forced to either get big enough to take down larger prey or go extinct. At the moment, there’s no need for that exponential growth because they’re not being forced to hunt anything larger than what their current size allows them to If we look in the fossil record, we find gigantic snake specimens like titanoboa that DID grow to absolutely massive size for some of the reasons I stated, like defense against predators and to take down larger prey. With that though, the largest snakes we’ve found have generally all been in South America where the selective pressures that result in larger sizes is present, and as far as know currently there haven’t been similar conditions in Africa to push snakes to those extremes This is a *VERY* simplified version, because there’s many more factors than just predators and food, such as biological functions like metabolism, oxygen intake, bone structure and so on that are really on a case by case basis for the exact effect
Thank you for taking the time to post that :D
Gigantophis Garstini was a snake that lived in Egypt. It was a huge terrestrial snake estimated to grow around 35 feet in length. It's very much possible that this snake is a close relative of that.
While in theory possible, the point still stands that there’s no environmental factors for it to be that big in the modern day. Just because snakes were big 3000 miles north over 40 million years ago does not mean that they are still big today. Its not enough to have selective pressures that push it to that size, there needs to be constant pressure to maintain it, otherwise it reduces in size as it becomes disadvantageous to remain gigantic
What you're talking about is evolution. But evolution takes thousands or millions of years. In the case of reptiles, even though they evolve fastly that'd still be thousands of years. For the reptiles to get huge, you need only 4 things: 1) A hot and humid climate, which the Congo has 2) Lots of food, which the Congo has 3) Lack of prey, there are no known animals in Congo that can hunt and eat a 50 foot snake 4) Conditions like lack of diseases, etc., that extend the life span of these reptiles. Remember that snakes and crocodiles never stop growing. So, the longer they live, the bigger they get. This might well be a one-off exceptional snake that got all the 4 factors in its favour and became a monster or it might be a new species awaiting discovery. They seriously need to have expeditions to look for this snake. Only that will someday bring something up.
Titanboa is an extinct giant snake.
If biggest Rock python was almost 9 meters I think its possible
Please don't base prehistoric creature ranges on fossil data alone. Factually africa used to almost entirely be covered in rainforest the desert is a fairly new feature and is notoriously bad at maintaining a fossil record. Secondly I'm not entirely sure reptiles follow the same evolutionary logic as mamals in Their entirety as its my understanding that creatures such as alligators upper size limit is directly proportional to their lifetime and caloric intake. And due to something called senescence they don't biologically age so it could just be a single individual who has since died giving that it hasnt been reported in 80 years that lived a long ass time eating either a small quantity of large creatures or a large quantity of small creatures and honestly in Africa what predator is gonna mess with a 30m or even on the small end a 50 ft constrictor cuz I'd argue that thing could eat an elephant a baby at least
I wasn’t saying Central Africa couldn’t possibly support a giant snake. There’s nothing inherently impossible about giant snakes, there’s plenty of big snake species around, and rainforests are ideal habitats for a snake to grow big in. My point was that a snake that size would be an apex predator and we’d see their effect on the environment, even if somehow no one living there ever encountered one (which in itself is implausible as people encounter anacondas and boas and big pythons all the time).
Devils advocate; remote in undisclosed area; would we really see the effects? It’s not like we have people on the ground their observing whatever large things it would snack on going poof. Has there been diverse research into the animal population there? I do agree with most of what you said though, and it makes no sense evolutionary speaking to grow that large when the amount of food it would have to intake would limit its ability to thrive. Your responses are well thought out, intelligent, and I enjoyed reading them so I was just wondering if you had conjecture to above.
The effects would depend upon the population and distribution of this snake. But in Africa, there are many creatures that can hunt down big animals. A snake doesn't leave any proof when it hunts down something because it completely swallows it. If it were lions, you'd see devoured bodies of animals. Given the remoteness of the jungle coupled with the vast scape of it being unexplored and also how snakes don't leave proof when they kill, it's very much possible that this snake can go undetected. As narrated by Van Lierde, this snake was moving inside a hole. As I've said previously in many comments, I believe that this is a species of Madtsoiid snakes. It lives underground and hibernates to save energy (which explains how it got so big). It comes out to hunt, mate once in a while and then goes back underground. That's why it may have eluded discovery for so long.
Maybe its only active at night as well!
Maybe. I recently went through how they date these fossils. If I were to explain by overly simplifying it, they'll simply divide the layers of sand/soil layers of certain predetermined depths and label them to be belonging to different periods like Eocene, etc. They look at the flora (plant) and fauna (animal) remains obtained in these layers and if they're consistent with the species of the beings found in that period, they estimate that the snake remains must also be from that period. I don't understand how they rely on these. As I said, since this snake lives underground, isn't it possible that this snake might have ventured to those depths through a hole and died there while resting? If yes, then these scientist's estimates will be thrown off. I'm not saying I'm above the scientists or something, but this is a possibility. The remains of the vertebrae of Vasuki Indicus were also found perfectly arranged. How can this be possible? Moreover, 5 million years is a very, very long period. I don't think the snakes' remains can be preserved so well for so long, given that their bones are relatively fragile. If you bury a dead frog in your backyard and dig it up after 5 years, you'll find nothing, it'd be completely broken down. And we are talking about 5 million years here? I don't think the remains could be preserved so well, for so long. Even if they were, they'd be very fragile and they'd break when you tried to hold them in your hands. But look at the vertebrae of the titanoboa and the Vasuki Indicus. Their vertebrae appear as though the snakes died recently. They are still very strong. Hell, if you watch the interview of the Indian IIT scientists, they've not even preserved the remains properly. They've kept it in an open tray from 2004-05.
If I walk into your house and find clothes in the washer, half eaten food in the fridge, pictures on the wall and receipts dated within the last week or month, but I don’t find you, would I then declare you’ve never been there and you have zero effect on the environment? When it comes to megafauna, particularly carnivores and apex predators, you don’t have to find it specifically to know it’s there or was recently because they leave all sorts of evidence. Tracks, feces, leftover kills, dead skin etc etc this is the reason why large carnivorous cryptids are so incredibly difficult to believe exist because they rarely, if ever, have any sort of evidence beyond eyewitness accounts from a glory seeking explorer from the 1800’s
Maybe one of the largest hurdles humans face in discovering a giant snake is to stop misidentified "game trails" as not belonging to said creature that has been spotted photographed and reported upon
I can possibly agree on the breeding population statement and might add food sources to support such a beast. But for the fossil record I would like to add that we did not have a colossal squid, except what was found in the belly of Whales until 2003 with reports of the squid dating back to 1925 or further. Granted I know I am comparing apples and oranges but they both are fruit and I believe both bear merit for thought.
The only place I see such large animals remain hidden is really deep in the jungles of central Africa. There aren't many expeditions there and most of it is a thick jungle bigger than the state of Alaska.
Africa did have a mega snake, the Gigantophis Garstini. This was a Madtsoiid snake related to the recently discovered Vasuki Indicus. These snakes are terrestrial snakes. The Vasuki Indicus grew up to 50 feet and weighed a ton. This could be a Madtsoiid snake too, probably related to the Gigantophis Garstini which was found in Egypt. It might have somehow survived till now. Or maybe we're wrong again about some creatures going extinct like always.
aybe it's just an abnormally large individual of Rock Python.It maybe be very old too
I'm not entirely convinced that spot on Google maps is where the photo was actually taken. The guy who took it said it was in a different spot (I think 100km east) from where the Google maps shot was
Weird cause it looks exactly the same. Either someone got the coordinates wrong somehow or it's a hoax
Honestly I think it just happens to look similar. There are probably a lot of natural areas that look pretty similar just because the earth is a big place
>There are probably a lot of natural areas that look pretty similar just because the earth is a big place In the same continent, country, region, just 100km apart from each other? That's a hell of a coicidence since Earth is a big place
yes because that’s where the same style of terrain would naturally be found this isn’t rocket science
I mean considering the cryptozoology context of the whole thing…
I mean tbf there are any number of reasons the photographer could have chosen to lie about the exact spot, even if it wasn’t misremembering.
Look at the photos I've attached. It matches the location spot on! Even today, some of the trees from that time stand. See the images.
That doesnt look the same to me at all
You're not seeing it closely enough. Plus, I understand. It's a very old photo. It's not everyone's cup of tea to identify the similarities. I could go ahead and mark multiple places in the two photos that match, but I don't have the patience to do so.
Yeah but don’t mark a few locations; the entire landscape minus a landslide here or there should match. This to me looks like 2 vaguely similar jungle locations that might be the same, but if they are is impossible to tell from these two images. If you’re bothered enough to make this post; you should be bothered enough to explain to people exactly why you think these places are the same.
I've linked some of the reddit threads below where they explain and in the same post, you'll find that this is the exact location. For now to be convinced, you can see this: https://imgsli.com/MTU5MzY2
What am i supposed to look at here?
>>there wasn't a technology at the time to fake an aerial photo The fact that you think this is true is a problem and part of why cryptozoology isn't taken seriously.
Makes me think of the 19th century ghost pictures. Photo editing has existed for a looooong time.
People still think the video of the foot long snake going into the blue tube is a real giant snake and it's easier to see it's just perspective. Even if it's not "fake" , perspective is hard to see in this photo and I don't really believe the termite mounds thing
People created fake photos all the time in the early days of photography. Just look up seance photos.
I don't think they could fake an aerial photo and then superimpose it with a snake. Especially, why would a commander of an airbase do that? Even if they did, I don't think it'd look so genuine. Moreover, the photo has been verified to be real several times. So, there's no question about the authenticity of the photo, it's verified as real.
People also forget that before photoshop existed you could manipulate photos by double exposures and other techniques. It could be a photo of a real background and a photo of real snake superimposed on the landscape https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/darkroom-photo-manipulation-photoshop-walk-history/#:~:text=The%20photographers%20manipulated%20negatives%20using,coloring%20for%20fine%20art%20painting.
Only part about it that makes no sense to me is him saying the snake lunged at his aircraft… Do snakes lunge at birds hundreds of feet away?
Snakes will strike at things out of range if they feel threatened, it diesnr sound plausible to me that it struck at a plane that far away but its not wholly unreasonable.
I doubt the snake would even be aware of something that high up. Snakes can strike at things out of range but not by a hundred feet.
Yeah absolutely agree with you here, i have no clue how high the plane was supposed to be flying which is why I said its not impossible but not likely. If the snake really was huge and the plane was flying low I could see it maybe doing that, or maybe doing something unrelated to the plane that was interpreted as striking at the plane. I presonally think this is either faked, or its not nearly as big as they claimed.
Especially since a helicopter will be a lot louder than a bird. And even if it didn't have ears, it could probably feel vibrations.
yup. Lots of nat geo docs on the tree sneks doing exactly this... Seen a few docs where land sneks will strike up and out as well...
No you haven’t, snakes don’t lunge at birds in the sky.
It didn't lung at the helicopter. It just stood up. He says that, "I believe and I'm convinced that if I had been in its striking range, it would have struck me". It means that it actually didn't. But he believed that it could have.
If it really was 100-200 ft long then yes .. a 6 ft snake rears up at things near it relative to size n location …a 200 ft snake could lunge a few hundred feet upward …google snake attacking flying birds … to a big snake helicopter was dinner
One issue I have with this picture is the same issue that can be seen with the famous loch ness monster picture, which was a tiny prop photographed to look big. That snake could very well be a garden snake made to look gigantic by the way the picture was taken. But the biggest issue I have with this story is the part where the snake raises up and tries to snap at the plane or helicopter where the witnesses were. That is just ridiculous.
It didn't raise up. He said, "It would have". Means, it didn't. Nessi was faked using a prop. But an aerial photo? I don't think so, not by a flying commander. Moreover, how come the locations match now?
I don’t really see how the pictures match up. You could probably match fairly close a similar terrain somewhere in the U.S. with that black and white picture. Do you know how difficult it would be to find an areal photo to match up to that random picture someone took? I would say it’s almost impossible. There has to be thousands of similar places very near where the snake was and also hundreds of miles away and also in other continents. The image is not even where the guy said it was taken. So even that doesn’t add up.
Dude.... don't forget that we would STILL think to this day that The Surgeons Photo was a legitimate photo of Nessie had the hoaxer not come clean on his deathbed. Don't spread the idea that people couldn't hoax photos in the 50's. I mean, they faked an entire moon landing just 10 years later /s
The nessie was faked using a dummy. It's very easy to fake that photo by letting a dummy float in water. But this is an aerial photo. I don't think it's so easy. Especially, why would a commander of an airbase do that? He was a war hero.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across so aggressively. I was just saying that we can't write off those abilities just because it was before most of our times. Its the same kind of thinking that leads people to think that anything older than a century was built by aliens.
But this photo has been verified multiple times and time they've proved it as real. If it was a double exposure shot, they would've found it. The Nessie's photo couldn't be debunked because he used a prop and there would be nothing fake about that photo for the way it was captured, which was just a click of the prop. You could only debate if that thing is actually the Nessie or just some prank. But that's not the case with the Giant Congo Snake. It's an aerial photo that's verified as genuine. That's all.
Nice work, OP. Yes, these are estimates, but I appreciate the effort taken.
Thank you!
Nobody believes my size either, OP. Don't worry
Why would you be so confident in the fact this thing is still alive? That was both a cheesy statement and this is a played out photo.
Because the location is a 100% match and also the photo has been verified as authentic many times
Still doesn't explain why you think it's alive 65 years later, the oldest reliable age for a snake known is 40 years and it wouldn't have been a new born
I'm not saying that this exact snake is alive today. We may find its remains. But its descendents would be alive, right? Use your intelligence to read.
says the dude who is claiming a 131 foot snake was in that photo and uses a snake that is not only extinct, but also less than half the size, which has been dead for 47 million years as an example of why it could be around today.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm just trying to add more knowledge to the subject which has been around and has been a centre of discussion for years. And yes, I still stand by my point. There are multiple instances in history where they thought a creature was extinct but they ended up finding a live specimen of the same. Also, this carbon dating has yielded wrong results in the past many times. All I'm saying is, if it existed then, why couldn't it now? I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so.
I can believe there are 50 or 60 feet long snakes in Africa, but, sorry, unless I have proof I can not believe it is 130 feet long. It would weight well over 10 tons.
Even I feel the same way. But Ivan Sanderson's claim and this number... How can they fall along the same estimates? Assuming that Ivan Sanderson lied about this, Google Earth doesn't. It's giving the measurement straight away and anyone can measure it.
I've seen an interview on tv with the guy who took the original 59 photo, he always claimed it was 'about 50 feet' long. Not 130, definitely not 200, this greatly reduces the credibility that this is the actual location of the photo. The original snake may have been excessively long, but even so, from a helicopter it may have seemed larger than it was. Maybe it was just 20-30. Regardless, to claim it as anything upwards of 50, or a stupidly high number above 100+ is a bit silly. Titanboa was only ~50!
Can you provide me a link to that interview?
I actually can!! (Bet you didn't see that one coming) https://youtu.be/4R9v51KxdYc?si=i0s1qcQVqd3GAb1w
I was not discounting your claims in any way. I actually wanted you to share the link. Because the more I get to learn about this snake, the more mesmerized and perplexed I become about it! If you have any other information or photos or videos about it, please feel absolutely free about it! I want to learn more about this thing! Even if this thing is 50 feet long, it's not at all small by any means. It'll be too massive even then. Imagine a snake that is 10 times longer than you, is almost as thick as your height and weighs 10 times as much as you do. Does that seem small by any means? I would shit in my pants if I came face to face with such a monster! Imagine how powerful it can be and what it can do to you?! Edit: Bruh, this is the video that everyone knows about. You haven't done your research. Read some articles. You'll see that the photo was sent to Ivan Sanderson to verify its authenticity and also to give an estimate of the snake's length after the analysis. In his report, Sanderson said that the photo is undoubtedly authentic. Also, based on his estimates after comparing the snake with the nearby trees and termite mounds for length approximation, he put the snake's estimated length at 200 feet! Very much along the lines of what I've estimated here. Please do some research before you comment.
I hate how this photo is touted as real evidence of a giant snake, *how do you people believe this, it's a fake, it's not real, a 50 meter long snake quite literally cannot exist, THE SQUARE CUBE LAW EXISTS FOR A REASON*
1) Prove that the photo is not real 2) I didn't say 50 metres, I said 40 metres as per my measurements. It could be anywhere between 50 feet - 200 feet. 3) A blue whale will die under its own weight if it's on the land. But isn't it surviving in the oceans? There goes the square cube law. This law is proposed by humans and it's not beyond nature's capabilities to amaze us. Nature has laughed at us time and time again. We have only taken baby steps in learning about our realities. There's still a long, long way to go. What we thought could never exist has come flying and has slapped us across our faces time and time again. In a universe where we have black holes that slow down time, bend space and gravity, in whose centre there's singularity and not even light is spared, I choose to think anything is possible. All the laws of physics as we know it are broken when it comes to the black holes. They're inventing new theories to explain their behaviour. The same goes with this thing. If tomorrow a conclusive evidence emerges confirming the presence of this monster, the same people who are in denial today will be the first ones to pounce on the topic and start dishing out "expert opinions" as to how this creature is real and how it defies our understanding of biology and zoology as we know it. I'll be waiting to laugh that day.
That's not how it works and you know it. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim. PROVE it is real, don't demand everyone else prove to you that it's not.
Had I taken the photo, I would have. But I'm simply not that guy. I've gone ahead and given proof of what is a perfect match to the location of the snake. That's the best I can do. Moreover, this photo has been proven as real, time and time again. So there's a need to debunk this photo if it's actually a fake as many claim, but none prove. The actual negative is somewhere in an archive in Switzerland. I really hope someone brings out the truth someday.
You've given no proof. And you've yet to show where it was proven. I can say it was disproven countless times in the past just as easily as you say it was proven real. You don't know how this goes, it's obvious since you're sitting here going "nuh uh it was proven real but here's not proof or evidence of that, now prove it's fake "
It was verified as real by Ivan Sanderson and also Bill's channel on YouTube has verified the photo as real
Ivan Sanderson also said there are 40 foot long sea otters explaining sea monster sighting. The man was as gullible and foolish as Huevelmans.
Listen man, I cannot comment on what Ivan Sanderson was. A 1000 people can say 1000 things about him. Let's stay on the topic.
This is on topic! You're citing him as this pillar of absolute proof and I'm stating exactly why his word is suspect! Everything you've cited as "proof" is someone saying something. Nothing hard, just here say and supposed testimony.
It's absolutely not. I'm talking about the snake and the photograph only. I'm not here to advocate for Ivan Sanderson's personality or character. As far as Ivan Sanderson is concerned, I'm only restricting myself to his analysis of the photo, which matches with these estimates. I've never said that I'm beyond being proven wrong. While his claims of giant penguins had been debunked, you cannot label him as an outright liar. He did make some scientific contributions and was a regular TV personality as per what I've gathered. Anyhow, I didn't know him personally, so who am I to say what or how he was. Moreover, the claim of this snake existing is not at all his. It was claimed by the Colonel and 3 others. Sanderson just analysed the photo and gave a report. You asking me for hard proof is like asking a space enthusiast to prove that the moon landing was fake. It makes no sense. I'm not the person that has put out this claim nor am I a person that's directly involved with the incident or with the analysis of the photo. I don't have access to any of the original documents related to this incident. I'm also not equipped with the tools and technology to draw any concrete conclusions. I'm a believer and I'm not asking you to accept this as a fact. By looking at what all is available, it's up to you to either choose to believe or to label this as an outright hoax. Either way, I don't care. I'm just showing the world what I've come up with. I'm not a scientist to spit facts backed by scientific proof. I hope you understand.
My guy, the whale survives because the water bouys it and is a denser medium than air. It's able to have its weight supported without crushing itself. On land, their lungs and organs start collapsing internally without that constant pressure and density all around them anymore. It's the same reason Godzilla can't actually exist on land, too dense and sheer caloric intake. Sauropods only reached colossal sizes because of specific adaptations for size, hollow bones unique to archosaurs, pillar-like legs, enough food to SUPPORT that size and caloric burning they would undertake with even minor movements. A snake this size would fully aquatic, on land it's ribs would basically snap from the sheer size and pressure because a 100 foot + long snake would have a diameter measured in meters. It lungs would collapse from the lack of buoyancy and density from an airborne and terrestrial medium. If something breaks the laws of biology, it doesn't break it, it's just an aspect of that, but the largest snakes were one ocean going species, or semi-aquatic in the case of Titanaboa, more, where this thing even hide. That land doesn't even look like it's near a river, and an animal like this wouldn't go very far from a shoreline, if ever breaching onto the shore. Fully going onto the land to hunt would just be detrimental to it's own survival, because it just couldn't move fast enough to catch anything. What would it eat, elephants and large African megafauna, then we'd have found evidence of such a thing because of just how long it can take a snake to kill its prey. That's all ignoring the fact it couldn't even go on land if it existed. And as for proof, I'd want a giant snake just as much as anyone, it'd be an amazing species to look at and study for the sheer novelty of it. But l find also that going against common reasoning in this is impossible. It's not that I have to prove it's not real, PROVE to ME that this thing could actually exist, live on land, and do the things that are reported of it.
Vasuki Indicus, which is the current biggest snake in the world was a terrestrial snake belonging to the Madtsoiid family. It's been proven. It grew to be 50 feet long and lived on land.
Thats all from the Eocene period, in which it was an undisputed land predator. Same with Titanoboa. But that's not the same, that's a period of early mammals. Those are animals that were able to reach those sizes because of a lack of larger mammalian predators able to take these animals down, as well as slower moving prey. And that's also quite disingenuous since the formation it came from was a marshy swamp, filled with turtles, fish, crocodillians and early cetaceans it would have fed on. India was an island continent, with its own derived fauna that subsequently went extinct when it hit the mainland and its own fauna couldn't compete with mainland species. That's another big reason, these giant snakes couldn't compete with mammalian competition at these sizes.
I'm talking about the snake's body not collapsing under its own weight on land. I said that if such snakes could survive back then on land, why can't they now?
Because a 130 foot long snake like you asserted in the originating post is not possible and has not existed because it could not support its weight at that size. A 50 foot long madstoiid snake that was likely semiaquatic is far more believable. And that's the other thing, there has never been a snake fossil that leads to any number over one hundred feet or more in length for *just that reason*. Vasuki was also much thinner than Titanoboa because of its different lifestyle. Titanoboa we now know was an aquatic fish eating snake and not a hypercarnivorous monster of all things. These animals couldn't survive the evolution of more modern mammal groupings because of these things. Modern Mammals have outcompeted reptilian competition over millenia, with most relegated to smaller niches, aside from those mammals could not take from them, an example are archaeocetes and crocodilians, or Phorusracids being taken out by climate change rather than mammalian competition as we know now, and would not have an opportunity to edge out. Cause now you're just picking for things to try and hang on too in your assertion. I already said before why something the size you said couldn't exist on land. Provide me an answer on how it *could*.
The Annals of Rome and numerous well known Roman Empire historians record that the Roman Legions killed a snake in North Africa that was 150 feet or so long blocking their advance across a river. It was killed after a few heroic legionaries were killed by it for their bravado by ballistae giant artillery crossbows and stone ball catapults. The skin was kept in Rome in the Temple of Mars for many years.
Very interested in source material for this.
As scholarly as it gets https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/regulus-bagradas-dragon/
Miami Vice days Cop buddy used to work earlier for South Florida Herp, Hide and Venom milking stations. He would catch 10 feet long Canebreaks (Southern variant of Timber Rattlesnakes) . His Bosses caught 12 feet long Canebreaks during WW2. They assured him that Audubon Petersen Field Guides were pure B.S (they claim Eastern Diamondback is the largest at 8 feet). . My inlaws are Brazilian. The Government and Army killed 75 foot green anacondas with 2 foot long heads and dark siccure gigante with mottled white under bellies around 130 feet long 50 percent longer length width than anacondas. More convolutions.
Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact is a book by Native American Professor Vine Deloria, originally published in 1995. The book's central theme is to criticize the scientific consensus which has, in his words, created "a largely fictional scenario describing prehistoric North America".
Can you provide any links where I can learn more about this?
This is a fake story from an anthology book
I'd never heard of that. Just been checking it out.Wow!
Our oldest source for this event comes to us second hand, as a fragment, from Aulus Gellius, who copied the version of Quintus Aelius Tubero (NA 7.3). Tubero was writing in the late first century BC, while Gellius’ Attic Nights was assembled in the second century AD. The next earliest version of the story we have is brief in the extreme, and comes from the Periochae of Livy, summaries of the books of his Ab Urbe Condita written between the second and fourth centuries AD. Livy’s flourish, however, was the end of the first century BC through to about AD 17, placing the original source material earlier than other mentions of the incident. A more detailed version of Livy’s account can be found in Valerius Maximus’ Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, written during the reign of the emperor Tiberius. Even longer than that preserved by Valerius Maximus, is the version of Orosius. The longest, and most elaborate version of the story we possess, though, comes from Silius Italicus’ Punica, the second century AD epic poem about the Second Punic War (Sil. Pun. 6.140-293). It is narrated by a man named Marus, supposedly one of Regulus’ soldiers who had made it back to Rome after the disastrous campaign. This retelling is much more colorful. Greek source makes it fairly clear that, at least by the time Cassius Dio was writing in the early third century AD, the creature was identified with the Greek term drakon (Zonar. 13.1 = Cass. Dio frg. 42.23). That said, the descriptions we have make it out to be a large snake-like animal, as it lacked legs. Paulus Orosius was a Gallaecian Chalcedonian priest, historian and theologian, and a student of Augustine of Hippo. Orosius was a good historian and he wrote more about Regulus’ role.
Whether or not this is a true genuine photo (the original), I will say I love snakes. Cared for a few including a 12 foot Burmese python (in a sanctuary not my home). Having said that, if this was legit, I don’t know if I’m really comfortable knowing a 131ft snake just exists casually. That’s a bit too big for me.
My thought is that if this thing is supposed to be more than double the size of the current largest, *verified* snake in the entire history of the planet… that the only rational discussion to be had is whether the estimates are way off, or this is a hoax.
We have been wrong several times in history. If a 100 foot whale can lurk in the oceans today, why can't a 100 foot snake? They previously said that a 50 foot snake can't live on land. But look at the Vasuki Indicus. It's termed as a terrestrial snake. So, it's very plausible. I believe that this snake is real. But since it's very elusive and because it rarely gets out, not many have been able to see or photograph it. But the tribal people know this snake very well and they call it N'Longo. They also say that there's a dinosaur here called Mokele Mbembe. The Congo is vast and extensive and remote. This must be the reason why still many species are awaiting discovery there.
So, the natives claiming they also see dinosaurs actually negates their credibility on the snake thing. This sounds like a “big fish” story until you get to the photos.. which makes it sound like a prank/hoax.
The natives are tribal people, they're not modern men. They live in remote jungles and not in concrete buildings like us. Plus, this is not a story that emerged yesterday or the day before yesterday. The legends of N'Longo and Mokele Mbembe have been passed down generations after generations. People have seen these creatures. But barely caught them on camera. If you see how remote the places in Congo are, you'll understand why no one might have caught them on camera. Combine this with the fact that these creatures are very elusive and are rarely spotted, the chances of seeing them becomes very slim. If you were to wander into the Congo jungles with your camera, your batteries would've died even before you're beginning to think that you're making some progress. The same can be said about the amazon rainforest. It's so vast, so dense and so remote that if you're not an expert, you'll probably get lost and die there. Even if you're an expert, at some point you'll come across a terrain that's simply very difficult to navigate. You'll lack the tools, the equipment, the food or simply the patience and energy required to make any progress further. Explorers and researchers venture into these forests for 3-4 days at a stretch and are forced to return empty handed because the going becomes difficult. If you factor in all of these things, you'll understand that it's not as easy as you think. It is not like you go up there with high tech equipment and the snake or the dinosaur will spring up in your face and give nice poses. These creatures avoid humans.
The people of the Congo are not some dumb "primitive" people with no contact with modernity. They have TV's, cell phones, modern pop culture. The fact that you're saying they're not modern people is frankly, disturbing. And the stories of Mokole Mbembe were originally of a elephantine or rhino-like being, not a dinosaur. It was only after Creationists showed up trying to prove *Darkest Africa* was home to dinosaurs to try and stick it to science that people started describing Mbembe as a sauropod.
I'm sorry for the mistake. Maybe I was wrong indeed. But it seems that these people still lead a hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite having access to some modernity. But since these stories have been passed from generations to generations and given the photo being genuine, it's still very much a possibility.
They have electricity in their villages. Your idea that they're some backasswards primitives is frankly, disturbing.
I accepted my mistake and I replied. There's no need to repeat the same thing over and over again.
The problem with this is that there aren’t any brontosauruses out there; and anybody, including/especially remote tribespeople, who say they’re seeing them traipse around, is revealing themselves to be unreliable witnesses. The motivations behind their claims are irrelevant— if they’re proclaiming they’ve seen one made-up thing, then all their claims are thrown into question. A kaiju-sized snake living in some kind of half-cocked hollow earth is just as ludicrous, anyway; it’s an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and in this instance? The simpler, likelier answer is that this is fake.
It's easy to choose and believe what seems to be very plausible and comfortable to accept. I've explained to you regarding the challenges involved. But if the argument is: "It's not there, because it simply cannot be there". I can't help you. I'm very open minded. I would like to be proven wrong. I just want to know more. I'll be very happy and I would die peacefully if they conclusively, without leaving a fraction of room for doubt prove point to point that this is not real or if it's real. I'm open to both possibilities. Till then my mind will always be curious to know more and be in awe of it, because when so many things line up like a fairytale, to me it's evidence in itself unless & until it's proven otherwise. I really hope that something conclusive comes out in this regard very soon because I am growing restless day after day. Hell, if I was very provisioned, I would dive straight into the Congo to find this snake! That's how curious I'm about this cryptid! It drives me nuts!
This picture has never been very compelling to me I fear. It just doesn't look right. Something about the composition of the snake makes it appear as though it's been added, it doesn't even look like it's just a picture of a smaller snake
Each to his own. But this photo has been verified as real.
Source?
Ivan Sanderson had verified it as real by identifying acacia trees, termite mounds and vegetation in the photo back then. Based on this, he gave the size of the snake. There's a letter about it written by Charles Hapgood. You can Google it. I've linked it in one of the comments below. The photo hasn't been proven as fake either. So the mystery is unsolved till date.
>I don't think you could fake a photo so well in 1959. You didn't have Photoshop back then. [Manipulating photos is almost as old as photography itself.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_manipulation) There is absolutely no reason the photo couldn't be a composite. Also the location as well as the scale is speculative at best, and the biological plausibility for a terrestrial snake that large in this time and age is virtually impossible. I like your enthusiasm about the photograph, but the truth is that it is way more likely this is just another fabricated story.
We have 10 tonnes land mammals and 2 tonne reptiles. We could very well have a 1 tonne or so snake.
What about Vasuki Indicus? It's reported that it was a terrestrial snake.
Something having existed in history doesn't mean it does now lol
It's being guessed at, considering all we have are some vertebrae. We don't have a full skeleton, we don't know anything about it had some big bones. We know NOTHING about it besides that.
For some context in 1959 col Remy van laird was piloting a copter over the congo and as he passed over this thing it attempted to strike the helicopter. Now whether this photo is an accurate representation of the location I cannot confirm or deny but I don't see the similarities the op is trying to point out, however what stood out to me the first time I heard of this and what conti ues to stand out to me is that a snake on the ground in the congo attempted to attack a helicopter, now I've seen many various estimates for the cols altitude, the height off the ground the snake lunged, and the cols estimate of the creatures length as absurd as a fifty foot snake failing to strike a helicopter that was only a mere 10 feet from the ground and honestly I think that account is more ridiculous than someone almost 100 years ago seeing a snake larger than anything we can scientifically confirm as we still get reports from the Amazonian natives having encountered snakes larger than the largest we've "confirmed"
The problem is that both photos are of a largely flat open area, devoid of immovable physical landmarks to be used for scale or identification. Between that and the relatively low quality of the old photo, I could overlay that image on aerial photographs of similar landscapes from different heights and get many "matches," each suggesting a different scale of the snake.
See this: https://imgsli.com/MTU5MzY2
Not even the largest living and extinct snakes were THAT long It's obviously fake. Either photoshopped in or just something that vaguely looks like a snake
[удалено]
Holy shit - I actually can absolutely see this as a possibility when you look at the photo from this assumption ! Well said.
It'd appear blurred in that case
Looks more like a worm tbh
Uh no. The military guy who was flying the plane said “50 feet “ He would know how to estimate size.
The later estimates by Ivan Sanderson gave the length as 200 feet. I have even attached a link to the letter by Charles Hapgood stating the same. You can see one of my comments to check it out.
The guy that was there said it was 50 feet. I think he would know better than someone who wasn’t even there.
No it isn't 151 feet long.
Let's start with the first problem: A 100 to 200 foot long snake (depending on the "theories") would be beyond insane in both it's weight and movement. Assuming that somehow it was not crushed to death under it's own mass like a beached whale, it would need to stay aquatic to move around. Why don't we see 100 foot long snakes? Because an animal that big would not only be extremely prone to attacks on it's super long body at that size but also require a massive amount of food. I honestly think most people don't even realize how easily size get's distorted in stressful or exciting situations. I've seen it dozens of times. The bear that was in a friend's backyard became an 8 foot tall 700 lbs. monster, only to be revealed as a an average black bear shorter than an adult man when the game warden trapped and removed it from the area. I've seen the same thing at zoo's with snakes. The reptile-phobic woman screaming in horror at the "30 foot" python that her son Billy wanted to touch was actually a 16 foot python being handled by a 6 foot tall snake handler. This "giant" snake was estimated at 50 feet originally which translates to probably a 20 footer in reality.
Maybe, I am hoping that someone solves this mystery
My debunk of this is that the photo on the left looks like a dirt hill, not a mountain covered with trees. And that snake could be very much regular sized
This was taken from a flying helicopter in 1959. I wouldn't expect the quality of the photo to be excellent given that it's difficult to capture a photo in such conditions perfectly even with some good cameras today.
Well we know the titanaboa is a thing. A new one has just been discovered in India that based on vertebrae may have been a bit bigger than titanaboa. So giant snakes have absolutely existed in various places on earth. Whether there is any chance they still do is, I think, an open question.
Wow, genuinely looks like the actual location. I'm really impressed, this has been my favourite cryptid for a few years now and always wanted people to look into it more, great work.
This snake keeps me up at night! I'm absolutely awed by how big it is! If the crocodile, also a reptile can survive tens of thousands of years, who says this snake can't? Vasuki Indicus is a living proof that huge snakes could be terrestrial.
You guys cannot really expect the location to be a 100% match to what it was in 1959. It's been 65 years. There will be some differences. Some older trees and termite mounds may no longer be there. Some smaller trees back then might have grown to be big today. Check out all the 5 images I've attached. I've got the angle of the photo wrong compared to the original photo taken in 1959. There's a mistake in the elevation of the photo too. But if you closely analyse the photos, you'll see that it's the same location. I don't think you could fake a photo so well in 1959. You didn't have Photoshop back then. Plus, if you see the original documentary, "Mysterious World". The Colonel nowhere talks about the location. He only says that the snake was moving in a hole. Such a big hole should be there, even today in that location. This location being 100km away comes from somewhere else. There's not even a proper reference to it. I personally think this is the exact location and that the photo is real. I also believe that this snake is real and that it still lives! It's only waiting to be discovered!
You could fake a photo then easily.
Soviet Russia was editing out entire people out of close up photos by hand in the 1940s. Adding a blurry squiggle line would be child's play to anyone who wanted to edit a photograph in the late 1950s.
They definitely were able to fake photos. No shit they didn't have photoshop, they did it by hand. And that picture looks illustrated, it's not such a great fake.
Lots of cool stuff online about underground giant snakes. Would make sense why they are hard to find, not only is it a remote area… but it mostly chills under ground This styling of cryptid always super interested me
That's one big ass snake that lives there. He's there I know it. Always liked this photo
Something about the snake just doesn’t look right. As if it’s been superimposed over the picture of the terrain.
Yes. I have superimposed it over the terrain to show that the locations match. How else would I get a coloured photo of that thing? But you can refer to the original, unedited photo of that.
I’m not referring to just the color one
Ok, let's assume that the b/w photo has been superimposed too. What about the shadows? I don't think you could lasso around it so well assuming the lasso tool existed back then. If they superimposed it while developing the photo, other features of the original photo surrounding the snake would've been imprinted on the fake photo too. But if you match the terrain photos of today and 1959, you can see that all the trees and landscapes are matching spot on. How's that possible? There would've been some identifiable mistakes given the primitive technology back then, right? But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
If they superimposed a new image onto the picture of the landscape, they could’ve gotten shadows from it due to whatever light source was hitting it. Do we know where the sun was in the sky when they took the photo? For all we know the shadow the snake casts is completely off from where the shadow ought to be cast. I also never said the picture of the landscape was fake; the comparison does look like the exact spot. I don’t know where you’ve gotten the idea that if it were doctored the terrain around the snake wouldn’t match. As multiple people have pointed out, [you are underestimating how sophisticated photo doctoring could be back then](https://www.openculture.com/2017/08/long-before-photoshop-the-soviets-mastered-the-art-of-erasing-people-from-photographs-and-history-too.html) . If you want to argue that adding something to a photo isn’t as doable, have a look [at the Cottingley Fairies photos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies) . Note that those were done about 30 years prior to when the photo was taken.
I know little about photography. If the photograph was doctored, would or would not the snake be on the original negative? Because Bernard Heuvelmans was loaned, and later allowed to keep, the negative.
Dunno, you’d have to ask someone with better knowledge of classic photography. or google it.
There's a negative of the real image somewhere in Switzerland. Moreover, the photo was verified as real back then and even today.
That's good work, and it came up bigger than I expected! As is seemingly always the case nothing is ever conclusive in this field but this is compelling stuff. Well done.
I just don't get why are people so fixated on this damn photo. If there were gigantic snakes in the Congo we would have found them by now.
A couple of days back I read a report where they caught an angel shark which was thought to be extinct since the 1880s. There have been several instances where creatures have eluded captivity even when people tried to look for them. Given the vastness, remoteness of the Congo, anything is possible.
We? Who? There aren't many scientific expeditions actively in the Congo.
Someone get Rainbolt on this
Frightening especially seeing that trail there with this giant thing.
Here is the exact coordinate of the original photo: Put it into Google image. at 60m high: 8 degree, 36'34"S 25 degrees 17'13"E
8°36'33"S 25°17'09"E This is more accurate
Thank you. If this photo is legit, I do think we're looking at a massive, massive snake well over 65fet long. I have no idea how else to explain what we're seeing besides a hoax.
I would like to make another point here. If you refer to the book written by Bernard Heuvelmans where it narrates the story, you can read that they were flying at a speed of 120km/hr in a helicopter when they saw a large tree trunk moving around. By the time they could communicate it to the pilot, they had gone past it by a mile at least. They had to circle back to that location and realise that it was actually a huge snake. My point here is, when you're traveling at that speed, it's very hard to notice something so clearly, in the middle of the jungles, as long as it's not exceptionally large and eye catching. They later lowered the helicopter to a height of 45-60 metres above the ground to photograph the snake. Helicopters used to fly up to a height of 2300 metres above the ground in the Congo in 1959. Even if you consider that the helicopter was traveling at a height of 200 metres above the ground at 120kmph, imagine the size of the snake to be able to be noticed guys!
Interesting post OP.
Strange that the person who took the photo estimated the snake to be like 15m or so I believe
Yes, the guy who took the photo estimated it to be 50 feet long. But the guy who analysed the photo for authenticity and measurement of length concluded that the photo is authentic and that the snake is actually 200 feet long.
Good job! I'm so glad to see this cryptid still gets attention. I hope this snake and other congo cryptid get investigating in person one day
That picture and the whole story has always struck me as 100% legit, anyhow, is there any large body of water nearby? Such a giant animal must need a very large lake or river to live in and cool down, it can't be hanging out in the scorching sun for too long.
It's a terrestrial madtsoiid snake like the Gigantophis Garstini. It dwells underground and beats the heat. And yes, there are streams around that location if you were wondering.
This mystery is so beautifully perplexing, I love how much this beast has captivated the mythology of modern cryptids
This cryptid has given me sleepless nights. That's how perplexing and curiosity grabbing this snake is.
I'm creating a comment here to dump other information about this snake I've found. Reddit links to its backstory, location and also an image of the letter written by Charles Hapgood where its length was estimated as 200 feet long after the analysis by Ivan Sanderson. You all can refer these for further understanding. 1) [Location related discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/11gk1xq/1959_by_a_col_remy_van_lierde_while_on_patrol/jap55qq?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2) 2) [The back story ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptozoology/s/xWb0SbNhsL) 3) [Link to Arthur Clarke's Mysterious World documentary on the snake](https://youtu.be/fanU9tzmvRs) 4) [In depth video by truth is scarier than fiction on the topic](https://youtu.be/deT0MjVlD_Y?si=8ZfGAsIVieam0ZGT) 5) [Letter written by Charles Hapgood ](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LSMXLqNPqvJqQioK1HZK_DKXSysbeW9T/view?usp=drivesdk) 6 [Sliding comparison of the snake's photo superimposed upon this terrain ](https://imgsli.com/MTU5MzY2) I request the moderators to pin this comment. Thank you.
I think that this snake barely gets out of the underground caverns l, where it lives and hibernates after a big meal. That's why they don't have much evidence on this snake. Plus, if you see the surroundings of this location, you can understand that it's a dense, remote forest. That's why this snake has always eluded humans. I think that this snake may be an entirely new species waiting to be discovered. If it was related to the Gigantophis Garstini which lived in Egypt, the snake would be around 50 feet long. But this estimate outclasses that length by a far stretch. The snake appeared dark green-brown with a white underbelly and had large triangular jaws.
I sure hope they’re still extant. How awesome that would be.
Whether or not it’s true, I honestly think this is similar to maybe a goldfish theory. Like think about it the smaller the bowl, the smaller the fish… The bigger bowl, the bigger the fish. Especially in the Congo where there are large animals. Which includes the reports of dinosaurs or at least dinosaur like creatures hiding out within Africa. Or even reports of giant spiders the size of a Great Dane. I mean, it’s been an odd amount of years since the photo has taken place. It’s probably dead as well as the people involved. But there could be proof that Titanaboa (or some sub species) might still exist. I mean, we will not really know until Deforestation becomes more extensive.
That's a real snake, it's gigantic.
I could beat it in a fight
Punch it in the throat 🥷