- Your postings is what made us conclude what you are really, and it's too late for no matter how much you copy and write those text books here in this forum. It' just too late.
- At least you are half honest about hanging out in the Zoo.
- It is called a FLYING FOX because it can FLY and the face resembles a fox. Not because it has feathers and wings.

haha there u go names mean jack sh**. and ur post other thne that confused me. so far no one has agreed with u on anything. dont u find that to be a red flag?

Where? Does it matter?

yes because not all sources are accurate

EXACTLY!!!!! That is why, does it matter?

yea we want to see where u get ur info from to make sure ur giving accurate info to us becuase none of us belvie anythung i say until u provide at least 1 link

Yes, they move on land too. MOSTLY means not all the time.
Whales are not to be sunbathing by the beach, so it died.
Stupid remarks? You replying to it, so don't insult it.

You want proof??? You can't even prove you are a Zoologist??????

and how owuld u liek me to prove this scan my degree into the comp?

Nope, you have tried many times and you failed to convince. Well, Frogfish and a fellow from Brazil maybe?

ur the only one that desnt belive me and i dont realy care. u still hav not won a single argument yet nor have u give a single link ot any information u have shown us. why dont YOU prove something to us and show us where u get your information from. it would be helpful to this debate to understand where u are comign from with this information

Glad you still consider this as a debate.
You said not all sources are accurate, so that includes yours. So let's discuss resources and common sense together then, right?

u should not be one to mention common sence my dear. and second showing any source is better thne no source at all. i have posted linkys before u have not. come on give me one link and ill be happy one link that shows anything about anytihng u posted

Why not me mention it? Only you can?
I don't go to different links to reply, I just state what I already know.

Yes you rant, I understand why it might be a novel to you. Explaining yourself clearly with facts so you are not wrongly interpreted is not something you hold in high regard.



???
A larger creature will obviously need to consume more food as it has more resources to accomodate. A large creature will need to consume more food during growth for the same reason. A big animal eats big. Is that easier to understand?



We don't eat at all when fully grown??? wtf?? Wait till you grow up, you will see that you still need to eat when fully grown.

What the hell are you on about?



Most know what a water boa is do they? Most what? Not people in a conversation using the term anaconda constantly. If nobody is getting confused, don't try to confuse the issue. If you are talking about a certain animal, keep using the same term unless another term is called for. Chaning the name of the subject is indeed attempting to confuse the issue.
No matter what you call it. It wont grow to 50 or 100 feet.



Claim is the key word. Impossible claim. They would not be born there in the first place because they cannot exist in that climate, let alone lead a covert life. ie. it is a fake claim. Nobody saw such an animal. It does not exist and cannnot.


Temp is a massive concern. What sort of rubbish is

"You think they don't know how to deal with it, but they know and that is the important thing"

What the hell are you talking about??? Do you understand the concept of a cold blooded creature at all???
How on earth do you suppose they "deal with it"? Get some snake blankies? Take a course on herpatology in the sb-temperate climates? Changing genetic makeup is a little more complex than changing your socks. You don't just "deal with it" or we would have dinosaurs here today.



He started to grow to an extraordinay size. Once he surpassed the normal human standard, his body let him down and failed. In short (that's another for you jobot37 ) his massive size killed him. Same as any altered design. One small factor can create a domino effect wihich make severything fall apart. Getting big KILLED him.

Age is a massive element isn't it ?? Do you think a 50 foot snake would be born that way?



Mr. Wadlow didn't get there. He was 22 when his heart failed due to his massive size. He was about half the size of a standard ruler larger than the tallest man today. Not massive, and didn't make it very far.
A 50 foot snake is far larger than the ruler analogy proportionally.



Good hunters you reckon, and you are concluding these hunting skill by way of........?
Why would a 50 foot snake be a btter hunter than a 30 foot snake?
What would harm a 50 foot Anaconda?
I ask again, why would a bigger, easier to see, slower animal be a better hunter then it's normal sized counterpart that has many years of suiting itself to it's environment? What advantage would it have? And why do you assume it would be smarter? Do you have a reason for this hypothesis or do "you reckon" again?



Very much. I plan to contact whoever is in charge of this resource and ask them a few questions. The information you are being provided is erroneous, not to mention somewhat ridiculous in places.
Can't get my head around



Not eating at all when fully grown. Maybe that's where that extra kilo and a half came from. BLOODY HELL. I'm still eating NOBODY TOLD ME TO STOP!!!!!! What age does one stop eating at anyway?? 25, 30 40 50?
Whoever told you that ought to be tarred and feathered. If you came up with it all by yourself, be ashamed.

- Yes, it is a novel to me. Does not take a novel to explain yourself if you make sense.
- Yes, they eat big, but not big enough for them to die as you stated.
- I said we don't eat as much. Read first before you reply.
- You the only one confuse with Water Boa, at least in this Forum. -Maybe not 50 or 100, but you don't know how big they can really get, right?
- Snakes are dealing with it now without your concern, so a bigger snake won't need your concern either.
- YUP, getting big killed him. So, he got big, right?
- Simple, the one who survives the longest, gets to be the biggest or maybe just older are the one who is the smartest, maybe luckier too.

- Who said about not eating at all? Eating less means you don't eat as much, but you still eat.

Actually, Robert Wadlow DID NOT die from a failing heart. He died from a septic blister on his ankle caused by a poor fitting brace.

SOURCE

I had heard otherwise, however, I stand corrected, your link shows you are right.

It is still the same argument. The heart cannot mantain such a large load on it.

You did




Last three words. They are not out of context

I suggest try reading it again then.

So he did not die because of his massive size? Hmmmm......

No, it does not take a novel to make sense. Interpretaion can change the whole meaning of a sentence. I wish to make sure I am not misinterpreted.



If they eat in proportion to a realistic snake, the amount they need to consume would be massive. How do they digest this before the cooler months?



I did read first. As with the above post, last three words.
I quote - Well, not at all.



Call it whatever tickles your fancy. I do know how big they can get - about 40 feet, after that their skeletal structure does not support the proportional bulk and there would be digestion problems, this is all before there is any proof other than a far fetched story. I don't have to search the Amazon to learn what I already know. Using the same logic you could argue a 3 story tall camel could be hiding behind Uluru.



No they are not. Take one out of it's normal habitat and place it in a cool climate and it will die.



Notice what you said - getting bigger killed him. He didn't make it. I stated he only got to half a standard ruler before he died. I plan to look into why he was wearing braces, I imagine his immense bulk was the cause. If so, getting bigger did kill him.



You implied they are smarter from the start, I see where you are going, they may have more experience when older, but during growth, there should be no advantages over a normal snake. I fail to see how hunting would be easier for a larger creature either.

What does

Well, not at all mean to you then?

Depends on why he was wearing braces, perhaps he needed them because of his massive size?

Unlike you, I can admit when I was wrong and did.

ALNA70 was not only correct, he proved it

Guys, I live in a tropical country and belive me, this is a common sense that snake can get this big! There's even a legend of a great serpent on Kahayan river in Borneo. And although it sounds har to believe, people from simple peasant to government officials believe it! It could be just another oversized great snake, right?

I know i dent post much,but i dent understand why people on here fight so much, it's not who is right or wrong on here, the point is we talk about the topic at hand and discuss the possibilities, the facts and the what if's, on this site it is truly hard to prove one way or the other if your right or wrong, just look at all the picture's of different creature's and animal's that make no since, and the UFO picture's that are on here,not to mention the Ghost's, even with them people still say there's no way they exist.

We are all going to disagree from time to time, but there's no need to call people stupid or dumb for not agreeing with you.....

PS: I still believe there is a 40' to 50' snake out right now in the Amazon, just because there is no picture's doesn't mean there not there..

if u said the jungles of asia i would maby say its some what possible for there to be one but the fact of the matter is ananacondas weight wont allow it to get that large. the lo9ngest snakes we know of are form asia and a few from africa. if there is one out there its not in the amazon and its not ana anaconda. its not logical theres a weight limit for them so it cvan either be havey bodided and reach it or long bodided and reach it anacondas arent going to be able to get the legenth u people are talking about

If i remember correctly, i believe i read where it is possible but the snake would have to spend most of its "huge life" living in the water to hold its body mass/wight. And that's why in my Opinion, it would be in the Amazon due to the river.

1st picture: One of the largest freshwater fish in the world is found living in the waters of the Amazon River. Arapaima, also known locally as Pirarucu, Arapaima gigas are the largest, exclusively fresh water fish in the world. They have been found to reach a length of 15 ft/4m and can weigh up to 440lbs/200kg.

2nd picture: Nearly 336,000 square miles (840,000 square kilometers) -- slightly larger than Texas. The Amazon river, Every year, fish, reptiles, and other aquatic animals migrate into these newly flooded habitats to feed and reproduce, then return to the main channels when the floodwaters recede. Terrestrial animals, such as a number of primate species, also rely on the floodplain forest habitats.

ok and heres tyhe thing we see these fish when we go there and there only 15ft now tlak aobut a snake 3 times as big in the water during a dry season we would see them. u lose

There's alway's enough water in the amazon at any given time. As the seasons change, so does the river. During the dry season, the width of the Amazon River can be 4 km to 5 km in places – and in the wet season, this can increase to 50 km! At the height of the wet season.The Amazon River flows 1.5 miles- per- hour during the dry season and 3 miles- per- hour after rain.

Post # 216, last exchange on the bottom. Now read it slowly word for word, slowly now that way you don't juggle words.

I'm not here trying to be the smartest and always correct. I'm merely questioning and reasoning others claim of they ARE SURE!
Now you get the point, you were wrong and we all here can be wrong at times. The thing is you can be wrong too about an over grwon snake in the wild not being possible.

Giant snakes are a staple of world mythology, and continue to be sighted today by witnesses that would normally be deemed reliable. Some giant snakes are simply bigger than any example of their particular species is supposed to get. Other giant snakes are bigger than any species of snake is supposed to get, including some reports of giants so big that they should be able to swallow an elephant without any trouble.

Humans have a certain adult size. When you reach the size determined by your own genetics, you stop getting bigger. Snakes grow according to a different plan. They often continue getting bigger well after adulthood. Potentially, this could mean that giant snakes are simply very old animals that are otherwise ordinary. However, at some maximum size, the snake should die because it would need special adaptations internally in order to keep its internal organs from being crushed under its own weight. Scientists tend to think that this maximum size is much smaller than many of the sightings indicate. However, a snake that spent most or all of its time in the water could "cheat" some, because the water would help it support its weight. In harmony with this theory, a large percentage of giant snake reports involve water-dwelling species of snake.

I Knew i read it somewhere.

http://www.newanimal.org/bsnake.htm

Here's another page on big snake's. http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/anaconda.htm

Snakes are cool with me as long as they stop growing before they get that big.

I have proved over and over that a 50' snake is not possible...the upper limit is 40.


14u2cee, we are talking about snakes, not fish.




To be that large, it would need to spend its whole life in the water...No even sea snakes do that! If it had to come on land, it would crush itself to death. Evolution then says snakes would not get that big.


My dad being a Neurologist and neurogenecist, and me being the next best thing to a genetics major...People with Giantism normally die at an early age because of thier size. The body becomes wasted after trying to provide such a large circulation system. Normally, heart failure follows.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000321.htm

[quote name='frogfish' date='May 17 2006, 12:25 PM' post='1193292']
I have proved over and over that a 50' snake is not possible...the upper limit is 40.
14u2cee, we are talking about snakes, not fish.


I understand your point, however, noone know's for a fact that there are no Big snake's 40' or over, of course science tell's us that it should not be but stranger thing's have happened.
there have been witness's to big snake sighting's and there has been evidence that there have been giant snake print's/marks on the ground which only snake's make. I'm not arguing with you because i know what you are saying which is science says no, but agree to disagree with you...

There are numurous, reliable witness's that say they have seen longer then normal snake's ""American herpetologist Thomas Barbour, the great Brazilian expert Dr. Afranio do Amaral of the Institute at Butantan, and Dr. Jose Candido de Melo of the Rio de Janeiro Zoo all agree on forty-five feet." [7]
Heuvelmans himself claimed to see the giant anaconda while with a group of Frenchmen and Brazilians, and recorded his encounter, he is known as the "Father of Cryptozoology"
These are but a few who agree with me.

Claims tend to be exaggurated...

I agree,

I have had the point all along. I listned to a zoology major and read as much as I could.

I was wrong about Mr. Wadlow as the local Ripley's I visited 4 years ago has a different story from memory. I have sent them an email to confirm my memory, as the mind is not the most reliable of sources Bad information leads to bad answers. We have been provided good information as to why the snake in question cannot exist. It is a deduction based on fact, not speculation. Frogfish and robbbieb have shown why it is physically impossible for snakes of such massive proportions to exist. I accept that and am greateful they visited the forum to share that bit of knowledge. They both have impressive credentials and provide backup links to prove the stance they take.
These two fellows are more likely to be sure about this subject than most people in here. Frogfish even has a herpetology passion and keeps snakes! I don't like people keeping snakes to look tough, or cause it's cool, but this is a different case. The man loves the creatures and studies them in depth and their habits. Hats of to him. Dammned if I'd have a snake as a pet.
As you can see, with the massive amount of talent visiting this board, if one does make an error, it is picked up pretty quick. I have seen one error on a meandering subject in this thread. Nothing contradicts the facts presented by robbieb and Frogfish. I think it somewhat rude to challenge their knowledge when your own is obviously not parrallel to theirs in this particular case.
As you see more of my posts, you will see I always do this, ask heaps of questions, provide any facts I can offer, take the logical approach and see what's left when the dust settles. The process of elimination is one that works for me. Remove the wishful thinking and all the guesses and you end up with reality.
One thing that irks me is when people make an outrageous claim and say
"Well, you have not serched the entire earth, forest, ocean, universe (pick one)" to a person presenting sound logical explaination or known fact. The people challenged study such subjects, have the lastes cutting edge information and some idiot will challenge them with "I reckon", "prove it" (even if they have provided proof) or the other stupid line I just mentioned. I'd like to see a little respect to those that get of their collectives and have a go, and then have the decency to share their efforts with us.

It is naive to assume anyone who does not agree with you does not read. What was stated could be facts and are from sceince text books. The thing is when something does not exist, everything written about it are all educated, speculated, calculated guess. As you may have notice I never argue about actual size. I agree the bigger the more unlikely it is never going to happen, the bottom line is we never really know how big they can really get.

How do you come to the conclusion that I assume you do not read? You do tend to make assumptions at the drop of a hat. No need to always throw an insult in amongst your post either. I am not naive and your assupmtion was incorrect. I said I read. You said



I was illustrating that I did and why I did.

What was stated by Frogfish and robbieb was fact was backed up by informative links and genuine information a 2 second Google would reveal as true or false. These fellows deseve applause for coming in here and sharing hard earned knowledge. Not being grilled by the spanish inquisition every time they try to help out.

(NOBODY expects the Spanish inquisition!!!!)

Every argument against has comprised of pure speculation. Not one supporting fact

This line from your post



has me confused. What country are you from? Perhaps half our argument is a language gap.
When something does not exist it does not exist.

If someone makes a wild claim about a cryptid, good evidence is required. With the reputation cryptozoology enjoys today, wild claims require more evidence than ever.
As far as I know, the claim was made that a 100 foot giant snake reared up at a helicopter in Korea (amongst other outrageous similar stories and poor photographs). That is not believable. If you think a snake can grow say 45 feet instead of 39, yeh plausible, unlikely but not ridiculous to consider. Proof would be required to substantiate the claim. robbieb said an asian python may reach that, and you can bet that fact is verifiable. Remember the python that 'shrunk' recently? That episode alone casts doubt on other large snake claims.
You give me the strong impression you believe a 80 or 100 foot snake could easily be hiding in a jungle. Is this your stance or not? Lets clear up exactly what you find so unbelievable that you have to attack an intelligent student constantly bombarded with bleeding edge information, with a father as a resource who is a genetic scientist!! and a zoologist. Attack me all you like, I have no credentials in this field, but leave the smart ones out of it and let them enrich the rest of us.

and it just keeps goin around and around lol.

ok so first off there are some species of sea snakes that do spend there entire life in water even during the birthing process. (live young) next remember one thing all these claims of huge snakes come from sightings in the water. now could it be that these "huge snakes" are just a breeding pair in the water thus it would look twice as long if there following eachother and/or things in the water can be disorented and seem larger thne actualy are and/or could it be that these snakes are resting by a log or something that may appear to be part of there body making them look much bigger? i tinhk these are the answers to 99% of the big snake sightyings the other 1% are either morons or hoaxers.

remember one thing natives talk aobut giant snakes but they also tlak aobut jaguars that urned into people and would fight in the armies of man and then turn back does this mean u belive that jaguars can turn into people too. a myth is only a myth. anacondas are given everything they need in captivity if a snake is going to get huge to the point your tlkaing aobut it would be seen by those such as bob clark. (first guy to breed an albino burmeese python so yea he knows his stuff)

next yes snakes grow there entire life but after sexual maturity (like all reptiles) growth drasticly slows and there majority of growth is around and barwely increasin there legenth.

- OK, you are not naive.
- Spanish inquisition? You are so naive!
- What you and the rest have stated I have read about it myself before and understand the thinking. I don't totally agree with all the speculation and study on some things, like how a 40 footer Anaconda(THAT DOES NOT EXIST) can't survive.
- I believe in 100 foot snake? If it is in crypto it does not exist, that is a given fact.
- True intelligence need not be proven or be defended, it will just show.
- Attack you? My apology then, that is not my intention. I'm having fun here, just debate and have fun . Try it.

Correct. Thank you.



You are so confusing!



I don't get that either, robbieb a zoology major explained why it cannot get that big. You argue with a zoology major on factual knowledge with retorts like, how do you know?



I asked if you did - do you?



Agreed.

Cryptozoology is the study of rumored animals that are presumed (at least by the researcher) to exist, but for which conclusive proof does not yet exist, or for animals which are generally considered extinct, but are occasionally reported. Those who study or search for such animals are called cryptozoologists, while the hypothetical creatures involved are referred to by some as "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983.

Rather than "The thing is when something does not exist, everything written about it are all educated, speculated, calculated guess."

That confused me, I strongly suspect our grammar to be a world apart.




Exactly, Frogfish and robbieb have shown an abundance of it. On more than this one occassion.
Once again, I take my hat off to those that get of their collectives and have a go. To share it with us is a privelage. I get irate at those who consider them a 'know it all' rather than an intelligent hardworking individual.



Thanks for the apology. Sure was the impression I was getting. Debate is great, I just expect that when questioning men of science (studying or completed) that one should use appropriate manners.
Thought your intention was to flame and rubbish knowledgable people. Suprising how many people find that entertaining. I offer apology as well if I have taken your manner incorrectly.

I prefer not to have fun, tried it, didn't like it.

- Like a 100 foot snake, I won't easliy believe anyone who claims to be an expert here in this Forum.
- They have written text and facts here that is easily available.
- OK, Our Zoologist knows that a 40 foot snake can't exist, right? Means he knows data and studies of how that animal will not survie, right? SO, they have made a study of such animal that does not EXIST for them to know that it won't exist, we in the same country yet?
- Nope, I am merely stating my knowledge against theirs, you call that rubbishing?

Frogfish has been a memeber for longer than I have. He has consistently shown good information that proves to be true and correct.
robbieb has been here a shorter time, but I have been watching his posts with interest.
Any facts either of these two have provided the forum have been factual, interesting and always pertaining to the subject. They have credibility.



Geez, appreciative of others efforts aren't you? NOT.
Yep, and they got of their collective butts and provided it so nobody had to go out and get it. That was very unselfish of them to provide it don't you think? It can easliy be verified too, which means it is easy to see they tell the truth and have their facts straight.



Well, I did try to get along. You seem to be taking that idea of us being from different coutries offensively. I was suggesting we may not be explaining oursleves as clearly as we intend. Seems not the case, you just want to be rude where possible.
robbieb undestands the genetic makeup and design of animals, in this case snakes. No study is needed, simple calculations will reveal how long and thick a bone can be, how those dimensions will affect tensile strength and how the proprtional mass that would have to accompany such an increase in size would affect that particular skeletal structure.

Simple maths will determine what you insist must be witnessed to be confirmed.



Amazing that you have told me to read posts carefully, yet fall guilty of that very crime constantly.

I said



Thought, offer apology - are you familiar with these terms?
You are what Aussies would call "a bluer"

Your knowledge has fallen short in every instance when compared to either of these two. They have provided facts and links.
You have provided an obnoxious manner, speculation and insults.
Admit defeat.

- He is trying to prove he is a Zoologist, to us here???? Doesn't that tell you something?
- Yes, they both and many have good facts stated here and appreciated. But obviously it got over their head. For now they don't like being challenged.
- TITANIC was suppose to be unsinkable, based on mathematical calculation. So don't rely on simple math.
- When I ask if we are in the same country yet, it's means do we understand each other yet? Obviously we are not, I was expecting you to simply say, Yes or No.
- Obnoxious? Insults? You can go back as far as you want in this Forum and see who insulted who first. They threw insult and when thrown at them, they cried.
- Admit defeat? Don't really care about that, I stated my opinion and there are those who disagree and some agreed. Nothing changes, I still get to sleep well at night.

Actually, Aroces, The Titanic was only claimed to be "practically unsinkable" during it's time by the experts, and this was exaggerated by the media.
The formula's concerning the measurement of animal bones and calculation of size etc are quite accurate. Mathematics is one of the few fields of academia in which humans have a truly sound knowledge.

(Edited for typo's)

Yes, mathematics solve a lot of problem. But whatever is designed it still needs to be put to test, right?