robbieb, what is it that dictates the growth rate of a reptile?

Let's just say for the sake of argument that there evolved somewhere on earth a snake that has a cartilaginous skeleton. It's not totally out of the question, though it's pretty highly unlikely. Now let's take into account food supply. A big snake isn't going to be going after squirrels, you know. Let's say our friend goes after water buffalos, or hippos, or something of that sort. Means this thing will have to live in Africa, as it'd be the only place that could support a snake that size. And even then, it would be very, very rare. Could even be a man eater, so reports might not happen. This thing would have to be an ambush predator, because being over 40 feet long and legless, it wouldn't be the fastest mover. Unless of course it's a thin bodied speed thing, which is actually pretty scary, when you think about it.

And if anybody actually finds a snake like this, I would like them to name it Benjamin.

And please, for the love of God, use a spell check robbie.

i owuld like to point out hat the cartilage skeleton would only work in an aquatic setitng thats why theres no sharks on land. i dont tihnk i made that clear

Well, since there is no evidence that a land-dwelling animal with a cartilaginous skeleton has ever existed, I'd tend to agree with you. I was hypothesising. A big what-if scenario.

Also, constrictors are thick, strong snakes The fastest snakes are mambas and cobras.

That was comment was unnecessary - argue your case against what has been said by all means, but do so without resorting to personal insults please.

It's clearly a plastic snake floating on the surface of the river.

Thank You Saruman, no need for disrespect toward UM member's because we don't agree with there comment's, i for one agree AROCES, i still believe there is a snake well over 35', even if there is no proof, and its hard to say there is not, pointing out with your own word's that it would have to be in the water to hold its own weight:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...dpost&p=1203700

Science say's its almost impossible for a snake to get that big, i like the almost part, here are some more of the link's i have put up before to try and put some doubt in your mind that maybe there are some Big Snake's out there

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/snake-kangaroo.html

http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/anaconda.htm

yea and a snake withj a artilage body wont happen i was giving the extreme where it could it wont the nsake would need to evolve to a difrent enviorment then a river system like a sea or ovcean and that wont happen.

OK, won't grow that big with a cartilage body. How about an Anaconda that had an unusual special cartilage body that is why it grew more bigger than normal?
The point is Nature sometimes do the oddest thing and we humans gets reminded again how little we know. I always say, the possibility is very slim. But with nature, it is always there.

an anaconda wont get a cartilaginous body.

Because the Amazon drains the entire Northern half of the South American continent (approx. 40% landmass), including all the torrential tropical rains that deluge the rainforests, it carries an enormous amount of water. The mouth of the Amazon River, where it meets the sea, is so wide and deep that ocean-going ships have navigated its waters and traveled as far inland as two-thirds the way up the entire length of the river.

http://www.extremescience.com/AmazonRiver.htm

Anacondas like to hang out in rivers so it would be difficult to estimate the length of one seen swimming, without seeing the entire snake. It's the anaconda's ability to remain partly hidden in the water that makes it difficult to accurately find (and document) a specimen that exceeds the current world's record.

http://www.extremescience.com/BiggestSnake.htm

how many times do we have to see this posted?

Who thinks it's a blown up plastic snake floating on the top of the water, say I. I.

We are going for the record here. There are other forum if you getting tired of this???

I think it is a real dead snake. But not as big as it was intended to be. Could be just a 14 footer.

That NG Explorer show being televised right now is very interesting. It isn't talking about uncomfirmed snakes though, and it mentions sizes of 20 -30 feet. Even if they don't get much larger than 30 feet, those big snakes are very scary stuff.

Sucuris/Anacondas spend a lot of its life time on water...

Someonesaid the snake would need to evolve to live on the water? Hum... thats weird, because it already lives on the water.

no deep water. no watyer where it can easliy rest on the bottom i said it would need to be a sea or ocean.

I found 3 more pics regarding a big Sucuri that ate a fisherman, thought I will post only two of them because the third is a bit graphic (snake open with body inside) and will post it only if moderators says its ok.





And found this too:



PS" This is not the same snake in the firs truck image. This one is another case witha smaller snake.

Sorry, first two pictures are not of a Green Anaconda. They are of a reticulated python which are normally found in southeast asia... that is with the exception of a couple hundred thousand floating around the north american pet trade... .
Length wise, they generally grow longer then the Green Anaconda, however they don't have the girth or weight. The last picture IS of a green Anaconda, but there is definetley not a fishermans body in there. Thats all snake. A fat snake, but all snake.

HI

those photos are common on the web, i search Google most nights for giant Anacondas and i've found nothing bigger than about 28ft, the only way to find out for sure is to visit the Amazon and stay there for 6 months and only really in the most remote areas.

nothing larger than 30ft has been discovered in the last 50 years or so.. this is worrying and casts doubts over those original sightings from Fawcett and co as well!

mind you without proof, if i told you i saw an 80ft Anaconda you wouldn't believe me either...you'll need good quality photos with something we all recognise beside its body; to judge scale...but for me to say ``i saw an Anaconda with a head about 15'' wide and a body 2ft thick simply isn't good enough``....but 20 photos showing a size 9 boot beside its head will probably be ok

even then some smart arse will say it's a hoax

No andacondas over 28 feet have been found in a long time...the longest is currently a 28-footer in a Zoo...coincedently the longest snake alive today.

You know, 28 feet is still a HUGE snake.

But not over 30

Maybe. I don't think it's likely. But imagine if there was a snake that was forty feet long or larger... deep deep in the jungle somewhere, where there was nothing to compete with it.

Remember, diplodocus, brachiosaurus, these were the biggest land animals that ever lived, and both of them were much larger than 30 feet. Diplodocus got somewhere near 100 feet, if I'm not mistaken. And they were both much, much heavier than your average anaconda. It's possible, then, in the right kind of environment, for a snake to get over 40 feet long.

Actually, they were dwarfs compared to seismosaurus, argentinosaurus, brukthayosaurus, and other titanosaurs. Also, THEY WERE NOT SNAKES!

A snake that's 40 feet long or longer cannot support themselves

Okay, those are big damned animals. How big was your average seismosaurus?

The only seismosaurus found was an immature adult, and was 150 feet long.

Where did they find this guy? Was it a good portion of a skeleton, or just a few bones?

In the SW U.S. They found a partial skeleton.

Found these pics on a blog. Can't find original website so don't know the story behind it. Location: Jambi, Indonesia.










Edited: Caught in 2004. Could be the one that supposedly 42 feet long which was really 21 feet when measured.

Looks like a retic that just ate a deer...maybe a sitka.

that's no 42 footer....way too small; especially its head

that's roughly what a 40 footer would look like, not just long but huge in bulk too..its about 8 times the size of a 20 footer.

this size you can sense instantly in a photo on the web and in real life too..... so is the 40 footer being mistaken for a 60 or 80 footer; especially if you dont see its full length?

well maybe, because this 40 footer looks truly enormous doesn't it and it's also capable of being; as the Spanish said a ``Bull Eater`` it'll swallow a bull no trouble

so i guess the most likely ``outsize`` monster you'll find is a 40 footer, but above this is way too large............i think !

what bothers me?...... far too many sightings!



[attachmentid=25984]

There are no 40 foot snakes

... that we know of.

I doubt it.

never say never

Mark o' Shea saw something odd in the Amazon recently..... track marks of a giant Anaconda leading into the river..this track was almost 3ft wide and this guy knows his snakes

something big is out there..... something big must be out there

^If a snake just finished eating something large then I don't see what's so unusual about that. The tracks can't have any indication of a snakes' length.

-Double post-

I think there may be some large snakes in this world as described by some ancient tribes. But I hink that pic is just some photo manipulation. The snake and the water seem to be out of proportion to the background scenery. The images are off. But check Guinness Book of World Records and Ripley's Believe it or not. And National Geographic and Discovery Channel may have info too the world's largest snakes.

Yes I know the Jambi phyton is not a 40-footer but it's still a big snake isn't it? I think that one is less than 20 feet long. A 40-footer must be very big, if it exists at all... Don't quote me

When I was small there was a deserted mining pool behind my house and quite a few big reptiles lived in there including giant phytons which were as big as that Jambi snake and monitor lizards which can grow to over one metre long. It was scary! One pyhton was known to swallow an adult goat. At one time there were so many monitor lizards feeding on villagers' chicken so we trapped them using big fish hooks and gave the lizards to Indians who actually ate them!

FOUND THIS TODAY :-

In effect, like the mentioned thing by Avencio, Up de Graff, narrates the encounter with an anaconda of 15 to 19 meters in its book “Hunting of heads of the published Amazon” in 1923. Part of the paragraph says the following thing:

“What laying in the water and the mud floated, place setting of flies, butterflies and insects of all classes, it was the anaconda more enormous than never it has been able to imagine nor in dreams. The 10 or 12 feet of the front part of their body, wide like the torso of a man, rested on the mud of the border; the rest, in the water and an enormous curl enroscaba in right S under our canoe. Frequently I have spoken of the length of this reptile and very not very often they have believed to me. Surely it measured 50 on 60 feet (15.24 to 18.288). I did not measure it but I could calculate it with enough exactitude. In effect, our canoe had 24 feet. The head of the animal was 10 on 12 feet in front of the prow, the tail to but of 04 feet of the stern and the center it formed an immense, as long S as our canoe and with a width of but of 05 feet.

I was to stern and the prow guns. It shouts Jack to him who shot, but the noise that did when looking for the weapon between the bulks scared the animal, that disappeared with a so tremendous eddy that it almost made us exceed. The agility that demonstrated when disappearing surprising era for a body so enlarged and contrasted vividly with the stupidity of the anaconda which we had killed previously. When I decide to me how the body beheaded of this completes coiled around my legs and me the part in almost completes contraction of its muscles I am asked what it had been of us if this enormous beast had catched our canoe in one of its hugs. But the robust one of the men is I comine defenseless when a similar monster catches it between its ring. “

BASICALLY, they rowed over the top of this sleeping Anaconda; without noticing anything.....at first!
they then noticed something lieing on the river bank covered with butterflies and other insects etc.....then they looked into the shallow water and suddenly saw its vast body lieing in a S shape under their canoe!

they shot at it but missed, the snake woke up and instantly swam off, almost turning over their canoe...this sighting is very famous!

I'm not saying it's not true, but people have a tendency to over exaggerate, and time in time again we've seen pictures here with stories claiming the snakes were 50-60-70 feet,
when in reality such an animal is only between 20-25 feet.

Especially explorers...


O'Shea thought that was a andaconda that just swallowed a capybara or tapir...

found this today too...never say never
[attachmentid=26011]

mm breakfast

Well I am no snake expert. I am just contributing with the topic. It is not my intention to prove nothing.

Regarding the pics. All images, I found on a site, and the site said it is a Sucuri. If it is indeed I can not say, for I really don´t know the differences.

The photo they say there is a fisherman in the snake belly is the 2 that the snake is in the truck.

The third image they say its a 9 meters Sucuri.

I agree.

Oh, you should have seen the one that got away!