The legend of the "Giant Bull Eater" or Giant Anaconda, begins in South America.

Here is the story and evidence: Giant Anaconda

Here are some pictures:







(taken from a helicopter)

What do you all think?

The first and third picture are the same. I can't make any sense of it. It looks like a bloated snake, but there isn't anything around it to size it.



This is just an up-close picture of a small snake, with people in the background, to make it look bigger.



This looks doctored

I was listening to Undertaker's theme, and looking at those pics at the same time. Had a good feeling to it.

All the pictures except for the last were supposed to show some 130-150 foot snakes weighing several tons. The first and third picture is obviously of a real anaconda, but there's nothing in the picture with which to estimate the size. According to some stories was supposed to have been shot dead. But the idea of a 40 metre long Anaconda weighing 5 tons is just... nonsense. It just isn't biologically possible. The second picture is obviously a close-up with people in the distance.

The last one was supposed to have been taken by some belgian helicopter pilot in Congo 1959. It was supposed to be some 40-50 feet long. The picture in question is blurry except for the snake, perhaps suggesting that it has been edited. It was supposed to have "lifted itself 10 feet up into the air" when he got close to it... which kind of does sound unrealistic.

I think, honestly, that the move Anaconda was inspired by these sightings. Still, it's intriguing to know that there could be a 140-ft long anaconda in the jungle.

Science Fiction, yes, but still....anything is possible.

The movie Anaconda was rubbish anyway.

And strictly speaking, anything is not possible. A 140 foot long snake... would probably quite franky not be of this earth. It would probably have to be based on different materials, stronger... otherwise it's likely it's own weight would crush it's skeleton and make it difficult for it to move around.

All of the reports of those giant snakes are very old. There have been none that have been possible to verify, and with time and development, the reports of 50+ feet giant anacondas in the Amazon have almost completely ceased.

A land-based animal that big would leave a lot of evidence of its existence.

If that were the case, then the argument could be made that the Loch Ness Monster and other "sea serpents" could not exist, including Mokele-mbembe and Emula-ntouka. Therefore, to say that the Giant Anaconda can't exist is pure opinion. The Loch Ness Monster, if its existence is proven, would also defy science. Therefore, the existence of a 140-ft anaconda is possible, pending the circumstances.

No, those other things you mentioned are unknown organisms. Not giant anacondas. Now, I don't believe in any of those, especially not Mokele-mbêmbe and those shadowy central African cryptids, but there is a difference between an unknown creature and an animal whose biological propererties we know.

We've been around the bend an endless amount of times with reagrds to the "Giant" Anaconda, and especially pic#3, and the consensus has always been that the max length/size of a reptile like an anaconda would be nowhere near the fantastical sizes purported by some of these reports, the animal would be crushed by it's own weight, there is simply no fact attached to these "sightings".

Anyway, I could probably eat a whole bull if you put it on a bun with some BBQ sauce.

How about the waitoreke, the giant sloth of New Zealand? There are such things as giant sloths.

"Giant" animals do exist. Gigantosaurus existed, which is basically a large tyrannosaurus. So, to say that a giant anaconda can't exist is saying too much. There is a possibility, albeit a slim one.

I agree that exaggeration could very well have played a part. Take Manda for instance. She was a Giant Anaconda in the Godzilla movies. Obviously the Japanese must have been inspired from something in order to create her.

My point is: if an anaconda can exist, then a 140-ft one could as well. Indeed, it would be quite large and could implode, but then why do we believe in the Loch Ness Monster?

I'm saying that if such a giant snake existed, it would not be an Anaconda. Gigantosaurus wasn't much larger than Tyrannosaurus anyway. Neither was Carcharodontosaurus. Or Spinosauurs. A few metres hither thither.

This is not some giant sauropod we're talking about here, but an anaconda. There never have been and never will be any 140 foot Anaconda.

As far as I know, that is not a recognised animal but a quite scarcely reported cryptid.

Then how do you explain Giant Squids?

Here's a link to the waitoreke: waitoreke

Giant Squids exist.

Actually, you are very wrong about spinosaurus. True, all of the other large theropods hover around 40 - 45 feet max, but the latest spinosaurus discovered by the University of Milan may have been as large as 70 feet, and this is only the second Spino ever found. Stromer's ca. 45 foot specimen from 1915 was a juvenile!

I agree there should not be any 150 foot anacondas, but some of the "sea serpent reported by ship captains who are normally very reliable people have reported serpent like aquatic creatures in excess of 100 feet, and this is very possible. The largest Ichthyosaur is about 70 feet long.

First, giant squids are not as large as your proposed snake, reaching 46 feet long at most, and only weigh a half ton. Your proposed snake, due to its skeletal structure, would way a lot more.

They survive because they live underwater...without water to support their bodies, they would be crushed under their own weight. A giant squid cannot even lift its tentacles out of the water.

Your propose snake is even larger than the Blue Whale, the largest animal to ever live. Like the giant squid, it would be crushed under its own weight if it were on land.

The other animals your proposed, if they exist, would be much smaller than your snake.

From an 11 metre Tyrannosaur to a 13.5 metre Carcharodontosaurus/Gigantosaurus to a 14-18 metre Spinosaur... The point is that they are all different species. It's just not one specimen that suddenly grows to 400 times the normal size. Out of nowhere, an anaconda with a normal lenght of 4-5, maybe 6 metres, there comes this giant of 40 metres--

And Giant squds are not just overgrown Humboldt Squids, but an independent species. And as has been said, they cannot survive on land. They are not built for it. Anacondas are not built to reach lenghts in excess of 30-40 feet. They would die. They would be crippled by their own weight, they would be unable to find enough food to fulfill their need, they would simply not work.

No, a 140ft anaconda could not exist, it could not support it's own weight, not even submerged, it would be crushed by it's own weight and could not move.

I don't believe in a Loch Ness "monster", are people seeing something in Loch Ness, most likely to definitely, but it's not a "monster", IMO.

Giant anaconda probably do exist but not in the lengths their reported at, deep in the dense jungles of south america where we rarely tread their could be a breed of anaconda that can grow slightly bigger then the average which is about 30-40 feet at max, so if their "is" a giant anaconda its prolly around 50-60 feet at most maybe..

Alright, I am convinced. However, if a 140 ft. anaconda is discovered in S. America, I will say I told you so.

LOL its weight woudlnt crush it... it would be spred out evenly... like all snakes.. lol yes it would be huge but then that means the muscles and cartilige wud be huge also..

Tatzelwurm Hunter your theories of species a may possibly exist, so species b may is just silly. As for the pictures I don't have anything new to say that someone else hasn't all ready said.

I am not ruling out anything.

Growth is not even.

There are plenty of reports of those 40-80 feet giant Amazon snakes with luminous eyes, but even if they're real they're still not Anacondas.

Ok, Nena, you are right.

But still, the report mentions other snakes besides anacondas. The largest snake in the world is a 30 foot reticulated python. I am sure there is a 140 foot snake somewhere....

Even in a lost world.

Think about this simple reality based question. In such a dense Amazon jungle...how would a 40m anaconda hunt down it's prey? Would you not be able to see (and avoid it) since it's visible from like...you know miles away? And even if it's swimming in the water, would it not blocked the river and drown itself away due to it's evenly spread weight?

Huge anacondas...possible. GIANT anacondas...only in Sci-Fi movie with J-Lo on it.

Ok Manda was not a giant anaconda it was an asian style dragon. And if you're taking the idea that it was in a godzilla movie must mean it was based on something real then how do you explain Godzilla himself, a huge giant atomic dinosaur. Or Jet Jaguar, they must have actually seen a giant robot to think that one up. Are people allowed no imagination when it comes to cryptozoolgy?

Click to view attachment


The loch ness monster is believed to be a plesiosaur which existed at one time. A giant anaconda has never been known to exist, thats the difference. And people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster have a screw loose anyway.

If they exist I think they aren't THAT big.

This is the actual photo, the snake does indeed look large and heavy; especially under its chin....but it's probably a fake

the max size for an anaconda would be about 30ft, but for sucuriji gigante maybe about 70 to 80 ft......but 150ft is way too large.

there are many sightings of 80ft snakes..... too many? well i'm not sure, but some of them with regards to the proportions of an anaconda's body....head size compared to max girth are indeed quite accurate..... the oddball being fawcett's sighting at only 12'' wide

when i say anaconda, you can bet that SG is a close cousin and therefore of similar proportions...like the much smaller yellow anaconda.....but SG is ALWAYS described at close range as being a giant anaconda, by other explorers who would definitely know...... but darker in colour

you wouldn't notice an 80ft SG if you rowed right over the top of it...the amazon river is silted up with very low visability...and this snake is very well camouflaged.... you'd only notice it out of the water on a flat riverbank.....many sightings are exactly like this, not noticed until it's too late!

But if it exists is about 50:50, because it is huge with a head width of about 17 to 20 inches...but no sightings recently, all that's been seen are very large anaconda tracks, these being about 30'' wide...so who knows!

That photo is obviously cropped. Just look at the people's contours.

I would like to see the original newspaper story about it though. The drawing based on the photo is different, and would the actual photo have had that extra person standing infront of the snake to give a sense of proportion, it would have been much better a picture. But, as surely all know, nobody ever things of that when photographic something out-of-the-ordinary.

Click to view attachment

In 1907, Major Percy Fawcett, noted explorer of the Amazon, recounted not once, but twice encounters with the Sucuriju. The snake's first mention in Fawcett's memoirs has been recorded thusly:

"The manager at Yorongas told me he had killed an anaconda fifty-eight feet long in the Lower Amazon." Although Fawcett confessed that initially he thought this an exaggeration, he placed stock in its validity after an encounter of his own.

We were drifting along in the sluggish current not far below the confluence of the Rio Negro when ... there appeared a triangular head and several feet of undulating body. It was a giant anaconda. I sprang for my rifle ... and hardly waiting to aim smashed a .44 soft-nosed bullet into its spine ... As far as it was possible to measure, a length of forty-five feet lay out of the water, and seventeen feet in it, making a total length of sixty-two feet ... A penetrating foetid odour emanated from the snake, probably its breath, which is believed to have a stupefying effect ... The Brazilian Boundary Commission told me of one killed in the Rio Paraguay exceeding eighty feet in length!

Click Here

But I was more thinking of the 1948 snake that was supposed to have been 40 metre long and weighed 5 tonnes. I don't know why the caption to the picture speaks of Fawcett, the picture's obviously based on the photo of the 1948 snake.

The '48 picture is supposed to have come from some newspaper or something. I would like to see it, but I guess it can't really be tracked down these days.

that's just an artists interpretation based on that photo, but that original photo does look odd, it simply looks too bulky for a 20 footer especially its chin, its head also looks quite wide, but i suppose it could be a 20 footer.... the people behind it are probably a long way off and if so; that snake is a normal anaconda.

its impossible to judge scale because there's nothing we can recognise close by.... because if that was a real monster, expect to see many more photos, plus crowds of awe- struck people around it..... this tells me it's a fake. more importantly that snake is quoted to be 40 metres long, i'd say at max size it could just about pass for 50ft long..... now if that was 130ft long then it would be truly enormous and the photo would reflect this..... because a snake that large would have a head about 3ft wide....but no, that head looks somewhere between 5'' to 10'' wide

i believe something huge lurks there, but we need proof.....fawcett's sighting is odd...because a 62 footer would be twice as wide as 12'', in fact; it's impossible for a 62 footer to be only 12'' wide.... even a 35 footer is this width

i quote;-

'' The reason that cryptozoologists show so much interest in the giant anaconda is because there is much better evidence for it than for any other kind of giant snake. In fact, the evidence is far better than Bigfoot footprints. It is known that normal anacondas leave a special kind of track when traveling across mudflats from one swampy area to another. You can tell what size the snake is by looking at the width of the track. Many tracks of the giant anaconda have been found in remote areas. Hoaxing these tracks would take far more expertise than hoaxing the footprints of a Bigfoot. You can't get near without creating your own tracks too, unless you had a helicopter, and even then the difficulties involved in making six-foot-wide tracks that had all the characteristics of a heavy giant snake would be staggering.''

now these anaconda tracks are quite common....the most famous to have seen these is MARK O' SHEA and relatively recently too, no giant anaconda has been seen recently.... no, because you'd have to hang around ages before you saw anything....not 2 weeks, more like 6 months.

MARK O SHEA visits these areas, but i expect he hasn't stayed long enough either....well, i expect he'd say the same thing too.... but you certainly dont need to be an expert like him to discover a 70 footer, all you need is patience and good eyesight

When one considers the effects of giantism rarely result in more than a doubling of a specie's size, then 40 to 60 feet is about the largest we can expect an anaconda to grow. That said, there remains the highly unlikely possibility of an undiscovered giant constrictor species. Like the anaconda, such a species would likely have to be aquatic, as it would be even more sluggish on land.

The (likely fictional or exaggerated claims) of such creatures being shot is unfortunately predictable. If such a creature existed it would be a natural treasure, worth far more live than dead. It is worth noting that the carcass always disappears, or is thrown out due to the smell of corruption as the corpse decays. Further, as any constrictor of that size would be very sluggish on land, and aquatic in nature (preying upon large riverine species such as large crocodiles) it would not likely be very dangerous to man.

^Agreed, then they'd dubbed it the 'boat eating giant' or 'boat eater', rather than mere 'bull eater'...

and being even more aquatic/nocturnal than an ANACONDA explains why it's rarely seen..... because the tracks that MARK O' SHEA saw happened at nighttime; he noticed them at first light. this monster might go somewhere quiet and sheltered to sleep during he day, or live in only the most remote areas of the AMAZON.....there's something huge out there, or it's all bull***.............but would MARK O' SHEA and others tell porkies, i'm not sure

Hrrmzz........would someone tell porkies for money and or fame? Better book sales maybe

Maybe not, maybe it is just that Mark has a passion for these things, and maybe the rattler venom did more damage than was known, LOL. We don't know.

One thing that bothers me, isn't the size of a snakes tracks dependant on it's last meal?? If a hungry snake travelled alongside one the same size, but one has just eaten a small calf, the tracks would be vastly different wouldn't they?

What we do know is that the Reticulated Python holds the record for longest snake, at 10.32 m (32 ft 9.5 in).

Archosaur makes a good point about gigantism. That and other physical impossibilities show us that the reported 80 meter and larger snakes are obviously fictional.

I saw Mark O shea go looking for a supposed 40 foot giant anaconda that the natives of the area have said that they had seen, he could'nt find a thing.

Also, what sort of prey would a 40 metre anaconda hunt to sustain it's appetite. I cant think of any animal in south america that's large enough to do this. God, a snake that big could consume a bloody elephant.

Wrong. You don't know your facts. The latest Spinosaurus is a full third bigger than any other known Theropod, and considering this is only the second specimen, we may discover Spino is twice as big as any other.

I don't know where the 140 foot idea comes from, but 60 to 70 foot snakes DID exist. They ate dinosaurs. Snake fossils are very fragile. We may find even bigger ones, so so much for the fools who say a snake cannot grow over 50 feet.

Giant sloths are as real as you and I, although they are kind of hard to believe because of the silly way they look. They lived in the time period in which Mammoths and Sabre Toothed Cats lived. There were very tall, I think they stood 15 to 20 feet tall on their back legs when standing, and they had immense claws on their hands. Their bones are on exhibit in many museums, most usually portrayed defending themselves against Sabre Toothed cats which may have been their enemies.

Just recently, maybe a century ago, there were supposedly sightings of giant sloths in the wild by explorerers, but theres not much information on these cases other than written experiences in old explorers diaries.

^What's with the giant sloth?

WOW, look at the curvature of that back in comparison to the ripples in the water... even if those are big ripples, that snake's gotta be a foot across. Huge, even if it might not be record-breaking.



Also a big snake, but unlike the one with the water there's not much to compare it against. Could be 12 feet, 30 feet, who knows. Anyone know enough about perspective to estimate how far away those people are?

(taken from a helicopter)

This photo has been studied ad nauseum. There is no proof that it's a fake, even though it does look it at first glance. This is the one taken by the Berlin helicopter pilot in the Congo (I think it was the Congo). The consensus is that it's a 40-50 foot long anaconda. There's an entire thread on it somewhere, I think.

Anyways, yeah, 140-foot snakes, no. They'd have to be exclusively watergoing, and the Amazon isn't deep enough to support them. Even a 100-footer pushes the logic and imagine. Although, check out this video. You have to look closely, zoom in, and run the video slow to notice it properly, but there's something HUGE and serpentine eating that orca carcass.

dragon_chronicler - Stop it with the Spinosaurus. xD For the record, only skull fragments of this beast were found and the 75 feet is an ESTIMATE. x)

Sorry WraithGod, but how can the last photograpth be a 50 foot anaconda in the Congo? When the only big constrictor native to Africa is the african rock python.

I dunno, don't ask me, the thread's about anacondas and that pic's from the Congo. Look here: Linkage.

And actually, I think I might have posted that under the picture somewhere, about anacondas begin exclusively South/Central American. ^^;

Edit: Ah, nope, I didn't. Anyways, that discussion wasn't as good as I remember, but look it up yourself with the name of the pilot, there're interviews and analyses and such. Seems to be the real thing.

The belgian helicopter pliot even said that the snake tried to attack the helicopter. He also said the snake's head was three feet wide. Now, I know this is a 50 foot snake, but I dont think even a snake that large would have a head three feet wide. You see large pythons and anacondas which can be over 20 feet are able to be held by their heads by your average human, to control them and stop the process of latching on and constricting. I dont think there is anyway the head could three feet wide, which makes his story less credible.

I do agree, but the head in that picture looks quite huge. However, that raises a bit of an alarm because proportionately I don't think the head would get quite that big... what's the normal ratio? And does it change as the snake grows, like shark size:liver size?

I reckon about a foot wide for a 50 foot snake. Obviously the circumference might be closer to three foot, probably something like two and a half feet. I mean a 24 feet reticulated python like Fluffy head looks six inches wide at the widest part

Fluffy