I have given Greg and Mike Warner the chance to present the remaining data from their expedition and over the next few days they will be doing just that in their own words.This is the second satellite photo of the Napo/Amazon Confluence. If you look in the smaller of the two forked channels you will see an anaconda, which I believe to be of similar proportions to the one in the Morona Cocha incident 2 weeks ago near Iquitos, Peru.
For those of you who are latecomers to the saga, here are links to some of the earlier parts. It is our intention to release a report at the end of the week, when all the data is out, with our theories, conclusions and recommendations from the expedition." Mike Warner
Monday's data release
And here are links to some of the earlier bloggo stories on the subject
1. The original story printed by us
2. The plot thickens
3. South American newspapers which claim a titanic snake trashed a woman's house
4. Greg Warner asks Dr Chris Clark a question
5. Dale Drinnon comments
6. We finally release the pictures
7. We try to smooth over the rift with Andre Issi
8. Glen Vaudrey writes
9. Andre Issi and the anaconda
Editor's Note: I still don't get this and am unable to see any trace of a giant snake in these pictures. However, in the interests of free speech and openness, I shall continue to release the remainder of the Warners' data each day. I shall also continue to publish all comments; good and bad; that are non-abusive. However, I would like to stress that whilst the CFZ and I, personally, have every respect for Mike and Greg, and are pleased that we have managed to provide a forum for them to release their material, we do not endorse it and at present, have not seen enough evidence for us to support their theories.
Posts
11 comments:
I can't even make out 2 forked channels, let alone a giant snake. Look at the date - this photo is 12 years old!Instead of plastering the image with blurred text perhaps the Warners could indicate exactly where the snake is supposed to be in any of these pics.
Please bear with me folks, I've only just found the enlargement function in the browser?! Now I find the text claiming unknown triangular shapes on the ground!! Where's this going now? UFO parking lot?Alien cryptozoologists on the case? Added to which I can't see any triangular shapes either!!
There's an American phrase used to describe TV series whose plotline has ceased to be credible - "jumping the shark" - any sharks out there keep yer heads down!
Okay, this one looks better. (Not great, but better.)
Some clarification: the 'main' channel running along the middle of the photo is itself one of the 'forked' channels. A very long object seems to be slowly working its way up a second fork. (Or possibly has parked there for a while after swimming up the 'main' channel leaving a wake.)
Also, it would be helpful for the submitters to clarify that these are (some of?) the satellite photos that helped inspire you to go to a particular area of Peru looking for the thing. They aren't part of the expeditionary data itself.
JRP
Incidentally, the prior photo of the knocked down trees is clearly due to a flash flood of some kind. It's far far far too wide to be the track of the super-conda. However there does seem to be a pressed down track more or less in the middle, maybe, where trunks were smooshed into the mud. I take it that this central smooshing is the main point of that photo.
While I'm at it {g}--I agree with the majority commenters, that the two lumps in the first photo show no resemblance to portions of snake body (at the provided resolutions anyway). In fact, if they're supposed to be a head and lower body hump, the scale is wrong for the trail pressed into the mud out of the smaller river fork: the snake would have had to crawl far upfork, and then float back down around the mudsquish, settling into position. Very implausible.
However, mud track itself is rather interesting and suggestive.
So: to recap: one arial photo of a suggestive mudtrack; one arial/satellite photo of a suggestive mudtrack (in the middle of an obscuring much larger debris trail); and one satellite photo of what looks like some long thing parked in an estuary after leaving a wake behind it from swimming upstream.
JRP
Jason, it is good to see that one or two people are paying attention and not just here to 'have a go'.
The answer to your question is "yes" this is one of the satellite pictures that inspired the trip to the Napo/Amazon confluence.
It seems that the blog isn't the perfect way to display this information but this is how we have committed to doing it.
Judging by the questions and comments it is clear that some people haven't seen, or haven't read, the previous submissions.
Jon has tried to create some continuity by adding a series link to the previous information below each daily blog.
At the end of the week we will release what we believe we have discovered,which we believe will address most of the questions that are being raised; and no doubt raise many more but that's for another day.
It was, and is, our genuine intention to try and glean some new insights from the public by releasing our expedition and research data to CFZ. We think this is unique and has certainly generated a lot of interest around the world.
Although some people are not taking it seriously, or looking very closely, we have found that other observations and information coming back is very useful and educational from both points of view.
While many are clearly not convinced, I have to say that I am encouraged by the fact that the cynics have failed to produce anything concrete that would dissuade us from our conclusions which we look forward to releasing at the end of the week.
G & M
Jason, it is good to see that one or two people are paying attention and not just here to 'have a go'.
The answer to your question is "yes" this is one of the satellite pictures that inspired the trip to the Napo/Amazon confluence.
It seems that the blog isn't the perfect way to display this information but this is how we have committed to doing it.
Judging by the questions and comments it is clear that some people haven't seen, or haven't read, the previous submissions.
Jon has tried to create some continuity by adding a series link to the previous information below each daily blog.
At the end of the week we will release what we believe we have discovered,which we believe will address most of the questions that are being raised; and no doubt raise many more but that's for another day.
It was, and is, our genuine intention to try and glean some new insights from the public by releasing our expedition and research data to CFZ. We think this is unique and has certainly generated a lot of interest around the world.
Although some people are not taking it seriously, or looking very closely, we have found that other observations and information coming back is very useful and educational from both points of view.
While many are clearly not convinced, I have to say that I am encouraged by the fact that the cynics have failed to produce anything concrete that would dissuade us from our conclusions which we look forward to releasing at the end of the week.
G & M
Jason, it is good to see that one or two people are paying attention and not just here to 'have a go'.
The answer to your question is "yes" this is one of the satellite pictures that inspired the trip to the Napo/Amazon confluence.
It seems that the blog isn't the perfect way to display this information but this is how we have committed to doing it.
Judging by the questions and comments it is clear that some people haven't seen, or haven't read, the previous submissions.
Jon has tried to create some continuity by adding a series link to the previous information below each daily blog.
At the end of the week we will release what we believe we have discovered,which we believe will address most of the questions that are being raised; and no doubt raise many more but that's for another day.
It was, and is, our genuine intention to try and glean some new insights from the public by releasing our expedition and research data to CFZ. We think this is unique and has certainly generated a lot of interest around the world.
Although some people are not taking it seriously, or looking very closely, we have found that other observations and information coming back is very useful and educational from both points of view.
While many are clearly not convinced, I have to say that I am encouraged by the fact that the cynics have failed to produce anything concrete that would dissuade us from our conclusions which we look forward to releasing at the end of the week.
G & M
I am really starting to lose my patience with this saga.
These men, what kind of idiots do they think we are?
Cannot make out anything interesting even. Forget even definitive evidence.
Taking us all on a ride.
On closer examination: the water displacement 'trail' does not seem to be connected properly to the (apparent) figure in the estuary as a result of prior movement; I suspect from the ripple pattern that it represents outflow water from the estuary (possibly channeled by estuary vegetation) commingling with underwater flow from the main river (now burbling up after heavy vegetation upriver in the main channel.)
The darker green color in the estuary cannot be an anaconda, as this color broadens out to wrap around the left coast (relative to the shot perspective); it's clearly plant life of some kind when it's in the main channel, so by inference is still the same kind of plantlife running along the 'south' bank of the estuary (and mostly filling it).
There does seem to be a hatchiness in the estuary running beside the dark green plantlife in the estuary. But at this resolution it's impossible to tell whether the hatchiness is an animal (i.e. the superconda) or a water channel between two types of plantlife (one type being the dark green on the 'southern' bank of the estuary).
I will note that it's impossible (for me anyway) to see the hatchiness at the normal zoom (of this resolution); what appears to be something in the channel at that zoom (i.e. as is shown on the main page) is revealed to be floating plant-cover when zoomed in.
JRP
PS: and no, I have no idea where the 'triangular shapes' are supposed to be in this shot either.
Greg and Mike Warner claim to have published their pics to "glean insights from the public" then go on to say how pleased they are that the cynics haven't come up with anything concrete.That just beggars belief. I'm gobsmacked. Pot calling kettle?People living in glass houses?
Somehow I suspect that revelation of proof of a giant snake in the Amazon basin is the least likely option come Friday's final photo release.
Hey,
I've worked up a really nice pdf which helps show where the apparent 'object' is in the channel. How should I submit it? (The pdf is only 124k in size, pretty small; but I've labeled and pointed to all the elements visible from the zoomed version available from your page.)
JRP
Post a Comment