"This is an artist's impression of the Minhocao which matches the descriptions found in our research. I would like you to examine this picture and then compare it with our expedition shot (Image 317) of the creature in the channel. Consider a head and body partially submerged.It is our theory that the Minhocao (which was considered to be a giant earthworm) is the same creature as the Sachamama. We believe that this animal exists at the Napo/Amazon confluence and is capable of burrowing under the ground.
Tomorrow we will release satellite and video evidence that shows two (almost identical) shapes in two different locations at the Napo/Amazon
confluence, which we believe are caused by this creature. Mike & Greg Warner, 16th June 2009."Mike and Greg also asked us to back-link to this comment from Dale Drinnon which was made on June 9th..
DALE DRINNON WRITES:This Sachamama stuff is more than a decade old in Peru and Karl Shuker had an article in FATE about it while that magazine was still in its old, large-size format. Shuker wrote about the Sachamama in 1999-2000 (The FATE article being "Close Encounters of the Cryptozoological Kind" in 2000, following a few in the Fortean Times) and he was connecting it to the Minhocao then but what was being described was a giant snake similar to the current reports. The stories began hitting the news suddenly in the 1990s and were an odd mixture of Sucuriju Gigante and Minhocao features but identified as another different and local cryptid, the "Snail Demon" or "Snake-with- a-shell," Sachamama. It is evidently depicted on Chimu artwork. Karl Shuker did identify it with the Minhocao and he did think it was a gigantic caecilian. It has an entry in Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures.
http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2009/06/sage-of-peruvian-giant-snake-2.html
INDEX TO PREVIOUS STORIES
Monday's data release
Tuesday'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.
I'm sorry but this is getting more and more tenuous by the day. I have seen nothing yet that I would count as evidence - everything we have seen is speculative at best. If you have real evidence please make it available, rather than adopting this piecemeal approach which is not building any kind of coherent or credible picture. I hope you don't think I am being abusive - I am certainly not intending to be - but I am a scientist and I expect other people to apply the same scientific rigour that I would myself, no matter what the subject of the study is.
ReplyDeleteUh, no. Sadly, it still looks like mud. The large mud press in the middle has an interesting looking track in the middle of it, but this is the same picture as before.
ReplyDeleteAt least I now know which portion is supposed to be the head. I guess. Is that large squished mudbank in the middle supposed to be the body? It would be far wider than any 2 meters if so, and isn't the right shape at all. (I'd be closer to guessing the mudbank was the back of a crocodilian, except that the proportions still aren't right.)
I will point out in the interest of objectivity (since I'm being critical of this picture) that a failure in regard to this picture (or the supposed thing in the channel from the satellite footage) does not necessarily mean there will not be a good photo later. However, the Bayesian-evaluation side of my head is beginning to infer that there won't be, based on patterns of past experience. {s}
JRP