WELCOME TO THE CFZ BLOG NETWORK: COME AND JOIN THE FUN

Half a century ago, Belgian Zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans first codified cryptozoology in his book On the Track of Unknown Animals.

The Centre for Fortean Zoology (CFZ) are still on the track, and have been since 1992. But as if chasing unknown animals wasn't enough, we are involved in education, conservation, and good old-fashioned natural history! We already have three journals, the largest cryptozoological publishing house in the world, CFZtv, and the largest cryptozoological conference in the English-speaking world, but in January 2009 someone suggested that we started a daily online magazine! The CFZ bloggo is a collaborative effort by a coalition of members, friends, and supporters of the CFZ, and covers all the subjects with which we deal, with a smattering of music, high strangeness and surreal humour to make up the mix.

It is edited by CFZ Director Jon Downes, and subbed by the lovely Lizzy Bitakara'mire (formerly Clancy), scourge of improper syntax. The daily newsblog is edited by Corinna Downes, head administratrix of the CFZ, and the indexing is done by Lee Canty and Kathy Imbriani. There is regular news from the CFZ Mystery Cat study group, and regular fortean bird news from 'The Watcher of the Skies'. Regular bloggers include Dr Karl Shuker, Dale Drinnon, Richard Muirhead and Richard Freeman.The CFZ bloggo is updated daily, and there's nothing quite like it anywhere else. Come and join us...

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, June 12, 2009

PERUVIAN "GIANT SNAKE" PICTURES RELEASED THROUGH THE CFZ BLOGGO


After a week of negotiations with Mike and Greg Warner, the CFZ has the exclusive rights to release all the pictures from their Peruvian expedition.

Greg sent these with the following message: "These are the two shots we got that we believe is Yacumama or giant anaconda. It looks like the head to me and part of the body surfacing at the other side of the channel."

Unfortunately, although Richard and I have examined all the pictures in depth, and have spent a long time discussing the matter both by telephone and e-mail with Greg, we disagree completely with their conclusions and believe that these pictures show nothing more than a natural formation of mud or sand.

However, at this point, may we say that we are not for a moment doubting Greg and Mike's sincerity.

They appear to be very nice people who have worked very hard, and have always been open and honest with us. We, too, have always tried to behave like gentlemen, and the whole affair has been conducted in a scientific and civilised manner.

We are surprised that over the last week or so as this story has broken, that we were the only cryptozoological website to give them the courtesy of examining their evidence. Indeed we were the only cryptozoological website to bother covering this story. When you think of the torrents of press such ridiculous claims as last year's Georgia bigfoot, the two Montauk Monsters, and this year's ludicrous Quatari goblin got, I find this highly peculiar. In fact, I don't understand it at all.

When we first saw these photographs, Richard wrote to Greg:

Dear Greg

Thank you for sending over the photographs and co-ordinates.

I have spent the morning looking over them. I said that I would be totally honest in my assessment, and I will be.

I can see nothing in any of these photographs to indicate a giant snake. The picture of the creature's head with another part of the body protruding out of the water further on, looks to me like a sandbank or lump of mud. It, to my eyes at least, does not resemble a snake. Perhaps if the image had been sharper it may have revealed more.

The toppled trees and areas of destruction look like rain damage. Rainforest trees are notoriously shallow-rooted and easily ripped up by floods.

There may well be huge snakes in the area, indeed I believe that the green anaconda gets far larger than we imagine. However, I can't conceive of us getting funding for a second expedition on the back of these pictures. I'm sorry to sound so negative but I have to be honest. There are far more disappointments in cryptozoology than there are triumphs.

I wish you the best of luck with any further endeavours you embark upon.

Yours

Richard


Greg wrote back:

Hi Richard/Jon

I appreciate the time you spent on this even though I can’t accept ‘looks like a sandbank’ as an informed answer. There is no sand as this area is heavily flooded as you can see almost to the top of some trees.

To be honest, I was hoping for something more scientific with an analysis and opinion on all the evidence supplied to you but I respect your opinion and believe that you are sincere.
You guys have been fair with us so I want to offer you the same courtesy and keep to our deal.
It’s time to put this to the court of public opinion so my father has agreed to let you publish all the data we sent you on the condition that it is presented as our data (Mike Warner & Greg Warner) without subjective opinions from either party and it is presented in full (all the images we supplied with annotations also). Let people decide for themselves.

There are still questions that need answered and someone out there may have some interesting views on the matter:

  • What happened in Nueva Tacna?
  • Why are all these ‘major and ‘minor’ interconnecting channels running through the area?
  • What is this creature if it moves on video and disappears from the channel if it isn’t a reptile?
  • What happened in Morona Cocha last week when the “Black Boa” destroyed a house on the lake?
  • What is this shape in the middle of the area on Google, coincidence?
  • Why do the locals persist with accounts of the Yacumama in the area?
  • The evidence we supplied is only a sample of what we have but it is a start.
We give your permission place these all the material on your CFZ site. I also, suggest that you copy our email correspondence also so that there is full transparency.

Please ensure all private information like email addresses and telephone numbers are deleted please. If anyone wants to contact us then they can do it through CFZ. We are continuing our work in the area and are sending someone to interview villagers in the settlements of Morona Cocha although we must make it clear that we do not believe this is the same creature from the Napo/Amazon.

Ultimately, we would like to go back to the Napo/Amazon and survey the area more, with better equipment and a helicopter rather than a Cesna but we’ll see how things pan out.

Kind regards

Greg & Mike


We will be releasing all the rest of the material over the next few days, and invite the bloggo readership to submit their opinions. This, we believe, is one of the first times that an expedition's findings are going to be laid open to public scrutiny in this matter, and we hope that Greg and Mike's gentlemanly behaviour will be reciprocated by anyone who cares to join in the debate.

37 comments:

Jon Downes said...

DALE DRINNON WRITES: In the Peruvian photo: THAT is a sandbar, and is not even the right SHAPE to be an anaconda's head. Rattlesnake maybe but NOT an anaconda!

Bigfoot73 said...

There is nothing in this photo even vaguely resembling a snake. Now they are extolling other aspects of the story, not promising more,convincing, photos.If this snake did so much damage then why not photograph that? Surely it must have shed a scale or left some bitemarks along it's trail of destruction?

Dr Dan Holdsworth said...

That is a sandbar. The river its self looks very turbid and muddy, and in a turbid, muddy river you'd expect a lot of sediment to be deposited, given that the watercourse appears to be fairly flat. When you get a river like this, which is actively transporting sediment then river courses tend to form, silt up and then new channels form and make new courses. This gives rise to a major channels, minor channels and areas of mud, all of which change over time and often change quite rapidly without anything forcing the process apart from flowing water.

All this is completely normal for an active river system, and any O-level geography schoolchild should be able to tell you all about it; it isn't complex science and it most certainly has nothing whatever to do with giant snakes.

Frankly, I honestly don't know where these two researchers have got this story from. Granted big snakes have existed and probably still do exist, but these photos in this story here don't suggest anything save a few hundred tonnes of sand and silt; there isn't anything animate there at all apart from trees and so on.

Chris said...

I absolutely KNEW this was too good to be true. There is nothing like a godzilla sized snake out there. Maybe a couple of 40 footers, but thats it.

Forteana said...

this is disappointing.

Esther said...

Oh my goodness! Such a wickedly horrendeous sandbar that is! Oh my, what did those poor tree's ever do to you, you wicked, wicked,sandbar!

Chris Clark said...

Why such low resolution? The Canon EOS 1000D is advertised as a 10Megapixel camera and this has about 0.5 Meg. Are there any better ones available? I put it through the 'Sharpen' function on Picture It and it looked even more like a sandbar.

Shivakumar said...

What is wrong with the Montauk monster?
It may not be a raccoon. It is certainly a worthwhile mystery for the cryptozoology community.
As for this giant snake?
It is so annoying this photo is blurred like this. I hope some clearer ones are uploaded.
Impossible to prove anything from it.
The Georgia Bigfoot may have been a hoax. Or it could have been real and the men threatened by govt officials to say it was a hoax.

Shivakumar said...

Also,
I wonder where the snake is supposed to be in the photo? Is it that massive brown thing which is supposed to be its head?
Or is it that little worm like thing next to the big brown thing?

I.M. said...

If I go so far as to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they saw something, this photo does nothing to inform me of that event. I am genuinely surprised that these researchers would expect viewers of these photos to be convinced of anything other than what Dr Dan indicated in his comment.

I wish them luck, but I won't be paying them much mind after this.

Ellis Garvin said...

Like the majority of "cryptozoology" articles I have seen, this one expects us to use our imagination to provide the evidence, which is otherwise nonexistent...

Wait, I think I see the form of Jesus in that sandbar!

nonya said...

What the hell are we supposed to be looking at!?!!

You can tell by the way the edges blend into the water that is DIRT!

This isn't 'mysterious'... it's STUPID!

...period...

nanano said...

Why show these photos which are fuzzy and far away when you can show the one in the following web page?

http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2009/06/photo-leviathan-yacumama-anaconda-found.html

How would you like to have been in that little canoe next to that ... er, "sandbar" ?

Dee Dee said...

I think I see Big Foot urinating behind a tree on the left.

Dabbler's Blog said...

i am surprised since they are photographers in that sort of place they dont carry some kind of infrared lenses or camera thingys to tell if its a live object or not.

Todd said...

Lame... Sorry... but this is an astoundingly worthless photo of nothing worth publishing. Please tell me you have SOMETHING to show for your expedition, this is likely the most ridiculous attempt at photographic evidence I have ever witnessed... I can only hope that there are better photos in your additional evidence, otherwise (and unfortunately) this expedition has produced not only NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, but it has also shown that the research team is perhaps off their rockers... or perhaps disingenuous... Bummer.

CRAIG DOUGLAS ETC. said...

This is so retarded even George Noory wouldn't buy it

Bigfoot73 said...

Nanano,where have you been dude? I followed the link and found the same photo I mistook for the 130foot anaconda earlier in the week.The Warners didn't take the photo,it's nowhere near 130 feet and it's probably dead.The real yacumama is the one cunningly disguised as a mudbank.

Bigfoot73 said...

Bigfoot? Urinating behind a tree in the Amazon? Wrong neck of the woods entirely. Must be a mapinguary!!!

PeterG said...

Yeah and just look at the high quality high definition photographs

Very easy to make out lots of great detail behind those clouds.

Makes it about on the same level of most ufo shots ever taken and dont forget the saskwatch

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

iwasfloyd said...

Is there supposed to be something in those pics posted on the site? Because there is nothing more than the rocks there.

Pangui said...

I have found many anacondas in the Amazon. Non of them waved at me to make me see them. Some were disguised under leaves, some were disguised under mud. Some were right there in the river.
You all people know that most giant (or big) animals mimetise, disguise, and use covers to protect themselves from danger (mainly from man). So don't expect the Yacumama the Warners believe they found be all dressed up and saying "here I am". It is under a cover.
That is not a mudbank or sandbar. A rock formation maybe, but there are no rocks on the Amazon.
Never saw a mudbank or sandbar with a protruding smaller end towards the river. It would just slide down.
The river looks turbid because it must have been raining on the area.
ALSO, THERE ARE NO "Rattlesnakes" in the Peruvian Amazon.

Oddcult Archive said...

Could someone who can see where the snake is supposed to be perhaps do the rest of us a favour and take the picture and draw the outline of the snake over it, so that it's easier to see?

Cheers.

Nick Hoyle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Hoyle said...

I've been looking at this for a bit, and I can see some weird patterns and shapes going on that might justify this monster snake hanging on the river bank. thoughts?

http://i39.tinypic.com/2yo32wx.jpg

Bigfoot73 said...

Something just occurred to me: if you look at the red text in the labelled version of the first photo, then the elongated shape in the second, you get the impression the Warners think it's the bright water thats the snake, not the mudbank.The patch of bright water in the main channel is the head and another patch in the top of the pic is the tail, with the rest of the body in the channel.
Anacondas aren't silvery though.This is obviously an OOPP - Out Of Place Pilchard.

Nick Hoyle said...

Check out this picture outline of where the snake seems to be! Maybe post this on the blog so everyone can see?

cheers!

http://i39.tinypic.com/2yo32wx.jpg

Bigfoot73 said...

Mud,mud,reptilian mud
Nothing quite like it for heating the blood
So follow me follow
Down to the bloggo
And there we shall comment on glorious mud

steve martin said...

I have been to the Amazon jungle and have seen first hand what the rainy season leaves behind, and i can tell you that if thats a sand bar, then its one of the only ones in the area which has browes.
Look,im reading allot of negative material, what almost seems to be bashing this legitamate expedition which neither of this panel has been on, or witnessed.
Put your money where your mouth is and step up to the plate and read the facts from related news papers some of which were documented by the very own Peruvian army.
The fact is, Percy Fawsett documented channels and the warner expedition has confirmed this previously documented information which was completed 100 years ago.
This cannot be egnored unless we wish to remain close minded.
I think that this Warner expedition was an incredible thing for science, which was 100 years overdue. Thank you Greg and Mike.
We need more people like you who puts there money where there mouth is and exacutes a plan and follows it through.
I would like to offer my services and a contrabution of money to take this important second expedition to the next level for verification and more impotantly to document the configuration of these obvious channels which quiteb simply CANNOT be egnored.
Thank you, Steve

Bigfoot73 said...

A mudbank with eyebrows is a simulacrum, not a snake.It's not the sceptics who need to put their money where their mouths are and step up to the plate,the burden of proof lies with the proponents, who keep shifting focus from mudbanks/snakes to channels to shadowy things in rivers to newspaper reports without ever being specific and then have the temerity to express dismay at perfectly reasonable negative comments.
What is it about these channels that proves the existence of giant snakes? Why do giant snakes need to make channels when they could cover the distance overland between 2 bodies of water in seconds?
I don't know if there are annual awards for standards in webmastery but Jon Downes's patience and fairness in handling all this certainly merits one.The Warners have rewarded Jon's courtesy with procrastination and now they have stopped posting anything but vague declarations of interest from unnamed scientists and TV channels.
Their refusal to address reasonable criticism and unqualified adherence to their claims is beginning to feel like the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome.
a week ago I commented that we all deserved some believable evidence sooner rather than later.The Warners have completely failed to deliver.

Jon Downes said...

That's really sweet - thanks dude

smith said...

thanks Mike and Greg for releasing this picture ohhhhhhh......its really great work.

smith
-----------
Free Direct TV

Michael A Swann said...

If you sharpen the image and then 'auto-level' it you can see a lot more, the image that they have supplied is quite washed out and very low-res for the camera that they had.
I wonder, do they have a .tif of it that we can see, that would surely end the debate for once and for all.

Michael A Swann said...

If you sharpen the image and adjust the levels you can clearly see that it is just sand or sediment and that the "head" isn't even connected to "the body"..
Perhaps they have a .tif that they could release to end the debate for once and for all?

spacepup13 said...

Wow! I am coming late to the party but I came across this and just was floored. Seriously the titan boa which is the largest snake we have a fossile record for was only 50ft long and the Warners are claiming like 131 ft? Look I am not sure oxygen levels would support that. Not to mention just the weight of that thing would leave definitive tracks in any mud. How about there is no wake left in the water of this thing moving. In fact looking at the pictures there are not any even a ripple. Watch a 18 ft crocodile that weighs over a ton leaves a huge wake in the water when swimming on the surface.

Oh and Pangui the Tropical Rattlesnake (Crotalus durissus)does in habit Peru.

Dr Vhitz said...

This is rather stupid, just a sand bar.

starchild said...

it is a large snack? look under thermal to get a better look?