Hi Jon,
My Dad & I wanted to share this report we just received from our contact in the Peruvian Amazon.
This report fits with the burrowing behaviour, 'trenches' and 'channels' we associate with the Black Boa / Minhocao / Yacumama / Sachamama of the Amazon, which we believe are all the same animal: a giant snake.
You can find similar reports of these 'trenches' created by the Minhocao in BH's On the Track of Unknown Animals page 360 (in our edition).
The last report we can find of such an event is in the early 1960s.
Follow the link below for the full story.
http://www.bigsnakes.net/Research.htm
Kind regards,
Mike & Greg Warner
When the Warners' claims first came to the world's attention back in the summer I thought of proposing the launch of an annual prize for inept cryptozoology, to be called the Golden Bigfoot Turd.
ReplyDeleteCandidates include Cryptomundo for the supermarket car park lightshade masquerading as a Thunderbird, and the Bigfoot researchers who 'discovered' a correspondence between sightings and rainfall levels (it's the TREES guys!)
But what chance have they got against the Warners? Go through the accounts they list and you will notice how these giant boa (???) trails appear when it's been raining heavily enough to cause flooding, and whole chunks of riverbank are being washed away. Coincidence? I think not.
As for the 1948 machine-gunned monster snake, words fail me. Haven't these guys ever seen a bogus photo before?
What's more, they still seem to be relying on Google Earth and clippings for their research. Now I'm no expert but if you want to find giant anacondas in the Amazon basin a good starting point might be going to the Amazon basin and looking for giant anacondas.And preferably not returning unless and until they find one !
These reports are, in my opinion, gibbering nonsense; there is no other way to describe them at all. The reports of widespread destruction purportedly caused by this snake all occurred during the largest flood in living memory, in an active river system, on a wet alluvial plain; why invoke a strange new supersnake when flood-induced debris flows will make the same trails of destruction?
ReplyDeleteThe area in question doesn't have any really big, common herbivores for this super-predator to feed on, or for it to need to grow so big to tackle. Anacondas can handle pretty much all the common local wildlife when they grow to their reported largest sizes; they never grow much bigger because they simply don't need to.
Finally, if these big snakes existed, you would expect to see a lot of smaller individuals of the same species in that area; the giants would constitute the few old, well-fed members of the population with a lot of younger, less fortunate individuals also present in the area. As we don't see ANY smaller members of this unknown species in the area, I think the "Giant snakes, wow" argument is falling rather flat.
In short, I don't believe a word of what they're saying.
The more I read of these tales from the Warner's, the less I am inclined to believe what they say and the more I start to believe in fairies and that the moon is a lump of cheese.
ReplyDeleteI think these guys have probably gotten a bit carried away, they seem to be selecting the evidence to fit around a theory that there is indeed a giant snake. But who knows, there could be one there.
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand the comments regarding them going over to find it and not coming back until they did. How exactly are two amateur's with an interest in cryptozoology going to do this? I suppose it's a cheap and easy expedition right, not one costing thousands of pounds using a specialist team with specialist equipment?