Conquer Club

http://news.aol.com/article/borneo-mons ... 1201280601

Villagers in Borneo who have long believed that a legendary 100-foot-long snake called the Nabau trolls the Baleh River say recent photographs show that the beast has returned, The Daily Mail reports.
One of the photos showing a serpent-like figure was taken from a helicopter by a member of a disaster team monitoring flood regions, while a second was taken from a remote village. Critics, however, have called both photographs into question, Livescience.com reports.

Well, there's no bigfoot or Nessy around, and they deserve a cool monster sighting too.

looked fake to me

This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

People seem to have this idea that all major species have been discovered but the fact is the frequency in discovery of new species has gone up in the last decade, not down. There are still large parts of the world which are virtually unexplored. There are even areas in the United States where people rarely travel which could be host to large undocumented land animals. It makes sense to listen to local accounts on strange creatures because from time to time they happen to be right.

Yes, but you'd think people would have noticed 100 foot long snakes, considering the thousands of species of insect we have identified.

People did notice it, just not the people that need to to make it official. It's a paradox to claim that nobody has noticed an animal that people have noticed, it's simply a question of WHO noticed it. The panda was once considered a mythical animal and scientists didn't believe in the existance of the okapi, despite native claims, until THEY found one. Ultimately scientists are generally not adventurers who would risk their lives and if you're looking for beasts in remote and dangerous parts of the world it takes an adventurer. Theodore Roosvelt is the kind of guy who makes finds like that, not Stephen Hawking (I know Hawking isn't a biologist but he's a good example to make the point).

Don't be surprised if they find something much BIGGER in our lifetime. There's an area in the Congo which is about the size of Florida which the Government there states is 80% unexplored among many MANY other remote places.

I bet you that you'll be hard pressed to find a clear photo of that... It's classic faking technique. Keep your fake out of focus, always. That way it's harder to tell. Works for photoshop too. Just dumb down the quality of the image, throw in a blur effect or something. Scale the image down. Works wonders to cover up your mistakes.

GabonX wrote:...

Yadda yadda yadda, I fully expected every word of this.

My point is if they know about so many hundreds of individual species of insects in the jungles of South America or the Congo, I find it hard to believe there are creatures that big that are undiscovered. People do research these claims, and so far none of them have returned any positive evidence of existence of Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, or any of the sea-snake myths.

EDIT: Also, scientists not adventurers? You're crazy. Of course physicists aren't adventurers - Stephen Hawking is completely not a legitimate example.

Biologists and geologists do get out of the lab, you know; after all, the only inhabitants of Antarctica are - you guessed it - scientists.

GabonX wrote:People did notice it, just not the people that need to to make it official. It's a paradox to claim that nobody has noticed an animal that people have noticed, it's simply a question of WHO noticed it. The panda was once considered a mythical animal and scientists didn't believe in the existance of the okapi, despite native claims, until THEY found one. Ultimately scientists are generally not adventurers who would risk their lives and if you're looking for beasts in remote and dangerous parts of the world it takes an adventurer. Theodore Roosvelt is the kind of guy who makes finds like that, not Stephen Hawking (I know Hawking isn't a biologist but he's a good example to make the point).

Don't be surprised if they find something much BIGGER in our lifetime. There's an area in the Congo which is about the size of Florida which the Government there states is 80% unexplored among many MANY other remote places.

So you think those photos look real? THey don't to me.

InkL0sed wrote:

GabonX wrote:...

Yadda yadda yadda, I fully expected every word of this.

My point is if they know about so many hundreds of individual species of insects in the jungles of South America or the Congo, I find it hard to believe there are creatures that big that are undiscovered. People do research these claims, and so far none of them have returned any positive evidence of existence of Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, or any of the sea-snake myths.

EDIT: Also, scientists not adventurers? You're crazy. Of course physicists aren't adventurers - Stephen Hawking is completely not a legitimate example.

Biologists and geologists do get out of the lab, you know; after all, the only inhabitants of Antarctica are - you guessed it - scientists.

Well I'm glad you know everything. Just promise me your head doesn't explode when they find something off of that list you just made

strike wolf wrote: So you think those photos look real? THey don't to me.

Honestly the first one doesn't, the second one I'm not sure about. There are large animals out there though and they are likely to be found in our lifetime.

My point is I find it highly unlikely. Maybe one day they'll find one of these things, dying somewhere in a cave.

But I doubt even that will ever happen.

Half the time they can't even find the animals they know are there. They thought that Gorillas in the Congo had gone extinct at one point but it turned out that the jungle was so dense that they simply couldn't be found.

A semi aquatic carniverous reptile would be much more well camoflauged, scarce(in terms of population) and generally much more elusive.

I don't think you fully comprehend what could be in an area the size of Florida which is 80% unexplored that happens to be one of the world's most dense jungles.

InkL0sed wrote:EDIT: Also, scientists not adventurers? You're crazy. Of course physicists aren't adventurers - Stephen Hawking is completely not a legitimate example.

Biologists and geologists do get out of the lab, you know; after all, the only inhabitants of Antarctica are - you guessed it - scientists.

Indeed. I've got plenty of stories of wandering around the wetlands of Georgia (there are a few areas) with my various biology professors. Everything from getting stuck in quicksand to getting zapped by a fish shocker. And I'm studying for microbiology. Imagine what actual ecologists, zoologists, ethologists, and other disciplines do.

Most scientists aren't exactly wheelchair-bound...

GabonX wrote:Half the time they can't even find the animals they know are there. They thought that Gorillas in the Congo had gone extinct at one point but it turned out that the jungle was so dense that they simply couldn't be found.

A semi aquatic carniverous reptile would be much more well camoflauged, scarce(in terms of population) and generally much more elusive.

I don't think you fully comprehend what could be in an area the size of Florida which is 80% unexplored that happens to be one of the world's most dense jungles.

Probably some cool stuff, but no dragons. I'd bet on it.

Dragons? Probably not.

I guess I just want there to be something, and from what I've heard it doesn't seem unlikely that there is somewhere. The question is what and where. Do I believe in the Loch Ness Monster? No. Do I believe in bigfoot? No, but I don't disbelieve either. If there is not a primate (other than man) on North America it is the only continent aside from Antarctica that doesn't have them. Based on the number of sightings there has been, the DNA evidence which has been found (they layed down a board with nails and something stepped on it which has around a 1 in 4000 chance of being human) and the centuries of American Indian testimony I don't think it's unlikely.

I guess I just want there to be a little bit of adventure left in the world. I can't see deer hunting as being anything but boring, but my God how I would love to shoot a dinosaur!..

GabonX wrote:Do I believe in the Loch Ness Monster? No. Do I believe in bigfoot? No, but I don't disbelieve either. If there is not a primate (other than man) on North America it is the only continent aside from Antarctica that doesn't have them. Based on the number of sightings there has been, the DNA evidence which has been found (they layed down a board with nails and something stepped on it which has around a 1 in 4000 chance of being human) and the centuries of American Indian testimony I don't think it's unlikely.

Although as much as I hate to admit it, you're right about the ape DNA on the trap.
But you have to admit that the guy who dressed in the first "bigfoot" suite has admitted it was a hoax. Plus, the people who shot the film admitted it was a hoax, and even admitted to planting evidence like footprints and hair. Later the one guy recanted to make a profit.
Bigfoot is not real.
But yeah, that board is disturbing....



Compare the size of that "dragon" with the trees around him. He's too big to even fit between them. It's like 500 times the width of a tree. So where would he live? I can't imagine that something that big spends it's entire life in a river that small, swimming near the surface. They would have been spotted before. And then you get into the trouble of it's diet... that thing would most likely need to eat a lot... and there would have to be more than one of them... And they say that there are boats regularly traveling in those waters? It's not even swiming with the natural bend in the river. Clearly a bad forgery. But still better than the 'Anaconda' movie.

I don't think there are snakes 100 ft long. Could there be some snakes longer then 30 ft though? Probably. For awhile, the "Bili Ape" was thought to not exist, but it does, just that it was a bit exaggerated. It is basically a large species of chimpanzee that lives on the forest floor (chimps live in trees), has been known to at least eat dead large cats (whether they hunt them or not is something else) and so on. And recently, on Monster Quest, they were tracking a species of squid (can't remember which one, but it was about 6ft long) and tagged one with a camera to go down into the depths of the sea. They ended up taking a picture of a live squid that was estimated to be around 100 ft long, and if a member of the well known Giant Squid, could be up to 150 ft long. Either way, that is a big ass squid.

Wouldn't deny the possibility of a v big water snake.
However I see no plausible evidence here.
Was the Daily Mail mentioned?

InkL0sed wrote:

GabonX wrote:Half the time they can't even find the animals they know are there. They thought that Gorillas in the Congo had gone extinct at one point but it turned out that the jungle was so dense that they simply couldn't be found.

A semi aquatic carniverous reptile would be much more well camoflauged, scarce(in terms of population) and generally much more elusive.

I don't think you fully comprehend what could be in an area the size of Florida which is 80% unexplored that happens to be one of the world's most dense jungles.

Probably some cool stuff, but no dragons. I'd bet on it.

A pity, dragons would be one of the few things that are about as cool as a zombie apocalypse.

Ass-Kicking Scientists:

1) Buckaroo Banzai
2) Indiana Jones
3) Neil DeGrasse Tyson

4). Professor Challenger
5). Johnny Quest's Dad.

6)the proffessor on Futurama
7)The old guy on that Venture Brothers cartoon program...
8)Bill Nye ?
9)The dude who invented cyberskin. You're welcome CC regulars.



Did anyone else see the other pic of the snake? A lot more realistic looking if you ask me. That snake looks like an overgrown python.

10. Neoteny

The largest snake on record was the Titanoboa, Titanoboa cerrejonensis. It was discovered in Columbia and has been dated to have lived during the Paleocene epoch about 60 million years ago. It was approximately 14 meters (43 feet) long and is expected to have weighed about a ton and a quarter (1100 kilos). Extrapolating from modern reptiles, it's clear that the titanoboa needed slightly warmer temperatures to have survived, averaging at about 30 degrees Celsius. Current temperatures in Columbia are below that, and in Borneo, where this "dragon" is supposed to be, average temperatures are about 26 degrees Celsius, which would definitely be pushing it for a 43 foot snake, and it wouldn't be feasible at all for a 100 foot snake.

I don't care how many forests there are, there are no fucking dragons in Borneo. Not any that are 100 feet long, anyhow.

Any chance of zombies then?

GabonX wrote:If there is not a primate (other than man) on North America it is the only continent aside from Antarctica that doesn't have them.

What does that mean to you?
Do you think it means there should be primates in North America?
What about the other large swathes of land that don't contain primates?

Also, do you think your statement accurately reflects this map?

map source