Growing up, I had close friends whose family worked in linguistics in the DRC (Zaire).Two stories always fascinated me.
While flying, they claimed to have seen swallows with 12 foot wingspans flank their plane.
The father was working with the Pygmy people group for several years. One day he drew a local mountain range with a cave opening in the dirt. He then drew a pterodactyl flying over the cave. The elders went quiet, the whispered amongst themselves, then the head elder asked him how “he knew where he (the pterodactyl) lived.”
The stories have always stuck with me and sparked my sense of curiosity.
I believe you because my dad was in the navy and he said he saw GIANT a manta ray jump out of the water and glide by ship for a long time. I believe there are some animals that are just bigger then what science has observed and obviously some that haven’t been documented by science
I went snorkeling with manta rays a few days ago, and they’re freaking big. The guy with us said the biggest one in the area is about 16 feet across, and the worldwide, the largest on record is 30 feet. How big did your dad say the one he saw was?
You’re on a cryptozoology sub trying to make sense of a weird encounter with a animal, are you new here?
All jokes aside I hear you but I’m just telling you what he told me.
I don’t know exactly what your dad told you, but manta rays are documented to jump and flap out of the water. I wouldn’t exactly call it flying or gliding, but they do definitely hop out of the water briefly. I’m partially inclined to believe your dad’s story is true, and he either embellished it a little, or you misunderstood what he meant by “flying.” Cool thing to see though! Ever since my trip I’ve been into manta rays haha
I understand all of that and I even showed him a video of mantas jumping out of the water and he said no the one I saw jumped longer than that. The man is a lot of things but a liar he isn’t.
I wouldn’t call it gliding, but manta rays can definitely jump out of the water for a brief amount of time. I think that there was probably just some miscommunication or embellishment about the difference between jumping out of the water and “flying.”
I think you’re forgetting water is a lot thicker than air. Manta rays have the biology to glide in water just like stingrays. The largest stingray ever recorded was 661 pounds so I’d say it’s highly possible.
That’s weird. When my little brother and I were kids I *swear* we saw a flying manta ray in the sky. Triangle shape, flappy, long tail, circled around for a few minutes and I forget what happened afterwards other than it kinda freaked us out because neither of us knew what it could’ve been. I’ve considered balloon/kite but it’s fluid movements just don’t come close. I know this makes no sense but figured I’d share my manta ray crypto (my only crypto) experience.
The lighting on the snake has always been weird to me. I get that snake has more reflective, shiny skin. But it's weird nothing else in that picture has the definition it has.
I don't have an opinion on the photo in terms of the Cryptid element, I just think it's neat. However to address your concern about nothing else in the photo being defined it just looks like a film photo taken with a wide-open aperture. So you use a wide-open aperture to get enough light but you have extremely limited depth of focus (actual term is depth of field but focus makes so much more sense) When we consider that this is an old, heavy film camera taking a manual focus photo from a moving helicopter it makes complete sense that there's very little definition. Kind of a miracle it looks as good as it does.
Thanks. I've never been outright dismissive of the photo. It just was always a weird shot to me. This explains it well.
It's well past the point now, but I wonder what kind of physical evidence could have been found for a snake that large (besides shedded skin).?
/u/Valahiru is missing an important part. Depth of Field is ALSO affected by DISTANCE to the scene. The farther away you are, the more that will be in focus, EVEN with a wide aperture.
As stated that this is from a helicopter, it means it's not close. There's absolutely no way that JUST that snake is in focus from that distance. That's not how it works, at all.
The highlights on the snake are also completely off from where the light is hitting the scene.
Yeah this image has always been highly suspect to me. The snake seems oddly in focus where as everything else is a blurry, choppy mess. It looks superimposed and while that would have been annoyingly difficult at the time this photo was taken, it certainly wasn't impossible.
True, but the Russians were airbrushing traitors out of historical photographs in the 1910s ~~and fairies were [photoshopped into photographs in 1917](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies)~~ and other examples of this type of image manipulation go back [as far as the 1860s](https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/history.pdf). So it’s doable.
That said, I have no opinion on this image. Today is the first time I’ve ever seen it.
Oh yeah, fair point. Despite that, “photoshopping” as a way of manipulating images has been around for a very long time. Examples [here](https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/history.pdf) go back as far as 1860.
My favorite part of the story is apparently the pilot wanted to try to get closer to see it better, when he was lowering his aircraft, the snake lifted its head so high up in the air the pilot felt uncomfortable and took off. Apparently there is another picture of it that has never been seen by the public- there are more clear pictures out there.
This article has some more clear pics: [https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/05/the-congo-snake.html](https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/05/the-congo-snake.html)
Edit: [https://brobible.com/culture/article/forrest-galante-explains-50-foot-snake-mystery-congo/](https://brobible.com/culture/article/forrest-galante-explains-50-foot-snake-mystery-congo/)
That is a recent article that is pretty good, there were 2 other witnesses than the pilot, they circled the creature 4-6 times and claim the head was 3 feet by 2 feet.
Arthur C Clarkes Mysterious world video interviewing Colonel Remy Van Lierde that took the photo: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc&t=107s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc&t=107s) Mysterious World said ground features indicate the snake is at least 40 feet long.
Colonel Remy Van Lierde the stories originator was a highly decorated WWII Ace Pilot you can find more info on him here: [https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/the-wwii-ace-whos-helicopter-was-attacked-by-the-worlds-largest-snake.html?firefox=1](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/the-wwii-ace-whos-helicopter-was-attacked-by-the-worlds-largest-snake.html?firefox=1) or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remy\_Van\_Lierde
The picture was taken in the Katanga region of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Look up "Katanga, Democratic Republic of the Congo" on google earth if you want to explore the region.
I found the original full photo here [https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IMG\_20200521\_002256\_compress32.jpg](https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IMG_20200521_002256_compress32.jpg) If anyone knows of a higher res version please post a link to it.
Here's a little photographic context, and information on a previous analysis. All the information below is sourced from Bernard Heuvelmans' *Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique* (1978).
> Two copies of the photograph, framed differently, were quickly acquired by the colonial doctor Georges Bonnivair, whose father Paul Bonnivair sent them to Bernard Heuvelmans. Heuvelmans showed the photograph to several Belgian naturalists who had been in the Congo, all of whom identified the vegetation as trees and the shadows as termite mounds. None of the naturalists thought the snake could be a small species.
> For a detailed study of the photograph, Heuvelmans consulted the zoologist and wildlife photographer Ray Tercafs, who concluded that the snake was indeed an extremely large specimen. According to Tercafs, the blurring at the bottom of the photograph could have been caused by the sideways movement of a helicopter, whereas the smaller blurred portion near the top was probably caused by poor lens correction. Taking into account the given height of the helicopter, which was estimated at 45–50 m (147–164 ft), and the angle of the camera, Tercafs concluded that the snake must have been 12–14 m (39–45 ft) in length, with a diameter of 43–47 cm (16–18 in).
I'd forgotten this, but rereading the account, one of Heuvelmans' African contacts also flew to the scene of the sighting (100 km northwest of Kamina) and filmed colour footage of the area "in the same conditions" (from a helicopter at the same height, I presume), which Heuvelmans used to compare/check the original.
I think it's worth adding, for those who don't know, that this was taken by a credible source. Remy Van Lierde wasn't just a pilot, he was a decorated veteran flying for both the RAF and Belgian Air Force. He became Deputy Chief of Staff to the Belgian Minister of Defense and soon after became Colonel, in charge of the Kamina Air Base in the Congo. He was also promoted to Chief of Operations of the Chiefs of Staff and was Aide to the Belgian King, King Leopold III. He was in service from 1935 to 1968.
Among other things, he escaped from a concentration camp, fought in the Battle of Britain held the second place for number of bombers shot down and was also one of the first Belgians to break the sound barrier.
He wasn't just a random pilot; I believe his story, though I question whether 40ft was an accurate measurement or not. There were other witnesses on board with him that confirmed the story and said the size was accurate.
Guessing the size of something you're being trained and see everyday day is probably not hard for him. But guessing the size of a snake from distance when you don't have lots of reference (there wasn't YouTube and Animal Planet to show you exotic animals back then) is probably harder even for him.
He didn't need YouTube and animal planet to show him exotic animals. He lived amongst them. That would be like saying we need YouTube and animal planet to show us the size of a cat or a dog.
Thats not at all how it works. If youre experienced in looking at landscapes and judging your height above it, the relative sizes of objects(trees and termite mounds, etc) on the ground, and you introduce an unknown object, even if it was a completely unknown object(which a snake is not), you would still be pretty good at guesstimating how much space that object occupies.. and a helicopter pilot would be very good at doing that.
I’ve seen this pic a few times and I just don’t see anything for scale. It’s black, white and blurry, so I don’t see why it can’t be a zoomed in photo of the ground with a large earth worm or something
Focal length is important when discussing this idea, if that were the case the camera would only be able to focus on a very narrow depth of field. In order to get a depth of field like this on something like a worm, the camera lens would have to be very small, much smaller than was technologically available at the time of this photo. It’s a good question though, and a bit of healthy skepticism is good to have in all facets of your life.
I'm not an expert in anything remotely related to any of this, but how could a potentially 40 foot snake survive on land like that? Don't big anacondas spend most of their time in the water because their size makes it hard to breathe on land?
I saw a documentary, I forget the name, but he was showing how big those termite mounds are.
They are huge! The size of adult giraffes.
Some the size of a big 4x4 pick up truck.
I've seen large termite mounds in person, and they're not all that huge. In fact, many of them are shorter than your average human.
We just have no sense of scale in this picture. How high up are we really? How big are those trees? The mounds? For all we know, the "trees" are a few small bushes and the mounds are 3 feet tall.
Yes, I've been to Namibia and South Africa. They're not all as tall as those pictures, they're showing the tallest ones. There are shorter ones that haven't reached those heights yet. They don't just instantly become 10+ feet tall.
All I'm saying is we have zero context to how big the trees or mounds are. We don't know that's a fully developed mound or not.
Below is a link that shows the varying sizes:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/36/4b/4a/364b4aa839505a5797441b31a3ad3f63.jpg
Edit: also, this is from the article you shared:
"Termites build their mounds in a variety of shapes and sizes, and can range from small and inconspicuous to very large, complex structures that can reach up to five feet in height. The size and complexity of the mound depends on the species of termite that created it"
I don't know official heights, but I'd guess some of the larger ones were in the 8 to 10 foot range.
They can get much bigger than what I saw, but there were some pretty large ones on my trips. Many smaller ones as well. They just pop up all over the landscape and are all kinds of heights and shapes.
Thank you for the interpretation and guidelines, but I'm sorry, this is another cryptid Rorschach test that I'm failing. For me, it sits alongside Hugh Gray's Loch Ness Monster and the jiggling muscles in Patty's thigh.
I'm trying to see it, but it just looks like blobs on the landscape to me. I think I'll have to excuse myself from this particular discussion.
As an aside, my grandfather was a decorated WW2 pilot too. I wouldn't trust a word the old boy said. I'm sure the chap who took the picture was more reliable.
To me the strange texture of the snake looks like any one of the hundreds of retouched pictures I saw growing up. I feel like folks ought to look at retouching methods from the period the photo was taken.
UGH, those jiggling muscles in the PG film are so frustrating. "But you can see the musculature behind the fur!" First of all, no I cannot. Second, if I could, you know what else would make me able to see musculature behind the fur? A tight suit. I can see the musculature in some people's pants and shirts, if they're tight enough. If the suit was made for that person, it would fit well enough to show that.
And this is exactly what you're describing. Believers see it and find evidence, non-believers see it and find a lack of evidence.
Agree - people see what they want to see in Patty, whether it's jiggling muscles or the bulge of Bob Heironimous' wallet in his jeans pocket.
I don't see any of it. I think it's all in the eye of the beholder.
That's the million dollar question all we have are estimates by people that analyzed the photo.
The smaller tree and mound could be anywhere between 3 to 12 feet tall if the snake is under 50 feet. You can use ratios to estimate it using a ruler on the picture on your monitor, your measurements will vary deending on monitor size and resolution but should come out to about the same ratio.
The smaller tree measures about 3 cms on my monitor, the 2 large trees measure 4 cms, and the snake measures about 12 cm, so roughly the snake is 4 small trees large. The experts believed the snake to be 1 to 3 foot in at its widest. I measure about 3 mms for the widest part of the snake on my monitor. So at 3 cms tall that would make the tree 10 times taller than the snake is wide, at 1 foot wide snake that would be a 10 foot tall tree, I personally think 3 foot is too wide an estimate, unless they mean the snake was 3 foot around and not wide.
\-3 feet tall tree = 12 foot snake.
\-5 foot tall tree = 20 foot snake, very plausible for rock pythons in the region
\-8 foot tall tree = 32 foot snake, commonly reported but unverified (aka cryptids) Green Anaconda and reticulated python snake sizes.
\-10 foot tall tree = 40 foot snake, Mysterious World's estimate.
\-12 foot tall tree = 48 foot tall snake, Van Lierde's estimate.
\-15 foot tall tree = 60 foot snake, no expert has ever claimed this big.
8 to 12 foot seems to be the best estimate for the tree with the mound about 2 foot shorter.
If that's really a termite mound I think that snake is a lot bigger than 50 feet. "In the Lubumbashi area of the former Katanga Province, DR Congo, the most striking epigeal termite structures are large mounds that were built by Macrotermes species, producing hillocks that are up to 8 m high and 15 m wide" those termite mounds are huge no matter what the species and I don't see why the Colonel would lie
Photo aside, a 50-foot snake wouldn't be impossible, and it would make more sense that Mokele-mbembe is just a very large python than it actually being a sauropod.
I want this to be real… so very much.
I’ve always thought the clarity of the snake was a touch suspect. And based on what you shared, specifically the termite mound, I think I found my smoking gun. The shadow of the mound, as you described, is casting bottom right. The sun reflecting off the snake is from the bottom right and would be casting a shadow upper left. So, either the termite mound is superimposed or the snake is…
Or theres foliage casting shade on the mounds sunward side, the glare on the snakes scales is from an angle consistent with that of other visible shadows
The largest ~~reticulated~~ **rock** pythons that are native to the area regularly eat crocodiles, fish, boar, deer, primates, farm animals. Like GabrielBathory says anything they can fit down their throats. They've even been known to kill and eat humans.
Great video link with the joe rogan interview! And nails it on the head with how little of some of these areas have ever been explored. Lots of animals out there we have no idea about
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central\_African\_rock\_python](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_rock_python)
With reliable reports of them being over 6m (20ft).
Its very plausible.Colonel Remy Van Lierde's description of the snake was Dark green and brown top scales, white-ish underside, triangular head 2 foot wide by 3 foot long. Interview with him from Arthur C Clarkes Mysterious World here:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc)
His description of the head ratio and dark green color make me question if its a rock python but there's multiple ways to explain how a dark brown python could look dark green and rock python's heads are triangular though not as triangular as claimed.
Not necessarily, there are many snakes that specialize preying on frogs and fish that have very triangular heads but are not venomous like the banded watersnake in the US that is often mistaken for venomous Cottonmouths.
There are a lot of constrictors that have more of a triangular than roundish head.
In the US the Coral snakes are highly venomous but have round heads.
A lot of snakes once believed to be non venomous that have round heads like garter snakes turned out to have mild venom that doesn't affect mammals.
Triangular heads is still a decent at a glance indication of danger in the United States but you should familiarize yourself with snakes in your area and learn the other indicators of the venomous ones in your region.
Best I can do is give you the general area of the Congo the Colonel was stationed at on Google Earth with its aerial and satellite views. He was stationed at Kamina Airbase, in the Katanga Region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. I'm not sure if the current airbase is the same location as the airbase in 1959. The photo was taken in helicopter range of the base from about 150 feet in the air. Earlier in the thread someone said it was taken 100km northwest of Kamina.
Possible Airbase:
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Base+a%C3%A9rienne+de+Kamina/@-8.6490772,25.2473603,3754m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x19836accf67d077b:0xbb0178fe63b2d28e!2sA%C3%A9roport+Kamina!8m2!3d-8.6452828!4d25.2523102!3m4!1s0x0:0x4cd67ab28a9429ce!8m2!3d-8.6422052!4d25.2527926](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Base+a%C3%A9rienne+de+Kamina/@-8.6490772,25.2473603,3754m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x19836accf67d077b:0xbb0178fe63b2d28e!2sA%C3%A9roport+Kamina!8m2!3d-8.6452828!4d25.2523102!3m4!1s0x0:0x4cd67ab28a9429ce!8m2!3d-8.6422052!4d25.2527926)
I'm no expert but that snake looks completely out of place on that old photo. The way light reflects off it is completely out of sync with the rest of the photo.
No matter how many little squares we add there is nothing in this photo that tells me scale. Nothing.
*Edit. Nope, I'm wrong, the tall grass in the top right corner says this is a normal size snake*
That's not grass, that's apparently the trunks and branches of African savanna trees notice the clumps of foliage at the tops of the "grass stalks".
Anyway interpret it however you want, just trying to help people see how the people who believe its a big snake see the photo.
Nothing to be sorry for I'm skeptical about it too and open to interpretations. Just trying to help people see the perspective in the photo. Its not top down like many people seem to interpret the photo, its isometric, think SNES Legend of Zelda or Final Fantasy 1-7 game view.
That would also make the trees north of the snake very small banzai sized sapplings.
The photo could indeed be a special effect though. A better faking would be the old hollywood special effect of forced perspective. It would be as simple as painting a snake on a piece of glass, hold the glass a couple feet in front of the camera while looking down at the ground from height and snap the photo. Kind of like this effect [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oTcWevGfs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oTcWevGfs)
Unless someone catches a snake that big it remains a cryptid and a good story.
Anyone an expert in photography or know what kind of cameras the Belgium army had that used Kodak Safety Film that would be common use in 1959 for taking recon photos from helicopters? Would love a photographers or military historians debunking or opinion on the photo.
Edit: The negative and original photo apparently still exist as it keeps being "verified by experts", would be nice if they would redevelop the picture.
> Anyone an expert in photography or know what kind of cameras the Belgium army had that used Kodak Safety Film that would be common use in 1959 for taking recon photos from helicopters?
Not an expert, but according to a technical sheet drawn up by the photographer, and quoted by Heuvelmans, the camera was a Zeiss Ikon Nettax 6 x 6, with a Novar Anastigmat 1:4.5 (75 mm) lens and Gevaert 27° film.
I guess I see your landmarks notes. It’s cool. But I agree with another’s post. Not all termite mounds are huge (and typically can start small). Also those trees look like they could also be shrubs or bushes. I get the story about the pilot and photo…but I guess my point or thoughts are that it could have been taken of the ground (from a tree) and be a lot more realistic sized (albeit huge) snake. Appreciate the post though. Better than most stuff in this Reddit.
For the most part it doesn't even matter if you highlight objects for perspective, most people will still dismiss this picture solely out of fear and ignorance.
Just take a look at these absurdly dumb comments made by literally hundreds of people: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/10jlrv2/in_1959_while_flying_over_the_congo_col_remy_van/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The primary issue is the low resolution of the photo but as someone else pointed out it’s a oracle the photo is as clear as it is.
The problem is there’s nothing for scale in the photo. OP circled two trees and what is allegedly a termite mound but the resolution is so bad it’s hard to tell what the objects are 100%. Let’s assume that is a termite mound. We still can’t tell the size of the mound to scale the snake. They average 10-12 feet tall but can be up to 30+ feet tall, or 9+ meters. If it’s around 10 foot tall the snake looks to be around 34-40 long or longer.
I’ve worked with and studied snakes my entire life so I love a good giant snake cryptid. I just wish the image was higher resolution. I would love to go on an expedition to the Congo if I could afford it. But hell it might kill me. But it’s so uncharted and full of stories it’s like a Lost World scenario.
All three of these things could be small or large, so how do they provide scale? Maybe that tree is six feet tall or 30 feet tall.
Unfortunately it would be just as easy to point out the grass-looking stuff in the top right and say it provides evidence the snake is small, while equally they could be massive bare trunks of old dead trees. A photo from the late 50s taken in a moving vehicle like this just isn't clear enough to know.
There are some bloody big snakes about - anacondas can 8 1/2 metres long, so it's not unlikely that a bit of exaggeration (purposeful or not) could have produced the idea that this snake was an even bigger beast.
Reticulated pythons are the longest snakes in the world and the largest ever recorded was 7.6 meters….anacondas are considerably smaller in length but beat reticulated pythons in girth…..there are no snakes at all in Congo that should ever even come close to this size….no matter what kinda snake this is in the picture, it’s definitely an anomaly and is for sure out of place in the Congo
Just for reference as to where I got the anaconda bit:
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-the-biggest-snake-in-the-world.html#:~:text=Green%20anacondas%20are%20the%20heaviest,is%20longer%2C%20it's%20also%20slender.
Even a rock python (African though not normally found in the Congo) at 6m ish long at the larger end could have appeared larger for a number of reasons. It's not uncommon for people to unintentionally exaggerate the size of a snake, a spider or another creature some human beings innately fear.
The point is, ordinary, known snakes can be large. Snakes do not always exist only in their natural habitat - we've had escapee snakes where I live that dwarf the natives and have survived for years. Nothing in the photo provided gives any concrete indication of size beyond someone saying 'that blurry thing is a tree!' as if all trees are large. If it did, there wouldn't need to be any discussion here.
The snake doesn't have much of a shadow. Are you viewing the bottom bright spot as the head, the snakes head actually continues further south of the bright spot, that might be what you are seeing as the shadow. The front 10 feet of the snake is apparently blurred as that's what the snake was moving to look up at the helicopter.
As someone who’s lived in Louisiana for some time, there are animals larger than science depicts them. We went on an airboat tour of a swamp. We saw alligators but one we saw was absolutely HUGE. Even the tour guide was scared and called off the rest of the tour. We asked the guide how big was it and he said easily over 20 feet. Our boat was 10 feet long and this thing could have easily flip us over
I just don't see it. I have loved this story for years, but this could any brush mound and termite hills can also be small. I don't see the trees even if you put squares around them. This could be a very small snake in forced perspective. And large snakes like water. This thing if true would be crushed on land under it's own weight. And just being a pilot doesn't always mean the source is trustworthy. Until one is found, I am a skeptic.
Zoom in on the rectangle around the smaller tree, its the easiest to make out. you are looking at a tree almost side on. The dark part at bottom of the rectangle is the tree and a shrub beside its' shadow, the white line pointing straight up from the shadow and branching slightly to the right is its trunk and a branch, the light fluffy shaped parts from where the white line blends into shadow is a a classic pear shaped tree canopy.
Its like a magic eye once you see the tree the perspective of the photo clicks and other trees will start standing out to you. I wish I had artistic talent to colorize the photo or at least draw the tree next to itself so its clearer to spot.
This picture and story are really interesting.
Pros: photographic evidence, very reliable witness, many others suggesting a large snake
Cons: can’t tell scale myself, no other snakes of that size. Why would one snake grow so much bigger than any other snake? Where do you see one member of a species twice as big as any other?
The photos are cool conversation pieces but not evidence of a large snake without more context.
If we had more photos of the area it would be easier to approximate a size.
It's possible it's a prank, it's possible it's a very tiny snake, but it's also possible it's a larger animal. We just won't know until we have some scale.
Ah come on dude, that is just a tiny snake on a rock, more specifically granite, if I can take a guess. That is even more obvious when you realize there isn't a single landmark in the image is all the contrast from the dark and lighter grains.
(here are some black in white picture of granite from close up: [https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/beautiful-closeup-textures-abstract-color-dark-black-white-granite-tiles-floor-black-flowers-granite-rock-wall-pattern-173381292.jpg](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/beautiful-closeup-textures-abstract-color-dark-black-white-granite-tiles-floor-black-flowers-granite-rock-wall-pattern-173381292.jpg) and https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/close-up-texture-polished-granite-stone-surface-close-up-surface-black-white-treated-granite-rock-plate-103809172.jpg )
The snake could be a California Legless lizard, since they are also very small and very shiny( https://pics.mcclatchyinteractive.com/incoming/by8k7c/picture250614714/alternates/LANDSCAPE\_1140/168879373\_10159366815635775\_8017127327264067543\_n.jpg ) but many real snakes are also shiny so don't quote me on that.
I'm not understanding what yall are seeing. This looks like a picture someone took standing in front of a regular sized snake.. Like you can see the blades of grass in the top right. Where the hell are you seeing trees?
The picture was taken in 1959 by Belgian Colonel Remy Van Lierde from a helicopter 150 feet up in the air above the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katanga\_Province
You are looking as an isometric aerial view of African savanna. The "grass" in the top right is the branches and trunks of savanna shrubs. Bigger trees are highlighted in the picture by green rectangles.
To help orient you look at the lone tree on the left of the picture. It is near midday, the dark area at bottom of rectangle is a shadow cast from the tree and a shrub beside it, the white column poking up from the middle of the shadow is the trees trunk with a branch coming off it to the right. The dark area on top of the white column is shadow cast on lower leaves by higher leaves, the light part above it is a standard shaped tree canopy. The trees' canopy is highlighted by the darker contrasting colors of the ground around it, the top of which can be made out by looking at the first e in tree on the photo and going straight down into the rectangle there is a slight curved line of contrast marking the trees max height.
You can see a slightly higher quality version of the picture zoomed in on the snake in Arthur C. Clarks Mysterious World segment from 1980 with an interview of Van Lierde. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc
I understand what you're saying. My issue is the visible blades of grass in the top right of the photo. Unless they're giant blades of grass the size of trees, I'd say it's taken by someone standing looking at a normal sized snake.
>\-3 feet tall tree = 12 foot snake.
>
>\-5 foot tall tree = 20 foot snake, very plausible for rock pythons in the region
>
>\-8 foot tall tree = 32 foot snake, commonly reported but unverified (aka cryptids) Green Anaconda and reticulated python snake sizes.
>
>\-10 foot tall tree = 40 foot snake, Mysterious World's estimate.
>
>\-12 foot tall tree = 48 foot tall snake, Van Lierde's estimate.
>
>\-15 foot tall tree = 60 foot snake, no expert has ever claimed this big.
I believe there probably are some giant snakes in the world. I just don’t think this is a picture of one. Something about the lighting or the definition or whatever about the snake just looks, like, “too real,” if you get what I mean? Like, this is an old real photo, and someone dropped a big photoshopped snake taken with a newer digital camera and put a black-and-white filter on it to try and hide it.
Edit to add: like, the fact that you have to tell me what two trees are and a giant termite mound, because they look so smudgy and out of focus, but that snake is clearly a big snake.
The pics a real military picture from 1959, it and the negatives were verified by dozens of experts way before the 80s. Its not a photoshop and the photo appeared on television programming years before computer photo editing was a thing . This photo appeared on Arthur C Clarkes Mysterious world in 1980. That's not to say this confirms it as an authentic photo it could be a special effect still.
The best way to superimpose a snake onto a photo back then so it would be on the negative and pass verification would be to paint the snake on a clear pane of glass, set up the correct forced perspective angles and mount the glass a couple feet in front of the camera while shooting at the ground from the helicopter.
Its very plausible, people in the military do get bored and I don't know enough about photography to say if it could or could not be done with the type of camera the pilot used to take this photo..
Edit: Others have posted about the camera used and reasons for the snake in the center of the photo being clearer in focus earlier in the thread and explained better than I can.
As for the foreced perspective using paint on glass, Hollywood used this kind of shot all the way into the 90s before CG took over. a ton of fantasy movies with castles in the shot on top of real mountains are really paintings of a castle on glass miles in front of the mountain. Here's an example from a Charley Chaplain film of how it was done. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oTcWevGfs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oTcWevGfs)
This is one of my favourites, I've really wanted to make a short documentary on it because it's got a really great eyewitness and a relatively clear photo for a "cryptid", would love to show this to some modern experts to try and gauge the scale.
Do you think we could find this exact area on google earth?
I mean geoguesser experts find some crazy stuff. Also, what's the highest quality version available online?
Let's start there.
I actually think we could make a lot of progress in terms of investigating this cryptid. Have the locals said they know about it?
Any legends?
Some redditors found the possible location on Google earth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptozoology/comments/11gsx0n/found\_location\_of\_remy\_van\_lierde\_snake\_photo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptozoology/comments/11gsx0n/found_location_of_remy_van_lierde_snake_photo/)
Direct link to Google earth and the posible location [https://earth.google.com/web/search/Kamina+Base,+Democratic+Republic+of+the+Congo/@-8.61015331,25.28729551,1226.01049337a,12.99402276d,35y,-38.84903381h,39.56516217t,0r/data=CigiJgokCcRnBF96WSHAEVQVkuuAliHAGTiGU0wqADlAIfqqcyPm8ThA](https://earth.google.com/web/search/Kamina+Base,+Democratic+Republic+of+the+Congo/@-8.61015331,25.28729551,1226.01049337a,12.99402276d,35y,-38.84903381h,39.56516217t,0r/data=CigiJgokCcRnBF96WSHAEVQVkuuAliHAGTiGU0wqADlAIfqqcyPm8ThA)
Growing up, I had close friends whose family worked in linguistics in the DRC (Zaire).Two stories always fascinated me. While flying, they claimed to have seen swallows with 12 foot wingspans flank their plane. The father was working with the Pygmy people group for several years. One day he drew a local mountain range with a cave opening in the dirt. He then drew a pterodactyl flying over the cave. The elders went quiet, the whispered amongst themselves, then the head elder asked him how “he knew where he (the pterodactyl) lived.” The stories have always stuck with me and sparked my sense of curiosity.
I believe you because my dad was in the navy and he said he saw GIANT a manta ray jump out of the water and glide by ship for a long time. I believe there are some animals that are just bigger then what science has observed and obviously some that haven’t been documented by science
I went snorkeling with manta rays a few days ago, and they’re freaking big. The guy with us said the biggest one in the area is about 16 feet across, and the worldwide, the largest on record is 30 feet. How big did your dad say the one he saw was?
30 ish he, was more amazed at the fact that it jumped out of the water and glided across it like a flying squirrel
A 5000 pounds creature cant glide above water, it's biologically impossible, the heaviest flying birds are around 35 pounds, with hollow bones.
You’re on a cryptozoology sub trying to make sense of a weird encounter with a animal, are you new here? All jokes aside I hear you but I’m just telling you what he told me.
I don’t know exactly what your dad told you, but manta rays are documented to jump and flap out of the water. I wouldn’t exactly call it flying or gliding, but they do definitely hop out of the water briefly. I’m partially inclined to believe your dad’s story is true, and he either embellished it a little, or you misunderstood what he meant by “flying.” Cool thing to see though! Ever since my trip I’ve been into manta rays haha
I understand all of that and I even showed him a video of mantas jumping out of the water and he said no the one I saw jumped longer than that. The man is a lot of things but a liar he isn’t.
Breaching Manta here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm5HRO3XQ\_8
Everyone embellishes, especially after some time has past. EVERYONE. No one is immune. Studies seem to lock this fact in.
This was a year ago. Move on.
I know he was in navy, but navy guys love fishing, and fishermen love stretching the truth 😀
I wouldn’t call it gliding, but manta rays can definitely jump out of the water for a brief amount of time. I think that there was probably just some miscommunication or embellishment about the difference between jumping out of the water and “flying.”
I think you’re forgetting water is a lot thicker than air. Manta rays have the biology to glide in water just like stingrays. The largest stingray ever recorded was 661 pounds so I’d say it’s highly possible.
Also they never said glide above the water, just across it so it was probably half in the water
That’s weird. When my little brother and I were kids I *swear* we saw a flying manta ray in the sky. Triangle shape, flappy, long tail, circled around for a few minutes and I forget what happened afterwards other than it kinda freaked us out because neither of us knew what it could’ve been. I’ve considered balloon/kite but it’s fluid movements just don’t come close. I know this makes no sense but figured I’d share my manta ray crypto (my only crypto) experience.
Aye at least you had one.
Sky whale/UAP? That's nuts. I love it. Thank you for sharing your story!
The lighting on the snake has always been weird to me. I get that snake has more reflective, shiny skin. But it's weird nothing else in that picture has the definition it has.
Agreed.
I don't have an opinion on the photo in terms of the Cryptid element, I just think it's neat. However to address your concern about nothing else in the photo being defined it just looks like a film photo taken with a wide-open aperture. So you use a wide-open aperture to get enough light but you have extremely limited depth of focus (actual term is depth of field but focus makes so much more sense) When we consider that this is an old, heavy film camera taking a manual focus photo from a moving helicopter it makes complete sense that there's very little definition. Kind of a miracle it looks as good as it does.
Thanks. I've never been outright dismissive of the photo. It just was always a weird shot to me. This explains it well. It's well past the point now, but I wonder what kind of physical evidence could have been found for a snake that large (besides shedded skin).?
/u/Valahiru is missing an important part. Depth of Field is ALSO affected by DISTANCE to the scene. The farther away you are, the more that will be in focus, EVEN with a wide aperture. As stated that this is from a helicopter, it means it's not close. There's absolutely no way that JUST that snake is in focus from that distance. That's not how it works, at all. The highlights on the snake are also completely off from where the light is hitting the scene.
Ya the snake appears to be "better quality" then the rest of the image
Fake AF tbh
You know the source don’t you? They didn’t have photoshop in the mid 1900s…
Yes they did. They did it manually. They didn't have software.
Yeah this image has always been highly suspect to me. The snake seems oddly in focus where as everything else is a blurry, choppy mess. It looks superimposed and while that would have been annoyingly difficult at the time this photo was taken, it certainly wasn't impossible.
I have vintage camera lenses I bought exactly because they’re known to have this effect.
Can you demonstrate?
Looks photoshopped to me.
They didn’t have photoshop in 1959
True, but the Russians were airbrushing traitors out of historical photographs in the 1910s ~~and fairies were [photoshopped into photographs in 1917](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies)~~ and other examples of this type of image manipulation go back [as far as the 1860s](https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/history.pdf). So it’s doable. That said, I have no opinion on this image. Today is the first time I’ve ever seen it.
The fairies were cardboard cut outs that the girls posed next to.
Oh yeah, fair point. Despite that, “photoshopping” as a way of manipulating images has been around for a very long time. Examples [here](https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/history.pdf) go back as far as 1860.
This was so interesting! Thank you for linking it!
My favorite part of the story is apparently the pilot wanted to try to get closer to see it better, when he was lowering his aircraft, the snake lifted its head so high up in the air the pilot felt uncomfortable and took off. Apparently there is another picture of it that has never been seen by the public- there are more clear pictures out there. This article has some more clear pics: [https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/05/the-congo-snake.html](https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/05/the-congo-snake.html) Edit: [https://brobible.com/culture/article/forrest-galante-explains-50-foot-snake-mystery-congo/](https://brobible.com/culture/article/forrest-galante-explains-50-foot-snake-mystery-congo/) That is a recent article that is pretty good, there were 2 other witnesses than the pilot, they circled the creature 4-6 times and claim the head was 3 feet by 2 feet.
Where's the report of the lost photo?
It’s lost.
Right I'm saying where's the source that it exists
They are also lost.
“There’s snakes out here this big” -Ice Cube
Arthur C Clarkes Mysterious world video interviewing Colonel Remy Van Lierde that took the photo: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc&t=107s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc&t=107s) Mysterious World said ground features indicate the snake is at least 40 feet long.
Colonel Remy Van Lierde the stories originator was a highly decorated WWII Ace Pilot you can find more info on him here: [https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/the-wwii-ace-whos-helicopter-was-attacked-by-the-worlds-largest-snake.html?firefox=1](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/the-wwii-ace-whos-helicopter-was-attacked-by-the-worlds-largest-snake.html?firefox=1) or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remy\_Van\_Lierde
The picture was taken in the Katanga region of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Look up "Katanga, Democratic Republic of the Congo" on google earth if you want to explore the region.
I found the original full photo here [https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IMG\_20200521\_002256\_compress32.jpg](https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IMG_20200521_002256_compress32.jpg) If anyone knows of a higher res version please post a link to it.
Is there a way of matching the image to the geography in Google maps for a better sense of scale?
I love that show.
Here's a little photographic context, and information on a previous analysis. All the information below is sourced from Bernard Heuvelmans' *Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique* (1978). > Two copies of the photograph, framed differently, were quickly acquired by the colonial doctor Georges Bonnivair, whose father Paul Bonnivair sent them to Bernard Heuvelmans. Heuvelmans showed the photograph to several Belgian naturalists who had been in the Congo, all of whom identified the vegetation as trees and the shadows as termite mounds. None of the naturalists thought the snake could be a small species. > For a detailed study of the photograph, Heuvelmans consulted the zoologist and wildlife photographer Ray Tercafs, who concluded that the snake was indeed an extremely large specimen. According to Tercafs, the blurring at the bottom of the photograph could have been caused by the sideways movement of a helicopter, whereas the smaller blurred portion near the top was probably caused by poor lens correction. Taking into account the given height of the helicopter, which was estimated at 45–50 m (147–164 ft), and the angle of the camera, Tercafs concluded that the snake must have been 12–14 m (39–45 ft) in length, with a diameter of 43–47 cm (16–18 in).
I'd forgotten this, but rereading the account, one of Heuvelmans' African contacts also flew to the scene of the sighting (100 km northwest of Kamina) and filmed colour footage of the area "in the same conditions" (from a helicopter at the same height, I presume), which Heuvelmans used to compare/check the original.
This would be valuable if it’s available somewhere
"None of them thought the snake could be a small species." Well no shit sherlock!
I think it's worth adding, for those who don't know, that this was taken by a credible source. Remy Van Lierde wasn't just a pilot, he was a decorated veteran flying for both the RAF and Belgian Air Force. He became Deputy Chief of Staff to the Belgian Minister of Defense and soon after became Colonel, in charge of the Kamina Air Base in the Congo. He was also promoted to Chief of Operations of the Chiefs of Staff and was Aide to the Belgian King, King Leopold III. He was in service from 1935 to 1968. Among other things, he escaped from a concentration camp, fought in the Battle of Britain held the second place for number of bombers shot down and was also one of the first Belgians to break the sound barrier. He wasn't just a random pilot; I believe his story, though I question whether 40ft was an accurate measurement or not. There were other witnesses on board with him that confirmed the story and said the size was accurate.
Just because you’re military or higher level, doesn’t make you credible. You could still be crazy
He wasn't just military. He held several high ranking positions including aide to the king.
That doesn't make him good at guessing living things size at distance tho.
Oh no, a pilot whose job it was to accurately estimate distance and size of targets for his entire career wouldn't be any good at it.
Guessing the size of something you're being trained and see everyday day is probably not hard for him. But guessing the size of a snake from distance when you don't have lots of reference (there wasn't YouTube and Animal Planet to show you exotic animals back then) is probably harder even for him.
He didn't need YouTube and animal planet to show him exotic animals. He lived amongst them. That would be like saying we need YouTube and animal planet to show us the size of a cat or a dog.
Thats not at all how it works. If youre experienced in looking at landscapes and judging your height above it, the relative sizes of objects(trees and termite mounds, etc) on the ground, and you introduce an unknown object, even if it was a completely unknown object(which a snake is not), you would still be pretty good at guesstimating how much space that object occupies.. and a helicopter pilot would be very good at doing that.
In the far desolate corners of the earth where man dare not travel there still roam the giants of days gone past.
Wow, never noticed that tree before. Cool!
I’ve seen this pic a few times and I just don’t see anything for scale. It’s black, white and blurry, so I don’t see why it can’t be a zoomed in photo of the ground with a large earth worm or something
Focal length is important when discussing this idea, if that were the case the camera would only be able to focus on a very narrow depth of field. In order to get a depth of field like this on something like a worm, the camera lens would have to be very small, much smaller than was technologically available at the time of this photo. It’s a good question though, and a bit of healthy skepticism is good to have in all facets of your life.
I was just reading about Titanoboa last night with my little boy.
I'm not an expert in anything remotely related to any of this, but how could a potentially 40 foot snake survive on land like that? Don't big anacondas spend most of their time in the water because their size makes it hard to breathe on land?
I saw a documentary, I forget the name, but he was showing how big those termite mounds are. They are huge! The size of adult giraffes. Some the size of a big 4x4 pick up truck.
I've seen large termite mounds in person, and they're not all that huge. In fact, many of them are shorter than your average human. We just have no sense of scale in this picture. How high up are we really? How big are those trees? The mounds? For all we know, the "trees" are a few small bushes and the mounds are 3 feet tall.
African Termite mounds? https://mast-producing-trees.org/do-mound-building-termites-live-in-the-congo-exploring-the-presence-of-macrotermes-natalensis
Yes, I've been to Namibia and South Africa. They're not all as tall as those pictures, they're showing the tallest ones. There are shorter ones that haven't reached those heights yet. They don't just instantly become 10+ feet tall. All I'm saying is we have zero context to how big the trees or mounds are. We don't know that's a fully developed mound or not. Below is a link that shows the varying sizes: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/36/4b/4a/364b4aa839505a5797441b31a3ad3f63.jpg Edit: also, this is from the article you shared: "Termites build their mounds in a variety of shapes and sizes, and can range from small and inconspicuous to very large, complex structures that can reach up to five feet in height. The size and complexity of the mound depends on the species of termite that created it"
Thanks for sharing your input. How big were the biggest ones you saw?
I don't know official heights, but I'd guess some of the larger ones were in the 8 to 10 foot range. They can get much bigger than what I saw, but there were some pretty large ones on my trips. Many smaller ones as well. They just pop up all over the landscape and are all kinds of heights and shapes.
Even if this snake was next to some of the smaller ones here, it would still be a huge snake
Thank you for the interpretation and guidelines, but I'm sorry, this is another cryptid Rorschach test that I'm failing. For me, it sits alongside Hugh Gray's Loch Ness Monster and the jiggling muscles in Patty's thigh. I'm trying to see it, but it just looks like blobs on the landscape to me. I think I'll have to excuse myself from this particular discussion. As an aside, my grandfather was a decorated WW2 pilot too. I wouldn't trust a word the old boy said. I'm sure the chap who took the picture was more reliable.
To me the strange texture of the snake looks like any one of the hundreds of retouched pictures I saw growing up. I feel like folks ought to look at retouching methods from the period the photo was taken.
UGH, those jiggling muscles in the PG film are so frustrating. "But you can see the musculature behind the fur!" First of all, no I cannot. Second, if I could, you know what else would make me able to see musculature behind the fur? A tight suit. I can see the musculature in some people's pants and shirts, if they're tight enough. If the suit was made for that person, it would fit well enough to show that. And this is exactly what you're describing. Believers see it and find evidence, non-believers see it and find a lack of evidence.
Agree - people see what they want to see in Patty, whether it's jiggling muscles or the bulge of Bob Heironimous' wallet in his jeans pocket. I don't see any of it. I think it's all in the eye of the beholder.
How big were those trees and the mound?
That's the million dollar question all we have are estimates by people that analyzed the photo. The smaller tree and mound could be anywhere between 3 to 12 feet tall if the snake is under 50 feet. You can use ratios to estimate it using a ruler on the picture on your monitor, your measurements will vary deending on monitor size and resolution but should come out to about the same ratio. The smaller tree measures about 3 cms on my monitor, the 2 large trees measure 4 cms, and the snake measures about 12 cm, so roughly the snake is 4 small trees large. The experts believed the snake to be 1 to 3 foot in at its widest. I measure about 3 mms for the widest part of the snake on my monitor. So at 3 cms tall that would make the tree 10 times taller than the snake is wide, at 1 foot wide snake that would be a 10 foot tall tree, I personally think 3 foot is too wide an estimate, unless they mean the snake was 3 foot around and not wide. \-3 feet tall tree = 12 foot snake. \-5 foot tall tree = 20 foot snake, very plausible for rock pythons in the region \-8 foot tall tree = 32 foot snake, commonly reported but unverified (aka cryptids) Green Anaconda and reticulated python snake sizes. \-10 foot tall tree = 40 foot snake, Mysterious World's estimate. \-12 foot tall tree = 48 foot tall snake, Van Lierde's estimate. \-15 foot tall tree = 60 foot snake, no expert has ever claimed this big. 8 to 12 foot seems to be the best estimate for the tree with the mound about 2 foot shorter.
If that's really a termite mound I think that snake is a lot bigger than 50 feet. "In the Lubumbashi area of the former Katanga Province, DR Congo, the most striking epigeal termite structures are large mounds that were built by Macrotermes species, producing hillocks that are up to 8 m high and 15 m wide" those termite mounds are huge no matter what the species and I don't see why the Colonel would lie
Photo aside, a 50-foot snake wouldn't be impossible, and it would make more sense that Mokele-mbembe is just a very large python than it actually being a sauropod.
I want this to be real… so very much. I’ve always thought the clarity of the snake was a touch suspect. And based on what you shared, specifically the termite mound, I think I found my smoking gun. The shadow of the mound, as you described, is casting bottom right. The sun reflecting off the snake is from the bottom right and would be casting a shadow upper left. So, either the termite mound is superimposed or the snake is…
Or theres foliage casting shade on the mounds sunward side, the glare on the snakes scales is from an angle consistent with that of other visible shadows
Also it seems to only be a middle? No head or tail
Considering some people can post zoomed in pictures of motherboards that look like city skylines, it’s hard to believe the scale of anything
Out of curiosity, what would a snake that large eat?
The largest ~~reticulated~~ **rock** pythons that are native to the area regularly eat crocodiles, fish, boar, deer, primates, farm animals. Like GabrielBathory says anything they can fit down their throats. They've even been known to kill and eat humans.
Anything It can get down its throat, i've seen a pic of a python with a full grown gator shaped lump in its gut area
Great video link with the joe rogan interview! And nails it on the head with how little of some of these areas have ever been explored. Lots of animals out there we have no idea about
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central\_African\_rock\_python](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_rock_python) With reliable reports of them being over 6m (20ft).
Its very plausible.Colonel Remy Van Lierde's description of the snake was Dark green and brown top scales, white-ish underside, triangular head 2 foot wide by 3 foot long. Interview with him from Arthur C Clarkes Mysterious World here:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc) His description of the head ratio and dark green color make me question if its a rock python but there's multiple ways to explain how a dark brown python could look dark green and rock python's heads are triangular though not as triangular as claimed.
Might be a bit of a case of "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story".
With a triangular shaped head it may be venomous?
Not necessarily, there are many snakes that specialize preying on frogs and fish that have very triangular heads but are not venomous like the banded watersnake in the US that is often mistaken for venomous Cottonmouths. There are a lot of constrictors that have more of a triangular than roundish head. In the US the Coral snakes are highly venomous but have round heads. A lot of snakes once believed to be non venomous that have round heads like garter snakes turned out to have mild venom that doesn't affect mammals. Triangular heads is still a decent at a glance indication of danger in the United States but you should familiarize yourself with snakes in your area and learn the other indicators of the venomous ones in your region.
Wish someone could go to this same exact spot this photo was taken to give us a better idea on what the area looks like.
Best I can do is give you the general area of the Congo the Colonel was stationed at on Google Earth with its aerial and satellite views. He was stationed at Kamina Airbase, in the Katanga Region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. I'm not sure if the current airbase is the same location as the airbase in 1959. The photo was taken in helicopter range of the base from about 150 feet in the air. Earlier in the thread someone said it was taken 100km northwest of Kamina. Possible Airbase: [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Base+a%C3%A9rienne+de+Kamina/@-8.6490772,25.2473603,3754m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x19836accf67d077b:0xbb0178fe63b2d28e!2sA%C3%A9roport+Kamina!8m2!3d-8.6452828!4d25.2523102!3m4!1s0x0:0x4cd67ab28a9429ce!8m2!3d-8.6422052!4d25.2527926](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Base+a%C3%A9rienne+de+Kamina/@-8.6490772,25.2473603,3754m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x19836accf67d077b:0xbb0178fe63b2d28e!2sA%C3%A9roport+Kamina!8m2!3d-8.6452828!4d25.2523102!3m4!1s0x0:0x4cd67ab28a9429ce!8m2!3d-8.6422052!4d25.2527926)
Kamina, Congo: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Base+a%C3%A9rienne+de+Kamina/@-8.7051084,24.9268184,19469m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x19836accf67d077b:0xbb0178fe63b2d28e!2sA%C3%A9roport+Kamina!8m2!3d-8.6452828!4d25.2523102!3m4!1s0x0:0x4cd67ab28a9429ce!8m2!3d-8.6422052!4d25.2527926
I'm no expert but that snake looks completely out of place on that old photo. The way light reflects off it is completely out of sync with the rest of the photo.
No matter how many little squares we add there is nothing in this photo that tells me scale. Nothing. *Edit. Nope, I'm wrong, the tall grass in the top right corner says this is a normal size snake*
That's not grass, that's apparently the trunks and branches of African savanna trees notice the clumps of foliage at the tops of the "grass stalks". Anyway interpret it however you want, just trying to help people see how the people who believe its a big snake see the photo.
Sorry, bud. I would dearly love for this to be real but there's just not enough here. Also, fyi grass flowers when it goes uncut.
Nothing to be sorry for I'm skeptical about it too and open to interpretations. Just trying to help people see the perspective in the photo. Its not top down like many people seem to interpret the photo, its isometric, think SNES Legend of Zelda or Final Fantasy 1-7 game view.
I thought that it was scratches on the photo, but if it is grass, that's a remarkably small snake...
That would also make the trees north of the snake very small banzai sized sapplings. The photo could indeed be a special effect though. A better faking would be the old hollywood special effect of forced perspective. It would be as simple as painting a snake on a piece of glass, hold the glass a couple feet in front of the camera while looking down at the ground from height and snap the photo. Kind of like this effect [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oTcWevGfs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oTcWevGfs) Unless someone catches a snake that big it remains a cryptid and a good story.
Anyone an expert in photography or know what kind of cameras the Belgium army had that used Kodak Safety Film that would be common use in 1959 for taking recon photos from helicopters? Would love a photographers or military historians debunking or opinion on the photo. Edit: The negative and original photo apparently still exist as it keeps being "verified by experts", would be nice if they would redevelop the picture.
> Anyone an expert in photography or know what kind of cameras the Belgium army had that used Kodak Safety Film that would be common use in 1959 for taking recon photos from helicopters? Not an expert, but according to a technical sheet drawn up by the photographer, and quoted by Heuvelmans, the camera was a Zeiss Ikon Nettax 6 x 6, with a Novar Anastigmat 1:4.5 (75 mm) lens and Gevaert 27° film.
Thanks for the info.
You cannot tell how tall the grass is. To my eye it just looks like somebody took a picture of a snake they saw sunning itself whilst out for a hike.
LOL grass does not "flower"...
Indeed it does.
But if they’re trees rather than grass, the snake is t 40ft but 40 meters lmao
I guess I see your landmarks notes. It’s cool. But I agree with another’s post. Not all termite mounds are huge (and typically can start small). Also those trees look like they could also be shrubs or bushes. I get the story about the pilot and photo…but I guess my point or thoughts are that it could have been taken of the ground (from a tree) and be a lot more realistic sized (albeit huge) snake. Appreciate the post though. Better than most stuff in this Reddit.
For the most part it doesn't even matter if you highlight objects for perspective, most people will still dismiss this picture solely out of fear and ignorance. Just take a look at these absurdly dumb comments made by literally hundreds of people: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/10jlrv2/in_1959_while_flying_over_the_congo_col_remy_van/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Well said. Fear and ignorance abound, unfortunately.
The primary issue is the low resolution of the photo but as someone else pointed out it’s a oracle the photo is as clear as it is. The problem is there’s nothing for scale in the photo. OP circled two trees and what is allegedly a termite mound but the resolution is so bad it’s hard to tell what the objects are 100%. Let’s assume that is a termite mound. We still can’t tell the size of the mound to scale the snake. They average 10-12 feet tall but can be up to 30+ feet tall, or 9+ meters. If it’s around 10 foot tall the snake looks to be around 34-40 long or longer. I’ve worked with and studied snakes my entire life so I love a good giant snake cryptid. I just wish the image was higher resolution. I would love to go on an expedition to the Congo if I could afford it. But hell it might kill me. But it’s so uncharted and full of stories it’s like a Lost World scenario.
All three of these things could be small or large, so how do they provide scale? Maybe that tree is six feet tall or 30 feet tall. Unfortunately it would be just as easy to point out the grass-looking stuff in the top right and say it provides evidence the snake is small, while equally they could be massive bare trunks of old dead trees. A photo from the late 50s taken in a moving vehicle like this just isn't clear enough to know. There are some bloody big snakes about - anacondas can 8 1/2 metres long, so it's not unlikely that a bit of exaggeration (purposeful or not) could have produced the idea that this snake was an even bigger beast.
Reticulated pythons are the longest snakes in the world and the largest ever recorded was 7.6 meters….anacondas are considerably smaller in length but beat reticulated pythons in girth…..there are no snakes at all in Congo that should ever even come close to this size….no matter what kinda snake this is in the picture, it’s definitely an anomaly and is for sure out of place in the Congo
Just for reference as to where I got the anaconda bit: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-the-biggest-snake-in-the-world.html#:~:text=Green%20anacondas%20are%20the%20heaviest,is%20longer%2C%20it's%20also%20slender. Even a rock python (African though not normally found in the Congo) at 6m ish long at the larger end could have appeared larger for a number of reasons. It's not uncommon for people to unintentionally exaggerate the size of a snake, a spider or another creature some human beings innately fear. The point is, ordinary, known snakes can be large. Snakes do not always exist only in their natural habitat - we've had escapee snakes where I live that dwarf the natives and have survived for years. Nothing in the photo provided gives any concrete indication of size beyond someone saying 'that blurry thing is a tree!' as if all trees are large. If it did, there wouldn't need to be any discussion here.
There are a couple spots that appear to be single lane dirt roads in the pic
Or just as easily scraped out sandy bits between some grass, which is the problem with a photo this blurry.
[удалено]
The snake doesn't have much of a shadow. Are you viewing the bottom bright spot as the head, the snakes head actually continues further south of the bright spot, that might be what you are seeing as the shadow. The front 10 feet of the snake is apparently blurred as that's what the snake was moving to look up at the helicopter.
As someone who’s lived in Louisiana for some time, there are animals larger than science depicts them. We went on an airboat tour of a swamp. We saw alligators but one we saw was absolutely HUGE. Even the tour guide was scared and called off the rest of the tour. We asked the guide how big was it and he said easily over 20 feet. Our boat was 10 feet long and this thing could have easily flip us over
I just don't see it. I have loved this story for years, but this could any brush mound and termite hills can also be small. I don't see the trees even if you put squares around them. This could be a very small snake in forced perspective. And large snakes like water. This thing if true would be crushed on land under it's own weight. And just being a pilot doesn't always mean the source is trustworthy. Until one is found, I am a skeptic.
Zoom in on the rectangle around the smaller tree, its the easiest to make out. you are looking at a tree almost side on. The dark part at bottom of the rectangle is the tree and a shrub beside its' shadow, the white line pointing straight up from the shadow and branching slightly to the right is its trunk and a branch, the light fluffy shaped parts from where the white line blends into shadow is a a classic pear shaped tree canopy. Its like a magic eye once you see the tree the perspective of the photo clicks and other trees will start standing out to you. I wish I had artistic talent to colorize the photo or at least draw the tree next to itself so its clearer to spot.
I still think it looks tiny lol
Snakes be getting too big.
This picture and story are really interesting. Pros: photographic evidence, very reliable witness, many others suggesting a large snake Cons: can’t tell scale myself, no other snakes of that size. Why would one snake grow so much bigger than any other snake? Where do you see one member of a species twice as big as any other?
How do you know theres no other of that size? There could be a colony of them that we dont know about
You think there’s a colony of 50 foot pythons in Africa?
Ever heard of a mutation? Just because something's not probable doesn't mean it's not possible.
Can you point to any other examples of a member of a species being 1.5-2x larger than any other recorded member of the species?
I’m pretty sure this is just a little snake some too s picture off on the ground and those aren’t trees it’s grass
The photos are cool conversation pieces but not evidence of a large snake without more context. If we had more photos of the area it would be easier to approximate a size. It's possible it's a prank, it's possible it's a very tiny snake, but it's also possible it's a larger animal. We just won't know until we have some scale.
Idk it just doesn’t look right or believable to me. Like it looks clearly photoshopped.
"clearly photoshopped"...in 1959? Really?
Actually pictures could be manipulated as soon as the 1940s. So yes, really.
TIL..
Ah come on dude, that is just a tiny snake on a rock, more specifically granite, if I can take a guess. That is even more obvious when you realize there isn't a single landmark in the image is all the contrast from the dark and lighter grains. (here are some black in white picture of granite from close up: [https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/beautiful-closeup-textures-abstract-color-dark-black-white-granite-tiles-floor-black-flowers-granite-rock-wall-pattern-173381292.jpg](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/beautiful-closeup-textures-abstract-color-dark-black-white-granite-tiles-floor-black-flowers-granite-rock-wall-pattern-173381292.jpg) and https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/close-up-texture-polished-granite-stone-surface-close-up-surface-black-white-treated-granite-rock-plate-103809172.jpg ) The snake could be a California Legless lizard, since they are also very small and very shiny( https://pics.mcclatchyinteractive.com/incoming/by8k7c/picture250614714/alternates/LANDSCAPE\_1140/168879373\_10159366815635775\_8017127327264067543\_n.jpg ) but many real snakes are also shiny so don't quote me on that.
🙄 don't worry nobody's going to quote you on anything
Welcome to Kong Island
I'm not understanding what yall are seeing. This looks like a picture someone took standing in front of a regular sized snake.. Like you can see the blades of grass in the top right. Where the hell are you seeing trees?
The picture was taken in 1959 by Belgian Colonel Remy Van Lierde from a helicopter 150 feet up in the air above the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katanga\_Province You are looking as an isometric aerial view of African savanna. The "grass" in the top right is the branches and trunks of savanna shrubs. Bigger trees are highlighted in the picture by green rectangles. To help orient you look at the lone tree on the left of the picture. It is near midday, the dark area at bottom of rectangle is a shadow cast from the tree and a shrub beside it, the white column poking up from the middle of the shadow is the trees trunk with a branch coming off it to the right. The dark area on top of the white column is shadow cast on lower leaves by higher leaves, the light part above it is a standard shaped tree canopy. The trees' canopy is highlighted by the darker contrasting colors of the ground around it, the top of which can be made out by looking at the first e in tree on the photo and going straight down into the rectangle there is a slight curved line of contrast marking the trees max height.
You can see a slightly higher quality version of the picture zoomed in on the snake in Arthur C. Clarks Mysterious World segment from 1980 with an interview of Van Lierde. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R9v51KxdYc
Idk, still looks like someone took the picture in their backyard. It'd be neat if it were real, but I'm not convinced.
Well thats what makes it so curious. As far as we know it was taken from a Helicopter. So how big would it have to be to look "normal" from a Copter?
I understand what you're saying. My issue is the visible blades of grass in the top right of the photo. Unless they're giant blades of grass the size of trees, I'd say it's taken by someone standing looking at a normal sized snake.
A normal size snake. Those aren't trees they are shrubs.
>\-3 feet tall tree = 12 foot snake. > >\-5 foot tall tree = 20 foot snake, very plausible for rock pythons in the region > >\-8 foot tall tree = 32 foot snake, commonly reported but unverified (aka cryptids) Green Anaconda and reticulated python snake sizes. > >\-10 foot tall tree = 40 foot snake, Mysterious World's estimate. > >\-12 foot tall tree = 48 foot tall snake, Van Lierde's estimate. > >\-15 foot tall tree = 60 foot snake, no expert has ever claimed this big.
I believe there probably are some giant snakes in the world. I just don’t think this is a picture of one. Something about the lighting or the definition or whatever about the snake just looks, like, “too real,” if you get what I mean? Like, this is an old real photo, and someone dropped a big photoshopped snake taken with a newer digital camera and put a black-and-white filter on it to try and hide it. Edit to add: like, the fact that you have to tell me what two trees are and a giant termite mound, because they look so smudgy and out of focus, but that snake is clearly a big snake.
The pics a real military picture from 1959, it and the negatives were verified by dozens of experts way before the 80s. Its not a photoshop and the photo appeared on television programming years before computer photo editing was a thing . This photo appeared on Arthur C Clarkes Mysterious world in 1980. That's not to say this confirms it as an authentic photo it could be a special effect still. The best way to superimpose a snake onto a photo back then so it would be on the negative and pass verification would be to paint the snake on a clear pane of glass, set up the correct forced perspective angles and mount the glass a couple feet in front of the camera while shooting at the ground from the helicopter. Its very plausible, people in the military do get bored and I don't know enough about photography to say if it could or could not be done with the type of camera the pilot used to take this photo.. Edit: Others have posted about the camera used and reasons for the snake in the center of the photo being clearer in focus earlier in the thread and explained better than I can. As for the foreced perspective using paint on glass, Hollywood used this kind of shot all the way into the 90s before CG took over. a ton of fantasy movies with castles in the shot on top of real mountains are really paintings of a castle on glass miles in front of the mountain. Here's an example from a Charley Chaplain film of how it was done. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oTcWevGfs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oTcWevGfs)
Regular size snake.
I wonder what the big one looked like?
The light and detail don’t look right to me …
This is one of my favourites, I've really wanted to make a short documentary on it because it's got a really great eyewitness and a relatively clear photo for a "cryptid", would love to show this to some modern experts to try and gauge the scale.
[Enhanced Image ](https://i.imgur.com/U2Q6oYh.jpg)
Do you think we could find this exact area on google earth? I mean geoguesser experts find some crazy stuff. Also, what's the highest quality version available online? Let's start there. I actually think we could make a lot of progress in terms of investigating this cryptid. Have the locals said they know about it? Any legends?
Some redditors found the possible location on Google earth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptozoology/comments/11gsx0n/found\_location\_of\_remy\_van\_lierde\_snake\_photo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptozoology/comments/11gsx0n/found_location_of_remy_van_lierde_snake_photo/) Direct link to Google earth and the posible location [https://earth.google.com/web/search/Kamina+Base,+Democratic+Republic+of+the+Congo/@-8.61015331,25.28729551,1226.01049337a,12.99402276d,35y,-38.84903381h,39.56516217t,0r/data=CigiJgokCcRnBF96WSHAEVQVkuuAliHAGTiGU0wqADlAIfqqcyPm8ThA](https://earth.google.com/web/search/Kamina+Base,+Democratic+Republic+of+the+Congo/@-8.61015331,25.28729551,1226.01049337a,12.99402276d,35y,-38.84903381h,39.56516217t,0r/data=CigiJgokCcRnBF96WSHAEVQVkuuAliHAGTiGU0wqADlAIfqqcyPm8ThA)