Giant (100 ft) snake said to be seen in Borneo. check this out

[Beardedragon]

Im pretty sure there is a 54 foot RETIC in Indonesia and thats like the longest ever recorded

It was proven to only be 26 ft

[sg1trogdor]

Second pic look more realistic than the first in the article. Both obviously fake though. Would be awesome though.

[Drew87]

Fake!, but it would be cool if it was real. But i mean come on here are some of the posts people have put on the web page one of them has a good point.

This is an obvious photoshopped fake to anyone who isn't completely thick! The Balleh River is a tributary of the Rajang, and is about half a kilometre wide at it's smallest points - looking at the photo, the 'snakes' head appears to be roughly one tenth of that - that would make it's head 50 metres wide!

i wish it was real but its fake

[MattA*]

It was proven to only be 26 ft

ya prob makes more seance
i saw it on tv and i was skeptical

[andwhy6]

the largest snake ever found was a 29.5 ft retic in indonesia. i think it was in 1910. thats why when people say.. "oh a retic/anaconda/rock python can reach 30 ft" you can call bs cuz there has never been a 30 ft living snake found. they have sheds over 30 ft but everyone knows sheds can easily stretch.

[DSGB]

This is dumb. I bet the "100 ft" snake was chasing ice cube and jennifer lopez. HA

[snakelover88]

LONDON, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- A grainy photograph of a 100-foot snake in a river in Borneo may be as real as similar shots of Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster, a computer expert says.

The photo ran Thursday in The Telegraph, a London newspaper that did not claim it is authentic. The Guardian said it was supposedly taken by a member of a disaster team surveying potential flood areas in Indonesia who spotted the snake from a helicopter flying over the Baleh River.

Another shot was supposedly taken from the bank of the river.

Hany Farid, a computer science professor at Dartmouth in New Hampshire, told Scientific American that the low resolution of the photographs is one reason to be suspicious. Another is that in both, the giant is out in the middle of the water, not interacting with any other animals or objects -- which would be harder to fake.

Farid refused to label the photographs as definitely faked. But he has a rule of thumb: "When you look at images, you should think about, 'How hard would this be to do?'"

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/02/...0891235301601/

[bdreptiles]

the largest snake ever found was a 29.5 ft retic in indonesia. i think it was in 1910. thats why when people say.. "oh a retic/anaconda/rock python can reach 30 ft" you can call bs cuz there has never been a 30 ft living snake found. they have sheds over 30 ft but everyone knows sheds can easily stretch.

Actually it was 32+ Ft. And I'd say six inches is close enough to call it 30 Ft .

http://www.indyzoo.com/content.aspx?cid=437

-Brian

[Hyper Joe]

How about this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3845750/

I saw it on animal planet recently as well. It looks way bigger than anything I have ever seen.

This was found as an exaggeration. The snake was definitely over 15 feet. But it was definitely not a 49 footer as claimed. I think I recall them saying it was 22 feet. ..

[AjBalls]

This was found as an exaggeration. The snake was definitely over 15 feet. But it was definitely not a 49 footer as claimed. I think I recall them saying it was 22 feet. ..

As I tell everyone, the tiny footed Asians measured the snake with their feet