|
1-10 of 14 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on November 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Check out this supposed 11 foot 4 incher. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/bush_viper17/BigEDB.jpg
|
| |
|
RE: speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by sagan324 on November 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is another photo of a hefty diamondback. Picture taken in the early '60's.
http://jla324.home.mindspring.com/edb.html
|
| |
|
RE: speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on November 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeremy: The like to the photo of the DB does not work. Can you double check it ?
Thanks. JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on November 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John: I logged out of my photobucket account and copy/pasted the link and it worked for me. If it doesnt work this time, I will email it to you.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/bush_viper17/BigEDB.jpg
|
| |
|
RE: speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on November 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Jeremy! For some reason the link now works.
The EDB in the photo is amazing, and could very well be almost 11 feet long. They probably included the length of the rattles in the total, which would probably add 4 to 6 inches, but we are still looking at a snake that is over 10 feet, and nearly 11 feet long.
In this case, they are holding the snake fairly close to their bodys, with their elbows bent, so there is less of a magnification factor than the photos of people holding a snake out on a tong or hook. Because of this, it is more possible to estimate the actual length of the snake.
You can also use the width of the mens hands where they are holding the snake. The largest man in the photo probably has hands that are 4 inches wide, so you can walk that measurment along the snake, and see that the snake is indeed very close to being 11 feet long.
I can tell that they photographer was not using a wide angle lens that would make the snake look larger than it actually was.
We are probably looking at the World Record Eastern Diamondback.
Thanks for posting the photo.
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on November 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Certainly an impressive snake, but here's what a little analysis tells me. First off, look at the feet of the men in the background. The ones in the middle are standing on raised ground to make them look taller, they're actually the shortest men in the photo. Either way, plugging the photo into my handy dandy snake measuring tool yields the following:
Assuming the "tallest" man in the photo is 6' tall, I get a length of 9' 2" for the snake.
For the snake to be 11' 4", that man would have to be 7' 5" tall!
I think it's more likely that here's closer to 5' 6" which would make the snake 8' 5", which if I remember correctly is almost exactly the official record for an EDB.
|
| |
|
RE: speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on November 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Larry: I will have to dissagree with your analysis, and stick to my original size estimation of the snake for the following reasons:
First of all, it does not matter if the man is 5 foot 6 inches, or 6 feet tall, his height is not a valid measurement of the snake, because the snake is being held away from the men about 18 inches. Take your arm and hold it up the way the people in the photo are doing, and you will see this distance. That will cause a distortion when trying to compare the size of the snake to the size of the men. The distortion will vary plus or minus depending on if the camera lens is wide-angle or telephoto. This can make the snake look larger than life, or smaller than life. We do not know what lens the photographer used, so using the mans height as a measurement is not valid.
There are only two valid measurements in the photo. One valid measurement in the photo is where the mens hands hold the snake. Print out the picture of the snake, then take a piece of string, and lay it along the center line of the snake, and mark the head and tail ends. Then measure the total length of the string. When I tried this, I got 8 1/2 inches. Next I measured the width of the mans hand. I got 1/4 inch. If you devide 1/4 inch into 8 1/2 inches, you get 34 sections. So, if the snake is 34 sections long, and the each section is 4 inches wide ( the width of a large hand ), you wind up with the snake being 136 inches long. This just happens to be 11 feet, 4 inches.
Now, lets say the man had very tiny hands, they would still be 3 1/2 inches wide, so when you multiply the 3 1/2 inches by 34 sections, you get 119 inches, which is 9 feet, 11 inches. ( I doubt the man had hands this small. )
You might also notice that there are 5 men, each holding the snake with their arms spread slightly wider than their sholder width. This is about 24 inches per man x 5 which equals 10 feet of snake or more, and you can see some of the snakes tail extends pasts the hands, thus adding more length, and that the head is missing entirely!
Here is another thing. Why would the folks in the photo all get together and lie about the size? We are talking 7 people here, and I bet the serious looking men in the photo would not want to teach the young boys to be dishonest. What would it serve? Photos in those days were quite expensive, and would probably not been wasted on a joke or distortion.
You might notice that the man on the left is holding what appears to be a 3 foot rule. Look close and you will see it extends into the hand of the second man. If you compare that rule ( assuming it is 3 feet ) to the snake, using the same measuring metheod I used before, you get a measurement off the photo of 2 1/2 inches, which is 10 quarter inch sections. If you devide 10 into 36 inches, you get 3.6 inches. So lets use that as the width of the mans hand. 3.6 inches of hand X 34 sections = 122.4 inches, which is 10 feet, 2 1/2 inches.
However, if you look closely, you will see at the far left that the snake does not have a head!!! I would assume the folks killed the snake by lopping off its head. So depending on how far back they chopped off the head, there could be easily a foot of snake missing from the photo! A snake that large would have a head larger than the mans hand, so it would be visable if it were there! So, if we take 10 feet of body, and assume another foot of head and neck, we are close to the 11 foot mark again!
Lets assume the boys in the photo were 8 and 10 years old, well, they would be 97 and 99 years old now, and might still be around and remember when grandpa killed the huge snake. Perhaps they will see this and write in. You never know.
I do not know what it takes to make an ``official record`` of a snakes length, but for many, many years the ``official length`` of the EDB was listed in many books as 9 foot, 11 inches. Modern books often use the 8 foot, 5 inch figure. Perhaps the ``officials`` who determine ``official lengths`` never saw this photo? And just who are these ``officials,`` anyway? LOL.
Isn`t math fun? Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on November 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>...because the snake is being held away from the men about 18 inches...This can make the snake look larger than life, or smaller than life.
Um, no. I'm not sure I can explain why without drawing a picture, but I'm sure if you think about it a minute you will realize that this can ONLY make the snake look larger, not smaller. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and ignoring that sice the photo seems to have been taken from far enough away that it would not matter much.
>Now, lets say the man had very tiny hands, they would still be 3 1/2 inches wide
I think you need to actually measure some hands. I can only guess that you are thinking of the English measure of a "hand" being 4 inches. I am 5' 11" with unusually large hands (long at least) and my hands are not quite 3 1/4" across.
>You might also notice that there are 5 men, each holding the snake with their arms spread slightly wider than their sholder width. This is about 24 inches per man x 5 which equals 10 feet of snake or more,
Count hands again. One man has his arms at his sides.
>Why would the folks in the photo all get together and lie about the size?...
I serously doubt that the men in the picture wrote the little paper lable that is in the frame in front of the picture in ball point pen in 1916.
>You might notice that the man on the left is holding what appears to be a 3 foot rule.
I think you're probably right about that, I didn't realize what it was before. I was thinking a golf club or something.
>Look close and you will see it extends into the hand of the second man.
Bring up the contrast and bring down the brightness and look even closer and you will see that it goes well past there.
>If you compare that rule ( assuming it is 3 feet ) to the snake... 10 feet, 2 1/2 inches.
Using the whole ruler, I get 8' 11", but I can't tell if there's more of the ruler off the left side of the photo.
>However, if you look closely, you will see at the far left that the snake does not have a head!!!
Again, fiddle with the levels and it looks very much like the first man is cupping the snake's head in his hand, but I can't tell for sure. This certainly would make a difference, but I doubt there's 2 1/2 feet missing.
|
| |
|
RE: speaking of big diamondbacks
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on November 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Larry: It is good that we both agree that the snake could easily be over 8 feet, and is possibly the world record. I am still thinking it is closer to 10 feet.
I do not need for you to draw a picture, you are right, the snake can only look larger, but the distance from the men to the snake can vary depending on how close they are holding it to themselves, and thus change the apparent size. It might not be enough to matter though, as they are not holding it out on a tong or hook, which would really distort the image.
As far as measuring hands, well, I measured mine, and my hands are 4 inches wide. I wear XL gloves, which are very hard to find. The men in the photo probably do not have hands that wide.
Did you print out the photo and run a string down the curves of the snake, and then measure the string like I suggested, and then compare that measurement to the measurement of the width of the mans hands also?
If we assume that the man in the photo has hands the same width as yours, we have 3.25 inches per hand, times 34 (the number of times they fit along the length of the snake), which gives us 110.5 inches, or 9 feet, 2 1/2 inches. And remember, the head of the snake is missing, or curving away from the photo behind the hand of the man on the left, so that would add at least another 6 inches. (not 2 1/2 feet) That would make the snake close to the old official record of 9 feet, 11 inches. Try this with measuring a string off a print, and and let me know if you get the same results.
Ok, concerning the 5 men, forget how many hands are on the snake or not, just look at their width sholder to sholder. If each man is 22 inches wide, (less than my sholder width) X 5, that equals 110 inches, and there is at least 4 inches between the Jay Lenno looking guy, and the old guy with the pipe, and another 10 inches between the pipe guy and the boys father who is wearing the black hat, so that is 124 inches, or 10 feet, 4 inches. If the men are 18 inches wide, we still get 18 x 5 = 90 + 14 = 104 inches, which is 8 feet 8 inches, then add in 6 inches for the snakes head, and we have 9 feet 2 inches.
It is true that the little paper label could have been written by someone many years later, perhaps one of the young boys who had kept the family photo, and memory being what it is, they could have exagerated the size some, or even a lot.
I am not saying that I believe the 11 foot, 4 inch thing the label says, but I am saying there is some strong evidence the snake could be larger than 8 1/2 feet.
I messed with photoshop, and was able to see through magnification that there are indeed inch marks, which makes the thing the man is holding a ruler. That would be more logical than a golf club anyway. Using that same magnification and image sharpening, the mans hand appears to be about 3 1/2 inches wide.
I fiddled with the contrast and magnification and sharpning and lightning and shadow controls, and can not see a snakes head. I can clearly see a finger and thumb on each side of the snakes neck. If the head is there, it is behind the mans hand out of site. It is not sitting in his hand.
It is funny that I am argueing for the snake, as usually I would be very doubting of a photo like this. Like I said, the 11 feet thing is a bit far fetched, but I am thinking that this could easily be the old official record diamondback that was listed for years as 9 feet, 11 inches.
Anyway, if you get a chance, try the string thing and let me know what result that produces.
Whatever size the snake was, it was one impressive beast!
Have a Happy Thanksgiving! Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
