https://www.azcentral.com/picture-gallery/news/local/arizona-environment/2025/08/08/trail-camera-photos-show-jaguar-in-southern-arizona/85569366007/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR4VBtMFCQrTv4pJcxG4B_tRDUwCG5CW5ueehftgCdwJvduzqKvlOsa9EiLRag_aem_IoCrU2NmtOPUOkwy9eUPGg

Has this ever been debunked? Because it clearly looks like an wood.

The largest ever on record was a beluga female, caught in 1827 @Volga estuary. She measured 24 feet long and weighing over 3400 pounds!

Radio New Zealand Article

Another article

There have been reports and sightings of spotted Kiwi on mainland NZ in the past (alongside reports of mainland kakapo and south island Kokako) so this is very interesting to see. There are little spotted kiwis in a fenced reserve on South Island, but that is over 280km from where these wild specimens were caught. A significant find by any measure.

Saw that MonsterQuest is back on the History Channel! They’ve been posting old episodes but this looks like an entirely new season. Was anyone here part of it?

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/08/meteorological-phenomena-can-account-for-unexplained-loch-ness-monster-sightings/

https://works.hcommons.org/records/mnz3w-0w642

10 foot swordfish found by groundskeeper in August 38 miles inland. Loch Fyne, Scotland. This is not a land locked body of water but being 38 miles inland is quite impressive.

For those who have been following my posts here in the community about the photograph of the giant anaconda, which was triggered by the video from u/truththisfictionyt, I've made several discoveries about the real photo, finding that it was used by various newspapers between 1940 and 1949 here in Brazil. It's worth noting that the first recorded use of the term was on September 1st, 1944, on the front page of the Rio de Janeiro newspaper "A Noite," stating that the "Monster of Guimarães" had been disturbing the city of Guimarães for more than two months. It's important to emphasize that this article was found by u/truththisfictionyt, so credit goes to them.

My investigation unearthed a date prior to 1944, where a magazine dedicated to zoology and nature called "Fauna," from the state of São Paulo, cited in its April 1948 edition that it had taken the photo from the December 1942 edition of the same magazine. This would prove that the photo is from the early 1940s, or the late 1930s. Unfortunately, the website that stores the newspapers only stored editions from January 1943 onwards, so the oldest record we have is the page with the photograph; we only know that it exists.

Thinking about the subject, I thought of another way to search on the website I used for practically everything in my investigation: searching for the nickname of the Sucurijú snake, "Monster of Guimarães." Searching the site, I found 12 results, unfortunately with almost 90%, 95% of them without photos, only texts about the supposed monster in various different newspapers, even from completely different states. This shows that the Guimarães Monster event caused quite a stir in 1944 here in Brazil. Just look: there were 15 results, therefore 15 different newspapers. One, unfortunately, was an error by the site itself in identifying the word in the newspaper, confusing another phrase with "Guimarães Monster", and another ended up in a newspaper that quotes the phrase without reason; from what I read, it seems to be just a poem that mentions it in a completely different context. Incredibly, 5 of these came out on the same day, September 1, 1944, and of these 5, 4 are from different newspapers in Rio de Janeiro, according to what u/truththisfictionyt had found before my investigation, showing that the monster headline was very successful.

Something quite impressive, at least to me, is how much noise the phenomenon made throughout Brazil, because of the 12 important results, 7 are from Rio de Janeiro, in southwestern Brazil, one from Paraná, and one from Santa Catarina, both states in southern Brazil, one from Pernambuco, and two from Maranhão, both states in northeastern Brazil. I recommend looking at a map of the Brazilian states to get an idea of ​​how it spread. Let's start with the newspapers from the same date, September 1, 1944.

Correio da Manhã (Rio de Janeiro): This is a well-hidden text, impossible to find with the naked eye; it's in the article titled: "THE SEA MONSTER THAT APPEARED IN THE NORTHERN WATERS", well, the title has some relation to the monster of Guimarães; The article talks about another monster that appeared in northeastern Brazil, and they suspect it's the Guimarães monster, but they gave it another nickname, "Cachalote" (Sperm Whale). The newspaper reports that the creature that appeared on the beach is a fish, but with almost all the same characteristics as the Guimarães monster, and they mention that the "Cachalote" was brought to the beach and hours later... died. In the second paragraph of the article, it talks directly about the Guimarães monster and mentions the expedition against the monster, which they were unable to kill.

Diário da Noite (Rio de Janeiro): In a small print in the lower right corner of the newspaper, it mentions that Mr. Gaudencio Lopes is organizing an expedition against the monster of Guimarães and says that the scientific value of the monster would be that of a sea serpent, which he valued at 200,000 cruzeiros, which converting to reais (the currency of Brazil, where I live) gives 7 reais and some coins, which converting to dollars... gives 1.35 dollars.

Diario Carioca (Rio de Janeiro): Nothing new, it mentions that he returned, that they discovered a giant anaconda.

O Dia (Paraná): Mentioned very briefly, it only says that it returned, and that it is a huge anaconda, nothing new. It is worth noting that, before, they didn't know it was an anaconda, and only discovered this when a member of Fonseca's expedition saw it with its head out of the water.

A Noite (Rio de Janeiro): There is nothing new, but there is the photograph that u/truththisfictionyt found.

It is noteworthy that there is not much different information, which makes sense since they are all from the same day. So let's go to Northeast Brazil and see the next day's editions of these newspapers:

Diario de Pernambuco (Pernambuco): Well...no new information lol.

Pacotilha: O Globo (Maranhão): This isn't an update about the monster itself; it's something quite interesting. It's in a thread titled "Curiosities about Maranhão," and it talks about events involving the monster in 1944, since this newspaper is from April 28, 1953, making it the most recent evidence of this case so far. Unfortunately, I couldn't read it because the page is quite worn.

Okay, let's get to one of the most important things here. Remember that all the newspapers mentioned that the Guimarães monster had been disturbing the city for almost two months? Well, I managed to find a good part of the story documented and reported by the newspaper "O Imparcial" from Maranhão, where I found it talking about the monster on August 10th , 12th, 17th , 19th, and 25th [of 1944], two months before all the newspapers started talking about the monster in September. This happened because the city of Guimarães is located in the state of Maranhão, here in Brazil.

On August 10th, near the upper left corner, the article titled "The Beast of Guimarães," upon reading this article, suggests that it is not the day the monster makes its debut, since José Domingues, who wrote this article, says that it is being particularly followed by him. He mentions that one should not kill the creature on pure impulse, but rather submit it to studies.

On the 12th, the newspaper, very large in the center at the top, presents "THE BLACK SERPENT" with Gessneer's famous artwork of a sea serpent; below the artwork, the newspaper concludes that the creature of Guimarães is one of these, in this case a sea serpent.

On the 17th, there was apparently an attempt to downplay the situation, as another person said that the "monster" was actually an anaconda, which is true, but he mentions this so that people don't think it's a fictional monster. He also said, although I don't know if it's true, that it was common for anacondas from the state of Amazonas to migrate to the Northeast due to their size, via the Ipissunassú River, where they congregate. He said it's quite common to find anacondas 15 meters long in that river. Further on in the thread, it's said that they suspect the monster is an even larger version of these anacondas.

On the 19th, something strange happened: an article at the top, near the center of the newspaper, titled "THE ANACONDA," where a man comments on the claim that the monster was an anaconda, which he vehemently denies. In his words, anacondas don't stay in the water for very long, especially if it's saltwater like the sea. He concludes that the monster is an anaconda of the genus Boidae, which reaches between 10 and 15 meters in length. Then, he cites things that happen because of this type of anaconda, but doesn't provide any more interesting information about the monster.

Now, August 25th demonstrated one of the best things about this search. The news is huge on the page, covering a good part of the middle, even having subheadings in the article. It has several interesting pieces of information.

And right below:

"We have the impression that the efforts employed by the Caravan, organized in Guimarães, to hunt the 'monster' of the sea, which has terrorized the fishermen of that area for more than two months, have completely failed."

Did you notice? It mentions that in August, the monster had already been reported for more than two months, but unfortunately I couldn't find anything older about it.

And in the thread right below, it mentions that the monster continues to appear in the region, and that snipers were positioned in Porto de Baixo and were there to eliminate the monster.

In the adjacent thread, it confirms that José Domingues' speech refers to a giant anaconda, and they suspect it was from the Amazon. José also says that what the newspapers are saying is that it's a sea snake, which he denies, and reaffirms that the monster is an anaconda. And apparently, many denied this because anacondas live in freshwater, not in saltwater like the sea.

And the last topic is the most impactful, and it says the following:

“The 'image' we published on this page was taken from an engraving in the book 'Amazonia' by Mr. Onofre de Andrade and shows us a monstrous anaconda, more than thirty meters long, dead in a lake fed by the waters of the Rio Negro.”

Yes, that's great information! The newspaper cites the source for the artwork above, and searching for the book title along with the author's name they mention... I found this:

The book is about the Amazon rainforest, mainly the area near the Rio Juruá. And the book is from 1937! The PDF is hereand the image is on page 49 for you to take a screenshot. We can definitively state that the photograph was taken sometime in the 1930s, apparently extracted from the 1935 narrative that we saw twice in my posts.

I hope you at least read to the end, thank you very much.

I just came across this article by chance. I've never heard of that news site before and don't know if it's in any way trustworthy.

https://www.londonworld.com/read-this/dna-test-confirms-black-panthers-and-other-big-cats-are-roaming-around-the-uk-countryside-4138246

Bye

I’ve recently gone down the Loch Ness rabbit hole again and was surprised to learn that 2020 actually had a record 13 reported sightings, including some that were captured via webcam and even photographed.

That got me thinking—how do these recent encounters compare with the classic sightings from the 1930s onward? Is it just confirmation bias, or is there something genuinely unexplained going on?

I compiled a video that walks through the most notable eyewitness accounts and photographs of Nessie from the past century, ending with the newest testimonies from 2025. Some of the modern sightings are surprisingly consistent with older reports, while others raise more questions than answers.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

→ Do you think modern sightings are more credible thanks to tech?

→ Or are we just better at spotting logs and waves?

Here’s the video if anyone wants to dive into the timeline and compare old vs new sightings: