Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Turtleguy

I Knew It, Chupacabra is Real

30 posts in this topic

I always suspected it was real, and I always suspected it was a breed of dog as the Texas version of the cryptid describes it. I don't know how it changed looks from South America, being a spiked back flying reptile, to Mexico where it climbs trees and still reptilian but almost monkey like and then to the US where it is a dog. Turns out a species of dog, Xolos, might be the suspected animal. I am sure at some point one of you found this story already and it might be on here already but here it is again if that be the case and if not here it is for the first time. Enjoy and please tell me what you think of this claim.

http://whofortedblog.com/2013/08/09/chupacabras-are-real-reader-sends-photos-of-monster-lurking-in-his-home/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting but I still wonder how a breed of dog.could suck.blood like that out of its victims. And the different sightings such.as spikes and sulphur smells after a chupacabra sighting is sometimes followed by ufos. Some say the chupacabra is the aliens pet :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chupacabra myth was always a reptile-insect looking thing that sucked fluids out of an animal with fangs.

Wasn't until a few mangy dog videos came out that cryptid wackos started changing the description. IMO

It's a lot easier to film a mangy dog/fox from a distance and claim it's a cryptid than try and catch footage of a reptile-insect creature. Anything to make a hoax easier.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always suspected it was real, and I always suspected it was a breed of dog as the Texas version of the cryptid describes it. I don't know how it changed looks from South America, being a spiked back flying reptile, to Mexico where it climbs trees and still reptilian but almost monkey like and then to the US where it is a dog. Turns out a species of dog, Xolos, might be the suspected animal. I am sure at some point one of you found this story already and it might be on here already but here it is again if that be the case and if not here it is for the first time. Enjoy and please tell me what you think of this claim.

http://whofortedblog.com/2013/08/09/chupacabras-are-real-reader-sends-photos-of-monster-lurking-in-his-home/

Total baloney. It's a mangy canine and nothing more.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both things are not even related.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the Mexican and South American Chupacabra, I still think they are just stoner trips, lol, but this helps to explain the American Chupacabra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the Mexican and South American Chupacabra, I still think they are just stoner trips, lol, but this helps to explain the American Chupacabra.

I thought the Chupacabra was only a South-American myth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chupacabra has been sited in Mexico, reportedly, and strange deaths of live stock in Texas in the US has made some believe it is in the US now though sitings are always dog like in appearance. I think this dog and chupacabra are unrelated but I do believe there is a strange new dog breed running around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta friend from Tennessee who claims to have seen a Chupacabra in his area. Granted ive seen the grainy pics he took and it looked like a dying raccoon to me, but its pretty wide spread anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chupacabra myth was always a reptile-insect looking thing that sucked fluids out of an animal with fangs.

Wasn't until a few mangy dog videos came out that cryptid wackos started changing the description. IMO

It's a lot easier to film a mangy dog/fox from a distance and claim it's a cryptid than try and catch footage of a reptile-insect creature. Anything to make a hoax easier.

Exactly. It's like not being able to get any credible evidence or photos of the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland, so all of a sudden you start calling diseased turtles in China "Nessies" and everybody goes, "oh yeah..."

Besides, pretty sure early descriptions of the chupacabra were based off of the alien from the movie Species, so it's not even original. I'm a silly man who thinks there's a tiny possiblity that some crptids might exist, but the chupacabra isn't one of them. Unless mangy dogs and coyotes are now being called chupacabras, in which case, it does 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. It's like not being able to get any credible evidence or photos of the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland, so all of a sudden you start calling diseased turtles in China "Nessies" and everybody goes, "oh yeah..."

Besides, pretty sure early descriptions of the chupacabra were based off of the alien from the movie Species, so it's not even original. I'm a silly man who thinks there's a tiny possiblity that some crptids might exist, but the chupacabra isn't one of them. Unless mangy dogs and coyotes are now being called chupacabras, in which case, it does 100%.

It's a classic case of moving the goal posts to suit your argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However.......

Isn't interesting how the description of this creature are so radically different than the actual creature? Has anyone else noticed this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However.......

Isn't interesting how the description of this creature are so radically different than the actual creature? Has anyone else noticed this?

I think a lot of it has to do with the sad state of journalism and science reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it makes me wonder how exaggerated or inaccurate Bigfoot story are as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chupacabra has been sited in Mexico, reportedly, and strange deaths of live stock in Texas in the US has made some believe it is in the US now though sitings are always dog like in appearance. I think this dog and chupacabra are unrelated but I do believe there is a strange new dog breed running around.

Since this strange new breed is a dog without fur, I think it's simply a dog infested with mange.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the Mexican and South American Chupacabra, I still think they are just stoner trips, lol, but this helps to explain the American Chupacabra.

The "American Chupacabra" is a misidentification of known species. Its not a cryptid. Its a mangy canine of whatever origins..... dog, coyote, fox, that has been spun into a mystical creature sharing the same name as another imaginary creature that it bears absolutely no resemblance to. A true case study of stupidity, gullibility, and the power of the internet to miselad and misinform the stupid and gullible denizens of the crypto community.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If chupacabra resembles this, then it's just a a dog.

Edited by brlesq1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as an American chupacabra. Never in the short history of the story. Chupacabras is and always was Puerto Rican. And those descriptions are of an alien-like reptile. And when it comes to the Mexican version they just had their own stories, then someone came back from Puerto Rico and said, "Hey, this is like something I heard about when I was on vacation." As for Americans, they just wanted to be part of the story, not using much common sense. And jumping straight on the bandwagon before saying, "Oh look, it's a mangy dog."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify this thread: there are two Chupacabras. There's the Latin American one, and the Southwestern US one. The original Latin American version was...nasty. 3-4 feet high, large eyes, scaly skin and a row of spines running down its back. It moved around by hopping, which caused some confusion with the American "devil monkey" reports and the anomalous "kangaroos" seen in the Midwest from time to time. The animal called a Chupacabra in the American southwest is a gangly, hairless canine that would be entirely explicable by conventional science (ie. they're coyotes with mange).

This is an eyewitness sketch of a Central American Chupacabra:

chupacabra.gif

And this is a Texan "Chupacabra."

Chupacabra%20small.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is a Texan "Chupacabra."

Chupacabra%20small.jpg

Which also bears a striking resemblance to a (mange-free) Xolo mentioned in the OP, imo: Some are naturally hairless.

https://www.google.c...693.4V0pUpcTrjk

Edited by QuiteContrary
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not so unusual really. Giving a bad description of what you saw when you were scared is quite common. Please understand that what the people are telling you is most likely exactly how they recall it, trouble is the mind all befuddled because of the combination of adrenaline, fear, the fight or flight reflex trying to decide which course of action to take. In short, even the best recollections are very often all effed up.

The picture of what was reported as the Goat sucker looks very different from what we now know is the goat sucker. Which very often makes me wonder about accounts of other creatures.....yes, bigfoot included........ Here's an example, recently i have heard stories from a number of sources about people seeing a Bigfoot and claiming the creature they saw 10 to 12 feet tall. If I go back to the seventies then the largest Bigfoot I'd ever heard of was a touch over eight feet tall. I chalk this increase in both height and overall size to fear,. and I will say also that it's ok to be sacred.

Please keep in mind I have never seen a Bigfoot in my life so I can't hazard a guess as to how big the bugger really is, but I'm willing to bet that if i do ever see one my "Pant-poop" factor will probably hit an all time high....or low depending on how you want to look at such a thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture of what was reported as the Goat sucker looks very different from what we now know is the goat sucker. Which very often makes me wonder about accounts of other creatures.....yes, bigfoot included........ Here's an example, recently i have heard stories from a number of sources about people seeing a Bigfoot and claiming the creature they saw 10 to 12 feet tall. If I go back to the seventies then the largest Bigfoot I'd ever heard of was a touch over eight feet tall. I chalk this increase in both height and overall size to fear,. and I will say also that it's ok to be sacred.

Well, if you want to get all technical, Loren Coleman has classified several different varieties of unidentified hairy bipeds, including three that would easily be all lumped in as "Bigfoot" in most reports. To be specific, there's the classic Neo-Giant seen in the Patterson Film, with a stocky build around 7-10 feet. Then you've got the Marked Hominid, which is slightly smaller and tends to show a piebald coat. Finally, you've got the True Giant, standing anywhere between ten and fifteen feet tall, with a relatively lanky build and theorized to live primarily in the vast northern boreal forest (taiga) band that covers most of Canada, Russia and Northern Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't mean to sound technical at all. However, one does have to wonder how or why Ms Coleman, or anyone else for that matter would come up with classifications on a creature that is yet to be determined is real. Granted she's working off descriptions from witnesses or reports from witnesses and classifying those. Now the point I'm making is if you look at the picture above and we assume that this is an actual "Chupacabra" ......of the Texas variety.......then it's pretty obvious that the descriptions that originally came out of Puerto Rico were either greatly exaggerated or we're dealing with a completely different variety of creature.

People talked of being scared to death of it how horrible it was....yadda....yadda....yadda. And what we can clearly see is this creature anything but a huge threat to any adult. It doesn't seem to pack up like most canines which are extremely social creatures within their species. We never get reports of packs of them running about, only single, lone ones. Now, I'm smart enough to know that there are variation within a species due to climate, food, predation and general living conditions. However, the first reports of this critter were made in March of 1995, only some eighteen or so years ago. In evolutionary terms this is the same day, there hasn't been time for a Chupacabra to evolve into different variants of itself.

Now, and with all due respect to Ms Coleman, we have to ask which description is correct? The original complete with large red, glowing eyes and funky projections coming off it's back, standing upright.......or, do we go with what we have in front of us which is a mutant, hairless dog? Or do we determine that the Puerto Rican Chupacabra is an island variation?......or is the Texas one the variation? And who's going to make the determination which is which?

Now, where Bigfoots are concerned, I have heard of up to twelve footers......which would be enough to cause my old "Pant-poop" factor just completely into overdrive, but now Ms Coleman is telling me there might be a fifteen footer out there? Pardon me while I go find some industrial strength Depends.

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To heck with the pipsqueak Foots we've got in the Lower-48. I'm moving on to the 15-footer. "True Giant" aka "That Ain't Bear Scat!"

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, all you'd have to do is find thirty pound turds and you'll know you're hot on his trail.

Oh, I just discovered that Loren Coleman is a male not a female, my bad.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.