Is the chupacabra a scriptid?

[stereologist]

There are plenty of times in which we see scriptids appear.

Look at little grays. They are scriptids from Close Encounters. What about mothman? His form changes after the movie comes out. It even altered the memory of some of the key witnesses.

 

 

The chupacabra has 3 types. We need to be clear that is a discussion of a type 1 chupacabra.

1. Type 1 is a chupacabra that appears in Puerto Rico has  spines down its back.
2. Type 2 is a Texas form that looks a lot like a hairless canine.
3. Type 3 is a grab bag of anything the witness does not recognize.

 

You might want to take a look at the image at this site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra

The question of course is whether or not the original form was inspired by a book or movie. If it was then it becomes a scriptid.

[papageorge1]

7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There are plenty of times in which we see scriptids appear.

Look at little grays. They are scriptids from Close Encounters. What about mothman? His form changes after the movie comes out. It even altered the memory of some of the key witnesses.

 

 

The chupacabra has 3 types. We need to be clear that is a discussion of a type 1 chupacabra.

1. Type 1 is a chupacabra that appears in Puerto Rico has  spines down its back.
2. Type 2 is a Texas form that looks a lot like a hairless canine.
3. Type 3 is a grab bag of anything the witness does not recognize.

 

You might want to take a look at the image at this site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra

The question of course is whether or not the original form was inspired by a book or movie. If it was then it becomes a scriptid.

The reverse is true too. Literary uses of these figures can be inspired by real-life legends. 

 

[Oniomancer]

Grays pre-date Close encounters, back at least to Betty and Barney Hill. (and the tv re-telling, The UFO Incident., although CE might be responsible for the more spindly later versions)

The original sketch of Chupacabras I've always seen actually look like a Gray having a bad hair day rather than the Gorn wannabe in the wiki entry.

 

[Orphalesion]

Oh Grays go further back than Betty and Barney Hill. All the way to an article and illustration by H.G.Wells. They soon became an archetype for aliens that was picked up by multiple other writers. That explains their prevalence in "UFO encounters", they had enough time to cement themselves as shorthand for "Aliens" in the common subconsciousness.

[Rlyeh]

I thought it's a dog with mange.

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The reverse is true too. Literary uses of these figures can be inspired by real-life legends. 

 

Quite true. The question is whether or not the movies or books had a character that looked like a type 1 chupacabra close to the time of the initial sighting in Puerto Rico.

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Grays pre-date Close encounters, back at least to Betty and Barney Hill. (and the tv re-telling, The UFO Incident., although CE might be responsible for the more spindly later versions)

The original sketch of Chupacabras I've always seen actually look like a Gray having a bad hair day rather than the Gorn wannabe in the wiki entry.

 

I was thinking more of the short gray seen in CE. I knew that grays had an earlier appearance.

The chupacabra was described originally having spines running from head to tail.

[Scholar4Truth]

Looking at the sketch kinda of reminds me of a Reptilian Alien because it has scales. And if you study Reptilians and their features they have some of the same features., though I doubt Chupacabras can shape shift, 

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

I thought it's a dog with mange.

That's the type 2 chupacabra. It's name used in many different situations.

[stereologist]

Here is a description based on a book covering the topic. The comment is from a review of that book.

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-05-09/

Quote

Based on the Tolentino report, the chupacabra was an otherworldly humanoid with spines, claws, red eyes and a curious hopping locomotion. A subsequent second body form associated with the chupacabra was smaller, essentially hairless and dog-like. This type was based upon actual animals killed in proximity to livestock attacks. They appeared far too grotesque to be common fauna. A third bin of creatures labeled “chupacabra” was filled with any unusual thing regardless of size, number of limbs and body shape. If one couldn’t identify a creature right away or affirm that it was a recognized animal, it was called chupacabra.

 

[Oniomancer]

40 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I was thinking more of the short gray seen in CE. I knew that grays had an earlier appearance.

The chupacabra was described originally having spines running from head to tail.

This is the version usually associated with the original encounters:

 

Note the spines are finer and less like the crest of a lizard than in the other.

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The reverse is true too. Literary uses of these figures can be inspired by real-life legends. 

 

Wait a minute here. I got two ‘likes’ in a row on two different threads on the same day from @stereologist

Papameter: 74% Walk-in Soul Stereo.......26% Real Stereo 

Edited September 4, 2019 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Wait a minute here. I got two ‘likes’ in a row on two different threads on the same day from @stereologist

Papameter: 74% Walk-in Soul Stereo.......26% Real Stereo 

I'm allowed to do that right? 

I will often put a like on a post that includes actual evidence. 

I thought your post in this thread was important point to ponder. Even though I knew that, I thought it was important to put that idea into print, which you did. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

I'm allowed to do that right? 

I will often put a like on a post that includes actual evidence. 

I thought your post in this thread was important point to ponder. Even though I knew that, I thought it was important to put that idea into print, which you did. 

Lighten up sometimes too. I hoped you might even crack a smile at the last part of my preceding post.

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

1. Type 1 is a chupacabra that appears in Puerto Rico has  spines down its back.
2. Type 2 is a Texas form that looks a lot like a hairless canine.

I never understood why these two quite different things got the same name.

[the13bats]

22 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I never understood why these two quite different things got the same name.

my take was the attention seekers of texas wanted to surf the rico mythological creatures fame.

 

and betty hill didnt originally describe greys but rather a jimmy durante looking alien  no kidding google it, she only changed to the grey description after watching outer limits tv show.

even many big name ufologists called betty a loon.

[stereologist]

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I never understood why these two quite different things got the same name.

And now the name is being applied to anything in the "What was that?" category.

A single specific description is now transformed into a vague category. Weird right?

[Robotic Jew]

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I never understood why these two quite different things got the same name.

Maybe they both suck goats?

[stereologist]

When I suggested that the chupacabra was a scriptid I was thinking that it was based on the movie specie. Sure there are lots of differences, but then a scriptid doesn't have to be an exact match. As we have seen in this thread grays are tall or short, hairless or like the eloi long hair, and so forth.

This movie came out just before the first reports from Puerto Rico.

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

When I suggested that the chupacabra was a scriptid I was thinking that it was based on the movie specie. Sure there are lots of differences, but then a scriptid doesn't have to be an exact match. As we have seen in this thread grays are tall or short, hairless or like the eloi long hair, and so forth.

This movie came out just before the first reports from Puerto Rico.

 

Heres my generic toy, based on type 1

I pretty much thought that about it and species , i have a friend born and raised in Puerto Rico, he said when something happens like this there it goes epic viral nuts and the movie was popular,

type 2 is actually a living creature but not much seems to have been done to study the dead ones much, a stuffed one dramatized in look sold on ebay.

 

 

[Skulduggery]

And now for some retro TV.

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Skulduggery said:

And now for some retro TV.

those LoL guys scared me as a kid, now it looks low end,

but its still better than the patterson costume

[stereologist]

The chupacabra identity has been so watered down that it reminds me of the Old McDonald song,

"... here a chupacrabra, there a chupacabra, everywhere a chupacabra ..."

Edited September 9, 2019 by stereologist

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

The chupacabra identity has been so watered down that it reminds me of the Old McDonald song,

"... here a chupacrabra, there a chupacabra, everywhere a chupacabra ..."

it really irked me when it started, seems there was a rancher vet in texas really pushing it in the early days, if not mistaken thats the stuffed one that landed on ebay, of course it was made to look all mean, all about look at me and $$$

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 9/5/2019 at 5:13 AM, Oniomancer said:

This is the version usually associated with the original encounters:

 

Note the spines are finer and less like the crest of a lizard than in the other.

MYbe it’s a grey alien with mange?