Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Firm develops Tasmanian tiger DNA detector


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

Have there ever been any new updates for this news? Have they ever detect a free thylacine DNA?

No. Last definite evidence is still from 92 years ago. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, joseraul said:

Can the Thylacine and Chupacabra have a baby?

A Thylacabra, if you will?

Of course. It probably happens all the time. 

I'd like one as a pet if anyone comes across one.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, joseraul said:

Can the Thylacine and Chupacabra have a baby?

A Thylacabra, if you will?

No.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

From the link:

 

201610-chupacabra-canion-768x576.jpg

 

CUERO RANCHER PHYLIS CANION INSISTS THIS STUFFED SPECIMEN — WHICH EXPERTS SAY IS A COYOTE — IS AN AUTHENTIC TEXAS CHUPACABRA.

Not Wile E. Coyote, but his cousin Mange E.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

Funny how 13 bats laughed at that post I believe?  Anyway, the facts are the facts and it’s funny how peoples preconceived opinions can keep them from seeing them, like that person in the thread who tried to claim the chupacabra issue had been debunked decades ago.  Well, that’s just ignorance and confusion now isn’t it?  To be polite.  Yeah, what I posted was real, and it has been confirmed.  It’s a perfect example of how some cryptids are actually based on fact.  That is the legends are frequently born from some kind of fact.  

The type-3 chupacabra looks nothing like the original type 1 chupacabra.

Seems that there is ignorance and confusion on this issue especially when the stuffed animal is a known animal.

Cryptids such as the type-3 chupacabra are based on ignorance and a lack of understanding.

The chupacabra type-1is shown below. Notice that it is a humanoid with visible fangs and spines jutting out the back. The type-3 is the third iteration f using the name chupacabra to denote something.

Chupacabra

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/13/2021 at 11:07 AM, Guyver said:

The chupacabra is actually confirmed and a lady in Texas has one prepped and mounted in her living room.

https://www.texasobserver.org/chupacabra-legends-texas/

 

 

On 6/6/2022 at 12:40 AM, Guyver said:

Funny how 13 bats laughed at that post I believe?  Anyway, the facts are the facts and it’s funny how peoples preconceived opinions can keep them from seeing them, like that person in the thread who tried to claim the chupacabra issue had been debunked decades ago.  Well, that’s just ignorance and confusion now isn’t it?  To be polite.  Yeah, what I posted was real, and it has been confirmed.  It’s a perfect example of how some cryptids are actually based on fact.  That is the legends are frequently born from some kind of fact.  

Nice highjacking of a thread slick.

I laugh because you are hysterical at times with your utter nonsense.

Ill dim it down for you since you do not do your homework.

The orignal chupacabra wasnt even reconized by The International Society of Cryptozoology as a possible undiscovered creature because they considered it saying it nicely to be folklore, it didnt exist nothing to debunk.

Lots of money was made off the idea but people got board and it faded away.

Then by the time a few attention seeking profiteers in texas got involved it wasnt anything even close to the orginal chupra it was the weird bald canine so at the very least texas folks stooping to a new low and show of zero originality stole the name of a mythical creature and used it on a known creature for attention and dramatic effect who afaik never once killed or sucked a goat in the lone star state.

I do believe they tried to or did cha ching selling the stuffed canine on ebay.

I only recognize the orginal mythical creature as chupacabra not the texas ripoff, same as i recognize you as "guyver" on here even if someone else used your name.

This is the chupra,

11424690_10100260190014607_975544564_n.thumb.jpg.8735956a64b95e21a6d24af06c316df9.jpg

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the detector was ever tested using real thylocene DNA, or if they just loaded up genome sequencing data. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article from 2008 appears to me to give the best explanation for the Chupacabra. Its unusual behavior and odd appearance are merely the results of cross-breeding between different types of canines that don’t normally interbreed.

From the article:

“Results from Texas State University stated the animal is from the coyote family. But Canion wanted to know more, so she sent more DNA, tooth and tissue samples, off to California. Results from the University of California at Davis show the animal is in fact a mutt: on the mother's side it is part coyote. "On the paternal side, it had Mexican wolf in it," said Canion. Scientists from the University of California at Davis say they can't tell when the Mexican wolf heritage made its way into the gene pool. It could be generations ago, but Canion believes the father's genes are important and can explain some of the odd characteristics of the creature. "It was a hybrid, because it has this other breed in it," she said.’”

https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/good-morning-show/chupacabra-dna-studied-by-scientists/83-402849885

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already been developed. It's called a cell phone and it has been totally ineffective. 

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.