It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was chupacabra used for military purposes

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
if any one does know abut the chupacabra then plaese do mail it to me at deepesh.55@gmail.com




posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
i have found out that they have been used for military purposes and they escaped out of the labs.





if anyone interested in this please do post your reply



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
OK, I'm open for the idea...
Can I suggest that you provide more information on the topic as to get more interest in the thread?
How did you find out about the connection between Chupucabra and the military? Which military would this be? US or Mexican or another? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
What was the purpose of Chupucabra's creation? Warfare?
I'm sorry, but due to the lack of information, you leave us no choice but to ask questions.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I am also interested in the connection here, I never heard this link before, (aside from B rate sci-fi flicks of course)



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The concept of Macro Biological weapons is intriguing mainly as a psychological weapon IMHO. Theres not really much doubt that we can make animal Chimeras with current technology. The Chupucabra has been described as a mix of different animals legs like a kangroo, quills like a porcupine etc...

I think this whole BIO weapon theory started because the US has a few research facilities in Puerto Rico and one of the early thoeries on what was killing the animals was escaped reecees (spl?) monkeys.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I agree ShadowXIX, the technology is far from "impossible"... But is it "practical"?

No wild animal has been domesticated for the last 10 000 years (as far as I know), and taming/teaching of wild animals is limited to a couple of species, and even so with variable success. Thus, the question should rather be can you "teach" a "wild animal" (i.e. a Macro Biological weapon) to kill only the enemy? It would take a great level of intelligence from the animal to know the difference between friend and foe. Human soldiers know friendly fire - in the heat of the battle mistakes are made. Would a wild animal know the difference?

How would you control such an animal? Set it free in enemy territory? You have no control over it so how do you know what it gets up to? And when its job is done, how do you "recover" it?

Such an animal would be an extremely aggressive being – if its purpose were to kill the enemy as a “weapon” is supposed to do. I know of only a handful of animals willing to "kill for fun" and not necessarily to feed. Neither a kangaroo nor a porcupine fits this bill. And neither does chupacabra. It's not exactly what you would call a killing machine?

Let's say chupacabra was in fact bred on a military base. How would it escape? We know security is top level around these kinds of places. They would not make it easy for their "experiments" to escape. In the movies we see these kinds of "animals" jump through concrete walls and jump electric fences in a single leap. Problem is... It's all movies. We know feats like these are physically next to impossible. And if it escaped, would the military just give up, and let it run free? Wouldn't they want to get it back?
Or was it set free on purpose. I don't see the point of Chupacabra scaring people and being a myth?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I agree ShadowXIX, the technology is far from "impossible"... But is it "practical"?



Not really, unless you could make some like the Alien in the Movie Alien. Something like that might have a practical military use as a weapon. But I doubt you could ever make something like that. But putting aside some perfect killing machine like the Alien human weapons tend to be far better then anything nature can come up with. If they werent we would still be hiding in caves froms bears, lions and such.

There might be some uses as a psychological weapon. Think about how fearful humans are of things that go bump in the night, Its part of our nature . We all know monsters are not real and as we grow up that becomes a non issue (well for most of us). But just imagie if Monsters (Macro bio weapons) were real even if they were only a modest threat they could spark a panic.

Imagine that fear you had as a kid of monsters in your closet or under your bed
I can be paralyzing.

I have to agree with you Gemwolf I doubt they would escape if the military made them. Security and secrecy would have to be at such a high level to even attempt a project like that.

But maybe it didnt escape and sightings were the result of a test run on the population. You have to test psychological weapons on people sooner or later.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Does the military do anything that is practical, logical, or moral?



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
hmm...

macro biological weapons could be an amazing weapon of attrition. destroying food supplies and local economies to soften up enemies for an attack. they could also be used to scare the enemy poopless.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
shadow's throry was a bit intriging because i think that the chupacabra was released into the open so that they could test it's ability and is capabilities ,they might have got
at what it could do ,you know and then when they were testing it would have ran out of control and bega to terrorise
,i thing that's it.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Is it just me or is the idea of the military growing and harnessing the power of chupacabras seem a bit.... improbable
? There would be no real reason to use them... or even grow them, when they have a full military force at hand. We also have the CIA and other special forces which are the modern day ninjaz
to do our sneaking around and gathering intelligence. If i walked outside my house and saw this:

The first thing I would do is say "Ew.. Is that the best that America's got?" Then I would proceed to either shoot it or stab it with my katana.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   
well bluesoldier ,i do agree with your theory on the CIA's and all those forces which the ameicans have with them but still attackning the enimies with weapons and peoples ,that just have to be second wave,while the first wave of attacking the enemies would be using bioweapons in the form of mutated animals,what do u think?

what
for an answer....



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
It would not make much sense to use macro-biological weapons as a first wave. First of all, they would easily be picked off by guns. Second of all, if they did succeed in hurting most of the enemies, how would we control them enough to ensure that they don't attack our soldiers when they enter as the second wave? It is a simple military tactic to use your heavy forces first and weaker forces second. There is only one exception, which is snipers. Snipers can snipe down enemies from hundreds of yards away, demoralizing them before we attack with infantry. The heavy forces first/weaker forces second also was used in medieval times. The calvalry would rush in first before the foot-soldiers. This was because if the calvalry was sent in after the foot-soldiers, they would run over and crush them by accident.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Although sending in a creature to be seen by a few drunks, then a few ex-police, then the general populice would be a good way to soften someone up.
Think, if Chupe kills goats, then suddenyl attacked people and disappeared again, people would begin to get paranoid, and desperate, and terrified. They would welcome any help to get rid of the creature before it breeds, even if that help was a large taskforce sent from the US Army that ordered people indoors after dark and 'guarded' various locales around Mexico



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   


Second of all, if they did succeed in hurting most of the enemies, how would we control them enough to ensure that they don't attack our soldiers when they enter as the second wave?



for that i do have an answer



  1. they would have been fitted with neuro transmiters which was used in the anime Godzilla,they might have been controled.
  2. If they were to run amuck,the americans scientists would have implanted something that would kill them from the inside,
  3. don't you agree.huh!




posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Is it just me or is the idea of the military growing and harnessing the power of chupacabras seem a bit.... improbable
? There would be no real reason to use them... or even grow them, when they have a full military force at hand.

Theres alittle practice called psychological warfare Theres alot more to wars then military might and who has the biggest guns. You release something like that is some backward countries and I would bet good money talk of demons and monsters would have a decent percent of the population terrified. People were in panic in the US over the fake" War of the Worlds broadcast" some even killed themselves over it I believe. People can be frightened little sheep quite easily.

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier

If i walked outside my house and saw this:

The first thing I would do is say "Ew.. Is that the best that America's got?" Then I would proceed to either shoot it or stab it with my katana.


Yeah its easy to talk a big game on a forum. But if you and 99% percent of people saw something like that for real they would likley crap their pants, and not go out at night alone and unarmed ever agian.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Think of this situation logically, the military has hundreds of other psychological warfare tactics for wittling down the other side's moral. Troops over in Iraq blast heavy metal music at the opponent and Hannibal introduced enormous African elephants to Rome in order to scare them. From the few sightings of this animal in Mexico, America must have only released a few in their territory. I seriously doubt that the Mexican military would take the threat of chupacabras seriously, especially when there are much more effective psychological tactics out there. And BEFORE you refute this, take a minute to thouroughly think through the flaws in this plan:

X) The chupacabra was introduced in the early 1990's in Puerto Rico. Technology was not advanced enough to develop them in laboratories, and in that point of time we had absolutely no reason to attack Latin America.

Y) The fundings for this project must have been enormous, and America could not possibly afford it because they were just out of the Civil War during the 1890's which cost the most $ and lives in American history.


Z) Even if for all intents and reasons, America did develop chupacabra, it would not be an effective psychological weapon nor an effective military weapon.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Think of this situation logically, the military has hundreds of other psychological warfare tactics for wittling down the other side's moral. Troops over in Iraq blast heavy metal music at the opponent

Rock and roll music now thats a effective psychological weapon
That is perhaps the lamest psychological weapon ever created. Did it work on Manuel Noriega? NO. What worked was the military telling him they were going to let group of angry civilians outside the building he was held up in get their hands on him. Images of Mussolini's fate danced in his head. Thats what made him surrender, so If rock music is the best psychological weapon the US has its high uneffective and they should be looking for better ones.

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
X) The chupacabra was introduced in the early 1990's in Puerto Rico. Technology was not advanced enough to develop them in laboratories, and in that point of time we had absolutely no reason to attack Latin America.

LOL Your understanding of this tech is pretty funny but whats more funny is the fact that you know what the US goverment can and couldn't do at the highest security levels. Heres some facts for you to think about.

1980 - The United States Supreme Court granted the first patent to Ananda Chakabarty for a genetically engineered life form, a microbe to consume oil spills in the ocean.

1984 - British scientists mixed goat and sheep embryo cells and implanted them into a surrogate animal. This led to the birth of the first chimera, a cross between a goat and a sheep.

The first animal Chimera was created in 1984!. 1984 but according to you we dont have this tech even in 1990s. Before moving on to your next point lets just point out it didnt cost these people billions to make this chimera.
link


Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Y) The fundings for this project must have been enormous, and America could not possibly afford it because they were just out of the Civil War during the 1890's which cost the most $ and lives in American history.




1890's? The civil war? What the heck are you talking about
The US not having the money
Heres a new flash the current US Black Budget is $40 billion I think it was about 30-35 billion in the 90s and the goverment didnt have to tell anyone what that money was spent on they dont even have to tell congress.


After reading your flawed points Im not going to even bother with the rest of your post. Some good arguements could be made against this theory but your attempts have been weak.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
"The chupacabra was introduced in the early 1990's in Puerto Rico. Technology was not advanced enough to develop them in laboratories"

I love the way he claims to know what technology Usa has in secret military bases and what scientists can do. The best of the best btw. I'm in no doubt that scientists could do stuff like this behind closed doors with the correct funding. And even way b4 early 90's as you suggest


Scientists have been cloning animals for many years. In 1952, the first animal, a tadpole, was cloned. And im sure that was pretty much mainstream scientists. Imagine what the best scientists could do around that time given the best equipment and the most money

[edit on 25-12-2005 by Arawn]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I accidently said 1990's when I meant to say early 1900's. So don't get all prideful and angry at me because of a mere typo. Now compare the facts of a 90 year difference and tell me that the military back then could have made a chupacabra.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join