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.

 

The Chupacabra: Not An Official Cryptid

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
According to a television show on cryptids which aired on the History Channel, the chupacabra is not an official cryptid according to cryptozoology. The cryptozoologists interviewed even stated that they did not consider it an official cryptid.

I was not aware of this. Apparently, according to the show, the chupacabra is not considered a cryptid because they view it as a collection of the most effective predatory aspects of other animals and is simply a manifestation of these parts in peoples minds.

So, I ask to you: what are your feelings on this subject? Do you feel this 'chupacabra' really exists? Do you feel that it belongs on official lists of cryptids?

**Please do not post a link to the wikipedia article which includes it on the list of cryptids.**




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Personally I don't consider it a cryptozoological creature.

I don't doubt something exists that is what is behind
the Chupacabra legend, but I don't think it's what the popular
idea of the Chupacabra is.

I don't think it belongs on the list of Cryptids, as not enough
information is known about it, and it may well be that it's not
even a natural animal, that is it is'nt a product of natural
evolution.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Well, considering that chupacabra only made its appearance early 1990's could lead us to believe that it's not a "natural" animal, but rather something else like a government experiment (like some suggest) or non-existent (in my opinion). Thus if it's not a real/natural animal, it wouldn't classify as a crytpid.

But if we take a look at the definition: Cryptozoology is the study of rumored or mythological animals that are presumed (at least by the researcher) to exist, but for which conclusive proof does not yet exist; or are generally considered extinct, but occasionally reported.

And that's exactly what chupacabra is. A mythical beast, so it should be a crytpid. The lack of any evidence whatsoever (other than eyewitness reports and "animal mutilations") may be keeping it from the list.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
But if we take a look at the definition: Cryptozoology is the study of rumored or mythological animals that are presumed (at least by the researcher) to exist, but for which conclusive proof does not yet exist; or are generally considered extinct, but occasionally reported.

And that's exactly what chupacabra is. A mythical beast, so it should be a crytpid. The lack of any evidence whatsoever (other than eyewitness reports and "animal mutilations") may be keeping it from the list.


The way it was described on the show, according to one of the several cryptozoologists, was that it seemed to be, according to eyewitness reports, a menagerie of predatory parts and aspects put together to form some "awsome" predator. They viewed it as an evolutionary impossibility based on this and that is why, according to them, it is not on the list.

I hope I paraphrased that correctly. If anyone more learned then me has anything else to add to this then please do.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spines
The way it was described on the show, according to one of the several cryptozoologists, was that it seemed to be, according to eyewitness reports, a menagerie of predatory parts and aspects put together to form some "awsome" predator. They viewed it as an evolutionary impossibility based on this and that is why, according to them, it is not on the list.

"Awesome predator"? What have they been smoking. At best, the Chupacabra could be described as some blood sucking zombie dog. Hardly an awesome predator. A lion the size of an elephant with machineguns on its back, now THAT would be an awesome predator.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   


"Awesome predator"? What have they been smoking.


I believe they said ultimate predator, if I'm remembering the
same show that Spines is talking about, but that' not
important.

When they say that, they mean that it has all the parts of the
worlds greatest predators.

It may be meant to be more psychological than actually
physically predatorial enough to be a mass killer.




I think only naturally evolving things should qualify for the Cryptid list.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by spines
The way it was described on the show, according to one of the several cryptozoologists, was that it seemed to be, according to eyewitness reports, a menagerie of predatory parts and aspects put together to form some "awsome" predator. They viewed it as an evolutionary impossibility based on this and that is why, according to them, it is not on the list.

"Awesome predator"? What have they been smoking. At best, the Chupacabra could be described as some blood sucking zombie dog. Hardly an awesome predator. A lion the size of an elephant with machineguns on its back, now THAT would be an awesome predator.


Awsome was not to be understood in the sense that it was some ultimate killing machine. It is "awsome" in the sense that the descriptions of it have it holding characteristics of many different predators in some non-possible mix. If that makes any sense...



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei


"Awesome predator"? What have they been smoking.


I believe they said ultimate predator, if I'm remembering the
same show that Spines is talking about, but that' not
important.

When they say that, they mean that it has all the parts of the
worlds greatest predators.

It may be meant to be more psychological than actually
physically predatorial enough to be a mass killer.

I think only naturally evolving things should qualify for the Cryptid list.


Exactly what I was attempting to say. Thank you for summing it up for me.

I am interested to know if anyone here has any theories behind this 'chupacabra'. Any ideas as to what it actually is or what explinations there can be for some of the more puzzling livestock killings (two small holes being the only source of injury and all of the blood missing...as well as several internal organs...all from those two small puncture wounds.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
cite sources for the two little holes that are more than rumor.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by herm
cite sources for the two little holes that are more than rumor.


I wish I can, unfortunatly I am going off of the show I saw on the History Channel. I can not seem to find the references for the show nor can I remember the exact name.

I apologize for this.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by spines

Originally posted by herm
cite sources for the two little holes that are more than rumor.


I wish I can, unfortunatly I am going off of the show I saw on the History Channel. I can not seem to find the references for the show nor can I remember the exact name.

I apologize for this.


I believe the show you may be thinking of is Greatest History's Mysteries.

Could'nt find a link to the show, but I do remember seeing the
episode featuring the Chupacabra.

Would'nt have figured out which show it was if I had'nt remem-
bered that Scott Bakula hosted it.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I believe the show you may be thinking of is Greatest History's Mysteries.

Could'nt find a link to the show, but I do remember seeing the
episode featuring the Chupacabra.

Would'nt have figured out which show it was if I had'nt remem-
bered that Scott Bakula hosted it.


Yes, I believe that was the one. I stopped flipping through the channels and watched only because I saw Bakula. Haha.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trimmed triple nested quote

[edit on 9/11/06 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
A television show is in the bussiness of selling adds. As far as I can determine, there are NO documented reports of ensanguation from a qualified veternarian or biologist. How hard is it to call up a vet? The definition of the Chupacabra appears to hinge upon a circumstance that has not been observed in nature, but only from sensational stories. Livestock does get mutilated, but ordinary predators do it.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by herm
A television show is in the bussiness of selling adds. As far as I can determine, there are NO documented reports of ensanguation from a qualified veternarian or biologist. How hard is it to call up a vet? The definition of the Chupacabra appears to hinge upon a circumstance that has not been observed in nature, but only from sensational stories. Livestock does get mutilated, but ordinary predators do it.


No, commercials are in the business of doing that.
The show was on the History channel, a respectable network that
provides both sides in arguments.


Not all livestock mutilation is done by predators, how do you explain
the cows that have a specific heart muscle mising, with no signs of
surgery, and no damage to the surrounding tissue, or the cuts that
are so precise that nothing short of a medical laser could make them?

However, in the case of the Chupacabra, there is no mutilation,
it's just two small holes, and the goat drained of all it's blood.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Like I was trying to point out, the "two little holes" exist only in chupacabra mythology. You can find documentations of any other sort of injury to an animal easily enough, but you will have some difficulty coming up with a scientificly described acount of livestock actually being drained of blood by a predator. Chupas exist as a mythological motiff only. Please cite any credible documentation of such specific attacks on animals.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
i think it should be made offcial it has all the characteristics of a mythical creature, people havent classed bigfoot as unoffical yet that could be explained as a man in suit or gorilla (not that i think its any of these im just useing it as an example). I dont think theres any other way to explain the blood draining from the goats if it was a person doing it surely they would have been caught by now. I hate the fact that people think its a wild dog, that would explain a mutilation or carcass but not a drained animal with only two small bite marks in site. And also why dont they get a DNA sample from the bite marks or a tooth size comparison to see if a dog tooth would fit the marks in the neck (im not a vet or anything) but i thinks it worth a shot to finally figure out once and for all what this thing really is



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
the specific bite that defines the chupa has not been documented. that's why there are no DNA samples. there are lots of reports, but no blood-drained bodies. again, cite a reference.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by herm]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
So lemme get this straight..

A bunch of guys that study imaginary animals are claiming the the idea of the Chupacabra is too far fetched to be believable?

That's rich.

Just another case of some people thinking their fantasies are more important than someone elses fantasies.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
So lemme get this straight..

A bunch of guys that study imaginary animals are claiming the the idea of the Chupacabra is too far fetched to be believable?

That's rich.

Just another case of some people thinking their fantasies are more important than someone elses fantasies.


They're not imaginary animals, they are Cryptids, in other words
even though there is not full proof for there existance, there is
enough to warrant exploration into whethere or not they do indeed
exist.

The Chupacabra is a more modern myth, so that alone makes it's
existance a bit devious, add to that that it looks like it's a mixture
of abunch of fierce and formiddable enemies, and the idea of it
actually existing is remote.

Now, with things like Sasquatch, that's a different story, we have
sightings from many different people throughout a long stretch of
history, and some possible photographic proof.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Bigfoot is also a myth, just an enduring one. The same goes for Nessie. How long does a cryptid need to be believed in before it is an official imaginary animal?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join