Comments on: This “Chupacabras” Is No Mystery

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:50:35 +0000

Frankly, I’ve always been skeptical about the whole chupacabras thing. The reports seem to very wildly, with some having wings, some walking upright, some no wings, some on all fours, some with spikes along the back, some with no spikes, red glowing eyes, green eyes, yellow eyes…etc.

Throw in all the mangy critter reports and I think you’ve got a wild tale that has grown in every direction imaginable. If there is something to it then you have a lot of different creatures hiding under the chupacabras umbrella–or you have just a bunch of wild stories.

By: Alligator

Alligator — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:48:14 +0000

Loren is absolutely right. The press keeps throwing foxes, dogs, coyote and coyote-dog hybrids out and calling them chupacabras. Reporters really don’t know or recognize wild animals at all, even domestic ones with health problems. When they run these stories, they are really poking fun at people who reasonably believe there may be some unknown and unexplained animals out there.

“It has short front legs and longer back legs. The paws on the front are different than the ones on the back, and it has no hair. The nose is very long. The tip of the nose is longer than the lower jaw, and the front teeth stick out, almost like fangs.”

This animals front legs are folded back. One looks like they might even be broken.

The shoulders are hunched, a death posture when rigor sets in a with a canid.

The belly is distended from bloating, pushing the hind legs straight back, making them look longer.

Add the three up and you have short front legs and long back legs. Most canid front legs are just a bit shorter than the back ones anyway.

Front and back paws look different? Look at any dog tracks in the mud. They are indeed different. Same with bears, same with bobcats, raccoons, opossums etc. etc. etc.

No hair. Mange can completely denude an animal. The nose is longer than the bottom jaw? Sharp fangs? Well, they are that in a normal, healthy canid. Everything is not even and equally proportioned. One eye is slightly higher than the other – wait maybe that’s a chupa trait! People just do not realize how much a fur bearing animals’ appearance changes without its hair! I’ve seen and handled mange infected red foxes and coyotes. THEY LOOK JUST LIKE THE ANIMALS IN THESE PICTURES!

Somewhere here, the witness said the animal did not bleed after he shot it. I see blood smear on the brown wrapping paper in the photograph. I’ve seen plenty of gunshot animals that did not bleed profusely. We’ve seen so many violent movies where blood splatter and buckets of blood from a wound are the norm and in real life it doesn’t always happen that way. A lot of factors will determine if and how much blood is evident.

I may sound frustrated and I guess I am. Folks need to use some logical deductive reasoning with some of these reports and maybe learn a little biology. These stories are red herrings. Listen to Loren on this one!

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:53:29 +0000

Oh, this brings back memories…
A few years back, someone who is very belligerent towards CZ heard me commenting on Chupacabras, and said, “Why don’t you go play with your Aguacabra?” which, aside from sounding ridiculous, actually means “goat-water”. Now, I was in no mood to play with goat-water, and told him so. After the severe mistake in wording was revealed, it was Mister Belligerent Bum who ended up looking foolish, and not I, as he had intended.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:46:55 +0000

I think the worst thing about the reports of chupacabras in Texas is that they had the culprit in their hands and called it “a coyote with mange”. Richard888 pointed out the obvious with his quote about the size difference of legs. Also, as you read the article the eyewitness said that there was little to no blood minutes after being shot. This is no coyote. Not to mention, there is a bit of difference between front and back legs.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:56:48 +0000

Of course it is more than the spelling…as I say in this blog. It’s about how every summer (in recent years) candids with mange are turned into Chupacabras. I’m tired of those non-stories, with the similarly pictured dog-like dead animals.

All reporters in the southwestern and southern USA should have a crash course in mange annually, in May or June. These “journalists” look silly to the rest of the world, and I would think especially to vets and to the true eyewitnesses in Hispanic America of the actual Chupacabras.

By: DARHOP

DARHOP — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:31:03 +0000

And you did it again raisinsofwrath.

It is spelled Chupacabras with an s.

By: DARHOP

DARHOP — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:28:17 +0000

raisinsofwrath responds:
July 27th, 2007 at 9:13 am

Loren, I’ve had my fill of these Chup’s as well. Of all the currently popular cryptids, Chupacabra has to be the most ridiculous.

I think Loren is tired of the Spelling, not the reports. Is that right Loren?

By: raisinsofwrath

raisinsofwrath — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:13:56 +0000

Loren, I’ve had my fill of these Chup’s as well. Of all the currently popular cryptids, Chupacabra has to be the most ridiculous.

By: Ole Bub

Ole Bub — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:58:31 +0000

Good morning Cryptos…

Looks like a dawg/coyote/fox hybrid with severe mange to us…not many goat suckers in Texas…the squatch thin them out…JMHO

live and let live…

ole bub and the dawgs

By: Richard888

Richard888 — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:23:22 +0000

Okay, so these animals are coyotes with mange. But what about this statement?