cryptozoology

[Montcalm]

On the beast which is known as el Chupacabra:

"The majority of Mexicans who have entered the USA illegally polled by border surveys express that their main reason for wanting to enter America is to live in a land that is CHUPACABRA free."

Several people have also claimed to actually have been attacked by Chupacabras, and some of them, including politicians and such, are quite credible.

These monstrosities allegedly kill 500 Mexicans each year.

They must be smoking some really good shit

[Frank Hipper]

On the beast which is known as el Chupacabra:

"The majority of Mexicans who have entered the USA illegally polled by border surveys express that their main reason for wanting to enter America is to live in a land that is CHUPACABRA free."

Several people have also claimed to actually have been attacked by Chupacabras, and some of them, including politicians and such, are quite credible.

These monstrosities allegedly kill 500 Mexicans each year.

(Source: http://www.retrocrush.com/monsters/38.html)

This coming from a nation whose most revered miracle is losing it's paint.

[viperpilot]

These monstrosities allegedly kill 500 Mexicans each year.[/url])

who? the chupacabras or the politicians?

[viperpilot]

so is it wrong for these cryptozoologicists to be searching? are they wasting their time searching for the improbible, such as bigfoot and chupacabra?

[neoolong]

so is it wrong for these cryptozoologicists to be searching? are they wasting their time searching for the improbible, such as bigfoot and chupacabra?

Not necessarily. And bigfoot isn't necessarily improbable. As for the chupacabra, a goat sucking vampire? Well I wouldn't hold my breath.

The mountain ape used to be considered a myth I believe.

[UltraViolence83]

I remember watching a show about the Yeti and they interviewed this woman farmer from Nepal. She said she was attacked by a wierd creature that left a nasty scar on her body.

Did she actually show the scar? If so, was the scar from a wolf/bear or unidentified?

I can't remember too well. I'm sure she showed some of it, but it was from her shoulder down, so she didn't want to reveal herself that far. She claims it was from a creature she never seen before. Could be anything, but still interesting.

[LadyTevar]

ghosts

No credible evidence.

You are correct, there is no Physical Evidence to proof what I've heard and felt, but I know that I have been in the presence of ghosts, both in my hometown, and in the apartment building I now live in.

[neoolong]

You are correct, there is no Physical Evidence to proof what I've heard and felt, but I know that I have been in the presence of ghosts, both in my hometown, and in the apartment building I now live in.

If you have no proof of any cause, how do you know that it was ghosts? Couldn't it have been some other unexplained phenomena?

[neoolong]

I can't remember too well. I'm sure she showed some of it, but it was from her shoulder down, so she didn't want to reveal herself that far. She claims it was from a creature she never seen before. Could be anything, but still interesting.

A farmer from Nepal saying that it was something that she had never seen before doesn't exactly narrow it down that much.

[Darth Wong]

You are correct, there is no Physical Evidence to proof what I've heard and felt, but I know that I have been in the presence of ghosts, both in my hometown, and in the apartment building I now live in.

No, you believe you have been in the presence of ghosts. There's a difference. Knowledge requires objective evidence, which you don't have.

[Master of Ossus]

so is it wrong for these cryptozoologicists to be searching? are they wasting their time searching for the improbible, such as bigfoot and chupacabra?

I still don't have a problem with legitimate scientists who are going out looking for new organisms in places like the deep sea and the rain forest. Though some of them are doubtless wasting their time, a successful find could provide legitimate benefits to scientific knowledge and understanding, and potentially preserve the memory of some of these disappearing species. I do have a problem with people masquerading their amateurish bungling with actual science. In many cases, the alleged "cryptozoologists" are merely people who try to veil their work behind a shield of legitimacy, when in fact they have no credentials, training, or even knowledge of what they are actually doing.

[Darth Wong]

If a new species has been found, zoologists study it. If there is no hard evidence, cryptozoologists study it.

That's the difference, and that's why I don't think much of cryptozoologists. Their interest lies in precisely that for which we DON'T have hard evidence. A zoologist would gladly study Bigfoot if you brought him a specimen, while a "cryptozoologist" has no interest in studying known species, and would be LESS interested in Bigfoot once an actual specimen was found.

Cryptozoology is like UFOlogy. There may be some seemingly intelligent people in the field, but the field itself is still goofy.

[UltraViolence83]

A farmer from Nepal saying that it was something that she had never seen before doesn't exactly narrow it down that much.

That's why I said it could be anything.

About ghosts: What the hell do they have to do with cryptozoology? They're phenomena, not unknown beasts. Although some unknown beasts are considered ghosts...

*locks the doors and windows of my house*

[weemadando]

Does anyone else remember BBC radio about a month ago running a story about some sort of primate loose in the midlands of Britain.

Some said it was bigfoot-UK, but a group of people trying to track it (legitimate biologists and zoologists from a uni) said it was most likely a gorilla or something escaped from a private zoo.

[Peregrin Toker]

These monstrosities allegedly kill 500 Mexicans each year.[/url])

who? the chupacabras or the politicians?

The chupacabras. By the way, attacks by Chupacabras usually leave marks unlike those of any known predator. And many creatures allegedly attacked by the chupacabras have all their inner organs mashed.

And a question:

Is it hard evidence if a dead animal is found which has marks unlike those of any known predator??

BTW, is there rules for the Chupacabra in the D&D Monster Manuals?? On most illustrations I've seen, it looks like something straight out of a Monster Manual.

[Montcalm]

These monstrosities allegedly kill 500 Mexicans each year.[/url])

who? the chupacabras or the politicians?

The chupacabras. By the way, attacks by Chupacabras usually leave marks unlike those of any known predator. And many creatures allegedly attacked by the chupacabras have all their inner organs mashed.

And a question:

Is it hard evidence if a dead animal is found which has marks unlike those of any known predator??

BTW, is there rules for the Chupacabra in the D&D Monster Manuals?? On most illustrations I've seen, it looks like something straight out of a Monster Manual.

Where exactly did the Chupacabra come from if it supposed to be in country like Mexico,how come its "existance" has been reported only in the last 20 years.

[neoolong]

The chupacabras. By the way, attacks by Chupacabras usually leave marks unlike those of any known predator. And many creatures allegedly attacked by the chupacabras have all their inner organs mashed.

And a question:

Is it hard evidence if a dead animal is found which has marks unlike those of any known predator??

BTW, is there rules for the Chupacabra in the D&D Monster Manuals?? On most illustrations I've seen, it looks like something straight out of a Monster Manual.

No. At most it is evidence that something freaky happened. But it is not evidence that the chupacabra exists. Without established causation, you cannot establish that a being known as the chupacabra actually made the marks and not something else.

[Darth Gojira]

On the beast which is known as el Chupacabra:

"The majority of Mexicans who have entered the USA illegally polled by border surveys express that their main reason for wanting to enter America is to live in a land that is CHUPACABRA free."

Several people have also claimed to actually have been attacked by Chupacabras, and some of them, including politicians and such, are quite credible.

These monstrosities allegedly kill 500 Mexicans each year.

(Source: http://www.retrocrush.com/monsters/38.html)

Bah, probably just a small carnivore with a weird thirst or overgrown vampire bat.

[Peregrin Toker]

who? the chupacabras or the politicians?

The chupacabras. By the way, attacks by Chupacabras usually leave marks unlike those of any known predator. And many creatures allegedly attacked by the chupacabras have all their inner organs mashed.

And a question:

Is it hard evidence if a dead animal is found which has marks unlike those of any known predator??

BTW, is there rules for the Chupacabra in the D&D Monster Manuals?? On most illustrations I've seen, it looks like something straight out of a Monster Manual.

Where exactly did the Chupacabra come from if it supposed to be in country like Mexico,how come its "existance" has been reported only in the last 20 years.

Actually, the folklore of the natives of Puerto Rico tells of a demonic creature called the "Mosquito-Man", which is quite similar to the Chupacabra. I know that tribal legends are not good evidence, but you said its existence has been reported only in the last 20 years, which is wrong when ancient legends tell of similar creatures.

BTW, some people claim that the Chupacabras are pets left behind by alien visitors, but it is beyond me how an extraterrestrial predator can adapt to Earth conditions so fastly without dying.

Neoolong,

No. At most it is evidence that something freaky happened. But it is not evidence that the chupacabra exists. Without established causation, you cannot establish that a being known as the chupacabra actually made the marks and not something else.

But:

1) These marks are different from those of any other predator in the area.
2) A strange, carnivorous creature is reported in the area where the mangled carcasses with mysterious marks have been found.

Aren't these two circumstances almost beckoning to be linked together??

[neoolong]

Neoolong,

No. At most it is evidence that something freaky happened. But it is not evidence that the chupacabra exists. Without established causation, you cannot establish that a being known as the chupacabra actually made the marks and not something else.

But:

1) These marks are different from those of any other predator in the area.
2) A strange, carnivorous creature is reported in the area where the mangled carcasses with mysterious marks have been found.

Aren't these two circumstances almost beckoning to be linked together??

1. Nope. Still no proof that it is the chupacabra. It could still be an escaped animal, or a new creature with a more credible story, or even an animal that happened to attack in a way that screws up any identification by bite marks.

2. So? It doesn't link it to the chupacabra.

None of that is anything more than circumstantial. It's the same as saying well, I saw a light and I can't explain it, so it must be aliens.

[Frank Hipper]

You forgot to mention hoax, neoolong.

[neoolong]

You forgot to mention hoax, neoolong.

Well, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was an animal.

But yeah, it could be a hoax. Then again, if there is evidence of an attack, people tend not to go around hurting themselves for a joke.

[Peregrin Toker]

Neoolong,

No. At most it is evidence that something freaky happened. But it is not evidence that the chupacabra exists. Without established causation, you cannot establish that a being known as the chupacabra actually made the marks and not something else.

But:

1) These marks are different from those of any other predator in the area.
2) A strange, carnivorous creature is reported in the area where the mangled carcasses with mysterious marks have been found.

Aren't these two circumstances almost beckoning to be linked together??

1. Nope. Still no proof that it is the chupacabra. It could still be an escaped animal, or a new creature with a more credible story, or even an animal that happened to attack in a way that screws up any identification by bite marks.
.

There are no known animals whose teeth leave marks exactly like those of the Chupacabra - and what if that "New creature with a more credible story" IS the chupacabra?

You forgot to mention hoax, neoolong.

Hoax?? Do you think that thousands of farmers kill all their livestock for no reason and mash their inner organs just as part of a hoax?? Or that 500 people yearly die as part of a hoax??

[neoolong]

There are no known animals whose teeth leave marks exactly like those of the Chupacabra - and what if that "New creature with a more credible story" IS the chupacabra?

Except you cannot prove that. Until you actually capture a chupacabra and examine it's jaws, you cannot be sure that that was what caused the bite. It can be, but until you prove it, you cannot say that it is.

I can just say that it was actually aliens that did those things. And have the same credibility.

[Peregrin Toker]

There are no known animals whose teeth leave marks exactly like those of the Chupacabra - and what if that "New creature with a more credible story" IS the chupacabra?

Except you cannot prove that. Until you actually capture a chupacabra and examine it's jaws, you cannot be sure that that was what caused the bite. It can be, but until you prove it, you cannot say that it is.

Aha. Actually, there are some people which claim to have found a dead Chupacabra. However, in my mind it looks more like a dead dog.





Besides, it doesn't look like Chupacabras are commonly described - hairy, occassionally, bat-winged demonbeasts with lots of spikes and big, red, almond-shaped eyes. Imagine a crossbreed between a Stereotypical Gray Alien and a Night-Gaunt from Dreamquest Of Unknown Kadath (by H.P. Lovecraft), then add lots of spike-like protusions. Then you'll have an idea what a chupacabra supposedly looks like.