|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:47 am
Due to the lack of sound, I was unable to hear any of the audio for this video, but here is a link. What are your thoughts on this? Think it has any connection to the Montauk monster? Might this species account for any supposed chupacabra sightings? Have you found any other information, videos, or articles about this breed? Discuss.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:21 am
I watched this on t.v the other night.
It just looks like a starved, hairless dog.
-shrugs- I guess it's interesting..
I just find it weird how the chupacabra image has morphed from this ******** up creature to a dog..
Have all those people just been making up what they saw?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:01 am
Lady Kira X
Have all those people just been making up what they saw? This is one of the great questions in the field of Cryptozoology and must be addressed in every case. Estimation of personal reliability and numbers are the most frequently used measures of determining the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:34 am
Oooo.. Interesting but this dog like thing cannot be the mythical creature. It has no spines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:55 pm
NireFang Oooo.. Interesting but this dog like thing cannot be the mythical creature. It has no spines. Which is why I worded it the way that I did, though I advise using the word crypozoological. It implies far more subjectivity than "mythical." As an agnostic, I prefer to give all unknowns the benefit of a doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:03 pm
Hmm interesting. I think it's just a hairless dog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:42 am
Matasoga NireFang Oooo.. Interesting but this dog like thing cannot be the mythical creature. It has no spines. Which is why I worded it the way that I did, though I advise using the word crypozoological. It implies far more subjectivity than "mythical." As an agnostic, I prefer to give all unknowns the benefit of a doubt. Oh good point my bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:14 pm
NireFang Matasoga NireFang Oooo.. Interesting but this dog like thing cannot be the mythical creature. It has no spines. Which is why I worded it the way that I did, though I advise using the word crypozoological. It implies far more subjectivity than "mythical." As an agnostic, I prefer to give all unknowns the benefit of a doubt. Oh good point my bad. We all make mistakes. We just have to learn from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:43 am
The link didn't work gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:17 pm
Sylar776 The link didn't work gonk Yeah, seems that it was taken down. That's unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:30 pm
Since I cannot see the link isnt this that video about some dog in texas or something? I think I might have seen it then. It was odd. It did look hairless, but something seemed messed up with its skin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:02 am
I went & found a video link for people
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Chupacabras-Mysterious-creatures-killed-in-Texas/YMYc1PyfZ0imSLKAP7IX4w.cspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:32 am
Lady Kira X I went & found a video link for people http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Chupacabras-Mysterious-creatures-killed-in-Texas/YMYc1PyfZ0imSLKAP7IX4w.cspx Looks like this was four months later. I thought I heard something more recent than this, in fact, on CNN. Can someone poke around? Surely, if we look hard enough, there'll be something conclusive that's come out, by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:36 am
"The DNA results are back from tests run on the “Chupacabras” (as it was called) found by Phylis Canion, near Cuero, Texas, in July, 2007. The biologists at the Texas State University have announced that it is a coyote (Canis latrans)."
wait nevermind.. these are 2007..
Odd.. but Im going to assume the results are the same considering the images looked a like
edit again: University of Michigan biologist Barry O'Connor concluded that all of the 'chupacabra's' were simply coyotes infected with the parasite Sarcoptes scabiei. The symptoms of which would explain most of the features of the chupacabra's: they'd be left with little fur, thickened skin, and rank odor. O'Connor theorized the attacks on goats were "because these animals are greatly weakened, they're going to have a hard time hunting. So they may be forced into attacking livestock because it's easier than running down a rabbit or a deer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:59 am
Lady Kira X "The DNA results are back from tests run on the “Chupacabras” (as it was called) found by Phylis Canion, near Cuero, Texas, in July, 2007. The biologists at the Texas State University have announced that it is a coyote (Canis latrans)." wait nevermind.. these are 2007.. Odd.. but Im going to assume the results are the same considering the images looked a like edit again: University of Michigan biologist Barry O'Connor concluded that all of the 'chupacabra's' were simply coyotes infected with the parasite Sarcoptes scabiei. The symptoms of which would explain most of the features of the chupacabra's: they'd be left with little fur, thickened skin, and rank odor. O'Connor theorized the attacks on goats were "because these animals are greatly weakened, they're going to have a hard time hunting. So they may be forced into attacking livestock because it's easier than running down a rabbit or a deer That's very interesting. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
