>normies think it's just a dog/coyote with scabies or mange
>cryptozoology schizos say it's clearly not a chupacabra because chupacabras are bipedal lizard people
>it's actually a distinct species of canid that ranges in texas and mexico
Thoughts on the TEXAS chupacabra?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Humans are so fricking dumb, this planet is a comedy show
>Thoughts on the TEXAS chupacabra?
real.
Re chupacabras and shit, people are all "OMG! This monster kills cattle and sheep and goats and eats only the eyes, lips, tongue, genitals and buttholes!"
That's because the animal died of natural causes/illness/accident, and small scavengers like birds and rodents ate only the exposed soft tissues.
That's because the exposed soft tissues are all they can eat. The hides and hair of large herbivores are too tough for small animals to open quickly. You need crocodiles and hyenas and shit for that.
The small scavengers might also have crawled into the dead animal's c**t and arseholes to eat it out from the inside but you won't notice that unless you're a sick frick who gets down on hands and knees to inspect the c**ts and arseholes of dead livestock.
Also, bear in mind that you can't just have one big carnivore like a Loch Ness Monster or escaped circus panther or whatever living in your area for decades or centuries on end. You need to have a sustainable breeding population of at least dozens of those animals. And if there were dozens of such large predators in your area, farmers would be screaming because they would be eating all the livestock, and there would be loads of them being hit by cars and being photographed constantly because nobody ever leaves the house these without a camera phone.
>"OMG! This monster kills cattle and sheep and goats and eats only the eyes, lips, tongue, genitals and buttholes!"
nobody says this about chupacabra attacks though, it's always just a couple puncture marks and being drained of blood. More likely human degeneracy, which is what many of the puerto ricans thought at the time.
?si=CrXe3ULbbO2IbVrz
thoughts on this video of a skunk ape? It's kind of convincing to me
>cryptozoology schizos say it's clearly not a chupacabra because chupacabras are bipedal lizard people
since when?
The name chupacabra was coined in the 90s to make fun of the media buzz around the local weird animal deaths (vaguely similar deaths in previous decades gave other names to the mystery culprit). One of the first chupacabra eyewitnesses in the area insisted the actual plot itself and bipedal lizard people she saw in a horror movie recently were real, cuz she saw one, and must be the same creature that’s killing animals here lately. So several other people decided the weird vague shapes they saw just gotta be one of those bipedal lizard demons everyone has been gossiping about. And so, the rest rest of the world is told of a mysterious scaly beast with a row of spikes down its spine that walks on two legs while crouched forward who is called a chupacabra that exsanguinates livestock and just maybe is totally the same alien that has been blamed for other cases elsewhere in the world where livestock have been found dead with no blood and little injury.
Much later in a completely different place… dead livestock with nothing but puncture wounds must have been killed by the notorious goatsucker. Also, here is a fricking weird animal I caught lurking around the area that has zero resemblance to the world-famous chupacabra bipedal alien lizard creature meme. This bald dog thing must be the REAL chupacabra because lizard aliens are dumb and silly.
this is the weird thing about it. If you just treat the texas chupacabra as a distinct thing then everything sorts itself out, but every time I hear someone talk about it they say "Oh it's not a chupacabra" like what plenty of animals have been named after other things before that resemble it, if they associate a dog with sucking blood of livestock and it seems distinct then "[local modifier] chupacabra" is perfectly apt as a name no matter any of the cases' veracity
Have heard that the canine chupacabras are fricked up fox and wolf hybrids. Teeth are all too big for maw and when they lose hair can look monstrous
What is that think
A near-sighted Armenian woman.
Everything about the chupacabra is, and always has been wrong. It's always been a nickname for a Afghan immigrant in the Tejas territory, the goat herd who stumbled on his nighttime activities just had a lisp.
weird, why did the term chupacabras come from a talk show host talking about the puerto rican events if it's from a texan afghani (???)
not to mention that as has been stated multiple times this thread, texas chupacabra and puerto rico chupacabra are 2 different things. I think the islander chupacabra is just a demented person killing animals for fun, but I think the texas chupacabra is possibly a unique ecomorph of a coyote, or maybe a dog, or maybe a hybrid or something.
is dog
True
>2 cryptid threads
frick off
That's just a picture of my husband Blaidd...
Do y'all believe in the humanzee?
doubt
Extinct animals that may still be alive are soft cryptids, shit like aliens and folklore creatures like skinwalkers aren’t cryptids. The only proper cryptids are shit like Beebe’s abyssal fish
>Beebe’s abyssal fish
this one's fun if only ever satisfied by a quick search and going "huh that's neat"
Any other ones that pique your interest?
Thanks for sending me on a four hour research trip on William Beebe and the history of oceanography.
Thats a fricking xoloitzcuintle, a Mexican dog, and an ugly one at that. Some dogs are great, tho
>another moronic thread postulating on cryptids with zero evidence other than decaying corpses and hearsay
Post actual interesting cryptids/nebulously non-extinct animals with evidence of possible existence instead. Pic related, an animal claimed to be a Honshu wolf by Hiroshi Yagi in 1996.
Honshu wolves were believed extinct since 1905, and they are believed to be the last remnant of Pleistocene wolves that are the direct ancestors of domestic dogs.
Eerie, they look so much different than the wolves we know of today.
I think my favorite thing about this is that there were over a dozen clear images taken of this one and whether it's a stray dog or not nobody can deny that it looks extremely similar to our existing image of honshu wolves.
Because dogs and honshu wolves are the same species. It’s just a japanese village dog that hasnt been mangled by dog shows. Imagine someone thinking tabby cats are wildcats in a future where anglos made cats = bingus.
>Because dogs and honshu wolves are the same species.
well, they're not actually.
This lil guy makes me wonder if they're NOW extinct, like maybe they just had a very small surviving population since their projected extinction date, and only recently truly died out. They set up like hundreds of cameras throughout the area and found literally nothing right after this report. Is this an image of the literal last Honshu wolf?
I hope not because that's unbearably depressing.
It's far more likely that they just avoid cameras for the most part. Most animals are actually pretty good at that, including wild dogs. Just requires a bit of intelligence and hesitancy towards humans (which the honshu wolf would clearly have in strides.)
also absence of evidence != evidence of absence
Anyone who thinks the chubacabra looks anything like a dog is a fricking normie.
Texas Chupacabra and Chupacabra are unrelated cryptids
Yes it is. It is currently believed by science to be extinct. People claim it exists and is just hidden in faraway corners of aus. It's the same as anyone claiming any other extinct animal is still alive today - it's unverified reports of an undocumented animal. This is the type of thing that always trips people up when discussing cryptids; they assume cryptids are all just spooky time-traveling bigfoot or mothmen or whatever. No, 99% of them are things like
perfectly normal animals or slightly abnormal animals that are unverified.
That's not what a cryptid is, stupid. The Thylacine is a real animal known to science. The only debate is whether or not it's critically endangered or extinct.
>The only debate is whether or not it's critically endangered or extinct.
which is what makes it a cryptid because it is currently believed to be extinct. Seriously, cryptid is
>animal not currently believed to exist by science
yeah that includes animals that were thought to be extinct. Seriously, accept this. It makes the rest of the discussion so much easier because then you don't have the
>cryptids are supernatural gobbledeasiatic
fallacy to fall back on and instead have to discuss them as they are: sightings/reports of potentially distinct animals that are not documented by the current scientific literature. There are plenty that seem paranormal, but so do many that turned out to be real (like the giant squid or the gorilla.)
No, it's not a fallacy at all. And I won't tolerate your /x/ tier NPC brainletism. Every single story about cryptids is either obvious misidentification or made up bullshit and the lion's share (like what appears in books and documentaries) is made up bullshit. And I've already laid out why it's obviously fake.
Not there other guy but that's a very narrow understanding of the concept to the point of being outright wrong, likely purposefully so (or your otherwise have to admit anon had a point).
Isn't the coelacanth something which was thought mythological but actually exists? I'm not interested in cryptozoology but I recall reading something to that end about coelacanths.
No dude, Coelocanths were thought EXTINCT (we knew they existed via the fossil record), not mythological :/
I'm specifically saying none of it is /x/ you absolute moron.
>I saw a monkey in the woods!
Is it real? Chances are low.
>go to woods
>option a: see no monkey, conclude there are no monkeys
>option b: see no monkey, conclude there are either no monkeys or we haven't found them
>option c: see monkey, we found them
Option b is what a cryptid is. it is not:
>option d: conclude the monkeys are ghosts and therefore unseeable, but I promise they're real.
I am a proponent of option b.
Consider:
>We found some evidence that [animal] is out there. What is it?
>Well, it's either a coyote or stray dog with mange, or it's a xolo, or it's something unknown.
>[small suggestions that it's something unknown based on blah blah blah]
>oh well maybe it's not a coyote or a xolo -
>NOOO NOOO NOOO IT'S NOT A GHOST LIZARD MAN IT'S CLEARLY A DOG A NORMAL DOG
>well there was some weird circumstances once -
>NO NO NO YOU'RE CRAZY YOU THINK THEY'RE ALIENS
Consider:
>We saw this dog out in the woods. What is it?
>Well, it's either a stray/feral dog or something we didn't believe is still alive.
>It looks a lot like the taxidermied specimens but it's hard to conclude based on that alone.
>[finds no evidence of any dogs in the region, which proves nothing because we know there are dogs in the region based on the above pictures]
>Well... it could be the thing that is known to be elusive and lived in the wilds of japan, maybe it's a relic population, we haven't actually searched more than a tiny area near a giant city -
>NOO NOOO NOOOOO YOU'RE CRAZY IT'S A NORMAL DOG WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO TELL ANYWAY STOP ASKING QUESTIONS
like uhhh lol I'm being pretty reasonable here I think.
Low IQ take. Have you actually even read anything on cryptozoology? If you had, you'd quickly realize it's all bullshit. It's not some fricking legitimate wing of biology to find new species. It's almost nothing but the low IQ lying or being idiots.
It's not even trying to be biology you moron
>DOES THING EXIST?
>MAYBE, WE'RE NOT SURE YET
>OK THAT'S A CRYPTID THEN
That's it. Stop trying to rope in the ufo investigators or "but muh reptilians" larpers into this.
>Have you actually even read anything on cryptozoology?
t. read the cryptozoologicon one time and thinks himself an expert
See?
was right.
That's clearly just a near-sighted Armenian woman.
You put a babushka on that thing and I'd believe it.
>hey we saw this animal. Doesn't look like a coyote based on x or y characteristics.
>No, goy, it's a coyote with mange. Don't approach it!
>It's clearly a cryptid based on physical characteristics only I can see. I'm extra reliable becuz im racist btw
All cryptids are fake, by the way, except for FAR less than 1% that turn out to be normal fricking animals. Every bigfoot, every loch ness monster, every chupacabra is a hoax. Every fricking single one. Cryptozoology is the greatest concentration of lies in the entire human world. It's impressive honestly. Watch for this pattern.
>1: Me and muh huntin' buddies saw x! Honest! We even collected a body/took photographs!
>2: May we see [literally the most important discovery in history]?
>3: We lost it. Whoops.
Literally every single time.
It's like, how the frick hasn't a bear-sized bipedal ape in North America been found already? Oh right, it doesn't exist, and it wouldn't even make sense.
That's not even the most damning part. The number of fraudulent hacks claiming to have evidence then just "losing it" when called out is LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE FRICKING ONE OF THEM. There's nothing else like this on Earth. It's profoundly moronic. The media doesn't lie this much. Toddlers don't lie this much. And it's always the same lame ass lie.
>except for FAR less than 1% that turn out to be normal fricking animals.
all cryptids are normal animals that have not been fully documented yet... Or, rather, are the reports thereof. Some cryptids are fakes, some are existing animals misidentified, some are real.
No, >99% are just outright lies made up to get attention.
>Some cryptids are fakes, some are existing animals misidentified, some are real.
funny enough even if >99% is the rate (I would argue it's not as most are just people who don't know what they're looking at, most people aren't in it for the attention, but even still >99% "not a mysterious undocumented animal" yeah absolutely, sounds accurate) then what I said would still be accurate. You see, I don't have to believe in things like the loch ness monster to think that, for example, the tasmanian tiger is still around. They're very different wagers, I'm sure you can understand.
The Tasmanian Tiger isn't a cryptid.
Yup it's a Xolo weird breed you don't see much outside mexico
being racist or not is my most reliable heuristic when choosing a good doctor, lawyer, mechanic etc
this
yeah but it's a new kind of dog which is neat
>/x/ discovers Xoloitzcuintle dogs
>what decay does to a mf
Every fricking few months some 40 IQ morons find a dead animal and the news runs with "Normie morons can't figure out the process of decomposition. Is it a chupacabra?"
?si=_IbzD0DB1bQAgU0K
>mu-muh decay
There is TONS of pictures and film of them in life. The only problem is there are tons of mangey coyotes and coons that make it hard to distinguish which are real and which are not.
here's another picture of what I think is the OP animal btw
Clearly a canid and you're moronic. Hair falls off and the gut bloats during the decay process, you fricking idiot.
yeah it is a canid you fricking moron it's also not a coyote or stray dog by virtue of its elongated, protruding canines, odd limb proportion, and natural and not diseased hairlessness. Dumbass.
Did you know your fingernails grow after you die?
They don’t, dehydrating flesh just retreats from them.
YOU DON'T SAY!??!
guess what your lips are made of dumbass
>the hind legs are 1.5 times longer than the forelegs
>this is obviously a result of the body going stiff as it died
>1.5 times longer
Measure that picture from the top of the shoulder to toes of the foreleg and the top of the haunch to toes of the hind leg. It’s not much shorter. I only see 1.5 if you’re measuring from where the elbow is touching the body rather than the whole limb.
doesn’t show disproportionately short forelimbs either.
That shows the hind legs are about 30% longer than the front legs, which is staggeringly average for a canid like a wolf or coyote
You don't happen to have a source for that, do you? Not trying to be sardonic, genuinely curious.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Canonical-Discriminant-Analysis-of-body-measures-of-adult-male-moose-and-caribou-wolves_tbl1_267944862
>Hindlimb = femur + tibia + tarsal length = 621
>Forelimb = humerus + ulna length = 454, about 73% of hindlimb length
I appreciate your response, I will not goad you further.
np
>every single specimen that has been DNA tested has been revealed to be a coyote
You're moronic
this is a dog carcass
texas chupacabra is a canid so that would be pretty accurate
I hate conspiratorial morons.
please be a brainlet elsewhere. thanks.