Chupacabra?

Could be a large cat? Jaguars and cougars used to be regularly found there. Jaguars were found in some US border states,but they were rare and hunted out in the 1800s. The Mexican wolf had also been making a comeback. I'm not convinced on the chupacabra.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulm, Lynne, ozentity and 1 other person
K9-1 said:
Could be a large cat? Jaguars and cougars used to be regularly found there. Jaguars were found in some US border states,but they were rare and hunted out in the 1800s. The Mexican wolf had also been making a comeback. I'm not convinced on the chupacabra.
Click to expand...
I'm also not convinced, but that comes with a "however"...lol
IF, as the theory out there goes, there is some sort of phenomena that can manifest as it wishes into anything it wishes, then perhaps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulm, K9-1 and ozentity
These people need to set up some trail cams. We need some pics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulm
Debi said:
I'm also not convinced, but that comes with a "however"...lol
IF, as the theory out there goes, there is some sort of phenomena that can manifest as it wishes into anything it wishes, then perhaps.
Click to expand...
it is O.K to say your not convinced, the entire definition of "cryptid" is something that dousnt exist but is surrounded by legend and folklore.. once it is proven to exist it is no longer a cryptid. as far as all the theories and "what if's", those are all just ideas of the "hows" and "whys" of the search for proof of such creatures, beings, etc.... i think a lot of people seem to forget the actual definition of cryptid from the start. but classifying or calling something a cryptid is in itself admitting that there is as of the present time no proof of its existence. which is OK, that is what discussions concerning legends, cryptids, etc... should be about, finding such proof and truths to the legends/stories
 
Paulm said:
it is O.K to say your not convinced, the entire definition of "cryptid" is something that dousnt exist but is surrounded by legend and folklore.. once it is proven to exist it is no longer a cryptid. as far as all the theories and "what if's", those are all just ideas of the "hows" and "whys" of the search for proof of such creatures, beings, etc.... i think a lot of people seem to forget the actual definition of cryptid from the start. but classifying or calling something a cryptid is in itself admitting that there is as of the present time no proof of its existence. which is OK, that is what discussions concerning legends, cryptids, etc... should be about, finding such proof and truths to the legends/stories
Click to expand...
Perhaps the people in the areas where incidents happen are so convinced without proof, they just have accepted their existence and therefore refer to them as the culprit. These things may just turn out to be a wild dog population with a genetic mutation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulm
Lynne said:
Perhaps the people in the areas where incidents happen are so convinced without proof, they just have accepted their existence and therefore refer to them as the culprit. These things may just turn out to be a wild dog population with a genetic mutation.
Click to expand...
could be. i think the chupacabra legend is a good example of how a legend/folklore can be brought forth and blamed for a current event/situation. and how much can be changed to fit the needs of such. the original stories/sightings of the chupacabra described it as a reptilian type creature, maybe with wings in some accounts, and with a row of spikes down its back or in some tellings all over its body. whereas any supposed "proof" of the animal/creature has always showed it as being a type of canine or similar creature. i think this shows how much can change from legend to truth. the legend is always scarier and grows into something completely different than what the truth may be. it dousnt mean it dousnt exist, just that the legend has out grown what the actual animal may be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynne
Paulm said:
could be. i think the chupacabra legend is a good example of how a legend/folklore can be brought forth and blamed for a current event/situation. and how much can be changed to fit the needs of such. the original stories/sightings of the chupacabra described it as a reptilian type creature, maybe with wings in some accounts, and with a row of spikes down its back or in some tellings all over its body. whereas any supposed "proof" of the animal/creature has always showed it as being a type of canine or similar creature. i think this shows how much can change from legend to truth. the legend is always scarier and grows into something completely different than what the truth may be. it dousnt mean it dousnt exist, just that the legend has out grown what the actual animal may be.
Click to expand...
You may well be right on this; I do know the descriptions in South America are different than in other places.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulm
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back