Farmer May Have Caught Legendary 'Chupacabra'

Hello Rajorke,

Thanks for your info and forthcoming photos.

Photos can be hosted on imageshack
videos can be hosted on putfile
www.putfile.com...

videos can also be hosted much easier on rapidshare.de
rapidshare.de... However Rapidshare blocks IP adresses by the hour so a lot of people using cable have the same IP address and they will not be able to retrieve the files freely and would have to persevere so in this sense maybe putfile is better but I don't know if it is very easy to host and link to the files.

In answer to this thread, it looks like a mangy dog.


[edit on 7/11/2005 by Wig]

it looks to be of the canine family not any thing what i would think or imagine to be a goat sucker

Ok, now I have a few of the photographs of the corpse up.
I will put more up today.
Pollock "Beast"

Guess I should warn you that the images are a bit graphic.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Rajorke]

Rajorke :

thanks for the pics

my unprofessional opinion is that the teeth look like a dogs

a couple of questions that spring to mind

1 - if it was believed to be something special - why was it left to the elements long enough to become flyblown ??

2 - where is its fur / pelt ?? - was it shot in that condition

3 - has any one set fire to it ?? the blackening strikes me as odd

I think Rajorkes pics are of a dog. Thanks anyway.

www.skullsite.co.uk...

137.222.110.150...

The pics are not of a dog. The veternarian that we took it too was vey certain on that. Also the woman who originally took the photo immediately after the animal was shot, Stacey Womack, has had years of veterinarian experience and said that the animal was not a dog. So since we have experts telling us that the animal is not a domesticated canine I will ignore your comment.

As for the animal being left to decay. That is the oddest thing about the animal. The second photo of the animal in the second post is that of the animal that I have photos of immediately after it was shot. The animal was shot in the eye. When shot the animal did not bleed. You can hear all of this from the man that shot the animal once I am able to host the video interview.

The photos I took were only a few days after the animal was shot. The animal decayed very quickly and was already in a state of early decay (according to those who shot it) when the animal was killed. One interesting thing that Ms. Womack said is that when she picked up the animal by the ear after it was dead, so that she could get a good look of its face for a photo, the ear broke off "like a cookie."

I myself do not believe that this animal is a Chupacabra, but I also have doubts that it is a coyote, fox or domesticated canine. Even the veterinarian was sure of that fact.

I was not lucky enough to get photos of the animal the day it was shot, but I have copies of Womack's photos that I am able to post and use.

Soon I hope to have a way to get the video up.

To answer Ignorant_ape's questions:

1) The animal was moved into the woods in order to hide it from people who wanted it. The family that killed it did not want it near the house because of its horrible smell, a smell which was even unbearable at the time the animal was killed.

2) The animal had only a very small amount of hair, which was grey and brittle. The hair was only located a little on its back, the end of the tail and a bit on its feet. The first thought we had of course was that it was just a mangy canine, but since it was causing such a stir we decided to look a bit more into it. When we saw the animal just a few days after it was killed the skin was smooth and hard (Womack said that this state of decay was not normal for animal that had been dead for such a short period of time).

3)The blackening was partly due to the moist dirt the animal was laying in, but the skin did darken a bit from its charred grey to a dark brown within just a few days.

One more I should mention about the teeth is that the animal had a very large overbite. But supposively according to the veterinarian this was not an abnormality. He said that the animal was supposed to be like this and after studying the pictures of the similar creature that was killed in Elmendorf he said that if this were a deformity then the chances of these two animals having the same deformity were extremely unlikely.

EDIT: I also wanted to thank The Wig for posting that link to the dog skulls. By looking at the teeth on those skulls and the teeth on the animal shot you can see major differences. The animal in Pollock was missing its front incisors while all the other teeth were healthy. Something the veterinarian was supposed to look into before the corpse "disappeared."

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Rajorke]

These fox things look nothing like 'El Chupacabra'.



Its definately not the same creature.

Originally posted by Rajorke
The second photo of the animal in the second post is that of the animal that I have photos of immediately after it was shot.

Where is this photo? Do you mean the 2nd photo in the 3rd post on this thread Post Number: 1639443 ? I guess you do mean that because it has womack written on the photo. I need a better look at that photo. but I still say dog/fox/ kind of animal, there's surely nothing unusual here, it's an animal that had mange before it died.

looks similar to red wolf
www.skullsunlimited.com...

What did the vet say he did with the body? The reason it decayed so quickly and stank was because it had mange, so it was infected head to tail. No front teeth probably means it was dying a slow painful death from strarvation etc.

[edit on 7/11/2005 by Wig]

The vet never told us what he did with the body. He would not receive our phone calls and when we went to his place of business we were told that no such animal was ever there. As for the Red Wolf, the red wolf is a large canine able to take down a deer. The animal shot in Pollock was much smaller than a wolf, which is why people first assume its a coyote.
On the subject of mange. After being tested by both the veterinarian and Ms. Womack it was concluded that the animal did not have the mange. The first indication of this is that there was no skin infection or damage to the skin. Look closely at the skin and you see a smooth surface. Animals with the mange (such as the fox shown on the first page) have obvious skin irritation and infection. You can see that as the red sores across the body. The animal killed in Pollock had no such infection or sores. Mange is not the culprit here.
As I have said before I do not think we are dealing with a Chupacabra which isn't even suppose to resemble a canine. But what I do think we have in the case of the Pollock and Elmendorf beasts is some type of odd mutation or species of a canine. With two animals having this same "mutation" it becomes highly unlikely that this is just a birth defect.
I do not know what this thing is. It isn't a chupacabra and it isn't a normal coyote, dog or fox. The jaw structure is different from a canine and fox. Both creatures, shot in Pollock and Elmendof displayed the same jaw structure and strange appearence. In both creatures we have a severe overbite that would have normally made it difficult for the animal to close its mouth, but both animals are able to close their mouths.

I'm sorry I haven't been able to get Womack's photos up yet I don't have a scanner at home.

I worked with animals for yuears and also have found dead dogs in the woods and all that is, is a badly decomposed dog Id now the shape of the teetha nd snout anywhere. Im sure chupacabra may exist but that is not the animal in the pics. Sorry to dissappoint

Originally posted by Rajorke
The pics are not of a dog. The veternarian that we took it too was vey certain on that. Also the woman who originally took the photo immediately after the animal was shot, Stacey Womack, has had years of veterinarian experience and said that the animal was not a dog. So since we have experts telling us that the animal is not a domesticated canine I will ignore your comment.

As for the animal being left to decay. That is the oddest thing about the animal. The second photo of the animal in the second post is that of the animal that I have photos of immediately after it was shot. The animal was shot in the eye. When shot the animal did not bleed. You can hear all of this from the man that shot the animal once I am able to host the video interview.

The photos I took were only a few days after the animal was shot. The animal decayed very quickly and was already in a state of early decay (according to those who shot it) when the animal was killed. One interesting thing that Ms. Womack said is that when she picked up the animal by the ear after it was dead, so that she could get a good look of its face for a photo, the ear broke off "like a cookie."

I myself do not believe that this animal is a Chupacabra, but I also have doubts that it is a coyote, fox or domesticated canine. Even the veterinarian was sure of that fact.

I was not lucky enough to get photos of the animal the day it was shot, but I have copies of Womack's photos that I am able to post and use.

Soon I hope to have a way to get the video up.

Your Vet is not very smart it is clearly a dog. And it was not shot recentkly becaus ethat body is decomposed. Your rejection of the facts proves either you have been hoaxed or you are the hoaxer

Originally posted by Wolvaurynphamir
That's a fox suffering from sarcoptic mange. Compare it to this one:

gamma.applepics.com...

You can read more about mange and its effects here.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Wolvaurynphamir]

But look at the hind legs... I know for sure it's not a chupacabra. I think the farmer caught the wrong thing. It's way too small and looks so defenseless and malnurished. If it had been eating his animals, it wouldn't be so malnurished. A chupacabra is a dangerous animal, and those photos are probably from either a fox or a baby kangaroo .

I hate to see that you think that I am making all of this up. I'm not exactly sure what facts you can present to me from your standpoint as compared to the hands on experience that myself and the others have had with this creature. This is not a hoax, but if you would like to believe so then I'm sure there is no way I can convince you of it otherwise.

As for the animal being decayed after only a few days. The animal was shot in a state of decay. The ear broke off from Ms. Womack barely lifting the head (this was immediately after the animal had been shot). This animal was in a very advanced state of decay after only a few days (I will clarify that it was only two or three days).

It was not the Vet who told us that the animal had been shot just a few days earlier we knew this from the newspaper article that was ran in The Lufkin Daily News (the local newspaper for the area). After reading the story I contacted Stacey Womack and met with her later that day (That newspaper ran on a Sunday and we met with Womack on Monday). That is when she took us to the location where they took the animal.

I promise I will try to get up the video footage soon and then you can decide for yourself.

Once again I'm not trying to say this thing is a Chupacabra. I'm only saying that there is more to these two creatures than just mangey coyotes. There are many anomalies surrounding the nature of these animals and I just want to find out more about them myself. The one thing that stood out the most to everyone that saw the creature was the placement of the canines. If you look at the jaw of the animal more closely you will see the abnormalities I'm talking about and if you look at the both the Pollock creature and the Elemendorf creature you will see the likeness in this structure.

Here is a link to the original story from the Lufkin source:
www.woai.com...
This link will also have other links to the stories concerning both the Elmendorf and Pollock/Lufkin creature.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Rajorke]

You know you said the vet says they never recieved the animal.....maybe they are telling the truth? Did you actually witness taking the body to the vets? and leaving it there?

And the Elmendorf beast skeleton..where is that?

Have you got the originals of those pics on that page? They are rather small.

[edit on 8/11/2005 by Wig]

I did witness the body being taken to the vet. My friend has the video of the vet talking about the animal while he has the body. I will try and get that from him when i put the video together. One thing about the vet is that he demanded that he not be known, this was after he told us that he didn't know what the animal was.

Last I heard from Devon Macanally (the man who shot the one in elmendorof) he had some people come dig up the bones and take them for testing. The results were never released. If you look on the WOAI website (the news station that covered the incident the most) you'll not find any information on the DNA results though they are constantly saying they expect the results soon.

I'm getting tired of trying to convince you that I'm telling you the truth. I am only providing the facts that I know. I want to give everyone here the information that I have come across and let you make your own descisions. Stop questioning my motives. I do not believe this creature is anything supernatural. My personal belief is that both of these animals were somehow contaminated by a hazardous material that created some deformities (most likely while they were still in the womb). In fact within the area there is a place where the government "disposes" of hazardous waste. If anything I think that these creatues were affected by this. I base this on the fact that both of these creatures had the same deformities and skin problems. Their jaw structures were both deformed in the same manner.I think that there is something in the environment here that doesn't belong here and is causing these animals harm.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Rajorke]

I am hesitant to join the side saying this is only a mangy dog or fox...

For starters the hind legs look practically kangaroo-like in proportion to the rest of the body, the ears are GIANT in comparison to the head and the tail is as long as the animals whole body.

Chupacabra, I don't think so, but Dog or Fox? I don't think that's the case either.

Originally posted by Rajorke
The pics are not of a dog. The veternarian that we took it too was vey certain on that. Also the woman who originally took the photo immediately after the animal was shot, Stacey Womack, has had years of veterinarian experience and said that the animal was not a dog. So since we have experts telling us that the animal is not a domesticated canine I will ignore your comment.

As for the animal being left to decay. That is the oddest thing about the animal. The second photo of the animal in the second post is that of the animal that I have photos of immediately after it was shot. The animal was shot in the eye. When shot the animal did not bleed. You can hear all of this from the man that shot the animal once I am able to host the video interview.

The photos I took were only a few days after the animal was shot. The animal decayed very quickly and was already in a state of early decay (according to those who shot it) when the animal was killed. One interesting thing that Ms. Womack said is that when she picked up the animal by the ear after it was dead, so that she could get a good look of its face for a photo, the ear broke off "like a cookie."

I myself do not believe that this animal is a Chupacabra, but I also have doubts that it is a coyote, fox or domesticated canine. Even the veterinarian was sure of that fact.

I was not lucky enough to get photos of the animal the day it was shot, but I have copies of Womack's photos that I am able to post and use.

Soon I hope to have a way to get the video up.

Although I cannot really consider myself a "professional" I have taken an intro. to vet. med. class and I can tell you that in my experience, this animal is probably not a dog (the teeth are too big), but probably something similar. I forget exactly where you said these photos were taken, but check the local wildlife listings - my guess would be maybe a wolf or wolf mix of some kind - incredibly malnourished (maybe it had mange?)

Also, as for the quick disintegration of this animal, as well as it's apparent "crispy black" condition, I would say it spent the day in the sun. One hot day is all you need to get that condition out of something that's died.

Looks to me like a mangy grey fox. We have a lot of grey foxes running around Midland, Tx, even inside the city limits. They have long legs compared to their body length and if you removed most of their hair they would look like the cirtter in the photo.

ok let's not call it a dog let's call it a canine because it is definitely a canine ,it cannot be a kangaroo snout is to long , hind legs to short fore legs to long and not muscular enough, tail to small and teeth definitely of a carnivore
it is not a hoax it 's just a mistake . misinterpretation , misevaluation
have you ever smelled an infected wound (mange tends to lead to that) well if not just do not , but believe me it is very very bad .
Again it would have been nice to finally see proof of the existence of the chupacabra but this canine defintely isn't, an overbite doesn't make a canine a chupacabra and even vets make mistakes just like all of us mortal non-vets , i think someone mentionned the ugliest dog in the world (died a few days ago) imagine finding the body of that dog , what would you think, well you would definitely start asking yourself questions, and so would I , but nevertheless , only a dog