Possible origin of the chupacabra?

I wanted to post this due to the fact that months ago before joining ATS, I was scouring the internet to read the most bizarre stories I possibly could. I do that often. I was reading about the chupacabra. I have always been interested in these creatures due to the fact that there is not a long documented history on them as related to other creatures dwelling upon the earth. I was reading about the earliest documented sighting when I remembered something I had read that bordered on what in my mind, couldn't be possible. But the question remained. What if this could be the origin of this creature? It seems not possible... but I often wonder.

With the onset of technology that seems to grow in leaps and bounds, seemingly by the day, many questions that we have about our world find their answers with the growth of technology. The article I am going to link is from 1998. There are anomalous things reported it, and I ask that when you read to keep an open mind. It was an intercepted fax that was sent by the U.S. Navy. The things mentioned in the fax could be disinformation, or truth disguised as disinformation. The article is long. Instead of scrolling down to the information regarding the fax, I recommend that all precluding Information be read first to help to understand the whole picture.

www.whale.to...

I realized months ago that the very first documented sighting of the chupacabra was listed as being in 1995 by a woman in Puerto Rico who described it as mangy with strange spikes lining it's back. The chupacabra is considered by many eyewitnesses to be predatory in nature. They coined the name "chupacabra" which means "goat sucker"due to the nature of cows and goats being found devoid of blood with strange marks in areas of their bodies. A link below further describes this first sighting.

abcnews.go.com...

Now keep in mind that that the chupacabra isn't like other fabled beasts such as dragons for example, due to the fact that the stories do not go back hundreds of years. By the world's standards, this creature is a baby in the mythos of history. I use the term mythos lightly because this creature I believe, to be quite real, with many reports and sightings. So the question remains. Why did it appear so recently? Why are there no records or stories of this creature going further back than the early to mid 1990's? Could these two articles be somehow related to each other? Could this be the link to it's appearance in our world? All I can say is maybe. It's a wild hypothesis that somehow could be true. In a world as crazy as the world we live in, I do not believe that it's the strangest thing to possibly be true.

Good topic OP. Crypto-zoology was what got me started into researching the mysteries of our world when I was a child. I always await a new theory or the rare day when proof of a new cryptid comes out.

I will read the article tonight when I have some more time and responded again when more informed on the specific topic.

Thx again

it originated in peoples imagination.

The answer comes from your second reference:

"What happens is that these things people are finding are mangy canids – dogs, foxes, coyotes," he said. "They have sarcoptic mange, a contagious skin disease that affects many dogs and it's caused by mites on the skin and it causes hair to fall out."

Every single chupacabra that has been captured has turned out to be a coyote with mange. No real mystery here.

reply to post by schuyler


I've never been sure that these creatures are the actual chupacabra because of the original description of them in the 90's. They could be. People are known to embelish things, especially when in a state of fear.

I love the topic of cryptozoology but I've seen no evidence of an actual chupacabra... only stories.. to me it's similar to bigfoot in that there's never been any real physical evidence... no dead chupacabra remains, or at least nothing that's not been either a hoax or identified as something else.. One mini documentary had a team trying to find one that had been reported many times but it ended up being a dog with mange.. I think that's the "closest" I've seen.

Originally posted by schuyler
The answer comes from your second reference:

"What happens is that these things people are finding are mangy canids – dogs, foxes, coyotes," he said. "They have sarcoptic mange, a contagious skin disease that affects many dogs and it's caused by mites on the skin and it causes hair to fall out."

Every single cupacabra that has been captured has turned out to be a coyote with mange. No real mystery here.

Precisely why I doubt the existence of chupacabra to begin with.. which is probably a good thing, they sound not at all pleasant.. but I guess a canid with a skin disease is probably grumpy to begin with.

reply to post by Rubicant13


I always wondered why people started identifying canines with mange as possible chupacabras. Granted, any animal that has lost its hair looks strikingly different than it wold normally, but the very first descriptions of the chupacabra describe an animal that is nothing at all like a hairless dog, coyote, etc. In Puerto Rico, where I think the chupacabra sightings originated (correct me if I'm wrong), the chupacabra was said to be alien-like (whatever that means) with glowing red eyes, standing on two feet and with wings. I never did understand why people, mostly in America, are so quick to label every unknown animal, the chupacabra, no matter what it looks like. The American description of the chupacabra is very unlike the descriptions elsewhere.

I find the stories out of Puerto Rico to be far more convincing since most of the eyewitnesses there describe a creature that is very unlike a hairless dog. It makes it far more likely that they are seeing something that is not yet known to science. Since people here in America describe sightings of a creature that looks like a hairless canine, that is probably exactly what they are seeing. I don't know what the other creatures are, elsewhere in the world. I hope we know soon, even though knowing would take all the mystery and fun out of it, lol.

Originally posted by gemineye
reply to post by Rubicant13

 

I always wondered why people started identifying canines with mange as possible chupacabras. Granted, any animal that has lost its hair looks strikingly different than it wold normally, but the very first descriptions of the chupacabra describe an animal that is nothing at all like a hairless dog, coyote, etc. In Puerto Rico, where I think the chupacabra sightings originated (correct me if I'm wrong), the chupacabra was said to be alien-like (whatever that means) with glowing red eyes, standing on two feet and with wings. I never did understand why people, mostly in America, are so quick to label every unknown animal, the chupacabra, no matter what it looks like. The American description of the chupacabra is very unlike the descriptions elsewhere.

I find the stories out of Puerto Rico to be far more convincing since most of the eyewitnesses there describe a creature that is very unlike a hairless dog. It makes it far more likely that they are seeing something that is not yet known to science. Since people here in America describe sightings of a creature that looks like a hairless canine, that is probably exactly what they are seeing. I don't know what the other creatures are, elsewhere in the world. I hope we know soon, even though knowing would take all the mystery and fun out of it, lol.

This.

As far as I know the chupacabras myth started in Puerto Rico, then extended to Mexico as well. Sightings were reported in both places, and they were all consistent- bipedal, alien-like thing with glowing eyes and spikes on its back.
There was never any suggestion that it looked like a canid. I too can´t understand why Americans suddenly started calling mangy dogs and coyotes "chupacabras". There's no similarity with the original at all.

You have to remember, however, that stories about blood-sucking creatures are VERY common in all of Latin America, the belief was already there long before people started talking about the "chupacabras" as a cryptid, and even long before the Spaniards arrived.
Long before the "chupacabras", there was the vampire of Moca in Puerto Rico, which was accused of killing animals and sucking their blood- but this was described as a flying bird-like creature, very unlike the chupacabras. The winged, fanged creature is more consistent with the original vampiric beings of Latin American folklore- the Maya already believed in such creatures, as did other indigenous people from Mexico to Brazil. There was even a hoaxed photo of a supossed Moca vampire from Puerto Rico which was really just a nightjar with rooster spurs glued to its mouth to look like fangs.
I personally believe the chupacabras is just a modern name for a tradition that is really nothing new, but a superstition that has been in those lands for a long time.

Mangy canids are simply that.

You know what?

Most people do not know squat about anything wild. They could not name a dozen species of animals or plants around where they live. Yet, mention a cryptid and all of a sudden they are an expert on what is there or not there. So do not get disheartened by skeptics.

I spend the majority of my free time in the woods/desert/swamp/etc paying attention. I have never seen a chupacabra nor any sign of one. I have my doubts but I am willing to accept the possibility. I feel the jury is out until something more definitive is presented. Denying something just further blinds me.

It's a wild hypothesis

did you make a hypothesis?
i also missed the part about the possible origin of the chubcabra.whas it in the links? sorry i didnt read them.

personally i think its just old wives tales.

As a Puerto Rican I feel like i must give my opinion.

It is sounding more and more like my sister with each new post.

On a more serious note: I have no real opinion on this subject. I think if you want to dig there are also stories of the navy base and experiments there. Vieques was off limits so they can do exercises. People often say that Vieques is like the novel "the island of dr. M..." in which scientist experiment with cross breeding. Lots of good stuff there, but nothing really to show proof for me.

There is a couple peices of evidence that has caught a doglike animal but the head and other features did not match a dog, coyote more like a Thylacine.

I don't think there is a Chupacabra, but I am not 100 % sure there is not one.

Please join us tonight on ATS LIVE RADIO where we will be discussing this topic as a Turbo Topic! Please visit THIS THREAD for the schedule of topics!

We would love to have you call in and voice your opinion regardless of what it is!

ATS Live Is Broadcasting * Today @ 9:00 PM EST

Linda Moulton Howes theory is that these maybe "Alien Dogs" of some sort planted here on earth as scouts and to help survey the Earth or some such (She also believes Sasquatch is also Alien related and planted here by Aliens to check out our wilderness areas and such)

Wild theory's but meh, interesting though.