Chupacabra Captured?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:09 am » by **Mrmcnuggets**

Ah yeah lol. My fault on getting the mystical creatures mixed up

Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:58 am » by **Abyssdnb**

Interesting :cheers:

Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:19 am » by **Shitinhimself**

http://www.wgal.com/news/24323601/detail.html
A similar beast?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:08 pm » by **Endless16**

rahkriga wrote:Why wont people actually LISTEN to the descriptions of chupacabra??? Most of the encounters depict the beast as having wings. Also, reports say chupacabra has red eyes. I mean... look at this animals mouth....I doubt he is piercing skulls and sucking blood. This animals demeanor doesnt NOT fit chupacabra sightings at all!! Its cool that we found a new animal, but Im sick of people trying to force new things under the chupacabra label.

The accounts by the African Natives to British colonists in Africa, although you'd be hard pressed to find anything on Google about it, were that Gorillas were huge man-eating baby-snatching killers, standing taller than a man with huge sharp teeth... etc...

http://listverse.com/2010/04/16/10-beasts-that-used-to-be-mythical/

& ofc there's always the beast...

which turned out to be a stereo up a tree.

Same with Panda's, they were thought to be mythical vicious, soul-less killers before they were discovered and catalogued properly.

Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:17 pm » by **Doriangrey**

It is clearly a Kangeroo.

Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:23 pm » by **Nihilgeist**

spock wrote:They should have taken it to a vet for identification, that would have solved the mystery once and for all - BUT NOOOOOO! Letting that creature go was as stupid as people walking in dark rooms in slasher movies.

Exactly. This jackass is a surgeon/doctor and he stands there numb and dumb on what to do with a potentially new species of animal. How about your local zoo or university you fucking moron??? Jesus fucking christ people piss me off sometimes.

Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:27 pm » by **Nihilgeist**

seahawk100 wrote:No. I'm glad that they let it go. Some wild creatures in captivity like that will usually snarl, growl and look generally menacing. This animal- which looks like a species of hairless dog- didn't seem aggressive at all. Seemed pretty gentle. They did the right, humane thing, imo.

Yes, clearly the smartest thing to do considering this animal obviously lives in the area and now that the whole world knows "Prince Chupa" hangs around, anyone can easily go there and capture it themselves and/or kill it and we'd really never get answers.

Oh well, probably just a fox with mange. Hopefully some stupid kids kill it and then post their retarded exploits on youtube to spite you and prove my point.

Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:58 pm » by **Thruster**

Why would anyone from the medical sector go to the trouble of obtaining a trap cage, manage to capture the creature just to release it without consulting a vet? They obviously trapped it to find out what it was.

Something not right in the story.

Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:14 pm » by **Spock**

lowsix wrote:Well its been said over a bazillion times..
But this is a mexican hairless dog.
A Xoloitzcuintle.

(if anyone can pronounce this, id love to know how)
Cholo-eetz-quintle?

I looked for this but couldn't remember the name - searched Mexican Blue Dog and a bunch of cartoons came up, but yes, this is the closest explanation, however, it would be bizarre that that particular breed is now populating wooded areas around southeast U.S. as a breed. And the rat tail, and head.

I really wish they would recapture it and solve this one. It's like letting a bigfoot go.