@decomixadopublishingh
El Chupacabras no murió. Solo estaba esperando que apoyaras el cómic mexicano independiente.
#ElChupacabras #ComicMexicano #KickstarterMexico #SayNoToAI #Tigrepop

https://tigrepop.tv/el-chupacabras-no-ha-muerto/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=jetpack_social

Chupacabra Rises and Evolves

Cryptids don’t become popular without important context and cultural influences that lift them up for all to see, and hold them there. The chupacabra (first known as El Chupacabras) is a complex mystery creature that has evolved and expanding in scope in response to social needs and cultural feedback. It has an amazing history that is still being written today.

The rise of El Chupacabras

Officially, the first cryptid that evolved on the Internet, the stories of El Chupacabras began in Puerto Rico in March 1995, when farmers noticed dead livestock, particularly chickens and goats. The prey was dead, apparently via neck bites, but were not consumed, leading to the idea that some vampiric beast had drained their blood. A previous vampire legend, known as the Moca Vampire, was prevalent in 1975. The same idea was applied to the new crisis, as blood sucking fiends were a cultural touchstone that people understood.

From the San Juan (Puerto Rico) Star (1996)

A couple of decade ago, the Moca monster was sucking blood of assorted animals around that small mountain town, while the garadiablo was a devilish looking creepy crawly from the lagoon seen in local swamplands. “This seems to be a very Caribbean phenomenon, especially of the Spanish-speaking islands,” said [Marvette Perez, curator of Hispanic history at the Smithsonian Institution’s American History Museum]. “It’s part of our folklore. It’s interesting that the chupacabras has not been found on the English-speaking islands, but has migrated only in places where people speak Spanish.

As with the Moca vampire, the subsequent El Chupacabras (or goat-sucker) beast was associated with alleged UFO sightings. The early speculation on the origins of the creature was not zoological, but supernatural, conspiratorial, cultural, and media-driven. The less dramatic and more likely explanation (that was put forward at the time, but ignored) was that the livestock was killed by feral dogs. The blood coagulates and pools inside the carcasses, leading people to think it was drained of blood. No mammal can suck blood. But the facts didn’t stand in the way of the evolution of a great story.

Things REALLY ramped up in Puerto Rico in August of 1995 when witness, Madelyne Tolentino said she saw a bizarre, reptilian, bipedal animal with spiky protrusions on its back, and big eyes. The account was linked to the livestock deaths and the “chupacabras” label, resulting in local panic and an explosion in media coverage. In January 1996, the story of the sightings was covered in the New York Times, kicking off chupa-mania.

The beast jumps to the mainland and changes form

Reports of strange animals surfaced in Mexico, Texas, and Florida – areas with Latino populations that had knowledge of the modern legend. Some cattle deaths that were previously linked to UFOs shifted to being ascribed to the mystery killer. But the move of the chupacabra (now with the shortened name) into the US also came with a change in its description. The original demonic, kangaroo-like, hopping, two legged monster (Type 1) transformed into “any weird strange looking animal”, most often a hairless quadruped (dog, coyote, raccoon, etc.) (Type 2). Over the next several years in the Fortean-zoology community, Type 2 creatures became known as the Texas Blue Dogs based on speculation that these animals may represent a hybrid or new species of canid.

It’s fitting that the original livestock deaths were attributed to dogs, and then the alien-like El Chupacabras description morphed into a strange-looking dog. Shortly, the Type 2 chupa provided something extremely rare in cryptozoology – actual specimens. Ranchers were able to spot and/or kill several of these animals, providing evidence as to what they actually were. The following are some of the most famous incidents:

• 2004. Elmendorf Beast. Caught in Elmendorf Texas by D. McAnally, the skin of the animal was bluish gray, hairless, and it had a severe overbite. Conclusion: a canid with mange, either a dog or coyote – the DNA was too degraded to be conclusive.
• 2006. Blanco Chupacabra. The unusual-looking animal shot in Blanco, Texas was taxidermied. It also had hairless dark gray skin. The mount later was displayed in oddities museums, including a Creationist museum for a while. DNA test results were not revealed, suggesting it likely came back as coyote, as expected.
• 2007. Cuero beast. Phyllis Canion had seen the live animal that later turned up dead near her property. She had it taxidermied and the DNA tested, twice. The first results showed it was a coyote but she did not agree. The second test also returned “coyote” but with a possible trace of Mexican red wolf. Focusing on that hybridity, she still calls it a “chupacabras” and points out its strange tail glands and other odd features.
• 2008. The Sheriff in Dewitt County, Texas shot a dashcam video of a hairless, gray canid running on road. The animal has a severe overbite and it didn’t look like a usual coyote. This led to news media promoting the animal in terms of the chupacabras legend.
• 2015. The Rockdale, Texas creature was killed by Philip Oliveira’s dogs. The verdict was mangey coyote. The pattern was now well established.

The non-controversial zoological explanation is that these animals are coyotes or coy-dog hybrids, maybe some are Mexican hairless dogs. The hairlessness in many cases is caused by mange. Note the overbite mentioned frequently. This is a genetic defect of the jaw, making the snout look abnormal and resulting in the unfortunate animals having a harder time killing and consuming prey. Ultimately, this would lead to its weakened state, with the animal more susceptible to disease (mange), and perhaps a penchant to go for livestock as an easier meal.

Pop culture chupacabra

There is complex cultural context to the rise and evolution of the chupacabra. The definitive book on the subject is Benjamin Radford’s Tracking the Chupacabra (2010). But since that book was written, the cryptid has increased in popularity to a greater degree and their form and description continues to transform and expand.

The horror movies began in 1996 and have continued, depicting the creature mostly as a bloodthirsty monster. But not always. More importantly, the word “chupacabra” became the top catch-all cryptid. Any weird creature that wasn’t immediately identifiable was labeled “chupacabra” no matter what animal family it resembled. The media reporting was credulous, not investigative, and simply repeated the tropes.

Meanwhile, the original outbreak in Puerto Rico was its own study in the effects of cultural influences. Wild explanations circulated about the Type 1 hairless hopping demon version.

• A biomedical lab experiment that escaped
• Alien, alien hybrid, or alien pet (recall the UFO associations)
• Created by the FBI or CIA as a hybrid human-dog or human-monkey
  (Rhesus monkeys did escape from US bio-med labs from the 1950s)
• A metaphor for US capitalistic policies sucking their “blood”
• A reflection of the HIV/AIDS problem, that the cynical believed was created to kill minorities.

However, the first visual of the monster, from Tolentino, whose sighting set off the local panic, was discredited. Radford’s field work in the country and, particularly, his interview with Tolentino, conclusively showed that she was heavily influenced by the movie Species in describing what she said she saw prowling her street. The image and stories that circulated were so novel and interesting that people remembered it and it stuck. But it was imaginary.

Many people connected the legend of the Moca vampire to the chupacabra 20 years later. The difference in names strongly suggests this is not the same phenomenon, though it has some similarities. There is no mention of “El Chupacabras” prior to 1995 so we can consider it its own cultural phenomenon. Perhaps the two incidents had the same source – feral dogs killing the livestock combined with cultural priming.

The term “goat sucker” was associated in medieval times to the myth of nightjars (whip-poor-will) that described the birds’ behavior of flying into goat pens at night to suck milk from goats, leaving them dry and blind. This was untrue, but still a fun fact of etymological history.

The move from “El Chupacabras” as the cryptid label to “chupacabra” annoyed some early cryptid commentators as incorrect grammar. Attempts to gatekeep language most often fails in cryptozoology, as words and creature labels develop and change in response to a social need. When a creature is never found but still “seen”, the descriptions and meaning will drift with each telling. When the stories of the Puerto Rican monster went international, the label transitioned into a word that everyone adopted and ultimately understood.

As with other cryptids, the chupacabra was used to cast doubt on the scientific community and their credibility. John Adolfi exhibited the Blanco beast as an example of the fallibility of science. His Lost World Museum featured exhibits that aimed to show what he believed is proof that scientists don’t have all the answers. Adolfi is a Young Earth Creationist who irrationally thinks that by showing that scientists haven’t figured out the chupacabra, they could also be wrong about evolution and the age of the Earth. This simply doesn’t logically follow, but the same idea turns up with other cryptid themes.

We have our answer

Many still wish to believe that the chupacabra is something more mysterious than a social panic from Puerto Rico, or diseased canids in North America, even though we have strong evidence to explain most incidents. Weird animals were seen, identified, killed and tested. We have our answer. But the answer is not really what the audience wanted. The legendary themes hint at an underlying and more tricky sociocultural problem – loss of livestock and economic hardships, cultural fear of vampires, a precarious sense of the future, and distrust in authority that leads to conspiracy ideas.

In conclusion, the chupacabra has a fascinating history that is only mildly zoological and heavily cultural. The legend was super-charged by the rising World Wide Web, our ever-decreasing familiarity with nature, sensationalist media coverage, and a need for dramatic story-telling in a frightening world. Yet, there still remains some scientific questions as to why we are seeing “blue dogs”. And, there is a recent discovery of the genetic history of the “weird looking” Galveston coyotes. In these ways and more, the chupacabra chronicles lead us out of the mysterious and towards discovery.

This post is part 1 of the 12 days of Cryptids.

#12DaysOfCryptids #chupacabra #cryptid #Cryptozoology #elChupacabras #MocaVampire #paraCryptid #TexasBlueDogs