Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
 Re: Chupacabra  [Re: PinheadX]
#7395078 - 09/11/07 06:06 AM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PinheadX said:
I used to believe in bullshit. Then I grew up and figured out that nothing is supernatural, nothing is outside of nature.
There is no chupacabra.
First of all, I'm sorry to hear you have taken this type of attitude towards life. Who said that a chupacabra has to be supernatural? I have heard theories that range from a special breed of dog, to genetic experiments made by the military.
"nothing is supernatural, nothing is outside of nature."
What about dolly the clone? Or perhaps that mouse they grew a human ear on? These are not exactly "natural," yet exist all the same. They don't necessarily have anything to do with evil spirits, either.
Quote:
You can believe what you want to believe, but I'm going to call bullshit when I see it.
OK, I'll bite... other than your own opinion, and pure speculation, what research have you done, and what further insight do you have to offer, other than "that's bullshit."
Quote:
This doesn't make me close minded
i beg to differ. Being skeptical is one thing, as is not believing in something. But to call anything "bullshit," especially when you have absolutely no knowledge on the subject other than perhaps some reading on the internet... well that sir, is the epitome of closemindedness.
Just to be clear here - are you calling the entire concept of Chupacabras "bullshit," or just the notion that they are an evil spirit creature? I'll agree with you on the latter, however your tone and overall message seems to have just been dismissing the entire concept alltogether.
Let us not forget that entire species that were considered non-existant, or even extinct are still being found all the time.
The coelacanth:
Thylacine:
Kraken (Giant squid):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/giant_squid/photo6.html
I'd post more, but i believe I made my point.
--------------------
music: myspace.com/soundscientists
 . 
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
PinheadX
Stranger thanyou
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 1,410
Loc: TX Gulf Coast
Last seen: 2 months, 10 days
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: kotik]
#7396638 - 09/11/07 04:25 PM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
the only point you've made is that you believe your opinion is more valid than mine.
You have decided that I have done no research, other than internet articles or what have you, but you don't have a clue what I've researched. You assume that your opinion that this is an actual animal/creature and not a hoax or series of mutilations by a person or persons, or cult into animal sacrifice is correct.
I can't prove a negative. The existence of an animal that is mutilating goats in Mexico and S. America isn't beyond the scope of reality. I can't prove that it DOESN'T exist... that doesn't mean that it does.
Why now? Why all of a sudden is it killing and sucking the blood of goats? Why hasn't this been documented for the hundreds of years that Mexicans have been raising goats there? It doesn't make sense. These things are constructions of folklore.
Or are you going to tell me that because we discovered bacteria, that all the evil spirits causing people to die disappeared? This is what they believed, until it was proven otherwise. There is something causing goats to die and be drained of blood. My contention is that it's not an animal at all, and the story of the chupacabra is bullshit.
--------------------
If you want to find psilocybin in species that are not yet known to be psychoactive, you should do chemical tests. That way you won't get sick and die all the time.
- Alan Rockefeller
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: PinheadX]
#7396767 - 09/11/07 04:54 PM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PinheadX said:
the only point you've made is that you believe your opinion is more valid than mine.
I get to differ. My post was certainly more valid, since it said more than "that's bullshit." Sorry if I don't consider that to be a valid opinion.
Quote:
PinheadX said:
You have decided that I have done no research, other than internet articles or what have you, but you don't have a clue what I've researched. You assume that your opinion that this is an actual animal/creature and not a hoax or series of mutilations by a person or persons, or cult into animal sacrifice is correct.
No, in fact if you re-read my post you will see I actually asked what further research or insight you have done. I'll copy and paste it to save you the trouble:
Quote:
other than your own opinion, and pure speculation, what research have you done, and what further insight do you have to offer
Quote:
I can't prove a negative. The existence of an animal that is mutilating goats in Mexico and S. America isn't beyond the scope of reality. I can't prove that it DOESN'T exist... that doesn't mean that it does.
Oh, so maybe it's not bullshit? Again, you seemed offended that I (allegedly) assumed you did no other research. So were you offended that such an assumption would be right? Or perhaps that an assumption like that would be wrong?
Quote:
Why now? Why all of a sudden is it killing and sucking the blood of goats? Why hasn't this been documented for the hundreds of years that Mexicans have been raising goats there? It doesn't make sense. These things are constructions of folklore.
And what leads you to believe there is no documentation? Are you saying the only ones that perpetuate this are regular people passing along tales? Would it surprise you to know that there are respected museums that consider these animals a possibility?
Quote:
Or all the evil spirits causing people to die disappeared? This is what they believed, until it was proven otherwise. There is something causing goats to die and be drained of blood. My contention is that it's not an animal at all, and the story of the chupacabra is bullshit.
ah, well based on the research and sources you have presented, I will have to dismiss your opinions as not valid. Thanks for the response though, even if it was all "bullshit." 
--------------------
music: myspace.com/soundscientists
.
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
PinheadX
Stranger thanyou
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 1,410
Loc: TX Gulf Coast
Last seen: 2 months, 10 days
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: kotik]
#7399030 - 09/12/07 01:53 AM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
ok... why don't you provide some documentation as to incidences of chupacabra attacks, sightings, etc. over the past say... 100 years or so. Like I said, I can't prove a negative. You seem to want proof of my contention that it doesn't exist. That can't happen, so why don't you try to prove to me that it does.
Like I said, you can believe what you want to believe. I choose not to believe in folklore and myth. Sorry. If there was scientific evidence of the existence of this creature or creatures, I'm sure the scientific community as a whole would be very interested in the existence of a new species.
I can find nothing credible to support the existence of the chupacabra, and the documentaries I've watched on it, the articles I've read on it, and the news reports I've seen all have anecdotal reports of attacks, and no real evidence of anything that actually exists. The alleged bodies of the killed creatures don't bear any resemblance to the eyewitness reports' descriptions of the creature. You say it's a type of dog, yet in Chile, it's described as having wings and bipedal. None of this adds up.
Back in the mid nineties, my friends and I were very interested in the chupacabra, and read and watched everything we could on it. Being that my friend Alex is half Mexican, his family was frequently discussing it, as it was covered extensively on Mexican television and tabloid newspapers. I believed that it could have existed then, but as time went on and the stories diverged more and more, I figured out that it was the ranchers' version of the boogeyman. A myth that rural Mexicans could embrace. That spread to many other areas of Latin America, and the southern US. We had chupacabra T-shirts in all the shops around here. We had local news reports on it. Discussions on talk radio about it. The craze was in full force. It's not like I just heard about this thing recently and decided that it was crap... I have been watching the stories from the beginning, and have determined through the years that they don't add up.
So please, tell me again how I don't know anything about it. Tell me again how I'm just dismissing it out of hand... because you apparently know me and my history, culture and interests from one or two posts on a message board.
--------------------
If you want to find psilocybin in species that are not yet known to be psychoactive, you should do chemical tests. That way you won't get sick and die all the time.
- Alan Rockefeller
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick
|
 OrgoneConclusion
Rico Suave
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 35,239
Loc: Candyland
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: PinheadX]
#7399419 - 09/12/07 05:47 AM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, but what about the UFOs over Mexico City?
--------------------
This is your caterpillar on DMT. Any questions?
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: PinheadX]
#7399428 - 09/12/07 05:55 AM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PinheadX said:
(something)
I'll dig up some sources instead of just making claims and mentioning "articles."
But in the meantime...
bullshit 
--------------------
music: myspace.com/soundscientists
.
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
Edited by kotik (09/12/07 05:56 AM)
|
PinheadX
Stranger thanyou
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 1,410
Loc: TX Gulf Coast
Last seen: 2 months, 10 days
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: kotik]
#7401856 - 09/12/07 08:46 PM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'll wait.
you can drop the self-righteous attitude anytime, ya know.
--------------------
If you want to find psilocybin in species that are not yet known to be psychoactive, you should do chemical tests. That way you won't get sick and die all the time.
- Alan Rockefeller
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: PinheadX]
#7403839 - 09/13/07 07:38 AM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PinheadX said:
Like I said, I can't prove a negative. You seem to want proof of my contention that it doesn't exist. That can't happen, so why don't you try to prove to me that it does.
At some point in this thread, you misunderstood my point. Let me clarify, I am not at all trying to prove that chupacabras exist. I was simply stating, that your disbelief - and basically calling anyone who does believe a complete moron, or just too immature to understand reality - was a bit extreme, and ironic at the same time; as such a mentality that dismisses things so easily is just as bad as a mind that accepts them.
Quote:
Like I said, you can believe what you want to believe. I choose not to believe in folklore and myth. Sorry. If there was scientific evidence of the existence of this creature or creatures, I'm sure the scientific community as a whole would be very interested in the existence of a new species.
It has nothing to do with what I believe, or want to believe. So if there IS scientific data found, and it's not a myth, you just say "oh, i was wrong. oh well." And thats cool. I'm just saying, why even make this grand assumption in the first place - as it's reasonable to assume this assumption isn't an isolated event, but a practice common to the mindstate and perspective you hold.
Quote:
Back in the mid nineties, my friends and I were very interested in the chupacabra, and read and watched everything we could on it. Being that my friend Alex is half Mexican, his family was frequently discussing it, as it was covered extensively on Mexican television and tabloid newspapers.
I do not consider childhood fascination with the paranormal, which fizzled out due to the very unsatisfying nature of such things (the stories stay the same, and it becomes a passing interest, like pogs or slinky) as a valid argument. Are you now saying that since you decided on something 10 years ago, that's that? There are lots of things I believed and didn't believe in the 90s that I have changed my mind about since.
Quote:
So please, tell me again how I don't know anything about it. Tell me again how I'm just dismissing it out of hand... because you apparently know me and my history, culture and interests from one or two posts on a message board.
hah, whoa. don't take this personally - I never commented on your history, culture or interests. I simply asked what research you had done to support your claim that "its bullshit." Somehow that formula just didn't add up for me. Now that you throw in that you came up with this formula after calculating data from tabloids, local news stories and discussions with your friends - it still doesn't support your claim.
Quote:
you can drop the self-righteous attitude anytime, ya know.
sorry, it ends now. Please understand that these quaint replies "bullshit." "sorry, try again" and etc. never add anything to conversation, and it's hard NOT to come across as condescending if one person is being serious, and the other is not.
Now, as I said I am not out to PROVE anything, other than the fact you spoke out of turn, so to speak - and I'm just waiting for your retraction, or where you say 'ya, i guess there could be something to it.'
I know exactly what you are talking about, regarding the outbreak of stories regarding chupacabras in the late 90s through y2k. They were coming from Mexico and mostly Chile. On April 20, 2000 Chile's non-tabloid, "prestigious" newspaper "El Mercurio" reported that a multi-agency government meeting took place to investigate the bizarre mutilations of goat and sheep in El Loa. They were only looking for a reason over 100 animals were drained of all blood. In fact, they completely dismissed all claims of chupacabras and went looking for stray dogs, etc.
Lucas Burchard, chief of Environmental Hygeine and Food Control came up with a theory that dogs developed a taste for blood, and realized it was easier to drink blood from their prey, than to eat flesh - therefore explaining the carcases with all the meat, and no blood.
The Cattle Farming Agency (SAG by spanish acronym) setup baited traps, and the national police force started using infrared gear to conduct nocturnal patrols.
This was all reported by El Mercurio in April 20, 2000.
As all of this took place, more and more animals were still being mutilated.
In May of 2000, a Judge ordered the Department of Pathology (from the main university) to conduct analysis on the causes of death of all the animals, even if it means exhuming the remains of each carcass.
By July of 2000, an additional 500+ animals had been killed (under 600 documented). At this point chupacabras were STILL considered a joke, and not something to look into all.
On May 15, 2000 the newspaper, "Cronica" reported that it had received phone messages from Calama and northern Chile discussing the capture of a "family of strange animals, possibly Chupacabrases," that had been caught by Chilean Armed Forces near the Radomiro Tomic copper mine, and were immediately handed over to the FBI from the US Embassy.
The police confirmed the story, that the capture was real, and everything had transpired as originally told, but never commented on whether or not they were chupacabras or not (obviously, the stance was they didn't exist).
The three creatures were allagedly held in a stockade at the 15th Infantry Regiment in Calama, and an Officer was forced to kill the male specimen because "it was causing too much trouble." The source of that quote is from an interview, so to be taken with a grain of salt. So far everything else I mentioned have been from legit media reports, confirmed by official stories and events.
Now bear with me here, as I am not a UFO believer by any means, these are just the FACTS:
June 10, 2000 Chile's largest UFO group formally petitioned the Chilean Ministry of Defense to look into allegations that NASA had lost control "of at least three genetic experiments in Chile." Reported by the EFE News Agency - article "Chileans believe Chupacabras to be NASA creation" July 29, 2000.
Further adding mystery, the Chilean Air Force dropped an "unspecified number of bombs" for over an hour, where there had been a "Chupacabras Nest" found. This was the same day that NASA allegedly took the specimens away.
Now, nothing I said proves anything, but if there is such a thing as "shadow of a doubt" on the internet, I believe I did the best anyone could do to raise that doubt.
And now Im running a bit late for work, so I'll end here.
p.s. none of that was copy and paste. I'm actually buried in magazine articles and newspaper clippings right now.
--------------------
music: myspace.com/soundscientists
.
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Rico Suave
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 35,239
Loc: Candyland
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: kotik]
#7404284 - 09/13/07 02:10 PM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
NASA is not involved in genetics. 
--------------------
This is your caterpillar on DMT. Any questions?
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
ah, yet another response filled with insight and constructive input.
Please, share more of your theory, or does the thumbs down represent your entire argument? next time, don't bother replying at all - thanks
(p.s. ive noticed you're Modus Operandi is replying to various threads with these short replies)
--------------------
music: myspace.com/soundscientists
.
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Rico Suave
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 35,239
Loc: Candyland
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: kotik]
#7404468 - 09/13/07 03:11 PM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Theory? Seems you do not comprehend the word as I put forth no theory.
FACT: NASA is involved in aeronautics and space exploration. Any links with molecular biology only pertain to the affect of space on terran life forms and possible self-contained environments for long flights. This does not include dropping mysterious bombs on third-world nations. 
--------------------
This is your caterpillar on DMT. Any questions?
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Theory? Seems you do not comprehend the word as I put forth no theory.
that was sort of the point. You made a random statement, without any type of explanation or input whatsoever. Thanks for your opinion, though.
you can debate it all you want. fact it, that was from an official report from the Chilean Government.
also, I figured I would post the rules here for emphasis:
Quote:
3) For skeptic vs believer style debates ... visit the Philosophy and Spirituality board.
Guidelines for discussion:
Debate vs. Discussion
There is a not-so-subtle difference between "debate" and "discussion" that is important to understand when both parts hold opposing views: debate is a competition; discussion is a collaboration. The later of which is preferred here.
The goal of a debate is to win. Successful debate strategies include making your case with credible sources and destroying the case of your opponents, using their words against themselves.
I'm not interested in a debate, or in why you may think chupacabras don't exist. Again I have no personal stake in this either way, so save your debates for P&S, thanks. Any further comments that are not related to the topic at hand, PM me.
--------------------
music: myspace.com/soundscientists
.
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
Edited by kotik (09/13/07 04:33 PM)
|
PinheadX
Stranger thanyou
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 1,410
Loc: TX Gulf Coast
Last seen: 2 months, 10 days
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: kotik]
#7406742 - 09/14/07 12:18 AM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I do not consider childhood fascination with the paranormal, which fizzled out due to the very unsatisfying nature of such things (the stories stay the same, and it becomes a passing interest, like pogs or slinky) as a valid argument. Are you now saying that since you decided on something 10 years ago, that's that? There are lots of things I believed and didn't believe in the 90s that I have changed my mind about since.
Just a note, 10 years ago, I wasn't a child. I was 24. My initial interest in this was happening when I was 21-22. This may be where your misinterpretation of my change of belief comes from.
I was old enough to put forth the effort at real research at the time, such as could be done. The story, the possibility of an unknown or possibly alien species intrigued me. I was absorbing everything I could get my hands on regarding information about this creature, including internet based research at the time. There wasn't much to go on, but over the next few years, as the conflicting information became more readily available, I dismissed it for what I believe it is. Knowing what I know of the culture (I do live in one of the most Latino-friendly cities in Texas) I put together my belief that it's all a ghost story.
I also don't believe the NASA links to this story. NASA wouldn't have anything at all to do with this, nor do they or any other U.S. government agency have jurisdiction in Chile or Mexico. If anything, the NSA or the CIA might attempt some type of covert action, but it seems unlikely given the other inaccuracies. Certainly, the FBI wouldn't have a thing to do with this. Sounds like a bad X-files episode. The chupacabra episode, which I thought was a bad one, anyway...
Hey, if my claims of bullshit got under your skin, you need thicker skin. I dismiss many things out of hand, but not without consideration... I know that doesn't sound like it makes any sense, but just because you don't know that I have considered the possibility of something, doesn't mean that I haven't.
I don't think the chupacabras exist. I don't think it's an animal at all. I still think it's either a cult, a prank, or a sick person obsessed with vampirism or blood collecting. I haven't seen any evidence that rang true as to a creature that would have caused the exsanguinations, and it's more likely (occam's razor and all...) that it's a simpler explanation behind it.
--------------------
If you want to find psilocybin in species that are not yet known to be psychoactive, you should do chemical tests. That way you won't get sick and die all the time.
- Alan Rockefeller
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 25,374
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Chupacabra [Re: kotik]
#7406781 - 09/14/07 12:30 AM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kotik said:
What about dolly the clone? Or perhaps that mouse they grew a human ear on? These are not exactly "natural," yet exist all the same.
Sure they are natural. They follow all the rules of nature. Nothing can happen that isnt natural. A creature naturally evolved and interacted with another creature that naturally evolved. This interaction created other creatures. This all happened completely under nature's rules. Given an earth and 6 billion years nature creatued mice, sheep, humans, consiouness, and an interaction between them all.
Do you think humans arnt natural? Or consiouness? Usually the only people I know who dont believe humans and humans actions are natural are religious types who feel humans are somehow separate from nature. If this is you, thats fine Ill leave it at that.
But I am interested in where you draw the line between nature and not-nature. Somehow things happen that are not part of nature? If that is the case, I think its time to redefine nature. Is a termite's nest natural? Is a skyscraper natural? They both are of course. Creatures of nature made them both from the laws of nature, and each creature is naturally compelled to make them.
Is a beaver's dam more natural then a humans? If so, why?
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
you know, every single time I even debated something half this much in this forum I am showered with warnings and the like.
I'll just post the rules again.
Quote:
3) For skeptic vs believer style debates ... visit the Philosophy and Spirituality board.
Guidelines for discussion:
Debate vs. Discussion
There is a not-so-subtle difference between "debate" and "discussion" that is important to understand when both parts hold opposing views: debate is a competition; discussion is a collaboration. The later of which is preferred here.
The goal of a debate is to win. Successful debate strategies include making your case with credible sources and destroying the case of your opponents, using their words against themselves.
--------------------
music: myspace.com/soundscientists
.
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
Rev. Morton
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 6,708
|
 Re: Chupacabra [Re: kotik]
#7408457 - 09/14/07 12:27 PM (5 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
+5 kotik.
Way to lay down the Law. 
Though the other Mods are MIA, and I have a more open definition of "discussion".
Just keep it FRIENDLY folks... jeeze.
|
Rev. Morton
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 6,708
|
|
 This thread has been closed.
Reason:
Smells like P+S.
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Rev. Morton, Az0th, Diploid, Kickle, c0sm0nautt
1,637 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
