CryPtoReports.com

It is possible that there may have been multiple kills of the mysterious Chupacabra creature in Texas. At a barn in Hood County , Texas the hunt for the chupacabra may have ended. An animal control officer named Frank Hackett shot and killed a extremely odd and ugly creature.

Many believe that the creature killed by Hackett is the elusive chupacabra or goat sucker. But this was not the only chupacabra sighting to happen in Hood county. A second chupacabra was sighted and also killed several miles away from the Hackett killing.

Both of the creatures appear very similar and look somewhat like ugly dogs , hairless coyotes, or possibly some yet undocumented creature known as el chupacabra. Legend of the chupacabra says that the creatures would attack and suck the blood from goats.

When questioned officer Hackett would not say if he believed if these creatures was or was not the chupacabra and said he will wait for DNA test results to make up his mind. But he says one thing he does know is that these creatures were not normal. Another officer who also saw the creature at the scene said she had never seen anything like it. Here is a video of the ;locals and the creatures, the images of the creature are pretty nasty.

Quote:

I was hiking with my dog about 6 miles northeast of Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico. I was carrying water, my still camera, some food, a compass, a knife and my phone (which had no service in that area). I never traveled through this remote desert before and I hoped to capture some photos of the spectacular landscape. I saw the incredible carcass after we hiked about 2 1/2 hours and were about to turn around to head back to the truck. My dog wouldn’t go near it, which was unusual, as he always finds dead animals eagerly and I have to call him off.

I began to take a picture and the battery died after I snapped one frame. It was fully charged when I left that morning. I knew this was a significant find and I wanted to collect the specimen in lieu of the lack of photographic evidence to document the creature, but there was no way I could carry it back to the car. I decided I would come back with the means to do so, a large backpack with some ropes to tie it on with. As I couldn’t record the spot with my phone’s gps, I did my best to remember the spot and I marked the trail going back so I was sure I could retrace my steps.

I returned the next day with a friend from Taos, determined to bring the animal home. We easily found the trail that I had marked out the day before. It was gone. We couldn’t find a trace.

About the creature itself, it was much larger than any fox, more the size of a large coyote of wolf, about 48″ long. It had a pronounced and extremely long snout, like a tapir or platypus. The most unusual features were the bumps along the spine and the approx. 4-5 inch long “sabre-tooth”. I could see only a single one of these large fangs. The spine bumps seemed to extend out from the vertebra in line with the ribs. They had the same short dense fur that covered the body (definitely not the hairless mange dogs commonly referred to as chupacabra). It had some longer coarse hair on it’s haunches. It’s feet were oddly shaped, more like hooves, but with the features of canid paws, toes and nails. It’s legs were long and extended, especially the lower rear legs. The gaping hole in the ribcage was the only visible wound on the body and looking into it, I could see no remnant of any internal organs. There were no insects on the carcass.

I believe it is possibly a previously unclassified canine, perhaps distorted by the process of mummification. This was something extremely rare and unusual and I feel privileged to have seen and recorded it.

Billy Willard says he’s on the verge of a major discovery that could change the way humans think about the natural world, not to mention their need for a creature-proof home security system.

Here in Spotsylvania County, in the forests around Lake Anna, Willard contends there have been 14 sightings in the past decade of that most fabled of cryptozoic beasts: Bigfoot.

Or Sasquatch, as the elusive, apelike brute is referred to in other circles — and on the side of Willard’s blue pickup. The decal on the truck reads “Sasquatch Watch of Virginia,’’ of which Willard is chief pooh-bah (when he’s not earning a living installing and removing underground home oil tanks).

Go ahead, call him a loon, a flake, a huckster. He’s heard it all. But Willard knows what he knows, which is that three people from this area — a woman, her husband, and their granddaughter — told him they saw a shaggy, super-sized figure on two legs gallivanting across their wooded property.

Last month, Willard led a week long expedition to the site, where he installed five motion-sensor cameras that will snap photos if and when the big galoot wanders by again.

Willard, 41, says he’d like to lead a tour of the property and introduce the witnesses, really he would. But the woman who says she saw what she believes could have been Bigfoot fears an avalanche of ridicule, which is why Willard is left to deliver his version of what happened a few miles away, in the parking lot of a Dairy Queen.

“We believe we may be close to some kind of major discovery,’’ he said. “All the things they would need are here, fresh water, shelter in the woods. The high concentration of sightings tells me they’re here.’’

He interrupts his monologue to answer his cellphone, the ringtone to which is the country tune “People Are Crazy.’’

Ever since humans began telling stories, they have spun yarns involving life forms that tower above mere mortals, whether it’s the giant of “Jack and the Beanstalk’’ fame, or Goliath, or Frankenstein.

Bigfoot has been a perennial for generations, with hundreds of purported sightings (many of them of supposed footprints), most prevalent in the Pacific Northwest but also popping up in states as disparate as Rhode Island, Illinois, and Alabama.

The myth grew in popularity in 1967, when two men in California filmed what appeared to be a huge and hairy biped walking into the woods, at one point turning its head to glance dramatically at the camera.

In Bigfoot circles, the footage is referred to as the “Patterson-Gimlin film,’’ named for its makers.

In less admiring circles, the short, fuzzy clip is cited as nothing short of poppycock.

Willard knows about the film, and most everything else Bigfoot-related, all of which he’s happy to share at any time, sometimes to the annoyance of his wife, Jeanean, who is prone to blurt out, “Okay, the conversation will have to change.’’

For all of Willard’s certainty about Bigfoot, the buzz has not exactly caught on in the rural hamlets around Lake Anna, where many residents work at the nearby nuclear power plant or in construction or commute to Richmond or Washington.

Behind the grill at Tarheel Pig Pickers barbecue, Mark Lane, 54, giggled.

“When I see Bigfoot water skiing, I’ll believe it,’’ he said. “If they catch him, we’ll put him on the rotisserie and invite everyone in the community.’’

Ron McCormick, president of a home-building company, said people have more pressing concerns, such as plummeting property values and paying bills. “On the other hand, it could bring in tourists,’’ he said as he sat at his desk, playing solitaire on his laptop.

Craig Petrie, 55, mowing grass a few miles away, volunteered that he sometimes hears voices calling his name from below as he tends the cemetery adjoining Wallers Baptist Church, where he holds the titles of head deacon and chief groundskeeper.

But Bigfoot sightings? “Never happened,’’ he said, although he’s open to the possibility, particularly with all the new subdivisions in the area ripping out trees and kicking up dirt.

“If anyone’s going to see him, it’s me, because I’m always on this mower. And if he kills me, they’ll just have to walk a few feet to bury me. It’s convenient.’’

The small but avid universe of Bigfoot enthusiasts includes self-styled investigators who pursue their quest during off hours from their day jobs.

Willard, for example, hosts an Internet radio show and maintains a website from his home in Manassas; he also monitors his Bigfoot hotline for reported sightings (a recent caller announced “I just saw Bigfoot in Reston,’’ before exploding in laughter and hanging up).

More dispassionate scholars are fascinated by the unflagging interest in bogeymen.

“People have a need to think about something like ourselves, something scary, using them as a cautionary tale,’’ said Robert Michael Pyle, whose book “Where Bigfoot Walks’’ explores the history of Sasquatch.

Willard spends countless hours in the woods listening for footsteps, always with a camera, ready to snap a picture.

He brings a set of knives and a hatchet. If he finds a dead Bigfoot, he intends to walk away with the ultimate trophy, DNA evidence, to send a message to those who ridicule the believers: “To give them the final ‘Aha! I told you so.’ ’’

Source: boston.com

Bigfoot alive and living in northern Minnesota?  The co-founders of the Northern Minnesota Bigfoot Society say, “100 percent yes.”

They said they  have received more than 75 reports of sightings, captured images, and Bigfoot footprints in just three years. They’re sharing their insight while sorting fact from fiction as they take KSAX on the hunt for Bigfoot.

“I’m a skeptic of Bigfoot because I’ve trapped this whole area and never, ever did we see any Bigfoot tracks or see Bigfoot anywhere,” William Tucker of Bena said.

Long time trapper William Tucker is anything but a believer, but just miles away from Bena, mind boggling footprints were found.

Each track was a bit different, different pressures, different depths, eliminating the possibility of some sort of footprint stamp.

This is just one of the things the co-founders of the Northern Minnesota Bigfoot Society say confirms the fact, Bigfoot is out there.

“I’m 110% convinced that it exists. There’s just too much evidence, too many people’s emotions showing when they recount their stories,” Bob Olson, a co-founder of the Northern Minnesota Bigfoot Society said.  “One lady cries when she recounts her story of how this thing stood up and looked at her. She felt it looked into her soul.”

Since 2006, Olson and Don Sherman have received about 75 reports of similar Bigfoot sightings in Northern Minnesota, some of which have been captured on camera.

The most recent was captured in Remer. Though to some, the image may look like a man in a suit, a comparison with 6 foot 5 inch Bob Olson showed this man would have had to have been at least 7 feet tall.

Sherman and Olson say “wood knocking” is just one more way Bigfoot makes his presence known. Olson said Bigfoot responded to him at Carey Lake when he knocked on a tree five times.

What about bones? One KSAX reader says,  “I believe Bigfoot is 100% real, as are a lot of the other creatures of Cryptozoology. But i believe in their true form, they are spiritual creatures, that manifest in flesh as they so desire. That is why we will never find bones, or other such evidence of them.”

On the other side of the coin, Olson says giant bones belonging to Humanoid creatures were found in the late 1800’s, stretching 10 to 12 feet.

While there haven’t been any Bigfoot skeletons found, many trappers say they’ve never come across any bear, wolf, or other large animal skeleton either.

Other signs Bigfoot exists include branches plucked straight out of trees, strange looking shelters, and stick men to warn other Bigfoot of humans in the area.

“When there’s stuff that doesn’t go away, there’s gotta be something to it and the evidence just keeps mounting up,” Olson said.

For some Bena residents, the legend of Bigfoot is far from a tall tale.

“I never seen it, but like I says I believe in it,” New Prague resident Leo Hinderscheid said.

“I don’t know what to say Megan but I believe in it and that’s the way it will be,” Helen Tibbetts of Bena said.

So, the hunt for Bigfoot continues.

Source: ksax.com

Last November, the Centre For Inquiry (CFI) hosted Monsters of the Deep! at Conway Hall in London’s Red Lion Square. Meetings devoted to marine cryptozoology are few and far between, but then the same might be said about crypto­zoology meetings in general. Meetings about academic crypto­zoology are rarer than sightings of crypt­ids themselves. Organised by Stephen Law, the meeting featured talks by Dr Charles Paxton, a fisheries ecologist at the University of St Andrews, and yours truly, a vertebrate palæontologist who works on dinosaurs and other Mesozoic reptiles at the University of Portsmouth and dabbles in academic cryptozoology. In addition to the talks, we held two workshops. As Charles stated early on in his talk, academic funding for cryptozoological research is essentially non-existent, so the audience could rest assured that their valuable tax pennies were not being frittered away on any of the research they were going to hear about.

Sea monsters inspire wonder, and that can’t be bad. But Charles explained that they also raise the very important question of how science deals with anomalous data. Forteans (indeed, Fort himself) have asserted that science ignores what it cannot explain. In fact, scientists have a tendency to ignore anomalous data only so long as they’re poorly recorded (in other words, are known only from anecdotes); irrefut­able records of such things as St Elmo’s fire, rogue waves and sprites – all origin­ally known entirely from anecdotes – show that science is ‘happy’ to accept the validity of low-frequency anomalies once the data are good enough. Furthermore, while there’s a widespread belief (particularly prevalent among scient­ists) that anecdotal data are worthless, anecdotes are important at several levels of the scientific process, including in hypothesis formation. Indeed, once a hypothesis (random example: that hippos might practise cannibalism) becomes accepted by a given research community, the chiming in from others in that community is often taken as verification, even though these addit­ional records are typically anecdotal (“I want to report that I’ve also seen hippos practising cannibalism”).

As was noted by both speakers, the possibility that unknown animals might really be at the bottom of sea monster reports should at least be considered as a possibility, and indeed it is already widely thought among biologists that large marine animals (large = more than 2m long) remain to be found. Animals of exactly this sort have been found in recent years and include several new cetaceans, an oarfish species and some deep-water rays. Furthermore, cumulative discovery curves for large marine animals suggest that – while discovery rates have slowed – there are almost certainly a few such species yet to find (between 10 and 50, depending on the study).

There’s no denying that many people (scientists included) have gotten involved in sea monster research because they really do like the idea that big, monstrous vertebrates might await discovery. But it’s evident that we should consider as many other options as possible before approaching this conclusion, and it can be argued that this hasn’t been the case so far. Hoaxing remains a problem. Sea turtles, leopard seals and other known species may account for some sea monster accounts, and Charles and colleagues achieved global notoriety in 2004 by proposing that the serpentine genitals of male whales might explain some sea-serpent accounts.

Whether sea monsters are real or not, the large number of catalogued sightings (over 1,000) means that a substantial amount of data is available for statistical analysis. Charles recently published the results of one such study in Journal of Zoology (a significant accomplishment) and some of the conclusions are surprising, especially to those who might assume that sea monster sightings all represent misid­entifications or hoaxes.
For one thing, most recorded monster sightings don’t normally occur at great distance, but at relatively close range. So the ideas that sea monsters (whatever they are) might be timid, or that people are seeing known species at great range and misidentifying them, are not supported by the reported data. A number of possibilities might explain the counter-intuitive closeness of the reported creatures. Maybe sea monsters are attracted to boats, maybe boats approach sea monsters in order to get a better look at them, maybe sightings are embellished in order to sound more impressive, and so on. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that the reporting of anomalous marine phenomena is biased, and that people only tend to report observations made at relatively close range. More distant objects, whether they’re anomalous or not, are less likely to be reported. This implies, suggested Charles, a strong reporting bias that might swamp any original biological signal.

Moreover, Charles discussed the results of experiments which show that people consistently underestimate the distances involved when viewing objects on the water. And while descriptions of an object are generally good, size estimates are not so hot, with women generally underestimating sizes while men generally overestimate them (insert hilarious wisecrack). One nice point Charles made is that what is reported is not the same as what is remembered; what is remembered is not the same as what is perceived; and what is perceived is not the same as what is seen.

The second talk of the day (my own ‘Sea monsters and the prehistoric survivor paradigm’) was more concerned with the various sea monster identities that have been proposed over the years, particularly those invoking the alleged survival to the present of large tetra­pods known only from the fossil record, specifically plesiosaurs, mosasaurs and basilosaurid whales (zeuglodonts). The idea that such creatures might have survived to the present day without leaving any fossil record really is untenable based on what we know, and the annoyingly persistent suggestion that cœlacanths demonstrate how a group of Mesozoic marine animals might persist without leaving any fossil record is a red herring. [1]

In any case, the prehist­oric survivor paradigm (or PSP) really isn’t the best explanation for the crypto­zoological data. Modern sea monster reports really don’t describe creatures that sound at all like the fossil animals they’re sometimes likened to. Long-necked sea monsters sound only very superficially like plesiosaurs; the modern creatures are reportedly hairy, have whiskers or external ears, can hold their heads and necks well out of the water in an erect pose, and are sometimes noted as lacking tails. If such creatures are real, it seems reasonable to interpret them as weird marine mammals (perhaps as large peculiar seals), not as strongly modified post-Cretaceous plesiosaurs.

Long-bodied sea monsters – apparently able to form hoops, loops and a series of waves along the body – cannot be basilosaurid whales, which were incapable of oscillating in this way and are absent from the fossil record for the last 30 million years at least. The fact that basilosaurids were conventionally (but very incorrectly) reconstructed as serpentine creatures capable of furious vertical wriggling has helped fuel the notion that they might have been the ancestors of modern sea serpents.

Bernard Heuvelmans regarded two of his nine sea monster kinds as basilosaurids. However, rather than regarding the long-bodied, serpentine types as modern representatives of this group, he proposed that the armour-plated ‘many-finned’ and bumpy-backed ‘many-humped’ were both basilosaur­ids. His logic was somewhat obtuse: absolutely integral to his identification of the ‘many-finned’ was his interpret­ation of the 1883 Vietnamese con rit account conveyed by Dr A Krempf in 1921. Yet this account described a gigantic segmented creature, covered in plate-like armour sheets that “rang like sheet metal” when struck. This fantastic description remains an enigma, but Heuvelmans’s conclusion that the creature was an armour-plated whale is peculiar and rests on the idea that basilosaurids were armoured, a proposal that had been disproved decades earlier.

While it might seem like an unfair criticism, a major theme that emerges from these considerations of the PSP is that those who have endorsed it are often behind the times as regards the state of palæontological knowledge, or have indulged in a remarkable amount of special pleading and speculation. Ideas about plesiosaur and basilosaurid survival seem to have been influenced by popular artwork more than by technical data. Sea monsters might be real, but we’re really not at the stage where we can say what they are. Interesting things can be done with the data we have (whether or not it represents sightings of unknown giant creatures), but the main problem afflicting the cryptozoological literature concerns interpretation. It’s evident that more intellectual rigour is often needed within the field.

In the first workshop session that followed the talks, Charles – working with a bold volunteer from the audience – used ‘fishes’ (marked straws) in a bucket to show how biologists can generate hypotheses about species divers­ity in the deep sea. With every handful, a different combination of ‘spec­ies’ is trawled up, and by counting the new ones Charles was able to generate a discovery curve. As is the case in the real world, the curve of the discovery graph rose to a plateau, but problems in distinguishing the new ‘species’ from those encountered earlier on in the experiment echoed a huge, genuine problem that plagues diversity studies.

In another workshop event, we used a computer program to show how extinct­ion dates can be estimated for extinct (or supposedly extinct) organisms. When good ‘proof of life’ data (that is, dates) are available, the computed extinction results look robust. However, a spotty or gappy pre-extinction record results in uncertainty over the extinction date – and here’s the fun part – because the creatures affected by such results are sometimes those hypothesised to have survived later than ‘officially’ thought. Cœlacanths, Steller’s sea cows, thylacines, megatooth sharks and many others were all subjected to the treatment. This technique has great promise and enables hypotheses about ‘prehistoric survivorship’ to be properly tested.

Overall, the meeting was a great success, and our interested audience made wholly positive noises about the event. Frankly, it was good to be at a crypto­zoology-themed event where scientific approaches were very much to the fore. Indeed, what might be the take-home message from the day was that crypto­zoological data and hypotheses are very much amenable to scientific testing. It goes without saying that there remains an enormous role for amateurs within the field of mystery animal research.

In a 2004 Nature article (yes, Nature: one of the most august scientific journals in the world), Henry Gee – inspired by the then-new discovery of the small, recently extinct hominids of Flores – wondered whether it really is time for crypto­zoology to “come in from the cold” and be recognised as a valid scientific endeavour. Some might say this already happened back in the 1980s when the International Society of Crypto­zoology published its technical journal Crypto­zoology, but such efforts seem all but forgotten nowadays and the death of the ISC arguably created the impression that crypto­zoology is a fringe discipline best avoided by anyone serious about doing science. The fact is, we seem to be at the start of what is (I hope) a modest renaissance in ‘scient­ific crypto­zoology’. Charles and I – and others – have published several crypto­zoological analyses within the pages of technical journals, such as the august Journal of Zoology and Historical Biology, and we have other technical studies in preparation. How far can we go with this, and can cryptozoology really ‘come in from the cold’?

Source: forteantimes.com

Last fall, after several people called police saying they saw something that looked like Bigfoot on the Northwest side of San Antonio, we were contacted by a group of men who call themselves Bigfoot investigators. They said they’re convinced that Sasquatch is here and probably always has been. So, our Delaine Mathieu said — prove it!

Last December, a homeless couple in San Antonio called 911 saying they saw something in the woods off Highway 151 and Culebra. “I would be a liar if I said I thought I knew what it was, but I don’t know. I know it picked up that deer and walked,” reported the caller. Police checked it out, but nothing was ever found.

Troy Hudson believes Bigfoot is here. He used to work for the Department of Homeland Security and now runs TBIG — The Bigfoot Investigation group in Dallas. “I’ve been in the woods a lot as a child and I’ve seen things I can’t explain to you,” Hudson told us.

We set up camp with him and his colleague, Chase Robinson at Garner State Park in Uvalde County near Leakey — where a man in a truck reportedly saw a Bigfoot on Highway 83 in 2006. “It was in December, early December around 10:30pm,” Hudson said. “He was messing with something and he happens to look up and notices movement.” He says the creature ran across the highway and disappeared.

“But that sounds crazy!” Delaine told Hudson. “That sounds almost ridiculous, right?” Hudson told her there are too many witnesses, too many reports across the country, too much documentation, too much data that suggests what are these people seeing?

Crazy is a word Troy and Chase say they hear a lot in their line of work, but there are several Bigfoot investigative groups in Texas like TBIG — determined to find Bigfoot. “If people in Vermont are reporting a tree knock and a whoop as well as someone in California, Florida, Utah, Oklahoma, Texas — it only leads you to believe that there’s something out there.”

And to the unbelievers out there who call these guys nuts? They say, just go on an expedition. “Try it. Before you condemn us, go out and try it,” Chase told us. “See what they see and listen to the sounds of the night.”

Source: woal.com

What lurks beneath the dark waters of Scotland’s Loch Ness? Newly released documents on display Tuesday in Scotland show that during the 1930s, police in Scotland were convinced some sort of creature inhabited the Highlands lake — so sure, in fact, that they worried about how to protect it from big-game hunters.

The files from the National Archive of Scotland show that local officials asked Britain’s Parliament to investigate the issue and confirm the monster’s existence — in the interests of science.

“That there is some strange creature in Loch Ness now seems beyond doubt,” wrote William Fraser, a senior police officer, “but that the police have any power to protect it is very doubtful.”

The Nessie Files, kept secret for 70 years, were revealed as part of an exhibition on government secrecy. The exhibit examines how governments once kept almost everything secret, and how attitudes evolved to move toward more open government in modern times.

Nessie, of course, was the epitome of mystery. The loch in which the monster is said to swim is the deepest inland expanse of water in Britain. At about 750 feet (230 meters) to the bottom, it’s even deeper than the North Sea.

The legend of what lies beneath the surface dates to 565 A.D., when an early Christian, St. Columba, is recorded as having driven away a water monster by the power of prayer, the National Archive said.

The documents also offer a glimpse of the collision of centuries-old lake lore with an emerging mass media — a modern effort to document a long-held superstition. The search grew feverish in the 1930s after a surgeon snapped a (now discredited) photo of a black dinosaur-like head rising from the depths.

Archivist Tristram Clarke said the letters reveal that some people sincerely believed there was a monster in the loch — though the cool response from the government suggests there plenty of detractors. If nothing else, Clarke said the Fraser letter proves that the police were under pressure to protect the monster — whatever it was.

Fraser’s letter to officials in London warned that he feared hunters Peter Kent and Marion Stirling were “determined to catch the monster dead or alive” and planned to use a “special harpoon gun.”

Kent was preparing a major operation including 20 experienced hunters and Fraser said he warned of the “desirability of having the creature left alone.”

The idea didn’t get very far in the end. The files show that it was deemed better not to kill the monster — or the myth — by stationing cameras or observers around the lake.

Though the sightings proved to be a hoaxes, they didn’t stop a Nessie-spotting tourism industry from springing up, together with three-humped cuddle toys, T-shirts and mugs.

“I think Nessie is such an iconic part of Scotland,” Clarke said. “The legend lives on. It’s almost part of Scotland’s identity.”

Though the number of sightings has tailed off recently, devoted believers continue to scour the loch. Gary Campbell of the Official Loch Ness monster club lives in hope of finding Nessie one day.

“Fourteen years ago I saw a hump break the water on the loch, I took a double take and then more of it appeared,” he said. “I haven’t seen anything since, but I keep looking. It probably cost me my social life.”

The faithful have long speculated about what the monster is. Some suggest a completely unknown species, or a sturgeon, or even a last surviving dinosaur.

“The reason why the Nessie myth persists is it such a good story,” said Lee Barron, a lecturer in media and culture at Northumbria University. “We get a sense of wonder out of the ‘what ifs’ of it all.

“There are lots of monster in the lake myths around the globe, including the U.S. and Europe, but because of the sightings, the fake photos and the romance of Loch Ness, Nessie is the greatest of them all.”

Source: news.yahoo

A mystery beast that resembles a chupacabra (”goat-sucker”), a legendary, fearsome and possibly mythical beast said to inhabit parts of the Americas and Puerto Rico, is seen shortly after its capture in a village in Suining, Sichuan Province on March 24.

In this case, the gray colored animal wasn’t attacking goats, but chickens and it was the fowls’ cries that alerted village Ke Suying to find the mystery predator tearing into his birds. He tried to drive it away with a stick but failed, though later with the help of neighbors caught it in a steel net.

It resembles a large rat or a mutant mix of kangaroo and dog, with large claws. It is about 60 centimeters long, with a 30-centimeter tail. Villagers describe it as “quite fierce” and said it ravenously consumes both meat and vegetables fed to it.

Most of its brown fur has fallen out, with only a little left on its back and a front foot.

The creature has been given to the Sichuan Province forestry department for further examination.

Source: globaltimes

A California-based production company has heard about the legend of a sea creature in Raystown Lake, referred to locally as Raystown Ray, and is coming to the area next month to investigate.

A.J. D’Agostino, an associate producer with Base Productions of Burbank, said a team of 10 people will visit the area on?April 27 and 28 to spend time on the lake and gather information from people who think they may have seen the creature.

Matt Price, executive director of the Huntingdon County Convention and Visitors Bureau, who has been in communication with Base, said the company is producing a six-episode show and dedicating half of one of the episodes to Raystown Ray. He said it may air on the SyFy Channel. A release from Base said the show, on the paranormal, is to be broadcast in June.

“We are looking for people to be interviewed on the show,” D’Agostino said. “Eyewitness accounts are the best … people who have been near the lake or on the lake who would be willing to share their story. If they have photos or videos, that would be amazing.”

Base Productions decided to investigate after viewing information on the Web site raystownray.com. The Web site was created five years ago for reporting sightings, photos and gathering information.

“We saw the most recent photo of Raystown Ray and that looks pretty compelling,” D’Agostino said. “We have a team of investigators who look at video clips and photos of things that are either aliens, strange creatures or ghosts.”

The investigation will focus on the Seven Points area, where a recent sighting of the sea monster was reported, she said.

“This will be our first field investigation,” she said. “We hope to find evidence.”

One witness on the Web site wrote, “We saw it from about 50 yards from us when it raised up, it’s head moved from side to side. It made no sound. I’d say it was at least 20 feet long.”

Witnesses can post information on sightings by visiting the Web site and e-mailing their story or photo plus contact information.

D’Agostino said witnesses should think about when and where they saw a creature, what they saw, what they heard, and what they thought about it.

Price said the investigation will go beyond talking to eyewitnesses.

“We’ve put them in touch with a local scuba diver and also with Seven Points Marina. We’re assisting them with the dive and with the fishfinder equipment and I believe … they are also talking with a fishing guide,” Price said.

Base Productions plans on being in the area for two days of production and Price said eyewitness interviews will be conducted on the back deck of the visitors center, which overlooks the lake.

Base Productions also produces “Sport Science,” which airs on Fox Sports Net, and A&E’s justice series “Crime 360.”

Price said he’s never seen Raystown Ray, but “if he exists, it certainly hasn’t affected the ecosystem much, the fish are large, vegetation is plentiful, it hasn’t disturbed swimmers.”

He welcomes the national exposure.

“It’s an opportunity to get our area on national television,” he said.

Source: alttonamirror.com

We have all heard about the mysterious Texas sightings of an unusual creature, often called a chupacabra.  Now, it’s has been found roaming the countryside in Oklahoma.

This time the creature was caught alive.

The  hairless, scared looking critter was captured on a Oklahoma man’s back porch.

The wrinkly, bald creature was spotted by several people wandering around the countryside before being caught . It is now nicknamed the “Dry Gulch Chupacabra” or even “Kojak”.

There have been similar findings in recent years in Texas. Each time many have believed them to be one of those legendary blood sucking chupacabras.

But experts have been quick to disagree, as KENS 5 reporters have documented in the past.

The Dry Gulch Chupacabra, or Kojak , was taken to a wildlife animal rescue center where animal caretakers had to take a much closer look to figure out what she really is.

At first someone thought she was a baby wallaby, but upon closer inspection they determined the animal was actually a raccoon.

Animal caretakers say the raccoon has an advanced case of mange, but will eventually grow its hair back and look like a normal raccoon.

And so, the mystery is solved…this time!

Source: kens5.com