If you discount something as just foolish, you may be missing on a great discovery. Unless you have proof to contradict what someone claims to have witness, insulting that person only makes your point look weaker.
What we shoud be looking for is consistency.
1- The description of "chupacabra" given here (short, two legged gait, glowing eyes) matches that I've hear from witnesses in other places.
2- The killings of animals such as pitbulls, know for their fierce character, of house cats, know for their agility is telling us that whatever "chupacabra" is, is not a common wild animal. It has to be something with almost hypnotic powers to swiftly make the kills without a fight. It is quite intelligent.
3- The other important point is the blood sucking. These animal attck have in commom that they were suck dry of blood and it was done without making a mess. No vampire bat or leech is able to suck the liters of blood that a dog, goat, cat or even a chiken has. Moreover, coyotes or similar mammal, are carnivores and would eat the flesh, not the blood.
History is full of bright people ridiculed for their unconventional positions, Galileo and Columbus for example, so instead of starting a witch hunt, lets examine the evidences with an open mind and we might find there is more out there.
September 5th, 2008, 11:14 am