There are many different sources that you can find proof of the chupacabra existing. One website in particular talks about evidence pertaining to the Chupacabra. It talks about how the chupacabra first appeared in 1995 in Puerto Rico. In Chupacabra: Facts about the Mysterious Vampire Beast, it makes about the same amount of claims as Benjamin Radford. There are many theories that the chupacabra’s origin is varied because of the sighting themselves. In Tracking the Chupacabra, Radford claims “Lacerations and incisions, for example, may lead to profuse blood loss. But there’s often little to no blood around wounds inflicted by dogs and coyotes since external blood loss is not the cause of death” (158). The animals that were supposedly killed by the chupacabra did not die from blood loss but of internal damage. The people who assumed the animal was drained of blood didn’t think to look in the right places.
There are many speculations about whether or not the chupacabra sucked its victim’s blood. We find out that the animals that were killed by the chupacabra were not drained of their blood but died because of their injuries. According to Chasing the Chupacabra, Elbein argues “domestic dogs often kill with a bite to the neck and then leave the carcass. By the time the kill is found, its blood has settled to the bottom — with a rip or puncture at the neck the only sign of attack.” Both Elbein and Radford believe that feral animals don’t suck the blood out of its victims but they are killed by bite wounds. There are many similarities pertaining to both articles. When deciding who to trust, I feel like there needs to be enough evidence for an author to get their point across. If they don’t provide us with enough information on the topic we won’t know if they are telling the truth or not. They have to believe in what they are saying to help the reader understand where they’re coming from.
https://www.texasobserver.org/chupacabra-legends-texas/
Camryn's Blog 