In the beginning of things men were animals and animals men. ~ Algonquin saying

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much — the wheel, New York, wars and so on — whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man — for precisely the same reasons." ~ The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Friday, March 25, 2011

Chupie Solved Post-script

In discussing this episode with my spouse, he made the observation that Radford was looking for something to "solve" the mystery, and found it by latching onto the fact the witness had seen the movie Species some weeks prior to her sighting. How much earlier did she see the movie? What other potential things could account for the chupie sighting? Did Radford go looking for this and pulled it out -- er, "lead" the witness in other words, akin to what UFO abduction researchers who use hypnosis are accused of doing? Asking the leading questions until you find yourself where you want to be in the explanation paradigm?

Interesting thoughts. But, as Radford commented on my first post on this topic, there are about "two chapters" worth of analysis that I am unaware of, not having read his book.


  1. Your wife is smart. I like her.

    (You, I'm still unsure about, given the unkind things you've written about me without knowing me or giving my work a fair reading.)

    She has an excellent point (about how I might have "led the witness"), which might be valid except for one huge fatal flaw: The witness did not merely tell me that she'd seen Species in my 2010 interview with her (thus confirming my suspicions); she said that exact same thing, in even greater detail and surety, to two Puerto Rican interviewers in March 1996, just a few months after her sighting. Unless you think I somehow went back in time and influenced her with leading questions, your wife's theory cannot be correct.

    Yes, you really should read the book (borrow it from a library, if you are really so hesitant to support a cryptozoological researcher); Karl Shuker calls it "The most comprehensive dissection of the chupacabra phenomenon that I have ever read." Then again, you seem to know a lot about the chupacabra, so maybe you know more about it than either Karl or I.

  2. Wow, I was going to ignore all the posts you've left, which are "unkind," ... but this one is too good to pass up.

    "My wife is smart?" While I am married, I'm not a lesbian. (not that there's anything wrong with that.) I don't have a wife. My husband, however, is indeed smart, yes, thank you.

    I'm glad you gave more information on the witness and her movie viewing time line, as I said in the post which you've responded to, I have not read the book, so my husband was merely pondering upon the information he -- and I-- had.

  3. Well, your *husband* is smart--but wrong!

    I was wrong about your spouse's gender, I apologize for missing the pronoun. It doesn't bother me at all to admit when I'm wrong about something.

    et tu? :-)


  4. Look, I'm not "wrong" because I disagree with your theory as to origins/reality of chupie for reasons already stated, based on the happy promotion of your ideas on the web.