Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 28th, 2010
“I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it.” ~ George Bernard Shaw.
Sometimes, there are more than two sides to every issue. In the case of the Chupacabras melodrama, that certainly seems to be the case.
If you recall, here at Cryptomundo, Ben Radford’s new theory was outlined. Basically, it regards his sense that the 1995 wave of Chupacabras sightings is linked to the movie Species’ shape-shifting humanoid creature, Sil, which was played by Natasha Henstridge.
Radford’s main evidence, as far as is known right now, was eyewitness interviews he found in Chupacabras investigator Scott Corrales’ 1997 book, Chupacabras and Other Mysteries.
In reply to the summary of Radford’s theory, Corrales, as did others, shared some criticisms of what Radford theorized, earlier, in the comments section of that previous posting.
Corrales’ comment is reproduced here, in full:
As you are well aware, I try to keep away from all these debates, but to pin the entire narrative of the chupacabras (yes, with an “s’) on a single set of witnesses (Ms. Tolentino and her husband) is to deny the hundreds of eyewitness accounts from all over Puerto Rico at the time that described the same creature. Not a dog, not a feral ape, not “a lion” as a caller to one of the late-night show was moved to say: it was an entity as drawn by Jorge Martín based on the Tolentino account, issuing a very strong chemical odor, and with very curious physical properties. In retrospect, the Sanchez eyewitness account — the man who struck the creature with a machete to no effect — stands out as the most realistic and sobering. This was a religious man who wanted no part of the experience, and whose fellow church members broke into loud song to interfere with the interview. Skeptics overlook the fact that the most dramatic manifestations of the creature occurred not in Puerto Rico or Mexico or indeed anywhere in the Caribbean basin, but in Brazil and later on in Chile. Whether its an unknown physical creature or a paranormal “visitor”, the Chupacabras transcends the pages of any single book.
Ben Radford has now replied. He emails:
I appreciate Loren’s comments, and the posts by those here. (I’m a little late to this thread, having been away at conferences for 10 days).
According to my reading of the interview, Tolentino clearly said she saw the film before she saw the chupacabra creature. I do not suggest that every single sighting was spawned by her report, but it is widely accepted that hers was the original, most complete, and most influential chupa sighting on record.
As for Scott’s comments, I was surprised to read his statement about “hundreds of eyewitness accounts from all over Puerto Rico at the time that described the same creature.” I have read his book several times, and I am at a loss to find these “hundreds” of identical descriptions he mentions. I actually tried to interview Scott, but he refused to speak to me about the chupacabra for my book. If he has records of these hundreds of eyewitness reports that describe a creature identical to that which Tolentino described at the time, I would very much appreciate being granted access to those.
Scott is not interested in continuing with, or even being in a debate with Ben. He merely shared the insight in a private overnight email with me that the outpouring of eyewitness accounts in P.R. newspapers, radio shows, and television news programs is part of the record. He also mentioned something about pigs and wrestling.