When it comes to proving the existence of a cryptid-creature, evidence is everything.  This rule can be applied to the Locn Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and other creatures of modern legend. The rule also applies to the modern-day boogeyman of Latin America: the Chupacabra.

To date, evidence proving the existence of the legendary bloodsuckers has been less than compelling.  The bodies, eye-witness accounts, and proof of their attacks have had plausible explanations that pointed to a known nocturnal animal such as a coyote, wolf or wild dog.  Even the description of this mysterious creature differs from eye-witnesses in different locations, creating a lot of confusion as well as a lack of hard, compelling evidence.

The legend of the Chupacabra is young. In the last 20 years, it went from being a nocturnal monster in the rural areas of Puerto Rico, to being a worldwide sensation. Most of the reports of the creature come from Latin American countries and from the Hispanic communities in the United States. Other so-called sightings were reported in China and Indonesia.

Each sighting describes something different; some eye-witnesses claimed it was bipedal while others insist it walked on all four. Other reports describe it as looking like a hairy space alien (similar to the “grays” of UFO legends), while others depicted it as looking like a hairless coyote with spikes on its backs. 

Interestingly, the creature is usually described in the singular. It is rarely seen with other Chupacabras, despite being spotted in nearly every part of the globe.

There are other similar descriptions. Many claimed they saw red eyes in the distance, heard a growl, or witnessed something moving in the brush during the night. How other descriptions have been added to this creature is possibly a figment of the eye-witnesses’ imaginations.

There’s no doubt that the eye-witnesses saw something. But was it the legendary creature? There’s no proof. There are numerous animals that hunt at night and who target farm animals. Without a definite view of this nighttime creature, no one can conclude that it is Chupacabra.

One way to prove the existence of Chupacabra is to produce a body. And there have been bodies, some dead, some living.  Also, there are plenty of photos and You Tube videos claiming to show a Chupacabra in the wild.  With such evidence, this should definitively prove the creature’s existence.

Not quite. It turns out that the bizarre creatures shown in the videos and photos look like hairless coyotes, raccoons, or some other large animal. And, when these photographic evidences are shown to biologists and zoologists, they instantly recognize the animals as being coyotes or raccoons. As for them being hairless, it is speculated that they may suffer from mange or some other condition that renders an animal hairless.

Another place to find evidence would be the carcass of farm animals attacked by Chupacabra.  There are plenty of them and they appear to be sucked dry of their blood (hence, where Chupacabra received its name). However, appearance can be deceptive. Most of the animals had their blood drained during the attack when they were ripped opened. Additionally, more blood could have drained when they were taken away by the predator. This may explain why many of the attacks had trails of blood. Again, the characteristics of the attacks are typical of those of known predators.  

The existing evidence of Chupacabras’ existence is circumstantial at best. Most of the attacks it was blamed for doing were similar to wolves or coyotes. The actual “carcass” or captured beasts purported to be Chupacabras were easily identified as common animals with rare disorders or common disfiguring diseases. Also,  the eye-witness accounts vary too much.  In the case of the Chupacabra, all evidence points to a legend rather than a real beast of the night.