A couple of days ago I came across this story. Every time I see a headline involving cryptozoology (Bigfoot, etc) I always hold out some hope that someone has finally found some shred of compelling evidence of one of these creatures. But it’s usually the same old hokey blurry videos of blurry blobs or anecdotal reports. In this case there was absolutely nothing, not even anecdotal evidence. The story is about a dead dog. Really, I’m not kidding, that’s it. Somebody’s dog died in Argentina and of course it gets blamed on a chupacabra. Man, if it isn’t one logical fallacy it’s always another. Here we have an argument from ignorance: My dog died, I don’t know how my dog died, therefore it must be a chupacabra! They are now attacking dogs instead of goats! Do we need to rename it the Chupaperro?

It’s really too bad. One of my favorite questions to ask my fellow skeptics (for fun) is if they could pick a paranormal belief and make it true which one would they pick. I’d personally like it if I could meet someone or something from another planet or if I could have superpowers of some kind. Now those things and most paranormal phenomena are pretty far fetched. But cryptozoology does not require as much of a stretch, it would simply be an animal we have not discovered yet. Let me be clear, I don’t believe in chupacabras, yetis, or lake monsters because there is no evidence. But if they were really out there and someone actually proved they existed (meaning they actually captured one) I’d be first in line at the zoo to see it, and I would be happy to be proven wrong because I would get to see such a fascinating creature. Unfortunately we get stories like this. A dead dog, whoop-de-doo.