Hairless Animals Look Like Chupacabras

Over and over the press gets a hold of a story about some weird creature that can't immediate be identified, because it's lost its hair.Is their reaction "animals without hair are hard to identify"? No, it's "Mysterious Alien Chupacabra Mutant found dead!!!!!".Media, please stop. It's just an animal that has lost its hair because of death or disease. That's it. If you would wait a few days then you can put up a front page story about "hairless dead dog found in river", should you think that's a reasonable story. Here's the very latest in this venerable line of stories, from Jan 3rd, 2011.

LOUISVILLE, KY (WAVE) - The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined the mysterious hairless animal we first told you about last week in Nelson County is a hairless raccoon.Fish & Wildlife officials made the connection by matching biological features.They don't know why the raccoon lost its hair, but say there's no question about the species.​

Some of the more famous over the past few years.

• The Montauk Monster, a dead bloated decayed hairless raccoon.
• The Cerro Azul Alien - A dead bloated hairless sloth.
• The Kitchenuhmaykoosib monster - A dead facially hairless mink.
• Phylis Canion's Chupacabra - A dead partially hairless dog.
• Mark Cotern's Kentucky Chupacabra - A dead hairless raccoon.
• Jacob's Creature, Pennsylvania. A bear (not dead) with mange.

Much like the press hysteria over the Mystery Missile, and mass deaths of animals, the problem here is that the press is simply reporting the story without really looking into it. They report it because they know it's the type of story people like to read. Then when they do look into it, they give it that false balance where what they see as both sides of a debate are given equal time (although the more interesting theory actually gets more time).There's really not a lot that can be done, there's no easy fix here. As a debunker though, there's a few things I'd like to see people try.

1. Correct/debunk news stories as quickly as possible. If a claim gets printed it gets repeated and then distorted. Try to correct the things that are wrong, and add things that are right to the stream of media. A stitch in time saves nine.
2. Shame the reporters into doing a better job. Contact the reporter, try to get them issue a retraction. If they don't, then people deserve to know about it, and to have it on record.
3. Educate the readers to not trust the news. Do this simply by giving examples of where the media gets the wrong end of the stick. Enough examples will help people get a better idea of what's going on.

Much of the media as an entity has no interest in the truth. They exist primarily to entertain. The news cycle is so constant, such a torrent of ever-changing news, that any mistake they make will almost instantly be forgotten. So you need to help them correct their mistakes as quickly as possible, and if they don't then try to make their mistakes hang around to haunt them.

Here's a more detailed take on this topic:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...stery-solved-case-of-mistaken-identity?src=st

I didn't actually know that chupacabra's have different kinds also. And even though it's not a new news, I was still shocked to hear that a bizarre and malicious-looking animal, found dead on a Minnesota street recently. Here's a proof: Minnesota Chupacabra road kill identified. This has had Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) authorities confused for a long time. Some have believed that the carcass may be that of the famous Chupacabra. However, DNA test Monday proved otherwise.

Some dogs do not have a thick coat of hair, in turn, look "hairless." For example, the Xolo, or Mexican Hairless dog. I only bring this up because death and disease are not the only reasons for an animal to look hairless. Otherwise, I could not agree more.

I am glad you talk about this. I for one get excited, not scarred at the idea of discovering an animal! You can imagine the disappointment when it always turns out to be a shaved cat.