This
item is helpful in eliminating what are likely a lot of gratuitous
cases in which we are simply looking at a natural death anyway. That
still leaves those cases in which a giant vampire bat or gargoyle is
observed by individuals quite used to dealing with dead animals. It
also leaves out the unusual cattle kills that simply fail to conform
to normal circumstances and can be explained by vampirism.
I
have seen enough reports to support the gargoyle scenario, but most
of those will simply lack witnesses and skilled forensic work. Other
reports are really about dog kills and the like and there can be no
vampirism but there can be hysterical witnesses. What we have there is certainly mistaken vampirism
reports that this article shows to be all to easy. Dogs have been
confusing the story throughout and should be dismissed.
I
simply do not think that any rancher dealing with downers
continuously can mistake an anomalous kill. It is right up there
with assuming that a hunting guide can mistake a Sasquatch for a
Bear. It really is not possible.
WHY BLOOD-DRAINED
CARCASES ARE NOT THE WORK OF CHUPACABRAS OR OTHER SUPPOSEDLY VAMPIRIC
CRYPTIDS
FRIDAY, 19 JULY 2013
The discovery of
supposedly blood-drained animal carcases hits the cryptozoology
headlines with monotonous frequency (I noticed yet another one being
discussed online just a few days ago), accompanied by the usual (and
sometimes decidedly unusual) media speculation as to what diabolical
entity could have been responsible for such a hideous, unnatural act.
In reality, of course,
no such entity – diabolical, vampiric, or otherwise – is
responsible, because it is highly unlikely that such carcases really
are blood-drained (variously termed desanguinated or exsanguinated).
They merely look as if they are, particularly to the
pathology-untrained eye, which is a very different matter altogether.
Over the years, many
culprits for such unsavoury activity have been proposed – the
chupacabra or goatsucker being the favourite identity if said
carcases have been discovered in the New World; and various mystery
carnivores, such as escapee/released big cats and even the (very) odd
absconded far-from-home thylacine, if elsewhere.
Ironically, however,
the true nature of these carcases has already been investigated,
uncovered, and publicly exposed for all to see and read in a quite
recent cryptozoology book that I heartily recommend to everyone –
Ben Radford's superb Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast
in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore (University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, 2011; ISBN 978-0-8263-5015-2). So why such carcases
should continue to perplex other researchers and the media, as indeed
they still do, thoroughly baffles me.
Here's the original,
unedited version of my review of Ben's book that appeared in Fortean
Times (#285, March 2012):
"In modern times,
very few cryptids have risen from obscurity to international
celebrity with such alacrity as the chupacabra or goatsucker (indeed,
I can only think of one other offhand – the Mongolian death worm).
Prior to the 1990s, it was a Hispanic oddity, now it is a by-word for
mysterious entities of the deliciously dark and sinister kind -
emblazoned as a snarling, fiery-eyed anti-hero upon t-shirts sold in
every corner of the planet, and gorily eviscerating and
exsanguinating its hapless victims in saliva-dripping glee as the
toothy vampiric star of countless movie and video flicks viewed
worldwide.
"But what,
precisely, is the chupacabra, and where did it come from? Indeed,
does it even exist? Over the years since it first began hitting the
media headlines in Latin America and then steadily onward and outward
until its infamy became a global sensation, this monstrous marauder
has been described in countless different ways by its supposed
eyewitnesses – likened to just about everything, in fact, from a
spiky-backed bipedal pseudo-kangaroo with wings and spinning hypnotic
eyes to a hairless quadrupedal blue dog with mangy demeanour and long
savage jaws. Its origin has attracted equally diverse, dramatic
speculation too – a spontaneously-mutated freak of nature, an
absconded scientific experiment gone wrong, even a decidedly inimical
extraterrestrial visitor.
"It was high
time, therefore, that this paranormal Proteus received an in-depth,
critical, scientific examination, seeking both its identity and its
origin, and thanks to this riveting book, that is exactly what it has
received. As in his previous works, Radford has painstakingly
stripped away the layers of glamour, hearsay, folklore, and media
hype to reveal what he believes to be the truth behind the lurid
crypto-legend, the reality at the heart of this unlikeliest of
contemporary icons, and I for one consider that he has achieved his
goal.
"Along the way,
as with all of the most thorough investigations, there have been a
number of stark, surprising revelations. Not least of these,
following his forensic examination of the case in question, is
Radford's comprehensive dismembering of the first major, pivotal
eyewitness report (which had almost single-handedly launched the
chupacabra phenomenon in fully-formed state upon an unsuspecting
world).
"Also well worthy
of mention here but without giving away the all-important details is
his documentation of the long-awaited explanation for why supposed
chupacabra victims' carcases are often described as being entirely
drained of blood; as well as how another perplexing entity, the
reptilian humanoid of Thetis Lake in British Columbia, Canada, was
lately exposed as a hoax – a significant event, yet which had not
previously received widespread coverage. Those pesky blue dogs sans
hair reported from Texas and elsewhere in recent years and even
represented in the flesh by one or two preserved corpses also receive
Radford's full attention, revealing their identity to be intriguing
but far less outstanding than media reports would suggest.
"Radford's
central thesis, however, concerns the remarkable but hitherto
uncommented-upon similarities between the chupacabra and the alien
star of a certain science-fiction film whose release occurred just
prior to the first, crucial eyewitness report of el chupa to attract
major media attention. Was the latter shaped by the former? Judging
from the evidence presented here by Radford, this would certainly
seem to be the case, influencing everything written about and
described for the chupacabra since then.
"After spending
far too many years in the headlines as a bloodthirsty monster with a
rapacious appetite for victims and headlines in equal measure, it
looks very much as if the chupacabra has finally met its match –
assassinated not with a shotgun, but instead with sterling detective
work. Consequently, I feel it only fair to warn you that if you like
your newly-slain goatsucker served with a generous dollop of mystery
and spiced with all manner of rarefied unsubstantiated rumours, you
are not going to enjoy this book. If, conversely, you prefer it
plucked raw and served cold, basted only by scientific detachment and
common sense, it should be a veritable feast."
So, returning to the
subject of desanguinated carcases, what precisely is their true
explanation? As Ben revealed in his book's concluding, 35-page
chapter, entitled 'The Zoology of Chupacabras and the Science of
Vampires' and comprising what I consider to be the most forensic,
rigorous examination of this subject ever published within the
cryptozoological literature, the answer is not even remotely
preternatural, but is in fact remarkably, unexpectedly mundane.
Summarising his revelations, here are the most salient points:
1) Some such reports
documented by the media are not first-hand but rather second-,
third-, or even fourth-hand, and are thereby susceptible to
distortion and fabrication of the 'Chinese whispers' and foaflore
(friend-of-a-friend lore) nature.
2) Reports that are
first-hand originate directly from those who have discovered such
carcases, but such persons, e.g. farmers, ranchers, do not generally
have medical or forensic expertise, and the carcases themselves are
very rarely examined by anyone who has. So their claims that the
carcases lack blood are not scientifically substantiated, and are
therefore merely unsupported personal opinion, i.e. supposition.
3) If little blood is
seen on or around the carcase, a layman discoverer is likely to
assume that the carcase has been desanguinated, and even more likely
to assume this if he should actually cut the carcase open and find
little or no evidence of blood inside it. However, this apparent
absence of blood is in reality no such thing. When an animal (or
human) dies, rigor mortis is accompanied by livor mortis – a
lesser-known process in which the carcase's blood soon begins to
settle via gravity in the lower, underneath areas (which thus acquire
a dark reddish-purple hue) and coagulates there, both inside vessels
and in tissue surrounding vessels from which it has leaked. This only
takes a few hours at most, so unless someone finding a carcase turns
it over, thereby revealing the dark hue of the tissues underneath
where blood has collected and coagulated (and not many people would
see any reason to do so, especially with a hefty, smelly carcase like
that of a dead cow or horse), the activity of livor mortis will
remain hidden from view. All that will be seen is the carcase's much
paler upper portion, from which blood has drained out, down into the
concealed lower portions underneath.
4) Even if the
carcase is turned over, if it has been lying on hard or
rough ground the blood vessels in its undersurface tissues will have
been compressed by the ground, thus restricting the settling of blood
(i.e. livor mortis) there. So this surface will appear paler (and
hence more bloodless) than would otherwise have been the case.
5) If the carcase is
of an animal with dark and/or very hairy skin, livor mortis-induced
discolouration will not be discerned anyway, even if the carcase is
turned over, unless painstakingly examined by a medical pathologist
or veterinarian via a full autopsy.
6) If a carcase is cut
open and little or no blood emerges, this is due merely to the fact
that it has had time to become fixed in the tissues and clotted. In
short, the blood is still there, but it has simply dried up and its
water content evaporated.
7) To determine
scientifically the extent of blood loss, or whether there has
actually been any blood loss at all, from a carcase, a full-scale
formal necropsy would be required, performed by a qualified medical
pathologist or veterinarian, which rarely happens with animal
carcases found by farmers and ranchers on their lands, if only
because of the high fee that the farmer or land-owner would be
required to pay in order for such a procedure to be conducted.
8) One important
indicator of significant blood loss is noticeable paleness of the
internal organs, but again, unless the carcase has been
professionally necropsied, this would not be readily perceived.
9) Crucially, in cases
where supposedly desanguinated carcaseshave been examined by
medical or forensic experts, they have not observed anything that
they have considered to be anomalous – everything present has been
in accord with their professional experience of the appearance of
corpses, externally and internally. Perhaps the best-known example of
this is the work of Dr David Morales, a Puerto Rican veterinarian
with the Department of Agriculture. Despite having examined 300
supposedly desanguinated animal carcases that had been blamed upon
the chupacabra in Puerto Rico, he found no evidence whatsoever to
support such a claim. On the contrary, he found lots of blood inside
the carcases, with no sign of vampirism, but plenty of signs of the
animals having been attacked and killed by normal, mundane predators,
such as dogs, monkeys, and birds.
In short: the
blood-draining, vampiric activity of the chupacabra and other
predators is a fallacy, engendered by a lack of specialised forensic,
medical knowledge by those discovering and observing the carcases, as
well as by exaggerated, inflamed media accounts.
So the next time that
you read about a mysteriously desanguinated animal carcase, remember
the above checklist, and if the carcase hasn’t been subjected to a
thorough autopsy by a qualified pathologist or veterinarian, the
chances are that it will be its bloodless state that is non-existent,
not its blood.
For full details
regarding the alleged desanguination of animal carcases, please do
read Ben's fascinating book, Tracking the Chupacabra – a
compelling, eye-opening, and indispensable foray into the
chupacabra's origin, as well as the myths, and the many fallacies
surrounding this modern-day cryptozoological megastar
1 comment:
This is gorgeous!
Post a Comment