In march/april issue of Skeptical Inquirer we can read a Robert Sheaffer's article about the "chupacabras" or "goat sucker". This work was refused by Willy Smith, which reads as follows. Immediately Sheaffer replies, in exclusive, for "La Nave de los Locos".
ROBERT SHEAFFER V/S EL CHUPACABRAS
By Willy Smith
I
always peruse the pages of the Skeptical Inquirer with interest because
many times I find there articles that reveal the true nature of the
self-appointed censors of what deserves scrutiny and serious investigation.
The March/April 2001 contains a typical piece by Mr Robert Sheaffer,
whose claim to fame on ufological matters stems from a book published
in 1986: 'The UFO Verdict: Examining The Evidence'. which is precisely
what he didn't do.
The recent article has also a misleading title:
'The Great Chupacabra Conspiracy', because the uninformed reader will
not learn from here what exactly a "chupacabra" is, much less
who the conspiracy or the conspirators are. Sheaffer names "en
passant" the FBI, implying without saying it that the American
government is behind the activities of those creatures, which have been
reported from many different countries, not all of them
Spanish speaking. This did not deter the author fromstating that "the
animals torment Hispanic farmers and ranchers, but never trouble those
from other cultural backgrounds" implying that whoever is sponsoring
the events has a definite target: Spanish speaking farmers. Mr. Sheaffer
does not offer any supporting references for this broad statement, but
this omission may have been intentional. Because an extra-terrestrial
origin is thus ruled out, and the alternative of a conspiracy indicated
in the title becomes more credible.
It also implies that Mr Sheaffer did not bother to review the copious
literature existing on the incidents, and has not visited the places
where the animals have been reported and interview the witnesses. He
didn't have to travel far,: Miami would have been enough.
But of course, for an skeptic this is not necessary:
why to waste time and money investigating a phenomenon which we know
does not exist. This reminds me of those fathers of the Church that
centuries refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they knew
better. And at this point, I can't help to wonder if Mr. Sheaffer knows
of the physical evidence collected that support the reality of the creatures:
(i) cast of the foot imprints, identical although were collected in
distant lands (Miami, Chile, Spain); (ii) samples of hairs; (iii) specimens
of fecal matters; (iv) the testimony of numerous eyewitness, which of
course, one must ignore as everyone knows to be totallyunreliable.
To give credit where credit is due, Mr. Sheaffer
mentions Dr. Virgilio Sánchez Ocejo as a serious investigator who has
proposed a more reasonable name for the so far incorrectly called "chupacabra":
which accurately describes the activities of those creatures.At this
point Mr. Sheaffer runs out of steam and haven't said practically nothing
about the "chupacabras", and much less about the conspiracy
used as a hook in the tittle, he falls back onto the tired criticisms
used by the pseudo skeptics in their weak efforts to deny ideas they
do not like. He refers to other unrelated cases and manages to increase
the length of the article by a factor of 4, perhaps a requirement to
secure publication in the pages of the Skeptical Inquirer. But it makes
me sad to see he is still barking at the wrong tree...
I
also would like to suggest to Mr. Scheaffer to read the article by Bertrand
Russell which appeared in the May/June 2001 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.
He might learn a thing or two about becoming a critic.
Dr. Willy Smith
UNICAT Project
May 28, 2001
THE CHUPACABRAS: JUST A MYTH
By Robert Sheaffer
If
Dr. Smith had read my article carefully, he would have seen that I described
Chupacabras as "supposedly ferocious 'goat suckers'"; I apologize
if this was not description enough, but I think most readers of Skeptical
Inquirer already know what they are. He would also have noted that was
quoting a Chilean newspaper's claim that an entire family of Chupacabras
were handed over "to agents of the USA's FBI agency." So if
this statement were true, the U.S. government would indeed be part of
a "conspiracy" to suppress public knowledge about these beasties.
Dr.
Smith is unhappy with my observation that the Chupacabras seem to only
torment Spanish-speaking farmers, but he does not attempt to refute
it. All he needs to do is to show us a "documented" attack
of Chupacabras in Greece, or Iran, or Thailand, and he will have broken
the apparent link between Chupacabra visits and Hispanic culture. Instead,
he tells of encounters in Chile, in Spain, and in Miami (where approximately
half the population speaks Spanish), which merely strengthens my point.
Let me make it clear that I am not in any way
trying to ridicule hispanic culture, which I respect greatly. Every
society has its myths that are part of its cultural heritage, including
my own. In Britain, they have Crop Circles. In the U.S., we have far
more "UFO abductions" than any other country. In China they
have a long tradition of belief in ghosts, and go to great lengths to
defeat evil spirits. Rather than be so defensive, Dr. Smith can best
employ his talents in the manner of an anthropologist, recording these
Chupacabra beliefs and legends for the benefit of cultural historians.
(Léalo en castellano)