Scientists, yes, them again, and this isn't making them look any better… because they're now formally saying that "the ugly, big-eared animal found this summer in Cuero (Texas)" is NOT a chupacabra.
"The DNA sequence is a virtually identical match to DNA from the coyote," bioligist Mike Forstner said in a written statement. The coyote tissue was provided by San Antonio television station KENS.
What's this? "Virtually identical?" A "written" statement? Mr Dr. Forstner wants to avoid questions, does he? The tissue sample was provided by a TELEVISION STATION? And the AP guy misspells "biologist?" Or did he? Maybe he just wanted you to think Forstner was a biologist when he's "virtually identical," if you see what I'm sayin'? Which would also explain the written statement – assuming Dr. Forstner can even write… if there is a Dr. Forstner.
I mean, what's going on here? I'm surprised they didn't claim the animal was killed by global warming, aren't you?
But for the purposes of this discussion (I smell a chupacabra, don't you?), I'm only concerned with the "virtually" part. This is considered scientifically valid nowadays? Because if it is, I know some people who would qualify as chimps and vice versa.
OK, I don't really know any chimpanzees, but I've seen some intelligent ones on TV (some are doing the news at KENS), and they are far superior to Dennis Kucinich… and getting to know a simian is one of the things on my to-do list before I die.
Anyway, when you say "virtually all," aren't you saying that there may be an unknown factor you can't account for? So it's not a coyote, it's a "coyote!" And in the case of a "coyote," when exactly does "virtually" become a "chupacabra?"
I'll tell you when… no one knows, another tie-in to global warming. And they don't know because they don't have any real chupacabra DNA to compare KENS' coyote to. because real chupacabra's are… ELUSIVE… wild ones have never been seen in their natural habitat – the wild, and they don't drink coffee or eat ice cream, so you can't get their DNA by conducting stakeouts and retrieving the cups they throw away.
So if you ask me, this has all the marks of a cover-up. They don't want to scare the Tex-Mex crowd any further, since they're already jumpy over the illegal alien crackdowns. In addition, they're easy prey for chupacabras, so if the illegals bolt, chupacabras may become extinct.
And if that happens and the Mexicans return, who'll do the job chupacabras once did?
Now they're going to do further tests to determine how the animal lost it's hair. Oh? I didn't mention it was a hairless "coyote?" I'm guessing it's not going to be determined to be coyote pattern baldness. A coyote-chupacabra mix, maybe? The world's first coyocabra?!? Or maybe not…?
The story tells us that Chupacabra means "goat sucker" in Spanish, and it is said to have originated in Latin America, specifically Puerto Rico and Mexico…
You know, where they have a lot of goats… and suckers.
Also according to the article, Forstner said the testing provided an opportunity to demonstrate how science answers questions.
Uh-huh… not too good, if you ask me…
"This is fun, not scary, but if people are worried about the chupacabra, it is probably even more important that we explain the mystery," he said. "Folks can fear what they don't understand, and a big part of the goal in science is to explain the natural world."
Well, to quote Steve Martin in The Man With Two Brains, "When can ya start…?"