# data[].attributes.body
This image is of a movie poster for the film 'Chupacabra vs the Alamo'. Just based off of the poster, it does not look like a family friendly movie. It looks like a dramatic and suspenseful film but also kind of cheesy looking. The Chupacabra in the image looks closer to the "real" Chupacabra than it does the drawings of the over dramatized version of the beast, like the one in my second image, except for the fact that it has red glowing eyes and it is much bigger. In the background, it also looks like the end of the world with the broken down buildings and everything on fire, so maybe they are portraying the Chupacabra as more than just an elusive creature, maybe it came from something bigger such as Aliens. A red flag for this poster and the idea behind it could be red herring possibly, because it seems to distract from the fact that the Chupacabra is a mythological creature, but watching this movie could just make people forget that and start being afraid of the beast and start to think its real if they didn't already. As for people who already believe that the Chupacabra exists, this could deepen their belief by having an emotional connection. They already believe it and then their is a movie about the beast. This would give any believ a deeper connection to the movie because they know all about the creature already.

# data[].attributes.body
This image is a much creepier, drawn depiction of the Chupacabra where it is seen living up to its name "the goat sucker". As you can tell, between this image and the first image, this one is much more like how the creature is described, with the big eyes, 4-5 feet in height and the long spikes down its back. Yet when people see the coyotes or raccoons with mange, they still think they are Chupacabras as well. So why are the drawing and real life "Chupacabras" so different? One reason for belief could be patternicity. In some cases, if you were to see an animal in the dark that suffers from mange, your imagination may run wild and see what it closer to the appearance of this creature because that what you think the Chupacabra looks like. The same thing goes for perception/observation. If you saw a coyote in the dark, you may think you saw something close to this because minds always jump to the worst case scenario when you hear or see something in the dark. Unexplained could be another reason for belief. This is because no one knows for sure what the Chupacabra looks like so everyone makes up their own image of what they think it looks like. They only have an image for what it looks like by being described by other people so people will keep adding on to that because they have no physical image to go off of.

# data[].attributes.body
This photo is an image of an unidentified dead animal that was under the search 'Chupacabra' on Google. A red flag for this photo would be 'Confusion of correlation with causation'. This red flag is relevant because people see the image of the dead animal and confuse it for some scary mythological creature such as a Chupacabra. Another red flag could be 'Appeal to authority' especially if you search for information about the Chupacabra on Google and then it shows you this image with the dead animal, claiming that the image is of the Chupacabra. In this image, 'Appeal to authority' and 'Confirmation bias' are sort of connected. If certain people see that Google posts this photo under images of the Chupacabra, they may believe it since it comes from the most popular search engine and then they will believe it, and not do any further research on the image. A couple of reason's for belief are present, for example, 'Unexplained'. People don't know what type of animal this is, so they may theorize their own hypothesis of what it is. A second reason for belief is Perception/Observation. If a person sees this image, they may claim it's the Chupacabra at first glance, when it is actually clear to see that it is most likely a coyote that had suffered from mange.

# data[].attributes.body
This website is a fan page for Chupacabra believers. It features, photographs of alleged Chupacabras, various theories, a place to report Chupacabra sightings and even Chupacabra merchandise. (Forgive me, but I chose not to click on any links out of fear of getting a virus). I can't really tell if it's a joke or not but it seems pretty ridiculous that they are selling Chupacabra themed products. The first red flag would be confirmation bias. They don't mention any opposing arguments of the creature's existence, only that the posted photos don't look like coyotes, so they heavily imply that they are Chupacabra corpses. Another red flag is 'Red herring' because they post random "evidence" here and there but then the next part is them distracting the web page visitors with their merch, and random satire videos of the Chupacabra and all the bright colours. A third and final red flag would be 'Proof by verbosity'. This is shown less in words, but more in the space used. They make the page look like they have more content by using up a lot of space, but when you read it all out, they don't really have anything at all. I think the two reason's for belief that are the most compelling would be 'Ideology' and 'Emotional connection'. I say ideology because this website is made by a group of people who believe in the Chupacabra and are trying to spread the word and convince people of its existence. Emotional connection could also be used because people who are a part of this group seem to have an emotional connection to the Chupacabra with alleged sightings and based on the descriptions of the photos, it seems like they are really invested in the whole group, based on how many links there are and the fact that they are selling merch, trying to spread the word of the Chupacabra.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
El Chupacabra online elchupacabra.com home of the mysterious chupacabra unexplained creature aka goat sucker Some believe it is Alien.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is officially the unofficial home of el chupacabra, the mysterious goat-sucker. Check out our pictures of a chupacabra taken in texas. This site has been around for Ten Years.It is a Cryptid.

# data[].attributes.body
This clip shows a strange, unidentifiable animal that was captured in a back yard in south Texas. The people in the video call the animal a baby Chupacabra and claim the animal is not a raccoon because of it's growl. Wild life experts claim that it is some sort of canine. I did less than 5 minutes of research and determined that the growl from that creature in the video and a raccoon's growl are in fact very similar, so it is likely a raccoon. This video displays a lot of flaws in it. The man claimed that he hunts raccoons and has been around them for 20 years and has never heard that growl. Perhaps, the raccoons he has seen have been relatively calm because I searched on YouTube, "Raccoon growl" and the first video I saw, the growl was the same. This is a good example of confirmation bias. He believes that a raccoon doesn't growl like that because he has never heard it. A good example for a reason for belief for this video would be agenticity. The couple captured this animal that is likely just a raccoon suffering from mange, but they classify it as the Chupacabra because they've never heard a raccoon make that noise, so it must be a baby Chupacabra growl. Another reason for belief could be perception/observation. The man in the video doesn't remember ever hearing an animal sounding like that, but perhaps that's only because seeing the strange animal threw off his memory of what a raccoon really sounds like and couldn't remember in that moment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finally, living proof of a real 'Chupacabra'?

# data[].attributes.body
This is a quick clip from CBS of two mysterious roadkill animals who are claimed to be the elusive Chupacabra. I can point out many flaws with this story and points that were completely ignored. I'm sure the news story was just for entertainment and views and the news anchor doesn't believe it is the actual Chupacabra, but the person being interviewed seems to believe otherwise. The man believes without a doubt that these creatures are indeed the Chupacabra without doing any further research. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias. He knows what he knows about the Chupacabra and that it fits the applicable characteristics to the dead animals and ignores every thing else that isn't accurate. One of the most important and eye catching characteristics of a Chupacabra; the spikes on it's back, which are non-existent on both of the creatures shown. A popular reason for belief for this topic and specifically this video is agenticity. The man in the video, who I believe is the one that found the first creature shown, probably didn't know what the animal was but knew the legend of the Chupacabra and couldn't think of any rational possibility so he labelled it the Chupacabra. A red flag that could also be questioned is 'Confusion of Correlation and Causation'. The man saw an unidentifiable, hairless, no doubt unbelievably creepy creature on the road. But without doing any scientific research, he believed that it must be the animal that was sucking the blood from local livestock, if there even was such activity in the community. Without scientific research, this news story is completely unreliable and in no more than 10 minutes of research I determined in my own opinion that the two animals look very similar to a raccoon that has suffered from sarcoptic mange , a disease that animals get from tiny mites biting at their skin.

# data[].attributes.body
This article gives information on the Chupacabra and bringing up questions and theories, followed by scientific facts that disprove the existence of the beast. Unlike the first article, the publisher of this article completely disproves it's existence, where the other one gives evidence to back the theory of the creature being fictional, but still doesn't discredit the witnesses who claim to have seen the Chupacabra. However, in this article, it gives theories as to what the Chupacabra is and where it came from. One theory they quickly mentioned was the theory that the Chupacabra came from a government genetic experiment in the forests of Puerto Rico, which explains why the creature was first spotted there. A red flag that ties to this theory would be 'Suppression from authorities'. Believers of the elusive "Goat-sucker", think it is the result of a government project from the United States and perhaps they think it escaped, but the government is trying to cover it up and stay quiet about their knowledge of their creation. Them capturing the beast again would explain why their was a decline in sightings after the year 2000, but it's more likely that the craze of spotting the Chupacabra died down after a few years. The other theory the article suggestion was an example of agenticity. The theory was that it was none other than an alien from outer space. The way that the monster is portrayed is definitely not of this world but it is very similar to the alien in 'Species' and that's why it is most likely just a made up story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The chupacabra was a very recent addition to the Mysterious Monster Club, coming many decades after Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster made their debuts. But only a few years after the chupacabra first appeared on the scene, the mystery was solved.

Bigfoot, the mysterious beast said to roam the North American wilderness, is named after what it leaves behind: big footprints. Bigfoot's Hispanic cousin, the chupacabra, is also named for what it leaves behind: dead animals. Though goats are said to be its favorite prey (chupacabra means "goat sucker" in Spanish), it has have also been blamed for attacks on cats, rabbits, dogs, chickens, and other animals.

(Image credit: joanna8555/flickr)

There are no known photographs of the beast, or even credible footprints. Instead, the chupacabra is known mostly through a few dozen eyewitness sightings and many dead animals. The chupacabra is probably the world's best-known vampire after Dracula, and its victims are often claimed to have been found completely drained of blood.
[Famous Fangs: Tales of Our Favorite Vampires]
Descriptions of chupacabra vary widely, but many accounts suggest that the creature stands about four to five feet tall. It has powerful legs that allow it to leap huge distances, long claws, terrifying, glowing red eyes, and distinctive spikes down its back. While some believe that chupacabra sightings date back to the 1970s or earlier, the monsteractually first appeared in 1995 in Puerto Rico; there are no records of any vampiric chupacabras before that time.

Theories about the chupacabra's origin are as varied as the sightings themselves. The most popular explanation is that it is the product of top-secret U.S. government genetics experiments in the rainforest of Puerto Rico. Some suggest that it's an extraterrestrial being, brought to Earth on spaceships. Still others suggest that the mysterious creature is part of some sinister biological warfare program, or even the embodiment of God's wrath.
Types of chupacabras
The chupacabra had a heyday of about five years when it was widely reported in Puerto Rico, Mexico, Chile, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Florida, among other places-almost all of them in Spanish-speaking areas. After about 2000, a strange thing happened: sightings of the weird, alien, bipedal, spiky-backed chupacabra faded away. Instead, the Hispanic vampire took a very different form: a canine animalresembling hairless dogs or coyotes mostly found in Texas and the American Southwest.
[Rumor or Reality: The Creatures of Cryptozoology]

(Image credit: Dan Pence.)

This was an important turning point because - unlike Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, for example - suddenly researchers had animal carcasses to scientifically examine. Dead chupacabras were subjected to DNA tests and in every instance the body has been identified as a dog, coyote, raccoon, or other common mammal - usually stricken with a parasitic infection that caused the animal to lose its fur and take on a gaunt, monstrous appearance.

Geneticists and wildlife biologists have identified all of the alleged chupacabra carcasses as those of known animals. But if none of the animals were vampiric chupacabras, what was sucking the blood out of goats, chickens, and other livestock? Though dead animals were widely reported to have been drained of blood, this is a myth. When suspected chupacabra victims have been professionally autopsied, invariably they are revealed to contain plenty of blood.

So what attacked the animals, if not the dreaded chupacabra? Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one: ordinary animals, mostly dogs and coyotes. These animals instinctually go for a victim's neck, and their canine teeth leave puncture wounds that resemble vampire bite marks. Though many people assume that dogs and coyotes would eat or tear up the animals they attack, wildlife predation experts know this too is a myth; often they will simply bite the neck and leave it to die.

(Image credit: AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Chupacabra: Mystery solved
Though the canine chupacabras were identified, the question remained: what happened to the original chupacabra? Why did it suddenly appear in August 1995 and vanish after only a few short years? As reported in the book "Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore," (University of New Mexico Press, 2011), it turned out that the chupacabra could be traced back to a single original eyewitness, a Puerto Rican woman named Madelyne Tolentino, whose sighting became the basis for all other accounts of the creature. She offered a detailed description of the chupacabra (bipedal, dark eyes, long limbs, and spikes along its back) that did not match any known animal - if it was real.
[Bigfoot, Nessie & the Kraken: Cryptozoology Quiz]
However, Tolentino's chupacabra was nearly identical to an alien monster in the science fiction / horror film " Species." The similarities were too great to be coincidence; she had not only recently seen the film, but stated in interviews that the movie monster "looked like the chupacabra, with spines on its back and all. ... The resemblance to the chupacabra was really impressive."

She was the first person to report seeing the chupacabra, and her report was very influential, appearing not only on the front page of the local newspaper but all over the Internet. Soon other eyewitnesses repeated and exaggerated her description, but it is clear that what she described came from a movie, not real life.

Though there's little mystery left from a scientific point of view, the goat-sucking monster will continue to be reported whether the creatures exist or not, simply because the public has come to call any strange unknown animal a "chupacabra."
Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of "Skeptical Inquirer" science magazine and author of six books, including "Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries." His website is www.BenjaminRadford.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chupacabra: Facts about the Mysterious Vampire Beast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The chupacabra was a very recent addition to the Mysterious Monster Club, coming many decades after Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster made their debuts. But only a few years after the chupacabra first appeared on the scene, the mystery was solved.

# data[].attributes.body
This website is explaining the different pieces of evidence about the Chupacabra and attempting to debunk each point. This article may be supporting the idea that the Chupacabra is a myth, but it gives examples of situations that display reasons for belief, red flags and flaws. The author pointed out most of the flaws in what these people saw and keep continuing to see, but does a great job explaining without having bias. He is stating his arguments with resources and scientific references to all of the points but still never claims that they are lying about what they saw. This is a good example of avoiding confirmation bias. I would just like to add to the article about why the people who claim to have seen the Chupacabra may have seen what they saw. One major reason for belief that I noticed in the article is "Patternicity". Benjamin made a point in his investigation on the Chupacabra that the movie 'Species' had just come out and what Madelyne; the girl who first claimed to have seen the creature, described, seemed very similar the to creature in 'Species'. It was a popular movie at the time that had just been released in Puerto Rico and Madelyne claimed to have seen the movie just before seeing the alleged "Chupacabra". Perhaps Madelyne's mind played tricks on her where she thought it looked like a big scary monster but it was just a stray dog with mange. Another example of a reason for belief would be 'Unexplained'. All over lower North America and Latin America, livestock were dying and being shown having two holes in the neck and being "drained of their blood". Farmers couldn't think of any probable cause for their livestock dying so they jumped on to Madelyne's theory of a blood thirsty monster. They made up their own reason because they couldn't find out the actual cause. A red flag I noticed in the article was 'Ideological support'. I recognized this when Benjamin stated that the legend started with one person. Then eventually, farmers noticed their livestock randomly dying and being sucked of their blood. It seems as though all of the farmers in communities started blaming the Chupacabra as the reason without any scientific evidence, but because all of the other farmers in the farming community claimed the Chupacabra as the reason, they jumped on board as well and it became even more widespread.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Everyone loves a good monster story.

The problem is, monsters always insist on living in faraway lands, at the bottom of lakes, or in the depths of forests. While this adds to their mystique, it is little wonder that our knowledge of them comes exclusively from grainy photos and unreliable witness reports.

This is what first drew Benjamin Radford to the chupacabra, a supposedly vampire-like creature. Its roots are in Latin America, but stories about it have since spread to the rest of the world, including his native New Mexico.

"This was a much more local mystery to me," says Radford. "I didn't have to go to Inverness or Borneo, it was right here in my backyard." Helpfully, the chupacabra also seemed to be less shy than your average monster. That meant Radford had a good chance of figuring out whether or not it was real.

Tales of the chupacabra first emerged in Puerto Rico in the late 1990s. They described a bipedal creature four or five feet tall with large eyes, spikes down its back and long claws. This beast, people claimed, was responsible for killing and draining the blood of livestock, an act that earned it its name - which is Spanish for "goat-sucker".

What is remarkable is how fast the story travelled

In his extensive investigation, which took a total of five years and saw him travel as far as the jungles of Nicaragua, Radford even located the person who first reported this beast: chupacabra patient zero.

Her name is Madelyne Tolentino and she comes from Canóvanas, a town in the east of Puerto Rico. In 1995, she spotted a scary alien-like creature out of her window.

What is remarkable is how fast the story travelled. After more reported sightings, and links made subsequently in the media with livestock that had been found "drained of blood", the legend of the chupacabra spiralled out of control. First it spread around the island, then the rest of Latin America and into the southern US states. It also flourished online, where it was latched onto by UFO enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists.

Then, in the early 2000s, a different chupacabra arrived on the scene. This one shared some of the traits of earlier sightings but was a little less alien. This time it was described as a hairless, dog-like animal walking on four legs.

And unlike most monsters, this type is not based exclusively on sightings. Chupacabra bodies have reportedly been found.

When you have a body, everything changes

When Radford, a research fellow with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry got wind of this story, he recognised a unique opportunity. Between the dead livestock and the actual specimens, he had the makings of an unprecedented scientific investigation into a creature that had already achieved infamy on a par with Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. This was a story he could really get his teeth into.

"When you have a body, everything changes," he explains. "You have DNA samples, you have bone samples, you have morphology." As with all his missions, Radford approached the chupacabra with an open mind, employing what he calls "investigative scepticism", conducting field work, collecting evidence and interviewing witnesses.

"I was of course initially sceptical of the creature's existence," he says. "At the same time I was mindful that new animals have yet to be discovered. I didn't want to just debunk or dismiss it. If the chupacabra is real, I wanted to find it."

The obvious place to start was with the chupacabra bodies. These have mostly turned up in Texas and other south-western US states, and Radford has recorded about a dozen in total. They are quite horrific-looking: hairless, with a gaunt appearance and burnt-looking skin.

However, DNA tests revealed a pretty mundane reality. The bodies have invariably turned out to be coyotes, dogs or raccoons - barring one that was actually a fish.

The reason these animals get identified as chupacabras is because they've lost their hair owing to sarcoptic mange

But despite clear DNA evidence, this version of events is a little fishy. The people who found and often shot these creatures were usually ranchers or rural folk who should recognise a coyote when they see one. So where does this confusion come from?

"The reason these animals get identified as chupacabras is because they've lost their hair owing to sarcoptic mange," explains Radford.

Sarcoptic mange is caused by itch-inducing mites called Sarcoptes scabei burrowing into the upper layer of the skin. It is very common. Alison Diesel of Texas A&M University, US, who specialises in inflammatory skin conditions in animals, agrees that this disease can be sufficiently gruesome to produce convincing monsters.

"The 'mangy dog' is typically very sparsely haired to near-bald, with red or hyper-pigmented black, thickened skin," she explains. Add to this the self-inflicted wounds from scratching and a hairless body, and you have yourself a "chupacabra".

Sarcoptes mites are thought to have infested humans for hundreds of thousands of years, but in more recent evolutionary history made the transition to dogs and other similar animals. This could explain why scabies in humans - the minor rash that results from the mites burrowing into our skin - is a relatively trivial affair, whereas in dogs it can cause death. These animals might not have had long enough to evolve an effective immune response to the mites.

Blood feeders are looking for blood that's close to the surface of the skin

But the chupacabras are only half the story. "There are two sets of bodies here," says Radford. There are also the reports of dead livestock. "Something is attacking these things, leaving puncture marks on their neck and supposedly draining their [bodies] of every drop [of blood]. So what's going on there?"

The answer, once again, is surprisingly straightforward. These animals are most likely the victims of ordinary predators, such as dogs or other canids. It is not uncommon for a dog to bite an animal in the neck and then leave it. Quite often the animal will then die from internal haemorrhaging, with no other injuries apart from puncture marks.

And while, thanks to Dracula, puncture marks in the neck tend to be associated with vampires, Bill Schutt of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US, says unequivocally that this is not how real-world blood-sucking creatures actually behave.

"Blood feeders are looking for blood that's close to the surface of the skin, something not found in a jugular vein for example," he says.

In fact, if we compare the characteristics of real blood-feeding animals such as vampire bats with those of the chupacabra, there are hardly any similarities. Vampires, according to Schutt, are small and stealthy, with specialised teeth and digestive systems that allow them to extract nutrients from blood.

A creature the size of a dog "would starve to death pretty quickly on a blood meal," he says, owing to the lack of essential components such as fat.

When an animal dies, the heart and blood pressure stop

Besides the presence of these "tell-tale" bite marks, Radford thinks he knows why worried ranchers might attribute the death of their animals to a blood feeder. Having found a mysterious corpse, they would examine it and perhaps cut into it, expecting blood to spurt out - but they would be surprised.

"When an animal dies, the heart and blood pressure stop," he explains. "The blood seeps to the lowest part of the body, and it coagulates and thickens. It's called lividity, and it gives the illusion that they've been drained of blood."

So if all the mythology surrounding the chupacabra actually comes down to some fairly commonplace natural phenomena, why do the stories live on with such vehemence today?

Bizarrely, Radford says it might have something to do with an anti-US sentiment found across Latin America. This is particularly true in Puerto Rico, which is in the unusual position of being a non-state territory of the US.

"I spoke to several Puerto Ricans who felt that the US had exploited, short-changed, and ignored the island, in economic and many other ways," he says. Most recently, this resentment has played out in the island's ongoing debt crisis.

The original chupacabra had spikes on its back, big eyes... then over the years the idea of what it was became bigger and bigger

As for chupacabras, there are many Puerto Ricans who believe they are another indication of American exploitation and meddling; the result of top secret US scientific experiments taking place in El Yunque rainforest, not far from Tolentino's hometown.

This may be one factor, but the spread of such stories can largely be attributed to the internet.

"I would classify the chupacabra as the first internet monster," says Radford. "If the first sighting had been in 1985, a couple of people would have heard of it, but it wouldn't have gone viral and spread across the world."

Radford points out that the myth has changed rapidly. "The original chupacabra had spikes on its back, big eyes," he says. "Then over the years the idea of what it was became bigger and bigger until you have any mangy dog being called a chupacabra. Now, people go on Google and search 'mysterious animal attacking things'. It's self-perpetuating."

But what about those initial sightings? Having explained away the mysterious specimens and how they might operate, what does Radford think inspired Tolentino to come up with such a story in the first place?

The answer is unexpected. Radford noticed that Tolentino's 1995 description was similar to the alien from the 1995 movie , which had recently been released in Puerto Rico and which she had watched. The film was set in the present day, revolves around top-secret US scientific experiments, and was partly filmed in Puerto Rico.

The whole story is a perfect storm of scientific misunderstanding

"It's all there. She sees the movie, then later she sees something she mistakes for a monster," says Radford. While he is careful to clarify that he does not think any witnesses are lying, he does suggest that this sighting could simply be a result of an overactive imagination.

Even today, while it is difficult to assess the extent to which people still believe the chupacabra myth, it remains a widely-discussed monster, not only in Puerto Rico but also the rest of the world. In recent years, chupacabras have been reported as far afield as Russia and the Philippines.

"From my perspective there is absolutely no reason to believe that anything out of the ordinary is involved in the attacks on livestock," says Radford. Instead, the whole story is a perfect storm of scientific misunderstanding, misidentification of animals, media hype, cultural anxiety and mass hysteria, all potentially resulting from one woman's viewing of a film.

It goes to show, you can do all the rigorous analysis you want, all the investigation, all the science. At the end of the day, humans like stories and will continue to tell them, however peculiar or far-fetched.

If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Earth, Culture, Capital, Travel and Autos, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The truth about a strange blood-sucking monster

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everyone loves a good monster story. The problem is, monsters always insist on living in faraway lands, at the bottom of lakes, or in the depths of forests. While this adds to their mystique, it is little wonder that our knowledge of them comes exclusively from grainy photos and unreliable witness reports.

# data[].attributes.body
This video is the pilot episode from the television show 'Lost Tapes'. In the episode, it tells a fictional story of a family from Mexico trying to get across the border to the United States. On their journey through the desert, they encounter what is believed to be the Chupacabra and it kills both parents and drains them of their blood. The whole episode is shot like a home video and the body cam footage on the border patrol officers. The entire series is completely fictional but it is shot like real camera footage like a documentary style show. Because of the way that the show is portrayed, it has a few red flags and reasons for belief. The first red flag would be 'Confirmation Bias'. As a child I was guilty of confirmation bias because I watched the episode and didn't bother to do any further research. I just believed that it was real and didn't think that it not existing was even a thought because in my own logic, the Chupacabra had to be real because these people caught the shadow of it on camera and it showed the dead parents. I wasn't a smart child but now I know that the series was more of a mocumentary, rather than it was a documentary. Appeal to Authority would be another because the show was either on Animal Planet or the History channel, two highly credible networks. This made the episode seem more credible than what it was. It also had real facts and statistics throughout the episode which made the fake parts seem more accurate. The appearance of border patrol made it seem more legitimate as well because it made it seem more real that actual authorities appeared in the episode. If it had just been the family of 3 with the video camera, it's easier to be skeptical of it, but because people in uniform appear, it makes it seem more credible. Similar to a toothpaste commercial featuring a man or woman in a lab coat. 'Simplicity' is a reason for belief. The way that the show portrays the Chupacabra, it's like it's bound to happen that Mexicans crossing the border will come across such a dangerous creature such as the Chupacabra. This show makes viewers think that the Chupacabra is simply just another animal that Mexicans have to fear about encountering on their way to the United States border, which makes the actual predators seem like nothing compared to the beast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lost Tapes Season 1 Episode 1 - Chupacabra