El Chupacabra, the infamous vampire creature first discovered in the mid-1990′s, is not real, according to one expert.  Well-published writer and skeptic Benjamin Radford, author of several books on monsters and paranormal phenomena and managing editor of the journal The Skeptical Inquirer and LiveScience columnist, has released what he says to be definitive proof that El Chupacabra is not real, but rather a forgotten memory from the 1995 sci-fi film Species.

The bipedal alien-like creature was first spotted in Puerto Rico in 1995 when two goats were found drained of all their blood. Since then, El Chupacabra, Spanish for goat sucker, has turned up in many different iterations from Mexico to Florida to Texas, whenever livestock turn up dead.

Radford reported noticing a strong resemblance to the alien/human hybrid in Species to the alleged vampire creature.   When he spoke to El Chupacabra’s first reported victim Madelyne Tolentino, he asked her if the thing that she saw could have been inspired by the film. She admitted that she had seen the movie in the weeks prior to making her description.  “You can make a direct connection between the film hitting theaters, her seeing the creature in the film, seeing it in the street, making the report and entering the public conscious,” Radford said.

After speaking with Tolentino, Radford went on to the other reported sightings, none of which were described nearly the same as the original. One farmer in Texas even managed to shoot a predator he believed to be El Chupacabra but DNA tests revealed it was a coyote with a severe case of mange.   “By the mid-2000s, anything weird was being called El Chupacabra,” he said. “Mangy coyotes. Dead raccoons. Even a dried fish in New Mexico, which looks nothing like El Chupacabra.”

Other skeptics have also pointed out that if El Chupacabra were real, they would need a lot of food.  If they were vampires, you would expect to find more blood-drained carcasses than the sporadic findings throughout the years.

Not all are convinced of Radford′s theory though.  A resemblance to a movie character is hardly €œdefinitive proof€ as Radford advertised. Radford defends his theory against that argument.  €œThe question then becomes which is more likely, the astronomical chance that this creature looks exactly like the one from €˜Species,′ or that the film is just where she got the depiction?€  Radford questioned.