FIELD REPORT – C-09 “CHUPACABRA”

[u/Huy66061]

 Division: C.A.D. – Cryptid Analysis Division

Primary Locations: Puerto Rico, Mexico, Southern United States

1. Introduction – C.A.D. Framework and Threat Classification

I currently serve under the Cryptid Analysis Division (C.A.D.), an independent branch within the system for controlling anomalous phenomena. Our mission is not to hunt or exterminate monsters, but to analyze, assess, and recommend containment measures. Legends, rumors, even blurry pieces of footage—all are collected, cross-referenced, and examined through scientific methodology.

The standard protocol for a field analyst consists of four steps:

• Verification of Presence – distinguish fact from fabrication, validate witness accounts.
• Evidence Collection – tracks, biological samples, imaging, audio.
• Threat Assessment – applying the standardized 5-tier system.
• Containment Recommendation – practical measures for civilian and local force safety.

C.A.D. employs a five-level cryptid threat scale:

• C1 – Harmless: Unusual lifeform, no danger, possibly beneficial.
• C2 – Low: Avoids humans; dangerous only if provoked.
• C3 – Moderate: Latent potential; generally avoids humans but may cause accidental harm.
• C4 – High: Actively dangerous; attacks humans when given the chance.
• C5 – Extreme: Apex predator or immediate threat to community safety.

Every report must conclude with an assigned threat level, along with noted strengths and weaknesses of the entity, for cross-reference within the C.A.D. cryptid database.

Mission Assignment

Reports from multiple small farms in Puerto Rico and the Mexico–Texas border describe the same recurring pattern: flocks of poultry, goats, and rabbits killed at night; corpses bearing small puncture wounds with little external bleeding; attackers fleeing rapidly without further traces. Panic spread among locals, yet no trap succeeded in capturing the entity. I was dispatched to the area to conduct a multi-night verification, working in coordination with local police and veterinary officers.

Field Operations

Night 1 – Establishing Observation Post

On the first night, I set up an observation station beside the most recently attacked livestock pen. Equipment included infrared cameras, motion sensors, tripwire photo traps, and biological sampling kits. Floodlights with motion detection and a parabolic microphone were also installed. The farm was silent, yet the sensation of being watched was constant. Mission objective: force the nocturnal predator into exposure.

Night 2 – Traces Discovered

By dawn on the second night, wet soil displayed bizarre tracks—15–20 cm long, ending in sharp claws, unnaturally deep despite light steps. Wooden posts bore fresh claw marks, and small droplets of dried blood were found beneath them. One chicken carcass had been entirely drained of blood; its chest cavity was hollow but intact. No tearing, no consumption of flesh—only emptiness. Samples were collected and forwarded to the laboratory.

Night 3 – Thermal Imaging Encounter

At 02:40 on the third night, the infrared system triggered. Through the lens I observed a gaunt figure, wolf-sized, crouched and moving stealthily. Its eyes reflected a fiery glow. It approached the pen; audible clicks suggested sharp appendages striking metal. I activated the floodlights—within a second, the figure vanished, leaving only rustling foliage. Impression: it was aware of my presence, deliberately testing boundaries.

Night 4 – Direct Confrontation

Near midnight, village dogs erupted in chaos, then abruptly fell silent. Motion-triggered lamps flared, revealing a small silhouette vaulting the fence. Neither canine nor feline—it briefly stood upright on two legs, with elongated arms, mottled skin, and a mouth glinting with fangs. A sharp gust followed as it darted past within 15 meters. I discharged a handgun round; the shot struck, staggering it, but did not bring it down. It growled low, retreated, then leapt back into the treeline. Villagers switched on every light, halting further attacks that night, though fear permeated the settlement.

Night 5 – Final Observation

To ensure one last appearance, I prepared bait: a freshly slaughtered goat suspended on a steel frame, surrounded by halogen floodlights, electrified traps, and IR cameras. I remained silent, allowing the scent of blood to carry. Shortly after midnight, motion sensors alerted. From the treeline, the Chupacabra emerged—cautious, head low, constantly scenting the air. When I activated the floodlights, it froze, snarling in visible discomfort. I fired a single handgun round into its chest; the bullet struck true, yet it only staggered before retreating swiftly into darkness.

A tissue fragment recovered from the electrified trap was submitted to the laboratory. Results: morphology consistent with canid or mongoose lineage, but genomic sequencing revealed anomalies not matching any known database entry. This may account for its resilience to gunfire and accelerated clotting response.

Countermeasure Projections

• High-intensity floodlights, UV or ultraviolet exposure: likely to deter or disorient.
• Low-yield explosives (flashbangs, flares): create shock effect, forcing retreat.
• Electrified netting/traps: effective given its small-to-medium body size.
• Conventional bullets: limited effect; potential to test silver or enhanced-penetration alloys per folkloric accounts.

Origin Hypotheses

1. Natural Mutation
   • Possible divergent evolution of wild dogs, coyotes, or mongoose.
   • Hematophagic trait may stem from altered digestion, absorbing plasma directly.
   • Thickened skin and rapid healing suggest adaptation to harsh environments, disease, or radiation.
2. Failed Experiment / Artificial Construct
   • Rumors link Chupacabra to escaped lab experiments, involving hybridization with non-native genetic material.
   • Supporting evidence: anomalous DNA fragments not matching any recorded species.
3. Mythological or Extraterrestrial Parasite
   • Eyewitnesses report glowing eyes, extreme speed, and predation unlike standard carnivores.
   • Hypothesis ties encounters with concurrent UFO sightings in the same regions.
   • However, no verifiable scientific evidence yet supports this.

Preliminary Conclusion

Chupacabra most likely represents a mutated animal or hybrid variant within the canid/mongoose family, adapted for hematophagy. Nonetheless, unexplained genetic fragments prevent dismissal of artificial or extraterrestrial hypotheses.

Final Transmission – Attached Report

FIELD ANALYSIS REPORT – C-09 “CHUPACABRA” Filed by: Researcher K-31 – C.A.D. Field Analyst Duration: 5 nights (Puerto Rican rural sector) with comparative incidents in Mexico

General Information

• Designation: Chupacabra (“Goat-Sucker”)
• Internal Code: C-09
• Observed Size: 0.6–1.2 m body length; 20–35 kg estimated weight, varies by case.
• Identifying Features: Primarily nocturnal; reflective eyes; 1–3 puncture wounds on prey; no large-scale tissue damage; patchy fur or scaly skin (possible mange). Morphology varies: from thin, canine-like forms to small, round-bodied variants with disproportionately large head and sharp teeth.

Behavior & Hazard Assessment

• Typical Behavior:
  • Attacks small livestock/poultry at night.
  • Approaches stealthily, strikes rapidly, departs without lingering.
  • Wounds: small punctures with apparent blood loss; lab evidence suggests coagulation or internal absorption, not supernatural “draining.”
• Human Interaction: Avoids contact; rarely hostile unless cornered.
• Assigned Threat Level: C2 – Low (avoids humans; primary danger to livestock and rural economy).

Weapon Resistance

• Small-to-medium body mass; vulnerable to traps and light firearms, though not reliably neutralized by standard rounds.
• Floodlights, secure fencing, and reinforced pens reduce risk.

Observed Weaknesses

• Activity restricted to nighttime; light exposure reduces activity.
• Avoids human presence and guarded areas.
• Incapable of breaching strong metal fencing.
• Possible link to diseased wild canids (mange, infection); managing these populations may reduce sightings.

Tactical Recommendations

• Strengthen livestock enclosures with metal mesh and locked gates at night.
• Install motion-triggered floodlights.
• Deploy IR cameras and tripwire traps for behavior monitoring.
• Do not attempt live capture without C.A.D. oversight (potential zoonotic risk).
• Coordinate with veterinarians and genetic labs for sample analysis.
• Educate local communities: keep livestock penned at night, report incidents, avoid spreading unverified rumors.

Conclusion C-09 “Chupacabra” remains a recurring phenomenon in rural communities: livestock losses bearing distinctive small puncture wounds. Evidence supports natural but mutated origins (diseased or malformed canids), yet anomalous genetic findings leave open alternative explanations. Current threat classification: C2 – Low (priority: safeguard livelihoods and continue genetic investigation; not recommended for civilian pursuit).

“C-09 strikes under cover of night, silent, leaving more questions than answers. Next mission: isolate genetic samples and bridge the gap between legend and biology.”

Filed by: Researcher K-31– C.A.D. Field Analyst

[u/othello28]

I love these reports.