WTF?: Creature, NK (= Montauk Monster!?) discovered on Montauk beach?
Image by Jenna Hewitt
This image of a poor creature that met its end at sea is going around the Internet. The creature washed up onto a Montauk beach. I must say it isn’t a basking shark, beluga, or beaked whale. These creatures are often confused for sea monsters when they wash up dead and decomposed. Supposedly, this image is not photoshopped. Do you have any ideas of what it could be: a fake, the New Jersey Devil, the spawn of a nearby government animal-testing facility, a pug/sea turtle hybrid or simply a raccoon gone wrong? I have my bets on a raccoon or viral media.
There is more at Gawker and the East Hampton Star. The Hamptons Plum looks at photoshopping, and the New York Magazine seems to case doubt on the image’s validity as being real, so it may be a “viral-marketing campaign.”
Jeff Corwin on Faux News discussing the Montauk Monster:
Montauk Monster updates:
From the Scientific American Blog: Mystery of the “Montauk Monster”:
But we may never know for sure. It seems, you see, that the body has been moved. And nobody (at least nobody talking) knows by whom—or where it was taken.
From Hamptons.com, NY: Experts Confirm Montauk Monster Is Relative Of Rocky Raccoon:
Larry Penny, director of Natural Resources for the Town of East Hampton, believes the creature is a raccoon in the beginning stages of a watery decay.
From The Huffington Post: Montauk Monster: “It” Object Of The Week:
The good people of East Hampton animal control adopted a (justifiably) skeptical eye towards the media’s fascination with the beast, passing around Daily Intel’s reporters until finally someone three phone calls later said that it was a raccoon, we imagine noncommittally.
Still, some denounced the photograph as (quel horreur!) a work of a twisted Photoshopper or worse: viral marketing. Gawker, which has now for whatever reason assumed expertise about the matter, has insisted on the Montauk Monster’s legitimacy.
From chicagotribune.com: Montauk Monster:
But William Wise, director of Stony Brook University’s Living Marine Resources Institute, after looking at the photo and consulting with a fellow biologist (who knows land creatures), disagrees.
He knows what it isn’t.
A raccoon. (”The legs appear to be too long in proportion to the body.”)
A sea turtle. (”Sea turtles do not have teeth.”)
A rodent. (”Rodents have two huge, curved incisor teeth in front of their mouths.”)
He said the general body shape looks like a dog or other canine (”Coyote?”). But that the “prominent eye ridge and the feet” don’t match.
He said the feet and face look “somewhat ovine” — that would be like a sheep — but sheep don’t have sharp teeth.
Wise’s best, educated guess: “A talented someone who got very creative with latex.”
In other words, a fake — which would place Wise with the skeptics. (Many of whom believe the image could have been manipulated with computer software.)
From the New York News Blog | New York Magazine: East Hampton Bureaucrats Deny Montauk Monster Is Beast From Hell:
. . .
“Larry Penny said it’s a raccoon,” said Carry-Smyth, speaking of the environmental-protection director, who was out of the office today. “If you look at it, that little bug on the shoulder area is actually a fly, and that gives you an idea of what size it is,” she said. “He said the jaw was broken, and that’s why it looks like a beak. With long fingers…it’s more like a raccoon.” Wait a second: like a raccoon or actually a raccoon? After we hung up, we took her advice. We’re looking at it again now, and we’re pretty sure what we see is a fly on the shoulder of a smallish monster.
![[Valid RSS]](http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/valid-rss.jpg)
WTH? is this real? What the heck is it? I dont think I believe Jeff Corwin, normally I would but this is too freaking weird..
Sandy
2 Aug 08 at 1:56 am
Yeah, im sure it is a mammal. But……not any run of the mill animal that you would find in the NY area! Ive seen other pictures on the web, and the teeth on that thing are for meat eating but seem a lil too serious to be a dogs teeth. Maybe a pug dog and sabertooth got busy? :-p Who knows.
When will they do the autopsy, i cant wait to hear the verdict.
JeZZica
2 Aug 08 at 10:42 am
that looks like my ex wife
jadatiss
2 Aug 08 at 12:27 pm
Where is the corpse now? Why don’t they put something down so you can see the size? Close up of the claws and teeth? I believe it is a mammal of some kind can’t tell by the picture I seen. I would have taken more pictures of different angles and parts.
Kathy
2 Aug 08 at 2:10 pm
If the picture is real, I can understand why someone would not take detailed shots. If the incident actually occurred, it would have created a lot of excitement, and a camera, even a digital camera doesn’t make a person a professional photographer. Most importantly, not everyone is a good observer. Most of us might have thought to place a dollar bill, pen, ring, or cell phone with the image or even take the image from different angles, but not everyone is an observer especially amongst an atmosphere of excitement. There is a fly on the corpse, which can help determine the size of the image at issue.
buckdenton
2 Aug 08 at 2:34 pm
Carlos Castaneda described in his book Journey to Ixtlan a dog like creature with a bird’s beak. The animal was dying, and after a while it just vanished from sight.
mad hatter
3 Aug 08 at 7:03 am
The Monster of Montauk mystery SOLVED!
I found another archived photo and solved this mystery
http://craigrant.com/2008/08/02/montauk-monster-mystery-solved-by-craig-grant/
Craig Grant
3 Aug 08 at 10:48 am
how big is the animal/ creature? and to me it looks like part polar bear the skull is close to identical. it defiantly a mixed breed of some sort
CURIOUS
3 Aug 08 at 11:02 pm
I don’t think there’s any polar bear in there
buckdenton
3 Aug 08 at 11:50 pm
[...] TARGET=”_blank” href=”http://conservationreport.com/2008/07/30/wtf-creature-nk-discovered-on-montauk-beach/“>I really want to see this in [...]
Blackheart Records » Kelly O. Bloggin Again!
4 Aug 08 at 3:37 pm
creepy…..
like I'll tell u my name
4 Aug 08 at 9:47 pm
[...] loss, and fragmentation finally flushed Bigfoot into our existence? Just in time for the Montauk Monster craze to settle, a group claims to have evidence of Bigfoot’s existence. From the [...]
CRYPTOZOOLOGY: Bigfoot discovered? Group claims it has DNA evidence « The Conservation Report
13 Aug 08 at 5:24 pm
The thing is it looks a lot like a Gargoyle and the one thing that makes no sense is that no Gov officials where even interested in it. Then the remains get stolen, well it smells fishy. Mabey the Gov knows what it is thats why they didnt show interest in it, so they could steal the remains of it and act like nothing ever happen.
EcLipsaL
14 Aug 08 at 3:10 pm