UPDATE: 20 Sept. 2009: A Montauk monster-like creature was discovered in Panama. However, this creature is clearly a sloth. More at the Mail Online.

UPDATE: 14 May 2009: The Montauk monster washes up again. More about the Montauk Monster can be found at Snopes.com and Wikipedia.

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 decomposing. 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.”

More on the Montauk monster:

Jeff Corwin on Faux News discusses the Montauk Monster:

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.