Montauk Island Creature

The back of it looks kind of like a pig. Maybe several animals were combined to make one animal? Just a guess. Here is another link about the Montauk Project:

www.crystalinks.com...

its a dogi think

reply to post by Ciphor


Excellent comparison in the link you posted--thanks! It convinced me.

Could it be a Tapir? The teeth seem wrong for a dog.

It's plainly a dog. A partially decomposed and bloated dog.

Why is it in different positions in each of the photos? I might poke it with a stick or something but it's head has moved totally and the back legs.

reply to post by Stonefree386


it is pretty strange looking.

i have thought of a fox, possible cat, possible racoon. probally a neutira (similar to an otter for those who do not know)

Originally posted by Yossarian
It's plainly a dog. A partially decomposed and bloated dog.

Why is it in different positions in each of the photos? I might poke it with a stick or something but it's head has moved totally and the back legs.

Finally!
Someone who uses their eyes instead of jumping on the raccoon bandwagon!

Looks like a bulldog that was perhaps used in dogfighting, legs were bound and thrown into the sea. Hence the leather strap on the forelimb.

Actually, it IS a raccoon.

I just ran across this article on ScienceBlogs entitled "What Was The Montauk Monster?"

scienceblogs.com...

Go check out the article. It is very detailed in animal decomposition though.

reply to post by Blueangel7


The tail looks like it does because the the fur is missing. Give it fur and it looks like a Raccoon. Think of it like how when you give a fluffly dog a bath. They end up looking like a rat or something.

This is a HOAX.........

This is just a racoon carcass that was thrown into the ocean, took out a few days later and took photos. I am not guessing i am 100% right. The photos were enhanced by the person behind the hoax.

Well, apparently the ol' Montauk Monster" may just have been a little "viral marketing" again!

Was the Montauk Monster Viral Marketing For Splinterheads Movie?

According to MontaukMonster.com and seconded by Gotham News and now Gawker, the creature might be a viral marketing prop for an indie movie about carnival subculture entitled Splinterheads, currently filming in Long Island. The film stars Lea Thompson, Rachel Taylor (Transformers) and Christopher McDonald (above photo, Fanboys, Dutch). On the director’s photo blog, Sersen Park, there is an implied shoutout underneath the monster’s pic to Rachel Goldberg—evidently the sister of the film’s producer Darren Goldberg—who “discovered” the monster and went to the press. See: this giggly interview. A few days ago, the above photo was posted on the film’s official website with the words, “We have the Montauk Monster” but this has since been removed. The page is cached

BREAKING NEWS: Montauk Monster Truths Revealed (Splinterheads!)

“Tonya” stated that the original pictures of the Montauk Monster were a stage prop from the Splinterheads movie set. “Tonya” also mentioned that there will be a scene in the movie where the Montauk Monster will be revealed.

Could this be a possibility? Could this be a marketing scheme? Absolutely! The creature was mysteriously brought to somebody’s backyard and it has never been seen again. In Newsday’s “Splinterheads” article, Michelle Isabelle-Stark says: “For Suffolk County’s economic development office, the arrival of the cameras and crews is welcome news.”

the official (for now) Splinterheads blog

“According to kookbusting site Montauk-Monster.com, the creature was most likely a prop used in Goldberg’s film Splinterheads. It quotes a mystery source called “Tonya,” who explains the stunt will be revealed when the flick comes out next year. “Tonya” stated that the original pictures of the Montauk Monster were a stage prop from the Splinterheads movie set. “Tonya” also mentioned that there will be a scene in the movie where the Montauk Monster will be revealed.”

Punk’d by the Monster of Montauk! ‘Beastie’ was a movie prop

The so-called Monster of Montauk has been exposed as an imaginative publicity stunt dreamed up by the makers of a new movie. Apparently, Rachel Goldberg, the woman who discovered the famed beastie, is the sister of none other than producer Darren Goldberg (pictured above), who is making a movie about, you guessed it, …monsters.

Rather than being a scary sea monster, the creature was in fact just a cheap prop used in Goldberg’s film Splinterheads. You can read all about the making of the movie here.

Mystery solved!

It took a while to locate this picture of a chupacabra taken in the backyard of a homeowner. I think it bears a startling resemblance to the montauk monster. I had the top photo in my files and i am still searching for the original story and photographer. Anybody remember?

could it be a turtle without its shell?

The face look turtle like?

just a thought

personally.. I think they should make a law against this type of viral marketing.

im getting tired of this crap spreading all over the internet.. and sometimes even making the 6:00 news.//

It is not a turtle because all turtles have their spines fused too their shell so if it was a decomposing loggerhead turtle would you not see a open wound on the back of the creature where the spine should be?

reply to post by Stonefree386


Yes thee is governments experiments going on ther that ting had a bird hard dog body and
and a turky but I was thee I couldent beakeav it I was the first one to touch it the other poeple were to afraid to touch it any way I hope you IJbzee more informasion i

The mystery of the "Montauk Monster" has been solved, said Drew Grant in ASSME.org. With "Scooby-gang luck," an old friend recently told me that he and some friends were behind the scary, hairless beast that washed up on a beach at the tip of Long Island last year. It seems a few buddies—just "being dumb"—set fire to a dead raccoon they found on a beach on the other side of the island, and pushed it out to sea for a "Viking funeral."

www.theweek.com... ster_mystery

www.foxnews.com...

So it is a raccoon after all. Seems a bizarre thing to do though, set fire to a dead raccoon and send it out to sea. And why just admit this now??