Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
The Montauk Monster
Status: Undetermined
The story so far:A bizarre creature washed up on Ditch Plains beach near Montauk, New York on July 12.
Local resident Jenna Hewitt took some photos of it. However, the body is now gone. Some guy (unidentified) supposedly has it in his backyard.
In the absence of any evidence except for the photo, there are many theories about what it might be: a sea turtle, a dog, a raccoon missing an upper jaw, a creature from the government's animal-disease lab on Plum Island, or a hoax.
We'll have to wait and see what transpires. Links: Newsday, Gawker.
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Oh my gosh! Its so freaky looking.
It does actually look like a seaturtle without a shell.
Posted by tegan in Australia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:12 AM
It does actually look like a seaturtle without a shell.
I rather like Gawkwer's suitably cynical response: it's bound to be viral marketing for something.
Posted by outeast on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:30 AM
I don't know... why wouldn't there be any creatures left that have never been discovered before? This is a big world, with an even bigger ocean. If this is real, it's got a mum and dad, brothers and sisters, somewhere. If it's not real, it's certainly entertaining. I hope we get to find out the truth.
Posted by Allie in Australia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:36 AM
It sort of has flippers like a turtle...but it almost looks like it has quite a few teeth in it's lower jaw. Turtles don't just slip out of their shells like in cartoons. It's attached. If the shell came off, it would look sort of like something that's been skinned.
Posted by Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:34 AM
Why does it appear that the right forlimb is giving you the finger? That ought to be the tipoff right there.
Posted by KDP in Madill, OK on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:51 AM
"This is a big world, with an even bigger ocean."
Well, not really. How can the subset be bigger than the superset?
:D
Posted by Smartalek in Michigan on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:00 AM
Well, not really. How can the subset be bigger than the superset?
:D
Bloated dog carcass
Posted by LaMa in Europe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I'm almost sure it's a Koala. Wonder how it would have gotten there though.
Posted by donjuan in Michigan on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Yeah, it would be difficult for a turtle to just slip out of its shell, since that would involve leaving behind its ribs and backbone. Turtles tend to be rather attached to those sorts of things.
It doesn't look particularly like something very aquatic. Rat-like tail, big ears, well-developed legs. . .at most, it could be a land critter that sometimes wanders into shallow water.
Posted by Accipiter in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:20 AM
It doesn't look particularly like something very aquatic. Rat-like tail, big ears, well-developed legs. . .at most, it could be a land critter that sometimes wanders into shallow water.
I vote it as a "PHONEY"!!! The shadowing around the corpse doesn't match. For example, look at the shodow around the "shoulder and head" area, compared to the shadowing around the "hip" area. The shadows cast at the shoulder and head are MUCH longer than the shadows around the hip (and for a much shorter & smaller part of the critter as well). Nice photoshop image though, but they better pay closer attention to those shadows next time, if they want anybody to SERIOUSLY consider the validity of such an image!!!
Posted by Christopher in Warm, sunny Florida... on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Prehaps another creation from Juan Cabana.
Posted by Sam E on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:14 PM
BTW, why is it that whenever somebody encounters one of the deceased "beasts", there is only ONE photo, taken at the most obscure angle, such as, to leave a speck of "wonder" in any persons mind that views the photo. I can assure you, that IF these bizzare animals were really in existence, there would be a photo ALBUM taken when discovered, the critter would have been hauled off, and lab tests would have been done to determine just what it was... Henceforth and furthermore, I feel that THIS explanation, more than anything else, exposes this photo as a PHONEY!!!
Posted by Christopher in Warm, sunny Florida... on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:25 PM
Assuming that it is real, and I think that it is, it looks like a dead mammal of some sort with the extremities eaten or rotted away. The look of the mouth is very similar to that of dead rotting cattle for instance.
Posted by Robert N in Croydon, UK on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:25 AM
Definite hoax -- photoshop all the way.
Posted by Kathiran in Detroit Rock City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 05:20 AM
cant u see its a boar without its fur jeez.
Posted by Thomas in Lithuania on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:17 AM
It's a henweigh... duh
Posted by Hairy Houdini on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:30 AM
It doesn't have the right feet for a boar, dog, or raccoon. There's only one animal in the US that has matching anatomy, and it's not supposed to live in New York.
Posted by Boju in California on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:18 PM
The LiveJournal cryptozoology community is covering news on this and debates about what it could/could not be, if you're interested-
http://community.livejournal.com/cryptozoology/
They've already ruled out some of the most common suggestions. We'll probably have news on what it really is when that becomes available.
Posted by SuperGrouper in United States on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:51 PM
http://community.livejournal.com/cryptozoology/
They've already ruled out some of the most common suggestions. We'll probably have news on what it really is when that becomes available.
Sightings of living specimens and of another dead one are reported on
http://www.earthfiles.com
For what it's worth
Posted by Rob in Belgium on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:18 AM
http://www.earthfiles.com
For what it's worth
Looks like someone didn't want to dissect their fetal pig in anatomy class. While most people think pigs don't have hair - they do. Also, in the two photos I've seen of this critter, the paws are hidden except the one giving the finger (which appears to be torn).
In a post above, Boju in Ca links to a website where the owner believes that the critter is a badger. The ears on the monster are flappy while a badger has small, rounded ones. These ears look like ones from a hog.
If you will also notice that the monster has no nose so another of our main identifiers is missing (since we can't see it's feet either).
So, there are my two cents.
Posted by RainOubliette in Pennsylvania on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:38 AM
In a post above, Boju in Ca links to a website where the owner believes that the critter is a badger. The ears on the monster are flappy while a badger has small, rounded ones. These ears look like ones from a hog.
If you will also notice that the monster has no nose so another of our main identifiers is missing (since we can't see it's feet either).
So, there are my two cents.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >