Oh my gosh! Its so freaky looking.
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.

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.

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.

Why does it appear that the right forlimb is giving you the finger? That ought to be the tipoff right there.

"This is a big world, with an even bigger ocean."

Well, not really. How can the subset be bigger than the superset?

:D

Bloated dog carcass

I'm almost sure it's a Koala. Wonder how it would have gotten there though.

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.

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!!!

Prehaps another creation from Juan Cabana.

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!!!

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.

Definite hoax -- photoshop all the way.

cant u see its a boar without its fur jeez.

It's a henweigh... duh

It doesn't have the right feet for a boar, dog, or raccoon. <a >There's only one animal in the US that has matching anatomy, and it's not supposed to live in New York.</a>

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.

Sightings of living specimens and of another dead one are reported on
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.

This website has all the new pictures of the Montauk Monster along with some good reading! -- www.Montauk-Monster.com Enjoy!

It is a waterlogged, bloated dead dog. Look at the teeth and compare them to the dog snout at the vet's office, the one he uses to show you how crappy your dog's teeth are. The feet are buried in the sand. The fur is mostly off, from water immersion. The skin is slightly pickled and waterlogged from the saltwater. The soft tissues around the mouth have also been eaten by crabs or fish and eroded away, exposing the teeth. This is a dog that fell off a boat, was intentionally drowned, had a swimming accident, or died and was discarded in the ocean.

It's a raccoon.
The front teeth are missing in the jaw, and the paws are a dead giveaway.
Nothing more than a decaying, but still possibly tampered with, corpse of a raccoon.

I

there is nothing to scale it against - it could be an inch long.

If the pictures here: http://www.montauk-monster.com/

...are indeed the same carcass, then it is very clear it is a dog. Skull and teeth and general morphology match. Bloated and partly decomposed.

Darren Naish over at Tetrapod Zoology has a good analysis (with newer photos) and is pretty convincing about the raccoon hypothesis.

Wow i dont know what to make of it but it might be a turtle without a shell but a turtle's backbone and rib bones are connected with the shell, so if it were separated, it wouldn't look like a raccoon.God knows what is it.

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/08/the_montauk_monster.php


It was a raccoon.....

One of Dr.Steels experiments got out?

www.DoctorSteel.com

Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >