The famed Monster of Montauk.
A photograph of what people have been calling a "sea monster"—a rodent-like animal with a beak—has created quite a stir on the East End. Four government biologists contacted by Plum were unable to identify the species of the animal from its photo and came to the conclusion that "no such creature exists," putting forth the possibility that the photo may have been doctored. But a graphics specialist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services calls the photo—if it were doctored—a "really good Photoshop job."
The Monster of Montauk's "good side."
The validity of the picture has been further established by the numerous eyewitnesses who saw the animal on the beach in front of Montauk's Surfside Inn. Theories abound as to what the animal is and where it came from. Marci Caplis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted that rare and unknown sea animals did surface after the Asian tsunami, and although the recent East Coast storms are not of comparable magnitude, the animal did wash up on a particularly stormy day in the Hamptons. Others have speculated that the animal escaped from Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
UPDATE: 08/02/2008
Following this lead we looked into "eerie" Plum Island and contacted Dr. Larry Barrett, Center Director of Plum Island Animal Disease Center, who was kind enough to supply his take:
"It is impossible to accurately identify the species of animal from the photo. There is no scale from which to judge its size. Additionally, when a body has had prolonged exposure to water and predators, it can be altered or appear different from its normal form. If we had the actual body, we could tell you what it is; however, from viewing a canine tooth in the picture, we could guess it may be a cat or a raccoon. I can state categorically that it is not associated with the work performed at Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC). PIADC serves as the nation's first line of defense against foreign animal diseases of livestock by identifying such diseases through diagnostic testing and by developing vaccines to protect livestock from those diseases."
The mystery thickens ... or does it? Steven T. Papa, a Senior Endangered Species/Federal Projects Biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has told Plum:
“Based on these higher resolution photos, it appears to be a raccoon based on estimating overall ear length to body length ratio in the photos to measurements found in the literature, as well as lower jaw and front leg characteristics.
This is the best I could do without seeing the ‘animal.’”
Is this monster simply a raccoon, maybe. Hear what the woman behind the lens has to say. Photographer Jenna Hewitt of Montauk, and two companions who also saw the animal, appeared on Plum's "The Juice" to talk monster.
Check out more of the unusual side of life on Plum:
Shark "Attack" Caught On Video
A Tree Grows in Water Mill
It looks weird because it's
It looks weird because it's in a form that most people have never seen before - it's turtle or tortoise without it's shell.
Of course most people
Of course most people haven't seen a turtle or tortoise without its shell, because that typically splits the turtle in half. A shell-less turtle definitely doesn't look like that. More like a pile of destroyed flesh and organs.
The thing itself shows extreme bloating, probably would've exploded from the gases inside of it within a few more hours. you'd be surprised what a dog can look like whenever its decomposing.
You obviously don't know
You obviously don't know anything about turtles, if it did not have its shell it would have a gaping hole in its back, considering a turtle's shell is attached to its spine. And tortoises live on land, with the same features.
Also, I'm pretty sure that
Also, I'm pretty sure that turtles and tortoises don't have teeth. That thing pretty definitely has teeth. If it's a normal animal, it's a dog. A decaying dog with it's front paws tied together.
I'm pretty sure that dog's
I'm pretty sure that dog's don't have beaks either.
And I'm pretty sure you've
And I'm pretty sure you've never seen a decaying dog/raccoon/carnivorous mammal that has been bloated in the water for whoever knows how long.
Yep, that's what it is, a
Yep, that's what it is, a decaying dog. I mean look at the mandibles, the skeletal structure of the limbs / joints, the canine teeth, the tail, the remnant of 'fur' behind the jaw, and the obvious placement af the ears atop the skull. Though in its present state, it is hard to determine exactly what TYPE of dog, I'm guesing something like a boxer (a slightly overweight one).
This thing has a beak tho...
This thing has a beak tho...
Look at the shoulder and arm
Look at the shoulder and arm joint structures. Look at the forearms to the paws...look at the hips and legs. It is an animal made for RUNNING, not swimming. No signs of fins or flippers...the tail is not like a beaver or an eel; the essence of evolution is that life adapts to its surroundings; if that is the case, this thing is going the wrong way!
As to the "beak" it is incongruent with either fin or fur animals, and is likely a transplanted form.
I'd suggest a fake with acts of voluntary collusion, and a bit of photoshop artistic license.
Its a Dog-Tortoise-Racoon
Its a Dog-Tortoise-Racoon Lemur. Very rarely found in the US, this creature mostly inhabits the backroads of TexarKana and western Utah. They are almost extinct
It's hard to descibe what it
It's hard to descibe what it is because its not one species it is a experimental bio engineered animal probably from a classified test operation of whom i cant say but im sure that it is not the first or the last that we will see of these mutations
definitely agreed. also, all
definitely agreed.
also, all three of those women should've tried to come up with a far more clever & consistent story about what was done about the remains of this "creature."
I looks like my mother in
I looks like my mother in law
first of all man theres no
first of all man theres no way its a turtle without a shell, there would be no spine there because turtles spines are attatched the shell. its more like a mamal of some sort.
IT is clearly a turtle
IT is clearly a turtle without a shell!!!
Turtle's without shells
Turtle's without shells don't have spinal cords either. If you doubt me then look at a complete turtle shell, you will see the spine attached.
It looks like a GRIFFIN!!!
It looks like a GRIFFIN!!! We have so many myths, legends and unknown creatures in this world today, i wouldn't doubt it being a griffin or something else. I am a very open minded person and i believe all the myths and tales and legends. How could we have had legends and myths today without it happening first. So the stories of creatures told today, we can't say it isn't real or a fake or nonsense because we weren't there all those hundred years ago or thousand years ago. It had to happen first before it became a myth or legend.
OMG!! YES!!! THAT'S EXACTLY
OMG!! YES!!! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE!!! I'm not the only one who thinks it!!
I completely agree. The world is getting much smaller by the year, things that could have existed, and may still do are seeming to surface because the human popluation is spreading out over the globe. There is no real way to tell if this creature is that of myth, or if it's a hoax unless you've seen it yourself, in person. Not seeing it in person, and considering that scientists have no idea what the creature is FOR SURE(as they can't decide what the hell it is), I'm all for the possiblity that it could be a Griffin, or some kind of other "mythical" creature.
Oh my god! I'm not alone! I
Oh my god! I'm not alone! I so agree with you!
I mean, think about the chances here.... People don't know what the hell it is, and they can't decide weather it's a dead dog, raccoon, or turtule, yet there's solid evidence against all three of those options.
The only evidence you've got against this option is the lack of evidence. Other than that, what do people have to say? I honestly think there's a chance that any creature mentioned in myth/legend existed, and could possibly still exist.
Either that, or the entire thing is a well planned out and played out hoax.
The body of a lion and the
The body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle. Although I welcome the idea of a mythical mystery, what a bummer life would be for a griffin who could not fly. Wings have a skeletal system that is lacking on the remains of the baffling beast. I regret also to believe that the beak is not a beak at all but a skull peering through the decomposing flesh of what was once something recognizable. A racoon? Maybe. An unexplained phenomenon from the great beyond? Why not?
It could've been a Griffin
It could've been a Griffin because you never know if it was flying too high and got burned by the sun or if it just lost his wings over time because it is a prehistorical mythical creature.
Griffins were supposed to
Griffins were supposed to have wings. Nice guess tho.
all in all yes they are
all in all yes they are supposed to have wings but we are in the day of birth defects how many things are born with deformity 2 heads 1 arm no legs people with tails turtles dont have fur
I agree that it does
I agree that it does resemble a griffin. However, a griffin was supposed to be a flying creature. I, for one, would jump for utter joy to find the legends of the griffin turned out to be reality. Alas, that is really unlikely.
Furthermore, the idea that myths and legends must somehow be true by virtue of their existence is ridiculous and poorly thought out. The spawn of video and photographs have helped to prove that human perception is very flawed and often unreliable. Eyewitness reports for crimes can be so varied that it is conclusively proven that human beings can see things and believe things that haven't happened and cannot happened - after all, when you have two people say the complete opposite thing, they can't both be true (in most cases).
But, this does smell of some kind of marketing campaign. The girls in the video are too sly and too elusive about certain things. Further, the absence of any empirical evidence and data to analyze is more than suspicious. And, a photograph gives us nothing. The ease of manipulating photographs has become child's play.
I don't trust these girls.
I respect your opinion, but
I respect your opinion, but if it was a griffin, wouldn't it have wings?
Maybe it's a Chubracabra??!!
Maybe it's a Chubracabra??!!
cool
cool
Um, it categorically can NOT
Um, it categorically can NOT be a turtle or tortoise of any kind (even unknown) because of the simple fact you can see the workings of vertebrae under the supposed corpse' skin. Were it a turtle "missing" its shell, it would also be missing its spine, as the are basically one and the same. You've been watching too many cartoons where the turtle takes off its shell to do some sort of sight gag.
Why is it that these strange
Why is it that these strange animal always have only one photo with nothing to scale it by. With all of those looking at it, only one photo...come on. If I found something like that, I would take a million shots and present the caucus to the NETWORK media. It's a hoax.
what if we used the horsefly
what if we used the horsefly as scale. I dont understand the mathmatics of scale but if we figure a horsefly at about 1 in long could we guestimate the size of the animal?
If that is a horsefly that
If that is a horsefly that is ~1" long then the creature is approximately 4 feet long from the base of the tail to the tip of the beak. The fly is 10px and the creature is 486px. It stands to reason that this lady took the picture standing up and I estimate it is at about a 30deg downward angle.
It does not look like bloating has caused any real distortion of its original shape. Bloating happens mostly in the belly since there are no skeletal structures to keep the pressure back.
On a lighter note... If this is Photoshopped then the author made the creature flip us all off :)
You can't seperate a turtle
You can't seperate a turtle or tortoise from their shell. The shell is an extension of the animal's actual skeletal structure. There's no "animal inside" of a shell the way they portray them in Bugs Bunny cartoons. The shell IS the animal. It literally is an external bone growth. You can't take them out of it the way we take off our shirts. They never even shed their shells like crustaceans do, the shell grows with them. Besides, tortoises and turtles DONT HAVE TEETH!!! Especially not the sharp variety apparent in the Monster. Those teeth are the teeth of a carnivore.
It is not a turtle, they do
It is not a turtle, they do not have teeth like that. I think that it is a severly decomposed raccoon. Look at the fingers. It does not have a beak. It just looks like it after all the rotting away of its face. What I would be concerned with is why are its front legs bound. Obviously some sort of animal cruelty going on. Was it dead when they threw it in the ocean with it's feet tied? Or maybe somebody was using it as live shark bait. Hmmmmmmmm...... the possibilities are endless, but I definetly don't think its some monster. It is a poor defensless, very known animal, that died some horrible death and has rotted beyond visual recongnization. Tell the people who claimed to have the body to give it up so that somebody can prove what it is and everybody can get on with their lives. Thank you and have a blessed day! :O)
It looks like a calf that
It looks like a calf that drowned and then the jaw has been deformed by the salt of the sea.. the body does not look like a raccoon or a dog.. but a calf.. from maybe a deformed cow... it happens.
Search on that and you will see.. you can see that the legs has been tied up.. for a reason..
maybe the calf was deformed.. so.. maybe someone wanted someone to find that deformed body..
just my opinion.. but there is a lot of weird species around and we have to realize that we do not know who else is living up here.
When a body has been in the
When a body has been in the water for a period of time wether it's a human being or an animal, the first parts the fish eat are the soft fleshy parts like the lips, eyelids etc. My guess would be a cat or dog that has been floating around for some time, and has had these parts eaten off exposing the facial skeleten underneath. Yuk.
It's a dead pitbull!!! What
It's a dead pitbull!!! What is wrong with you people?
Yes, I totally agree. If you
Yes, I totally agree. If you look at the animal's rump, you can distinguish that it is specifically a pit bull. The face has been worn away to expose a skull (or partial skull) that appears to look like a beak. . .
I live in montauk and i have
I live in montauk and i have seen the thing first hand it is at my friends house and my friends sister took the photo this thing is real. i have a different pic on my phone. The thing is real
If you have seen the thing
If you have seen the thing and know where it is, then you should convince your friend to share it with the world. Let some veterinarians look at it and tell us what it is.
If this is real it shouldn't
If this is real it shouldn't be at anybodies house! It should be handed over to appropriate authorities the first day it was found! If actual scientist never see this than no one will ever believe any of you. Also my company works with Plum Island and I really don't believe anything of this nature goes on there. One of their main concerns is zoonotic diseases and helping to protect the population from them. Which leads me to if it is from Plum Island I would be worried about what disease it is carrying because they work with stuff that will kill you.
I am absoletly sure its real
I am absoletly sure its real too. A real racoon: http://www.animachina.com/images/whatisit/montauk_monster_racoon.jpg
This website is what looks
This website is what looks photoshopped. It looks as if someone took the photo of the "monster" and photoshopped raccoon features on top of it. Personally I think it is an otter.
The artwork was superimposed
The artwork was superimposed over the picture to show how it fits a raccoon body. If you look at the raccoon skull in the bottom of the photo you can see how it fits the body found. I know raccoons quite well and the feet, ears, tail, size are all raccoon. Thanks for the great pic showing the skull for comparison.
I would like to have this
I would like to have this creatures body for further study, do you know where it is or how I can find out more info as to where it is? by the way, its not a monster, I wont tell you at this time what it is but Im certin that through a closer inspection i can confirm just what it is and the name that goes with it. any help would be great. please call if you can help me. thank you, Dr. Kilby phone 818-282-2557
You know Plum Island is not
You know Plum Island is not that far away from that area and "things happen" over there...
It's a dead dog with a
It's a dead dog with a decomposed snout. It's fully consistent with canine anatomy, though twisted into a sickening position. The paws are somewhat skeletized but are structurally canine, and the rounded structure in the face what remains of the upper jawline after the soft tissue of the nose has decomposed. The only thing causing confusion is the severe state of decomposition. Ask forensics experts and they'll tell you this is a decomposed dog.
Unless dogs started growing
Unless dogs started growing flippers this is new to me...I'm leaning toward a turtle without a shell because of the beak and flippers.
Not a Turtle without a
Not a Turtle without a shell. Turtles' spines are attatched to their shell so in that case you'd be able to see its insides if the shell was ripped off. dog or racoon is my guess.
those are not flippers; they
those are not flippers; they are just decomposed paws!
Um, just wondering but if I
Um, just wondering but if I found that I would call the CDC and / or keep it as proof. My bet is that no one kept anything and that they all conveniently walked away, leaving no evidence outside of this 'photo'.
Add your comments...