Comments on: Clapsadle Carcass: Another Mysterious Bloated Beach Body

By: klgonzalez

klgonzalez — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:22:18 +0000

OK Any of you chime in now, A Wild Boar Hog. It Explains the whole anatomy. They are known to live on island areas. It drown then washed ashore. PAY ME I’M DONE.

By: Sordes

Sordes — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:24:26 +0000

There is a very good argument against a skunk: The tail. Skunks have much longer tails. But I agree that the skull looks very much like those of a mustelid, like for example a skunk. But a badger actually seems much more probable.

By: Kit_Seraphina

Kit_Seraphina — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:01:37 +0000

The skull to me looks like maybe a badger the body might be as well, it does look it. But how could a badger be by the ocean. To me the whole thing seems fishy. And I agree with others that the skull and body looks pieced together. Maybe its a bloated otter carcass?

By: pitbulllady

pitbulllady — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:34:17 +0000

Check out this skull, and compare it to the skull of this latest “monster”.

The skull morphology, dental arrangement, and the presence of large amounts of fat deposits on this animal point to Striped Skunk. Skunks, unlike ‘coons, go into a sort of semi-hibernation during the winter months, and pack on large amounts of body fat in the fall to prepare for this. The length of the legs (yes, they’re legs, not flippers or paddles, which rules out pinnipeds like a seal or walrus) is right, the skull is right, the body fat is right, and even the presence of dark fur around the neck is right for a skunk. I could not see enough of the tail in any of the photos, but it’s possible that the tail could have been cut off if it’s not there, or could have rotted off. I’ve had one skunk, a de-scented fur farm refugee (yes, skunks are bred for their pelts). When his fur was wet, it would “kink” up, just like the little bit of fur left on this animal, and he was really quite a hefty fellow! Skunks have some really impressive teeth for their size, like the other members of the Mustilid family.

By: Sordes

Sordes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:11:47 +0000

Domestic dogs have a skull with a forehead, which is not present in this animals, even in pitbulls and bulldogs. But the skulls of badgers and raccoons lack this feature (just google for it). And the hind legs are too short and the back quarter of the body too plump to come from a dog.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:42:47 +0000

It’s a row of otters, decomposing in formation.

By: CalebKitson

CalebKitson — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:23:09 +0000

I watched the video, and I think it is a raccoon.

By: RyanWinters86

RyanWinters86 — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:48:58 +0000

It cant be a bear…I saw another picture and it had a guy standing next to it and its only like 2 and a half feet long….It also cant be a seal because it has a tail…I think its fake…Its kinda odd how only the skull is decomposed or eaten just like the montauk monster.

By: Sordes

Sordes — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:05:22 +0000

It is interesting that many people suppose it could be a kind of seal. Well, the skull looks indeed not that different from those of a seal, but the photos show also very clearly that this animal had legs and no flippers. Especially the back legs are very strong, and there is no possibility that it was a marine creature. The skulls of black bears look similar, but they have several differences, and especially the dentition is different. Their teeth have lesser sharp edges and their premolars are much more reduced and often even missing.

By: fossilhunter

fossilhunter — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:46:35 +0000

After seeing a still from the video (see link above) the thing is only about 2 - 3 feet long. Given the legs looking very not-flipperish and the short tail, I’m thinking domestic dog. Maybe a classic bulldog. We don’t have no stinking badgers around here, (bad joke, sorry!) but their head is flattened, so I would think the skull would be too, and this Clappsdale animal doesn’t seem to have that.