Cryptomundo » New Montauk Monster Pic and Cryptid Marketing

New Montauk Monster Pic and Cryptid Marketing

Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 1st, 2008

New photographs, above, have been published of the “Montauk Monster,” which allegedly washed up on a beach in Montauk. These photos are by Christina Pampalone.

The Montauk Monster has created an Internet sensation. It is today’s #1 Yahoo search. It’s been on Cryptomundo, Boing Boing, and The Anomalist for days. It reminds me of the “Maine Mutant.” Sometimes these kinds of things have a life of their own, so to speak, especially if there is a compelling image.

Now we are seeing everyone under the sun piggyback (pun-intended) on the Montauk Monster. That’s okay. We’ve been here before.

It is a cryptid, an unknown animal, until it is identified, of course, and that makes for a great story for the mainstream media, when they have a photo or even a few.

Joye Brown of Newsday reports today that the story is indeed real.

Brown tells of how the famed photo (seen directly above) has a known photographer: “Jenna Hewitt, of Montauk, and three friends crept up to examine one side. And Hewitt snapped the camera shot heard ’round the world.”

Christina Pampalone, of East Northport, however, had actually taken the first photos (one is shown at the top of this posting).

“I was telling people, all day (Wednesday), that I had better photos,” Pampalone said.

“Everybody I showed her pictures to said it looks like a dead dog,” her friend Ryan O’Shea, of Brooklyn, said.

“But looking at the claws, and at the teeth in the front, it looked like it could be something else, something vicious.”

It was relatively small, roughly 21/2 to 3 feet long, he said.

Brown notes that the rumor that the thing is in someone’s backyard is false, apparently, as it has been moved.

Interestingly, Brown has collected some other interesting info from his readers:

Joann Dileardo saw it at the end of Roe Avenue in Patchogue, a few weeks ago. “I didn’t know what that thing was,” she said. “It looked like a pig.”

Another reader, Pat, e-mailed that the ladies in his office saw it on an East Quogue beach — back in April.

Elizabeth Barbeiri said her family saw it about a mile east of Gurney’s Inn in Montauk, July 14. And Ryan Kelso, via iPhone, said he spotted it — alive! — in the Montauk dunes. “It looked about the size of an average fox, gray in color, eyes like a mole, hairless and was breathing quite heavily,” he wrote, “needless to say we were freaked out by this discovery and fled the area quickly.”

Lavey Fater saw a surfer bring one to shore, near Ditch Plains.

“It was hairless and gross,” Fater reported. “… The surfer said he had no idea what it was, but that he threw it in the dunes because he didn’t want to be surfing next to it.”

Keith found something last week in Greenport; Chris found one a month ago at Jones Beach east of Field 6. (”The one I saw had a longer snout or beak or whatever you want to call it.”) Sean said he buried one, 3 feet deep, in South Jamesport.

Of course, you notice Cryptomundo carried news of this as soon as we heard about it three days ago, and, no doubt, contributed to spreading the news. Then we became positively involved through commenting on the Venom search for the “monster.”

Cryptid Marketing

The response has been generally good-humored and filled with crypto-intrigue regarding the fact Dr. Pepper/Snapple’s Venom Energy Drink would offer a bounty for the live capture of the Montauk Monster.

Prizes, bounties, and cryptomarketing are nothing new to the popular cultural side of cryptozoology.

As recently as the Bushnell Trailcam and the Wizards of the Coast Duel Masters Card prizes, there have been bounties.

In only a small percentage of the comments recorded at Cryptomundo (two that I could quickly find) did I note a lack of historical referencing, regarding cryptids being used in ads.

People wrote in, saying:

“Is this the beginning of a new advertising trend? Will companies begin to monetize cryptid sightings?”

“And for Venom to so quickly jump in with their ad campaign, utilizing loren of all people, and playing this up so, smacks of hype, Madison Avenue, and frankly muddies the waters where genuine cryptozoological interests can be raised.”

While there have been many older examples, one can look back to 1997, to discover Rene Dahinden was immortalized in a popular television ad for Kokanee beer.

Dahinden’s pursuit of Sasquatch had made him so famous that the brewers of Kokanee beer asked him to play himself in the commercial. Even then he didn’t get to see the Sasquatch. Facing the camera, with the unpretentious mobile home he lived in as background, an off-camera narrator asks if Dahinden ever used B.C.-made Kokanee beer to lure a Sasquatch.

“Do you think I’m crazy or something?” asks Dahinden, unaware that behind him a Sasquatch is sneaking into his trailer to make off with a case of beer.

The Kokanee Sasquatch has become so famous itself today that you can find a nine-foot statue out in front of the Columbia Brewery’s Kokanee Beer Gear Store at 1220 Erickson St. Creston, British Columbia. (Anyone able to pick up some Sasquatch souvenirs there for the International Cryptozoology Museum, if you stop by? Thanks.)

Other recent examples of cryptids and commercial campaigns have included

Adrian Shine and the Loch Ness Monster selling Toyotas, and

beef jerky being sold in the series of “Messin’ With Sasquatch” commercials.

Cryptids and ads have been friendly companions for quite a few years now. There is no reason the Montauk Monster shouldn’t get the same honor.

++++
Save The Museum!!

This entry was posted on Friday, August 1st, 2008 at 7:22 am and is filed under Artifacts, Bigfoot, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptomundo Exclusive, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Photos, Pop Culture, Weird Animal News. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

71 Responses to “New Montauk Monster Pic and Cryptid Marketing”

krvega responds: August 1st, 2008 at 10:33 am
Just created an account. This is my first ever post.

Ok…here goes: That looks like something unusual.
Yankee responds: August 1st, 2008 at 10:49 am
I really don’t mind the marketing aspect of cryptids.

I’m guessing that this “monster” could be a Pit Bull.
kittenz responds: August 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
It looks like the bloated decomposed carcass of a fat dog with the toes either chopped off or eroded away, and the nose eroded away.
mystery_man responds: August 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
That’s weird. The body is in a completely different position in the two photos and the face, coloration, and amount of hair are noticeably different as well. Two different specimens? From the reports, it seems like these things have been popping up all over the place even though to my knowledge nothing like this creature has been sighted before this. What is going on here? I’m watching this whole thing with amusement.

In my opinion, the top picture seems kind of fake. I don’t know what it is, and I’m not well versed in photoshop to say that this is the reason, but it does not look to me like the image of an actual carcass. I could be wrong, but the image just doesn’t sit right with me. I haven’t seen anything about the physical evidence to accompany the photographs. Any progress on that front? DNA tests? Thorough examination by scientists? Where is the body now?

I’m at a loss what to think. We have these intriguing photos, yet no follow on the body that I’ve seen. The reports are suddenly coming out of the woodwork on an animal that no one has ever heard about in even a cryptid sense. That top photo, I don’t know, it just doesn’t look real, and I just don’t know how much credence we can lend all of these reports regarding the animal. Even though it is said by Brown here that the story is real, is there any way at all that Venom could be fabricating the whole thing for advertising purposes?
mrdark responds: August 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
It’s a dog. Dead, bloated, and may have had sarcoptic mange before that, but it’s a dog.
Charlotte responds: August 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
I saw a video of this creature with back hooves tied, set in what they said was Saudi Arabia. The voice-over was in Arabic. Said the creature had been captured there. Yeah. Right.
ConsentRevoked responds: August 1st, 2008 at 11:26 am
wow. that new pic seems infinitely creepier to me. if i shaved my overweight dog, would he look like that?
is that hide with hair on it?
are we still thinking raccoon?
i just don’t know what to think. it looks rather fat to me, and since we rarely see overweight animals in the wild, since (unlike my chubby dog) they have to work for their food, signs point to a domestic….something? i’m at a loss. all i can say with certainty is that there is something eerily human-like about the way it’s lying there in the top pic, the back end especially. i wasn’t really creeped out until now.
gloomer responds: August 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hmmm. Seems toi lose a lot from this new angle. Dog ears more pronounced… beak gone… lumpy, puffy dog body clearer to see. Just a dead dog.
Greg102 responds: August 1st, 2008 at 11:44 am
I’ve always thought it looked like a pit bull! The new picture confirms those suspicions.
HOOSIERHUNTER responds: August 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
It’s a dog. Poor puppy probably never got anywhere near this much attention in life.

As to the ads–I don’t really think marketing exposure helps cryptozoology. It does not focus light on possible cryptids in a positive way. Instead it transforms serious research into a joke and leaves the impression with the general public that cryptids are not to be taken seriously.
Would Jane Goodall star in a commercial that makes her research look lighthearted and unimportant?
If we play along with the attempts, unintentional as they may be, to make cryptozoology look like a silly pastime and the people rather ridiculous. Not that I’m against a good sense of humor about the subject, mind you. But most of the people out there don’t know or care about what we know about cryptozoology. Consequently, any critical thought or even passing belief in it is undermined. Just my two cents on the subject, (I’ll make change if needed.)
ConsentRevoked responds: August 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
hmm….yes, shape of head looks very pitbullish, but the hair looks like it may be too long? maybe a cross? also, if what i take to be an eye is really an eye, it doesn’t seem to be quite in the right place for a pit. would be too close-set.
however, having never seen a bloated waterlogged pitbull carcass before, what do i know?
i’m not backing down on the creep factor, though.
Loren Coleman responds: August 1st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Hoosierhunter asks:

“Would Jane Goodall star in a commercial that makes her research look lighthearted and unimportant?”

Well, of course, we aren’t Jane Goodall, but one should be careful about what people we are held up against, I suppose.

After all, Ms. Goodall has come out firmly in the pro-Sasquatch camp, and gosh, she even did a few commercials in her past showing she has a sense of humor about her “important research.” How about the following one, for example?
ToTheLastSkeptic responds: August 1st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
With it being this bloated it’s kind of hard to tell what kind of dog it might have been, but I’m 99.9% sure that’s all it would turn out to be.
pitch black moon responds: August 1st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
For the most part I’m going to agree with this being a dead dog.
Two things bother me, however:
1 - A canine skull would have pronounced upper canine teeth (fangs), but the photo only reveals lower. This could be natural, or could have been caused by physical damage to the top jaw.
2 - While the rest of the corpse seems consistent with a dog, the front paws seem off. In the newest photo they are obscured by sand, but the older photo shows them to be elongated and strange for a member of the canine family.

I also wanted to comment on the excerpt above that reads “…via iPhone, said he spotted it — alive! — in the Montauk dunes. “It looked about the size of an average fox, gray in color, eyes like a mole, hairless and was breathing quite heavily…”
The part about it being hairless really bugs me. This new photo shows that it clearly had a coat at one time. In fact, the entire statement smacks of this person seeing the first photo and just claiming that he saw it alive.
I think that whatever this creature turns out to be, it didn’t look the way it does now when it was alive.
domi responds: August 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
It looks a bit more like a rottweiler than a pit bull to me, given the eye position and the size (up to 3ft.) The remaining coat could also easily be a sun-bleached rottweiler coat.
Jonathan_maberry responds: August 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Could this be an animal with mange that escaped from the testing facility on Plum Island?
Sordes responds: August 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Very nice to see another view of the carcass. And it is also interesting how fast many people were to say “photoshop”. I still think a badger would be no bad idea, especially as the size is now known. There are several things which would speak for this idea too:

-shape of the body with a stocky backside and comparable narrow fronside
-shape of the skull. Dogs, even pitbulls have in general an “angle” from the snout to the front which is not seen in this animal. Furthermore the skull proportions with a mandible which makes out only comparable little from the whole head, which is typical for mustelids and their relatives.
-the fur, even if there is not much left is very similar to those of a badger.
-the limbs, which are comparably short, with much more massive hind legs and longer front legs.
-the claws. They are comparably straight, very bright and also very long. They don´t become more narrow at their ends. They look not like normal dog claws which are much shorter, and also not like racoon claws which are shorter, curved, with pointed ends and dark colour.
-Even the ears would fit with the general anatomy of a badger.
shaynafay responds: August 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Doesn’t anyone else see the large “tusklike” bottom teeth. Once I saw the new picture, I immediately thought wild pig or boar. And a young one at that.
jayman responds: August 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
It seems like not just the upper canines, but most or all of the upper teeth have been removed. The lower jaw appears to have been defleshed. Kind of reminds me of the old animal-mutilation stories.
Maybe a badger? Squat, thickset body, short legs.
Maine Crypto responds: August 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The new angle really makes me think dog. Loren, you are right, it is the Maine Mutant all over again!! Did anyone get a blood sample???
cryptidsrus responds: August 1st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I’m sorry, I’m having a heck of a time seeing this as a pig, or even a dog, but I’ll leave open the possibility.

There is nothing wrong with marketing this. This was an unusual find, so people can use it as part of a campaign. If Sasquatch can be used, so can this.
mellowknees responds: August 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I thought there was a news story that had confirmed that it was a skinned raccoon? Sure looks raccoony to me.
proriter responds: August 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Just a dog, folks.
jjs1138 responds: August 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
This link leaves my with little doubt that this animal is a raccoon.
krvega responds: August 1st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
It’s a dog. Decomposed. Rotting away. The sun, the sand, and the water: great contributors to the decomposition process. Don’t read into this any more than needed.
Andrew Minnesota responds: August 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
According to the first post there was an animal testing facility nearby…

could this be Al Gore’s MANBEARPIG?

I’m definitely more open to the dog theory with these new photos however the front feet in the original photo still make me think, could it be something else? Also the hair about the neck in the original photo is curly while in the new one we see that it is smoother. Supposedly the new one was taken before the first photo that we got to see, so perhaps the corpse drying has changed the coloration of the skin and the texture of the hair, fur, whatever it is. Looking forward to more updates
akrako1 responds: August 1st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
best suggestion I’ve heard is that it’s a turtle/tortoise without it’s shell.. The ’snapper’ type of ‘beak’ makes me think turtle, and the short arms, and tail all add up. Anyone know what a turtle looks like without it’s shell? it would be nice to compare..

Though I do have to admit, the ‘new’ picture looks a lot different from the last one. Wonder why there aren’t any close ups…
ShefZ28 responds: August 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
if the newer pic was the original pic taken, then the darker discoloration would be the blood pooling in the lower areas of the body correct? You see the same thing in human bodies if they aren’t found for a little bit of time. Also if you look at the back legs in the new pic, you see the pale skin.

Either way, it was fugly.

Anyone know what happened to the body?
Loren Coleman responds: August 1st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
4:44 PM Update: More photos added.
Xee responds: August 1st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
It’s just a raccoon.

I work for a nuisance wildlife removal agency in Oregon, and we pull dead raccoons out of crawlspaces ALL THE TIME.

trust me on this one, I know a dead raccoon when I see one. The faces are always the first things to rot off in stagnant water, and the noses are nothing but flesh and cartilage, which rots fast and is a favorite of scavenging bugs, birds, rodents, and fish.

You can see the feet are exactly like raccoon feet, the tail is the same size and shape, the fur tufts still stuck to the body are the same color as well. It’s just a raccoon that got chucked in the water somewhere and it’s been floating for a few days.

Also if you look - that isn’t a beak, it’s the sinus cavity. Do a google search on skulls and it’s clear as day.

Anyway - I’m not stranger to dead and decomposing things. We actually got in a dead fish wrapped in plastic bags and duct taped… it had been sitting in someone’s attic in sweltering conditions for over a month… It was massive too, we thought it was body parts at first. After freezing it though and having a good look it was quite obviously a fish.

It’s weird how things look SO different decomposed. Though you’d think more people would know basic anatomy than they do. Everything looks flat-faced with no skin on it. You ever see an elephant’s skull? Crazy stuff.

Hand pads just like a raccoon, teeth just like a raccoon, raccoon colored fur, raccoon shaped body… dudes… it’s a raccoon. I think the main issue is that there isn’t anything for scale in the pic. It’s not huge, and people calling it a “monster” is making everyone believe it’s massive when it’s actually no bigger than a small dog.
Sordes responds: August 1st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The new photos are really interesting, especially those posted at the link by jjs1138. It makes the raccoon-identity very probable, especially as it shows better views on the hands. What looked llike a bit claw was actually a whole finger, i.e. the anatomy of the hand is in fact much more similar to a raccoon than to a badger. Raccoons have very mobile paws with long fingers, unlike dogs which have shorter and plumper toes, and normally no pointed claws.

Thanks for the new photos, it is really sad that they were not known from the beginning.
ashura responds: August 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The creature looks a lot like a pig
LadyKilla responds: August 1st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
As for being around these beautiful creatures for quite some time, like Yankee originally said, it is definitely of the Pit Bull Terrier grouping. It is relatively safe to say either APBT or an American Bully.
Holmes responds: August 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
How bout a big type of cat?
Topher Lan responds: August 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Hey. Whatever it is, whomever is handling it better be SUPER

careful if it did come from some kind of laboratory. Who knows

what was done to it, if that’s the source! No further speculation

here until DNA testing is done….take care!
size 13 responds: August 1st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
OK, it’s not an Otter, please bury him.
illuminaughty responds: August 1st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
put some lipstick on that pig. with all the flooding that has occured that is no doubt a pig that has drowned and the hair has slipped from the hide just as if it had been scalded off.hard to say what happened to the snout though, but most likely a pig.
Spinach Village responds: August 1st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
its a poor dog that has been floating in the ocean for a while… they would have been more responsible if they released this photo first
Spinach Village responds: August 1st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I’m actually starting to get upset… it does resemble a pit bull, and we all know the brutality that can happen to there lives… the big city is not far away… this could possibly be a good opportunity to denounce animal cruelty nation wide
chrysischylde responds: August 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
They ARE going to do DNA testing on it, right? Or did no one take samples from it? I haven’t heard anything about that in any of the articles I have read about it. It would kill the rumor mill too fast I suspect.
Richard888 responds: August 1st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Wow! What a difference a second picture makes! From a half-mammal half-bird beast chimera, we have beyond shadow of a doubt a drowned pitbull. I agree with one previous poster that it looks like two distinct specimens. One side has been roasted by the sun while the other side has still all the moisture and there is a big hole caused by scavengers. But certain marketing companies might keep the legend alive.
rdcool27 responds: August 1st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I don’t know about the dog or racoon theory, or badgers, or whatever. But I know hogs, and I can state with great certainty that this picture is not of a pig. The teeth are wrong, there appears to be a penile sheath in the wrong place, the tail is wrong, the head does not look pig-like and even the general look of the legs and feet doesn’t look right, This is not a pig.
JP responds: August 1st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I took a photo of a real raccoon skull off the internet to compare it to the animal via overlay, and it’s an excellent match (albeit the corpse has some missing teeth and jaw parts). Yeah, it’s a raccoon.
gkingdano responds: August 1st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Just a poor drown dog folks, let’s move along.
mystery_man responds: August 1st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Ok, the new pics put some perspective on this. I take back what I said before about photoshopping. I’m still going with a dog on this one, although I have to take into consideration the expertise of the poster Xee regarding the possibility of it being a raccoon. A couple things I’d like to humbly point out.

First, the sightings of “pig like” living ones have descriptions that match more or less the appearance of the dead one we see in the photos. Sure, the sightings may be bogus, but if they were genuine that means that the oddness of the creatures appearance was not caused by scavengers or decomposition. Something to at least consider, I think.

Second, I suggest people look carefully at the article. This wasn’t the only one found. I tend to lean more towards dog, and posters have suggested pitbulls and pugs. But how does this fit into the multiple reports of living ones and reports of more bodies that were found. Unless I’m reading the articles wrong, there were FIVE bodies. The one pictured, the one found by the surfer, the one found by Keith (I’m assuming it was dead), the one found by Chris, and the one Sean allegedly buried three feet under.

Could some of these been reports of the same body? Maybe. But it seems to me it is likely we are dealing with more than one possible carcass. That means more than one pit bull, or pug, or whatever, and this should be considered. These are not exactly cheap or very common dogs. So I find myself asking which is more likely, that more than one (up to five) pitbulls or pugs were mutilated and killed, or that it was the decomposed bodies of raccoons (which are often fairly common in some areas.) I won’t start speculating on why they all are dead, I’m just pointing out that it seems there was more than one and wonder if this is consistent with the dog idea.

If I have my facts wrong, then I apologize, I’m just going on what I see in the article. And the article states that there were sightings of live ones similar to the dead ones in appearance, and there were more than one body found. That is strange.
JP responds: August 1st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Here’s those raccoon skull animations…here & here.

No doubt in my mind it’s raccoon.
HOOSIERHUNTER responds: August 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Ha ha…point taken Loren.
Still, I think anything that moves cryptozoology from the serious study to the funny myth side isn’t helping us all that much. At least we know chimps really exist.
HOOSIERHUNTER responds: August 1st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Xee–
I initially said dog, but you sound like you’ve got some serious experience backing up your analysis. I’m going with the racoon theory.

JP–
Nice idea of the skull overlay. That clinches it for me.

Dead coon in the middle of the beach, stinkin’ to high heaven.
pimpsuit responds: August 1st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I really that the folks taking pictures like this would know to put something in there for scale.
hudgeliberal responds: August 1st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Sadly,I think this is just a dead pit bull with some teeth or part of his upper jaw missing. I dont know..the claw deal. A good pic anyway. I think when all is said and done(if someone is testing it)it will end up a pit bull. Peace.
planettom responds: August 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 am
Xee, very good analysis. I believe you and think this very well could be a raccoon carcass.
mystery_man responds: August 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 am
JP- Those skull overlays are really quite convincing. I suggest everyone here take a look before going too much with the dog hypothesis. I’ve also been looking into the skull structure of raccoons and the resemblance is too great to be ignored. Raccoons also have remarkably human like hands and fingers which would fit in more with the “fingers” we see in these photos.

So two very important things to consider. First, the amazing similarity with raccoon skulls and what we see here as well as the odd, hand like feet. Second, the fact that (as I mentioned before) that there was apparently more than one of these bodies found. More than one pitbull or rottweiler or pug that just happened to all be found dead at around the same time? Like I said, these are not cheap or extremely common dogs. Or were these raccoon carcasses? Raccoons are quite common, even a nuisance, in some areas. Which seems more likely to you? Raccoon seems a more likely candidate especially when one takes into consideration the multiple bodies found and morphological similarities with what we see in the photos.

Considering the evidence and apparent facts, I have to say I’m starting to fall more firmly into the raccoon camp.
mysterywolf responds: August 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 am
The link that jjs1138 gave looks pretty conclusive that it is a racoon.

However, I wanna know how animachina.com got a much higher resolution version of the original monster pic! You can barely see the details of the front feet in the original picture seen here (which would have been a dead giveaway from Day 1), yet you can see the creature’s feet in detail as light as day in the link. Even a great deal of photoshop image resizing wont give you that quality.

Have I missed a link given somewhere to this hi-res version or did animachina.com track the photographer down even before the 2nd set of pix came up??
Rapscallion responds: August 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 am
Not worth digging any deeper folks, original pics say it all, note the “fingers” on the feet, thats a raccoon, sure as the sun rises. And before anyone else mentions dog, you show me a dog with feet like that, and im running down me street naked, covered in peanut butter, carrying a spatula and lunchbox and telling everyone i meet elvis lives in aforementioned lunchbox and subsists on navel jelly and bananas.
Rap
charlie23 responds: August 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 am
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it’s wearing a dog collar which appears to be partially embedded and is clearly visible with minor image enhancement in all the photos. Monster, Raccoon, Chupacabra or viral marketing scheme: at least somebody kept it as a pet at one point. Or maybe it’s just a dog.
Enlargements showing the collar and buckle are linked here, here, and here.
YourPTR! responds: August 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 am
Definitely doesn’t look like a raccoon to me! First impressions of these new pics, I thought perhap a pig, but studying them more I definitely feel it bears a strong resembalance to a dog!
Lightning Orb responds: August 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 am
If people have seen these things alive, perhaps they are not drowned pets as some have suggested, but hosts to some bizarre flesh-eating parasite? Then again, not saying that the reports of live monsters are fake, but do we have any phisical evidence for this? Have they captured a live one? If not, it still doesn’t meen those reports are false; but perhaps a better way to think about it is this: if there were such living creatures, how many would likely be reported? If there weren’t, how many jokers would likely make up stories about live ones? Whatever that thing was, I seriously doubt it was actually any sort of monster; sickly lookin’ little mug, isn’t it
xenobia responds: August 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 am
Told you it was a raccoon.
jedimaster5000 responds: August 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I hope it’s a new species of animal, and not some damn dog….it can of reminds me of one of those future predatoes form primeval
springheeledjack responds: August 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
The point of this whole exercise is that we have many people stating that they know for a fact that it is a dog….or a raccoon…not everyone is right, and the point is, that from photographs, it is hard to get any real solid data…

Especially if something has been dead. Decomposition can make creatures look like other creatures…from that first photo, I was sure it did have a bird’s beak and with teeth, but upon seeing it from another pose, you get more details and information.

I’m not admonishing anyone or poking fun at any perspectives here, but I am pointing out that what you see on a photo is only one small sliver of what is really there. That’s why photographs are so “iffy” and why a lot of debunkers tirade on photos as evidence. And especially so (hey maybe I have a new favorite word…) when you take “photoshopping” into consideration.

You simply do not get enough solid details from a single photo…or even a handful of photos to make a 100% accurate identification on a cryptid.

However (whoops, there I go reverting back to my real favorite word again…spoke too soon), I do think there is merit in taking photos…it’s just that in this day and age, a photograph will never be the last word on the validation of a cryptid.

The other problem is that your average JOe or Joe-line who stumbles across something weird like this is not thinking in crypto terms like we are and their first inclination is not to grab up a decomposing, disgusting looking corpse and squirrel it away for analysis…at most we get a single picture if we’re lucky, and maybe a few if we’re even luckier. Nobody’s fault, it’s just the way things are…and then we at Crypto and other sites are tethered with the job of trying to figure out just what the heck Joe-line and her buddies did get a picture of.
foxy responds: August 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
ok i CAN say wiht all certainty, after working with all breeds of dog for more years than i care to say let alone remember, that that is NOT any recognized or mixed breed of dog.
the skull shape is completly wrong to be a canine of any type. even a pitbull or bully breed has a pronounced skull stop.

a pitbull unless a puppy would be much longer in total lenght than 2 1/2 to 3 ft long…and no other fetures eeven closely resemble a dogs corpse…(or a living one for that matter)
NOT a dog.

10 yrs of wilidife rehab also tell me
the “hands” and jaw line match perfectly with racoon…
size is perfect, 2 1/2-3ft long, the front feet are “hand” like, nothing even closely resembling a dogs paw
the lower canines and remainding jaw line would be right on track for a coon…

as for the collar, the pictures are way too cloudy to even remotly say that it is for certain a collar…not to mention some people do illegally (or legally in some states) keep pet racoons…
and if theres chance it is form the neer by reacersh facilty most of their “larger” animals would have some kind of id, usually a collar or ear tag.
dartboy74 responds: August 4th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Its a dog and given the color of the remaining fur, the shape of the ears, and the fact that pugs are known to lose their top teeth in old age. Its a PUG.
rhodin responds: August 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
That is only the Kadaver of a lion.

The dentures were destroyed and the proportions of the body fit a robbery cat.
rhodin responds: August 4th, 2008 at 12:42 am
The set of teeth doesn’t match with a racoon…

It only is big cat, a lion… you even can see a rest of coat
grayfox responds: August 4th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I agree with “Xee”, i’m sure its a raccoon. As a taxidermist I’ve seen many a raccoon carcass and the bottom teeth seem to match up perfectly. So do the feet, for that matter. Also, notice how the fur has dark underfur and lighter guard hairs. That is typical of a coon.
mmccooey responds: August 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Wow! Maybe it’s a dead dog (or a raccoon as some have speculated), but definately an interesting looking creature.
crypto42 responds: August 4th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
It does look a lot like a raccoon, but the article said that the ‘monster’ was between 2 1/2 to 3 feet long. I don’t know if that was including the tail, but if it wasn’t, then the creature is too large for a raccoon.
Trapster responds: August 4th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Howdy Folks,

That’s what a couple days in salt water does to a raccoon. Think pickles in brine. Flesh bloats, fish and birds eat the tender parts first. I’ve cleaned up hundreds, if not thousands of dead raccoons, opossums, dogs, cats, whatever.

I wish it were some new undiscovered mutant aqua-pig, but it’s just a dead raccoon.
Bugaboo responds: August 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Like some of the others say, it’s a raccoon.

First of all, it cannot be a pit bull because 1, the back half of the body is too stocky, 2, the legs are too short, and 3, pit bull skulls are not that long. Also, pit bulls, or any other type of dog, for that matter, do not have fingers. They hve PAWS. And of course, raccoons alsohave paws, but their paws look almost like fingers. It’s not a pug, either. Once again, I go with the ‘pug noses are not THAT long.”
It’s a raccoon, pure and simple. And just because it is 2 feet long doesn’t rule out raccoon. If you lied where I live, we have raccoons the size of a medium sized dogs.
khei responds: August 11th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Personally I think it’s simply a common, domestic Maine Coon Cat. An older cat as the lower teeth seem to have lost enough bone to be hanging forward and, of course, the upper teeth are missing.

If you look closely you can tell that is, not, “Naughty bits” first you can tell that the animal was just as furry there as anywhere else there’s fur and secondly there’s no opening. It’s simply either a bone (Possibly broken and displaced withing the body) or an organ causing a lump under the skin.

so, yeah my personal opinion is that it’s simply an older Maine Coon Cat. It possibly fell off a dock/boat/cliff and drown or possibly died of poisoning (Antifreeze, insect poison, etc) on a beach and got pulled out to sea with high tide and washed back in some time later.
Taxi45 responds: September 8th, 2008 at 6:33 am
It’s a bloated dead dog.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

71 Responses to “New Montauk Monster Pic and Cryptid Marketing”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

oem software bundle

"Buy cheap PhotoShop CS 2"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

oem software bundle

software oem cd line business;

inkjet definition oem software

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

"locate software oem files"

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

adobe any cs2 from photo photo shop shop upgrade version

"how to activate reget deluxe"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

"locate software oem files"

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training