That is NOT it’s original position either. The left hind leg also has lividity, and the lividity on the back extends too far around to the left of the animal.

I believe it was lying pretty much on its back, on a slope, nose high. with the right hind leg either sticking stright up, or lying across the body, and the left hind leg lying on the ground.

So real animal carcass, but NOT its original position, location or condition. It didn’t wash up on the beach, it was placed there, in the position of the second photo (no sand on top) then rolled over for the first photo (sand on top).

If you look at the closeup of the head, you can see the right ear squashed against the skull, but the left ear is standing out, there is lividity of the right of the “face” and you can see the flesh around the nose has been cleanly excised not eaten or rotted away. The upper canines have been removed, and the socket of one is visible. Finally, either in an attempt to disguise it, or during the cleaning or altering process, the fur has come away over most of the body.

So, not just a misidentified carcass, but an intentionally altered and moved carcass.

This is the first time I’ve seen the other picture and it has confirmed what I first thought - the first image was taken after the animal was moved. The reddish colouration is called “post mortem lividity” and is a result of blood pooling in the lowest parts of the body. It is an indicator used by crime scene investigators to determine if and when a body may have been moved.

The first picture was taken after the body was rolled over, and the body was rolled over quite a while after death.

The second picture appears to be its original position, based on the pattern of lividity seen in the first.

I point this out because this argues against the animal being a fake. A special effects person probably wouldn’t put lividity in because they would not expect anyone to be seeing the underside, or to pay attention to such details.

So my vote is REAL dead animal, hoax explanation for what it is or how it came to be publicised.

Anyone on the spot would have been easily able to tell that it was simply a decomposing animal carcass and would have been able to guess, just as easily as us, if not easier, what KIND of animal. So, not a hoax in so far as being a prop, but a hoax in terms of it being some “unidentified” animal.

Are you kidding? Besides the fact the tides could have moved it, people move dead bodies around all the time.

One of the major motives for moving a body would be to take photos from a different angle, or if taking the entire body, for later re-sale on eBay.

What do you think happened to the carcass from the Maine Mutant case? A couple thought they could make $150,000 to $15,000 auctioning off body parts on craigslist and/or eBay.

What’s science got to do with it? Nothing.