Watch it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp4K3ZFfi5A).
I honestly don't know what to think! It looks like it could be... half man... half bear... half pig...
Looks like a de-evolved version of a dog, almost mixed with some kind of hawk.
Jeff Corwin says its an incredibly rare raccoon.
XD
I think the band around it's arm is the weird part. How would it tie the band around there? And It couldn't be a turtle without its shell because a turtle's shell is attached to it's spine. I think its either a mutation or an alien being.
Nice Manbearpig reference by the way ZV.
Quote from: Zelda Veteran on August 02, 2008, 01:59:07 PM
Jeff Corwin says its an incredibly rare raccoon.
XD
That's most likely what it is. It just looks weird because the front part of its face has rotted away, leaving part of the skull sticking out.
Maybe its a dog with the nose cut off?
Those front limbs aren't very dog-like.
Here's another pic over here... (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/01/more-on-the-montauk.html)
You can see its snout better; it no longer looks like a beak.
Looks a little like a wombat
Obviously some kind of rodent.
Rodents have 2 front teeth. Looks like a dog to me.
:o...
What beach and what state?
Long Island, New York.
It doesn't even look the same anymore... now it just looks like a bloated pig.
And did they move it? Its on the other side.
Ah, it does have he canines...
relative of the badger?
A few things are wrong with that picture and story.
1! The creature doesn't have the wristband.
2! The original picture clearly showed fin-like hands, not paws.
3! The report that ZV gave us said that the monster was found on Montauk, not Long Island.
4! The creature is facing a totally different direction.
5! There is not as much bone showing. So in my opinion it's either a completely different creature, or this picture was taken at a different time.
And now neither of the pictures can be validated because the animal has been messed with.
I dont think that its the same monster.
The dude stated that he removed the band around the creature's "wrist"(?) and wore it around his neck, if that's possible.
Also, Montauk is on Long Island.
Also, the creature need not have moved-- the cameraman could've.
Also, the hands aren't really clearly visible in the picture JQ posted.
Quote from: Tia Dalma on August 02, 2008, 07:59:12 PM
The dude stated that he removed the band around the creature's "wrist"(?) and wore it around his neck, if that's possible.
He also stated that he and his friends had the beast's remains in their possession.
Im sorry, I never learned where Montauk was.
EXACTLY. So the beast was messed with, since you could see the hands in the other picture. How could another picture be taken if the beast was no longer on Montauk? It was in the possession of the life guards.
Face it
reality beats all other truths
Quote from: Tia Dalma on August 02, 2008, 07:59:12 PM
The dude stated that he removed the band around the creature's "wrist"(?) and wore it around his neck, if that's possible.
:o... That's totally disgusting... :o
and i agree with Takun. the 2 pictures look totally different... and fake
Quote from: Takun on August 02, 2008, 08:03:57 PM
Quote from: Tia Dalma on August 02, 2008, 07:59:12 PM
The dude stated that he removed the band around the creature's "wrist"(?) and wore it around his neck, if that's possible.
He also stated that he and his friends had the beast's remains in their possession.
Im sorry, I never learned where Montauk was.
EXACTLY. So the beast was messed with, since you could see the hands in the other picture. How could another picture be taken if the beast was no longer on Montauk? It was in the possession of the life guards.
I'm not sure you really understand how the concept of
time works.
These things need not have occurred in the order you're suggesting.
They're not fake, and besides the people could've set up the corpse for a picture at one angle, then moved his body towards another position for another angle. Someone had to move the body.
I don't know where you're getting confused by this stuff here.
Don't you know, JQ
It's much more fun when it's a conspiracy.
Also, I think that it was actually a top secret government killing naked mole rat dog.
What do you mean I dont understand how time works?
A picture was taken
Life guards took the body.
The picture was published.
Somehow, even though the body was already decomposed and no longer on Montauk, another picture was taken.
Either two pics where taken, and the second was published later, or the second is a fake.
Quote from: Takun on August 02, 2008, 08:45:33 PMEither two pics where taken, and the second was published later
WHOSHHHHHH
sorry that was so hard for you.
Did it ever occur to you that the two pics could've been taken about the same time by two different people and they get published by some completely random order that doesn't really matter?
Christ kid...
8) Mmm, sorry Im an imbecile.
DISPROVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! While the picture is not fake, it's no monster. It actually turned out to be a dog who got hypothermia and whose nose tissue sort of, well, fell off. I'm not joking.
~OR~
The government wants to cover up the existence of evil blue potato monsters.
Where's your citation?
Whoops! I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it seems it has not been proved as a decomposed dog, but it is likely it's a decomposed raccoon or dog. Article can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montauk_Monster
...
Maybe it's a Pig!!! (http://gawker.com/5032597/is-the-montauk-monster-satans-bacon)
...
Ridiculousness!!! (http://gawker.com/5030762/montauk-dead-monster-maybe-tied-to-cartoon-network-show)
WARNING!! DON"T SCROLL DOWN TO THE COMMENTS!!!! BAD PICTURE!!!
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE!
Quote from: HylianHero92 on August 07, 2008, 05:50:54 PM
Whoops! I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it seems it has not been proved as a decomposed dog, but it is likely it's a decomposed raccoon or dog.
*Ahem*
*points to underlined*
It's really ugly, that's for sure.
I remember hearing this on the News where I live, considering how close it is to where I live. Some scientists thought it was maybe like a sort of evolved dinosaur.... sort of outlandish, but whatever...
Quote from: MasterKey08 on August 09, 2008, 09:26:23 AM
I remember hearing this on the News where I live, considering how close it is to where I live.
I live closer!!!
You could have added so much more to that -_-
How closely do live near it?
Did anyone around you start talking about?
Have you ever been to Montauk Beach?
Well for me:
a) I live in New York City, so it's pretty close all things considered.
b) My mother and father were speaking about it a little bit when it hit the news.
c) I have never been to said beach.
Nonetheless, the idea of something that weird living so close is creepy. And uh.. if you were just giving him advice on how to add more to posts, well, i gave a good example. :-*
Oh, sorry.
I live on Long Island about 60-70 miles away
I did not, in fact, even hear of its existence until CacturneRules was discussing discussing it here!
I have been to said beach, where I, in all seriousness, encountered a different kind of monster. Because of that, I will never set foot on said beach again.
What kind of monster?
You have garnered my interest., Do tell.
My interest has also been piqued. Please continue.
You REALLY don't want to know!!!!!!11!1!!!! :o
i cant believe you brought that up!
... :o
A fat, naked man.
Right?
no. worse... Please explain HH92, i don't wanna
and i just want to thank you for bringing that horrific image back to my head
...:o
a giant turd.....
........
monster
:-*
We were just swimming at said beach when it floated by. Because of that my parents don't ever want to go to Montauk ever again. Can't blame 'em with turds floating all over.
That was a crappy conclusion.
Quote from: Tacheon Black on August 09, 2008, 08:28:46 PM
That was a crappy conclusion.
Would
you want to go back to a beach with excretion floating in the water?!
It's surprisingly more common than you think...
Quote from: Tacheon Black on August 09, 2008, 08:28:46 PM
That was a crappy conclusion.
I think that deserves a rimshot. :P
Man...that was a bit anticlimactic... ;)
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 09, 2008, 08:34:36 PM
It's surprisingly more common than you think...
And where exactly is this common? Not near where I live for sure!
Do you have any idea how often untreated sewage gets drained into the sea?
Yeah, but living on an island with beaches as the main attractions , they usually close down the beaches till the "Brown Tide" leaves.
Oh well, doesn't matter 'cause I'd probably never go there again anyways, you know, with gas prices and all.
It may have been a bad conclusion, but it was good for the lols. :P
It's a raccoon.
Jesus Christ, I'm sorry, but I've had to deal with this several times.
It's a skinned racoon - that band around it's arm? part of the fur. the beak is the nasal passage, which is exposed because the nose was most likely taken off with most of the facial tendons and the like.
raccoon skull:
(http://www.skullsite.co.uk/Racoon/racoon_lat.jpg)
it is too stumpy and specialised of a skull to be a dog, and those forearms are obviously a coon.
People nowadays are stupid/sheltered - no offense to anyone. ): but i didn't realise a dead raccoon could cause so much of a fuss - it's so obvious to me. I've seen hundreds of dead coons, in various states of decomposition, and I'm fairly certain many people have passed them on the roadside.
You do seem quite sure of yourself... I didn't know a racoon could get that big. :o
Have you ever heard of the Giant Three-Toed Sloth, MK?
Are you serious?
Raccoons get pretty big. "16.1–28.0 in" according to Wikipedia, and that is just the body, the tail can get to be "7.6–15.9 in" which is pretty big.
So if the raccoon were as big as can be, it'd be almost 44 inches... which is about 3 and 2/3 feet.
Also there is no scale to the picture so it can be a lot smaller than you thought - unless I'm missing some pictures or evidence [ which I highly doubt ] and so your point is a little moot.
I guess you guys are right then. I'm not exactly familiar with racoons; they dont really live around here.
ANd I have never heard of a giant three toed sloth, no. ???
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_hcTPwA00F4k/RtBq3Rw8pdI/AAAAAAAAARU/-WDS6c6u5Dg/Three+Toed+Sloth.JPG)
There are variants of creatures that we could never have comprehended a hundred years back, dude.
It's no problem - sorry if I seemed a little snippy at that last post, I've just had to convince like 8 people so far that it's not a dog/cat/turtle [ lol turtles have fur now ] and it's getting old really fast.
The Montauk Monster reminds me of Cuddles (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread234348/pg) the furless cat that washed up on the beach....
Hmmm.. yeah, you guys are probably right. It does look sort of... you know, rottish...
If you look closely at it, it's flipping you off. : D