The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
   
Hoaxes Throughout History
Middle AgesEarly Modern1700s1800-1840s1850-1890s
1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s21st Century2014
The Montauk Monster
The story so far:

A bizarre creature washed up on Ditch Plains beach near Montauk, New York on July 12.

Local resident Jenna Hewitt took some photos of it. However, the body is now gone. Some guy (unidentified) supposedly has it in his backyard.

In the absence of any evidence except for the photo, there are many theories about what it might be: a sea turtle, a dog, a raccoon missing an upper jaw, a creature from the government's animal-disease lab on Plum Island, or a hoax.

We'll have to wait and see what transpires. Links: Newsday, Gawker.
Cryptozoology
Posted by The Curator on Thu Jul 31, 2008


Oh my gosh! Its so freaky looking.
It does actually look like a seaturtle without a shell.
Posted by tegan  in  Australia  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  05:12 AM
I rather like Gawkwer's suitably cynical response: it's bound to be viral marketing for something.
Posted by outeast  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  05:30 AM
I don't know... why wouldn't there be any creatures left that have never been discovered before? This is a big world, with an even bigger ocean. If this is real, it's got a mum and dad, brothers and sisters, somewhere. If it's not real, it's certainly entertaining. I hope we get to find out the truth.
Posted by Allie  in  Australia  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  07:36 AM
It sort of has flippers like a turtle...but it almost looks like it has quite a few teeth in it's lower jaw. Turtles don't just slip out of their shells like in cartoons. It's attached. If the shell came off, it would look sort of like something that's been skinned.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  09:34 AM
Why does it appear that the right forlimb is giving you the finger? That ought to be the tipoff right there.
Posted by KDP  in  Madill, OK  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  09:51 AM
"This is a big world, with an even bigger ocean."

Well, not really. How can the subset be bigger than the superset?

:D
Posted by Smartalek  in  Michigan  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  11:00 AM
Bloated dog carcass
Posted by LaMa  in  Europe  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  02:50 PM
I'm almost sure it's a Koala. Wonder how it would have gotten there though.
Posted by donjuan  in  Michigan  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  03:00 PM
Yeah, it would be difficult for a turtle to just slip out of its shell, since that would involve leaving behind its ribs and backbone. Turtles tend to be rather attached to those sorts of things.

It doesn't look particularly like something very aquatic. Rat-like tail, big ears, well-developed legs. . .at most, it could be a land critter that sometimes wanders into shallow water.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  03:20 PM
I vote it as a "PHONEY"!!! The shadowing around the corpse doesn't match. For example, look at the shodow around the "shoulder and head" area, compared to the shadowing around the "hip" area. The shadows cast at the shoulder and head are MUCH longer than the shadows around the hip (and for a much shorter & smaller part of the critter as well). Nice photoshop image though, but they better pay closer attention to those shadows next time, if they want anybody to SERIOUSLY consider the validity of such an image!!!
Posted by Christopher  in  Warm, sunny Florida...  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  06:13 PM
Prehaps another creation from Juan Cabana.
Posted by Sam E  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  06:14 PM
BTW, why is it that whenever somebody encounters one of the deceased "beasts", there is only ONE photo, taken at the most obscure angle, such as, to leave a speck of "wonder" in any persons mind that views the photo. I can assure you, that IF these bizzare animals were really in existence, there would be a photo ALBUM taken when discovered, the critter would have been hauled off, and lab tests would have been done to determine just what it was... Henceforth and furthermore, I feel that THIS explanation, more than anything else, exposes this photo as a PHONEY!!!
Posted by Christopher  in  Warm, sunny Florida...  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  06:25 PM
Assuming that it is real, and I think that it is, it looks like a dead mammal of some sort with the extremities eaten or rotted away. The look of the mouth is very similar to that of dead rotting cattle for instance.
Posted by Robert N  in  Croydon, UK  on  Fri Aug 01, 2008  at  06:25 AM
Definite hoax -- photoshop all the way.
Posted by Kathiran  in  Detroit Rock City  on  Fri Aug 01, 2008  at  09:20 AM
cant u see its a boar without its fur jeez.
Posted by Thomas  in  Lithuania  on  Sat Aug 02, 2008  at  05:17 AM
It's a henweigh... duh
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sat Aug 02, 2008  at  03:30 PM
It doesn't have the right feet for a boar, dog, or raccoon. <a >There's only one animal in the US that has matching anatomy, and it's not supposed to live in New York.</a>
Posted by Boju  in  California  on  Sat Aug 02, 2008  at  06:18 PM
The LiveJournal cryptozoology community is covering news on this and debates about what it could/could not be, if you're interested-
http://community.livejournal.com/cryptozoology/

They've already ruled out some of the most common suggestions. We'll probably have news on what it really is when that becomes available.
Posted by SuperGrouper  in  United States  on  Sat Aug 02, 2008  at  08:51 PM
Sightings of living specimens and of another dead one are reported on
http://www.earthfiles.com

For what it's worth wink
Posted by Rob  in  Belgium  on  Sun Aug 03, 2008  at  12:18 PM
Looks like someone didn't want to dissect their fetal pig in anatomy class. While most people think pigs don't have hair - they do. Also, in the two photos I've seen of this critter, the paws are hidden except the one giving the finger (which appears to be torn).

In a post above, Boju in Ca links to a website where the owner believes that the critter is a badger. The ears on the monster are flappy while a badger has small, rounded ones. These ears look like ones from a hog.

If you will also notice that the monster has no nose so another of our main identifiers is missing (since we can't see it's feet either).

So, there are my two cents.
Posted by RainOubliette  in  Pennsylvania  on  Sun Aug 03, 2008  at  12:38 PM
This website has all the new pictures of the Montauk Monster along with some good reading! -- http://www.Montauk-Monster.com Enjoy!
Posted by Raymond  in  The End, Long Island  on  Sun Aug 03, 2008  at  11:31 PM
It is a waterlogged, bloated dead dog. Look at the teeth and compare them to the dog snout at the vet's office, the one he uses to show you how crappy your dog's teeth are. The feet are buried in the sand. The fur is mostly off, from water immersion. The skin is slightly pickled and waterlogged from the saltwater. The soft tissues around the mouth have also been eaten by crabs or fish and eroded away, exposing the teeth. This is a dog that fell off a boat, was intentionally drowned, had a swimming accident, or died and was discarded in the ocean.
Posted by Jimmy Knickers  on  Mon Aug 04, 2008  at  01:42 AM
It's a raccoon.
The front teeth are missing in the jaw, and the paws are a dead giveaway.
Nothing more than a decaying, but still possibly tampered with, corpse of a raccoon.
Posted by Anon  in  Utah  on  Mon Aug 04, 2008  at  06:20 AM
I
Posted by Flisk  in  Sherwood, AR  on  Mon Aug 04, 2008  at  10:44 AM
there is nothing to scale it against - it could be an inch long.
Posted by zoo  on  Mon Aug 04, 2008  at  12:58 PM
If the pictures here: http://www.montauk-monster.com/

...are indeed the same carcass, then it is very clear it is a dog. Skull and teeth and general morphology match. Bloated and partly decomposed.
Posted by LaMa  in  Europe  on  Mon Aug 04, 2008  at  03:54 PM
Darren Naish over at Tetrapod Zoology has a good analysis (with newer photos) and is pretty convincing about the raccoon hypothesis.
Posted by outeast  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  10:37 AM
Wow i dont know what to make of it but it might be a turtle without a shell but a turtle's backbone and rib bones are connected with the shell, so if it were separated, it wouldn't look like a raccoon.God knows what is it.
Posted by Naruto  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  11:03 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/08/the_montauk_monster.php


It was a raccoon.....
Posted by red_dragon_girl_69  in  Earth, I think  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  06:48 PM
One of Dr.Steels experiments got out?

http://www.DoctorSteel.com
Posted by Sam E.  in  Asylum  on  Wed Aug 06, 2008  at  04:45 AM
Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.