Biologists now believe the heretofore unidentified creature whose decomposing remains washed ashore on Long Island two weeks ago was probably a raccoon, according to news reports yesterday. Media types had dubbed the odd-looking beast the "Montauk Monster."
Read more about it:
• Experts Confirm Montauk Monster Is Relative of Rocky Raccoon - Hamptons.com
• 'Montauk Monster' Mystery Gets More Mysterious - Fox News
• Monster Corpse... or Hoax? - About.com: Paranormal Phenomena
• The Montauk Monster - Museum of Hoaxes
• Montauk Monster: Mystery Animal Corpse Becomes Web Sensation - The Independent
• Montauk Monster Mania! - New York Magazine
• Dead Monster Washes Ashore in Montauk - Gawker
Read more about it:
• Experts Confirm Montauk Monster Is Relative of Rocky Raccoon - Hamptons.com
• 'Montauk Monster' Mystery Gets More Mysterious - Fox News
• Monster Corpse... or Hoax? - About.com: Paranormal Phenomena
• The Montauk Monster - Museum of Hoaxes
• Montauk Monster: Mystery Animal Corpse Becomes Web Sensation - The Independent
• Montauk Monster Mania! - New York Magazine
• Dead Monster Washes Ashore in Montauk - Gawker
Comments
thet is not a dead racoon. the government must be short on money because their hiring some stupid biologists.
It is a dead racoon.. you god damn conspiracy therist! its got the fingers, the reproductive organs, the hair, and the teeth, and apparantly the DNA to boot.. You must still believe in monsters, how cute, do you still look under your bed for the boogey man?
Hellooooo people!!! Its a dead raccoon! Why is everyone getting all worked up about this?…Such gulible people! Why dont you all take a minute to listen to the experts (beacuse they are experts!) AND also Google an image of a Raccoon skeleton so you can all see for yourselves that the so-called “beak” is actually the decayed face of the raccoon. Quit being freaks about this and move on!
Kristen, what government agency do you work for? It sure seems you want it to be covered up.
They based the raccoon claim on little more than size. There’s no body to test, and neither the paws nor the neck are anything like raccoon anatomy. The anatomy doesn’t match boar, turtle, dog, or raccoon. There is one creature that matches it’s anatomy, but it’s not supposed to be in New York.
New Montauk Monster Evidence
Youve never seen a bald racoon have you?.. looks evactly the same.. my brothers a trapper and when he skinned it it looks exactly like the “mantauk monster”
The anatomy doesn’t match boar, turtle, dog, or raccoon. There is one creature that matches it’s anatomy, but it’s not supposed to be in New York.
New Montauk Monster Evidence
Some people just need constant drama in their lives…what better drama than a conspiracy theory, or better yet “the government cover up” (on a dead raccoon of course)…I feel sorry for your children and the crap that you drama junkies must put them through in order to get your fix! IT’S A DEAD RACOON! You should have considered being writers for The Days of Our Lives…..you could get high every day!
Exclusive new pictures of the beast @ http://www.Montauk-Monster.com — Please comment with your thoughts.
That’s funny, Boju, ’cause I was thinking the paws looked just like a raccoon’s.
It’s probably an alien…or a genetically mutated animal by the government.
No but seriously, I think it looks like a pig..
this is so weird.if the animal disease center was across from were it was found it’s probably something that wasn’t decomposed of properly and as for it not having fur it would have decade of of it and the beak it might not be a beak what if its just like a dog deformed because of a disease.
Uh yeah, umm, the biologist (Jeff Corwin on FOX) was being totally sarcastic when he said “rare”. It’s just a normal, common, raccoon folks.
http://www.animachina.com/images/whatisit/montauk_monster_is_raccoon.jpg
Oh! M’gosh! That’s my Fluffy! She came about when my amorous parrot was left alone with my girlie-girl dog, and some weeks later, Fluffy was born…er…ah..hatched, whatever. Anyways, as she grew, she got, like, all sad and stuff, because she didn’t look like her Mom what with the beak and all, and she couldn’t fly like her old man. Only I guess I didn’t know just how bad it was, because one day, while we were out partying on the yacht, she must have jumped overboard to end it all, because the next morning when we woke up all hungover and stuff, she was gone. So now I know what happened to her. Or she may have been thrown overboard…oh! m’gosh! What if someone actually murdered my poor, dear beloved Fluffy? They might be still out there, just waiting for a chance to murder another helpless critter! Better lock your loved ones up! You just never know, do you?!?!
I agree that, if you look at pictures of a raccoon skeleton, you can see that it’s a raccoon. But it could be an alien raccoon! Was it designed, or did it evolve?
Whatever it is, it’s gross.
How about a DNA test… ?
It’s a thing! run for the hills!
Maybe an attempt at cross breeding? Keep an eye out for another
It is rather obvious what the creature is. Making it out to be something more is just silly. I have a degree in biology and know vertebrate comparative anatomy rather well. Below is a simple analysis written so even non-biologists can understand it:
First of all it had hair, external testicles and external ears etc…
Only mammals have these traits so #1, it is a male mammal.
On the so called “Beak”
There was no “beak” as the good photos clearly show that the premaxilla and maxilla have open tooth sockets showing where the upper incisors and upper canines once were. Tooth loss is common during the decay process as bone swells and shrinks causing teeth to loosen and fall-out. This is especially true in water. So NO BEAK
Next, the animals shows signs off a thick pad on the plantar surface of its pes and manus (hands and feet) with separated digits. The claws are sharp and narrow from side to side, unlike a dog, and show no signs of being highly contractible as in cats. These traits are typical of the raccoon family.
The skull:
Many see a short snout with a slight forehead. The snout has been removed as should be obvious to anyone, so the actual length of the animals head would be greater.
Also, there is no pronounced forehead, as the region in front of the eyes that people are perceiving as a forehead is just the junction between where the bare bone is of the snout, and where the flesh begins again. The actual surface of the skull would be underneath this tissue, and following the known boney surface, as well as the given tissue depth in the picture, all signs of a pronounced forehead disappears.
The pitbull suggestion:
The pitbull suggestion disappears based on most every diagnostic feature examined, and the main trait that people are seeing in the skull that suggested to them that it was a pitbull is shown false above. In pitbulls there is a rather pronounced frontal region that creates a pronounced angle between where the orbits are and the snout begins, and this simply is not present in the “Montauk” creature.
On the dentition:
The teeth in the lower jaw show carnassial teeth (meat slicing), and a well developed canine in front. This is a sign of a carnivore.
The teeth show, from anterior to posterior, a large canine, then a tiny premolar close behind with an anterior cusp, and a very small posterior cusp. This tooth actually abuts the premolar behind it and there is a posterior impression to accommodate this association that is found on the posterior surface of the first premolar. This is what is seen in raccoons.
Next, the premolars directly behind the canine increase in size in successive order with each tooth actually touching, or nearly touching, the tooth behind it. Again, as seen in raccoons.
The first three teeth found directly behind the canine show a tall anterior pointed cusp, with a low posterior cusp that gradually develops an occlusionary surface from labial to lingual (outside of the mouth to inside). Again, as seen in raccoons.
The 4th tooth posterior to the canine develops a second tall cusp posteriorly that is slightly shorter than the anterior one. There is, again, a posterior region of occlusion that is larger than those found more anteriorly on other teeth. This is again, as seen in raccoons.
It also isn’t a badger as the premolars do not orient themselves more medial at their anterior end, and more lateral on the posterior end as in raccoons, and the Montauk animal.
On the general morphology of the body:
The hips are wide relative to the front of the animal, with the back portion of the animal more stalky, and the front portion more elongated relative to the back portion.
Next it was about 2-3 feet long according to all involved. The size given is well in within known sizes for raccoons.
The limbs of raccoons are not short relative to the Montauk Monster as stated by some. Raccoons limbs are actually very long, and fur often gives the illusion of shorter limbs (raccoon skeleton: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Zoology/Animalclassification/OrderPrimates/raccoonskeleton.jpg) .
With the fur gone, the limb length is more apparent. For those who doubt this, one only needs to google, “raccoon” to see how long these limbs really are. Their front limbs are much longer than ours, relatively speaking. Here is a quote from Darren Naish PhD, a vertebrate paleontology:
“and if you’re surprised by the length of the Montauk animal’s limbs, note that – like a lot of mammals we ordinarily assume to be relatively short-legged – raccoons are actually surprisingly leggy (claims that the limb proportions of the Montauk carcass are unlike those of raccoons are not correct).”
Everything lines up with raccoon, and nothing is in contradiction. That cannot be said about any other suggestion. In science we call this, “Parsimony.”
It is a dead “raccoon”
Thats is NOT a dead raccon but it is a hoax.The person who said it was a raccon DUR-TA-DUR.
it is a racoon, id believ a biologist over someone who cant even say “dee dee dee” right.. that came from mind of mencia on comedy central.. dur ta dur just makes you sound like a poser.
Raccon?Are are you crazy?That is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo not a racoon.Duh dmbo.Keely is 9 and she knows that!
If a 9-year-old says it, and accompanies it with an intelligent “DUR-TA-DUR,” well, it must be true, right? I am going to take her opinion over that of someone with a degree in biology. So, oh, wise Keely, what is the meaning of life? ;-P
DUH SHE IS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO POPULAR
i AM 2 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDD KEELYS FREIND AND SHE IS VERY 1 AND A HALF
MANDY IS 2 BUT I AM9
KEELY IS 1
i am 9
I SO do not understand how people are trying so hard to identify (or refuse to believe given explanations) something according to how it looks after it’s been in the water for God knows how long! Any living thing that begins to decay in water…ewwww will not be pretty and is difficult to identify though it could be something as simple as a raccoon.
There seems to be two different “Montauk Monster” stories going around. The first one does look like dead racoon. The latest thing to wash up on the beach looks like a dead dog. I don’t know how anyone could either one was an actual monster. Get real.
if its a badger then it has had a really long (or short im not good in geog) and dead journy through the sea or just an fat raccon:)Link:
http://www.dappercadaver.com/blog/2008/08/02/monster-mondays-special-report-montauk-monster/
Ok I am no one special, but if you look at the skull and compare to a raccoon skull, you have a match. Look at the left-over fur, same colour as a raccon. Obviously a big male, but the ears are ther same to. BTW anyone that relise on the government to solve there problems will be waiting a long time.
if its a decayed raccoon then why is only the face decayed and it has a beak that doesnt have seperate teeth the beak and teeth are 1 part and if the government wasnt tryin to cover it up then they would do a DNA test and prove it for sure
Hahaha. Anna is an idiot.
This is all more or less a hoax