unforum

[Aiobhan]

[WTF?] Montauk Monster?

[degravedi]

It definitely seems too "adult" for the Cryptids Are Real deal. Very cool either way. I see there's a lot of photoshopping speculation on Google, but it seems to me like a real story over a mistaken identity. The angle seems to suggest a beak, but a dog with a medium-length snout (/ a large cat?) would look roughly like that with some decomposed skin.

On a more comic note, maybe it's a cat-eagle! http://www.freakingnews.com/Eagle-Cat-Pictures-20450.asp

[jono]

Where did you find the name to search?

Looks very very odd, to be honest I know people who look like that

[degravedi]

It's definitely not a sea turtle as some have claimed (you can see teeth on the bottom jaw). And if you look closely theres a few patches of fur left around the neck near the base of the skull. Fish are notorious scavengers and would be the ones responsible for the removal of the soft tissue at the nose, ears, and tips of the toes.

IMHO, I would say it was a pug (which is terribly sad if someone lost their pet).

Edit: definitely a poor pug. Check out the very bottom picture here from a different angle: http://gawker.com/5031872/scientist-plea-from-montauk-monster-finders

[Virdilak]

Speculation I've seen calls it a raccoon, due to the finger length and such.

[konamouse]

Tail length might also be a clue to the animal's identity. I agree about the fish scavengers creating this 'monstrous appearance'.

[madamimadam]

that, and bloating and discoloration from being in the sun

it's a dog, sadly

[Lunsford]

It was stated today that the "beast" is actually what happens when racoons breed with dogs. The picture was taken after the head had started to decay and the skull and canines is actually what you see, not a beak.

[Fishjp]

[konamouse]

Nope, raccoons cannot breed with dogs (different species). But there is such a thing as a raccoon dog.

[lazarusHART]

Konamouse, the living wiki.


A complement BTW.

[Sassy]

It's a Pug. Sheeesh. Poor thing.

[Euchre]

If you look at the second Newsday photo, it's not the same carcass - unless of course they flipped the thing over then waited for the tide to come back in and go back out, then dry the beach again. That or they are masters at carefully working the sand to look completely untouched after flipping over a putrid dead animal's carcass. I'm thinking no, and they 'second photo' is just a pic of a different dead dog washed ashore someplace else, and good evidence of the fact that this is what dead dogs that have been in the ocean look like.

[madamimadam]

so this is over, right?

lol might need to be archived as a great moment in forum history