Opinions on Montauk Monster Veracity?

  • Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date
In summary: I smell a rat. This looks awfully fake to me:In summary, the original picture circulating online looks fake. The body and head have been Photoshopped together, and there are JPG artifacts present that make the image look fake. The most likely explanation is that the image has been altered in some way, most likely to make it look like a creature that is not actually present.
  • #1
DaveC426913
Gold Member
22,443
6,109
Any opinions on its veracity?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #3
Hm. Maybe I posted prematurely.


Inspired by an article (which I've now lost track of), I've looked at the http://gawker.com/5030531/dead-monster-washes-ashore-in-montauk" [Broken] closely. It seems quite apparent that the head and body have been Photochopped together. Look at the white are behind the ear and the sharp deliniation. Pull the original into PhotoShop and enlarge it, it becomes quite apparent how unreal that area is.

http://www.davesbrain.ca/miscpix/PF080801montauk_monster.gif" [Broken]

To my eye, that looks pretty poorly done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
I have seen this type decomposition of the head, which makes it look like a beak, on several animals. Its very typically k-9 tooth related. Its not a monster.
 
  • #5
Raccoon!
 
  • #6
K.J.Healey said:
Raccoon!

See, that's the thing. It's a no-brainer to toss out ideas about what it could be. But that is far from "solving the mystery".

A coon does not have a beak-like snout.
 
  • #8
I know, I've read those articles.

And I know what mammal skeletons look like. The http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2484017/Montauk-Monster-Mystery-animal-corpse-becomes-web-sensation.html" [Broken] does not look like a mammal skull though.

However, the more I look into this the more I think the original pic has been altered so as not to look like a common mammal (yes, probably coon, possibly dog or similar).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
I don't think it's that it has been altered, but just that part of the skull is buried in the sand in a way that it obscures the shape. My initial impression of the overall body shape is something canine or feline. Hypatia's additional photos really help shed more light on it being more canine (keep in mind she's trained in forensic anthropology, so is more accustomed than most of us at examining remains in varied states of decomposition and making sense of them).
 
  • #10
Moonbear said:
I don't think it's that it has been altered, but just that part of the skull is buried in the sand in a way that it obscures the shape.
I wasn't suggesting the snout was altered, I was suggesting the head's been pasted onto the body.

It becomes obvious if you zoom in and look at it closely right behind the ear.
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
I wasn't suggesting the snout was altered, I was suggesting the head's been pasted onto the body.

It becomes obvious if you zoom in and look at it closely right behind the ear.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing, but as I look again, I do see that the shadow around the head isn't consistent with the direction of the shadow cast by the rest of the body. Around the rest of the body, the shadow seems cast in the 6:00 or 7:00 direction, while around the head, it seems cast in the 2:00 or 3:00 direction.
 
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
I wasn't suggesting the snout was altered, I was suggesting the head's been pasted onto the body.

It becomes obvious if you zoom in and look at it closely right behind the ear.

Dave, these look like typical .jpg imaging artifacts to me.

Moonbear said:
I'm not seeing what you're seeing, but as I look again, I do see that the shadow around the head isn't consistent with the direction of the shadow cast by the rest of the body. Around the rest of the body, the shadow seems cast in the 6:00 or 7:00 direction, while around the head, it seems cast in the 2:00 or 3:00 direction.

I'm not seeing that. It appears the sun is high in the sky, and to the left. The shadows cast by the legs, elbow, and head are all consistent with this.
 
  • #13
Redbelly98 said:
I'm not seeing that. It appears the sun is high in the sky, and to the left. The shadows cast by the legs, elbow, and head are all consistent with this.

Maybe. I'm not sure.

Though, still, looking at the head, I think it really only appears confusing because of the partial decomposition. A lot of the "snout" on a dog or raccoon is fleshy or cartilaginous, not bony tissue. The flesh is already lost from the snout and all that's showing is the skeleton. That's what gives sort of a strange optical illusion that makes you think it's a beak-like structure. It really isn't, it's just more what a skeletal skull would look like in the snout region.

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/economy-dog-skeleton-lg.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Redbelly98 said:
Dave, these look like typical .jpg imaging artifacts to me.

Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with JPG artifacts. I know you can get some funny sharp lines like we're seeing - but couple that with the suspiciously uniform white patch it's up against, and I smell a rat. This looks awfully fake to me:

http://www.davesbrain.ca/miscpix/PF080801montauk_monster.jpg" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
i don't believe, such a strange creature has never been upfront on the newspaper highlights,
but creating such a picture to imply other things or to fit one's dialog is ofcourse likely

if it exists, it might be a no brainer, but probably less scary than some elegant pretty animals i have observed pretty much in the local zoo
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with JPG artifacts. I know you can get some funny sharp lines like we're seeing - but couple that with the suspiciously uniform white patch it's up against, and I smell a rat. This looks awfully fake to me:

http://www.davesbrain.ca/miscpix/PF080801montauk_monster.jpg" [Broken]

It's hard to say ... I've stared at the images now so much and it's not obvious to me as it seems to be for you. At any rate, the explanation of an ordinary animal partially decomposed around the snout makes the most sense to me.

Regards,

Mark
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
OK... I've got it up in photoshop right now... at 200% mag.

It is looking like someone, an inexperienced manipulator, has tried to change some of the features of the head. There are remnants of hair sticking out of the back of where the skull meets the neck. They are grey or silver and some are bloody. but this all stops as we move toward the face. The face has the most amount of re-touching on it with some humanoid eyes added and the "beak-like" nose and some pointy teeth which may be from the original carcass.

There is a pattern like scales or impressions in the purplish skin but these are more than likely photoshopped in... The limb closest to us is missing skin and anything that looks like a paw or flipper or otherwise.

If you bring it up in photoshop or other programs you'll see the suspicious area of re-working around behind the head where the sand goes "out of focus" for no apparent reason... it seems to be trying to represent a limb buried in the sand but is only giving away the hoax.

Montauk is a controversial site for many reasons and this is probably someone trying to bring the attention of the press to it... and they have done a stellar job. It probably was an improperly discarded carcass... of what we can only guess after this amateur put his or her feeble imagination to work on it.
 
  • #18
Why do people keep saying it's a Racoon? It looks nothing like a Racoon. It's too big, the snout is too blunt and the ears are all wrong. (PS I have seen many and killed a few) It is obviously just a dog, most likely a pit bull, that went over the side of someones boat.
 
  • #19
nottheone said:
Why do people keep saying it's a Racoon? It looks nothing like a Racoon. It's too big...
How did you determine how big it is? Reports say it's about 2 feet long, which is well within coon limits. At least, around here.
 
  • #20
The only frame of reference is the granularity of the sand, it looks bigger than a coon to me. Even if I am wrong about that it still has features that a dog would have and a coon wouldn't. Look at all the pics in this link, it seems pretty obvious to me that it's a dog.

http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/montauk-monster-pictures-real-or-viral-hoax/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. Is the Montauk Monster real or fake?

The truth is, there is no definitive answer to this question. The story of the Montauk Monster originated in 2008 when a photo of a strange creature washed up on a beach in Montauk, New York went viral. Since then, there have been several theories about its origins, including speculation that it could be a decomposing raccoon or a hoax created by someone with special effects skills. However, there is no concrete evidence to support any of these claims, so the veracity of the Montauk Monster remains a mystery.

2. What do experts say about the Montauk Monster?

Scientists and wildlife experts have examined the photo and have given various opinions on what the creature could be. Some believe it could be a raccoon or other small mammal that has undergone severe decomposition, while others think it could be a deformed animal or a species that has not yet been discovered. However, without further evidence, it is impossible to determine the true identity of the Montauk Monster.

3. Are there any other sightings of creatures like the Montauk Monster?

There have been a few reported sightings of similar creatures, but none have been confirmed to be the Montauk Monster or even related to it. In 2012, a similar-looking creature was found on a beach in Spain, but it was later identified as a decomposing badger. Other sightings have been reported in the years since the Montauk Monster photo went viral, but none have been verified as being the same creature.

4. Could the Montauk Monster be a new species?

It is possible that the Montauk Monster is a new species that has yet to be discovered by science. However, it is also possible that it is a known animal that has undergone severe decomposition or has been deformed due to environmental factors. Without a physical specimen or further evidence, it is impossible to make a definitive conclusion about its species.

5. Why is there still so much interest in the Montauk Monster?

The Montauk Monster continues to capture public interest because of its mysterious origins and potential to be a new species. The initial photo sparked a wave of speculation and theories, and the lack of concrete evidence has kept the mystery alive. Additionally, the creature's appearance is both fascinating and unsettling, making it a topic of curiosity for many people.

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
821
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
853
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top