Opinions on Montauk Monster Veracity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
19 replies · 29K views
DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
24,614
Reaction score
8,951
Any opinions on its veracity?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
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" 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"

To my eye, that looks pretty poorly done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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" 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:
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
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"

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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/
 
Last edited by a moderator: