Another strange animal washed up on shore, page 2

Originally posted by Nammu

The 1st picture in this thread appears to be a completely different creature from the Montauk beast from looking at the denture.

Look at the pictures in the article, not really the one I posted. The news site wouldn't let me embed them. They look very similar.

Originally posted by Nammu
@ testrat - do you have a source for your last photo?? I'd like to see more photos of that find. It's hard to make anything out of significance on that picture.

Here is the story, with a few more pictures. The other pictures aren't that great. But it does show to have a very strange hole on its side. Something that doesn't look like nature decay.

Originally posted by chapter29
reply to post by Zepherian

---

There are more important things going on in this world to pay attention to

Well, then what the hell are you doing here?

Chump comment....

What am I doing here? Isn't it obvious? I'm telling people off and trying to shift focus for the real, pressing, important, issues.

While zoology is interesting and I can be as much a sucker for mystery as anyone else, one dead half rotting animal shouldn't be a viral meme in these dangerous times where we are being herded like cattle towards a cull.

Priorities. Don't fall for mass media slight of hand.

reply to post by Zepherian

---

blah, blah-blah, blah, blah...

Wrong on all accounts....there were multiple findings and in close proximity to the testing site.



And why would the PTB divert our attention using washed up creatures...? That makes no sense - I am well aware of the global issues going on, as are most other people on this site; so no disfo here - maybe nothing more than a walrus, seal, ect....

But to say this type of thread would divert the masses is an insult to the majority, of which you are included (as far as you say anyways...).

reply to post by Nammu

---

No offense Nammu, but I am not convinced in the slightest that the pics of the decomposing dog and the Montauk Monster are related in anyway.

Untill I see more pics or the prop or something.. I won't just dismiss it as a hoax! If it was a prop, why no more pics as was promised?

this was the last paragraph on the site you linked:

"It was approximately 2.5-3 feet long. To compare it to another animal it’s safe to say it was about the size a small dog. It did not resemble a dog or pitbull because the eyes and snout (or beak nose in this instance) did not look like anything from the canine family.

This is not a dead dog or raccoon."

reply to post by chapter29

---

It's not just this thread, it's every mundane event that is blown out of proportion and vested in a false or exagerated aura of mystery. I just chose to bring up the point here, but it could have been on one of a number of such threads. I mean, it's not like it's a pleisiosaurus or a 300ft squid is it? It's just noise.

Adam Wieshaupt once said there is no greater way to control the minds of men than with mystery.

Originally posted by Nammu
The Montauk creature was proven to be a hoax and part of a viral advertising campaign for a film.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Nammu]

Originally posted by Nammu
...if you read through all the blogs at www.montauk-monster.com... it's apparent that the girls (Jenna Hewitt, Rachel Goldberg, and Courtney Fruin) that originally claimed this find were bluffing. Someone else named as only 'Rita' claims to have the remains, but that they legally cannot release pictures or the body (why we will never know). ...

There is 0 proof that it's a movie prop/viral marketing for Splinterheads. Yes, they did try to ride the wave of opportunity, but it soon became apparent that the Montauk Monster had nothing to do with the movie makers. And I wouldn't believe much that's on the montauk-monster.com website. It's clearly someone that saw a business opportunity, and made things worse with bad research.

The director of the carnival comedy Splinterheads, whose people had been cynically piggybacking the most important story of the summer by claiming that Monty the Montauk Monster of Montauk was nothing but a prop for the little flick—and that the origin of the story was the producer's sister—is finally admitting that they lied, lied, LIED!

Source

After cashing in on the Montauk Monster hysteria for weeks, the makers of a low budget movie are now singing a rather different tune, reports our sister site Gotham News. The crew of the film Splinterheads were shooting in Montauk when the monster sightings first occurred and have been linking to a Gotham News report on their website ever since and even brazenly displaying a picture of the famed beastie.

Now though, they’ve decided to own up to the fact their movie has nothing to do with the monster at all and are trying to blame a 16-year-old kid!

Source

reply to post by HugmyRek

---

These creatures are not turtles. Don't you few who suggested this realize that turtles can't just lose their shell? Their shell IS their body. Its not like cartoons where they can take of their shell and put it back on.
Sheesh


www.dkimages.com...

The skeleton of a seal.

[edit on 13/05/2008 by just_julie]

It (kinda) looks like a mythical Griffin...without wings...!











upload.wikimedia.org...






[edit on 1-10-2008 by cosmokatt7]

If you look at the pics of the decomposing dog on www.montauk-monster.com...

it seems that someone went to alot of trouble making a dead dog look like the montauk-monster (Even though it is clearly not!) all you have to do is compare the mouth/eye area between the monster and dog pics to know it isnt the same animal.

It is blatantly obvious that someone not only laid down this dog to resemble the montauk monster (that could have been turned over) but went even further in burning its skin and taking the skin off the snout. The sand around this dog is nowhere near the water and looks very different from that around the montauk monster!

I cannot help wonder if this poor dog had to die just for this cause and why someone would go to such lengths just to debunk a so-called hoax!

reply to post by corvin77

---

Well lets just hypothesize that these are dogs. Then why do dogs keep washing up on the shores between NY and Conn? Could there be animal cruelty going on and people are dumping dogs at sea? Did a pack of dogs all of a sudden go for a swim and never made it? Is it something at Plum Island going on? And the worst theory are dogs being used for shark bait? In 2005 the French fisherman were using dogs and cats for bait.

Originally posted by just_julie
reply to post by HugmyRek

---

These creatures are not turtles. Don't you few who suggested this realize that turtles can't just lose their shell? Their shell IS their body. Its not like cartoons where they can take of their shell and put it back on.
Sheesh

I was one of those people saying it looked like a turtle without it's shell. I don't know about HugmyRek, but I'm not saying that that is what it could be. I was just saying it looks a turtle, that doesn't have a shell. You know, say hypothetically if a turtle could exist without it's shell.

Guess I should have said that...

[edit on 1/10/2008 by Sparkly_Eyed777]

reply to post by corvin77

---

Exactly. Why no more pics as they claimed to have them, and why has the body suddenly disappeared never to be seen again. There's also the lady claiming she has a decomposing body, but can't release it or any pictures. That makes me doubtful.

That quote was one person's opinion. Because of the varied breed of dogs we've generated over the centuries it's hard to tell from eyes. From lookig at the photos i see nothing there that screams 'there's no way that's dog eyes!'. The 'beak nose' looks like the end of the skull is exposed (the first part to decompose, especially in water). But the thing is, it's really hard to tell cause the angle on the photos of the Montauk creature is terrible! If I found something like that i'd be taking photos of ALL angles. Front, back, sides, hell i'd be turning the thing over with a stick and snapping as many photos of it as i could. Wouldn't you? The fact that they didn't bother and released only one picture is really suspect.

reply to post by testrat

---

Man, the pictures on the link aint much better. What is it with people. They can't take decent pictures of decomposing carcasses! I mean, the thing's not even moving!

That is a weird hole on that carcass. Exactly circular.

Why have they only released photos of the body and not the head

reply to post by testrat

---

Please note the skull of a raccoon for comparison.



You should be able to see that this animal is, or was, a raccoon. Raccoons often live in and around the rock piles that make up a jetty and due to unexpected high waves, will get washed out to sea and drown. Their bodies become decomposed and only recognizable by their skeletons or skulls.

reply to post by eaganthorn

---

For comparison here are some dead raccoon pictures found on beaches.

Here is a artsy one.



One that has been bloated.



And one more.



Not sure why I can't get my bloated one to work, maybe its to bloated.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by testrat]

[edit on 1-10-2008 by testrat]

ohio bigfoot carrying a stick
  Posted 17 days ago with 17 member flags

FB - Find Bigfoot announcement: "HUGE" new video coming Sept 10
  Posted 2 days ago with 8 member flags

Huge, Hairy Giant Reported by Trio, Reviving Legend
  Posted 9 days ago with 7 member flags

Actual Bigfoot Footage!!??!!
  Posted 4 days ago with 4 member flags

"Sasquatch" They are real! Are they really here?
  Posted 16 days ago with 3 member flags

Rocky Mountains Sasquatch photo
  Posted 9 days ago with 3 member flags

The Texas Blue Dog
  Posted 8 days ago with 3 member flags

GIANT worm found in China
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: