The Montauk Monster

[ROX]

The "expert" guy on FNC says it's a dead raccoon.

He says that the same incident that crush his snout probably killed him.  The fact that all it's fur has fallen out as it has begun to decompose is no real surprise.

I believe the animal expert.




ROX

[croduh]

Them animals from Chernobyl really look cute.

[Chalenge]

Its hard to tell and even after a close examination it would be hard to tell the difference between dog and raccoon because the differences in skeletal structures are so minor (primarily related to variations in the scapula and pelvis areas) and both are very common around the globe.

[442w30]

I think I went to high school with that guy

[Motherland]

That irritated me, how stupid is someone that they can't understand what was just told to them, in plain and simple English?  I don't think it was a blond moment, I think that just shows that T.V. people don't really need brains, just read a teleprompter.  Of course, there are exceptions to that.

Oh come on, it was Fox News, what do you expect? The lady probably thought it was some kind of abomination of god sent to rid the world of the evil Liberals.

[angelsandair]

Oh come on, it was Fox News, what do you expect? The lady probably thought it was some kind of abomination of god sent to rid the world of the evil Liberals.

That my friend goes by the name of Democracy and a Republic

[boxboy28]

personally i think one of the bodies from the JFK Jr crash washed up.

[BTW]

I tend to believe the US Biologists that say its a hoax, either photoshopped or created with latex.
I think its photoshopped because there is only one photo of it anywhere.

Now some have tried to debunk the biologists saying...

The US Biologists debunking collapsed quickly because at least a dozen people saw the creature at the Montauk beach in Long Island, while Jenna Jedutt took the photo of it. A photography expert confirmed the photo is authentic.

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/2609/48/

Sounds convincing eh?
But if so many people were present, why is there only one photo of it? Almost every cel phone has a camera feature and  none of these "witnesses" have another picture of this thing on a cel phone. There's ONE photo. On a crowded beach I find that very unlikely. Even the original photographer- he takes ONE photo of the oddest thing he's seen in his life? He doesn't take a few in case some don't come out right? Where are the other photos?

There is not a photo expert in the world who can confirm a digital photo authentic. They can definitely conclude a photo is retouched, but it doesn't work the other way. They can't say a photo hasn't been manipulated, if there are no detectable artifacts. Simply reducing the size of the image could make most artifacts disappear. So if there are no lighting or pattern or consistency flaws, the expert can't rule it authentic. He can only say there are no obvious signs of retouching.

Sadly, the mainstream media resorts to this type of "evidence" all too frequently.

There are no witnesses with other pictures, no witnesses saying what happened to the carcass. I vote hoax, and probably a photoshop hoax.

[trax1]

Actually there are atleast 2 pics of it, not 1, click the link in my first post, right under the pic of it is 2 thumbnails of that pic, plus 1 more.

[Saxman]

That irritated me, how stupid is someone that they can't understand what was just told to them, in plain and simple English?

Clearly you've never worked in Tech Support.

[Donzo]

Clearly you've never worked in Tech Support.

LMAO!  Good one!

[Furball]

PR stunt for upcoming film?

[Angus]

So the carcass was not retrieved?
The hairs start falling off in water after just a few days. The "beak", if you ignore the end of it, could be from a short nosed dog.
The whole part basically looks like a dog to me, just the nose/beak is funny.

[Chalenge]

Just look up racoon skeleton and dog skeleton and have done with it already!

[BTW]

Actually there are atleast 2 pics of it, not 1, click the link in my first post, right under the pic of it is 2 thumbnails of that pic, plus 1 more.

Ok I didn't see that one. Its moved in the second shot. And some of the anatomy doesn't look to be the same proportions as the first shot, but that could be foreshortening distortions. There's nothing in the picture to check the perspective (convenient).
At first glance the second shot looks more phony than the first which makes me understand why the first is getting on all the TV shows. The lighting in the second shot looks like Studio max lighting and the perspective doesn't look natural. It looks to be hyper perspective, a frequent problem in 3d programs. With two shots, they should be able to prove a hoax. Its a whole lot more complicated to fake two pictures of the same thing unless its a movie publicity stunt posting CGI stills. I'd lean toward that now.

I'd want to know the resolution of the originals.

That second shot was obviously created in a 3d program. I think thats why it isn't being posted more, especially since its the most dramatic of the the two shots.  Dramatic, but obviously made in a 3d program.

I have no doubt its a hoax (CGI) now. Its good, but there are mistakes. For something so bloated, there is no evidence of fluid anywhere, not in the sand, not on the animal. No evidence of any change to the sand from the animal ( other than indentations), and no crabs or bugs anywhere to be seen. It is way too sterile to be real. Its a decent 3d render ( apparently, the images are too small to say how good the render is really. At full resolution they might suck)- unless its from Dreamworks - then it sucks. They have the stuff to do better.