Talk:Montauk Monster/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article is WAY TOO SERIOUS!

If this creature really did come from Plum Island, the last thing Plum Island is going to do is admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.52.168 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is way too serious! By all rights this is a non-notable event. However since it's become a sensation because of Internet chatter (associated with the Montauk Project) and because the photo has worked its way into popular culture with cameo appearances on comedy shows. The edits are killing what should be a fun story by treating it too seriously and trying so vigorously to identify something that nobody other than the submitting photographer has actually seen! Americasroof (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it's useful for anyone trying to find out what's actually been going on with the story. Presumably there's not much to actually say about the pop culture references, but if there's anything particularly mainstream or notable out there, feel free to write it up. --McGeddon (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This thing was covered by many notable news outlets. I first heard about it on CNN while sitting in an airport.72.235.131.7 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New images

New images have surfaced on the alleged Montauk Monster, which I'm surprised aren't featured on here as well but that's not the point. The new images, seen here [blacklisted link removed], don't seem to depict the same creature as in the initial photo. They're in different positions, are different sizes, and aren't even the same colours; decomposition would play a factor in those last two, but at least three or four days of rotting would have had to take effect. Nobody would have left it on the exact scene of its discorvery for that long, and according to apparent reports, people have already taken it home for whatever reason.

I'll point out again that the body is in a different position than in the initial photo. When you add up all the differences, they don't make sense. Assuming the body was simply left there, decomposition is a very possibly cause of the decolourization and the difference in size. But why would the head now be facing the exact opposite direction, and the body be laying on its side rather than its stomach? Somebody moved it for a better shot? Then why would they just leave it there? If it was money they wanted, the creature itself would come out to be 10 times more than mere photos.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I am truly convinced it's nothing but a hoax, all this further proving my claim. Comments? 24.125.186.158 (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing direct improvements to the article, not for speculation or forum chat. --McGeddon (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is neither. These are important details that nobody seems to notice, or at the very least nobody has brought up at all from what I can see. 24.125.186.158 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah. the other pictures are clearly a rotted pig. different size, position, color, even shape. it's amazing that so many ppl, even news, could confuse the two (but then again, look who they voted for!)

it's obviously not a capybara, as capybara's don't have tails and this - well, it has a tail. as regards the raccoon theory - where are the upper cannines? fell out? 216.54.131.130 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, they don't make sense? Different people, with different cameras, at different times of day, can make wildly different photos of the same subject, especially when that subject is decomposing, exposed to the elements, being poked and prodded, etc.

And what do you mean when you say the size is different? Neither the original photo nor the new ones have any reference points with which to determine size.

And, this is just my opinion, but I'm sure many people will agree – the original picture is a piece of @#$%, low resolution and all. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By size i mean proportions. different people can take different photos because they are taking them at different angles with different cameras in different lighting conditions. But unless the sun changed color (and the sand changed color inversely) in the meantime - the other pics are of something with a distinctly different color. and cameras cannot change the position of the object which they photograph. or the teeth, for that matter that other pictures are clearly a rotted pig and i don't see how anyone would want to look at it. because the photos were taken by different people, they are unlikely to be of the same object. in addition, the photos are strikingly different - so you contend its possible that they are of the same thing and i content that it is also possible that they are of different things, and all things being equal, the latter is much more likely. Kevin Baas^talk 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"But unless the sun changed color (and the sand changed color inversely) in the meantime - the other pics are of something with a distinctly different color."

This is 2008. Digital cameras do automatic colour adjustment. Different CCDs and processors will produce different colours. So no, slightly different colour does NOT mean that the images aren't of the same subject.

"and cameras cannot change the position of the object which they photograph."

But other things very easily can.

"or the teeth, for that matter that other pictures are clearly a rotted pig"

Oh, you're an expert all of a sudden?

"because the photos were taken by different people, they are unlikely to be of the same object."

How do you figure that?

"in addition, the photos are strikingly different - so you contend its possible that they are of the same thing and i content that it is also possible that they are of different things, and all things being equal, the latter is much more likely."

Wrong. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not of fan of logical reasoning i see. All too common. Kevin Baas^talk 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Montauk Monster

This could possible be a sarcophilus harrisi otherwise known as a tasmanian devil or the tasmanian wolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.252.71 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's my cousin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.205.233 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a frikin PIG

My belief is that the Montauk MOnster is nothing more than a deformed feral pig. The incisors could be tusks coming from a deformed jaw, the flippers could be decomposed feet with hooves nibbled or cut off, and the pig hypothesis explains the patch of hide visible in some photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.32.206 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The current major consensus was that it's a raccoon, unless you can find other sources that believe it may be a pig, feel free to add them. 24.60.143.195 (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery solved

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/08/the_montauk_monster.php — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been quoted and sourced in the article for a few days now. --McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And not where it matters. The source positively identifies the carcass as that of a raccoon, but the wiki article only quotes it for some minor details. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We're sourcing it for water effects and for "Darren Naish, a British paleontologist [agreed that] the creature was a raccoon". So far as I'm aware, this is the informed opinion of a single, respected blogger who hasn't examined the actual carcass, so we can't use it to source a "positive identification". Feel free to add greater weight to his analysis, though, it does seem pretty thorough. --McGeddon (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Urban legend, indeed. Most of the photos have it looking like nothing other than a dead dog. I truly cannot see how any other animals could be 'read into' it. Raccoons have positively tiny, bony forelimbs. It's a bloated, partially decomposed dog, with the tip of the upper jaw poking through to give the erroneous impression of a beak.24.127.185.237 (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)WikiPaull

Again, as the article points out, the brow on the creature is not indicative of a canine's. 24.58.92.228 (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

here's an article with the names of the scientists who formally identified the MM as a raccoon if people wish im sure you could send them an email confirming there findings http://www.hamptons.com/detail.php?articleID=4474 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.67.118 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I don't understand why there is still a debate over this if well known and respected biologists like Jeff Corwin say it was a rare species of raccoon that should pretty much mean it was. Is there even a credible source to say its legs are too long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spend day (talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously people this really is a raccoon. I am not aware of any qualified person disputing Naish's identification. Until someone can find one, the identification stands. John.Conway (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I pulled out some sentences that didn't have citations. When citations are found they can be put back in:

• Gawker later said that Evolutionary Media has been promoting the [Cartoon Network] television show Cryptids Are Real and that the monsters on the website resembled the Montauk Monster and the website could have been the victim of a viral marketing campaign.
• It was also stated that it could also be a viral marketing campaign for the upcoming sequel Cloverfield 2.
• The carcass of Montauk Monster has not been made available to the public.
• Several people have claimed to possess the carcass,
  • including the photographer, who claims the carcass is in her possession in a secret location known only to her,
  • whilst other witnesses report that a man took the carcass home saying he was going to "mount (it) on his wall".
• Expert opinions have generally tended toward the explanation that the carcass was that of a raccoon.
• Interest in the creature has been fed by the beach's close proximity to the former U.S. Air Force Base Camp Hero.
• The base has the focus of the long-running Montauk Project conspiracy theory, which describes alien creatures being transported through a "portal" at the site.

—Werson (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Plum Island is nearby where the thing was found: (from wiki) On September 11, 2005, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that the Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center will be replaced by a new federal facility. The location of the facility, to be called the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), is not yet final as of May 17, 2008.[citation needed] I read it is a hybrid creature developed by the US as a potential food source.161.38.223.246 (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

And… Reptilian moonjews! Because… 42! The cake is a lie!

Honestly, GTFO. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Examining the teeth in the photos:

On the dentition: The teeth in the lower jaw show carnassial teeth, and a well developed canine in front. This is a sign of a carnivore.

The teeth show, from anterior to posterior, a large canine, then a tiny premolar close behind with an anterior cusp, and a very small posterior cusp. This tooth actually abuts the premolar behind it and there is a posterior impression to accommodate this association that is found on the posterior surface of the first premolar. This is what can be seen in raccoons. You can see something similar in larger dogs, but not small breeds like pit-bulls (yes pit-bulls can be large, but they are rather derived breeding-wise, and show the tooth gaps mentioned), pugs and so on...

Next, the premolars directly behind the canine increase in size in successive order with each tooth actually touching, or nearly touching, the tooth behind it. Again, as seen in raccoons. Most dogs show spacing, and this is especially so in smaller dogs (all your weird lapdogs) and bulldog types as well.

The first three teeth found directly behind the canine show a tall anterior pointed cusp, with a low posterior cusp that gradually develops an occlusionary surface from labial to lingual (outside of the mouth to inside). Again, as seen in raccoons. In dogs, the second two premolars are almost perfectly triangular, and have two small cusps on their posterior end. This is common in most dogs, and is missing in the montuak monster and raccoons who have only a singular posterior cusp, and both teeth are asymmetrical anterior to posterior with the taller anterior cusp far forwards.

The 4th tooth posterior to the canine develops a second tall cusp posteriorly that is slightly shorter than the anterior one. There is, again, a posterior region of occlusion that is larger than those found more anteriorly on other teeth. This is again, as seen in raccoons. The forth tooth in a canine is usually just a repeat of the 2nt and 3rd.

another aspect of the teeth. In raccoons and the "Montauk monster" the premolars are at a slight angle moving in the lateral direction in the posterior, to a medial direction at the anterior end. I am finding every raccoon skull I see to have this...still no dogs...

Lago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.27.35 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

here's an article with the names of the scientists who formally identified the MM as a raccoon if people wish im sure you could send them an email confirming there findings http://www.hamptons.com/detail.php?articleID=4474

Movie Prop

I'm too lazy to log in or to make a cited entry but apparently this is no more than a mere prop. I was of the persuasion that it was a raccoon. However, as of August 7 it is a prop for the upcoming movie "Splinterheads". Info at [1] the domain of which is now for sale. Cheers! -Axelarater (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One small (and evidently commercial) blog deciding to take an independent movie promoter at face value is not a reliable enough source to support this. I think it's safe to assume that "Splinterheads" is just trying to drum up some free word-of-mouth, until we get a reliable source that says otherwise. --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an anonymous blog that's existed for two weeks quoting an unnamed source; it's definitely just people trying to capitalize on the event. Not a reliable source. If, say, CNN—or even Gawker—acknowledged the site's claims, we could throw in a "producers of an independent film claimed ownership...", but I doubt that will happen. —Werson (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek has brought up the claims and linked to the blog. Check it out: http://gawker.com/5034621/monster-in-a-hall-of-mirrors

Hallock Monster

http://imstillmejustbetter.blogspot.com/2008/08/can-you-say-ewwwww.html

Take a look at the photo I took today at a beach on Long Island, NY. This was taken this morning at Hallock Beach.

To me, it looks like a "normal" animal that died and was in the water for a while. Nejellaphotoart (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nejellaphotoart (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would've flipped it over with a stick or something. Is it still there? Bottom jaw appears to be missing ... has something that looks like tusk structures coming from its mouth ... and it has the same long fingers as the Montauk monster. Interesting. 24.58.92.228 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A Wierd Similarity

I don't know if any expert has pay attention to this before: [http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1:Persepolis-sotton.jpg ] but here is a picture of about 2500 years before, from an ancient cite in Iran called: Persepolis, The comparison between this ancient sculpture and this Montauk Monster, may lead to find that this monster really belongs to that time (during the Achaemenid dynasty in Persia). Arghavan (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Get the news yet?

This thing was just part of Cartoon Networks, "Secret Saturdays" viral campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.125.84 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Raccoon

Message moved from body of article:

Whoever is managing this page, could you please write Dr. Wise as I did. He has already retracted this statement as he had only assumed the front legs of raccoons were shorter than their back legs, but later found that this was not the case. Write the guy!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.27.35 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 January 2009

Have people who suggest a Raccoon never seen one? The skull is completely wrong, the body/arm per-portions are completely wrong for any rodent just short of an obese rat, the tail is thicker than most raccoon's arms, the fingers visible on the front arms are tightly bound even after decay implying a dog or cat like paw rather than a human like "hand" of raccoons.

montauk monster

They found a similar creature on Ocean Beach in New London, CT The carcass was quickly removed, no additional information was ever given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.166.7 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a decomposing Sea Lion

I am by no means an expert, but the first impression I got of it when I viewed the new photos taken in 2009 when a new one washed up, was that it was a decomposing Sea Lion carcass. The flesh decomposed off the skull and the flippers, exposing the skull and the long finger like bones that are usually inside the flippers. The fur sloughed off the thick skin, leaving behind bare skin and blubber. Seems like a logical leap for me. --Kittin 101 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DNA testing required

To definitively rule out a hoax, multiple DNA tests must be collected from the remains. A match to different species each from a different body part would conclusively prove this was a hoax. However, a failure to match remains to any known species would verify that the Montauk monster indeed exists. Vonkje (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%, also, how could the scientists have verified that the animal was a Boxer when Boxers do not have beaks? The lack of genetic testing and hardly liable answer as to what it is: provided by the government, may indeed go to show that it was a coverup. Did the article mention anything about a coverup being speculated, such as what happened to the body afterwards? 24.4.222.40 (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Solved?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525145,00.html

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draconiator (talk • contribs) 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Viral marketing

Article has been altered by myself to state that this was a viral marketing campaign for the unreleased Splinterheads movie with plenty of reliable sources to back that statement up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't the case; the film was some generic low-budget horror with no actual monsters in it, and the producers were just trying to get some publicity by claiming a connection. --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://ifishct.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/random-photos/montauk-monster-racoon.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.59.118 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Montauk Monster/Plum Island/Haarp/CIA

I believe the "Montauk Monster" is a result of the animal experimentation being done and financed thru the U.S. Goverment on Plum Island, NY. It is not limited to animals only, but humans as well. The CIA forces people into situations thru mind control, etc., that they have no control over, and would not commit to under normal circumstances. Same thing is going on in Alaska under the name of HAARP. (i.e. Super Solders) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.68.66 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FAKE

The "mottauk monster" is a total fake. Did anyone notice the rag like piece of clothe on the ankle area? Was it there to cover stitches where flippers were attached to it? Did anyone notice its middle finger stick right out at you!?!?!?! Unless you re an idiot, you should know its fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.97.33 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions like this, and for the love of pete, DON'T insult other wiki members. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Video Game similarities

Clearly this is viral marketing for Sony's upcoming game "The Last Guardian". The Last Guardian focuses on a beast with the same beak, tail, and 4 legged body structure. The game was first hinted at in January 2008, the same year the Montauk Monster was supposedly discovered. Sony began a similar viral marketing campaign for their previous title, "Shadow of the Colossus", before its release as well. Just a theory of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.188.237 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were a viral marketing campaign, something else would have been discovered by now. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the moblin from zelda game franchise reference at bottom of talk!

'Hewitt'?

Towards the end of the 'History' section of this article, somebody called "Hewitt's father" appears, and then a person called "Hewitt". Who are they? They receive no mention at all before or after this. Or is this copypasted from somewhere? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone decided to change the name of the person who discovered the creature. I've corrected it back to "Jenna Hewitt, 26, of Montauk". --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's the Rest of the story?

This article finishes by stating "State and government officials stated the unidentified creature was most likely a dog; as for the corpse, it would be taken to a nearby facility for analysis and study." First there was no mention prior to this sentence that the body had ever been found by anyone but those who took the photos. Second, if the government had taken the body in 2008, why in 2012 is there still no conclusive DNA determination? Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've cut this as unsourced, along with the suggestion that "a representative from Plum Island Animal Disease Center" appeared on the History Channel to describe the creature as a boxer dog - there's one source online that shows a History channel cryptozoologist suggesting that the Monster is a raccoon, and dismissing the idea that Plum Island had anything to do with it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Monstruo Mountauk

Este nuevo monstruo es un fenómeno ya que se presenta sin cualidades a las de un animal normal. Se parece a un perro, el monstruo se murió'. Fŕéddý Ŕàmìrèź

Disculpe mi español roto es probable, pero sí. Eso lo sabemos. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cougar

It was a dead young cougar.217.94.196.179 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Source? no really, this is something that could go on the article. But i'd like to see where you got this information from first. 50.195.51.9 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

moved from article to talk page

Ok i dont want to Edit it but like ok its a racoon right ? well.. racoons have beaks now do they ? I do not know anything about it and at first i thought it just was a look-alike (that it was only looking like a beak) but beaks are the same colour as this is. And well if it WAS a racoon then it would be a bone..white or grey bone. Just look at it and think ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.51.224.241 (talk • contribs)

Wasn't a beak. Look at this picture and it clears up it was certainly a raccoon. [2] Dream Focus 20:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A similar looking creature has washed up in Tenby, South Wales

If anyone thinks it's relevant, as others may start searching.
The recent "beast" that has washed up on a South Wales Beach bears quite a resemblance to the Montauk Monster.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4815583/mysterious-hairless-creature-washes-up-on-south-wales-beach.html
Fireryone (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Montauk Monster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014005501/http://hamptons.plumtv.com/blog/whats_going/paging_darwin_montauk_%E2%80%9Csea_monster%E2%80%9D_real_or_photoshop_phantasy to http://hamptons.plumtv.com/blog/whats_going/paging_darwin_montauk_%E2%80%9Csea_monster%E2%80%9D_real_or_photoshop_phantasy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308074332/http://www.history.com/shows/monsterquest/videos/montauk-monster---myth-of-monster to http://www.history.com/shows/monsterquest/videos/montauk-monster---myth-of-monster

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)