Chatter Tongue Gossip

Thoughts on Love, Sex & Entertainment

ANOTHER, Montauk Monster has been found!

AC3JA9ICA004OMSCA3ZMWSECARRO156CA26NQ6CCA6RU7E8CAM3ZG1ACADSLI37CA6AXPM5CA3PTJYGCALU66L6CA0THU78CAFE7VR5CABA2IMJCAWBFFGNCADQQHJSCAIKBDEJCAZVGS1KCAC5SJR8I’m going to go out on a limb here and talk about what I usually call, guy stuff, because I found it to be very interesting. Have any of you ever heard of he Montauk Monster? I’m a big Scifi fan so I have heard and seen the news reports about the first one of these things that surfaced. Now, another one of the creatures have been found. Here is what the Wikipedia has to say about the first creature that was found.

The Wikipedia says that the story began with a July 23 article in a local newspaper, The Independent. Jenna Hewitt, 26, of Montauk, and three friends said they found the creature on July 12 at the Ditch Plains beach, two miles east of the district. The beach is a popular surfing spot at Rheinstein Estate Park owned by the town of East Hampton. Hewitt was quoted:

We were looking for a place to sit when we saw some people looking at something… We didn’t know what it was… We joked that maybe it was something from Plum Island.[3]

Her color photograph ran in black and white, signifying a complete miscalculation or hoax under the headline “The Hound of Bonacville” (a take-off on the name Bonackers, 250px-RhodeislandMonsterwhich refers to the natives of East Hampton, and The Hound of the Baskervilles which is a book in the Sherlock Holmes series). The light-hearted article speculated that the creature might be a turtle or some mutant experiment from the Plum Island Animal Disease Center before noting that Larry Penny, the East Hampton Natural Resources Director, had concluded it was a raccoon with its upper jaw missing. The article concluded that “someone took it away… to be buried… we hope.”[4] A local newspaper quoted an unidentified woman, who claimed that the animal was only the size of a cat, and had decomposed to a skeleton by the time of the press coverage. She would not identify its location for inspection.[5] Hewitt’s father denies claims that his daughter is keeping the body’s location a secret.[5]

Hewitt and her friends were interviewed on Plum-TV, a local cable television show.[6]Alanna Navitski, an employee of Evolutionary Media Group in Los Angeles, California, passed a photo of the creature to Anna Holmes at Jezebel, claiming that a friend’s sister saw the monster in Montauk. Holmes then passed it along to fellow Gawker Media website Gawker.comwhich gave it wide attention on July 29 under the headline “Dead Monster Washes Ashore in Montauk”.[7]

Cryptozoologist Loren Colemanat Cryptomundo first coined the name the “Montauk Monster” on July 29, 2008. [8]The moniker was disseminated globally on the Internet in the following days. Photographs were widely circulated via email and weblogs, and the national media picked up on it raising speculation about the creature. The potential urban legendstature of the Montauk Monster was noted by Snopes.[9]

In May 2009, the National Postreported that the owner of claimed to have found another incarnation.[10]

Speculation in published reports included theories that the Montauk Monster might have been a turtle without its shell—even though a turtle’s shell cannot be removed without damaging the spine nor do they have teeth as appear in the photograph[11][12]—a dog, a raccoon,[13][14] or perhaps a science experiment from the nearby government animal testing facility, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.[15] The creature’s appearance was believed to have been altered through immersion in water for an extended period before coming to rest on the shore, making it difficult to identify.[13]

William Wise, director of Stony Brook University‘s Living Marine Resources Institute, interpreted the photo along with a colleague; they deemed the creature a fake, the result of “someone who got very creative with latex.” Wise discounted the following possibilities:[16]

  • Raccoon (The legs appear to be too long in proportion to the body.)
  • Sea turtle (Sea turtles do not have teeth) The creature is said to be a turtle because it appears to have what seems to be a beak. But some photos, with different angles, show that skin and tissue are missing from the front of creature’s face.
  • Rodent (Rodents have two huge, curved incisor teeth in front of their mouths)
  • Dog or other canine such as a coyote. (Prominent eye ridge and the feet don’t match)
  • Sheep (Sheep don’t have sharp teeth)

On August 1st, Gawker[17] published pictures and X-ray images of a water rat, an Australian rodentwith several similarities to the Montauk Monster, such as the beak, tail, feet, and size. On the same day, Jeff Corwin appeared on Fox News and claimed that upon close inspection of the photograph, he feels sure the monster is merely a raccoon or dog that has decomposed slightly.[13] This was backed up by Darren Naish, a British paleontologist, who examined the images and agreed that, if real, the creature was a raccoon. Naish says that “claims that the limb proportions of the Montauk carcass are unlike those of raccoons are not correct”, and on his blog he furnishes an illustration of an intact raccoon corpse drawn over the corpse in the photograph.[13]

On August 5 2008, Fox News Channel‘s Morning Show repeated speculation that the beast is a decayed corpse of a capybara, even though capybaras do not have tails.[18] The next day, the same program reported that an unnamed man claimed that the animal’s carcass had been stolen from his front yard.[19]

In an episode of the History Channel show Monster Quest, a representative from Plum Island Animal Disease Center speculated, after seeing other, close-up photos of the creature’s face, that it was a diseased or mutilated boxer dog.

 We humans have been around for quite a few years now.  I really think that by now people have seen enough dead animals to be able to identify what it really is, decomposed or not.  Hopefully, this time they will be able to get a DNA sample and find out for sure what these things are. 

But what do you think?  



May 14, 2009 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , , ,


  1. Hey Margie, that thing is gross looking!! What do you think it is? I, myslef, have no idea. You found out that this is the second one of these that has washed up?

    Comment by Cinoda Reed | May 15, 2009 | Reply

  2. Yes, there has been a second one! The picture, I think is of the first one… For some reason with the first one, the body came up missing an they originally said the girl who found it wouldn’t tell where she found it on the beach… But then her father came forward and said that she wasnt keeping it a secret… Sounds to me like a goverment cover up.. So that makes me think that it is more likely a goverment experiment gone bad.. Hopefully the scientist have got the new one and can get it DNA tested before soemthing happens to it. If we dont hear about it any more you can bet that the goverment is behind it!

    Comment by Margie Weatherbe | May 16, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: