Loren Coleman of Cryptomundo reference on things cryptozoological gives a review of the media phenomenon, as well as further quotes of more experts stating it was actually a raccoon. But the two images above do suggest otherwise.
The Montauk Monster seems much too fat to be a raccoon. The ears and eyes also look much more like that of a pug. Decomposing bodies do get bloated, but I guess not that much. The only thing strange for a pug in the Montauk carcass are the seemingly long legs, but I suspect there may be pugs with slightly longer legs. And I think it’s more plausible to suggest decomposition may make the forelegs look slightly longer than the whole body, including the head, eyes and ears, to look that much distorted.
But I’m a layman, I never saw a raccoon in my life, except at a distance in the Zoo here in Brazil. I even found searching for dead animal images deeply disgusting. Therefore, expert opinions are more than welcome.
I know experts have already said, since the beginning, that it was a raccoon, but not that I’m saying they are wrong, but I do suspect otherwise and would love to see more conclusive evidence.
One has to admit that at first sight, it does look much more like a pug than a raccoon.
But then, it’s a pity the carcass is seemingly lost, and no definitive DNA test will be conducted. Look at this dead raccoon:
Bizarrely, it does look similar to the first pic of the "Monster":
As animachina aptly portrayed:
Is it possible that the second set of pics is from another carcass without muzzle, and we are dealing first with a raccoon and then with a pug? Hmmm that seems highly improbable. But then, they certainly look more like a pug.
Again, expert opinions are more than welcome.
UPDATE: Craig York points to this nice verdict by Darren Naish that nails it as a raccoon indeed, pointing to the absence of signs of a pronounced brow, and the telling digits of the hand.
Popularity: 6% [?]Posted in Criptozoology,Skepticism | 13 comments