Montauk Monster: Raccoon or Pug?
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:
![deadraccoon321hjk[3]](http://forgetomori.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/deadraccoon321hjk3.jpg "deadraccoon321hjk[3]")
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.
4 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Live Comment Preview
Subscribe to the RSS feed
[...] I moved the comments as to whether it was a pug or a raccoon to a new post. Related PostsMontauk Monster: Raccoon or Pug? Loren Coleman gives a review of the media [...]
I’m a layman as well, but I do believe Racoons can get that
bulky. Several years ago, I happened to see a large, waddling
shape crossing a road in central Austin. Although it had no
tail, it became clear fairly quickly that it was a large, old
Racoon. Darren Naish, at the excellent Tetrapod Zoology blog, has pointed out the anatomical features that
nail the idenitifacation…
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/
Most of the things that I was puzzled by in the earlier post
are cleared up there.
Are you idiots!!!!!! It looks nothing like a raccoon or a pug. A pug has a tail of about 2 in. while in th picture it is clearly a whole lot longer then that. It couldn’t be a raccoon, because the fingers aren’t the right shape and are to long!!!
Isn’t that obvious!!! Me and my friend are 11 and 12 and we could spot that!!!
Well, Somebody, I don’t think I’m an idiot, but
your opinion may differ. While I don’t think its a pug,
I do think the arguements made at Tet Zoo and Cryptomundo
in favor of it being a racoon are fairly good. What do
you and your friend think it is, and why?