Extraordinary claims. Ordinary investigations.

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:


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.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Popularity: 6% [?]

Posted in Criptozoology,Skepticism | 13 comments

13 Comments so far

  1. The Montauk Monster | forgetomori August 4th, 2008 6:44 pm

    […] 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 […]

  2. Craig York August 4th, 2008 7:20 pm

    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…


    Most of the things that I was puzzled by in the earlier post
    are cleared up there.

  3. somebody August 5th, 2008 4:14 pm

    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!!!

  4. Craig York August 5th, 2008 10:17 pm

    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?

  5. nobody December 26th, 2008 8:04 am

    Yes “somebody” you are the idiot one, its a dead raccoon.

  6. randomlolkid January 23rd, 2009 1:06 pm

    Its a dog, Because the arms and legs don’t match the length with a raccoon. It’s missing all its top teeth. Dogs can because there teeth break off if someone hits it out or trys to pull them. Plus if you look at the blue “monster” the ears are the same as any dog. It might be a large pug or a bulldog

  7. Theanonymous May 8th, 2009 3:59 pm

    seriously people… I go in different places and they’re still arguing over what it is… they have proof and showed you, it’s a raccoon… The idiot b4 me who said it’s a dog, seriously? For one an animal made of flesh in the water doesn’t decompose much, skin and flesh absorb water to where it will bloat and swell some meaning obviously it’s a raccoon which for some odd reason was in the water for awhile til it drifted and was washed up on shore. The hands make it more than obvious it’s a raccoon, the ears are yes flappy and slightly pointed which yes some dogs have, but so do raccoons and anything can get it’s teeth knocked out if hit hard enough even people, sharks, horses, cows, pigs, and RACCOONS! Now for anyone to argue with pure logic that was shown and obvious can only be a complete moron… It’s no dog or pig. and saying how the hands don’t match up for a raccoon, well they MORE SO don’t match up for a dog because of the fingers and apposable thumb a raccoon has! ok then, seriously people stop arguing over something you’ve already lost and been proven wrong about. and to everyone who said it was a raccoon…THANK YOU for showing you actually have a brain and a form of actual thinking… CASE CLOSED!

  8. Astro May 14th, 2009 8:35 am

    I think the first picture looks like a wild boar. It would explain the shape of the face and body, and the fur looks like that of a boar too. The second one looks like a racoon but I think that one is harder to relate.

  9. Smarter Somebody. July 31st, 2010 5:20 pm

    Well, Whether pug or raccoon, it isnt smart to say that just because something looks like something else- that it shares relations with a species. Though that proves to be helpful, Evolutionary evidence such as whale species , and that of other cecationary mammals evolved from things like Nowadays Hippos (ex.) or Artiodactyls (Even toed mammals). So I could see how this thing was a relative of a raccoon. I could also see how it could have evolved from a canine, though Im not sure why we’d use pug, as its discovery to europe wasnt until (supposedly) about 16th century… So them washing up on the shores in manhattan is an odd thought… But to each there own.
    That is to say that there is enough proof to show this isnt some bullshit media picture. :]

    And, smart 11 and 12 year olds would have done research before criticizing adults, somebodies. Stupid is as stupid does, or criticizes. lol

  10. thetruth August 6th, 2010 7:24 pm

    DNA testing proved it is indeed a raccoon so stop this madness!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. FinalAnswer November 6th, 2010 1:29 am

    the 4th picture is that monster everyone is talking about I hear that the monster is somewhere in miami im not sure but the second picture is a pug thats dead abd its a corpse which creeps me out a bit but that montuak monster is NOT a racoon you can really tell too because it doesnt even look like one so that is like the final awnser to everything! that has been going on with the monster and racoon bid thing so I want proof and im sure a lot of other people want proof too so if someone has a youtube account upload PROOF that says its a racoon

  12. moi June 21st, 2012 3:20 am

    they look like different mutilated animal parts put together, the original picture looks bird-like in the structure of the skull and beak where as the second looks more like a pig/boar like creature in the skull. either way creep weirdo alert

  13. victoria grace March 8th, 2013 12:50 am

    First of, you can not just tell what it is by the ears, sure it looks like any kind of dog ears but what about all the rest of the body? Also it can not be a raccoon because the skull skull is different and how the body is the raccoon’s toes would be in a different position and shape. It can not be a pug either because the legs and the tail is longer on the creature below the picture of the pug. Sure the FBI, the government, and scientists said it is a raccoon but they do lie to us sometimes and the government forces people to say things are fake or something else. I may be 12 years old but I am very intelligent for my age. I know what the government does and how they work and that they force people to say things are something else or not real or they would make the people look crazy or drunk so this may be actual proof of extraterrestrial life. If we were the only living things then why were other planets created? Can you answer that? I can.

Leave a reply

Live Comment Preview