snopes.com  


Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Fauxtography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01 August 2008, 05:22 PM
Dr. Winston O'Boogie's Avatar
Dr. Winston O'Boogie Dr. Winston O'Boogie is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2000
Location: Fox Lake, IL
Posts: 5,063
Icon402

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linnea View Post
'Montauk Monster' witnesses emerge

Article with another view
From the article,
Quote:
Elizabeth Barbeiri said her family saw it about a mile east of Gurney's Inn in Montauk, July 14. And Ryan Kelso, via iPhone, said he spotted it -- alive! -- in the Montauk dunes. "It looked about the size of an average fox, gray in color, eyes like a mole, hairless and was breathing quite heavily," he wrote, "needless to say we were freaked out by this discovery and fled the area quickly."
(emphasis mine)

I realize the joke is old, been done to death, but someone has to be the boor and say

Fox with mange?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01 August 2008, 05:37 PM
ElectricBarbarella's Avatar
ElectricBarbarella ElectricBarbarella is offline
 
Join Date: 10 October 2001
Location: Ruskin, FL
Posts: 7,330
Default

Forgetting that it doesn't even look the same (to me) as the original photo (sorry, it just doesn't--the light, color, decomp are all in different places than the original photo--I'm not saying it is not the same, only that it doesn't look the same)...

But the second photo appears to look like some kind of pig/boar to me. Which would explain why the upper jaw appears like a beak and the lower one has the massive protruding fangs. The ears definitely look pig like as does the back hind legs.

For reference, here is a dead raccoon: Dead and decomped, good veiw of jaw

Dead Pig

Google Link with various skulls of boars


I'm sorry. I cannot buy the "raccoon" bit. Boar/pig, or some other type hooved mammal, maybe. I doubt it's a dog too.

(and for Barns, a disclaimer: No, I'm not mammalogist, or any other type animal specialist. I am simply comparing images that I see and making my supremely uneducated guess as to what this is. And it appears, so is everyone else. No one has done DNA testing on the thing to determine exactly what it is and until then, I'm just playing the game and having fun doing it.)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01 August 2008, 06:33 PM
Lawgiver Lawgiver is offline
 
Join Date: 12 March 2005
Location: La Vergne, TN
Posts: 1,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barns & No Bull View Post
I am speculating that it is a raccoon.

The teeth are more like a raccoon than any other mammal found in North America. Teeth are commonly used to identify animal species (living and extinct). This is sometimes done with a single tooth.

Maybe you should just chill out and research mammalian dentition and morphology. Put aside that thing draped across the leg. It won't tell you what kind of animal this is.

Jeff Corwin concurs that it is a raccoon. It is on the Comcast fan today, of course it show up in a window without a link so I couldn't post it.

ETA: I know Jeff Corwin isn't the end-all be-all authority on strange critters.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01 August 2008, 06:53 PM
ElectricBarbarella's Avatar
ElectricBarbarella ElectricBarbarella is offline
 
Join Date: 10 October 2001
Location: Ruskin, FL
Posts: 7,330
Default

I'm not clear on this: is the body available?

If so, why not just do DNA testing? That would solve the problem.

Jeff Corwin is a Herpetologist--his specialty is snakes and such. Not raccoons. I wouldn't believe Steve Irwin () either because his specialty is crocodiles. Not that Corwin doesn't know about raccoons, but I'd be more inclined to believe the Kratt Brothers over him.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01 August 2008, 07:21 PM
LizzyBean's Avatar
LizzyBean LizzyBean is offline
 
Join Date: 13 November 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 15,909
Fright

No one except the people who "found" it know where the body is. They claim that they haulded to a friend's backyard and it's just sitting there rotting.

It's not a monster. I don't know what it is, but whatever it is is a real animal that got swished around in the sea and tossed up on land.

I like how in the second article sited that all of a sudden a bunch of other people are claiming to have seen it, alive or dead, before this photo came out. Including a group who said they photographed it first, but haven't turned the pictures over.

Uh huh.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01 August 2008, 07:41 PM
ElectricBarbarella's Avatar
ElectricBarbarella ElectricBarbarella is offline
 
Join Date: 10 October 2001
Location: Ruskin, FL
Posts: 7,330
Default

I don't believe it to be a real monster (though it does look an awful lot like a griffin or something similar) at all, but lacking the body to test it, all anyone can do is speculate.

And like the "Hogzilla" bit, we are lacking the body (how odd :eyeroll to test it for positive identification(and I know they found Hogzilla, I just meant we were lacking the proof for this one).

I just find this one to be a bit odd, it's just tweaking with my senses.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01 August 2008, 07:56 PM
greyhound
 
Posts: n/a
Default For reference

Here is a picture of what a turtle looks like without a shell.

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01 August 2008, 09:52 PM
KROE
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linnea View Post
'Montauk Monster' witnesses emerge

Article with another view
In this set of pictures, it looks to me like a hog/boar/pig possibly a warthog? I'm no proffessional when it comes to this type of stuff, but that's the first thing I thought when I saw the pics. Also, did anyone notice the second or new set of photographs looks like a totally different thing than the original photo? The new pictures, whatever it is is all bluish greenish...not all burnt. Or maybe I'm just crazy...

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01 August 2008, 10:21 PM
ElectricBarbarella's Avatar
ElectricBarbarella ElectricBarbarella is offline
 
Join Date: 10 October 2001
Location: Ruskin, FL
Posts: 7,330
Default

:::sigh:: I said this already too.

And I went to the poll--it's sad that 22% of the people think it's a turtle without shell. At least the other options are plausible.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01 August 2008, 10:41 PM
Barns & No Bull
 
Posts: n/a
Icon102

Animachina

The sharpness holds up well to enlargement. Stinky dead raccoon.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01 August 2008, 11:03 PM
ElectricBarbarella's Avatar
ElectricBarbarella ElectricBarbarella is offline
 
Join Date: 10 October 2001
Location: Ruskin, FL
Posts: 7,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barns & No Bull View Post
Animachina

The sharpness holds up well to enlargement. Stinky dead raccoon.
Nice site, too bad I was looking for a program that actually did that as opposed to someone's handy work (even if their art is kewl). Now I am curious what program he/she used to get it that clear, crisp and near perfection. And it appears he's made some changes to the skull/design--the teeth are not pink in the original photo. There is no clear mucus type substance over the snout area, in the original and the head has changed position (bottom picture, where it points to the "missing teeth").

Nice job still, but until I see DNA testing proof, I'm not going to fully believe Jeff Corwin or some animator's site. You can believe what you wish, that's cool. I'm not knocking you for it.

I've tried enlarging it in Photoshop X2 and I don't get that, nowhere near.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01 August 2008, 11:18 PM
Barns & No Bull
 
Posts: n/a
Default

EB, we should not be arguing, but I will say a few things.

I would suggest that the artist got their hands on a copy of the original digital photo. This is almost certainly much larger and sharper than what the media has been posting.

The different photos of this beast were taken by two different people using different cameras. That alone could explain why colors don't match. The surf was rolling the body around and that's why we get to see both sides. We can see that the "thing" tying the legs together was a strip of skin that had draped over the legs.

The head is in a different position because the artist rotated the image of it.

No authority should ask for DNA testing because this is quite clearly a dead raccoon.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01 August 2008, 11:23 PM
ElectricBarbarella's Avatar
ElectricBarbarella ElectricBarbarella is offline
 
Join Date: 10 October 2001
Location: Ruskin, FL
Posts: 7,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barns & No Bull View Post
EB, we should not be arguing, but I will say a few things.

I would suggest that the artist got their hands on a copy of the original digital photo. This is almost certainly much larger and sharper than what the media has been posting.

The different photos of this beast were taken by two different people using different cameras. That alone could explain why colors don't match. The surf was rolling the body around and that's why we get to see both sides. We can see that the "thing" tying the legs together was a strip of skin that had draped over the legs.

The head is in a different position because the artist rotated the image of it.

No authority should ask for DNA testing because this is quite clearly a dead raccoon.
If you say so Barns. But I can tell you no authority would ever say something is quite clearly one thing, without proof of it being that.

DNA testing. Prove it. Otherwise, it's just heresay, circumstancial, and "because I said so" doesn't hold up in a court of (public opinion) law.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02 August 2008, 07:57 AM
Flagg's Avatar
Flagg Flagg is offline
 
Join Date: 31 January 2007
Location: Newcastle, DE
Posts: 444
Default

I have been giving this some thought, and am pretty sure I know what this thing is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeksis

It's just a baby.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02 August 2008, 08:07 AM
SmallTownKid's Avatar
SmallTownKid SmallTownKid is offline
 
Join Date: 25 March 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
"Flies cavorted upon the naked corpse," (The Independant's Kitty) Merrill wrote.
I can't quite say why, but I love this sentence. I think it's the use of the word "cavorted."
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02 August 2008, 08:37 AM
SatansHobbit's Avatar
SatansHobbit SatansHobbit is offline
 
Join Date: 31 May 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Winston O'Boogie View Post
I realize the joke is old, been done to death, but someone has to be the boor and say

Fox with mange?
Nah, Naked mole rat.

The thing on its forearm is most probably a half rolled back piece of pelt. The original colour is anybody's guess.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02 August 2008, 09:58 AM
kitap's Avatar
kitap kitap is offline
 
Join Date: 20 January 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 9,282
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella View Post
I'm not clear on this: is the body available?

If so, why not just do DNA testing? That would solve the problem.

Jeff Corwin is a Herpetologist--his specialty is snakes and such. Not raccoons. I wouldn't believe Steve Irwin () either because his specialty is crocodiles. Not that Corwin doesn't know about raccoons, but I'd be more inclined to believe the Kratt Brothers over him.
My father got his PhD in herpetology, and he knows quite a bit about mammalian anatomy.

The withering look I got when I couldn't tell that the mouse the cats had caught was a field mouse just by looking at it and asked him how he knew....

Last edited by kitap; 02 August 2008 at 10:06 AM. Reason: finish my anecdote
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02 August 2008, 04:16 PM
steve s
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's just a dog.



Steve S
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02 August 2008, 05:45 PM
bthyb's Avatar
bthyb bthyb is offline
 
Join Date: 31 January 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella View Post
If you say so Barns. But I can tell you no authority would ever say something is quite clearly one thing, without proof of it being that.

DNA testing. Prove it. Otherwise, it's just heresay, circumstancial, and "because I said so" doesn't hold up in a court of (public opinion) law.
I'm no animal expert, but I do know that people have conclusively identified animals and whatnot for centuries before DNA testing was available.

And Barns has proven himself knowledgable about animals on here over a long period of time - if he says raccoon and backs it up, that's good enough for me.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02 August 2008, 06:29 PM
KROE
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I see no way this could be a raccoon...i've seen raccoons up close and they definitely have a completely different head shape...

Oh well. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what it is. I'd like to see some DNA testing done so we all know for sure what it is.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.