Montauk Monster ! truth, why ??

Question

can you tell me if this true ??? http://myvix.com

Answer 1

I have to say no but it could be an animal mutation. Here's a better link to that picture... http://gawker.com/5030531/dead-monster-w...

Answer 2

On August 1st, Gawker published pictures and x-rays of a Rakali (or Water Rat, Hydromys chrysogaster) showing several convincing similarities with the Montauk Monster: the "beak", tail, feet, size, and general appearance are similar. The Rakali originates from Australia. 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. 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.

Answer 3

At first people believed that the Montauk Monster was a sea turtle that had somehow lost it's shell.  But if you will look at the picture in the link graciously provided by poster Nomi L you will see that the Montauk Monster has... Teeth!  Turtles do not have teeth.  So I agree with Nomi, it is somekind of mutation.

H

Answer 4

That thing is just sick.

Answer 5

the montauk thing is mad lol