News

**Blue Waffle**

LoP Guest Wrote:

Groverdog Wrote:
Blue Waffle Wrote:
Montauk monster was a dead bloated raccoon with a messed up face. This is the same thing. "Teeth" in upper jaw actually look like shattered upper jaw and nasal cavities exposed. Earlier pics in OP video looked like dead otter pics. Hair falls off once they've been dead awhile, body bloats...
The feet are the tell.

So why did they claim it as a pig, when it has toes and not hooves? Oh, and yes, its face looks to have been beaten in or run over, but that doesn't explain the feet and tail.
The reason they claim it's a pig is because pigs are not frightening to people. They are familiar animals, the same as raccoons. The people in government and MSM know that much of the public will believe anything the "news" tells them so they will give ridiculous "explanations" knowing that most of the public will swallow it. MSM fully exploits the blind trust that much of the public puts in them. Oh, and as far as being a raccoon. Raccoons are very furry critters, and even after being water logged animals with fur as thick as a raccoon's will not have all of it washed off. These are NOT raccoons either.

They will if they've been beaten about by the surf and are nearly a week decomposed and bloated.

I've come across plenty of "thick furred" animals in the woods and as road kill that are nearly completely naked with a pile of fur surrounding their corpse. To think these animals are mutants is simply ridiculous. It reminds me of all the supposed chupacabra sightings that end up being mangy hairless coyotes (one in the Texas area turned out to be a hairless, mangy bear cub).

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 106444 07-29-2012 07:47 AM

It's a raccoon!!!

**Blue Waffle**

Groverdog Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
Groverdog Wrote:
So why did they claim it as a pig, when it has toes and not hooves? Oh, and yes, its face looks to have been beaten in or run over, but that doesn't explain the feet and tail.
The reason they claim it's a pig is because pigs are not frightening to people. They are familiar animals, the same as raccoons. The people in government and MSM know that much of the public will believe anything the "news" tells them so they will give ridiculous "explanations" knowing that most of the public will swallow it. MSM fully exploits the blind trust that much of the public puts in them. Oh, and as far as being a raccoon. Raccoons are very furry critters, and even after being water logged animals with fur as thick as a raccoon's will not have all of it washed off. These are NOT raccoons either.

Feet are wrong for a pig, raccoon, or dog. I might buy that it was a dog because of the thick tail, but even that would be a stretch, and if it was, why not report it as so?

Not raccoon feet?
Goggle image search for "raccoon feet":
https://www.google.com/search?q=raccoon+...36&bih=569

Looks an awful lot like that critters feet, front and back.

**Blue Waffle**

LoP Guest Wrote:

It's a raccoon!!!

Yes!!!

Montauk Monster for comparison:
[Image: 0BD0_5014CFA2.jpg]

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/...k-monster/

**The Lucky AC** Everything in life is luck User ID: 888 07-29-2012 07:57 AM

I'd say huge freakin' rat, before a pig or raccoon.

But it doesn't seem like a rat either with the tail.

Genetics and skeletal analysis would be the deciding factors, but since the carcasses are "disposed of"...that's unlikely.

For reason. They don't want to scare the masses.

**Blue Waffle**

The Lucky AC Wrote:

I'd say huge freakin' rat, before a pig or raccoon.

But it doesn't seem like a rat either with the tail.

Genetics and skeletal analysis would be the deciding factors, but since the carcasses are "disposed of"...that's unlikely.

For reason. They don't want to scare the masses.

SMH
* * * deep sigh* * *
Once again:
[Image: 0BD0_5014CFA2.jpg]

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/...k-monster/