Eric Striffler's Blog - Latest Comments in Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

martini1234567890 — Tue, 15 May 2012 13:03:03 -0000

http://michael-stevenson.ne...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

nysi — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:22:50 -0000

You need your eyes checked!!! Those are the exact words that my granmother said after I told her what you said and showed her the picture!!! It's clearly a dog. She raised racoons for crying out loud!!! She's 55 years old and I think she would know the difference between a racoon and DOG. Which is what the so "monster" is!!!

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

nysi — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:05:02 -0000

How could that possibly be a racoon?! They're not that big, that color, the bone structure on that animal is different than a racoons, and besides, it looks almost exactly like a sheepdog!!!

lago wrote, in response to nysi:

It isn't a dog. It is a raccoon. I have given morphological arguments why time and time again below. Go read them...

It cannot be a dog..

-- In response to regular post "Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!"

Well well well, what do we have here?
The third Montauk Monster was found on July 3rd, 2009. Hooray!

Click each picture to see it much larger.

CLICK HERE to read Nicky Papers’ full report!

(http://www.erickwithnok.com...

Link to comment: http://disq.us/63la8

-----
Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.

To turn off notifications, go to: http://disqus.com/account/n...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:33:44 -0000

I didn't just say "I know teeth," and tell people to take me on my word. I made a video and posted it on here that showed the teeth compared side by side with different animals including raccoons. The details I gave were not interpretive. They were as plain as day and easy to see.

You are right, I will say there is no foot print in the picture as you state, because there is none, No signs of a shoe print, or sneaker tread, of a foot outline with heel-ball, instep-toes,..nothing. All you have given is a desperate attempt at claiming authority with no evidence supporting you claim. If you care to show me wrong, make a video outlining your evidence, and show your evidence to everyone.

Finally, the people that found the second one are shown in another video I posted putting it in a bag and it only the size of your average house cat, and the people that found the one above said they picked it up and brought it back to their house as well. Know how hard it would be to simply pick up a dead decaying horse or cow and drag it home? You'd need a truck. What did the report above say? They said they picked it up and put it into an ice filled enclosure and carried it away. How many ice filled enclosure do people generally have that can do this? Later it is stated it was put in a "cooler." The average large sized cooler sold in the US can't fit a medium sized dog in it, never mind a cow or horse. Also, all people seeing the Montauk Monsters that stated size said it was the size of a small dog.

Simply put, there is no evidence in your favor that does not come from the wilds of your furtive mind.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

thedudevulcan — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:57:04 -0000

i can prove this animal is pretty big, something like a horse, or a cow. u see ive been workin with photos and images for a very very long time(i forgot wen i started lol). ive been lookin at this pic carefully, zoomed, double zoomed, usind different effects and techniques and i observed a footstep... int near the left down corner or the first pic. Now i bet u come reply a thing that looks like "there is no step" or "u cant be sure there is a step" and teeth analisis and bone structure and stuff like that. u said it ur own u "can compare animals, and bones and skills and recognise a raccoon wen u see one" and i tell u this : i recognise a footstep when i see one. now a footstep of a normal adult (i think
an normal adult shot this picture and i belive an inteligent guy like u thinks as well , not a 5 yers old kid) were was i? oh yes, a normal adult footstep is about 25-30 centimeters (measure ur own foot pls, (if ur not midget or a giant hehe). so if that step is lets say 27 centimeters, that means that animal is as big as a horse or a cow something like that. im just throwing my opinion, i may be 100% wrong and that animal is as small as a mouse, but eh... i made my point.... srry is my spelling is wrong english is not my mother language u know...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:33:39 -0000

Am I responding to you, or are you responding to me? I am also not quite sure what you point is. I exclaim that one should use reason, logic, evidence, and so on, to come to a conclusion, and you instead respond by crying like a baby and calling me names because your education sucks donkey gonads.

Hm,..I think I would rather stick to my line of reasoning,

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

monsterslayer — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:49:02 -0000

Haha, after 5 months I evoked a response out of you. Dance puppet! Dance! You are still a douche and proved my point. Thanks and good day.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:45:37 -0000

I have never tried to convince any one that I had any type of superior intelligence.

As for having the skills, you can either dispute what I have shown with evidence and logic, or you cannot. My only "skill," is trying to use reason, and not calls to authority with no evidence like, "It is a fucking monster, deal with it. Douche."

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

monsterslayer — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:59:49 -0000

Lago is a fuk-wit desperately trying to convince the world of their superior intelligence. Here's is an disputable FACT for you: You are a loser with nothing better to do in life than spend every waking moment being an unrelenting douche. If you really had all these skills and accolades you wouldn't have nearly enough time to commit to being a total douche on this site. It's a fucking monster. deal with it. Douche.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

jyotiking — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:55:42 -0000

I did not know that about turtles. I've found old empty shells in the past down in Alabama, but I didn't know that you'd actually damage/kill the animal to remove the shell..

Now that I've had a solid sleep and am more alert I'll go and watch the videos again and look at the pictures a little bit closer..

What I recall from the second video, the one with people interacting with the dead animal is that we don't actually see much more than the animal in a beam of light and the stick they're poking it with, which doesn't help much..

Also I didn't realize raccoons could get that big. My youngest sister is approximately 55 lbs, so to think of a raccoon weighing more than her... it's a little shocking to me.
I'm always glad to learn more though ^_^

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:50:19 -0000

People use visual cues to tell them how big something is in real life. When we look at 2D pictures these cues are often distorted. For example, I grew up seeing a small type of Triassic reptile only in pictures, and due to the fact they were aquatic, their ribs were very thick. Several vertebrate group employ this method to make them less positively buoyant and more neutral buoyant. The thick ribs seemed to imply to me these animals were rather robust and I always thought these animals were about 10 to 15 feet in length. When I actually saw one of their fossils for the first time in real life, I was shocked to see it was smaller than my hand. Without proper visual cues, your mind often jumps to conclusions based on prejudices a 2D photo cannot resolve without something else in the picture to give scale.

As for these 3 animals, the people involved all said they were the size of small dogs. The only video I saw actually showing the animals in association with people was of the second animal. I posted this video below somewhere. I will find it again if requested to do so. This video shocked even me as it showed the animal was smaller than I thought it was, and was only about the size of an average adult opossum. Since the record for raccoons is over 60lbs, it makes the Montauk Monsters (at least the second one) smaller than an average adult male raccoon.

As for the first one being a turtle, it must be remembered that the first one has both teeth and fur and even an external ear called in anatomical jargon, "The Pinna." These are all traits turtles do not have, and since the teeth showed carnassial style molars, all the these traits are actually considered the trails of therian mammals. Next, a turtle's shell is not removable. It is made up of several differing anatomical structures, but the ribs and backbone are a central element to the shell, and the shell cannot be removed without obliterating the animal into a pile of mush.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

jyotiking — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:42:31 -0000

I've no clue what this thing is, but based on the comments I've read on here it seems to me that Lago is the only person with more than half a brain AND isn't buying into any of this conspiracy drama.

Thank you, Lago. I sincerely mean it :)

My only question (as I've not really done much/any proper research on my own) is how big were these three animals? I get the impression that they were large, maybe german shepherd size, and I've never seen a raccoon that big. Not arguing with you, Lago, just curious as to how big these things are. The videos don't give an accurate representation of size at all.

Also one of the animals, I believe the first one, did look remarkably like a turtle out of its shell.. again, could be wrong.. and I probably shouldn't be trying to type while mostly asleep..

I'll try to be back later :P

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

KahhZAM — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:30:30 -0000

It looks like a cow. With a beak. Look at the throat. o_0 I wanna poke it with a stick!

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:13:41 -0000

Stop pretending I am angry. I am not. I am saying for you to back your positions with facts and this has been seen as a type of attack on you. If you were ever in the sciences, you know this standard procedure 101, especially when you made claim to be some type of authority.

I fear you wanted to look clever, so you acted like you knew things you didn't, and are now pissed-off someone has called you on it.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

cynthiadupuy — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:05:04 -0000

look....it was just a response to a little blog. i dont have time for your
misdirected anger and uninformed rectoric and since you will not stop
messaging me im blocking you from my email. good luck in your quest for the
truth. im sure you know methods more accurate than testing dna

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:24:43 -0000

Cynthia..

I am not angry. I am merely tearing your BS apart. You came in and made a call to your authority saying you knew their "anatomy and physiology." Yet you gave no reason why the three are not raccoons. I asked for reasons why it didn't match and you showed an extreme lack of even the most basics when it comes to vertebrate anatomy. You still have given no reasons that have stood up as to why it isn't a raccoon, and avoided answering to the evidence I supplied. You obviously know very little about osteology in general. Who in God's name taught you how the scientific method works?

Now you say you disagree with me, yet you still will not give me one piece of evidence that supports your case. Doesn't that tell you anything?

If Phil Gingerich is in his office, show him the video I made and then ask him whether or not the teeth match a raccoon or not, K?

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

cynthiadupuy — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:03:46 -0000

i dont have to lie go to the u of michigan ann arbor alumni site and look me
up. cynthia dupuy is my real name and i am sorry you are so angry that you
just want to argue with anyone over anything and i told you what didnt match
and there are other smaller details such as the degree of dental points,
etc. i do not have to agree with you and i do not agree with you. i also
did not join the blog to be under attack. ....so kick another puppy

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:35:36 -0000

Oh, this isn't my site. I am just trying to find out how people think based on whether or not they are willing to use critical thinking or not. So far, most do not even attempt to use it. They think everything is, "Opinion."

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:29:29 -0000

You said you knew it wasn't a raccoon because you knew their anatomy, yet it matches a raccoon on all points. I am trained in comparative vertebrate anatomy (test me if you so desire), and the skull is an exact match,... yet you claim otherwise. Show me how it does not match. Give verifiable details I can see and test for myself as I gave you in the video I posted.

I am not a geneticist but I am able to ask you enough questions to show whether or not you are lying. Would you like me to do so?

I am also not opposed to using genetics, but we do not have, or need this option. We tell raccoons by partial jaw fragments all the time in paleontology, and we have way more than that here.

Now, did you watch my video on the dentition? If not, go do so.

If you did watch it, where am I wrong? It seems it is a clear match to me. Do you have anything else that matches on all points as a raccoon does?

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

cynthiadupuy — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:34:55 -0000

i never intended this to be a life long debate i was simply expressing my
opinion however since you know everything why ask for input on your site
then snap someones head off when they dont agree with you. and as for the
genetic marker it would provide definitive proof one way or another telling
you exactly what species the mother and father of the animal were. i do not
see why you are opposed to the genetics especially since you are an expert
and could do the testing yourself without having to trust anyone else.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

cynthiadupuy — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:26:21 -0000

i studied genetic engineering for 5 years at the u of michigan

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:10:21 -0000

Keegan...

You obviously have not collected bones before.

The whiteness of the skull is very typical. Skulls can be exposed while most of the flesh is still in place on the rest of the animal, and that skull can shine as white as alabaster.

Next, blood pools shortly after death, and then gels. Blood is rarely seen in victims that we not cut open while they were still alive. Drowning victims almost never show blood in or around the decaying body.

The teeth is one of the areas some blood may pool shortly after death, and this can often been seen through the partially translucent enamel of the dentition, as seen here.

Everything in these pictures looks rather typical of a decaying carcass, and nothing looks fake.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

keegan452 — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:57:34 -0000

FAKE the alien AUTOPSY LOOKED REALER and the whole fuckin skull in the fron prooves it why wuld the fron of the face be fuckin clean like it wus takin to a shine shop and fuckin steralized if thast wrre real there wuld be rotting flesh and stuff on the face but there aint the bone is clean as a whistle U SHOULD NOTICE THESE THIGS PEOPLE THE REST OF THE BODY IS ROTTED ECCEPT THE FRONT OF THE FACE LOOK HOW WHITE THAT BONE IS FUCK THAT IT WUS JIMMY RIGGED ON A DEAD COW OR SUM SHIT TE WHITE BONE SAYS IT ALL lol and i like the food coloring put on the teeth notice how there no blood anywere else but the teeth r red FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE u shoudl learn to look and notice faults i these sorts of things

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:02:14 -0000

For one, Corwin was making fun of the fact it was only an everyday raccoon. The term "rare" was being used in a satirical manner. This is because he was making fun of the fact everyone was up in arms over the fact a dead raccoon was found.

Next, there is no such thing as a degree from an accredited school in cryptozoology. It is a made up term applied to ones self, and does not reflect any knowledge of comparative vertebrate anatomy.

Next, you obviously do not know anything about anatomy if you think there is a "beak" anywhere on this skull. All you are seeing, but not understanding, is the premaxilla, and maxilla of the upper jaw with the teeth havin' fallin' out, which is extremely common after death especially in animals that drowned and soaked in water for several hours or days. This is due to the fact that the bone can absorb water and swell, but the enamel on the teeth do not, so the swell breaks the cemented bond between the two and the teeth fall out. This is basic taphonomy 101.

Do not believe me? Then why not take the time to download the pictures from above and blow them up as you will clearly see the empty tooth sockets in the premaxilla for the incisors, and a very large empty tooth socket for the upper canine at the beginning of the maxilla, as well as the remaining dental alveoli for the premolars.

You are obviously lying about your education cynthia...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:35:13 -0000

Cynthia...

The skull is a dead on match on all points. I can make a video showing this if you'd like. I did relative biometrics on the skull and showed how the end of the premaxilla at the external nares to the orbits, as compared to the height at the beginning of the orbits matches a raccoon. You can also see the the angle of the skull roof as compared to the alveolar ridge is the same, and it ends with the same slight protrusion dorsad to the orbits here. Next the angle of the zygotic process relative to the roof is the same too, which shows it isn't any type of dog because this same region on dogs has an expanded frontal region at this point (which is called, The "stop" in dogs). This creates an angle at the stop in dogs and allows for the orbits to be placed above the premaxilla to orbit line, however, in this animal the orbits are below, as we see in raccoons again.

As for the teeth, I did a dental analysis of the first animal when it was found and compared the teeth to numerous animals and only one group matched, and it did so on all points. I did a simplified video showing how the dental traits can be compared to other groups for those who kept claiming it was a dog so they could see the dentition ruled out dogs and were an exact match for raccoons. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Now, the rest also matches up to a raccoon, as the limb length as compared to body length is the same ratio in both the Montauk monster and raccoons, the body length to head length, and so on.

The manus is also made up of separate digits as in raccoons, and shows a distinct palmer pad characteristic of the same. Raccoons have wider hips than shoulders to help with balance while standing on two legs so they can manipulate objects with their hands. Once again, the Montauk Monsters have wider hips than shoulders.

You are also not trained in genetics, but since I am, I can point out to people that a "genetic marker," is not a physical trait to be seen on an animal, but a DNA sequence used to establish mutations or chromosomal placement in certain groups used for statistical correlations in relation to phylogeny, or disease expression in families etc...