I was trying to avoid it, but the media ran me down for a comment.
If you ignore certain stories, I was hoping, they might go away. This one about yet another dead carcass find would not, and hasn’t. I even started seeing it show up in the French press.
So I said okay to a media interview about it.
My comments were published overnight, here: “Brooklyn Bridge ‘Monster’ May Be Distant Relative Of Long Island Montauk ‘Monster’,” written by Lee Speigel, in Huffington Post.
I remain dismayed by this being the media’s “cryptozoology” highpoint of this summer. Let me share my quotes from this article, (which you can read entirely here).
Of course, the Montauk Monster was brought up:
Lee Speigel writes:
That animal, seen [above], was first dubbed the Montauk Monster by Loren Coleman, director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
“Ever since 2008, when I investigated the media madness over the stranded, decomposing unknown ‘thing’ found on the beach at Montauk, unfortunately, every dead animal body, every carcass, has taken on fantastic creature importance,” Coleman told The Huffington Post in an email.
“But all have been found to be dead raccoons, dogs, swine, seals, dolphins, and even in one case, a dead sloth,” he said.
“There is nothing mysterious here, I would wage, and this one looks like a dead rat or dog, but we’d need to see the skull and more detailed photos to determine the species,” said Coleman, who writes on many animal mysteries, folklore and cryptozoology.
“From everything I am seeing and reading about, this appears to be a near match to the earlier Montauk Monster, which was a decomposed raccoon,” he said.
“This one has raccoon digits which remind people of human fingers, raccoon teeth, plantigrade feet and also a bit of brown-grey fur on the tip of its tail — all dead (no pun intended) giveaways for a raccoon.”
Is part of the bloated beast the media!!??