Beastie’s Back! Just when the Summer of 2008 has come to an end, it’s come to our attention that another monster has been found at Ocean Beach Park, in New London Connecticut. It was found by the Clapsadle family while walking on the beach. They were kind enough to take pictures to share. There certainly is a resemblance to the Montauk Monster as the snout looks the same as the beast that washed ashore this summer in Montauk, NY. The proximity of Ocean Beach Park is much closer to Plum Island than Montauk, so now there is a stronger likelihood to confirm that this may be the result of a genetic mishap.

Michael and Mitchell Clapsadle (above) are pictured standing over the carcass of the beast they discovered while walking with their parents, (Tom and Bobbette Clapsadle) at Ocean Beach Park in New London. The family said the creature attracted their interest because of its striking resemblance to the “Montauk Monster” that washed ashore this summer.

The Clapsadle family claims that the carcass did not emit a foul odor as the “Montauk Monster” found this summer did. Of course, this can be attributed to the hot sun beating on the animal, but the pictures above indicate there is a strong linking between the two.

Ocean Beach Park Manager, (Dave Sugrue) jokingly mentioned that he’s seen “CIA guys” walking around the area where “Montie’s brother” was found. Sorry Dave, but when the CIA is involved the nature of the discovery escalates. It’s really not something to joke about.

Mysteriously, the whereabouts of the creature are no where to be found.

Warm Regards,

Nicky Papers

It’s been a few weeks since my last post on Montauk-Monster.com. Things in my life have been hectic, (family, work, etc.) so I apologize in advance for not being more diligent with the postings as of recently.

A series of facts and articles have appeared in numerous publications going over the theories which have been proposed on my website. Due to the amount of e-mails I’ve received from our readers, I’ll try and bring all up to date with a short list of recent events.

1. The Montauk Monster is found and becomes the 2008 story of the summer.
2. New sets of pictures are discovered (blue colored beast).
3. “Tonya” comes forward and proposes the Splinterheads theory.
4. Numerous publications support the Splinterheads theory.
5. Sersenpark.com (Splinterheads) first embraced the story; then later stated the hoax was created by 16-year-old entrepreneur.
6. Copycat scams pop up. (Bigfoot, Rocky Point Monster etc.)
7. There is no conclusion to the story.

The Montauk Monster is still a mystery. If it’s not a movie prop, then what is it and where did it go? Some say it was stolen from the backyard it was originally taken to. Others insist that it was a genetic mishap as the result of an experiment gone wrong on Plum Island. At this point, I don’t know what to believe. Too many people were on the beach the day “beastie” was discovered for us to forget. Sure, it’s fun keeping this a mystery, but at the same time I think the truth needs to come out now. It’s been long enough.

Slashfilm.com - On Splinterheads + Viral Marketing.

Gawker.com - Monster in a Hall of Mirrors.

Gotham News - The work of a 16 year old Entrepreneur?

I’ve analyzed this video dozens of times and certain things do not add up. First, why does the first set of “monster pictures” that Jenna Hewitt took, look so much different from the second set that was recently posted by Christina Pampalone? It’s been a couple of days now, so where are the whereabouts of the Montauk Monster? Is the government trying to cover up the truth? Was this in fact the product of a genetic mishap from Plum Island?

Please study the video below carefully and read the girls body language. Also note; all three girls are wearing sunglasses during this interview. (the eyes tell the truth.) This video could be our best indicator to unlock the mystery of Jenna Hewitt’s Montauk Monster pictures.

Movie Breakdown:

0.00-4:05: Rachel Goldberg is sitting closest to gentleman interviewing them. Also she is the first one to speak up. It appears to me that Rachel has taken a lead position on this interview. Perhaps she is the key to the answers, not Jenna Hewitt after all.

0.47-1:01: Courtney Fruin gives it up by laughing! This could be the best indicator that this may be a hoax. Courtney can’t keep a straight face or hold herself back from giggling when asked to describe what she saw. She breaks eye contact and smirks. Courtney, I wouldn’t enjoy swimming next to the Montauk Monster either.

1:33-2:32: Jenna Hewitt nervously sips her beverage multiple times. It becomes her crutch during the interview.

2:32-4:05 : Once again, Rachel Goldberg takes the lead on the interview straight to the end, not Jenna Hewitt.

And there you have it, the proof is in the pudding! There is something shady going on here. It still doesn’t explain what actually did wash ashore. That is still a mystery. If anyone has anymore information about the girls in the film; especially Rachel Goldberg, please e-mail info@montauk-monster.com.

The Montauk Monster has been loaded as a current event on Wikipedia. The information below may be incomplete, or may change as the event progresses.

The Montauk Monster is a creature with a “dinosaur beak” which allegedly washed ashore dead in Ditch Plains, near Montauk, New York in late July 2008.

Speculation in published reports included theories that the Montauk Monster may be a turtle without its shell—even though the shell of a turtle cannot be removed without damaging the turtle—a dog, a raccoon, or perhaps a science experiment from the nearby government animal testing facility, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. The “monster” may also be a decomposed pig carcass. The creature’s appearance may have been altered through immersion in water for an extended period before coming to rest on the shore, making it difficult to identify.

Because the body is not available for study, and is only shown in photos taken by the locals who discovered it, this may be a photo-shopped image or part of a viral marketing campaign. A new picture of the creature has also been shown on the news and Internet. Animal Expert Jeff Corwin has 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.

William Wise, director of Stony Brook University’s Living Marine Resources Institute, interpreted the photo along with a colleague, and suggested it was a hoax after discounting the following possibilities:

• Raccoon. (”The legs appear to be too long in proportion to the body.”)
• Sea turtle. (”Sea turtles do not have teeth.”)
• Rodent. (”Rodents have two huge, curved incisor teeth.”)
• Dog or other canine.(”Prominent eye ridge and the feet” don’t match.)
• Sheep. (Sheep don’t have sharp teeth).

The father of the woman who took the photo that spawned the speculation told a reporter that reports that his daughter was holding out to the highest bidder to make some cash were “nonsense.” An unidentified woman told the same reporter that the animal was only the size of a cat, and as of August 2008 was decomposed to a skeleton, but would not identify its location for inspection.

On August 1, 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 similar. The Rakali originates from Australia.

Posed Theories

Below is a list of proposed real-world animals that would seem to match with what the “monster” may have been before decomposing due to sea water. Some animals would seem to make more sense than others, such as a pig carcass over a turtle, while the probability of a fraud is always present. All reasonable possibilities have been listed.

• Cougar/Mountain Lion
• Wild Pig
• Dog/Wolf
• Water Rat
• Raccoon
• Sea Turtle
• Viral marketing fraud

Montauk Monster Wikipedia