Update!: Splinterheads crew launches official website.

“Tonya” has just informed me that the Splinterheads crew have launched their official website. They claim that they have the Montauk Monster. I tried contacting Darren Goldberg yesterday, but he was not available for comment.

Splinterheads Official Website: www.splinterheadsmovie.com.

Also, www.sersenpark.com (Official Splintersheads Picture Blog) thanks Darren’s sister Rachel Goldberg.

Without a doubt this could be the prank of the century.Kudos to Splinterheads!

So where is the Montauk Monster now?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

38 Responses to “Update!: Splinterheads crew launches official website.”

  1. I’ve bookmarked this because I found it interesting. I would be very interested to hear more information on this. Cheers!

  2. Akins says:

    I do the job with these dogs and as far as animal behavior goes, I’m a solid believer in nurture and exercising. I’ve met Jack Russell Terriers that I wouldn’t go near again, but have by no means had a bad experience with an American Staffordshire Terrier. If you’re speaking about their owners- well, that’s a different story. Human beings are creatures as nicely, and we have a tendency to each have our individual suggestions about “moral concepts”.

  3. Aaron Rosenberg says:

    I want to report a Montauk Monster siting. It took place last summer. My wife and I found in floating near our dock. It resembles the others, except the head was missing. I put it in a garbage bag. Even after the garbage truck picked it up, it smelled so bad in my garbage container that I had to put a bottle of bleach in it. I left it for a day, then swished water in it. Finally, the rancid odor left.

  4. wendy says:

    Not a dog. This creature has a beak that looks exactly like the beak of a turtle. Ifyou add a shell and a bit more meat from where it is decomposing, then I bet, you will have a turtle.

  5. jserious54 says:

    i think its a small cow and i can’t believe people are buying this pretty sad

  6. DOGLADY says:

    I OWN A HOG DOG HUNTING KENNELIN CENTRAL FLORIDA, WE HAVE SEVERAL SKULLS FROM HOGS, THE BODY LOOKS LIKE THAT FROM A DOG BUT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE FEET, RESEARCH FACILITYS DONT GENERALLY DISPOSE OF ANIMALS IN THAT MANNER, DUE TO THE FACT THEY COULD BE HABORING MANY DIFFERNT VIRUSES OR BACTERIAS, WITH OUT SEEING THE FEET IT APEARS TO BE A DECOMPOSE CANINE, HOG JOWLS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT A DOG ON THE OTHER HAND JAWS A SIMULAR THEIR IS ALWAYS AN EXSPLINATION FOR EVERY THING , I SERIOULY DOUBT IT IS A TRUE HOG DOG PARTHOG PART DOG,IVE HAVE SKULLS FROM BORE HOGS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE FIRST ANIMAL WHO WASHED UP, IT COULD BE A CLONE OR MORE MEDIA PROPAGANDER, MY SOULTION IS PHOTOS CAN BE TAMPERED WITH TO MAKE SOMETHING APPEAR THATS REALLY NOT THEIR, FROM THE SECOND ANIMALS BODY THAT APPEARS TO BE A DOG BODY WISE . BEING A HOG DOG KENNEL I DO GET TO SEE DOGS BOTH ALIVE AN DEAD ALL THO IVE NEVER HAD A DOG KILLED BY A HOG IVE SEE OTHER FRIENDS DOG KILLED AN WHEN THE BODY STARTS GOING INTO A JELLY LIKE STATE IT LOOKS ALOT BODY WISE TO THE SECOND ANIMAL IN THE PHOTO WHO WASHED ASHORE , EXCEPT FOR A BEAK LOOKING OBJECT , THEY STILL DO VIVA SECT IN SOME LABS,WHETHER ITS LEAGAL OR NOT,UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY WITNESSED IT WAS ASHORE I WOULD BE SISPUCIOUS OF IT TO BEGIN WITH NEED TO ASK WHY THE FEET ARE NOT BEING SHOWN?

  7. Mary Zolinski says:

    I really liked your blog it will open many folks eyes on this subject. Very well written and will be looking forward to reading more in the future.

  8. chinaman says:

    Hi
    You shoud be the journalist with your nice talent

  9. Jim McMillan says:

    It was more interesting that your post, ‘iphones’.

  10. iphones says:

    I searched for \’Listen To Prank Phone Calls\’ at google and found this your post (\’Monster: Pictures, News, Updates\’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read.

  11. KCV says:

    I certainly hope this is a hoax, which at least could take people’s minds off the tanking economy, high gas prices, our government’s hatred of us, the bottoming out of the real estate market — although I never understood why anyone would choose an adjustable rate mortgage, and I never did because I was certain that with my luck, if I chose an ARM, my interest rate would only go up — higher food and clothing prices and the fact that no matter the color of your skin, if you’re American-born and have a college education, you are more likely to be discriminated against today in the job market than ever before if you are not bilingual.

    However, if it isn’t a hoax, and perhaps I am the only person to feel this way, doesn’t anyone feel sorry for this poor creature? While everyone sees it as being disgusting, if it’s real, at one time it was obviously a living, breathing being, likely able to experience pain, and for it to wind up as it did, it likely was mistreated … likely just for being different. And now people are trying to make money off it and exploiting it.

    I hope and pray there is one compassionate, caring soul in that area, just one, a scientist perhaps, who could find out more about the creature and how it wound up where it was found.

    Are there no people on this planet, no one besides me, who has compassion, who cares about the poor, innocent and defenseless beings in this world, whether human or not? I feel so sorry for this poor creature and I pray that whatever caused its demise, the animal didn’t suffer.

  12. F says:

    You’re doing it wrong.

  13. shella says:

    I think everyone should listen to the guy with the biology degree, He probably knows more than any of us do.

  14. it’s become old news.

    interest has dropped off, I just got the alert that someone posted here via email.

    -Brian Hardin II
    http://www.ZombieMall.com

  15. Lago says:

    It is rather obvious what the creature is. Making it out to be something more is just silly. I have a degree in biology and know vertebrate comparative anatomy rather well. Below is a simple analysis written so even non-biologists can understand it:

    First of all it had hair, external testicles and external ears etc…

    Only mammals have these traits so #1, it is a male mammal.

    On the so called “Beak”
    There was no “beak” as the good photos clearly show that the premaxilla and maxilla have open tooth sockets showing where the upper incisors and upper canines once were. Tooth loss is common during the decay process as bone swells and shrinks causing teeth to loosen and fall-out. This is especially true in water. So NO BEAK

    Next, the animals shows signs off a thick pad on the plantar surface of its pes and manus (hands and feet) with separated digits. The claws are sharp and narrow from side to side, unlike a dog, and show no signs of being highly contractible as in cats. These traits are typical of the raccoon family.

    The skull:
    Many see a short snout with a slight forehead. The snout has been removed as should be obvious to anyone, so the actual length of the animals head would be greater.

    Also, there is no pronounced forehead, as the region in front of the eyes that people are perceiving as a forehead is just the junction between where the bare bone is of the snout, and where the flesh begins again. The actual surface of the skull would be underneath this tissue, and following the known boney surface, as well as the given tissue depth in the picture, all signs of a pronounced forehead disappears.

    The pitbull suggestion:
    The pitbull suggestion disappears based on most every diagnostic feature examined, and the main trait that people are seeing in the skull that suggested to them that it was a pitbull is shown false above. In pitbulls there is a rather pronounced frontal region that creates a pronounced angle between where the orbits are and the snout begins, and this simply is not present in the “Montauk” creature.

    On the dentition:
    The teeth in the lower jaw show carnassial teeth (meat slicing), and a well developed canine in front. This is a sign of a carnivore.

    The teeth show, from anterior to posterior, a large canine, then a tiny premolar close behind with an anterior cusp, and a very small posterior cusp. This tooth actually abuts the premolar behind it and there is a posterior impression to accommodate this association that is found on the posterior surface of the first premolar. This is what is seen in raccoons.

    Next, the premolars directly behind the canine increase in size in successive order with each tooth actually touching, or nearly touching, the tooth behind it. Again, as seen in raccoons.

    The first three teeth found directly behind the canine show a tall anterior pointed cusp, with a low posterior cusp that gradually develops an occlusionary surface from labial to lingual (outside of the mouth to inside). Again, as seen in raccoons.

    The 4th tooth posterior to the canine develops a second tall cusp posteriorly that is slightly shorter than the anterior one. There is, again, a posterior region of occlusion that is larger than those found more anteriorly on other teeth. This is again, as seen in raccoons.

    On the general morphology of the body:

    The hips are wide relative to the front of the animal, with the back portion of the animal more stalky, and the front portion more elongated relative to the back portion.

    Next it was about 2-3 feet long according to all involved. The size given is well in within known sizes for raccoons.

    The limbs of raccoons are not short relative to the Montauk Monster as stated by some. Raccoons limbs are actually very long, and fur often gives the illusion of shorter limbs (raccoon skeleton: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Zoology/Animalclassification/OrderPrimates/raccoonskeleton.jpg) .

    With the fur gone, the limb length is more apparent. For those who doubt this, one only needs to google, “raccoon” to see how long these limbs really are. Their front limbs are much longer than ours, relatively speaking. Here is a quote from Darren Naish PhD, a vertebrate paleontology:

    “and if you’re surprised by the length of the Montauk animal’s limbs, note that – like a lot of mammals we ordinarily assume to be relatively short-legged – raccoons are actually surprisingly leggy (claims that the limb proportions of the Montauk carcass are unlike those of raccoons are not correct).”

    Everything lines up with raccoon, and nothing is in contradiction. That cannot be said about any other suggestion. In science we call this, “Parsimony.”

    It is a dead “raccoon”

  16. Jim McMillan says:

    Have you seen the update on their website? They are now trying to blame a 16-year-old child for the hoax! Never mind that they’ve had a pic of the ‘monster’ on their website ever since August 7.

    Details here -
    http://gothamnews.co.uk/2008/08/16/monster-what-monster-splinterheads-crew-change-their-tune/

  17. Jim McMillan says:

    ‘I tried contacting Darren Goldberg yesterday, but he was not available for comment.’

    I think he is only available for comment when he puts on a leather mini skirt and pretends to be Tonya.

  18. AlexM says:

    Your blog is interesting!

    Keep up the good work!

  19. Alex says:

    I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

  20. I haven’t seen in new photography on the Montauk Monster yet from the “Splinterheads Camp”, but I’d really have to see this thing photographed in another location to believe that it wasn’t real. Up to this point, I’m still convinced that was a corpse of a large Dog. Let us know when you have new pics. We need proof! I’m afraid something’s gonna wash up on the Florida Coast now! Thanks for the drama…

    Dave
    http://www.AlphaPromoWorld.com

  21. Smash says:

    you’re all fuckin retards!!!! it’s your mom!!!!!!!!

  22. DNA5150 says:

    The real crime here is not the hoax, the only mystery is who the sick person is that tied this rottweiler’s legs together, so it couldn’t swim back to shore and they him overboard. The soft tissue around the nose was probably ate by fish, exposing the skull.

    Instead of believing this bullshit, take the time to look online for rottweiler skulls. This ‘monster’ is a match. There is no beak, it’s the nasal cavity.

  23. pwrhavoc says:

    if it isnt a prop then its a racoon.

    “monster” explained…. have fun believing the lie
    http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/08/the_montauk_monster.php

  24. L.A. DiAmOnD says:

    No, No, No… you are all wrong. That’s my ex-wife, and trust me she’s not dead at all… that’s just how she looks when she’s sleeping.

    L.A. DiAmOnD

  25. Larry S. says:

    Jimmy,

    I am going to have to disagree with you on that. If you think watching Ashton Kutcher on Punk’d is funny, think again. Darren Goldberg is a genious. He fooled everyone who’s been following the story.

    This stuff only happens once in a blue moon. If a guy can pull off a stunt like that I can’t wait to see the movie.

    Better buy your tix on movietickets.com in advance! lol.

    -Larry.

  26. Jason says:

    Some people just want something to believe so badly. With all the evidence out here, how could anybody seriously believe it was an actual cryptid anymore? Its a prop. That’s it. Mystery solved.

  27. j says:

    “‘j’ – I am beginning to think that if you are going to travel to Montauk, you may need to do it on a short yellow bus.

    “Tonya” was in on the hoax. So what? It’s a joke. Never mind”

    the only hoax is the people doing the movie trying to drum up publicity.

  28. Jimmy says:

    “Without a doubt this could be the prank of the century.”

    FAIL.

  29. HUNTERP says:

    I fill the same way about this that zombiemall fills, this is the start of a virus that just got out, this creature is the start of a mass zombie invasion. it will be the end of man kind or the begning of the end.

    WHEN THERE IS NO MORE ROOM LEFT IN HELL, THE DEAD WILL WALK THE EARTH, IF YOU SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD, WE WOULD HAVE NO MORE WALKING DEAD.

  30. j says:

    btexpress – it may eventually be revealed that it is a dog…but as of yet noone has examined the remains and the photo aint photoshopped.

  31. I think it’s the beginning of a massive zombie invasion.

    This monster is the incubator for the zombie virus that will infect all human-kind, and it looks like it’s gonna start out in New York City!

    -Brian Hardin II
    http://www.ZombieMall.com

  32. btexpress says:

    Trust me, everyone is full of shit. You will all soon find out the truth. That it is carcase of a dog, a pug, with a Photoshopped head of a different animal on the body. That info comes from the vet that examined the body of the people that really have to carcase.

  33. gary says:

    The Montauk Monster is Alf from the 80′s TV show. Check out my blog garyakuhn.blogspot.com and see the pics next to each other. It’s Alf

  34. Tommy says:

    I’ve pretty much been staring at the pictures since i was introduced to this site by nicky papers over the phone yesterday and yeah i think it looks like an alien or some kind of monster. it’s a pretty cool idea that theres something crazy and unknown out there. after looking at it more closely i’m starting to think it’s a mutilated and decomposing dog. it looks like the top teeth are taken out and some of the snout must have fallen off, but if you look at a dog skull, and compare it to his picture it looks the same. there’s floppy ears and a tail and stuff but i don’t know. maybe i’m just saying this because i’m scared of THE MONTAUK MONSTER. actually i think i just saw one outside i’m gonna go take pictures of it. just kidding nicky i’m gonna check this site every day now.

  35. Jim McMillan says:

    ‘j’ – I am beginning to think that if you are going to travel to Montauk, you may need to do it on a short yellow bus.

    “Tonya” was in on the hoax. So what? It’s a joke. Never mind…

  36. Christina D says:

    I’m pretty sure the pictures are of the same animal. If you look closely at the “blue” version, you’ll see that the backbone area of the animal and the back leg are that same burned brownish color as the original picture. It’s just the “underside” of the animal and it’s been flipped over. If a dead animal has been sitting in the sun for a long time, it’s going to fry and crisp and turn that brownish color, but the underside was in the sand and kept cool and wet and it would have kept the bloated blue color of the animal (from the exposure to water).

    Additionally, if you look at the sand, it looks very similar in both pictures.

  37. j says:

    did u ever stop to think u r being duped by this so-called “tonya”…and maybe, just maybe…..she is the one with the connection to this movie since she mentions it over and over. or are u so fucking gullible that this thought never even crossed your mind?

    my money is on the latter.

Leave a Reply About The Montauk Monster