Montauk Monster - Part Deux

I'm confused.

Granted, not the most profound statement you'll hear all day, but it does have merit. After all, I AM confused.

About a year ago (sadly, it has not been longer) I did a post about one named Montauk Monster. Montauk, being where Phoebe's Mom lives and also being where the aptly named Montauk Monster 'washed ashore' or 'was found' or 'was planted'. Your choice. Now, I was under the impression (at the time) that most folks were like me and could spot a see-how-much-publicity-we-can-milk-this-for-stunt a mile away. Apparently, either a) most folks were not like me and/or b) they did not see this as a 'stunt', but rather as an unnamed, unknown creature that had suddenly come to the forefront of that which is unexplained and now needed 'splaining.

That's why I was rather surprised to read today over yonder there at Fox News the headline "'Montauk Monster Mystery May Have Been Solved'. Solved? Solved? There's something to solve? Look, whatever the creature is/was I can guarantee you this, it's not some sort of paranormal activity. It's not a unnatural being. Whatever it is/was, is/was perpetrated by humans. End of story. OH, wait. Enter Fox News. NOT end of story. Crap.

Fox leads with "Some speculated it was an escaped mutant from a government lab. Others thought it was an alien. A few suggested it might be a dog or raccoon." For the record, 'some', 'others' and 'a few' are morons if that's what they actually thought. Fox then continues on with the article as if life has just been discovered on Mars by explaining that some guy has come forward and told a blogger (good Lord...) that he and his buddies were responsible for the Montauk Monster. Shocking, I know!

Alleged, self-proclaimed, fake-monster, creator guy told of how he found a "...dead raccoon in the sand on nearby Shelter Island." Since he and his buddies were on vacation, they did the natural thing for guys on vacation to do which is "...put the animal on an inflatable child's swim duck...with a lot of other debris...(and then)set it on fire and pushed it out to sea." Naturally.

This account was recounted over yonder at the blog ASSME. ASSME standing for, of course, "The American Society of Shitcanned Media Elites." What? You were expecting "Aye, Saw Some Monsters Everywhere"? Not so much.

The account over at ASSME (which is a sentence that I never thought I'd write) expounds a bit on the Fox News account with a bit more detail, such as "It was the weekend before July 4th, and the trio were making a raft and putting all sorts of debris on it, just for fun: watermelons, scraps of cloth, plastic swimmie duck, etc." Just for fun? My idea of fun is a lot different than that of those who look for scraps of cloth on a raft as 'fun'. I'm just sayin', is all. I'm juuuuusstt sayin'. Somewhere along the line, 'setting the thing on fire' was added to the very short list of entertainment favors. But it is insisted that “this creature was honored with a viking funeral, not merely exploited for crass entertainment." Oh, well, thank GOD that was the case! I was beginning to get a bit concerned. Whew! No need for alarm! Nothing to see here people! No crass entertainment exploitation being had! Back to your bunkers!

It was also revealed that this wasn't the first activity of the vacation that these lads had embarked upon. No, there were some prior adventures including "...a waterboarding endurance competition, and....a clothespins-on-your-genitals challenge.” Translation: They were drunk.

Look, it doesn't look like much of a raccoon to me and it certainly doesn't look like much of a raccoon carcass that had been set aflame. It's rather smooth. Like a seal. Only not. You know what else it doesn't look like? A monster, that is correct! Whatever it is, it was created by people. The whole illusion of the mystery of the unknown creature was completely and utterly created by humans. Was it created by the drunken fellows on vacation with their flaming duck flotation devices and watermelons afire? I don't know. (But flaming duck flotation devices and watermelons afire sound remarkably similar to my 35th birthday party. From what I remember.) But kudos to those boys (or boy) for bearing his soul to a blogger and getting their drunken deeds of fun out in the open.

Nice job, Fox News. Nice job keeping non-news in the news for years to come. I look forward to 2010 when you report that it was really the blogger himself who was responsible for the non-existent mayhem. Yeah, thanks for that.

By the way, all photos showing the duck floatie were shamelessly lifted with neither permission nor malice from ASSME. Just so you know.

Sphere: Related Content

Please Stay Within Your Own Species

I was going to write about the freaking stimulus bill and how we can all just kiss our hard earned cash, along with our ass, goodbye. While I really love this system of government we have over here, I'm going to need a bit more convincing that it's a good idea to have a Congress where only 15% of the members have some sort of formal schooling in the field of economics, is making decisions that involve almost a trillion dollars (Yes, that's "trillion" with a "t". "T" as in "There goes my money."). I've decided that what would make me more comfortable is if when these Congress people are explaining what they want to do with the money to stimulate the economy, they need to show me a chart (with at least three colors) that explains how their little plan is going to work. That's all I want. Show me how it's going to do anything, anything at all, and I'm in. Doesn't matter what kind of chart. Bar. Graph. Pie. (Mmmmm...pie.) Any kind of chart will do. Who do I talk to?

But I decided I'm too angry to write about the stimulus bill. So instead, I'm going with the stand-by topic that never fails. That's right, I'm going with the penis. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd write.)

And here's today's tale of someone getting at least exactly what they deserved. Over yonder there in Moscow, a one 44-year old, drunken Alexander Kirilov was feeling the need for some lovin' in the midst of his drunken stupor. So, he did what no one would do and decided to rape a raccoon. Wait. What?

That's correct. A raccoon. Now, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the raccoon, they are definitely not intended for cross breeding. Just ask the raccoon! No, they're just an annoying animal that will get into your trash cans and make a mess. They look adorable until they decide that they want to kill you by using their razor sharp claws to remove all of the flesh from your face and then that's when you notice that they bear a striking resemblance to the devil. (Just a little side note here from a bit of personal experience I've had with raccoons: Two raccoons doing it in your backyard at 5am make a hell of a lot of noise. Good Lord, what is he doing to her?! She doesn't sound happy about it. Pipe down! We're sleeping!)

But back to the Coon Raper. According to a one fabulously saucy The Sun, Alexander the Drunken and Perverted Idiot decided he was going to have sex with the raccoon. The raccoon, on the other hand, had different plans. As Alexander moved in to begin, um, wooing (???) the raccoon, the raccoon moved in on him and began, um, biting off his penis, that is correct!

The Sun reports that he told the completely stunned casualty surgeons in Moscow, "When I saw the raccoon I thought I’d have some fun.” Did you now? Huh. Is that what you had in mind, you sick and twisted crap weasel you? A little penis munching by a nocturnal mammal? What? No?! Well, then you got yourself a surprise, didn't you? Yeah, I can imagine.

Look, I've been drunk before. I've been really drunk before. Nothing wrong with a little drunkenness every once in a while. (Every once in a while = 5pm nightly) But I've never been have-sex-with-a-raccoon-for-fun drunk ever. Not many have, I would imagine. (Thank God.)

The Sun reports that "Now Russian plastic surgeons are trying to restore his mangled manhood." His mangled manhood. Wow. You don't want you manhood mangled. No, siree. You definitely do not want that. (Though "Mangled Manhood" would be a pretty good name for a band.) And according to "a pal", “He’s been told they can get things working again but they can’t sew back on what the raccoon bit off." No, you sure can't sew it back on, can you?

So, what exactly would be left to "work again" I wonder? The little stump ranger that's left? How might you explain that to any future, um, women (Humans! They must be human at the very least!) that you use that charming personality of yours to lure them into your bed? You're going to have to come up with a pretty good story because I'll tell you this, if you tell that chick, "Oh, it's nothing. It was just bitten off by this raccoon that I tried to rape one night when I was drunk. C'mere, baby." your "date" there is over! Over and she's gone! If the door to the bedroom was shut, there will be a hole shaped like your date in the door after she bolts through it like a cartoon character (complete with that scrambling feet sound and a cloud of smoke left in her wake).

That being said, he's going to have to get pretty good at using that thing again. Though I don't imagine he was all that suave with it before it was gnawed off. I mean, come on, he was trying to stick it in a raccoon. (Maybe it was his first day.)

The "pal" also stated the obvious when expressing his lack of optimism about the reconstruction of his pal's mangled manhood. “That’s gone forever so there isn’t going to be much for them to work with." True. When something is "gone forever" you really don't have it around anymore, do you? Boy, that guy's a genius just like his buddy there. Where was he when Alexander went a-coonin'? Off flirting with squirrels? Hitting on Bambi? Who knows? (I wouldn't be messing with the squirrels. They get as mean as that raccoon did. They might not leave you with anything. Could end up all concave down there, fellas. And no one wants that. Not even the squirrel.)

And there you have it. So, what have we learned? Not one freaking thing that we didn't already know, that is correct! Never try to do a raccoon, lest you want your manhood mangled and missing. That is all.

Sphere: Related Content

Montauk Monster Mayhem

OK, what the hell? I like the Internet and all, but sometimes, all of those tubes and pipes and wires and strings that connect everything together can just end up to serve the purpose of pointing out either a) how gullible people are, b) how ridiculous people are or c) a little bit of both. (On occasion, it can also be used to point out d) how hot some people are. But when they're d) hot with a little bit of b) ridiculous thrown in, they end up just e) annoying the hell out of me.)

So, this "creature" thing "washes up" on the shores on Montauk. Well,actually, it was photographed lying on the shores of Montauk. (Hmm...the key word there might actually be "lying'. Interesting.) How it got there is debatable. Who saw it is debatable. What happened to it is also debatable. And what's really debatable is what in the hell it is! Seriously, look at this thing:

Whatever it is, it's disgusting. It's like they took a bit too long digging the fire pit at the luau and the thing just languished in the sun for far too long. I don't get it. But I do get this: Weird-ass animal things that look like old, bald, dead dogs don't "wash up" on the shores of a beach on Montauk. They also don't go to the shores of Montauk to die a la some elephant graveyard legend. (I'm pretty sure there was a Scooby Doo episode that exposed that whole farce.) And three fairly hot chicks like that (who may or may not have a cumulative IQ of 100) don't have the stomach to belly on up to the creature and take it's picture. No way. So what gives?

Well, Nick Leighton from Plum TV tried to get to the bottom of it. And I'm sure that he was as forceful as he possibly could be (which is to say, not very. He's a rather effeminate chap, don't you know? But I liked him. He asked good questions.), just short of smacking the chicks with his feather boa.

During his interview with Rachel Goldberg, Jenna Hewitt and Courtney Fruin, Nick said, "Four scientists say that it does not exist. They all say you're drunk and that you Photoshop really well." That was met with the response, "The animal exists." OK, see, a response like that which alludes to something, but could also allude to something else points one in the direction of concluding that it's a real fake creature. She might just as well have said, "Oh, it's something, all right." Well, we know it's something, sweetheart. Same principle. Any ideas as to what? "A mutant." Of course! How could I have overlooked the possibility of "a mutant". Oh, for cryin' out loud, a mutant what?! But sadly (or thankfully) that question wasn't answered because another one volunteered her theory of, "It's a cross breed. I think it came out of the ocean from Plum Island." So, it's a plum? I don't think so.

But I loved it when Nick asked, "Where is the animal now? Because apparently it got dragged off into someone's home. In Montauk. And it's been mounted on someone's wall." That's pretty funny. Even funnier is when one of the girls said, "No. It decomposed in someone's backyard." And Nick, who is very sharp and catches on to details like this really fast, jumps in with, "Oh, so you're friends? So we could go to this backyard?" Good job, Nick! Way to get the scoop! And? "It's been since...removed." What? "By whom?" You get 'em, Nick! Let's see them get out of that! "Friends of ours." Darn! I did not see that coming. Apparently, neither did Nick because he told them, "You're a little shady with the details." And here's where what little, if any, credibility these three chickies had goes right out the window. "Well, it's very mysterious. We're not just giving up all the information." Um, what?

First of all, the only time I've ever heard someone say, "Well, it's very mysterious" was on Scooby Doo. Usually it was Velma stating the obvious there. And when something is "very mysterious" you don't have any information to give up because it's mysterious. Hence the term, mysterious!

But Nick soldiers on (don't ask, don't tell, don't you know?) with, "So it's been carted off to somewhere that you know but you won't tell us?" "Our friends have it. We're hoping to have scientists contact us and then we can find out what it is. That's really ...the goal." Is it now? I don't think that's your main goal. And what do you mean your "friends have it?" Right! Look, I really like the friends that I have, but if any of them came to me and said, "Hey, we found this crazy looking, dead mutant on the beach. Mind if I keep it at your place for a while?" Yeah, see, I'm not going to do that. If it was just crazy looking or just a mutant, I might consider it. But dead is out of the question. If you start hanging on to your friend's dead carcasses, pretty soon, all of your friends are bringing over their dead carcasses as well. It's just more trouble than it's worth is all I'm saying. But I digress.

"It's in a box. The bones are boxed." Now it's just bones? How long does it take for fake, mysterious creatures to decompose? That thing looked pretty meaty. It wouldn't be overnight. So Nick tries to pin them down with specifics. "How do we know it's not a raccoon, a turtle without it's shell, or a dog?" (OK, that's quite the variety there, Nick. Perhaps next time, what say you narrow the field down a bit.) "What we've heard from a scientist at Stonybrook University is it's not a raccoon because the legs and arms are not in proportion with the body." Wait a minute. Weren't they waiting for hear from the scientists to tell them what it was? What happened to this Stonybrook Farm guy? He wasn't good enough or what?

Come on, Nick. Do your thing. "OK, proportions. Dog?" "It's not a dog because of, um, the feet." Because of the feet? All dogs that I've had AND seen in my lifetime have, surprisingly enough, HAD feet. What kind of mutant dogs does that chick keep for pets anyway? WTF? One more, Nick. "The feet. OK." But before Nick could get to his final question, one of the chicks piped up, "And a turtle doesn't have teeth." At that point, I expected them to stand up, spread their collective arms and shout, "Ta-da!" But they didn't. It was a little anticlimactic.

Well, whatever it is, I'm sure that we'll find out about it in a couple of days. The story is starting to fall apart here and there and it's looking more and more like it might be part of some Internet marketing campaign for some show that's going to be airing on Cartoon Network called Cryptids Are Real. Nice. I hate that crap. Hey, but if it is just a promo, then what's the creature?

Jeff Corwin of Animal Planet says that what we have here is a very rare.....raccoon. Wait. What?

Hey, does this look like a raccoon to you?

I've seen raccoons before. They look like this:

They do not look like this:

Now, I'm not saying that he's wrong. After all, he does work for the Animal Planet. But maybe his Animal Planet doesn't have animals like this planet because that is not a freaking raccoon. Just to be clear again, this is a raccoon. Please note the difference between the real raccoon and the pictures above that crazy people are saying is a raccoon.

We'll see how this turns out. (I still don't think it's going to be a raccoon, but that doesn't mean I think it's going to be an ocean mutant either.) Stay tuned, won't ye?

Sphere: Related Content