Friday 8 / 1 / 08 

The recent images of the "Montauk Monster" have set the web on fire. Science of Peace listeners know Russian scientists learned how to create hybrid creatures years ago…



This past Tuesday, a story broke out on the Internet about a strange, hairless creature that washed ashore on the beaches of Montauk, Long Island. It’s not for the faint of heart, as its unconventional appearance inspires revulsion in most first-time viewers:




You are about to read mainstream media reports about this creature clearly establishing that this unusual corpse was definitely found on the beach at Montauk. The photograph is real and was not Photoshopped. Other angles of what appear to be the same corpse have also been taken, which reduce some — not all — of the mystery.



Whatever this creature turns out to be — and we will probably never know for certain — this event has had the positive effect of getting millions of new "anomaly hunters" investigating Montauk. And if the witness testimonies are true, Montauk is a lot more interesting than any potential hybrid creature might be.

As readers of this site are well aware, we now have multiple converging witness testimonies indicating that a clandestine government project — perhaps the ultimate secret project — took place in Montauk from February 1981 to August 13, 1983.

What do you get when you remove the seat from a UFO, power it up with the help of those who originally used it, and train personnel to use its super-advanced technology, so "far out" as to threaten the imaginations of most science-fiction writers?

You have the Montauk Project. I had no use for the book when I first found it in the mid-1990s, but that all changed when I met someone in who worked there  



UFOs are very real. I was lucky enough to find out in 1993 when a close friend sat me down and regurgitated the results of a two-hour private conversation he had with his physics professor. He didn’t know who else to trust, and had to get this off his chest, so he came to me because he knew I had an open mind.

This professor, as I have often stated, worked in the higher echelons of NASA through the 1970s. It was considered "common knowledge" in the top levels that we are being visited by other human cultures that did not originate on Earth. These cultures have advanced technology far in excess of anything we currently possess in the open, mainstream scientific world.


Many insiders who worked on classified UFO-related projects have come forward and given firsthand testimony. We personally attended Dr. Steven Greer’s "Disclosure Project" conference in May 2001

, and with the disclosures of Edgar Mitchell this past week making the front page of Drudge Report — in red, no less — the rush to Dislcosure has just amped up considerably in speed.




We have personally interviewed a man calling himself "Daniel," who claims to have been employed in this project while he served as a captain in the Air Force. Nothing we’ve ever written about or discussed has aroused greater controversy — and severe scorn from some skeptics — than Daniel’s testimony.



At first blush, most people think they are seeing a hybrid mixture of a bird and a dog. Most of the body is clearly similar to a dog, and the face appears to have a beak-like structure.  

The ‘beak’ should actually not be the focus of this investigation. Further study reveals that the flesh of the snout, along with any upper incisors, was neatly removed — most likely by an automobile collision. What most people see as a "beak" is actually exposed bone consistent with a mammalian skull, minus the teeth and the surrounding flesh. 

Our MP3 series The Science of Peace — recorded in January 2005 and released January 2007 for distribution — described the process by which hybrid creatures have already been created… in Russia.

And if you think this is a product of conventional cloning, think again. This process involves the use of a suppressed science that has huge implications 

Russian scientist Tszyan Kanchzhen (also spelled Dzang Kangeng) created hybrid


The story has gained enough traction to break through into the mainstream media. A particularly good starting-point is an article written by Newsday, suggesting the possibility that more than one of these creatures were observed in the area:,0,5138315.column

Quick. Grab something. It’s time to slay the Montauk Monster.

That was the idea at the beginning of the day, when we set a colleague, Robert Wargas, out on his monster mystery hunt.

The results? We’ll get to that later. But first, let’s dish out some reality.

A. Something really did wash up in Montauk, one sunny day, two weeks ago.

B. More than four people saw it.

C. More than one person photographed it.

The surf was rough, flipping the thing, over and over, and over again.

Jenna Hewitt, of Montauk, and three friends crept up to examine one side. And Hewitt snapped the camera shot heard ’round the world.

But here’s the rub.

Her group was the second on the scene that afternoon.

The first was a quartet of sun-worshipers from western Suffolk and New York City.

"It looked like nothing I’d ever seen before," said Ryan O’Shea, of Brooklyn. "It looked like it died angry."

They were so puzzled by what they saw, they left and came right back, with more friends.

The second time around, Christina Pampalone, of East Northport, borrowed O’Shea’s camera. She aimed and kept on firing.

The result is lots of — ew — gross photos of a carcass that looks more domestic than exotic, a bloated dog, not the Hound from Hell.

It shows ears. A big swatch of fur. And its proportions appear to be less distorted — making the head appear to be a suitable complement to the body.

"I was telling people, all day (Wednesday), that I had better photos," Pampalone said.

"Everybody I showed her pictures to said it looks like a dead dog," O’Shea said.

"But looking at the claws, and at the teeth in the front, it looked like it could be something else, something vicious."

It was relatively small, roughly 2 1/2 to 3 feet long, he said.

"I kept thinking, ‘Boy, I hope its mother isn’t around,’" O’Shea said.

This might be a good time to pause for a chew of monster mash. I was skeptical — and yes, photographers and graphic artists, I did get your e-mails disputing my shadow theory — until O’Shea and Pampalone made me a believer.

Not in monsters, mind you.

But in the fact that the ocean, from time to time, coughs up some nasty stuff.

So is it a dog? (Many readers suggested, and worried, that it might be their lost pet. Others were adamant that whatever it was, it should get a decent burial.)

Or, as some of our more imaginative readers suggested Thursday, a skinned ram?

Whale fetus?

Possum? Otter? (Based on the new photos, I think I’m liking the otter. For now.)

I sent Pampalone’s digital photos — unlike Hewitt, she had no problem with sending Newsday the originals — to the good folks at Plum Island, but had heard nothing back about the new photos by deadline.

Perhaps that’s because officials were busy answering inquiries from CNN and other media chasing the Montauk Monster. (For the record, officials said they have nothing to do with it and couldn’t identify it, based on Hewitt’s photo.)

Hewitt told Newsday she was talking to CNN, too.

She also told our man Wargas — who had started his workday high on the hope of seeing, and no doubt, smelling, the beast’s remains — that the carcass had been moved from the backyard of her friend to another location.


But wait.

Joann Dileardo saw it at the end of Roe Avenue in Patchogue, a few weeks ago. "I didn’t know what that thing was," she said. "It looked like a pig."

Another reader, Pat, e-mailed that the ladies in his office saw it on an East Quogue beach — back in April.

Elizabeth Barbeiri said her family saw it about a mile east of Gurney’s Inn in Montauk, July 14. And Ryan Kelso, via iPhone, said he spotted it — alive! — in the Montauk dunes. "It looked about the size of an average fox, gray in color, eyes like a mole, hairless and was breathing quite heavily," he wrote, "needless to say we were freaked out by this discovery and fled the area quickly."

Lavey Fater saw a surfer bring one to shore, near Ditch Plains.

"It was hairless and gross," Fater reported. "… The surfer said he had no idea what it was, but that he threw it in the dunes because he didn’t want to be surfing next to it."

Keith found something last week in Greenport; Chris found one a month ago at Jones Beach east of Field 6. ("The one I saw had a longer snout or beak or whatever you want to call it.") Sean said he buried one, 3 feet deep, in South Jamesport.

Somehow, I’m thinking, the Montauk Monster won’t stay buried, long.


The next picture — by Christina Pampalone — appears to be the result of the ‘spin’ coming in. The original creature is clearly not anything we’ve ever seen before, and bears multiple characteristics suggesting it is a dog-hawk hybrid, created by a technique similar to what the Russians used in an area known for black-ops skullduggery.

A classic three-letter-agency ‘spook’ trick would be to send a few agents out to find a different creature, kill it, prepare the corpse to look as much like the original as possible, and photograph it.


Notice again how the Newsday ‘spin’ says that a previous group photographed the beast before the picture that has now gained such infamy online.

In order to disguise that this whole first group could be a ruse, the innocuous-sounding term "a quartet of sun-worshippers" is applied. Read it again:

The first was a quartet of sun-worshipers from western Suffolk and New York City.

"It looked like nothing I’d ever seen before," said Ryan O’Shea, of Brooklyn. "It looked like it died angry."

They were so puzzled by what they saw, they left and came right back, with more friends.

The second time around, Christina Pampalone, of East Northport, borrowed O’Shea’s camera. She aimed and kept on firing.

The result is lots of — ew — gross photos of a carcass that looks more domestic than exotic, a bloated dog, not the Hound from Hell.

The ‘spin’ photograph is of a totally different creature. If these pictures were taken BEFORE the ones that got so popular online, as the Newsday article said, it is highly unlikely that the color would have changed so quickly from the putrid blue-white in these shots to the warm brown of the later shots.

The ‘spin’ photo has hair on the corpse that the original clearly does not. The ‘spin’ photo also has the upper limbs cleverly buried in the sand, thus masking the most unique feature of the original. 

Flesh around the upper jaw and nasal region has been carefully, surgically removed to reveal the underlying bone, while the lower jaw has remained largely intact. Additional flesh has been carved away from the lower jaw to make it slightly more similar to the original, as you can see here if you look closely:




Since this appears to be a decayed boar carcass, you would probably see cloven hoofs on the body instead of the unusual hybrid appearance of the original:



 Link to the Newsday version of this photo


This "spin" version may have come about after expert testimony dismissed it being anything known to conventional biology, as the previous Newsday article reveals:,0,7319518.column

‘If this could be certified as the Suffolk version of the Loch Ness monster," County Executive Steve Levy said, "we’d sell tickets and get a lot of revenue."

Levy was talking about the Montauk Monster, a fresh fable of a beast with the hue of a boiled lobster, the beak of a dinosaur and jaw crammed with pointy, white teeth.

Is it real? Or suburban legend?

Two locals swear it’s real.

And swear that they saw – and photographed – the beast sometime after rough surf pitched it up to Ditch Plains beach on July 12. "We were looking for a place to sit when we saw some people looking at something," Jenna Hewitt, 26, of Montauk, said yesterday.

She and three friends, including Rachel Goldberg, 29, also of Montauk, walked over to see what was going on.

"We were kind of amazed," Hewitt said, "shocked and amazed."

She said she borrowed Goldberg’s digital camera, aimed and fired off two shots.

"We didn’t know what it was," she said. "We joked that maybe it was something from Plum Island."

It didn’t take long for East Hampton to start buzzing about the reported find. Quickly, skeptics and believers alike offered up – and continue to offer up – myriad theories.

"We kept hearing it from everywhere," said Rick Murphy, editor of The Independent, an East Hampton newspaper.

"I’d pick up the phone and somebody would say, "It’s a sea turtle without its shell," he said. "It’s a dog; it’s Satan; people can’t stop talking about it."

On July 23, The Independent published a story by Kitty Merrill under the headline, "The Hound of Bonacville."

And a photograph, that editors decided to run in black and white because it’s too disturbing.

"Flies cavorted upon the naked corpse," Merrill wrote.

"The once-robust figure, covered with soft and pettable fur, was, witnesses noted with dread, utterly absent its coat, save the occasional individual strand sticking out, as if it had been skinned by an evil tormentor."

By Tuesday, the beast – now morphed into full-fledged Internet viral monster, lumbered onto, under a headline: GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR HELL DEMONS.

Hell demons?

In the Hamptons?

Larry Penny, the town’s resource director, doesn’t think so. (At least about the Montauk Monster.)

"It could be a dog," he said. "Or, looking at the picture, we thought it could be a raccoon that was skinned and has its upper jaw missing."

But William Wise, director of Stony Brook University‘s Living Marine Resources Institute, after looking at the photo and consulting with a fellow biologist (who knows land creatures), disagrees.

He knows what it isn’t.

A raccoon. ("The legs appear to be too long in proportion to the body.")

A sea turtle. ("Sea turtles do not have teeth.")

A rodent. ("Rodents have two huge, curved incisor teeth in front of their mouths.")

He said the general body shape looks like a dog or other canine ("Coyote?"). But that the "prominent eye ridge and the feet" don’t match.

He said the feet and face look "somewhat ovine" – that would be like a sheep – but sheep don’t have sharp teeth.

Wise’s best, educated guess: "A talented someone who got very creative with latex."

In other words, a fake – which would place Wise with the skeptics. (Many of whom believe the image was manipulated with computer software.) And from where I sit, and after checking with Newsday’s photo staff, I’d vote fake, too. Because the sun would have to be in two places at the same time to get a shadow in one direction on the body and in another direction on the head. (Maybe that’s why the monster also appears to be flipping the bird.)

But Wise also offered what he called a next-best guess: "A dog or coyote that was diseased and has been in the sea for a while."

Which is it? Without the body, nobody can say.

Hewitt said she knows where the Montauk Monster rests.

"A guy took it and put it in the woods in his backyard; he has a big backyard," she said. "The thing is rotting there."

But she wouldn’t say who; wouldn’t say where.

No matter.

The beastie’s a legend now. Fodder for campfire tales, T-shirts and stuffed animals.

It’s alive! 


Plum TV, a local television show from the Hamptons, interviewed three women named Rachel Goldberg, Courtney Fruin and Jenna Hewitt, who claim to have taken the original photographs. As we will see in a minute, the person who DID take the original photograph is calling this out as a case of blatant fraud.

It is possible, again, that these women could be either active employees of a clandestine agency, paid to tell their story, or both. Here is the link to their video interview if you are interested in watching it:


Alanna Nevitski claims she took the real photo, and the evidence for that is compelling. All versions of the photo available online, up until now, were not of high resolution. Yet, Nevitski was in contact with New York Magazine, and furnished a photograph where we zoom in on a fly on the carcass in much higher resolution:

Here is the article where this is mentioned: