Disqus - Latest Comments for lago

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:33:44 -0000

I didn't just say "I know teeth," and tell people to take me on my word. I made a video and posted it on here that showed the teeth compared side by side with different animals including raccoons. The details I gave were not interpretive. They were as plain as day and easy to see.

You are right, I will say there is no foot print in the picture as you state, because there is none, No signs of a shoe print, or sneaker tread, of a foot outline with heel-ball, instep-toes,..nothing. All you have given is a desperate attempt at claiming authority with no evidence supporting you claim. If you care to show me wrong, make a video outlining your evidence, and show your evidence to everyone.

Finally, the people that found the second one are shown in another video I posted putting it in a bag and it only the size of your average house cat, and the people that found the one above said they picked it up and brought it back to their house as well. Know how hard it would be to simply pick up a dead decaying horse or cow and drag it home? You'd need a truck. What did the report above say? They said they picked it up and put it into an ice filled enclosure and carried it away. How many ice filled enclosure do people generally have that can do this? Later it is stated it was put in a "cooler." The average large sized cooler sold in the US can't fit a medium sized dog in it, never mind a cow or horse. Also, all people seeing the Montauk Monsters that stated size said it was the size of a small dog.

Simply put, there is no evidence in your favor that does not come from the wilds of your furtive mind.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:33:39 -0000

Am I responding to you, or are you responding to me? I am also not quite sure what you point is. I exclaim that one should use reason, logic, evidence, and so on, to come to a conclusion, and you instead respond by crying like a baby and calling me names because your education sucks donkey gonads.

Hm,..I think I would rather stick to my line of reasoning,

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:45:37 -0000

I have never tried to convince any one that I had any type of superior intelligence.

As for having the skills, you can either dispute what I have shown with evidence and logic, or you cannot. My only "skill," is trying to use reason, and not calls to authority with no evidence like, "It is a fucking monster, deal with it. Douche."

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:50:19 -0000

People use visual cues to tell them how big something is in real life. When we look at 2D pictures these cues are often distorted. For example, I grew up seeing a small type of Triassic reptile only in pictures, and due to the fact they were aquatic, their ribs were very thick. Several vertebrate group employ this method to make them less positively buoyant and more neutral buoyant. The thick ribs seemed to imply to me these animals were rather robust and I always thought these animals were about 10 to 15 feet in length. When I actually saw one of their fossils for the first time in real life, I was shocked to see it was smaller than my hand. Without proper visual cues, your mind often jumps to conclusions based on prejudices a 2D photo cannot resolve without something else in the picture to give scale.

As for these 3 animals, the people involved all said they were the size of small dogs. The only video I saw actually showing the animals in association with people was of the second animal. I posted this video below somewhere. I will find it again if requested to do so. This video shocked even me as it showed the animal was smaller than I thought it was, and was only about the size of an average adult opossum. Since the record for raccoons is over 60lbs, it makes the Montauk Monsters (at least the second one) smaller than an average adult male raccoon.

As for the first one being a turtle, it must be remembered that the first one has both teeth and fur and even an external ear called in anatomical jargon, "The Pinna." These are all traits turtles do not have, and since the teeth showed carnassial style molars, all the these traits are actually considered the trails of therian mammals. Next, a turtle's shell is not removable. It is made up of several differing anatomical structures, but the ribs and backbone are a central element to the shell, and the shell cannot be removed without obliterating the animal into a pile of mush.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:13:41 -0000

Stop pretending I am angry. I am not. I am saying for you to back your positions with facts and this has been seen as a type of attack on you. If you were ever in the sciences, you know this standard procedure 101, especially when you made claim to be some type of authority.

I fear you wanted to look clever, so you acted like you knew things you didn't, and are now pissed-off someone has called you on it.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:24:43 -0000

Cynthia..

I am not angry. I am merely tearing your BS apart. You came in and made a call to your authority saying you knew their "anatomy and physiology." Yet you gave no reason why the three are not raccoons. I asked for reasons why it didn't match and you showed an extreme lack of even the most basics when it comes to vertebrate anatomy. You still have given no reasons that have stood up as to why it isn't a raccoon, and avoided answering to the evidence I supplied. You obviously know very little about osteology in general. Who in God's name taught you how the scientific method works?

Now you say you disagree with me, yet you still will not give me one piece of evidence that supports your case. Doesn't that tell you anything?

If Phil Gingerich is in his office, show him the video I made and then ask him whether or not the teeth match a raccoon or not, K?

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:35:36 -0000

Oh, this isn't my site. I am just trying to find out how people think based on whether or not they are willing to use critical thinking or not. So far, most do not even attempt to use it. They think everything is, "Opinion."

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:29:29 -0000

You said you knew it wasn't a raccoon because you knew their anatomy, yet it matches a raccoon on all points. I am trained in comparative vertebrate anatomy (test me if you so desire), and the skull is an exact match,... yet you claim otherwise. Show me how it does not match. Give verifiable details I can see and test for myself as I gave you in the video I posted.

I am not a geneticist but I am able to ask you enough questions to show whether or not you are lying. Would you like me to do so?

I am also not opposed to using genetics, but we do not have, or need this option. We tell raccoons by partial jaw fragments all the time in paleontology, and we have way more than that here.

Now, did you watch my video on the dentition? If not, go do so.

If you did watch it, where am I wrong? It seems it is a clear match to me. Do you have anything else that matches on all points as a raccoon does?

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:10:21 -0000

Keegan...

You obviously have not collected bones before.

The whiteness of the skull is very typical. Skulls can be exposed while most of the flesh is still in place on the rest of the animal, and that skull can shine as white as alabaster.

Next, blood pools shortly after death, and then gels. Blood is rarely seen in victims that we not cut open while they were still alive. Drowning victims almost never show blood in or around the decaying body.

The teeth is one of the areas some blood may pool shortly after death, and this can often been seen through the partially translucent enamel of the dentition, as seen here.

Everything in these pictures looks rather typical of a decaying carcass, and nothing looks fake.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:02:14 -0000

For one, Corwin was making fun of the fact it was only an everyday raccoon. The term "rare" was being used in a satirical manner. This is because he was making fun of the fact everyone was up in arms over the fact a dead raccoon was found.

Next, there is no such thing as a degree from an accredited school in cryptozoology. It is a made up term applied to ones self, and does not reflect any knowledge of comparative vertebrate anatomy.

Next, you obviously do not know anything about anatomy if you think there is a "beak" anywhere on this skull. All you are seeing, but not understanding, is the premaxilla, and maxilla of the upper jaw with the teeth havin' fallin' out, which is extremely common after death especially in animals that drowned and soaked in water for several hours or days. This is due to the fact that the bone can absorb water and swell, but the enamel on the teeth do not, so the swell breaks the cemented bond between the two and the teeth fall out. This is basic taphonomy 101.

Do not believe me? Then why not take the time to download the pictures from above and blow them up as you will clearly see the empty tooth sockets in the premaxilla for the incisors, and a very large empty tooth socket for the upper canine at the beginning of the maxilla, as well as the remaining dental alveoli for the premolars.

You are obviously lying about your education cynthia...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:35:13 -0000

Cynthia...

The skull is a dead on match on all points. I can make a video showing this if you'd like. I did relative biometrics on the skull and showed how the end of the premaxilla at the external nares to the orbits, as compared to the height at the beginning of the orbits matches a raccoon. You can also see the the angle of the skull roof as compared to the alveolar ridge is the same, and it ends with the same slight protrusion dorsad to the orbits here. Next the angle of the zygotic process relative to the roof is the same too, which shows it isn't any type of dog because this same region on dogs has an expanded frontal region at this point (which is called, The "stop" in dogs). This creates an angle at the stop in dogs and allows for the orbits to be placed above the premaxilla to orbit line, however, in this animal the orbits are below, as we see in raccoons again.

As for the teeth, I did a dental analysis of the first animal when it was found and compared the teeth to numerous animals and only one group matched, and it did so on all points. I did a simplified video showing how the dental traits can be compared to other groups for those who kept claiming it was a dog so they could see the dentition ruled out dogs and were an exact match for raccoons. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Now, the rest also matches up to a raccoon, as the limb length as compared to body length is the same ratio in both the Montauk monster and raccoons, the body length to head length, and so on.

The manus is also made up of separate digits as in raccoons, and shows a distinct palmer pad characteristic of the same. Raccoons have wider hips than shoulders to help with balance while standing on two legs so they can manipulate objects with their hands. Once again, the Montauk Monsters have wider hips than shoulders.

You are also not trained in genetics, but since I am, I can point out to people that a "genetic marker," is not a physical trait to be seen on an animal, but a DNA sequence used to establish mutations or chromosomal placement in certain groups used for statistical correlations in relation to phylogeny, or disease expression in families etc...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:37:42 -0000

cynthia..

Everyone tries to do this. The go, "I know raccoons, my mother was one! ...and this ain't no raccoon!" The key thing is they never seem to remember to give diagnostic reasons why.

I do not care if you raised raccoons. If you cannot give details why they are not raccoons, then do not try and give a opinion based on a requested authority...

I am trained in biometrics for diagnostics of vertebrates, and I did an analysis of the teeth and skeletal structures. The data only match raccoons. I will go into detail upon request. If you care to debate me on the issue I will certainly oblige.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:48:21 -0000

Wet bone looks like plastic. Don't believe me? Then take a skull and put it in some water, take it out, and look at it...

Next, WHAT FREAKIN' FEATHERS?

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:10:12 -0000

It isn't a dog. It is a raccoon. I have given morphological arguments why time and time again below. Go read them...

It cannot be a dog..

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:34:09 -0000

Canines are the first teeth in the maxilla. The large empty tooth socket can clearly be seen at the beginning of this bone as plain as day if one only takes the time to look. This means the animal had canines, but they fell out, just as the empty tooth sockets in the premaxilla indicate about the incisors falling out.

Next, large molars are not the sign of a herbivorous animal.The "type" of molar is (selenodont, lophodont, and loxodont, for example). The molars seen here are not the molars of a herbivorous animal, but are the teeth of a carnivore. These are typical "carnassials," and are found in cats, dogs, raccoons etc...

This is a raccoon..

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:59:46 -0000

rae...

I know a made-up story when I see one. Want to prove me wrong? Show us the picture you claimed to have taken...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:36:23 -0000

Why do so many people act like morons and think a dead half decayed animal should look like the animal did when it was alive?

One needs to go by the things that do not rot, like skulls and teeth and such. It takes a bit of an education in the field of comparative vertebrate anatomy to do this, but if you have this education you can see, as plain as day, this is a raccoon. People without this education should not babble about things they know little to nothing about,,,

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:48:27 -0000

So Zwaager, was the person that took the pictures 4ft tall, or 6ft tall? Less or more? Was the person on one knee? Both their knees? Were they standing straight-up? Were they bent at the waist? Was one knee bent? Both? Were they using a zoom? Optical? Digital. Both? To what degree were they using the zoom?

Please answer these obvious questions that are required to be able to calculate size, and tell me how you obtained this information.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:47 -0000

Zwaager asks: "im assuming your a britt? which would be your first problem! problem number 2, is that the people you speak of are also britts! "

Response: No, I am not a Brit.

You said: "im assuming that most of u ppl who believe that are americans!

I responded and showed two paleontologists, one in England, who is British, and another who is living in the States, who also happens to be British and teaches Vertebrate anatomy at an Ivy League school there, both say the Montauk Monster is a raccoon.

Zwaager claims: "you would have to be a COMPLETE moron to honestly believe that this animal is only the size of your average size cat! judging by the angle at which the photo was taken, im going estimate that the photographer was standing about 2 meters away from the carcus and with this in mind and in comparison to the surroundings, i would say this animal weighs no less than 150 Lbs. this alone rules out any possibility of it being a raccoon, seeing as how raccoons are not by any means, a large animal! "

Response:
A claim was also made about the video from the second Montauk Monster showing a hand. There is actually video from the second MM and they show them putting the animal into a garbage bag. At about ten seconds in (0:10) you can see a human hand in reference to the animal it just scooped into the bag. It clearly shows the animal is no larger than a cat. Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Response continued:
Your estimates are basically bullshit on all accounts, as you are simply trying to make-up facts not in evidence to support your belief. Zoom alone throws all your claims out the window. You are simply the anti-science.

Zwaager then claims: "now i would like some one to point out where any form of a claw or paw exists on this animal! the back 2 are non existant, the front left one, if its still there, is not visible in this picture. i could see how the front right would be mistaken for a claw or what not, but blow up the picture and you can see that it is just shredded flesh. "

Response:
Yes, the distal aspect of this animals limbs are missing. They are not missing in the first Montauk monster which clearly shows fully functional hands, and they are not missing in the second as they hold up the hand and the individual phalanges dangle in the video clearly showing it isn't an ungulate of any sort. So you have 3 animals with identical skulls, where the first and last one have teeth and both the skulls and the teeth match a raccoon on all accounts in each video they are shown, and then you have two of these animals clearly showing digits that match up with a raccoon as well, and a third that is missing the hands and feet. Somehow, from this information you assume the animal had hooves? Hm,..that is one big ass leap of reasoning, especially since there is no evidence for the claim.

Zwaager finally says:
"blow up the picture for youself and take a look, examine it close, then examine a raccoon CLOSE! you should notice the minimal 100 Lbs difference in size! the only thing i can find that is close to a raccoon would be a tooth! or maybe the fact that they both have hair! the skull is too misshapen to be a raccoons! i dont know what your on man but that is NOT a fuckin raccoon!"

Response:
The teeth do not match any known ungulate but are an exact match for a raccoon. The skull if not misshapen whatsoever. It matches the first two very well, and it matches many on-line examples of raccoon skulls. It does not match either dogs, or cows or goats or whatever else.

Again, all people that saw these animals said they were the size of a small dog. Raccoons are the size of a small dog. No one ever made claim they were anywhere close to an animal that was 150lbs or more...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0000

Zwaager...

Go to Tetrapod zoology, run by Darren Naish and search for Montauk Monster. He is a British Paleontologist, and he will explain in detail how this is a raccoon. Next, a friend of mine is a Vertebrate Paleontologist at an Ivy League school and she thinks it is a raccoon. Once again, she is British. I have studied the pictures and did the dentition comparisons and other biometrics, and everything points towards it being a raccoon. The skull is an exact match on all points. Your claims to the contrary are obviously based on your own inexperience.

Next, there is nothing in these pictures that shows this animal is bigger than your average sized cat. Nothing. I have explained numerous times here that there is a common mental problem where people's brains get confused looking at pictures without scale and fill in the size, even though there was nothing in the picture to indicate such. If you still think you know the size of the animal, and want to stick by these claims, then show me how you measured it for size. Support you claim by giving me the scale elements in the picture you verified to derive the size. I have requested this of many MANY people, and no one has yet come close to doing so.

Finally, one does not need DNA to find the identity of animals. We identify the bones of extinct animals all the time and place them in differing groups on a daily basis without a single piece of DNA. We find only small pieces of broken jaw that we identify constantly, and this includes fossil raccoons. Do not impose your ignorance onto others...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:37:28 -0000

The reason we would not think it is "reasonable" to consider aliens, is we have never had one confirmed case in which it was. This is how we learn. We study the past and look for patterns. If there is no pattern in support for your claim, then it is only wild speculation.

You cannot simply make up claims that it is an animal that has never been seen or heard of before. When has this ever been shown to work? When has someone been found dead, and a guy comes in ands say's "Maybe it was Super flesh eatin' flying koala?" without any previous evidence for such a creature, and it later turns out to be such? This simply has never happened, so why should we give the idea any credit? No one has ever jumped off a building, flapped their arms, and flew away. Because of this, we highly recommend against this action.

The animal found is consistent on all points with a partially decayed raccoon, and there is simply no reason to suspect anything else. This is what is meant by, "reasonable," as in there should be a "Reason," for making the assertion. You have not given any supportable reason to suspect anything else but a raccoon. If you had given evidence for why it is your mythical, "Waterccoon," then you would be acting, in part, "reasonably." The problem is, you do not grasp the difference between idle speculation, and the evidence driven inquiry that gives us our current understanding of the universe. This inquiry is a methodology we call "Science," and it only works if you do not make crap up, but stick to the known facts...

Please, get a freakin' education, as you are a shame to the human race at this particular point in time...

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:03:42 -0000

For one, I never once said I was smart. I said I was correct. I know I am correct because I identify things all the time, and know what it takes to do so.

Next, it isn't your mythical "waterccoon," as there is no such thing. The rules of evidence demand that you give evidence such an animal exists before you can even begin to attempt to claim it is one. For example, no lawyer is going to get away with saying, "Yes I know we have video of my client killing the victim, and my client's fingerprints and blood on the knife, and that his DNA matched, but how do we know it wasn't an alien beast that looks identical to my client that has the same DNA that actually did it? See, this is why we use the term, "reasonable," when asking for evidence pro or con.

Finally, I am a teacher, and I am also working on a statistical study of how many people use critical thinking to find an answer, as compared to how many people just make crap up.

Now, where is the link to the video supporting your claim that you've claimed to have found?

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:54:29 -0000

I have seen all the footage from the second find. There is no such shot that shows a hand in such a way to show this animal is larger than a raccoon. Get the video if you care to show otherwise. Post a link to the video in question. This was as requested in my challenge. I said you should supply all evidence, which you have not.

You have also said you will not respond. I wonder why this is? Could it be because you want to make claim you responded, but knew you could not back up your claim so decided to avoid me before I pointed this out?

In short, it is nutbags like you that are destroying the world. Facts mean little to people like you. Your claim to a right to an opinion has fueled so many BS conspiracy theories around the world and has caused murderous conflicts time and time again. When will pig headed dweebs like you realize we cannot have an opinion about whether something is a snake or a goat. One cannot be partially right here. They are either wrong, or right.

In your case you are wrong, and impervious to evidence, as you wear a shield of ignorance you refer to as a "right to an opinion."

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:47:58 -0000

As I said Monkey, you would not be able to respond to my request.

Re: Montauk Monster #3 found this weekend!

lago — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:08:03 -0000

Dear zjthinker...

I am an anatomist. When I say it is a raccoon, it is not just because I like to say so. There are several types of analysis we do to tell what a dead animal is. One is known as, "Biometrics." This can be used even if we do not know the actual size of the animal. For example, we can take an arbitrary measurement of a length between the opening of the nasal aperture and the eye socket, and then divide this by the length of the eye socket to the occipital opening at the back of the skull. This will give you a ratio. We can then compare this ratio to said animal in question (dog, raccoon, opossum etc...). Next you can measure the height of the skull at the eye socket, and compare this to the other two measurements deriving more ratios. Numerous measurements can be built up like this and compared to a large set of animals for a match. When the above is done, you find the Montauk Monster clearly matches raccoons on all accounts...

Next, under biomentrics we have a technique similar to what is used by forensic odontologists, who compare things like old X-rays from dentists to victims of crimes and fires where only bone and teeth are left (sometimes only teeth actually). Traits can be added up and compared to know groups or individuals. In the case of the Montauk monster we compare the teeth to see what group of mammals the animal belongs to, and, on ALL accounts, the teeth once again matched a raccoon. I made a simplified video of the forensic odontology investigation I did to show people that the Montauk monster was not a dog. The video does not show the full extent of what I did because it would have been far too long, but I had also compared all known teeth to numerous separate species with the same results every time. The results were that Montauk Monster was always 100% consistant with only one group of animals, and this was the Procyonids, also known locally as, "Raccoons"

My video on the dentition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwImB80QmPo

If you care to make more claims that it, "Does not match a raccoon's skull," please give me specifics so I can repeat your measurements you made so I can explain to you where you went wrong.

PS. On the rest of your letter, please seek immediate mental health help.