Quantcast
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Here is a pretty damn good "theory" on your monster.

It's been fun while it's lasted, but the monstrous creature that washed up in Montauk, Long Island may have been nothing more than a prop from an independent movie about carnies, and a viral marketing scheme just as everyone initially suspected. There are enough untied loose ends in the hoax storyline to leave open the possibility that the hoax is itself a hoax, meaning the story has now entered a confusing phase where one must carefully sift the professed deceptions from the real deceptions and hard facts from intentional distortions. But one can try. Here's how a hoax would have gone down, according to a theory propagated on a few websites (linked below) over the past few days:

The producer of the film, Darren Goldberg (pictured above), and/or his associates would have left two distinct props from his movie on beaches near Montauk. Some honest people came across these props and were fooled into thinking they were corpses. The first to surface was, as has been reported, photographed by the sister of a friend of publicist Alanna Nevitski, who forwarded the picture to Jezebel, which forwarded the picture to Gawker, which published it to mass hysteria.

Another picture, appearing less decomposed, was taken earlier in the day by Ryan O'Shea and Christina Pampalone and appeared in Newsday, which also reported tips from readers who had see the monster all over Long Island. It was later noted that, given the timing reported by Newsday, the body seemed to decompose awfully quickly over the course of one day. The paper also reported a sighting of a live version of the monster, which would have, under the hoax scenario, been made as part of the prank.

A group of three women later appeared on Plum TV to talk about discovering the monster and taking the photo that appeared on Gawker. One of the women was Rachel Goldberg, not identified at the time as the sister of Darren Goldberg, who is making the carnie movie, Splinterheads. The women insisted the creature "exists" and was not a Photoshop creation, and claimed they were looking for a scientist to study what remained of it. This seemed to jibe with what Colin Davis and their other male friends said on CNN. Both groups of friends would have been working in conjunction with the movie producer at this point to keep the hoax going. They claimed the body had already decomponsed to a bones and "goo," which they were keeping in a bag. One of the group later said, quite suspiciously, that the remains had been stolen.

The original supplier of the photo, Nevitski, told New York that Goldberg and the other women on Plum TV were "full of sh**" because Nevitski's friend, still anonymous, took the original picture. If the monster was a hoax, Goldberg would have seen the interview as a golden opportunity to inflate the hoax further by appearing on TV, but needed to lie about taking that specific picture in order to get in front of the camers. Nevitski's friend was refusing interviews. When she went on, Goldberg suddenly had a new, alternate picture of the monster, indicating she had her own, original photos.

Blogger Nicky Papers also thought the women were lying, and wrote on Montauk-Monster.com about their nervous ticks, like giggling and breaking eye contact. He also noticed that Goldberg talked first and her friends followed her lead.

The blogger was then contacted by a source who claimed Rachel Goldberg was related to Darren Goldberg. The source said Goldberg was making Splinterheads and that the monster will appear in the movie. This was the first time the movie was tied to the monster.

The website for the movie seemed to admit to the whole thing yesterday, posting, "We have the Montauk Monster." The blog for the movie also made an admission, linking to Papers' story and another hoax report and adding, "Thanks Darren's sister." The blog, especially, has enough content that it seems genuine, as opposed to the work of a prankster.

Arguments in favor of the hoax theory:

The body is missing, supposedly "stolen," a fishy story. Who steals a bag of bones and goo?

There has been no examination by scientists, as promised.

It's the simplest explanation. Occam's razor.

The movie people are claiming credit on their website and blog.

Goldberg and the other women were acting kind of funny on Plum TV.

Arguments against Splinterhead creating the monster:

Splinterhead is about a carnival. Why would there be monsters is such a movie? Further, it has been described repeatedly not as a horror or paranormal movie but as a comedy. Falsely claiming credit for creating the Montauk Monster would fit better with a comedy than actually having such an ugly creature in the movie, right?

The moviemakers never come out and say on their website or blog that they actually made the monster. They only imply it. Perhaps they are having a bit of fun.

There is no proof that Darren and Rachel Goldberg are related, only a statement on Darren Goldberg's blog, which could be a joke.

Papers is trying to sell montauk-monster.com. Maybe this is all a big scam to drive traffic to the site, somehow!

How has the story stayed under the radar all week? Montauk-monster.com had this days ago, why did it take so long for anyone to notice? And was Gotham News really the first news publication to cover the story, beating the TV people, blogs (save for Montauk-monster.com) and at least one newspaper on the case? How?

How could so many people have been fooled by a movie prop? Wouldn't it have looked suspiciously plasticky or something?

Either way, a movie has managed to attach itself, cheaply, to a fairly large media phenomenon. One way or another, it's guerilla marketing. And we all kind of new that's how it would end up, didn't we?

i diddnt read that but if thats all about that movie. they are just trying to get the publicity.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Forum Topics

    • By marcosphoto
      Hi folks, a little disparity brought me to this forum.  To set the stage, I'm a 35 auto tech in the industry 37 years now.  Licensed motorcycle tech also, 20+ years.  I race superbike and motocross.  Always done most of my own standard work (outside of specific race machine works) including building my own race bike engines.  Now that skills are out of the way, onwards and upwards. 
      Helping a neighbor with his old quest 500, right front axle seal leak.  Well, looks like everything else - right?  Wrong!  Initially I noticed the CV joint was lacking large lands to place prybars on to pop it out, rather a thin shield like ring very close to the diff seal.  Knowing the ring appeared quite delicate, I only pried gently and the CV popped out.  However this is where things get weird.  Came out only around 7-9mm then hung up again, felt like the clip was catching inside the diff.  So spun and pulled, spun and pulled until I was blue in the face but no success getting it out.  Also while it was out, I could see that the delicate ring around the outer circumference of the joint was actually the sealing surface where the seal contacts, instead of the norm where the seal rubs inside the diff much deeper and stays cleaner.  I've never seen a joint like this, also the service manuals photos which apply to 650 also reflected a standard joint I am accustomed to rather than this one I was fighting with.  Rather than break something in the diff, I decided to stop while I was ahead and reassemble the machine before something broke.  (The joint would pop in and out of place easy enough, just wouldn't slide out further than 7-9mm).  While the joint was a little out and sealing surface exposed, I cleaned the seal and sealing surfaces clean as possible before putting back together.  Seems to be holding for now, but eventually I'm sure the leak will come back.  Any thoughts as to why that CV joint just refused to come all the way out?
    • By Vlaco
      Hi. I just joined the community. I have a sheep farm and use a Polaris 500HO, Polaris 700efi and a JD Gator 825i for different jobs around the farm. I do all the repairs myself so I am sometimes needing some advice and maybe I can be of some help to others as well. 
    • By Randel1
      I recently read an article about restoring or at least improving the looks of faded and discolored plastic body parts. In the article it suggested using a 50/50 mixture of boiled linseed oil and paint thinner. You mix it up and apply it with a brush or rag to rub it in and remove the oxidation. I curious to find out if anyone has had experience with doing this and what was their short/long term results of doing so. I would hate to try it and find out that a few weeks/months down the road my plastic body parts self destruct.   
    • By prdicon
      I was looking to buy a new ATV. 
      I was debating between Polaris sportsman 450 and Honda rancher.
      Polaris it a bit cheaper.
      But can you tell me which one will have more demand on the used market? Which one will keep it's value better?
       
      Let's say 3-5 years from now.
    • By jmercer
      Wondering if 1997 klf400b has a decompression, I’m getting 90psi on gauge.



×
×
  • Create New...