tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post6002823459934134928..comments2024-03-22T21:58:18.933+00:00Comments on ShukerNature: GAMBO, THE GAMBIAN SEA SERPENT - OR, HOW A VERY MYSTERIOUS STRANGER ON THE SHORE LAUNCHED MY CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL CAREERAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15628598508836601012noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-3197438054615917912023-02-12T13:25:54.029+00:002023-02-12T13:25:54.029+00:00Interesting article for sure!
My only complaint......Interesting article for sure!<br />My only complaint... I wish Owen's original drawing was shown as well...<br />-DerekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-51808213926403214692021-04-13T17:22:39.323+01:002021-04-13T17:22:39.323+01:00Ï merely wish to note that point (d) is very weak....Ï merely wish to note that point (d) is very weak. The alleged "Cretaceous extinction event" is a theoretical rather than recorded or definitively demonstrated actual "event" (at least as commonly described) and its degree of severity is equally theoretical and cannot be used as a good argument for skepticism towards the idea of surviving fossil fauna. Noting as well that I'm not advocating for the idea that Gambo represents a surviving member of a fossil group. Further noting that there is nothing in your reasoning that logically necessitates the two conclusions you give at the end, especially considering each of the four previous points were more curiosities and personal explanations concerning Burnham's account. While it's entirely possible Burnham may not have been truthful, there's also no good reason to accuse or suspect him of that. Just my two cents on the matter.Xenosaurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12209820204539916879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-42365608505636383892020-01-13T20:22:37.120+00:002020-01-13T20:22:37.120+00:00Yes, of course a link will be provided back to thi...Yes, of course a link will be provided back to this article. Thank you.Bill the Butcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08436195659154078021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-82872810090375053422020-01-13T14:23:29.699+00:002020-01-13T14:23:29.699+00:00As long as I am credited fully in your article via...As long as I am credited fully in your article via a direct link to my own ShukerNature article here as promised by you above, I have no objection to your quoting from it as long as the quotes are in context.Dr Karl Shukerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06222845702628862829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-47961589241629067972020-01-13T04:18:01.527+00:002020-01-13T04:18:01.527+00:00Incidentally, I would like for permission to quote...Incidentally, I would like for permission to quote from this post and your replies in my own upcoming article on "Gambo". I will, naturally, leave a link to your post.Bill the Butcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08436195659154078021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-31892074369257404292020-01-13T02:59:58.203+00:002020-01-13T02:59:58.203+00:00It's pretty strange how often buildings or roa...It's pretty strange how often buildings or roads are constructed right on top of the <i>alleged</i> burial site of important objects. There was the Scottish WWII "sea monster" whose "burial site" now lies under a football stadium, just for instance. So I'm sceptical.<br /><br />Also, I am certain you're familiar with the Zuiyo Maru psedoplesiosaur. You'll be aware that the same person who drew the initial sketches, in later years included more and more imaginary "sea monster" like features to it. I would not be surprised if Burnham's memory began playing tricks on him.<br /><br />It's long past time that the internet fora were asked to try and locate, of possible, any tourist who might have bought a strange skull around the appropriate time in Gambia. It is probably not going to work but there is absolutely no reason not to try.Bill the Butcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08436195659154078021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-80124551588670402822020-01-12T13:46:48.365+00:002020-01-12T13:46:48.365+00:00Having corresponded in detail with Burnham concern...Having corresponded in detail with Burnham concerning this case down through the years, I did ask him why he didn't purchase its head from the locals who were hacking it off, and was informed by him that the price that they wanted for it was exorbitant in the extreme - they planned to sell it to tourists, presumably eyeing up the richer ones who arrive there from Europe and the USA or even Japan. As to the remaining points that you raise - others have also raised them, but without any tangible, physical evidence to examine, we can only argue back and forth impotently and speculate indefinitely. The building of a nightclub on the site where the carcase had been buried is not a hackneyed old story but rather a simple statement of fact. It is there. As to why the investigators didn't ask the management about whether the contractors had found a skeleton while digging the club's foundations: I wasn't there, so I have no idea why they didn't ask. Perhaps they did, but the management simply didn't know. Why would they know? The management wouldn't be hired until after the cub was built - it is the owners of the land on which the club was built and who were funding its construction who would have been likely to have been informed by the contractors if anything unusual had been found during the digging. Then again, even if a skeleton HAD been found, the contractors may not have considered it important enough to mention it to anyone and simply discarded it.Dr Karl Shukerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06222845702628862829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-33483817371387678232020-01-12T01:45:01.397+00:002020-01-12T01:45:01.397+00:00As the person who made the above mentioned comment...As the person who made the above mentioned comment, let me follow up with this:<br /><br />1. Thank you for taking the time to locate and republish it.<br /><br />2. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Burnham did find a carcass on said beach. We then have these possibilities:<br /><br />(a) That the carcass was exactly as described. In which case, even after obviously recognising how unusual it was, and taking the trouble to even count the teeth, it makes it impossible to comprehend why Burnham did not buy the head or at least take some tissue. Surely getting it to a zoologist in Gambia or Senegal, if not bringing it back to Britain, was not an insurmountable obstacle?<br /><br />(b) That the carcass was much as described, but was the result of postmortem deterioration, and the animal was merely a known species of dolphin or beaked whale. The spade toothed beaked whale, for instance, has never been seen alive, and a few years ago as I recall another species hitherto unknown was found stranded in Alaska, so it is not by any means impossible that there may be more unknown cetaceans out there. In which case all the features that would "rule it out" being a cetacean were and are either the result of decomposition, or a product of Burnham's imagination, or a combination of the two.<br /><br />(c) That the carcass was essentially intact and belonged to a cetacean, in which case the "features that would rule it out being a cetacean" are wholly the product of Burnham's imagination.<br /><br />(d) That the carcass was a pliosaur or thalattosuchian or some other relic. I am, without further evidence to the contrary, ruling it out for a simple reason: the Cretaceous extinction event would eliminate it as well *unless it could relocate to an ecological niche where it would not be killed off.* Just as the Coelacanth you refer to retreated to subterranean caves in deep water. It is hard to see reptilians re evolve gills, and Burnham does not mention any, so "Gambo", we can take it, was an air breather. Therefore it inhabited the same ecological niche as its ancestral relatives who were killed by the Cretaceous extinction, and it should have gone as well.<br /><br />I would very much like to find that there were at least new fish or cetaceans around, now that we have lost the Yangtze dolphin and the Chinese paddlefish (for two), but logic alone drives me to the conclusion that <br /><br />(1) Either the carcass was not as Burnham described it or<br /><br />(2) It did not exist at all. The hackneyed old story of something having been built on the site of the skeleton burial is indicative of the latter. Surely the "investigators" could at least have asked the management if the contractors had gound a skeleton of any nature while doing the foundation digging?<br /><br />I would appreciate your thoughts on this.Bill the Butcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08436195659154078021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-41356181747417998202020-01-11T12:19:21.760+00:002020-01-11T12:19:21.760+00:00If I were making these statements today, I would e...If I were making these statements today, I would entirely agree with you, but as you will see if you take note above, they were made by me in an article published in spring 1993, which was long BEFORE evidence suggesting that the U28 sea serpent case was fictitious came to light, and also long BEFORE the hitherto-unknown photos of the Trunko carcase that clearly identified it as a globster (whale blubber) were rediscovered and identified (by myself and a colleague, as it so happens!). So, as I do not have a cryptozoological crystal ball, there was no way that I could have known what would be discovered re these two cases when I was making those statements in that article long ago. As for believing that Burnham was telling the truth: I do not BELIEVE anything when investigating cryptozoological cases, but when writing about any unresolved cryptozoological case, one has to automatically adopt the stance of: "IF the eyewitness is being truthful, IF he is reporting what he saw accurately, etc etc, then what he saw could be such and such". That doesn't mean to say that I believe the eyewitness to be truthful, it merely has to be a hypothetical given in order to be able to document the case. After all, if you state from the onset that the eyewitness must be lying (even when there is no evidence for such a belief), then that is the end of the case before it has even been documented. And most important of all, just as there is no tangible proof that Burnham was telling the truth, equally there is no tangible proof that he was lying either. So I considered the case interesting and potentially significant enough for it to warrant my investigating and documenting it.Dr Karl Shukerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06222845702628862829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-41201385693546752092020-01-11T12:04:51.521+00:002020-01-11T12:04:51.521+00:00Today, I received the following reader comment, wh...Today, I received the following reader comment, which I inadvertently deleted instead of posting, so here I am posting it here myself:<br /><br />"There is immediately one gaping hole in your article, and that is your supposition that Burnham is telling the truth. Without any evidence to the contrary, there is absolutely no reason to believe so. And when you reference the wholly fictional U28 'sea monster', you lose yet another level of credibility. Not to speak of calling the mass of whale blubber known as "trunko" an intact carcass."Dr Karl Shukerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06222845702628862829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-49886903157450550282019-05-28T15:37:26.087+01:002019-05-28T15:37:26.087+01:00Great article! I always wondered if they went back...Great article! I always wondered if they went back to look for it. 'Gambo's one my favourite mystery animals as its the one that first got me interested in cryptozoology. I got a book from a second hand bookshop when I was little called 'Monsters & Mysterious Places'. I didnt read it till I was older but I remember being fascinated with the sketches of the Gambian sea serpent. I thought it was some kind of penguin dolphin! I think ive still got the drawing in crayons i did of it. The fact that dinosaurs and prehistoric animals could be alive today still fascinates me. <br />I'll defo be getting the shukernature books as a backup just in case the internet goes down and I can't cope! :-)<br />ZackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-59005465721747814832019-05-12T14:41:48.558+01:002019-05-12T14:41:48.558+01:00If only he had a camera.If only he had a camera.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03097420555737415471noreply@blogger.com