Saturday, June 11, 2016

Ghost Hunters Calls It Quits On SyFy


The TAPS team is calling it quits after one of the longest, if not the longest runs for a paranormal show. But there might be something in-store for them in the SyFy afterlife. The Crypto Blast reports:

After more than 200 episodes, and nearly 14 years of seeking proof of the paranormal, Ghost Hunters will be ending its run on the network following Season 11, which premieres Aug. 3, according to its star.

The announcement came via show lead Jason Hawes’ Facebook page on Tuesday night. In the post, Hawes said, “With heavy heart we want to inform everyone that we are choosing at this time to end our relationship with SyFy channel.”

He went on to write, “We’ve been one of their top rated and top watched shows since TAPS and Pilgrim Films decided to join forces and create the show Ghost Hunters.”

He also added Ghost Hunters may return in another form: “There are some huge things in the works with TAPS, Ghost Hunters, Pilgrim Films and so much more.”

For the full article, click here.

37 comments:

  1. Give them a big hand! They're finally leaving!
    Woo-Hoo!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have moved over to Dogman Evidence.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. how can you say Boo!!!!
      with my dick in you ,,you ????

      who's Joe indeed!

      Joe . :' -(

      Delete
    2. Inside sources have informed me that Sykes has concluded that Zana was an escaped African slave.

      Delete
    3. Your inside source is misinformed. If Zana was an African slave, we would be able to find an example of her son's skull morphology in people from West Africa from the mid to late 1800's.

      Delete
    4. AC Collins, looks like you've just slipped up as being Fake Joe.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, that's like saying if we can't find a skull with Andre the Giant's morphology, then he must have been Bigfoot.

      Delete
    6. Gay Nigger alert at 12:29

      Delete
    7. 10:44... Andre the Giant's skulls doesn't have ancient human morphology.

      Delete
    8. He had more than one skull? Well, I guess he wasn't human at all then!

      Delete
    9. Seriously, the fundamental flaw in your idea is that you don't seem to fathom that "archaic human" refers to hominids that were separate from homo sapiens sapiens. You're claiming that Zana was a modern human HSS which by definition means that she was an anatomically correct human (cro magnon is included in that category) and not an archaic human.

      The possibilty that Zana was Neanderthal or any other non-HSS type hominid has been eliminated. To say that Zana or Khwit were modern humans with archaic features means nothing as modern humans have diverse morphology (compare Andre the Giant to Danny Devito) with a high percentage having archaic features -- see Patrick Stewart for your beloved "occipital bun."

      Try reading some non-Bigfoot sources to learn more about these issues so your outlook is not so skewed.

      Delete
    10. Fake Joe @12:29 is one scary dude who has way too many butt plugs stuffed in his closet

      Joe

      Delete
    11. I probably should have used the terminology "archaic homo Sapien", I didn't, and that by no means makes my ideas on Zana flawed. I'm not claiming that Zana is modern homo Sapien, sapien, I'm claiming that she is an early form or subspecies of Homo sapiens, anatomically distinct from modern humans. I am claiming, that Zana is ancient homo Sapien Sapien.

      Cro-Magnon had bodies with short, slender trunks and long limbs. More stocky builds gradually evolved when populations spread to cooler regions, as an adaptation that helped the body retain heat. Homo sapiens living today have an average brain size of about 1350 cubic centimetres which makes-up 2.2% of our body weight. Early Homo sapiens, however, had slightly larger brains at nearly 1500 cubic centimetres. Modern Homo sapiens skulls have a short base and a high braincase. Unlike other species of Homo, the skull is broadest at the top. The fuller braincase also results in almost no post-orbital constriction or narrowing behind the eye sockets. Back of the skull is rounded and indicates a reduction in neck muscles. The face is reasonably small with a projecting nose bone brow ridge is limited and the forehead is tall. The orbits (eye sockets) are square rather than round. The jaws are short which result in an almost vertical face usually no gap (retromolar space) between the last molar teeth and the jaw bone jaws are lightly built and have a protruding bony chin for added strength. Homo sapiens is the only species to have a protruding chin. A shortened jaw has affected the arrangement of the teeth within the jaw. They are now arranged in a parabolic shape in which the side rows of teeth splay outwards rather than remain parallel as in our earliest long jawed ancestors. The teeth are relatively small compared with earlier species. This is especially noticeable in the front incisor and canine teeth. The front premolar teeth in the lower jaw have two equal-sized cusps (bumps on the chewing surface). The limb bones are thinner and less robust than earlier human species and indicate a reduction in muscle size from earlier humans. The legs are relatively long compared with the arms. Finger and toe bones are straight and without the curvature typical of our earliest australopithecine ancestors. Pelvis is narrower from side-to-side and has a deeper bowl-shape from front-to-back than previous human species. You see... The point is Cro-Magnon did have anatomical and morphological differences to modern homo Sapien. All this and they still share our modern DNA.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. In the following link, you'll notice a discussion about the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens;
      http://youtu.be/XdP-Wjd1qSY
      ... Here, Chris Stringer explains on the 4mins mark that in the lineage of both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, we see anatomical and morphological traits in their fossil and genetic data that are linked to their far, far, earlier emergence from Homo Heidelbergensis. These are modern scientists conducting research on the theory that same species hominids can and DID have varying anatomy and morphology, yet were the same species. Knowing the subject matter and the data is important, it's how you develop theories in the most scienific manner.

      Now... Let's see what some anthropologists have to say about Zana's son's morphology...

      "Anthropologist M.A.Kolodieva compared the skull of Khwit with the male skulls from Abkhazia in the collection of the Moscow State University Institute of Anthropology and found that Khwit's skull was significantly different. Indicating it as the Tkhina skull, she writes:
      The Tkhina skull exhibits an original combination of modem and ancient features ... The facial section of the skull is significantly larger in comparison with the mean Abkhaz type ... All the measurements and indices of the superciliary cranial contour are greater not only than those of the mean Abkhaz series, but also than those of maximum size of some fossil skulls studied (or rather were comparable with the latter). The Tkhina skull approaches closest the Neolithic Vovnigi II skulls of the fossil series...
      On her part, anthropologist M.M.Gerasimova came to following conclusions:
      The skull discloses a great deal of peculiarity, a certain disharmony disequilibrium in its features, very large dimensions of the facial skeleton, increased development of the contour of the skull, specificity of the non-metric features (the two foramina mentale in the lower jaw, the intrusive bones in the sagittal suture, and the Inca bone). The skull merits further extended study."

      ... That is completely outside anything we see in any known example of modern homo Sapien Sapien... But its DNA is still homo Sapien Sapien. The ironic thing is, you need to better read up on your "Bigfoot sources" before pretending to know what you're talking about.

      Oops!!

      Delete
    14. So despite the fact that you admit that Khwit was HSS, he actually was not HSS! You really want it both ways. Your "argument" seems to be that humans with archaic features (millions of humans) are Bigfoot while still being HSS. Humans have great diversity and Khwit (and Brock Lesnar) fit within that diversity. If anything, you are proving that Bigfoot does not exist!

      Delete
    15. By the way, did you know that Abkhazia was a hub for slave trading and that there has historically been a population of Africans in that region?

      http://www.georgianjournal.ge/discover-georgia/29876-the-tale-of-afro-abkhazians.html

      Don't you think it's more likely that Zana came from that population as opposed to being one of your "archaic non-homo sapien sapiens but really a true homo sapien sapien"?

      Delete
    16. "So despite the fact that you admit that Khwit was HSS, he actually was not HSS!"
      ... I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about? What I am stating, is that under analysis by anthropologists, Kwit has archaic features that are not found in modern Homo sapiens, only in ancient fossil examples of ancient homo Sapien Sapien... You with me? There is no contradiction just because of your preconcieved idea that "Bigfoot" has a different classification. Sasquatch, Yeit, Yeren, Yowie, are an ancient subspecies of homo Sapien Sapien. I couldn't have been more clearer about that. Here's a doozy, and for the second time, if there a "millions" of modern Homo sapiens with the exact same ancient skull morphology as what we see in Kwit, you'll have no problem finding an example residing from West Africa in the mid to late 1800's?

      This, totally, utterly, unoquivocally obliterates any notion that Zana was an African slave.

      Delete
    17. ..Iktomi,...Homo sapiens sapiens IS a subspecies of homo sapiens..If Zana is a subspecies different from modern homo sapiens sapiens would not the third name be different, or is there a division in taxonomy finer than subspecies?...
      EEG

      Delete
    18. Actually... Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, which differentiates us from what has been argued to be their direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu. Cro-Magnon for example have no difference in DNA, only that it is ancient, and not modern... If that makes sense?

      Delete
    19. You're quite correct... Maybe Sykes will determine something else from Zana's DNA and change that second "Sapien"?

      Delete
    20. Thanks for being "more clearer" about your position. Reading your attempts at writing in English is certainly entertaining!

      So Khwit is HSS, but not really HSS! You've invented a whole new species -- the NRBR-HSS -- "Not Really But Really Homo Sapiens Sapiens." Congratulations!

      And if you're looking for a skull with the "exact same" morphology as any other skull, then you'll be disappointed -- we're all different! That's what makes humans so wonderful!

      It's also funny that that you cite to a source in which the researchers themselves admit that the skull "merits further study" and do not come to a definitive conclusion, yet you proceed to declare that it "obliterates" all other positions!

      Anyway, cheerio mate!

      Delete
    21. In one comment, you scoff at my alleged "preconceived idea" that Bigfoot is part of a distinct classification and then a few comments later, you speculate yourself that Sykes will create a new classification! You're a total mess man. Please at least get your own crazy theory in order!

      Delete
    22. Not half as entertaining as the list of threads I have for reference of your ever expanding education on hominids, but there we are.

      No, no, no, no, no... You are not exempt from being responsible for your claims. To substantiate your ideas that Zana was an African slave, you must present one example of her son's morphology from that period. Remember, there was allegedly loads of these slaves in a vast trade; your claim. The facts are, we are not so different from one another that we possess morphological traits that are only found in fossil skulls, ancient Homo sapiens. In Khwit, this just so happens to be the case after an entire community described his mother as what is commonly accepted as "Bigfoot" today, before any pop culture. Sure there's diversity, you need to back up your ideas with that skull though.

      "Merits further study", based on the unique nature of its morphology, yes. Who would worm that into something negative? Someone who spends their time worried about the grammar of other people, as opposed to substantiating their claims... That's who. The definitive conclusion is that the skull has ancient morphology not seen in Danny Devito, not seen in Andre the giant, not found in West African slaves, not found in any of your embarrassing straw man arguments.

      Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

      Delete
    23. 3:35... Yes, I can do that, because of the readily available date. This being the unique ancient morphology of the skull, and the DNA that says homo Sapien.

      See how this works? Try it sometime, substantiate something and you're a little safer in speculating.

      Delete
    24. ..Thanks Iktomi..The cro-magnon example shows science is grappling with the relatively new understanding of DNA..They have the same dna, but a qualifier like "ancient" is needed because they are different from modern
      people...Good thread...

      EEG

      Delete
    25. So Bigfoot is not HSS? Well, that's certainly a change from your four year mantra! I sometimes wonder whether you have any idea what you think!

      Regardless, your idea of separating humans into distinct "classifications" according to "archaic" and "modern" characteristics is extremely racist and is a sad throwback to Nazi eugenicists who claimed that certain races were more highly evolved than others.

      Whether you're an intentional or just a careless racist is irrelevant. The notion of creating classes of humans is abhorrent!

      Delete
    26. I'm sorry... I've never claimed anything other than Sasquatch sharing our exact DNA. Anyone who's ever known me to comment on this blog, knows that I've never done anything but claim that Sasquatch share our exact DNA.

      Basic anthropology states that there is ancient and modern Homo sapiens. It's only "racist", when you're all out of ideas as to presenting an example of paleolithic morphology in a modern human. Trying to attain a false moral highground because you can't substantiate your ideas, is rather pitiful, and merely evidence of how out of your depth you are.

      Delete
    27. ..With all due respect, 4:25, Iktomi did not say one was superior or more worthy of life than the other...

      Delete
    28. It is easy, the darker the skin the dumber the race. Like it or not that's just the way it is.

      Delete
    29. Bigfoot shares our exact DNA and yet they are not homo sapiens sapiens? How did you work that one out? Never mind, I don't think I want to know, but I fear it might involve citing to Dr. Mengele.

      You want me to produce an exact replica of Khwit's skull from 19th century Africa? Aside from the fact that (1) Khwit was only half-African, (2) no two skulls will ever be identical, and (3) your racist search request assumes that only Africans could have a head like Khwit's, you also want me to desecrate the remains of all African burials from the 19th century to satisfy your curiosity about the elementary idea that some modern humans having archaic features?

      Or maybe (in Dr. Mengele fashion), you would like to round up all living Africans in the world and conduct tests on their skulls to find out if they are similar to Khwit's and, assuming they are, you will declare them to be non-humans!

      Jeez man, you are worse than I thought!

      Delete
    30. ^Long winded sucker ain,t he?

      Delete
    31. 1. According to Bryan Sykes, the person who literally wrote the book on mitochondrial DNA, in his initial theories regarding Zana she is exactly that; a subspecies of homo Sapien that shares our DNA. You have been provided examples of fossil humans that have anatomical and morphological differences that manage to have the same DNA as us.
      2. Exactly! Khwit's features would have to be less exaggerated compared to that of his mother's, yet at the very LEAST you could find an example of his features in African people from the late 1800's, and you can't. "No two will ever be identical", yet we have tens of Cro-Magnon fossil specimens that are the same, paleolithic peoples had the same traits which include Neanderthals, etc. Remember, according to you Zana was part of a slave trade so it's a leap to assume she is unique in having paleolithic morphology and that she somehow was not true to how she was described by an entire community. Should be easy if she was so obviously a normal modern human.

      I'll be waiting on this... I'll be back later.

      : )

      Delete
  3. About time! Ghost hunters sucks worse than finding bigfoot!

    ReplyDelete