Hovey v Poling – Initial Filing by Plaintiff

We pulled up the filing to provide some more information for readers.  While it includes information such as address and phone number, we will refrain from publishing that data.

The action is for copyright infringement and defamation.

Hovey contends the following facts (we are leaving some of the assertions out for brevity sake):

In late 2008 she formed the American Bigfoot Society.  In late February of 2012 she secured the exclusive rights and priviledges in and to the copyright of a photograph known as the “2012 Bigfoot Photo”.  The certificate of registration is included as an exhibit – Hovey is listed as the author and that the author created a photograph(s).  The certificate is in her name, not the ABS.  The actual photographer’s name or location are not mentioned, at least not yet.  So one of two things must be a fact to make this assertion; bad news for the rest of the ABS, the ABS is Hovey exclusively, or she posted the copyright incorrectly as it is in her name but ABS on what was put out on the net.

Poling infringed upon this copyright continuously since late February of 2012 resulting in irreparable damage to Hovey.  Hovey notified Poling of the infringement but it has continued.

Poling posted material online, both written and video, containing false statements about Hovey, including, but not limited to, Hovey stealing money, stealing the material relating to the copyrighted photo, used the photo for monetary gain rather than research, released video for the purposes of fame rather than professionalism, was an amateur, and filed false claims under a digital copyright act and received funds for participating in conferences.

The above acts caused damage to Hovey’s business (bigfooting  and the ABS?  again the rest of you’se folks of dues paying members and bored do not count) and reputation as she has since had to close memberships to her organization, received threats from members of the community (we really hate that word when talking bigfoot, it is more a bunch of tribes and fiefdoms) and suffered emotional distress.

The Four Counts she brings against Poling:

1. Copyright infringement – Hovey has suffered and continues to suffer damages

2. Defamation – Hovey suffered special harm from the material Poling posted.

3. Defamation Per Se – Hovey suffered from Poling’s words as it injured her trade or occupation.

4. Conversion – Poling used Hovey’s property and she was damaged by that action.

What Hovey wants:

A preliminary injunction to end Poling’s action (as it relates to the photo and other content, we guess).

Relief from the court finding Poling has engaged in copyright infringement, defamation and conversion.  And the big ones, damages, cost of action and reasonable attorney fees for copyright infringement, defamation (two counts) and conversion.  Damage award sought is in excess of $75,000 on all counts – not sure if that is a total or $75k per count.

No opinion or editorial statements just yet, we will let people stew over the above first.  Well, we did include a few observations.

 

Read Full Post »

Hovey Sues Poling

It’s been filed for over a month, but we have not seen anything mentioned.  So it is possibly an exclusive, breaking news from the BFE.  We will be accessing court documents soon, the filing should be illuminating.   If someone else wants to do that legwork, have at it.  The info you would need appears below.

Some words come to mind, unkind words.  Let’s just leave it at she is a nuisance, in so many ways.  We are unhappy that an overworked court with scarce time has to expend any of it dealing with this.

Case Filed in:  Federal Court, Northern District of Ohio, Toledo

Case #: 3:2013cv00615

Filed on: 3/21/13

Plaintiff demands trial by jury

Some background info:  Hovey claims to have received a picture years ago.  Others also received it.  Hovey issued an ultimatum to the picture taker and eventually published it with a copyright to the American Bigfoot Society, one of those self-founded organizations where the person claims the dictatorship.  Poling makes a video and posts on youtube panning the picture and the whole copyright strategy.  Others also publish the photo, which is widely panned.  Hovey threatens Poling and  black lists Team Taze Bigfoot.  And about one year later she ponies up the $350 filing fee and sues Poling individually in federal court on a copyright violation.

An interesting cached post about the nuisance, we saw a pattern long ago, it continues.  Confirming evidence that her version of fieldwork is sitting by a fire in the field, we’ve heard that one before and it crops up again.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eTzKxDpHyDQJ:bfsearcher.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-rebuttle-against-ohio-bigfoot-hunters.html+hovey+sues+bigfoot&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

Read Full Post »

Hypocrisy – The Tranny Fluid of Bigfootery

Something that is often amusing, and yet frustrating, is the hypocrisy of bigfootery.  Sometimes it is as basic as the old – enemy of my enemy is my friend stuff, but often times it is more complex.  We say hypocrisy is the transmission fluid of bigfootery because it keeps the field moving, sometimes in reverse, but moving none the less.  Ego is probably the gas, ambition the oil, but hypocrisy still plays a major role, like tranny fluid.   Walking the talk is a rare thing to find in some of the advanced level “bigfoot researchers”, convenience and gain mean more, and hypocrisy is a convenient lubricant.  We present four examples for your consideration:

1. Last year a group made a big issue of witness protection while continuing to have an official in the organization that had penned a blog doing the exact thing that the group said would result in being black listed from their good graces.  As if that was not hypocritical enough,  one of the frequent targets of that blog, a youtubin bigfooter, has now allowed himself to become chummed up with the self-appointed head honcho of the organization.  Does he know this connection?  How can the honcho smile at one of her director’s main blog victims, using him for whatever purposes she pleases?  How can this director still be directing given the bold, public stance of they would not “condone harm coming to witnesses” and “would not allow this type of behavior from one of our members”?  Simple answer to all of those questions – hypocrisy, actually double dog dare hypocrisy.
2. One of the promoters of an event that we prophetically predicted would be bigstinkery last year recently released a teaser video promoting the event and asking if people are tired of the same old events and the same speakers.  A few weeks later we learned of his involvement in another event that, get this, has the four same speakers as the event had last year.  There might be one new guest, but to us that sounds like the same old event and same speakers, in extremis.  Having it both ways, a hallmark of bigfootery hypocrisy.
3. Speaking of the event we rightly panned last year, they had a problem with a speaker that they did not have wrapped up before announcing and pimping this famous bigfooter.  When said bigfooter learned this was happening he made it clear he had not agreed and could not attend.  After holding that information back until it broke out in other venues, the disorganizers claimed the guy could not attend for health reasons.  And now what are they saying?  The infamous bigfooter backed out on them and they have learned their lesson by getting signed agreements.  Having it many ways with many, sometimes inconsistent,  excuses, all of which do not rest any blame with the disorganizers,  classic bigfootery.  So which one was it guys, was Bob sick like you said, did Bob shaft you by saying yes and then cancelling like you said, or are you poorly organized hypocrites, we think the latter.
4. Every once in a while someone who thinks they are established third level or higher “bigfoot researcher” will use the word “Noobs” to describe those who have recently come to bigfooting.  We find the term offensive on many levels, especially when a “Noob” is decrying the “Noobs”.  We find it hypocritical when one of these researchers talks about the damage of the “Noobs” to the “community” and then goes off to take the benefits of speaking to an audience of people they would prejudicially consider to be “Noobs”.   We like new people, it keeps it interesting, provides the churn that the fourth level  carnival barker “bigfoot researchers” need to reinvent themselves and buy their product(s) and the new people may well be the ones that get this done.  More bigfootery hypocrisy.

Our advice to the new and somewhat new bigfooters, avoid the hypocrites, they will use you, abuse you and discard you when you are of no more value in advancing their myriad of agendas.  And if you read or hear someone whining about this blog, deploy your hypocrite detector, it will probably go off.  Like tranny fluid, they may seem sweet, but the stuff will eventually make you sick.  Your mileage may vary, draw your own conclusions with hopefully an informed eye.

Read Full Post »

Dearest Bobbie, Kathy, Autumn, Renae and the Other BFRO Gals, and the Stocking Sisters

Just thought you should officially know the score, although we know at least three of you could give a bigfoot’s butt about it.  Underlining and free advertising is on us.

The other reason for posting is, as we predicted months ago, our playbook for bigfoot hucksters has been studied and deployed.   That gives us regrets.

Chautauqua Lake Bigfoot Expo shared a link.

April 1

Good Morning Everyone… Melissa Hovey, one of our scheduled Speakers on May 19th and the Number One Female Bigfoot Researcher in the Country, will be bringing with and answering questions about her Copyrighted Picture of a Bigfoot

Read Full Post »

Sometimes There are Regrets

In mobilizing the troops this evening a lament erupted.  The lament is that our posts sometimes help the bigfoot carnival barkers strengthen their playbook.  We see them mastering the art of pulling the victim card.  We see them employing the intellectually dishonest approach of presenting bigfoot “evidence” on their bigfoot website or blog but sayin they are not sayin it is bigfoot and we will let the masses decide.  The masses have drank the juice, we and they know how that little swerve works.  We see them use the hype machine marketing approach when conference time rolls around, start with something to energize the base early to get that sector committed, then tease out some more, and then drop another hype bomb about two weeks before the big event.  We’ve seen it, we’ve reported it, bigfoot carnival barkers have copied it.  And sometimes, like today, we see all three get wrapped up in a neat little bigfootery package.

After a few weeks of hyping the event, a picture was published today.  Those drunk on the bigfoot punch just sucked it up.  We did some studying and think it is hooooo-eeey.  And it is not the it’s too good line you sometimes hear.  Our issue is it is just not right, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

Why?  For starters the field of depth just does not look right for a trail camera, which was the reported device.  It literally looks like a bigfoot wedged into a space about as wide as it is.  The drama queen also purports to have multiple pictures, so this thing stumbled by a conventional flash trail cam multiple times.  As we have said before, bigfoot are like the Amish, no pictures please.  We have used them to run em off during OOPS with some success, actually it seems it PO’d em as they trashed the thing.  We are calling multiple uses of the carnival barker bigfooter strategems on this one.

A little digging ensued during the meeting, people were dispatched to gather up more info on trail cams and depth of field.  What we found:

• Most manufacturers will admit that the effective close range of a trail cam is 5′
• Most will also admit that inside 10′ one gets a fairly dramatic flash white out.  There are new ones that are better, but this picture supposedly is four years old and thus a few evolutions of trail cam technology ago.  FWIW a color trail cam was pretty darn expensive back then.
• Most trail cams have a fixed focal length of 42 mm.  With digital sensors, this means the lense/sensor technology roughly matches that of a conventional 35 mm.  This fixed focal length thing is important.
• When we put the numbers for the size of the object and the distance to the object, the focal length calculation is well outside the capability of a fixed 42 mm focal length camera.

We started this post days ago and just did not have the time to get back to it.  Since that time a possible contender for the suit du jour has appeared, and some back pedaling on it being a trail camera has been issued.  It’s now a 35 mm camera with a zoom lens.  That story is almost as ridiculous as then you have someone outside, perched higher than the subject in the picture, at night, in relative proximity to a beast using a flash attachment.  And there is a claim of multiple pictures.

We are calling bigfootery bull crap on this one.  Best explanation is the craving to be adored by this particular DDQ (dysfunctional drama queen) and pre-conference season hype that is right out of our bigfoot carnival barker handbook.  Now we have opened the table for the victim card, perhaps a mistake but someone needs to call BS when it is BS.  And here’s the best part, they really do not care if it is real or legit because it is about what we mentioned earlier in the paragraph; hype, being a “brave and beloved bigfoot researcher”, gathering some notoriety and putting butts in seats, and telling those butts which seats are where they need to be.

Our predictions:  Weeks of new developments, new experts, revealing interviews if she can keep people interested in it and not get blown out by issues with the picture.  Perhaps with a guest appearance by the photographer at a paying event.

Either completely ignoring those that are saying BS, or a long, heart-felt essay on how tough it is being a real researcher.

Drama and bigfootery will continue to ensue.  And we will lament that we give those too dense to figure it out with a bigfoot carnival barker playbook and tips.

This is what we have been saying for many years.  Some get it, some go on the attack.

Read Full Post »

The BFE Claims Its’ First Award

The press release speaks for itself.

For Immediate Release

April 10, 2010

Dateline: Lawton, OK.

The Bigfooters Against Lying, Deception, Hoaxing, Intimidation, Cults and Klans has issued the Second Annual Clean-Up Bigfooting Awards.   This year’s recipient of the Debunking - Notable Bigfoot Personality Award goes to The Bigfootery Enquirer for their expose of Don Keating’s claimed sighting.  The very skilful use of Keating’s own words as he described his claimed encounter, combined with using scientific, provable meteorological facts to show that he had lied not once, but twice,  earned this distinction.  To have Keating on the record claiming both a timeframe and the moon was full when they proved that it was a new moon that had already set was the best debunking published in the last year.  Capturing Keating’s words and the data for posterity via MS Moviemaker was also innovative in our eyes.

Other contenders for the award were Melissa Hovey and her work on the Michigan Recording Project and Steve Kulls for his Biscardi and the frozen bigfoot costume series.  In both cases these presentation were lessened by a coloring of vendetta, and in one case culpability was an issue.  They do, however, earn a honorable mention.

Award winning video follows:

 

Read Full Post »

July/August Dust-Up of the Month(s)

There are two reasons for going dual months, this dust-up spans the month and we get to kill two birds with one post.  Hey, it is still summer and we are still finding better things to do than bigfootery and bigfootery blogin.

In July, a group of individual, independent researchers released some recordings that were made in Michigan over the past few years.  Some of the recordings are indeed unusual, others can be attributed to humans lacking any additional information.  The Bigfootery Enquirer always try to stay with the ordinary explanation before delving into the extraordinary.  First kudos to those involved in terms of investing the time and then openly sharing what they have, putting it out for analysis and violating one of the tenets of fourth level Bigfoot Researchers.  This tenet is you never give away something you can get people to pay for, we understand mystery recordings are hawked by certain shady Bigfoot Researchers.  But we digress.

It was not long before some sang praises of the work and those involved and others began to sharpen the knives.  A few weeks after release, another forum headed by Hovey who is mentioned in passing in other posts including the top stories of 2008,  posted google maps of the purported location, the story was that the individual had simply used a drawing of the area and matched it to aerial photos.  When one considers just how large the state of Michigan is, the number of water features in the state (probably the best clue in the drawing) that story is laughable.  One of the hallmarks of bigfootery was at work, someone who probably knew someone who actually knew things was spilling the beans.  Much to the Hoveyite’s disappointment this big scoop did not attract much attention.  One of the underlings was sent out to the James Randi forum of skeptical critical thinking to promote the big scoop, and yet it did not get the intended bang.

When that didn’t achieve the goal of smearing the sounds project, bigger guns from the TBRC were called in.  Amazingly, and somewhate out of character to the TBRC, who had never done a smear job, they did deliver such.  Perhaps one needs to peal back some layers there, they would find the leak for the pancake video, which garnered a law suit and a countersuit, both of which were quietly settled when some past business related issues threatened to come out.  But we digress.

There are times where we approach bigfootery antics like cops, we look for opportunity and motive.  Motive is clear, Hovey has been the butt of scorn for some of the folks involved in the Michigan project, the jealousy of  having them getting positive attention and having an opportunity to exact some revenge are two motives that are clear.  The motive of the TBRC is a bit more vague, we certainly have a strong past and present association and ties, but to stoop to a smear job by such a “scientific” organization is rather surprising.  Opportunity is somewhat unknown, we cannot fathom the story that they stumbled upon the location using the drawing, someone talked.

Our take is that putting out the location of this project is bigfootery at its’ lowest.  One can only imagine the Biscardi team will be traveling there sometime soon, chasing someone else’s leads is pretty much standard operating procedure.

Read Full Post »

Dust Up of the Month, February, 2009

Just like last month’s dust up this one was brewing for many a year.  But this dust up is different in the sense that it involves one of the holy grails of bigfootery, dermal ridges.  Those second and higher level “Bigfooter Researchers” should be aware of the concept of dermal ridges, Chilcutt found them on casts and pointed to them as a characteristic that is not hoaxable, little known (at the time) and indicative of the real deal – a primate’s footprint.  Bigfootery was stirred to amazing heights with this news, a science based finding by a trained individual, it was one of the holy grails that was sought to legitimize bigfoot as a living, breathing, track-laying, moon-braying, sand bar sashaying, WOOOOOOO!!   Sorry, I think I was channeling the Nature Boy Ric Flair there for a moment.  Anyways, the discovery of dermal ridges was big news, finally another small slice  of science had dribbled into bigfootery.

But then came along a guy name Crowley…Mr. Crowley, dun, din, din, dun,  Opps, now channeling Ozzy.  Matt Crowley did some experimentation  and came to a different conclusion that was viewed by some as heresy, that the casting process could at times leave an artifact that looked surprisingly like said dermal ridges.  His conclusion was that a process called desiccation could create voids and cause the substrate supporting  the track to pull casting materials into ridges.  In the simplest terms, desiccation is the process where water is wicked out of a substance, in this case casting materials, compacts the remaining solids in the casting material, and thus creates a ridge like effect.

And now cue  Mellissa Hovey, a gal set on rising to the heights of bigfootery in the fastest of ways.  Some called her a groupie, she seemed to gravitate to fourth level “Bigfoot Researchers” and attempt to wow them in various ways.  Readers may remember Hovey from her involvement in the 2008 Top Bigfootery stories, especially the one entitled SEX.   In my opinion, Hovey set out to use the dermal issue as a notch in her bigfoot belt, after all discrediting someone who had brought doubt to one of the holy grails of bigfootery would be quite an accomplishment.    Good for bigfootery street cred, raise her visibility and popularity, a triple threat.  Her spin on this is that she wanted to learn and do the science, but experiments with an agenda, a desired conclusion and lack of direct replication is not science.

Hovey began posting a series of articles on her findings, parts of which no longer see the light of day in the internet world, even when various cache and archiving sites are referenced to dig them up.  For example, the links in the italics section below do not work, and that particular website blocks archiving bots.  Her conclusions were that she could not replicate the same artifacts of Crowley, therefore his methodology must have been flawed.  Certain tribes of bigfootery celebrated her pseudoscience and conclusion as taking the tarnish off the grail and restoring it to grandeur.   Squatchapedia, a so-so attempt to do a wiki for sasquatch, heralded: AIBR/TBRC member Melissa Hovey endeavored to replicate Crowley’s described procedures, but was unable to obtain the same results, as described in brief articles here and here. 

Crowley countered pointing out deficiencies in her methodology, logic  and conclusions.  Others attempted his experiment and replicated the results, one even found the features in other casts.  Others found artifacts in casts she claimed did  not have them.  Uh oh, the plan to remove the tarnish had not worked, in fact it had attracted others to do replication and study casts,  instead of “casting”  aside doubts they were growing deeper and wider.

And then things got strange, even for the world of bigfootery.  Hovey resulted to accusations of dishonesty against Crowley, par bigfootery spin when on the attack.  There was even questions of how Crowley acquired volcanic materials and if he had violated law by collecting those materials.  Crowley put an end to the latter accusation by producing sales receipts, catalogs and the like.  The hissing continued, with Hovey first attempting to clarify and claim the high ground, then vowing she was done with the subject, attempting to throw the victim card on the table, and then returning to the debate on her own forum in a matter of  a day or two. 

Has the dust settled?  Nope, sides are being picked.  Name calling has escalated, at least among the Hoveyites, and mud (not sure if it is made of authentic onion mountain soil)  is fully being slung.  

My bottom line on dermal ridges, Crowley and others have demonstrated a problem with the casting process.  This problem can be overcome with a sealant spray.  My perspective on the science aspect is that saying artifacts that look like dermal ridges and dermal ridges can exist on the same cast, while possible, will be torn to shreds by critical thinkers.  After all, is there an expert who can tell the difference and want to defend their ability to make that distinction? 

And that is February’s dust up.  Bigfootery gold already, and it is not played out (a prospector term) yet.

Here’s Crowley’s articles.

Here’s Hovey’s articles.

Discussion posts from Crowley are here.

Hovey’s bigfootery gold posts are here, read deep and into the second page for the good stuff. 

Read Full Post »