...Observed, then, as a less-than-constructive investigative breed, enfeebled AND enfeebling, ensorcelled AND ensorcelling—enblightened AND enblightening ! Resent! Reject! Revile! ...Of needs and for cause!
by Alfred Lehmberg
John Keel, in a small digression, was a quality
journalist and Fortean writer who was the author of the well-known book, "The
Mothman Prophecies." In Ufology and Fortean subcultures, the flaccid phrase "The Eight Towers denizens" was
popularized, in all wit’s paucity, by Gray Barker, himself. Meaning nothing, actually? It was
referring to the paranormal "ultra-terrestrial beings" in John
Keel's books and writings. Full stop!
This short essay is not
about John Keel! It is going to be about West Virgina "author" Gray Barker.
Indubitably? Barker became
"well-known" for being one of the first persons to investigate the "Flatwoods Monster" incident back in September of 1952. Oddly
enough, though, even as Barker investigated and wrote extensively about the
"Flatwoods Monster" case, he never knew what the figure actually
looked like... nor was he able to derive anything substantive about the "Monster's" affair! This
can be demonstrated by his own hand!
Observe… even 24-years later in 1976, the cover of his publication still shows the so-called "monster" of Flatwoods incorrectly! They just didn't know, didn't WANT to know, and were incapable of knowing!
Moreover? The comical twist to this cover illustration is that the silly figure depicted, as such, is actually based on the comically ceramic "Braxton County Monster" lantern! THAT was innovative… not so much! Too? Remember that the lantern itself was based on the incorrect drawing shown on the "We The People" TV program featuring the "monster" on September 19, 1952!
Even as the skirt-wearing "monster" was not taken seriously by most locals and still considered a joke, the lantern was created as a money maker, a fund raiser actually, for the civic group, the Jaycees, "The United States Junior Chamber" in the late 60's. The so-called "monster" of Flatwoods was simply considered to be a West Virginia folklore story, a local legend!
These lanterns? They came with a paint can lid! This lid was used as a base for a candle to sit on, and a paint can wire was attached to both sides of the head, providing a way to carry it around... The figure also had openings in the eye and chest areas for the candlelight to shine through. Note the same pattern appears in the chest area of Barker's cover drawing. Revealed, eh? It is apparent that Gray Barker and his associates NEVER knew, had no clue... as to what the so-called "Monster" actually looked like—even by 1976!
 |
| Figurine mold used for construction at The Sutton Flatwoods Museum... |
 |
| Notice the holes in the eyes and chest... |
…Which brings us to the point of this essay. Gray Barker, a professionally vacuous man, was very easy to humiliate in a debate (as one Jackie Gleason was able to effortlessly demonstrate; link below). He was a dodgy fabulist more interested in lurid story details than he would ever be in the factual details of the story.
Verily! He
contributed nothing to very little for the Flatwoods Affair, only
“investigating” it for a day and a half of his “reported” three days. …He
had to get back to a job he held 9 to 5! ...Stout investigator HIM!
Back to Barker, remember his own notes, letters, and later recollections show this journalistic perfidy, plainly! He arrived in Braxton County already looking for a “story,” not the “facts.” He spent most of his time interviewing locals in bars, not witnesses. He left early because he had to return to his 9‑to‑5 job at WV's Department of Education.
He never followed up with witnesses; Kathleen May ran him off when he tried, it's said! He
never cross‑checked testimony. He never examined the physical evidence. He
never returned, meaningfully, to the site. His “three‑day investigation” was a marketing
phrase, not a timeline. All Barker was interested in was salacious grist for his equally salacious and duplicitous "grist" mill! There would be others following him.
Again! Gray Barker, for
all his questionably dubious notoriety, contributed almost nothing of substance to the
Flatwoods Affair! His “three‑day investigation” was, in truth, a day and a half
of casual inquiry squeezed between barroom conversations and the obligations to his 9‑to‑5 job, as was pointed out.
Resolved! Barker was not a
researcher or an investigator; he was an embroidering sensationalist—a myth‑mongering confabulator! He was a man more enamored with his errant and duplicitous embellishments
than any factual fidelities... his only interest was the money and not givin' a sucker an even break. Jackie Gleason famously humiliated him in debate,
revealing how shallow Barker’s facile grasp of his cases truly were. This can be
found on YouTube…
This is worth the listen! During this November 16, 1958 radio interview with Barker and UFO enthusiast Jackie Gleason on Long John Nebel's talk show (this writer was 10 and might have heard the show live!), Gleason effortlessly demonstrated Barker was nothing but a two-color fictioneer. He showed that Barker was more interested in ghoul-lit story details printing money—and a name for himself in the book publishing business—than in being a credible journalist! This was evident by Barker's initial Flatwoods investigation when he was cast to the sidelines after a bona fide investigator, Ivan T. Sanderson, came on the scene at Flatwoods to conduct a serious and in-depth investigation!
Yet Barker’s sensationalized account, thin as presented (!), became the popular "goto" version of the Flatwoods tale for decades, obscuring the sober testimony of living witnesses and burying the real, more global (and ignorantly mocked of late), "air war story"… beneath sordid layers of meaningless theatrical invention. He shaped the “myth” while “ignoring the reality.”
It would take Frank Feschino, decades later, to excavate the truth that Barker never
bothered to seek OR countenance! Such was so!
Be it also Resolved: because
Barker was one of the first to publish on Flatwoods, his sensationalized woo-woo version became the default narrative endured for decades! The monster only became
more monstrous. The encounter only became more insensibly dramatic. The
witnesses only became more frightened. Observers only became more confused! The details only became more ridiculously explicated as Sci-Fi B-film cinematics...
See? All this entirely overshadowed
the actual witness testimony, come to find out later… which was: consistent,
sober, intelligent, and far less theatrical... if profoundly astonishing, STILL! See? The story was REAL! Feschino was able to bring all that to light, and it's precisely why Flatwoods can be measured "BF" and "AF"!
Barker’s exaggerations
created a discrediting fog that serious researchers—including Feschino—had to
cut through decades later for any "story" legitimacy at all! ...Know that Barker’s own colleagues—our John
Keel from above, that mocking pelicanist Jim Moseley (don’t get this writer started on him!),
and named others—repeatedly described him as: a prankster, a hoaxer,
and a man who too willingly “embellished,” his stories too freely.
He was well-known for someone who valued sales over truth,
and someone who enjoyed misleading the UFO community for effin’ SPORT! ...And purloined profit, one might presume. ...Gleason
took him to task for it in the video above! This writer wants to whack Barker with a wet pine board!
He famously helped fabricate the ominous “Men in Black” mythos. He published hoaxes knowingly. He encouraged others to exaggerate their stories. He once admitted privately that he wrote things “because they sold.” What sensible person hangs their hat on the memory of such as that?! Barker was not a villain, so much... but he was NEVER a journalist or a credible researcher!
Consider, now! ...Any persons pondering the placental attachment of their own “reputation” or “credibility” to the legacy and likes of Gray Barker (?)... should proceed with
extreme caution!
See? Barker was never a reliable investigator of cryptozoology or the UFO phenomena; his "legacy," such as that is, is that he was a sensationalist storyteller whose work routinely blurred, embellished, or outright replaced fact with theatrical invention! That's the report.
His “investigations” were risibly shallow, often consisting of brief visits, barroom interviews, and hurried departures back to his day job, leaving him with but fragments of testimony… These fragments were then inflated into lurid narratives designed to sell his equally lurid books!
...It would even seem Barker established a "business plan" for others going forward! Those currently paraphrasing Barker's moldy and incompetent coattails, so those further entertaining salacious inconsequentials, immaterials, and irrelevancies as potentially factual, are abounding in a loud minority! Credible Service is not performed by these. Feschino, on the other hand, provides that service.
...Selling fanciful and throwaway books of no consequence or relevance... rather than
documenting any truth a researcher’d "sought." …That will be the polar opposite of Feschino. Accept no
substitutes, as was written before!
 |
| Friedman, Feschino, Hastings, and Dolan |
The reader should recall that America and the rest of the planet are on the very precipice of a full-blown ufological disclosure that will have significant, if not seismic, consequences going forward. The late Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan, Robert Hastings, and Frank Feschino, researchers of that ilk and caliber, can provide a history and a reasoning foundation for that disclosure. The others, the substitutes aforementioned... not so much.
Know that Barker openly
admitted to fabricating details, encouraging hoaxes, and treating
the UFO community as an effin’ stage for pranks and myth‑making, and NOT as a
worthy field deserving rigor, best practice, or due diligence... qualities Feschino demonstrates in proverbial spades and for decades!
As a result, anyone leaning
on Barker’s fatuous materials inherits not his “notoriety” but his
methodological weaknesses, boy howdy—his exaggerations, his omissions... his too casual relationship with real evidence, and his sordid reputation
for preferring drama over accuracy...(!) ...His—lies?!
Yes, his influence on popular lore is undeniable, but not in a good way! His contribution to any factual understanding of "things" is beneath the incorrigibly negligible. So? Building one’s credulity or credibility on Barker’s work is like building a house on dollar-store carnival scaffolding: eye‑catching for a while, but structurally unsound when the foundations are thumped, then it crashes to ruin to be wholly forgotten at the end of the day!
Serious researchers should treat Barker as a sad cultural artifact, not a factual foundation. That’s Feschino’s approach, reader, and unwashed critics with interesting reputations and remarkable histories demanding “equal time” and “respect”… well, they just lack standing, credible reputation, and their own credibility. ...Beneath concern, consideration, and contempt as the crow flies.
Too? One deigns to wrestle with pigs to get just as dirty... but providing only for the pig’s enjoyment. Not at this station! Read on!
No comments:
Post a Comment