The Barker Bastardization

 

The INCORRECT 1952 WTP "Flatwoods Monster" drawing
shows the claw-armed figure wearing a pleated dress,
a headpiece, a tunic top, a collar, and floating in the air.
It could have been MADE to justify its own dismissal.

The Barker Bastardization 

by Alfred Lehmberg

 

Of needs and causes, this must again be revisited! The drawing of the "Flatwoods Monster" portrayed in a pleated skirt on the September 19, 1952 TV show was inaccurate. Good-faith supposition based on abundant factual evidence exists for this assertion. Full stop!

Storied confabulator Gray Barker (and his acolytes!) will be on the blame line for extending that inaccuracy until the day of his death! This blame is assigned for his part in keeping the “claw-waving skirted fairy” image in the public’s mind’s eye, a result of his "writings," until the day he died in 1984! This is all a given and at the root of the monster’s credulity strain and for any ongoing dismissal, since!

This “credulity strain” and “dismissal” would continue (…or where had the monster presented since ’52 to ’84!) until Feschino arrived on the scene in the early nineties, a result of serendipitous fluke, simple chance, and life's circumstance! It would be HIM providing anything substantive at all. Step off, Mr. Barker… your contribution of being one of the first writers on the scene is noted, but you are now dismissed as “found unserious” and then “dismissive of the serious.”

Now… Let's take another closer look at this scary-looking "monster" said to have been lurking around the woods of the now "purple-fenced" Fisher Farm… in a dress… on September 12, 1952. See? It was a LOT scarier than what was shown on television. It was real.

The reader will recall our reasoned and reasoning assertion that, contrary to West Virginia folklore, the famed "Flatwoods Monster" was NOT a living, "flesh-and-blood" (so to speak) "monster" with murderous claws, wearing a dress, and then magically floating through the air as depicted in the original 1952 drawing! No. In a more cogent and considered reality, the huge figure was much more likely a dual-helmeted, "mechanical" device like a "suit of some kind," a contraption, comparable to a manned space probe... resembling a "small spaceship" or "rocket" as described by firsthand eyewitnesses? An inhabited probe shot down to Earth by one of our jets and evading capture... perhaps, we are reminded! That was real, too.

It is surmised that this 12-foot-tall metallic machine likely functioned as an unknown "type of propulsion-driven hovercraft," and an onboard Extraterrestrial Biological Entity might have intelligently controlled it. No? What follows is reasoned conjecture regarding how this decades-long folklore story got mixed around back in 1952!

One week after the "Flatwoods Monster" encounter, the constant reader knows that witnesses Mrs. May, Gene Lemon, and newspaper reporter A. Lee Stewart were flown to New York City by the NBC TV talk show "We The People." They were interviewed on September 19, 1952, regarding the affair. 

During those interviews, Mrs. May and Gene Lemon retold their frightening story about their encounter with the so-called "monster" to a live nationwide television audience that night, as we’ve written before. Beforehand, we’ll recall, the TV producers had hired an artist for a topical rendering of the monster. He would interrogate May and Lemon, and they would “instruct the artist” to draw a picture of the giant metal-clad figure which THEY had seen. Only, the artist would take license! 

His slap-dash piece (at the top of the article) would go on to be used as a visual aid during the program, and then live on in infamy, reader, fueling the errant machinations of our lovely fabulist Mr. Barker.

Before the show aired, we can recall, Mrs. May and Gene Lemon spoke to the artist and explained the giant figure's appearance so the fellow could draw inspiration from the intercourse, but make a picture of it for the program. …Only there was a major problem with the drawing as produced. This problem will become multi-faceted as we shall see.

See? During that interview, there was a severe communication breakdown (where there should have been none) between Mrs. May, Gene Lemon, and the errant artist as they described the giant figure to him while he was executing it on paper.

The artist had taken many of their descriptions literally and so portrayed the huge figure inaccurately, as has been asserted… because he didn't care to grasp, apparently, a true understanding of its appearance. For all HE knew, readers, it was just a spooky woods-boojum hallucinated by West Virginia hillbillies drunk on wood alcohol!

Sadly, and thanks largely to our local glad confabulator, Gray Barker, this incorrect drawing would appear, morphing into various incarnations, in countless books, magazines, periodicals—forgetting numerous documentaries—through the years! It would but function as a scurvy mechanism, a changing agent obscuring the true historical account of this incident, straining its credibility… this incident wide-ranging (in effect AND affect!) given its discussion in Congress as these words are written!  This shiznit’s REAL, citizens! It always has been.

Years later, in 1992, illustrator Frank Feschino, Jr., as the reader is now well aware, started to investigate the Flatwoods incident in professional earnest, meeting, and then interviewing witnesses Kathleen May and her son Fred May, among many others. This was not a one-off.

They met on many occasions throughout the years, speaking of and about their otherworldly encounter. Over those decades, Feschino would even come to be treated as family. The stories, back to them, never wavered, incidentally... all persons intellectually cogent and sharp as proverbial tacks! Who would know that? That would be the person actually spending a lot of time with them.

Feschino worked diligently with the witnesses and discovered in his forensic analysis that the drawing of the "Flatwoods Monster," as shown during the 1952 TV program, was just wrong, wrongful, and wrong-minded! During one interview, for example, Fred May explained the true appearance of the so-called "monster" to Feschino, stating, "It was mechanical; it was not alive. Maybe inside of the thing—there could have been something that was alive… What I saw was either a small spaceship or suit of some kind. Something it was wearing. It was mechanical." 

Fred May also told him, "The overall body was metallic, not cloth" and then he emphasized, "The figure was made of metal."

Feschino also asked witness Kathleen May, "Did it look cloth-like or metallic?" She quickly answered, stating, "No! It looked more metallic."

Mrs. May then described the lower torso of the figure and explained its configuration to Feschino, "It was shaped like drapes, but it came out." She pantomimed the shape of the lower torso flaring outwards, "It came out at the sides. It flared out." Fred also told Feschino, "The lower torso flared out."

Fred May then cleared up the discrepancy about the cloth dress shaped like long pleated drapes and explained they more resembled metallic pipes. He’d remark to Feschino, "What stood out was the big pipes at the bottom of the 'monster.' They were metallic and very bright." Fred then told him, "What mother described as the pleats of hanging drapes were actually metal pipes." Fred May compared them as looking like "tubes" and the size of a "fireman's hose." He also told Feschino, "They were big as—they were thicker than my arm." He held out his arm to illustrate.

In summary, the entire body of the figure was originally drawn, spuriously, in a garment and wearing a dress. Fred May stated, "It was made of metal," and Mrs. May said, "It looked more metallic." The contour of the lower body flared out and had long tubular pipes attached it that were equally spaced around the circumference of its body. These pipes were thought to be pleated folds hanging like drapes; hence, the original "monster" drawing was illustrated as wearing a pleated dress.

Mrs. May said they were "shaped like drapes," she did NOT say they were drapes or clothing. Based on Mrs. May's life experiences when she tried to describe the lower torso pipes; drapes were the best example she could think of to explain those long metal tubes. 

Furthermore, one would imagine these country folks were probably a little intimidated being in the "Big Apple," New York City for the first time. Moreover, they had never been in a television studio before, let alone a large NBC television studio! 

Try to imagine the witnesses walking into this big city television studio and seeing state-of-the-art electronic production equipment and control boards throughout the room! The sets with multiple scaffolds and lights hanging across the expanse! The large TV cameras on set with crews bustling around the equipment while producers and directors are scurrying around this fast-paced atmosphere preparing for the program... Now imagine Mrs. May and Gene Lemon being interviewed by a sketch artist who doesn't comprehend them. Who knows?

Remains. The portrait was incorrect, and that fact would not be revealed until Feschino got involved… Barker quickly became valueless.

Back to Fred May, he’d add, "I think those tubes were some sort of propulsion system. It was hovering about a foot off the ground." This would explain the drop-cast shadow in the original drawing illustrating the "monster" as suspended in the air above the ground… no legs or feet! Mrs. May told Feschino, "It was about a foot to a foot and a half off the ground," and stated, "I was as close to it as the length of a small car." She was obviously close enough to the figure to see what it was!

Though it was NOT magically floating through the air; this mechanized structure was hovering above the ground via its obviously highly strange propulsion system. It did NOT make a loud noise that would be associated with an engine, a turbine or a motor, which would be noticeable. One can only imagine the sound, the roar, generated by a motorized propulsion system required to keep that metallic structure aloft! Think of the loud deafening noise a single pro-grade leaf blower motor makes while clean up a yard! The witnesses stated they had only heard hissing and sizzling noises and a thumping sound sounding like a drum.

Moreover, the metal pipes, which are reasonably conjectured to be part of that propulsion system, were the exhaust outlets, presumably! These may have also been responsible for expelling that reported sulfurous gas, or mist, which sickened all the witnesses during the encounter! This mist, we’ll note, was the sole defense of the EBE, and entirely defensive—nonlethal! 

Feschino asked Mrs. May, "Did you feel any heat from it?" She replied, "Yeah! You could feel—it was just like a warm mist." Fred told Feschino, "It was very hazy in the area along the path, It was also very misty along the tree area." ...something else not blown around in the craft's propulsion system.

                                

Throughout the years, as has been reported, Frank Feschino did extensive research on the Flatwoods case and gathered a massive amount of historical documentation about the "monster." Furthermore, he also did several forensic sketches and detailed renderings with the eyewitnesses he worked with, and he was able to illustrate an accurate portrayal of the so-called "Flatwoods Monster." These can be seen in his drawings and color illustrations, just a few of which have been included here.

It is noteworthy to mention that Stanton T. Friedman visited Flatwoods on two occasions, met Mrs. May and her son Fred May, and also discussed their encounter with the "monster." He concluded the following, "All the eyewitness testimonies of the so-called 'monster,' actually indicate it was a mechanical device about 12-feet-tall." Furthermore, Friedman went onto the Fisher Farm twice and went to the actual site where the "monster" encounter occurred near the Oak tree! He observed the entire farm first-hand.

Fred May and Friedman in Flatwoods...

Kathleen May and Friedman!

Friedman and MUFON team examine what remains
of the Tree...

During the time this writer spent talking with Stanton Friedman over the years, there was no mention of any doddering feebleness concerning the witness's memories! That revolting and unsupported accusation of witness memory loss has been raised by obstreperous skeptics and a local suspiciously motivated armchair brigade, and has been applied to the Mays, Colonel Leavitt, and others, without evidence, and but typifies the scurrilous and perfidious behavior of this aforementioned brigade. 

Late skeptic Joe Nickell and these other skeptical "debunkers" have never met or even spoken to any of the witnesses involved, nor have they been to the actual site of the encounter... the tree on the old Fisher farm! In the words of Stanton Friedman, "If you can't attack the data? Attack the people."

Back to task, the TV artist who illustrated the original "Flatwoods Monster" drawing as a floating cryptid in a “sweet-sixteen” dress should have been more analytical and asked more in-depth questions during his interview with both witnesses that day. He did not!

He could have! A description of a metallic mechanical contrivance was in evidence in the papers from the first reporting, days before! They had to know of all this, or why were they doing a show, at ALL?! They must have been aware of all the reportage! All this could have been reviewed beforehand! It was not!

Subsequently, the silly-looking and far-fetched drawing of the "Flatwoods Monster" was turned into a mythical folklore story, pointedly unconnected to the ufological and an air war… a war at least declared in the papers… that many still believe was a "monster" wearing a dress! The WTP artist did not comprehend that the 12-foot-tall metal figure was actually a "mechanical" craft or "encounter suit" involving two, craft and EBE, and incorrectly illustrated it as a “living” being extant in one!

Did one of these land in Flatwoods?

At the last? One thing is amusing… at least the artist

illustrated the "monster" in proper dress attire reflecting the vernacular of the times, which was in vogue! The monster had an eye for fashion? Verily! One wonders if the dress-wearing "Monster" believers think it got its outfit while shopping at Macy's in New York City? …Could have used a manicure, too, eh?

Does the reader have a clearer outlook of the picture

yet? Ours is provided in good faith, without guile, and

is not a continued bastardization of the affair

reminiscent of Gray Barker or his inearnest acolytes… 

a perfidious breed. Onward!