In this particular instance, we have two scenarios; although either may be true, one is perfectly plausible and the other patently absurd.Maybe we're looking at a distinct phenomenon with differing interpretations?
As noted, there seem to be different versions relating to what actually occurred when shots were fired. What isn't clear is when and where they originated and what came first, etc. I shall endeavour to clarify same.Are Raccoons bulletproof?
If people didn't make mistakes, perhaps particularly at night when they thought a flying saucer had just dropped by...People who live in the sticks in Kentucky are very familiar with raccoons. Duh.
As were Ape Canyon and Honobia - terrified occupants shooting through walls and windows at glimpsed assailants who seemed unintimidated by gunfire.The Hopkinsville case is essentially two guys shooting at everything in sight and apparently in sound, including through the walls/roof, whatever, of their house.
This is my point - the essential scenario is very similar. Remote dwelling attacked by night by stealthy, agile entities.What other, 'element' is involved?
Looks like you might be right...Remote dwelling attacked by night by stealthy, agile entities.
800 rounds!Article says they fired up about 4 boxes of .22 ammo.
How many bullets is that?
FFS!!!!800 rounds!
Depends on the size of box. Some have 100 rounds, some have 200.FFS!!!!
That surely can't be right.
UPDATE: From the earliest accounts, zero mention of floating entities, however...
"...a number of the creatures walked on their hands and knees...".
Depends on the size of box. Some have 100 rounds, some have 200.
So they shot off at least 400.
Which also sounds improbable.
OK, thanks for the correction.
at another point their neighbors claim to have only heard four shots. Hunh? Those don't fit together. Also the report in that clip above:Article says they fired up about 4 boxes of .22 ammo.
How many bullets is that?
suggests the police officers did not see signs of much in the way of gunfire. They specifically noted how they found a hole in a screen covering a window that matched the claim that a shotgun had been fired through it. It doesn't talk about finding any other bullet holes, and even notes that the investigation was so quiet the only excitement came when someone accidentally stepped on a cat.I chopped up the newspaper and rearranged the text to make it a bit easier to read.
View attachment 28980
It does have a few bits that you don't hear repeated a lot.
..not to mention that many shots would mean a carpet of shell casings.It doesn't talk about finding any other bullet holes...
As noted, a scenario supported by the first newspaper accountsAnd again, the neighbor claimed he didn't hear that much gunfire.
"if they come back, I'm not going to let anyone know about it." hmmm that is a very interesting quote.As noted, a scenario supported by the first newspaper accounts
This is the first uploaded, related report (full page, because it's so much easier and less time consuming than trying to isolate one article), from 'The Indianapolis Star', 23 August, 1955.
www.forteanmedia.com/Hville_01.pdf
Well if they did it would be undeniable proof that aliens exist surelyalso relevant: it basically says the police didn't find any physical trace of the green men".
It was 1955 and one 'popularised perception' was that aliens were, 'ittle green men who came in flying saucers from Mars'.Also this one explicitly says "green" and "glowing". also... "You can't see them except in the dark"? He seems to be saying they become invisible in bright lights?
also relevant: it basically says the police didn't find any physical trace of the green men".
The main difference is that- regardless of provenance - the crop circle would be tangibly there to see.Personally, I can't see it being any different from one, or more, farmers in the UK, who apparently realised the commercial opportunity and charged similar to view a 'crop circle, which had 'mysteriously' appeared overnight on their land.
So was the Sutton house though.The main difference is that- regardless of provenance - the crop circle would be tangibly there to see.
The house, yes - the alleged phenomenon, no.So was the Sutton house though.
As you say it demonstrates the importance of going back to source as much as possible. It's become a slightly debased concept but this is precisely the sort of case for which Occam's Razor is the best examination tool. Strip away the later elaborations and conclusions based on supposition and concentrate on what was said at the time.You seem to know this case well, what do you make of this early documented evidence appearing to unravel what was effectively taken for granted as hardcore testimony.
First reference to our floating creatures... have eventually found an article which relates. Fast forward to...Agree the floating motif is the intriguing one
This article claims the witnesses described the UFO that landed as being the size of a No. 2 wash tub. This would be on the order of 25 inches in diameter and 12 inches deep.A snapshot, from the 'Madisonville Messenger (Kentucky)', as at 24 August, 1955.
www.forteanmedia.com/Hville_05.pdf
The 1955 Madisonville article notes the Suttons charged a fee to see the farmhouse and that it was reported as many as 2,000 people came as far as the entrance to the property. However, the writer admits not knowing how many of these visitors may have actually paid the admission fee. This part of the early report clashes with the following ...Courtesy of 'The Cincinnati Enquirer', 16 June, 1978:
www.forteanmedia.com/Hville_06.pdf
(Emphasis Added)... the investigators agreed that the Buttons and Taylor, simple farm folks, were not the type to invent such an elaborate hoax. And they did not attempt to exploit the incident.