• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
... It's crucial here to keep in mind that the windows were low down, as Isobel Davis explains:
"Except in the kitchen, all the windows go almost to the floor and their bottom sills are not more than 18 inches above the ground". ...
Here's a photo of Juanita McCord (Ms. Lankford's niece-in-law and subsequent occupant of the house) taken by Davis in early summer 1956. There's no porch alongside that side of the house, so she's standing on the ground outside. This should provide a rough idea of how far off the ground the window was.

MsMcCord-Holes-D&BPic.jpg

SOURCE: D & B report, p. 72​
 
For example, Davis accepts Ms. Lankford's signed statement version of her first sighting in depicting the location (on both house diagrams) as the back door, not the front door cited in the Andre version.
This is so helpful and greatly appreciated you have taken the time.

Right then, the moment methinks to introduce Glennie Stith's version of how events unfolded, as related in her book.

As noted, I didn't want to complicate matters further, as her version differs in some key aspects and it remains unclear how much of it is reliably accurate.

Furthermore, there's a fair amount of narrative/'artistic license', concerning what was actually said by participants.

That acknowledged, it does seem to feature some of the elements in Andre's evidential contribution.

The simplest method of doing so is to upload a copy of relevant extracts, again with 'fair use' of copyright deemed to apply.

Let's see what assistance, or indeed hindrance, it might now become:

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_01.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_02.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_03.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_04.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_05.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_06.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_07.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_08.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_09.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_10.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_11.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_12.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_13.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_14.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_15.jpg
 
Among other things, this compendium includes extended passages of severely critical comments from Deputy Sheriff Batts (on the scene both the 21st and 22nd) and state trooper Russell Ferguson. The latter of these are probably the same, or same sort of, Ferguson comments Comfortably Numb declined to post earlier.
Holy raccoons up a drainpipe!!! This is all a bit of a :bomb:...

Fantastic find and requires some serious contemplation.

Yes, those are the precise comments I was not prepared to highlight.

For a start, Ferguson's opinion of the family is exactly that and has nothing to do with case evidence.

As regards the question of the bullet holes being fabricated and alcohol raising its unwelcome head again... the first has satisfactorily been resolved and the second is speculative, with considerable evidence to the contrary.

On the latter, aside from our Police Chief categorically affirming he was satisfied no alcohol involvement, who were driving the two cars?

If either driver had been suspected of drinking, why were they a) not charged and b) allowed to drive back home again with a car, or cars, full of children?

Besides, even if they had been absolutely howlin' to the moon intoxicated on 'panther juice', as I think State Trooper Ferguson calls it elsewhere, this has no impact on the reported observations of Mrs. Langford.

If there's one hard fact we can take from this case, it's that Mrs L was sober as the Good Lord himself!

The 'killer' claim, that Elmer, 'Lucky' Sutton confessed the entire story was all a big fib... that's a second, or even third hand tale and surely can be dismissed out of hand.

It's infinitely too complicated and too many people genuinely suffered the consequences of publicity, none more so than Sutton himself.

Finally, a comment about the drainpipe being suspiciously unable to support the small creatures weight... I don't recall any mention of them ever doing so - did they not access the roof by climbing up nearby trees and jumping from there.

Makes you wonder why they didn't just float up there, though... unless they could only do that when shot, of course! :)
 
Last edited:
... As regards the question of the bullet holes being fabricated and alcohol raising its unwelcome head again... the first has satisfactorily been resolved and the second is speculative, with considerable evidence to the contrary. ...
Last one first ... I agree there's no compelling evidence of alcohol as a root cause of the reported incident. There could have been drinking that night, but I don't think the course of events was all drunken delusion. If anything, my coalescing hypothesis is based on the opposite - sober deliberation and careful action rather than drunken randomness.

I disagree regarding the bullet holes in the window screen. The evidence of the living room window screen doesn't quite add up, and I have to take certain of Batts' and Ferguson's comments regarding changes in the holes as evidence at face value. I was questioning the interpretation of the holes before I finally saw Batt's and Ferguson's comments.
 
... who were driving the two cars? ...
Just for the record, since you bring up the issue of vehicles ...

There were two vehicles at the house that night. These were both passenger cars. One was Taylor's (with Pennsylvania license tags), and I finally located a source stating the other car was Lucky's. This latter reference is the only one I found for the second car's ownership.

Baker didn't have a vehicle. He's consistently cited as occasionally staying at the Sutton / Lankford house for the convenience of someone else who gave him a ride to work. I've not found any source that claims the second car belonged to J. C. rather than Lucky. My original / default assumption was that one car was J. C.'s, so it was a surprise to find none of the permanent residents had a vehicle.

You'll note that these alleged facts clash with Geraldine's claim (in her book) that the Taylors and the Lucky Suttons came to the house together in a single pickup truck. There are additional reasons to question her claim on this point (and, for that matter, numerous others).

If there was a third vehicle at the house it isn't mentioned anywhere. If the 3 men's trip to Evansville the following day was indeed undertaken to borrow a truck there's no subsequent mention of said truck nor how / when they eventually returned it.
 
Absolutely so.

In the sketch, we have this depiction of large, 'oversize hands with talons'.

The closest and longest observation might be the one Mrs. Langford had, during that second episode.

It's crucial here to keep in mind that the windows were low down, as Isobel Davis explains:

"Except in the kitchen, all the windows go almost to the floor and their bottom sills are not more than 18 inches above the ground".

What does this closest of encounters, possibly reveal about the true nature of our little entities.

Isobel Davis takes up the story:

She had been describing how she saw one of the creatures during their second visit, at about 3:30 in the morning. She was lying on her bed in the living room, trying to go to sleep, when it came up to the window beside the fireplace, seeming to have come around the chimney.

"I turned my head three different times, because I thought maybe my eyes were fooling me. But every time I turned my head back, there he was".

"How far away was he?", I asked. "How close to the screen did he come?".

She waited a minute before she answered. It was not an uncertain pause nor a pause to create suspense; it was more as if she were seeing the picture again in her mind's eye.

"Close enough to put his little clawy hands up on it", she said.

No need really to attach a suggested matching photo, I would presume.
Hmmm it makes me think of this.....
5e258e406c3a54e26f556b694625708be1ce8dad63439cfdd4c3b74fe9a69b2d.jpg
5e258e406c3a54e26f556b694625708be1ce8dad63439cfdd4c3b74fe9a69b2d.jpg

I mean seriously... they're about as smart as monkeys and nearly as dexterous.
 
Last edited:
I disagree regarding the bullet holes in the window screen.
It will be interesting to see where this goes, then.

My conclusion was primarily swayed by the 'reconstruction' shown in a previously highlighed video - see post #288.

The relevant footage begins at 27 minutes into the video.

I am no expert and it seemed persuasive!
 
I mean seriously... they're about as smart as monkeys and nearly as dexterous.
There are blindingly obvious similarities at certain times, however, equally not so at others.

Personally, although I bought this up for discussion, the jury is still weighing up evidence!

There's not enough of it to be absolutely sure the premise is even sustainable.

Urban raccoons in more recent years is one thing; wild raccoons being witnessed at a rural farmhouse in 1955 is an entirely different question.

Which is why, I have made some enquiries of specific local expertise, although I would doubt they have the historical knowledge to assist.

Anyway, we shall see and even if plausible, although we have cleared away some of the extraneous material which has become attached to this case over many years, eventually we start have to reconcile... why were they never, at any point, recognised as such and ultimately where is the expected hard-core evidence... why out of all the apparent direct hits from firearms at close range, were no deceased raccoons found.

Something is obviously amiss here and the fascinating aspect is that, as I emphasised from the outset, if an enigmatic like this case has sufficient merit, it will withstand scrutiny.

Kelly-Hopkinsville seems to be doing just fine, in this respect, at present.

I don't expect that to change dramatically and next year's Little Green Man festival ain't in any danger of being cancelled!
 
In addition to Taylor's description of a whining sound of a ricochet, Lucky Sutton claimed that when he fired a shotgun directly at a visitor it sounded like he'd shot a bucket (i.e., hit metal).
I wondered if we could definitively clear up this point.

As we know, a central puzzle in the popularised story is how bullets seemed to bounce off the little creatures and ricochet, as if they were wearing armour plating

We have this newspaper report, which might be the only one:

'Madison Messenger'
Monday, August 22

"John Sutton said he fired four boxes (200) of .22 cartridges at the creatures, but they had no effect, ricocheting off the little men like they would off a steel plate.(Investigating officers reported they found only two empty .22 cartridges in the area)".


Also, from the following morning, local radio employee Ledwith's account, as published in 'The Hynek UFO Report' - see post #245:

"Mr. Ledwith recorded the following comments from various of the witnesses : many bullets were fired and a twelve-gauge shotgun was used. Whenever it was hit, it would float or fall over and scurry for cover. The shots when striking the object would sound as though they were hitting a bucket".


Is the only actual evidence that single incident where one of the little creatures is fired upon outside by Lucky Sutton and sounds like the shot hit a bucket?

Where and when were any other shots which seemed to ricochet, as if striking off metal, reportedly claimed by John Sutton?

Although I note the above reference to Taylor and a 'whining' sound, I can't recall or locate the source.

The 'Kentucky New Era' article of 22 August states, "The visitors were wearing what looked to be metal plate", however, this isn't reference to a shot rebounding.
 
... Is the only actual evidence that single incident where one of the little creatures is fired upon outside by Lucky Sutton and sounds like the shot hit a bucket?
Where and when were any other shots which seemed to ricochet, as if striking off metal, reportedly claimed by John Sutton?
Although I note the above reference to Taylor and a 'whining' sound, I can't recall or locate the source. ...
You've already asked this, and I've already answered. See our posts on 7 August.
 
RE: The evidence for bullet holes in the living room window screen
It will be interesting to see where this goes, then.
My conclusion was primarily swayed by the 'reconstruction' shown in a previously highlighed video - see post #288.
For starters ... Here are Ledwith's diagrams of the living room window screen. They were published as Figure #15 in the D & B report, p. 71.
Screen-D&Bp71-Upper.jpg

Screen-D&Bp71-Lower.jpg
Here is the relevant explanatory text, excerpted from the D & B report ...
Page 71 shows the screen as it would appear from inside the room, looking out. The broken line is the screen margin, and the solid line represents the window-frame to which it was tacked. Five types of holes are now in the screen:

1) Tack holes around the edge, indicated by the small crosses.
2) Although most of the wire was sound, three places where it had rusted out, making small holes, are shown by the cross-hatchings marked A.
3) There are five small perforations, each with a diameter of about one-half inch or slightly less. These are marked B.
4) There are two holes larger than those above. That marked C is generally rectangular in shape and measures about lh inch by 7/8 inch; the opening marked D is about two inches in diameter.
(p. 70)
5) The two holes marked E were made with a pencil ...
The area marked F shows where the wood was splintered on the window-frame; Chief Greenwell found shotgun pellets imbedded here.
(p. 73)
 
The hole labeled 'C' is the controversial "square" hole ridiculed by Batts and / or Ferguson as not being possible for a 20 gauge shotgun to have made. Ledwith gives this hole's dimensions as 1.0 by 0.875 inches. The bore of a 20 gauge shotgun measures 0.615 inches in diameter. The 20 gauge shotgun cited as the weapon J. C. used to fire through the window was discharged while he was standing at the corner of the fireplace, indicating the muzzle was only on the order of 1 to 2 feet from the screen when he fired. The 20 gauge shotgun was known to have had 3 choke tubes associated with it, but it's unknown whether any of the choke tubes was installed on the muzzle at the time.

IMHO it's entirely feasible for the 20 gauge to have punched only a 1" X 7/8" hole through the screen at that close range, even without a choke installed.

The asymmetrically non-circular hole size is reasonably attributed to (a) the breakage of the horizontal and vertical screen strands along their respective lines of extension plus (b) the fact J. C. was shooting downward.
 
The hole labeled 'D' is the hole commonly attributed to Lucky's shot during the second phase (circa 0330 on the 22nd). It's more circular in shape and listed as being circa 2 inches in diameter. The muzzle bore of a 12 gauge shotgun is 0.729 inches. The 12 gauge Lucky was using is described as a "goose gun" - implying it had a full (or relatively restricted) choke to maximize shot clustering at relatively greater distance. A 2" diameter hole is entirely consistent with this gun, provided it wasn't fired from across the room.
 
Both deputy Batts and trooper Ferguson recalled the only hole they saw in the living room screen being clearly square in shape. This is why the tobacco stake explanation was proposed.

Ferguson didn't return the following day, so he had nothing to say about the other holes except for stating they must have been made later than the investigation during the night. He didn't offer any estimate for the size of the square hole he'd seen.

Batts, in contrast, did return the following day. He claimed that the "square" hole had been modified to appear more rounded and 4 times larger than what he'd seen the preceding night. Davis seems to brush this off as a mistaken interpretation of hole D as a second faked hole. However, this casual dismissal does nothing to address - much less rebut - Batts' (later) claims the same hole had been widened and rounded sometime between his two visits to the house.
 
My big problems with the screen evidence don't relate to the holes 'C' and 'D'. It's the other holes and damage that give me pause.

The residents' account of the night's events does not explain why there's evidence of a third shotgun firing at the window. The area marked 'F' on Ledwith's diagram represents the side of the window frame that was splintered and from which an investigator dug out multiple shotgun pellets. If this splintered frame and pellets represents one of the only two shotgun blasts consistently reported by the witnesses it would cast doubt on the cause for one of the canonical holes 'C' and 'D'.

There are 5 holes marked 'B', which are roughly 0.5 inches or less in diameter. This is consistent with a .22 shot perforating the screen. There's no way these 5 holes could represent stray shot from any of the three shotgun blasts alleged or proven by evidence. One of these 'B' holes is accounted for in the canonical storyline as a .22 shot Taylor fired during the first living room window event (when J. C. fired the 20 gauge). What, then, do the other 4 holes of the same diameter represent?

If Taylor had managed to fire 5 times during the only event when he was alleged to have shot through that window it would suggest the .22 rifle was a repeater of some sort. Similarly, if those additional holes were made by either J. C. or Taylor using the alleged .22 'target pistol', it would have had to be a repeater of some sort. Verifying whether one or both .22 guns were repeaters would help explain the alleged amount of ammo expended (see remarks earlier in this thread).
 
There are blindingly obvious similarities at certain times, however, equally not so at others.

Personally, although I bought this up for discussion, the jury is still weighing up evidence!

There's not enough of it to be absolutely sure the premise is even sustainable.

Urban raccoons in more recent years is one thing; wild raccoons being witnessed at a rural farmhouse in 1955 is an entirely different question.

Which is why, I have made some enquiries of specific local expertise, although I would doubt they have the historical knowledge to assist.

Anyway, we shall see and even if plausible, although we have cleared away some of the extraneous material which has become attached to this case over many years, eventually we start have to reconcile... why were they never, at any point, recognised as such and ultimately where is the expected hard-core evidence... why out of all the apparent direct hits from firearms at close range, were no deceased raccoons found.

Something is obviously amiss here and the fascinating aspect is that, as I emphasised from the outset, if an enigmatic like this case has sufficient merit, it will withstand scrutiny.

Kelly-Hopkinsville seems to be doing just fine, in this respect, at present.

I don't expect that to change dramatically and next year's Little Green Man festival ain't in any danger of being cancelled!
Well, this is gonna sound kinda like a "moonlight reflecting off swamp gas" explanation, but.....

If we go with the low end 4-5 shots, then it's possible they simply missed.

The account of when the shooter was firing from inside through the window, one version of that actually specifies that the intruder was startled BEFORE the shot was fired. Was it a moving target?

Also the comments of hearing a metallic ricochet.. could be the result of hitting something metal instead of a raccoon.
 
Also the comments of hearing a metallic ricochet.. could be the result of hitting something metal instead of a raccoon.

Bullets can behave strangely on striking a solid surface. I could imagine circumstances under which a .22 bullet might ricochet off a raccoon, say on striking its teeth, claws or even a rib.

The sound of ricochets being deliberately caused (.22 single-shot pistol, sound moderator (“silencer”) fitted, subsonic ammo). FF to about 0:55:


maximus otter
 
Also the comments of hearing a metallic ricochet.. could be the result of hitting something metal instead of a raccoon.
My enquiry is; do we have a situation where one single shot which Lucky Sutton claimed sounded like it hit a bucket, became the genesis for the subsequent popularised belief that shots frequently ricocheted off some kind of armour plating the little creatures were wearing.

So far as I can tell, the only source of Sutton's claim is from local radio station WHO presenter Andrew Ledwith's documented interview with the participants next morning.

As published by Isobel Davis in 'Close Encounters...':

"AT ONE POINT, LUCKY STOOD UP TO DESCRIBE HOW HE HAD FIRED ON THE APPARITION THE NIGHT BEFORE, BRINGING THE SHOTGUN DOWN TO BEAR ON THE LITTLE CREATURE, ONLY A FEW FEET AWAY. HE VOLUNTEERED THE INFORMATION AT THAT POINT THAT WHEN THE SHOT STRUCK THE CREATURE, "IT SOUNDED AS THOUGH I HAD BEEN FIRING AT A BUCKET"'."

(...)

"WHEN THE 12-GAUGE SHOTGUN DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY EFFECT, HE TURNED AND RETREATED INTO THE HOUSE".
(End)


Sutton does not say anything about the shot rebounding and we could conceivably attribute that noise to some of the shotgun pellets actually also hitting a nearby bucket on the ground - perhaps the one used to collect water.

However, in 'The Hynek UFO Report', this is erroneously published as applying to many shots fired:

"Mr. Ledwith recorded the following comments from various of the witnesses : many bullets were fired and a twelve-gauge shotgun was used. Whenever it was hit, it would float or fall over and scurry for cover. The shots when striking the object would sound as though they were hitting a bucket".

Going back to our earliest case evidence, as noted, the only related newspaper account I can locate is the following:

Madison Messenger'
Monday, August 22

"John Sutton said he fired four boxes (200) of .22 cartridges at the creatures, but they had no effect, ricocheting off the little men like they would off a steel plate.(Investigating officers reported they found only two empty .22 cartridges in the area)".

I can find no evidence to support this and suspect it's a misnomer, originating from the aforenoted single incident.

In which case, not one shot fited ever rebounded, or ricocheted at all.
 
Last edited:
... So far as I can tell, the only source of Sutton's claim is from local radio station WHO presenter Andrew Ledwith's documented interview with the participants next morning. ...
Check the D & B report, pp. 42 ff. ...

Ledwith didn't interview any of the previous night's shooters the following morning (the 22nd). He didn't arrive at the house until midday, having first heard of the incident when he went to the WHOP facility to consult with an engineer at circa 1100.

When he arrived Taylor was still out hunting and wouldn't return to the house until 1345. Ledwith created a sketch with Taylor alone before leaving during the afternoon, after deliberately leaving the women's version in plain sight for Taylor to see.

Lucky, J. C., and Baker were gone to Evansville and wouldn't return until 2030.

Ledwith returned at circa 1930, did some more sketching with Taylor, and handed Taylor off to Hodson. He specifically mentions that when Lucky first entered the house appearing agitated he saw the women's version of the sketch, calmed down, and sat to begin discussing the sketch with Ledwith.

Now about the sound-like-a-bucket bit ...

Ledwith mentions it was during his interview with Lucky and the other two men that Lucky mentioned a sound like shooting a bucket when he'd fired point blank at the visitor who'd come around the corner of the house into the front yard (following the 1st roof shot / tree shot sequence).

Ledwith first heard about the sound-of-a-bucket bit sometime after 2030 on the 22nd. By that time the initial Madisonville Messenger, Evansville Press, and Kentucky New Era newspaper articles had all been published. The New Era article doesn't mention anything about ricochets or bucket sounds. The Messenger article only mentions J. C.'s claim of ricochets.

NOTE: CN - do you have a copy or transcript of the Evansville Press article on the 22nd?

If there was a published claim of a sound-like-a-bucket on the 22nd, it could only have been in the Evansville Press.

No such claim could have been derived from Ledwith's interviewing, because he didn't hear about the bucket bit until the evening of the 22nd.

A reporter (or at least recorder of comments) and photographer from the New Era were on the scene when the police investigated in the night, and they returned the following morning.

I've never seen any specific claim that anyone from the Madisonville paper had visited the scene during the night or the following morning. This is why I've suspected (by default) Lucky and company may have stopped by the Madisonville newspaper offices while passing through to Evansville on the morning of the 22nd. On the other hand ... Some state troopers scrambled to the scene from their Madisonville station during the night, and it's entirely possible a Madisonville reporter learned of the action and followed them during the night or journeyed to Kelly the following morning.

If there's no mention of the bucket / sound bit in the Evansville article of the 22nd it would indeed seem to trace to Ledwith's notes, but it could not have been published as early as the 22nd.

There's one other possibility that comes to mind. Hopkinsville radio station WHOP folks broadcast an initial report at 0715 and 0925 on the morning of the 22nd, after which their reporter traveled to the scene and taped a short interview which was broadcast at 1230 and 1800 the same day. I suppose there's a chance someone mentioned the bucket / sound bit the night before (and reported in the earlier broadcast) or mentioned it on the taped interview broadcast later.
 
... Sutton does not say anything about the shot rebounding and we could conceivably attribute that noise to some of the shotgun pellets actually also hitting a nearby bucket on the ground - perhaps the one used to collect water.

However, in 'The Hynek UFO Report', this is erroneously published as applying to many shots fired:
"Mr. Ledwith recorded the following comments from various of the witnesses : many bullets were fired and a twelve-gauge shotgun was used. Whenever it was hit, it would float or fall over and scurry for cover. The shots when striking the object would sound as though they were hitting a bucket". ...
I've already pointed out that Lucky mentioned the bucket sound in relation to shooting a visitor in the front yard, whereas the well was in the back yard.

We don't know what Ledwith submitted to Hynek. We only have his original account of the sketch / interviews on the 22nd included in the D & B report. Either Hynek was working with a different edition of Ledwith's report (22 years later) or he (Hynek) took some liberties in (over-) generalizing Ledwith's single mention of a bucket sound as a general characteristic of any / all hits scored on the visitors. My guess is the latter ...
 
... If we go with the low end 4-5 shots, then it's possible they simply missed. ...
One or more of the early accounts states that Lucky Sutton fired his shotgun "in the air" during the first sighting / shooting event. In other words, it suggests he was trying to scare the visitor off rather than hit it.

Whether and for how long he continued this deliberately oblique shooting is something I've never been able to ascertain from the available documentation.
 
... Right then, the moment methinks to introduce Glennie Stith's version of how events unfolded, as related in her book.
As noted, I didn't want to complicate matters further, as her version differs in some key aspects and it remains unclear how much of it is reliably accurate. ...
www.forteanmedia.com/GStithBook_01.jpg
One major thing immediately struck me from the beginning of Geraldine's account. She makes it seem that Lucky, Vera, and the Taylors lived in Evansville and were visiting Kelly on a short (e.g., long weekend) jaunt.

Davis and others have consistently indicated these two couples had been continuously staying at Ms. Lankford's house for some time.
One fact was considered by the skeptics to weigh particularly heavily in favor of the hoax theory— that Billy Ray Taylor and Lucky Sutton worked for a traveling carnival. They had come to the farm from the carnival some time that summer (though they did not arrive together) , and rejoined it when they left, early in October.
(D & B report, p. 77)
 
Last edited:
The Shiny, Glowing, Floating Entities...

In an attempt to perhaps separate some fact from fiction, these are the two earliest newspaper reports, both from next day:

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August, 1955

"Spokesmen for the crowd told of how something resembling a space ship or flying saucer had landed at the back of their house near Kelly and 12 or 15 men, who appeared to be about 4 feet tall, had got out of the ship and come up to the house and done battle with the occupants.

(...)

About 7 p.m. one of the men went out of the house to get a bucket of water. He saw what looked like a flying saucer come over the trees and land in a field at a point about a city block behind the house.

(...)

A short time later somebody reported some little men with big heads and long arms were approaching the house. The men were described as having huge eyes and hands out of proportion to their small bodies. The visitors were wearing what looked to be metal plate".
(End)


'Madisonville Messenger'
Monday, August 22

"About 30 or 40 minutes later they noticed "two or three shiny little men," about three or four feet tall. walking toward the rear of the house. In a moment the little men were "all over the place," about 15 of them in the yard, on the roof and in the trees".

(...)

"John Sutton said he fired four boxes (200) of .22 cartridges at the creatures, but they had no effect, ricocheting off the little men like they would off a steel plate. (Investigating officers reported they found only two empty .22 cartridges in the area)".

(...)

"The little men were described as follows: three to four feet tall, shiny "like chrome" all over...".
(End)

In essence:

"...wearing what looked to be metal plate".

"...shiny "like chrome" all over...".


Then we have those depictions from Ledwith's sketches. In the woman's sketch, it's noted:

"Skin (or covering) - texture neither smooth nor wrinkled, had qualities of both but neither predominated. It seemed to be the actual skin".

The men's sketch merely states:

"Body powerfully above waist, muscles clearly seen".

So, what happened to the "metal plate" and "chrome"?


Arguably the most important aspect of our entire case and widely popularised is how the men were initially startled by glowing creatures appearing to float towards them.

Where then, did this claim originate?

In the 1978 'Close Encounters' publication, Isobel Davis writes:

"...half an hour or so later - around eight o'clock - the dog begin to bark violently. Lucky Sutton and Billy Ray Taylor went to the back door and looked out to see what was bothering the animal.

(...)

Approaching from the fields was a strange glow. As it came nearer, they could make out what seemed to be a small "man" - though a man now much like any they had ever seen before. He was about three and a half feet tall...

(...)

The whole creature was seemingly made of silver metal that gave off an eerie ight in the darkness, like the light from the radium dial on a watch.

The creature's hands were raised now, "as if someone had told him he was about to be robbed." He was approaching the house slowly, moving toward the back door.

Confronted by the frightening unknown, men used to guns reach instinctively for something to shoot with".
(End)

Presumably this is all based on Mrs. Langford's recollections, when interviewed by Isobel Davis during early 1956?

How could Mrs. Lankford know such precise details of this initial contact - something she wasn't involved in - and how much 'artistic license' is being employed here by Isobel Davis.

For example, in full and directly quoting Lucky Sutton, she writes

"Lucky Sutton and Billy Ray Taylor went to the back door and looked out to see what was bothering the animal.

The dog then put his tail between his legs and ran under the house, not to be seen again until the next day. Lucky was sarcastic: "Shit! A real good dog - ran away after this thing appeared"."

Is there, once again as regards the general perception of this case in more recent years, any actual evidence to back up the story of small beings which at first sight, floated out of a mysterious glow towards the farmhouse?

Was there any mention of it before 'Close Encounters...' was published, or is this the genesis of yet another case myth?
 
Last edited:
NOTE: CN - do you have a copy or transcript of the Evansville Press article on the 22nd
No and it isn't for the want of trying - I came this close just yesterday!

Screenshot_20210818-044039.jpg


The newspapers.com archives only go up to 1927, however, it seems there are copies available here (note: this online information dates from 2009):

Indiana State Libr, Indianapolis
Available as: Microfilm Service
Dates: 1937-1998

Evansville Vanderburgh Pub Libr, Evansville
Available as: Original
Dates: Jul 1906-1998

Indiana State Libr, Indianapolis
Available as: Original
Dates: 1912-1976

Indiana Univ, Bloomington
Available as: Unspecified
Dates: 1952-1975

An inter-library request might work for your good self - in the past even my small local library in the UK, has quickly obtained photocopies of articles from publications in the US.

Yes, I would really like to see this as well.:):headbang:

Incidentally, the cover photograph of Lucky Sutton demonstrating how the flying saucer he never actually witnessed had flown, is presumably staged and the photographer has requested same, with Sutton just going along with it rather than explaining!
 
The Shiny, Glowing, Floating Entities...

Arguably the most important aspect of our entire case and widely popularised is how the men were initially startled by glowing creatures appearing to float towards them.

Where then, did this claim originate?

Was there any mention of it before 'Close Encounters...' was published, or is this the genesis of yet another case myth?
The earliest-compiled account to repeatedly mention glows and glowing was the Isabel Davis report published within the Close Encounter ... book in 1978 / 1979. Her investigation was conducted in June 1956, and she relied on a number of informants and sources. At the time she was affiliated with CSI. It's not clear when her Hopkinsville investigative report was completed and / or whether it was published in any manner prior to its inclusion as the central component of the Close Encounter ... compendium.

Davis' sources for the glowing claims remain unclear. She gathered information from many sources, but her report doesn't specify how or where she received the bits about glowing.

The Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle article of 24 August (by or based largely on Hodson) notes that although the visitors' bodies were shiny, they glowed or lit up whenever they shouted "according to all the witnesses." It's unclear how this claim correlates with the more universal claim the visitors never made any sounds whatsoever.

Sanders (p. 22) refers to glows or glowing only once:
Newswire stories mentioned 'glowing green men' and even 'a terrible stench.' These descriptive phrases were either borrowed from other 'little men' stories and added by imaginative reporters, or the Sutton family had told the reporters more than they had told the investigating officers.
... which raises the possibility the glowing bit was a post hoc gloss that Davis may have mistaken for reliable data.

Sanders' account may be the earliest-compiled account mentioning the floating bit. Her description of the first sighting says, "According to some of the witnesses they were not walking, but 'seemed to float' toward them." She relates how the visitor Taylor shot off a barrel finally "floated off in the direction of the spaceship."
 
Last edited:
The Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle article of 24 August (by or based largely on Hodson) notes that although the visitors' bodies were shiny, they glowed or lit up whenever they shouted "according to all the witnesses." It's unclear how this claim correlates with the more universal claim the visitors never made any sounds whatsoever.
Thank you once again for all of the invaluable feedback.

It's immediately helpful in stripping away the many extraneous layers so that we can see what we are actually dealing with here.

I can kinda assist with the above issue.

In 'Close Encounters...', Isobel Davis includes the claim, however, it's changed to say jt allegedly occurred when the small creatures were shouted at, not when they shouted out.

Whichever version is correct is probably immaterial, as they shouldn't have been lighting up st all!! :D

This touches on something which came up today and is causing concern. I shall address that separately.
 
... In 'Close Encounters...', Isobel Davis includes the claim, however, it's changed to say jt allegedly occurred when the small creatures were shouted at, not when they shouted out. ...
And when the visitors were shot at ...

Except for the big glowing yellow eyes, the creatures were the same "color" all over. In the dark, this was a phosphores cent or luminescent glow, but when a light was turned on them this changed to a dull metallic look. The body surface gave the witnesses the impression that it was skin; if it was some kind of a space suit, as has been suggested, it covered them completely. The glow of the bodies increased when they were shot at or shouted at--as if noise affected the luminosity.
(D & B report, p. 29)
 
...why were they never, at any point, recognised as such and ultimately where is the expected hard-core evidence... why out of all the apparent direct hits from firearms at close range, were no deceased raccoons found.

Something is obviously amiss here.
In the aforementioned documents recently uncovered by @EnolaGaia - see post #420 - the following exists:

Screenshot_20210818-194637~2.jpg


Although I was prepared to write off the claim that "Lucky" Sutton had lied about one or more aspects, I came across the following earlier and it necessitates second-thoughts about this.

It's an article published by the 'Kentucky New Era', on 13 August, 2005:

The Kelly 'commotion'

www.forteanmedia.com/NewEra_01.pdf

Quoting from therein:

"Lonnie concedes that his older brother, 'Lucky' had a reputation for telling tales and that he drank.

But on that night, 'Lucky' wasn't drinking and he didn't invent a story about space creatures.

"He was one of the biggest liars in Hopkinsville, but he didn't lie about that," Lonnie said".

There is a scenario where at some point during originally genuinely alarming events, it was in fact recognised what was actually happening and they were not shooting aliens at all.

Still, here was potentially a money-making opportunity - just need to get rid of the evidence otherwise. There could obviously be no dead animals left lying around.

Although it was publicised that family were soon charging a .50 cents entry fee, that's apparently not the whole story. It was also $1 for information and $10 for taking pictures- see:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hi...e-green-men-origins-aliens-hopkinsville-kelly

Isobel Davis also notes:

"Billy Ray Taylor was reported by Mr. Andre to have taken money from two reporters for his story; "the Taylors were destitute"."

Was there a deviation from the truth, in the hope of making some quick bucks and things just quickly got out of hand?

It's just that doubt ...there's something not quite right, somewhere along the line...

Anyway, thoughts on same most assuredly welcome
 
Agreed ... I increasingly think there was a 'lie' of sorts being promoted and leveraged on the 21st / 22nd - a lie that grew out of proportion to the extent it made one or more of its co-conspirators so bitter afterward that they avoided talking about it.

Whenever you can pause the waves of varied queries and points you've been lobbing at me I think I'm ready to reveal the hypothesis that's been developing in my mind for the last week or so.

This doesn't mean I'm asking you to shut up. If anything, the points you've been bringing up (and my careful responses thereto) have done much to lay the groundwork for the reveal.
 
The hypothesis to which I've referred first occurred to me when reviewing Geraldine Stith's videos (cf. my posts of 30 July). I have posted some criticisms of Geraldine's account of events, but that doesn't mean I dismiss her out of hand. She's a descendant who wants to honor her family by passing along the story for which they are famous. I can't be too hard on her for her storytelling because she first heard the story over a half-century ago from her father (Lucky; who wasn't prone to talk about the incident at all) when she was only 8 years old and the incident was already 13 years in the past.

At one point Geraldine mentioned the house's occupants moved as a group from the rear to the front of the house, and at another point that they moved as a group from the front to the rear. This struck me as the sort of thing (e.g.) Ringo might want to achieve in an audience during a performance.

Musing on this group behavior led me to revisit many of the individual documented claims and descriptions in a different light. At some point - largely based on my own experiences in a large extended farm (-derived) family in the American south during the Fifties - I apprehended a gestalt of what might really have been going on that night. Further review, weighing, and evaluation of evidence increasingly supported this gestalt as a viable explanation that seemed to fit the facts and explain some of the case's ambiguities - including these ambiguities' sources and reasons for leaving them ambiguous.

Ever since then - up through today's back-and-forth exchanges with Comfortably Numb - each aspect we've been examining consistently seems to fit with the emerging hypothesis. This includes a key statement that leapt off the page at me when I read the excerpts CN posted from Geraldine's book.
 
Back
Top