Kelly / Hopkinsville (Kentucky) 'Goblins' Incident (1955)

[EnolaGaia]

Preface: Predilections & perceived obligations of farm families in that era

I need to explain my own background to illustrate what came to strongly resonate within me in relation to the Kelly / Hopkinsville scenario.

Both sides of my family were one generation removed from full-time farming, yet still connected to older forebears still living on the 'ancestral' lands. My parents' generations on both sides had grown up in a full-time farming environment during the Depression. Both grandfathers started out as full-time farmers. My maternal grandfather remained so the rest of his life. My paternal grandfather eventually transitioned to blue collar employment, but continued to live on the land that had been his farm - land that was subdivided so his four children (the entire paternal side) would live in one place as his and each others' neighbors. This is where I grew up.

In the southern farm culture there was a strong perceived obligation to care for one's elders within the family. There were two general strategies for handling this responsibility. The first was to keep the entire family living close enough together to facilitate persistent sharing and caregiving. This was the approach used in my paternal family. My great-grandmother lived out her final years at my grandparents' home next door, and my grandparents' final years were stewarded by my parents, aunts and uncles who lived next door to them.

The second strategy was for at least one child to be more or less assigned to care for an elder as a live-in caregiver / helper in the elder's own home (usually the children's original home). This was the strategy used in my maternal family. A single unmarried aunt lived with my maternal grandfather and took care of the farm and household tasks. Her siblings subscribed, so to speak, by sending her money from their scattered locations - in effect paying her to be a dedicated helper / caregiver.

I apologize for this temporary and sentimental tangent, but it's necessary to set the context for what I believe was a hellward road originally paved with good intentions.

 

[EnolaGaia]

First - let's review ...

(1) Who is documented as actually seeing any of the visitors?

I refer you to the tabular summaries of events based on the D & B and Sanders reports. The set of people explicitly cited as having personally observed at least one visitor is smaller than the set of people occupying the house that night. This set of direct witnesses includes Lucky, J. C. and Alene Sutton, along with Billy Ray Taylor. These witnesses are directly responsible for the descriptions of both the events and the visitors.

There is, of course, one additional direct witness - Ms. Glennie Lankford.

I list the set of witnesses as these two subsets for reasons I shall explicate below.

 

[EnolaGaia]

(2) What was the household situation at the time of the incident?

The scene was the Sutton / Lankford farm place - a very modest tenant farmhouse on a few acres of land. The person apparently entitled to the homestead was Ms. Glennie Lankford, by virtue of the fact her deceased second husband Oscar Lankford left it to her (or it somehow fell to her ascribed control) upon his death.

The exact nature of Ms. Lankford's entitlement to the home place is murky. Some evidence suggests she was renting or leasing the property - quite possibly as a residual effect of some contractual tenant or farm employment agreement between her late husband and Mr. McGehee. Other evidence suggests she (and / or others) were considering or actually buying the place. It's not clear she was the titled owner of the place in any legal sense. For example, Sanders reported Ms. Lankford had been considering buying the place prior to the incident. In contrast, Davis (p. 75) claimed 'they' (perhaps meaning Ms. Lankford and / or J. C.) were already in the process of buying the farm.

None of the accounts I've seen give the impression the home place was a viable working farm at the time. It's mentioned that there was a garden and that there were some pigs. There was a goat pen or shed, but there's no confirmation any goats were being kept at the time. Perhaps most telling is the reported lack of chickens - i.e., no self-replenishing supply of daily eggs and Sunday fried chicken meals.

Davis reported the family grew - or had grown - tobacco. This would have been the only significant cash crop on the home place. At that time tobacco production was under federal control, and entitlement to grow a crop depended on maintaining one's formal allotment / quota. This maintenance required bringing a crop to market each year.

The weather during the month preceding the incident had been hot and dry - not good weather for late-season tobacco maturation. I suspect the crop (if one had been planted at all) was not doing well, and I further suspect the vegetable garden wasn't doing all that well either.

To the extent there was any farm-type activity being conducted (e.g., tending the home garden) Ms. Lankford was probably supported by the two other persistent adult residents - her son J. C. and his wife Alene. There's no mention of J. C. being employed anywhere at the time of the incident. There wouldn't have been many employment opportunities in the small village of Kelly. There's one mention of one of the women traveling to her regular job in Hopkinsville the day following the incident, and this was Alene (Davis, p. 75).

 

[EnolaGaia]

(3) What was Ms. Lankford's situation at the time of the incident?

Glennie Lankford was a widow (possibly twice-widowed, but the documentation isn't clear on that) who'd spent her adult life as a farm wife and mother. She was 50 years old - a relatively 'older' state at that time than we would ascribe for that age today. She'd had 8 children with her two deceased husbands.

Her two oldest sons - Tillman Jr. and Frank Sutton - lived in Hopkinsville. Her sole Sutton daughter Violet was married and lived in Michigan.

The second-youngest son (Lucky) worked with a traveling carnival and wasn't usually at hand, though he was staying with Ms. Lankford that summer. Lucky's pal Taylor probably provided additional help with the garden and hunting. Davis (p. 15) states these two men and their wives had been staying with Ms. Lankford "for some months" at the time of the incident.

The youngest son (J. C.) lived full-time at Ms. Lankford's home - quite possibly as the assigned helper within the family (cf. my remarks about the two strategies for supporting an elder in such families in that place and time). Davis characterizes J. C. as "the actual operator of the farm." (p. 15)

Lucky and Taylor were going to leave to go back on the road with the carnival, so this extended support wasn't going to last.

Ms. Lankford had to support and raise three much younger children from her second (Lankford) marriage - ages 12, 10 and 7.

She had a lot of burdens to carry, probably insufficient ability to run a sustainable farm on her own, and a need to rely on her adult children to even maintain a semblance of independent economic viability.

 

[EnolaGaia]

(4) What strategic problem was Ms. Lankford's family facing that summer?

IMHO ... It was increasingly clear Mama couldn't make a go of the farm and raise her 3 minor children on her own. Her adult sons were (presumably) willing to help support her, but they were constrained by her continued residence at the old farm place out in the country. To make matters worse, J. C.'s placement at the farm limited his ability to help with financially supporting Mama above and beyond the extent to which this situation crimped his own life and affairs.

 

[EnolaGaia]

(5) What was the most obvious solution path to resolving the untenable situation out at Kelly?

Move Ms. Lankford and her minor children to Hopkinsville, where the oldest sons could more directly help support her and J. C. (and possibly Alene, too) could more readily have full-time work as well. Such a move would also provide an opportunity for Ms. Lankford and the youngest kids to live in a more modern and convenient setting.

 

[EnolaGaia]

(6) What was standing in the way of pursuing this straightforward solution?

It appears Ms. Lankford was savvy enough to understand the problems with her situation, but it also appears she was grappling with inertia, denial, and / or indecision.

Davis (p. 75) claims "they" were buying the farm at the time of the incident, but doesn't specify who was the buyer or owner of record. If it was Ms. Lankford her ability to complete the purchase depended on family help. If it was J. C. the probably poor farm outlook that summer undermined confidence in their purchase campaign.

According to Sanders (p. 22) Ms. Lankford told Sheriff Greenwell the following day:
... her husband had worked the small tract of ground on which the house stood before his death, and that she had contemplated buying the house. "But after last night, I don't know," she stated.

This Lankford quote illustrates two points:

(a) Ms. Lankford had been considering committing herself to remaining on the farm place and ...
(b) The incident had made her back off that inclination to make such a commitment.

Item (b) is the more significant point, because it indicated the plan was successful ...

 

[EnolaGaia]

(7) Plan?!? What plan?

Now let me return to item (1) - the actual direct witnesses, and my subdivision of them into two subsets:

(a) Lucky, J. C. and Alene Sutton, and Taylor - the witnesses directly responsible for most of the descriptions of both the events and the visitors.

(b) Ms. Glennie Lankford.

Group (a) was immediately energized as events unfolded - running around, portraying and instilling progressive panic, and shooting at things all but one of the others are not documented as ever directly seeing.

Ms. Lankford, on the other hand, was the sole adult who kept her cool - dismissing the initial report, presuming the frantic activity was mere horseplay, worrying about the minor children, asking to see what the shooters claimed to be seeing, and repeatedly suggesting everyone should calm down and back down.

This dichotomy makes sense if one thinks of it as group (a) putting on a show for a target audience of one (Ms. Lankford) - the only one they seemed to be trying to convince.

My newly emergent hypothesis is that regardless of what may or may not have happened to trigger the 21 August incident, and regardless of why it was decided to contextualize things in terms of a frightening UFO / alien visitor motif ...

Beginning with Taylor's breathless report of what he'd allegedly seen out at the well, there was a concerted effort to gaslight Ms. Lankford and influence her to give up on the farm and move to Hopkinsville.

Geraldine's book states that Lucky went hunting that Sunday morning (the 21st) while Ms. Lankford and others went to church, then traveled to Hopkinsville to visit his older brothers. I think this could well have been a consultation to discuss Ms. Lankford's situation and get a consensus on what needed to happen (for her sake), whether or not Lucky discussed any eventual plan with them. Ms. Lankford went to Sunday evening services following the evening meal, affording Lucky and company some time to prepare.

Once Ms. Lankford was back home and cleaning up the meal's dishes (etc.) the stage was set, and the show could begin.

It took a while for her to take the bait, but once she'd finally seen whatever they were using to represent a visitor, she started getting scared. The eventual rush to the sheriff's office probably seemed like a good idea that added gravity to the fear they were trying to instill in Ms. Lankford. In case the lack of evidence found by the night investigators gave the impression there'd been nothing to it at all and no reason to worry, the co-conspirators gave her another dose (the 0330 sighting / shooting) as a booster shot.

As Ms. Lankford told Sheriff Greenwell the following day:

... she had contemplated buying the house. "But after last night, I don't know," she stated.
(Sanders, p. 22)

It worked!

The next morning Lucky, J. C. and Baker traveled to Evansville to pick up furniture or borrow a truck to carry furniture. Why? It worked, and Ms. Lankford would be moving away from the farmhouse.

This expedition was supposedly already planned before the incident. I think some indication of Ms. Lankford's indecision or resistance to moving off the farm could have impelled them to the extreme of scaring her into doing what should have been an obvious solution to what should have been seen as her obvious dilemma.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Initial thoughts...

Yes... no... maybe...

...and somewhere in between.

You portray a scenario where perhaps the following fits and not sure this is common knowledge.

In her book, Geraldine explains one of her father's roles with the carnival...

"I know my dad did all kinds of things in the carnival, one was being the Barker. He would get up in front of us kids when we were younger and pretend he was the Barker and announce some of the stuff that was going on in the carnival".

Would that be as in...

"Step right up folks, step right up...".

One thing I would like to clarify is the following, where in the aforementioned documents, we have this fundamental assertion that concerning the entire affair, Sutton confessed:

"Well, that was just a big d__________ lie'!"

What word is blocked and why?

Anyway, more to consider now and personally one remains ambivalent concerning deception being a factor at all.

One thing I am pretty much now sure of, is that there were indigenous small creatures involved and will likewise set out my reasoning and key evidence later today.

This will be based on the premise that the story, as written in its various guises, is essentially genuine, although that is always subject to revision, should the goalposts move again!

 

[EnolaGaia]

In her book, Geraldine explains one of her father's roles with the carnival...
"I know my dad did all kinds of things in the carnival, one was being the Barker. He would get up in front of us kids when we were younger and pretend he was the Barker and announce some of the stuff that was going on in the carnival".
Would that be as in...
"Step right up folks, step right up...".

Yes - the barker is the guy out front whose job it is to attract attention and funnel people into a particular show / amusement / attraction.

One thing I would like to clarify is the following, where in the aforementioned documents, we have this fundamental assertion that concerning the entire affair, Sutton confessed:
"Well, that was just a big d__________ lie'!"
What word is blocked and why?

Unless it's "damn(ed)" I have no idea.
This claim came from another party - a J. T. Gooch (a local man who authored a local history) - quoting what Lucky said. In conservative rural Kentucky to this day some folks avoid even such mild cursing, especially in print.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Perhaps of more general importance (re: J. T. Gooch) ... In the passage at issue he wrote:

About three years [1958? Probably after the Armstrong Theatre show was aired] after the attack when Elmer Sutton, Cecil's brother, and [Raymond] McCord were riding together in a truck, Elmer asked McCord, 'Do you remember the story about the little green men?'

Gross, Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse: UFOs: A History, p. 30.

Throughout the convoluted mass of documentation there are repeated allusions to a 'Cecil' - typically a 'Cecil Sutton' whom in context always seems to be Lucky. Lucky's brother J. C. was identified by Davis as "John Charley" (D & B report, p. 14). Davis makes no mention of any 'Cecil'. Neither can I locate any explanation for who this 'Cecil' is supposed to be except in those situations where the name is applied to someone identified as Lucky elsewhere.

I was initially operating on the presumption 'Cecil' was a mistaken allusion to Elmer / Lucky or perhaps an invocation of a nickname of Lucky's that no one bothered to mention as such. Now that I've seen the Gross document I'm not so sure.

It could be critical to resolve the ambiguity about this oft-cited 'Cecil'. In the specific case of the Gooch quote, it affects the understanding of how many people were riding in the truck. More generally, it would overturn what we think we know about who did what during the incident if the oft-cited 'Cecil' is not Lucky.

Is 'Cecil' someone by relation to whom the third rider is identified in lieu of a name, or is Gooch claiming the mysterious 'Cecil' is brother to Lucky?

If it's the latter case this 'Cecil' would have to be J. C. Was J. C.'s middle name actually Cecil? Was J. C. nicknamed Cecil?

 

[Lb8535]

YAY thank you Enola. Four pages back I noted that something was going on here and it wasn't little green men. Great placing in culrural and economic context; I've been wondering all along what these guys were all doing in this one rather unpromising spot sonce it didn't sound like a working farm. No chickens? And somewhere back buried in the docs it notes that one of the men had had an experience with saucers before, could have been the germ of the idea.

I don't buy the idea of an advance plot, sounds like a poor episode of a not so great 50"s rural sitcom (hey I have an idea about how to get mom to move to town) but I can see it developing from incident to incident. And the general group just didn't behave like people with the ptsd this experience would have engendered. Short of emergency, you just wouldn't go about your business the next day.

So many of these stories are really not about aliens but about humans.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Yes, agreed ... The eventual UFO / alien visitor angle could have been the result of extemporaneous improvisation toward enacting something that was already a topic of discussion among a few of the residents. That's why I qualified my exposition with respect to what exactly triggered it all. This approach doesn't even rule out the idea Taylor really saw an anomalous UFO, because it's not about the trigger but rather the impact on the residents.

For example ... Consider the fact there were two other independent reports of meteors seen in the same area traveling in the same direction Taylor reported at circa 1830 - at least half an hour before he's said to have gone out to the well and kick-started the night's escapades. Maybe that was the trigger.

The key elements that motivated exploring this hypothesis were the apparent fact only a few of the residents were documented as actually seeing a visitor and the strange fact the one resident least caught up in the evening's frenzy eventually experienced two sightings specific to her and her alone (once you set aside the apparent conspirators / 'barkers'). All the other residents had to do to get into the flow was to accept something weird was happening.

Ms. Glennie was the only resident who had an initial (dismissive) attitude that had to be counteracted or overturned, and she was the one who became the audience for what were in effect private showings. It struck me that this may not have been a mere coincidence.

As time went on - especially when responding to CN's queries over the last several days - I found that this take on the incident seemed to fit the reports and most reliable facts as well or better than anything proposed earlier.

I haven't posted about side-effects and after-effects (yet), but this approach also explains how and why the event became a sore point with (e.g.) Lucky and J. C. Their anger at having been accused of drunkenness or inept hoaxing was amplified by an inability to reveal the real story without setting off a major family upheaval.

It even explains why Taylor and Lucky readily adopted and discussed the Ledwith sketches when they returned to the house and were blind-sided by the attempt (already in progress) to illustrate what they uniquely knew to be incapable of illustration. I think Alene may have saved the conspiracy on the 22nd by describing whatever she could to appease Ledwith, and Ledwith unwittingly gave both Taylor and Lucky a way out of being put on the spot by allowing them to see the women's sketch so they could simply seize upon it and keep the scam going.

 

[catseye]

I have to say that the whole thing sounds like some kind of delusion induced by something external. If it genuinely was some kind of hallucination, then the resulting confusion in who saw what, who did what and what happened then, is perfectly understandable. It doesn't even have to be a 'shared' hallucination - if everyone is hallucinating, then the similarities between what people saw could be due to conflation and general community reinforcement of a story between themselves.

 

[charliebrown]

Wikipedia claims psychologists use this event as an academic example to teach students to recognize truth from fiction.

I still want to know why military police were present from Fort Campbell, since this was way out of their jurisdiction.

The military police never leave the base.

Was something paranormal really going on ?

 

[EnolaGaia]

... I still want to know why military police were present from Fort Campbell, since this was way out of their jurisdiction. ...

According to Davis the four MPs were assigned to Fort Campbell but didn't come from Fort Campbell that night.

Besides the people already mentioned, there were at least four MP's (on duty in Hopkinsville from Fort Campbell) ...

(D & B report, p. 34)

Hopkinsville isn't all that far from the Fort Campbell complex (which spans the border between Kentucky and Tennessee). Davis mentions Hopkinsville was an outlying area that Fort Campbell personnel knew and / or used for residential, recreational and shopping purposes.

My guess is that MPs may have been assigned to routine duty positions in or around Hopkinsville to respond to any incidents involving Fort Campbell personnel and / or provide security aid to road or rail movements to / from the base complex. It's not unusual for MPs to be posted off-base in areas where a lot of base-related personnel are living. Their jurisdiction is bounded by relation to military operations, not military base perimeters.

These MPs were the only military personnel listed as present who were on duty and presumably participating in the context of their duties. Other military folks associated with Fort Campbell (e.g., PFC Hodson and Major Albert) went to the scene on their own motion. Hodson came as an interested private citizen. Albert was on his way to Fort Campbell for reserve training, contacted the base when he heard about the incident on the news, and was given permission to divert to check it out since he was in the vicinity on his way to the base.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I have to say that the whole thing sounds like some kind of delusion induced by something external. If it genuinely was some kind of hallucination, then the resulting confusion in who saw what, who did what and what happened then, is perfectly understandable. It doesn't even have to be a 'shared' hallucination - if everyone is hallucinating, then the similarities between what people saw could be due to conflation and general community reinforcement of a story between themselves.

In this case, the popular retellings of the story make it seem as if everyone saw everything that night. However, closer examination of the documented facts and diverse reports reveals there's no solid basis for this presumption. It's not even the case that everyone personally witnessed the shooting events occurring outside the house.

The only persons reasonably known to have directly seen the alleged beings were the primary witnesses listed in the summaries I posted earlier.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Throughout the convoluted mass of documentation there are repeated allusions to a 'Cecil' - typically a 'Cecil Sutton' whom in context always seems to be Lucky. Lucky's brother J. C. was identified by Davis as "John Charley" (D & B report, p. 14). Davis makes no mention of any 'Cecil'. Neither can I locate any explanation for who this 'Cecil' is supposed to be except in those situations where the name is applied to someone identified as Lucky elsewhere. ...

I think I've finally solved the mystery of the many allusions to "Cecil Sutton", most of which seem to be referring to Elmer 'Lucky' Sutton.

The allusions apparently derive from authors' mistaken conflation of two Kentucky Sutton men of roughly similar age - both of whom died in 1994 and both of whom had "Elmer" in their given names. One is 'Lucky', and the other was an unrelated man from the Louisville area.

Here are the basic facts about 'our' Elmer Sutton (i.e., 'Lucky') ...

Elmer Roland Sutton
BIRTH 25 Aug 1929
Hopkinsville, Christian County, Kentucky, USA
DEATH 5 Dec 1994 (aged 65)
Paducah, McCracken County, Kentucky, USA

Kentucky New Era obit posted 06 Dec 1994 reads as follows:

Elmer R Sutton Sr., 65, Cadiz, died at 6:23 am Monday at Western Baptist Hospital, Paducah, following an illness.

Services will be at 10 am Wednesday at Goodwin Funeral Home, with the Rev. Dale Ford officiating and burial in Trigg Memory Acres.

Visitation will begin at 4 this afternoon at the funeral home.

A native of Christian County, he was born Aug. 25, 1929, son of the late Tilman and Gleanie Brasher Sutton. He was a retired farmer and a Baptist. A son, Charles Joseph Sutton, died in 1985.

Survivors include two sons, Daniel Ray Sutton and Elmer Sutton Jr., both of Trigg County; two daughters, Geraldine Hawkins, Caldwell County, and Glenda Sue Laureano, Trigg County; a sister, Violet Monroe, Michigan; and four grandchildren.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/129933113/elmer-roland-sutton

Now here are the facts about the other ' ... Elmer Sutton' known as 'Cecil' ...

Cecil Elmer Sutton
BIRTH 13 May 1931
Bullitt County, Kentucky, USA
DEATH 16 Jan 1994 (aged 62)
Jefferson County, Kentucky, USA

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/67561357/cecil-elmer-sutton

Cecil Elmer Sutton, 62, died Sunday at home. He was a native of Knob Creek, a retired mechanic for the Jefferson County Board of Education, a member of Knob Creek Baptist Church and former town marshal of West Point. Survivors: his wife, the former Frances Young; two stepdaughters, Sylvia Foster of West Point and Sandra Wingler; two stepsons, Charles and Steven Brown; two sisters, Hazel Colgate and Mary Muss; 12 grandchildren; and 12 greatgrandchildren.

The Courier-Journal from Louisville, Kentucky - January 17, 1994, Page 14
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/111063382/

 

[Comfortably Numb]

One thing I am pretty much now sure of, is that there were indigenous small creatures involved and will likewise set out my reasoning and key evidence later today.

This will be based on the premise that the story, as written in its various guises, is essentially genuine, although that is always subject to revision, should the goalposts move again!

Keeping that caveat very much in mind, the following summary outlines present conclusions.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

A Brief History of Time

My formative years in ufology were often spent on the telephone to Graham Birdsall, editor of 'UFO Magazine'

I had become friends with the gregarious, bearded, big Yorkshireman at their annual conference in Leeds.

We rarely spoke about UFOs, both even more passionate about football, with Graham being a season ticket holder at his beloved Leeds Utd.

During that time, I wrote a number of articles for the magazine and began an in-depth investigation into Kenneth Arnold's 24 June, 1947 sighting, which was the genesis of contemporary ufology.

This endeavour necessitated two years of research and the outcome was published as the feature article in FT 137, August 2000.

Arnold inevitably led to the Lonnie Zamora-Socoro 24 April, 1964 case and another two years of detective work, which eventually resulted in uncovering the existence of a hitherto unknown CIA sponsored operation. It was highly classified and remains so until this day.

Subsequently spending even more time on the late December, 1980 Rendlesham Forest UFO incidents, I finally located copies of the original witness testimonies, which documented their abortive two mile pursuit of what turned out to be a lighthouse beacon, a possibility which had beforehand been ridiculed.

It is no more than taking on the role of 'Devil's advocate' and sometimes this inexorably leads to a disclosure of evidence which is not universally welcomed.

I do, as they say, have 'previous form'.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

In the Beginning, There Was...

To begin with, we must go back.

On 24 June, 1947, private pilot Kenneth Arnold's observed nine puzzling objects, flying in formation close to Mt Rainier. Arnold subsequently remarked to the press how they flew with an undulating motion, like "speed boats on rough water", or "like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water."

It was the latter phrase which stuck and thus, 'fly saucers' were born, even though the objects Arnold witnessed, were not even remotely 'saucer-shaped', at all.

This is a rare illustration, I unearthed:

Forward to August, 1955 and it's against this background the Kelly-Hopkinsville case must be considered.

'Flying Saucers' were still an alarming prospect, although now moreso viewed as possible spaceships, rather than initial fears in the cold war climate in July 1947, that they were a new secret weapon, possessed by the Soviet Union.

On the night of 21 August, 1955, there were meteorite sightings from the tail end of the annual Perseids meteor shower, which would last until around August 24.

There were seeningly even two seen by law enforcement officers at the farm, whilst investigating.

As we know, the story of events begins with Billy Ray Taylor fetching water from the outside well around 7:30 p.m., during which he witnessed a bright object travel across the sky, leaving a coloured trail behind.

There are different versions of whether the object had disappeared from sight behind a treeline, or he thought it had landed. Furthermore, variances as to whether Taylor said at the time he thought it was a spacecraft and if he did, he perhaps wasn't taken seriously.

Whatever actually transpired, this inaugural incident become inextricably linked with ensuing developments.

When they reached Hopkinsville police station, the story was not concerning two separate occurrences.

A 'flying saucer' had landed and on board were small, frightening creatures, who had besieged the farmhouse and this resulted in a 'gunfight', which had lasted some 3 hours, before the farmhouse occupants were able to make a break and reach the safety of Hopkinsville and its police station, to seek help.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

"They Came From Outer Space"... Or Did They...?

Before addressing the subject of those diminutive entities, it's prerequisite to evaluate any evidence for a spaceship having landed nearby.

Ledwith's sketch of the craft, as described by Taylor, essentially depicted an archetypical 'flying saucer'.

By the time, shortly afterwards, another sketch had been compiled by Pt. Hodson's accompanying artist from Ft.. Campbell, Taylor had added a ring of lights around the object and this drawing was published by the 'Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle' on 24 August with the erroneous claim the witnesses "all agreed" this was what they had seen landing and taking off again and which "glowed all over and spewed fire of a wonderful colour from its rear".

Given the documented meteor sightings that night and Taylor's portrayal of Arnold's misconstrued 'flying saucer', it has to be concluded there is zero merit to any suggestion of an extraterrestrial incursion.

That is pivotal.

For Kelly-Hopkinsville to have any remote prospect of a truly anomalous happening, it elementally needs a visitation by little men from outer space.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Curiouser and Curiouser

In the documentary, 'Monsters of the UFO...' - see post #276 - Dr Barry Taff concludes:

"These beings, these creatures, whatever they were, wherever they were from, displayed an almost very unusual intrique and I guess curiosity, that is uncommon with this type of phenomena".

In the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) 1978 publication, 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955', by Isabel Davis and Ted Bloecher, it's a sentiment which is expressed by Isabel Davis, using exactly the same terminology

"They never exhibited any behavior that could be described as hostile. They made no attempt to retaliate for the shooting. They never attempted to enter the house, simply stood at a door or window looking in. If performed by human beings, their actions would be interpreted as profound curiosity..."

This alone, instantly identifies one indigenous, small creature as an outstanding candidate...

The raccoon, with whom the word "curious" is synonymous.

The straightforward question then becomes, is there sufficient evidence to substantiate this.

A near and lengthy observation is one which Mrs. Langford had, during that second episode and it provides key testimony from what may have been the closest encounter of all.

Mrs Langford describes how whilst in bed, a 2½ feet tall creature had been seen and was so close, she could see "his little clawy hands" touching her bedroom window.

That would be consistent, for example:

Further required would be witness accounts of the small creatures exhibiting inherent characteristics of walking on all four limbs and also capable of climbing.

They did both, even climbing up trees and jumping from them onto the rooftop, where they could be heard making a scratching and tapping noise, both typical of raccoons.

One critical element would be if glowing yellow eyes in the darkness had been prominent:

This is also significantly affirmative.

The reliability of Ledwith's sketches is debatable.

It seems the initial drawing is effectively based solely on guidance from Vera Sutton, 'Lucky' Sutton's wife and Arlene Sutton. John 'JC' Sutton's wife and questionable how much of those proceedings, outwith the farmhouse, they actually witnessed.

Their husbands later studied that representation, only slightly editing details.

The only sketch compiled from scratch on instructions by a firearms participant, is Billy Ray Taylor's, as drawn by the artist from Ft. Campbell. It's radically different, incorporating a distinctly raccoon-like black 'black bandit' mask.

The other drawing based on Taylor's guiding hand, is the only illustration of a creature running and again, the similarity to a raccoon is apparent - see post #209.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Tilting at Windmills

There's an English idiom
"Tilting at windmills" which means 'attacking imaginary enemies' and originates from Miguel de Cervantes' early 17th century novel Don Quixote and 'ill-thought-out actions' of the story's central character.

The Kelly-Hopkinsville case appears to be a classic example of exactly that.

At no point during the entire 3 or so hours of 'repelling attacks', are the farmhouse residents under any heinous threat.

The 'Madisonville Messenger', on 23 August, 1955 reported:

"The earth people reluctantly admitted that they did not attempt to talk with the little fellows, in spite of the fact that the tubmen were unarmed and made only one warlike gesture, a grab from the roof at one of the occupants of the house".

Even that turns out to be inconsequential, Isabel Davis writing:

"...as they started out the front door there occurred one of the most talked-about and terrifying incidents of the story Taylor went through the doorway first: as he stood under the small overhanging roof, about to step down into the yard, those behind him in the hall saw a claw-like hand reach down and touch his hair".

What has evolved from recent endeavours by everyone during extraordinary and unprecedented discussions, has been stripping away much of the 'flotsam and jetsam' and mystique which has inevitably gathered around this case over the years.

There was no 'battle' and not even much of a one-sided fight.

Instead, it was mass hysteria and instinctive reaction, with a remarkable absence of rationale.

The latter is perhaps typified by 'Lucky' Sutton's quoted explanation as to why the police officers who attended the farmhouse, could find no evidence of any small entities:

"That is because they used lights all over the place, you can only see them in the dark".

Then again, it was 1955 and the possibility of a 'flying saucer' having landed with 'little men', was absolutely a perceived reality and given the lighting conditions, such a resemblance was maybe close enough.

Remaining anomalies are founded on a hotch-potch of incongruous recollections, primarily reliant on anecdotes gathered long afterwards.

If the small beings were not from another planet, any lasting, puzzling aspects are rendered effectively irrelevant.

Like Charles Fort himself, I am merely a collector of data and any interpretation of same, from what is presently by comparison to previous undertakings a cursory research exercise, remains an individual conclusion for anyone.

If, however, should there not have been any ETs, then the culprit is a perfectly terrestrial, native small animal and one suspect emerges by a proverbial Kentucky mile.
[End]

 

[EnolaGaia]

... The only sketch compiled from scratch on instructions by a firearms participant, is Billy Ray Taylor's, as drawn by the artist from Ft. Campbell. It's radically different, incorporating a distinctly raccoon-like black 'black bandit' mask.

The other drawing based on Taylor's guiding hand, is the only illustration of a creature running and again, the similarity to a raccoon is apparent - see post #209.

Some comments about the 'independence' of Taylor's sketches ...

First - note my use of the plural ('sketches'). There were two general frontal-view sketches of a visitor generated using Taylor's inputs.

The first was done by Ledwith, prior to Hodson arriving. Recall that Ledwith left his sketch based on the women's consensus description (D & B report, p. 44) lying in plain view, and Taylor seized upon it when returning from his morning's hunting. Ledwith then began working with Taylor.

The second sketch Ledwith created was the first Taylor sketch, which was begun during Ledwith's first visit to the house in the early afternoon. When Ledwith returned to the house circa 1930 Taylor began adding changes (mainly additional features such as antennae, circular feet, and a nose) to the original Taylor sketch. The final Ledwith / Taylor sketch (D & B, p. 48) retains the general overall form of the women's sketch that Taylor had seized upon and used as the basis for his own.

It was during this second interview that Ledwith states he felt Taylor was experimenting / elaborating on the original version, making Ledwith apprehensive and grateful for the chance to pass Taylor off to Hodson.

Hodson's frontal sketch is the second Taylor sketch. Ledwith specifically states Hodson did not see his (first Taylor) sketch, so Hodson's version was indeed created "from scratch." Hodson's frontal view is shown on p. 57 of the D & B report. Hodson also created the two-part sketch illustrating the creature's crouch and locomotion.

The former (frontal) Hodson sketch continues to illustrate the general form seen in the women's sketch, which Taylor adopted for his first sketch with Ledwith. The latter (crouching / walking) Hodson sketch is the only really unique sketch to have been created during witness interviews. Both the Taylor frontal sketches remain largely consistent with the women's sketch.

Once the other 3 men (Lucky, J. C., and Baker) returned they, too, were interviewed and based their sketch on the women's sketch that Lucky had noticed and locked onto.

 

[EnolaGaia]

"They Came From Outer Space"... Or Did They...?
... Given the documented meteor sightings that night and Taylor's portrayal of Arnold's misconstrued 'flying saucer', it has to be concluded there is zero merit to any suggestion of an extraterrestrial incursion.
That is pivotal.
For Kelly-Hopkinsville to have any remote prospect of a truly anomalous happening, it elementally needs a visitation by little men from outer space.

I agree with your first point (first sentence), but I respectfully disagree with the finality of your second point (last sentence).

Even if one accepts the earliest / original account(s) of Taylor seeing something he interpreted as landing to the north of the house, there's nothing to demonstrate it was connected with the appearance of the figures / visitors described thereafter. The connection between the purported thing seen aloft and the figures emerging into the back yard is sheer assumption.

In the interest of fairness, I will concede there's a chance (however faint ... ) that the visitors were indeed anomalous entities, but not aliens who'd arrived in whatever Taylor may have seen in the sky. Under an alternative interpretation (e.g., ghosts; earth spirits; folkloric beings; the cave goblins noted from elsewhere in Kentucky) it's conceivable the residents were visited by something or someone unrelated to Taylor's reported flying object yet still anomalous / Fortean.

 

[marhawkman]

Tilting at Windmills

There's an English idiom
"Tilting at windmills" which means 'attacking imaginary enemies' and originates from Miguel de Cervantes' early 17th century novel Don Quixote and 'ill-thought-out actions' of the story's central character.

The Kelly-Hopkinsville case appears to be a classic example of exactly that.

At no point during the entire 3 or so hours of 'repelling attacks', are the farmhouse residents under any heinous threat.

The 'Madisonville Messenger', on 23 August, 1955 reported:

"The earth people reluctantly admitted that they did not attempt to talk with the little fellows, in spite of the fact that the tubmen were unarmed and made only one warlike gesture, a grab from the roof at one of the occupants of the house".

Even that turns out to be inconsequential, Isabel Davis writing:

"...as they started out the front door there occurred one of the most talked-about and terrifying incidents of the story Taylor went through the doorway first: as he stood under the small overhanging roof, about to step down into the yard, those behind him in the hall saw a claw-like hand reach down and touch his hair".

What has evolved from recent endeavours by everyone during extraordinary and unprecedented discussions, has been stripping away much of the 'flotsam and jetsam' and mystique which has inevitably gathered around this case over the years.

There was no 'battle' and not even much of a one-sided fight.

Instead, it was mass hysteria and instinctive reaction, with a remarkable absence of rationale.

The latter is perhaps typified by 'Lucky' Sutton's quoted explanation as to why the police officers who attended the farmhouse, could find no evidence of any small entities:

"That is because they used lights all over the place, you can only see them in the dark".

Then again, it was 1955 and the possibility of a 'flying saucer' having landed with 'little men', was absolutely a perceived reality and given the lighting conditions, such a resemblance was maybe close enough.

Remaining anomalies are founded on a hotch-potch of incongruous recollections, primarily reliant on anecdotes gathered long afterwards.

If the small beings were not from another planet, any lasting, puzzling aspects are rendered effectively irrelevant.

Like Charles Fort himself, I am merely a collector of data and any interpretation of same, from what is presently by comparison to previous undertakings a cursory research exercise, remains an individual conclusion for anyone.

If, however, should there not have been any ETs, then the culprit is a perfectly terrestrial, native small animal and one suspect emerges by a proverbial Kentucky mile.
[End]

Funny thing about this analysis.... is that this is quite similar to the rationale the local police had for why they didn't really care about the incident. Ufologists write the police report off as the officers "not taking the claims seriously".... however... the officers who wrote the report were there in person. If ANYONE other than the Sutton clan had a decent opportunity to see something it was them. They saw nothing paranormal.

It's a weird disconnect. Why ignore the second most important source of information? One explanation is obvious: biased data gathering. If you "want to believe" you tend to ignore naysayers.... even if the naysayers are right.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Funny thing about this analysis.... is that this is quite similar to the rationale the local police had for why they didn't really care about the incident. Ufologists write the police report off as the officers "not taking the claims seriously".... however... the officers who wrote the report were there in person. If ANYONE other than the Sutton clan had a decent opportunity to see something it was them. They saw nothing paranormal.

It's a weird disconnect. Why ignore the second most important source of information? One explanation is obvious: biased data gathering. If you "want to believe" you tend to ignore naysayers.... even if the naysayers are right.

Something that's been bothering me about the story relates to bias or filtering in gathering data or considering explanations ...

Why is there no mention of the local investigators considering the possibility of the visitors being mis-identified animals?

Davis touches on the subject of animals in arguing that the men could have claimed to be shooting at animals rather than inventing an elaborate tale of mystery creatures (as a vacuous strawman argument intended to support the validity of the wilder characterization). She also mentions in passing that the investigators who checked the roof should have recognized the tracks of any known animals if they'd found any up there. The only mentions of 'real world' animals are found in Davis' inventory of domestic animals / pets and her reference to the scared dog (who retreats in the opening scene and is never mentioned thereafter).

It would be later that the escaped monkey hypothesis would surface and be dismissed as improbable once the circus' actual route was checked. There's also the owl hypothesis, which hasn't been discussed in any detail here.

Didn't the local / immediate investigators consider the visitors might be wildlife? Or did they, and the admittedly pro-UFO writers actively or passively filtered out all reference to it?

 

[marhawkman]

Something that's been bothering me about the story relates to bias or filtering in gathering data or considering explanations ...

Why is there no mention of the local investigators considering the possibility of the visitors being mis-identified animals?

Davis touches on the subject of animals in arguing that the men could have claimed to be shooting at animals rather than inventing an elaborate tale of mystery creatures (as a vacuous strawman argument intended to support the validity of the wilder characterization). She also mentions in passing that the investigators who checked the roof should have recognized the tracks of any known animals if they'd found any up there. The only mentions of 'real world' animals are found in Davis' inventory of domestic animals / pets and her reference to the scared dog (who retreats in the opening scene and is never mentioned thereafter).

It would be later that the escaped monkey hypothesis would surface and be dismissed as improbable once the circus' actual route was checked. There's also the owl hypothesis, which hasn't been discussed in any detail here.

Didn't the local / immediate investigators consider the visitors might be wildlife? Or did they, and the admittedly pro-UFO writers actively or passively filtered out all reference to it?

This is something I noticed early on and was curious about but never seemed to be able to find. Most descriptions of the police attention talk about how they interviewed witnesses and collected information(such as examining the site of the incident) and... seem to merely talk ABOUT the fact the police did stuff, but say very little about what the police did.

Do we have transcripts of the full statements or just a handful of sound bites?

 

[EnolaGaia]

As far as I've been able to determine, there wasn't a lot of paperwork generated by the authorities. The one exception is a supposedly detailed report filed by one or another of the Kentucky state troopers (Ferguson? Riley?). This state police paperwork was allegedly eventually copied and attached to the Project Blue Book file, but it had gone MIA by some later date when someone examined the Blue Book files.

If either the MPs or Major Albert filed any more detailed documentation on their visits to the scene I haven't seen it nor seen any indication it existed.