• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Are you sure about the name of this alleged circus? The premier traveling circus at the time was the Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus.

If you can share this local newspaper report I'd love to see it ...
That was a typo, duly corrected and it is indeed aa you noted.

There isn't any article, as such, about the circus. It was discovered via one reference in a column related to 'social events', or similar and don't believe I kept a copy - shall see if I can track it down again though.

It resulted from a search in the newspapers.com archives for something quite simple, like "circus' Hopkinsville' and a date range of August 1955.

It occurred as an oblique reference to local "socialites' attending that specific circus which was, 'in Hopkinsville for three nights, beginning 19 August'...

I have found a separate mention that the previous week, they performed for three nights in Seattle, so it seems this duration would be a typical stopover.
 
It may already be on here somewhere, but by coincidence an animated detailed account of the events, and personal analysis of the claimed explanations, appeared on my youtube feed yesterday. It's worth a watch.

 
I agree that the possibility of circus monkeys doesn't solve several other questions, and I'm sure that from time to time they escaped, but note that 1.. monkeys would not need to be "exercised". That would be the zebra, camel, elephant (if the small circus had any of these), horses. And 2. The costumes which were costly would have been removed the moment the act was over. So if any monkeys they would have been unclothed. Also, 3. Shoot at one of a group of monkeys just once and they will depart, never to come near again.
 
Sooo..... that sketch is very different from the other one. ...
Yes, it is, and it didn't originate like any of the others. It was drawn by the Evansville Press's staff artist (one Larry Hill). According to Davis & Bloecher (p. 57):
"Drawn ... from descriptions of the 'space men' given by Elmer and John Sutton. Drawing was not checked with the Suttons."
 
Yes, it is, and it didn't originate like any of the others. It was drawn by the Evansville Press's staff artist (one Larry Hill). According to Davis & Bloecher (p. 57):
So... Larry didn't show it to them after drawing it to verify it was what they thought the aliens looked like?

The newspaper doesn't clarify if it was or wasn't drawn while getting the descriptions. But... It's carefully worded so EITHER possibility is potentially correct.

looking the article over.... it claims Alene Sutton claimed that she saw an alien fly over the house?
"The figure seemed to fly or jump right over the house, and land in the back yard and then vanish."
Also it "looked like it was made of aluminum foil".

Hmm this claims Mrs. Lankford saw "a round shiny circle hovering in the air" three times.

There's TWO different heights given here. Mrs Lankford is quoted as saying they're 2.5-3 feet. But Elmer Sutton is quoted as 3.5-4 feet. and "looked like the bones of a skeleton with shiny metal over them".

This lists John Sutton as a Korean war vet. With a colorful description of what he did in the war suggesting he saw heavy combat.

It lists Elmer as claiming that he shot one twice at a range of 30 feet... and all it did was flip over.

This repeats the shiny armor claim as having been passed along by the Police Chief after he heard it from the Suttons?

This claims the police searched TWICE, once early morning immediately after the report, then later in daylight.

Also, it repeats the claim about how the little men avoided light. Saying they hid in the weeds if you tried to shine a light on them.
 
So... Larry didn't show it to them after drawing it to verify it was what they thought the aliens looked like?
The newspaper doesn't clarify if it was or wasn't drawn while getting the descriptions. But... It's carefully worded so EITHER possibility is potentially correct.
The annotation in the D & B report says the Hill sketch wasn't checked by Lucky or J. C. (the only two shooters and consistently-cited direct witnesses who visited Evansville).

I interpret it to mean the witnesses' feedback about the drawing was neither solicited nor obtained, regardless of whether the drawing was created during or after the interview with them.
 
The annotation in the D & B report says the Hill sketch wasn't checked by Lucky or J. C. (the only two shooters and consistently-cited direct witnesses who visited Evansville).

I interpret it to mean the witnesses' feedback about the drawing was neither solicited nor obtained, regardless of whether the drawing was created during or after the interview with them.
Hmmm now I wonder if the artist was even present for the interview.
 
OK ... I've now had a chance to review the Evansville Press article of 22 August in detail. Here are my comments about the article overall or in general ...

General / Miscellaneous Points About the Evansville Article

There are several places within this article that cite or quote comments from residents other than the 3 men who traveled to Evansville on the 22nd. This raises a question as to where the article's author obtained personally-attributed claims the 3 men could not have reasonably provided. This additional material had to have (a) been obtained from other newspaper reporters who'd visited the house the night before and / or (b) been gathered by an Evansville Press reporter earlier on the 22nd. My guess is that (b) is the most probable explanation.

NOTE: I severely criticized Frank Edwards' version of the incident (see my posts of 9 August). He explicitly stated he was relying on the Evansville Press article in generating his account. Having finally seen this newspaper article, I now understand why his account was so jumbled and in conflict with other accounts of the incident. It would appear most of the blame for scrambling details lies with the Evansville news story rather than Edwards himself.

Some of the times cited for specific events diverge from the times more or less consistently cited in other primary reports. Where such divergence is evident this account's time attribution is circa one hour later than the time given in other reports. I checked to see if this time shift might be explained by different timekeeping (e.g., observation of daylight saving time) in Indiana (which has a long and complex history of conflict over time zones and DST). I was unable to convince myself these shifted time attributions were the result of timekeeping differences between Kentucky and Indiana.
 
Items Consistent With Other Primary Accounts

This article places the time of the 'landing' between 1900 and 2000 on the 21st. This basically reflects the canonical timeline given in the D & B report.

This article cites Ms. Lankford as describing what she saw as "a kind of round shiny circle hovering in the air." This would be consistent with her description of the 2230 object as "appearing round."

This article reflects Ms. Lankford's estimated height of the visitor(s) as 2.5 to 3 feet tall.

Lucky is cited as claiming the first visitor sighting occurred circa 45 minutes after the UFO was seen to have landed. This roughly correlates with the timeline from the other primary accounts.

This account claims only a single visitor was seen at first. This matches the storyline from the other primary accounts.

Lucky's estimate of the visitor's height (3.5 - 4 feet) matches his statements cited in other accounts.

Lucky mentions the visitors' eyes as being set 6 - 8 inches apart. This illustrates that Lucky, like Alene, was citing this feature soon following the incident.

This account cites Lucky as claiming J. C. had shot 4 boxes of .22 ammo in the pistol. This may be the first occurrence of the '4 boxes' claim being repeated after being originally mentioned at the police station the preceding night.
 
Items NOT Consistent With Other Primary Accounts

This article mentions only two weapons being used - "a shotgun and a pistol."

This article only mentions there being only 10 residents at the time of the incident. The listing of people who allegedly saw the little men given here omits June Taylor (Billy Ray's wife). Omitting June and taking the list of witnesses to represent all people present would explain the reference to only 10 people being present.

This article is phrased so as to indicate all the residents saw the UFO arrive.

The UFO's landing wasn't as Taylor described it:
"The residents told officers they saw a flash coming out of the sky. The glowing missile swooped down on a field near the Sutton farm."

The sheriff's deputy widely cited as Batts is named here as Bates.

This article states Police Chief Greenwell's opinion as something less sympathetic and more blunt than other accounts describe:
Hopkinsville Police Chief Russell Greenwell said he doesn't believe that there was "anything there" at the Sutton farm last night. He said there were no tracks - no evidence of anyone prowling around. He attributed the hysteria to overactive imagination.

Ms. Lankford is cited as having said she, "... saw it at 7:30, 10:30 p.m. and at 3:30 a.m." This conflicts with all the other primary accounts, none of which indicate she personally witnessed a visitor until circa 2200 - 2230 on the 21st. This also conflicts with her signed statement, in which she only claims to have seen a visitor at 2230 and 0330. She is cited multiple times by multiple authors as having specifically stated she only saw a visitor twice during the incident.

Ms. Lankford is quoted as saying she, " ... saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house." There is no other account in which Ms. Lankford describes having seen a particularly human or animal figure, and there's no other account in which she explicitly claimed to have seen the visitor in motion. In her signed statement she attributes the description of a "... little man that looked like a monkey" to the other residents.

Alene Sutton is cited as saying she, " ... saw the first little man right after dusk ..." This is the only account that names Alene as a witness as early as the first sighting in the back yard.

This article cites Alene as saying the 3 minor children were hers and J. C.'s. That's not true; the 3 kids were Ms. Lankford's by her second husband.

Alene is cited as saying the visitor she saw, " ... looked like it was made of aluminum foil. It had two big eyes, pretty far apart." The aluminum foil bit is unique to Alene and this account. The bit about the eyes would seem to indicate she was already describing the visitors' eyes this way as early as the morning following the incident.

Alene is cited as saying it was O. P. Baker who'd grabbed Taylor and pulled him back inside the house when the clawy hand reached for his head. This is the only account that attributes any action to Baker during the entire night. Furthermore, it conflicts with other accounts that claim Alene pulled Taylor back inside, Taylor simply pushed on outside, or Lucky Sutton pushed past Taylor into the back yard.

This article claims Alene was at the back door when Taylor went out the front door and a visitor grabbed for his head. This conflicts with other accounts that claim Alene called out a warning after seeing the clawy hand reach for Taylor's head and / or she was the one who pulled Taylor back inside. More to the point ... The front door is not visible from the back door in the bedroom (the only one of the three back doors claimed to have been involved that night).

This article claims Alene (at the back door) said the figure that grabbed at Taylor " ... seemed to fly or jump right over the house, land in the back yard and then vanish." She doesn't mention Lucky's shotgun blast at the visitor on the roof overhang over the front door. All other primary accounts claim it was Lucky's shot that blew(?) the visitor over the peak of the roof. Alene couldn't have seen the visitor fly over the house from inside the house. However ...

This is the only account that offers any direct testimony about what may have happened to the visitor on the roof that Lucky fired upon - claiming it landed in the back yard and vanished. Other accounts question whether the visitor who came around the corner of the house following Lucky's and Taylor's shots into the tree was the same one who'd been blown over the roof. If Alene's account is accurate, the one coming around the corner wasn't the same visitor.

Alene is cited as saying, "Mrs. Lankford saw one of the little men looking through a window at her, ... and Mrs. Lankford "fainted out cold." " All other accounts claim the Lankford swooning event occurred at either the front or back door, with a visitor peering through the screen door. The only two incidents involving a visitor peering through a window were the living room / bedroom sightings / shootings at the window beside the fireplace. Neither of these sightings / shootings involved Ms. Lankford swooning.

This article says:
Elmer Sutton said they first saw the little man about 45 minutes after he and Taylor first saw the object land.
This conflicts with the earlier statement that all the residents had seen the UFO swoop by overhead and then land.

Lucky's description of the visitor's appearance:
... like the bones of a skeleton, with shiny metal over them. When they ran ... "their legs looked like fluorescent lights flashing."
... is unique to this account of the incident. No other account describes the visitors' form as being skeleton-like. No other account describes the flashing phenomenon of a visitor's legs when it was running. The only other reference to visitors' flashing or flaring visibly was claimed to occur when they shouted or made a noise.

This account specifies Lucky was using the 12 gauge shotgun and J. C. was using the .22 pistol. This is the only account that claims J. C. was definitely using the .22 pistol and never mentions him using anything else. This conflicts with other primary accounts' claims that it was J. C. who fired the first / earlier shot at the living room window, and he was using the 20 gauge shotgun at the time.

This is the only account in which Lucky specifies how many shotgun shells he'd fired - 17 in all.

This account cites the pistol as the only .22 caliber weapon used. AFAIK this is the only account that explicitly identifies how many and which .22 caliber weapons were allegedly fired.

There's absolutely no mention of the .22 rifle that was supposedly in the house.

There's absolutely no mention of Taylor being armed and / or firing any shots.

Lucky described his shots hitting the little men as bouncing off as if they'd been fired onto concrete, and he described J. C.'s shots hitting a little man as glancing off the visitor's body. This is the only account that describes such glancing shots as if they were viewed rather than heard. There's no mention of a ricochet sound, and there's no mention of a hit causing a metallic sound like hitting a bucket.

This article claims Lucky and J. C. posted themselves at two windows throughout the entire incident. Most other primary accounts claim Lucky and Taylor were posted at the front and back doors, but moved around one or more times. Most other accounts never mention J. C. taking up any persistent position.

This account claims the residents fled to town and the police station around midnight. This conflicts with most of the primary accounts, which indicate they fled circa 2245 - 2300. For example, some reports claim the residents arrived at the Hopkinsville police station around 2300 and returned to the house by 2330 or midnight. The Kentucky New Era report on the 22nd states the residents arrived at the Hopkinsville police station at or around 2300.

Similarly, this account claims the residents returned to the house along with Hopkinsville police (etc.) circa 0100 on the 22nd. This is 1 - 1.5 hours later than the on-scene arrival time claimed in other primary accounts.

This account claims the initial investigators wrapped up their searches and left the house circa 0230 - 0300. Again, these times are up to an hour later than the times cited in other primary accounts.

Alene is cited as claiming the UFO Taylor saw was red. This is the only account that says it was red. The claim implies Taylor was the sole or primary witness to the UFO overflight and landing, and this conflicts with the article's earlier claim that all the residents witnessed the UFO's arrival.
 
Last edited:
Hmm it just occurred to me that this article also claimed that the 4 state troopers and 4 police who looked around the scene looked for signs of the flying saucer itself. It also specifies no one saw it leave. which is a bit odd, but enh.... I'm not sure how they got the info, presumably they talked to police? But it'd need to be something like 4 different police I think?
 
Davis states that state troopers returned to the scene after the night investigation on the 22nd. Ledwith mentions that during his first visit to the house on the 22nd he offered copies of his first sketch (created in his first Taylor interview) to two state troopers who were out in one of the fields.

The Hopkinsville police and / or Christian County sheriff's department personnel returned the following day (Monday the 22nd), and the Hopkinsville police were known to have returned again on Tuesday the 23rd. Davis & Bloecher (p. 39) mention Police Chief Greenwell returned to the farm "a few days later", which implies at least one additional visit later than the 23rd.

Yes - the Evansville Press article represents the first clear statement that no one could attest to witnessing the alleged UFO leave the scene.
 
Hmmm now I wonder if the artist was even present for the interview.
Maybe he wasn't. As I noted in my Evansville Press review comments (above) there are many points in the news article that couldn't have reasonably come from the 3 men who visited Evansville on the 22nd (Lucky, J. C., and Baker). This probably means one or more reporters traveled to the scene early on the 22nd, and the final article was stitched together from both field notes and the trio's interview. Given this scenario it's entirely possible Hill was working with the reporter(s) / editor(s) rather than whoever interviewed the 3 witnesses.
 
Also, 3. Shoot at one of a group of monkeys just once and they will depart, never to come near again.
Agree with points 1. and 2. - I think the 'exercise' reference is just a suggestion.

That noted, this is all an untidy loose end. Regarding your final point, it occurred these would be tame animals and could explain why they were possibly merely seeking 'human assistance'.

Whilst monkeys (presumably chimpanzee?) are 'bald', do walk on two legs and can hold their arms aloft, they do not, categorically, have glowing yellow eyes in the darkness any more than they appear to be glowing, or 'light up'!

Anyway, there is an online archive resource at ringling.org and I have written to a librarian asking a few related questions. I noted they do have 'log books' for some small town performances.

I have not referenced any connection to this case, simply explaining it was a 'family research' enquiry! We can hopefully put an end to speculation.

Crazy days and adding to any conceivable intrique, however outlandish that might be, was the question can chimpanzees do a 'backflip'.

I thought this might bring a smile...

 
Agree with points 1. and 2. - I think the 'exercise' reference is just a suggestion.

That noted, this is all an untidy loose end. Regarding your final point, it occurred these would be tame animals and could explain why they were possibly merely seeking 'human assistance'.

Whilst monkeys (presumably chimpanzee?) are 'bald', do walk on two legs and can hold their arms aloft, they do not, categorically, have glowing yellow eyes in the darkness any more than they appear to be glowing, or 'light up'!

Anyway, there is an online archive resource at ringling.org and I have written to a librarian asking a few related questions. I noted they do have 'log books' for some small town performances.

I have not referenced any connection to this case, simply explaining it was a 'family research' enquiry! We can hopefully put an end to speculation.

Crazy days and adding to any conceivable intrique, however outlandish that might be, was the question can chimpanzees do a 'backflip'.

I thought this might bring a smile...

Well, some of the source indicated that the eyes of the invaders were not glowing, but merely "shiny". IIRC the analogy was of a freshly minted coin. Hmm.... that makes it a lot easier for it to be natural.
 
Items NOT Consistent With Other Primary Accounts
Such an exceptionally helpful précis and personally, saved myself considerable time.

For 'tis exactly a summary of my own conclusions.

I found it to be one of those documents which as potential new case evidence, at first, seems disappointing and doesn't add that much to what was already known.

Then, typical of some previous experiences, the more you proverbially 'pore over a document', it gradually becomes evident there are a number of small details which are in fact perhaps quite significant.

What comes out of the article is, personally, further substantiation of a conclusion I have, of late, increasingly leaned towards...

That is, something genuinely occurred which for reasons which remain defiantly unresolved, was truly bewildering and frightening,

Yes, there was an enormous misperception of any hostility by the strangest of unexpected visitors, however, the circumstances were sufficient to cause this.

Back on 2 August, I wrote:

"One thing I can assuredly conclude about this case, is that now I understand it so much better, I understand it less than before...".

It may well be the case that only two things have changed since...

One is that those sentiments have been exacerbated and the other is that it's getting noticeably darker, earlier at night (to use a Scottish saying, 'Aye, the nights are fair drawin' in").

Nonetheless, there is an explanation, even though at present I still can't detect a clear-cut pathway.

As for an outright hoax... it would be so convoluted and equally, where is that one - no pun intended - "smoking gun"?

If the original police report does exist where I have enquiried - haven't received a reply as yet - that might help and still other speculative research to hear back from.

Also actually need to digest contents of the article further and just some thoughts as things stand.
 
One thing I took from finally reading the Evansville news story (Thank You! ... ) was a heightened perception that many elements of the Kelly / Hopkinsville legend (mythos; etc. - the glosses added to whatever the bare facts may have been ... ) seem to have originated or been primarily driven by Alene Sutton (J. C.'s wife).

I've been harping on the fact Alene seems to have been a major influence on the earliest sketch which in turn was later adopted and merely tweaked by Taylor and then the Sutton brothers on the 22nd. The Evansville article seems to have been compiled from more than just an interview with the 3 men who visited Evansville that day, and it's pretty clear from the text that almost all the additional material came from Alene.

Ledwith attempted to foster objectivity in the data collection by interviewing witnesses separately, but IMHO he ended up failing in this objective because he 'seeded' the shooters' descriptions of the visitors with the women's earlier sketch and created that earliest sketch by interviewing all 3 adult female witnesses together (only to have one - Ms. Lankford - drop out of the interview).

One big reason I wanted to see the Evansville account was to see if there were any clues to testimony that was mismatched and possibly provided clues to uncertainty or different versions of what happened and what had been seen. The dual data collections in Kelly and at Evansville on the 22nd - rather than Ledwith's interviews - might have represented an opportunity to cross-refer and cross-correlate claims at least as important as what Ledwith attempted to accomplish.

In other words, I was looking for differences that might be informative. My initial impression is that the Evansville article indeed illustrated multiple such differences.
 
It occurred as an oblique reference to local "socialites' attending that specific circus which was, 'in Hopkinsville for three nights, beginning 19 August'...
Definitely not the enormous 'Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey' circus - I have found an online copy of their 1955 schedule.

Still checking to see if I can locate my original source - I presume it could only be a smaller traveling circus associated with them.
 
Definitely not the enormous 'Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey' circus - I have found an online copy of their 1955 schedule.

Still checking to see if I can locate my original source - I presume it could only be a smaller traveling circus associated with them.
I think there have always been 2 Ringling companies - called the red and the blue or something like that - and they're both big. However there were many smaller circuses and sideshows that used to have regular routes. The Ringling companies traveled by their own trains, and if you're determined to find errant animals, could easily have stopped on tracks anywhere .
 
This is from the 'Nashville Banner', dated Friday 19 August, 1955:

Screenshot_20210902-171510.jpg


As becomes clearer, the Shrine circus was in Hopkinsville from the previous day, Thursday, for three days.

This is not the reference I originally noticed and still searching for that.

I suspect the oblique mention I came across was also from a newspaper dated 19 August and stated, 'for three days', without noting the performances began the previous day. I would have taken that to mean 19-21 August.

However, for what it's worth, if the shows commenced at 7:30, then presumably after the final, Saturday night, they would not have moved on until the Sunday and day of our incident.

If, of course, the circus did not feature monkeys, then hopefully we can put this 'loose end' to rest.

Shall duly have another look - there is some related information I have literally just located, which might be significant in respect.

This seems to be the origin of our associated claim. From the 'Paducah Sun', on 25 August:

Screenshot_20210902-174140.jpg


EDIT: As we can see, this is no more than a 'suggestion' from an anonymous source.
 
Last edited:
If, of course, the circus did not feature monkeys, then hopefully we can put this 'loose end' to rest.

Shall duly have another look - there is some related information I have literally just located, which might be significant in respect.
The Shrine circus, 1955...

s-l300.jpg


"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question..."

'Step right up folks.. step right up...'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However there were many smaller circuses and sideshows that used to have regular routes.
You know how we often have tangents leading from a topic... honestly, you have no idea how much I have learned about Kentucky wildlife, traveling circuses of that era and how many local towns end in 'ville'.

:)
 
RE: The circus as discussed in Davis & Bloecher

Davis refutes the circus monkey theory by way of the following attempted debunking ...
The facts are these. "Late on Sunday" (the time is not specified) a group of trucks belonging to the King Circus went west through Hopkinsville on U.S. 68, and a few miles west of town (distance not specified) the trucks stopped to exercise the camels and horses.

The theory is as follows. One truck, containing monkeys, is supposed by the theorists to have got lost in town and failed to accompany the others westward on U.S. 68. Instead, it turned north on U.S. 41. ...

In fact there is no evidence that the circus went through Hopkinsville at the proper time to fit this story. ...
(D & B report, pp. 81 - 82)

Davis is most probably correct in concluding the "King Circus" could not have lost one or more monkeys near Kelly, but the basis for her conclusion is mistaken. Here's why ...

There was exactly one circus company operating in the USA under the name "King" in 1955 - the King Bros. Circus. The King Bros. Circus' published route itinerary for 1955 can be accessed as a PDF file at:

http://www.classic.circushistory.org/Pdf/KingBros1955.pdf

According to their published route this circus played Murray KY on the 19th, Springfield TN on the 20th, and Murfreesboro TN on the 22nd. If the circus convoy had used US 68 to get from Murray to Springfield they would have followed 68 east (not west, as Davis claims) to Hopkinsville and there connected to US 41 southward to get to Springfield. Their transit of Hopkinsville would therefore have occurred very late on the 19th or very early on the 20th in the course of this 102-mile leg. On the 21st or early on the 22nd the circus was to move another 61 miles south (and farther away from Hopkinsville) to Murfreesboro.

I mention all this because the presence of a Shrine Circus in Hopkinsville during August 19 - 21 couldn't have involved the King Bros. Circus unless their planned itinerary was broken and they had to linger 3 days somewhere. Hopkinsville would be a strange place to linger, and an even stranger place to put on 3 days' shows by a King Bros. contingent that was operating at its largest size of the era (70 trucks) in 1955.

The Shriners group that historically brought a circus to the Madisonville / Hopkinsville area is the Hadi Shrine in Evansville. There's now an Al Menah shrine in Madisonville, but it wasn't founded until 2004.

We need to determine which circus was appearing as the Shrine Circus in Hopkinsville in August 1955 and determine where this circus was based. If it was a smaller outfit affiliated with, or conceivably assembled by, the Hadi Shrine it may well have been based in Evansville (a long-time base and hub for circus / carnival companies in the Midwest).

... And if it had been based in Evansville it might be interesting to learn whether it employed a Sutton and a Taylor.
 
... As becomes clearer, the Shrine circus was in Hopkinsville from the previous day, Thursday, for three days. ...
The Pennyroyal Fairgrounds had ceased to operate as a business under that name years before the 1955 incident. As a result, I presume the former site continued to be mentioned under the old name. According to old references the Pennyroyal Fairgrounds were located on the south side of Hopkinsville in the vicinity of South Virginia St. and Pardue Lane. I believe the old fairgrounds were located at or around:

36°50'53.4"N 87°30'07.4"W
36.848172, -87.502047
 
. And if it had been based in Evansville it might be interesting to learn whether it employed a Sutton and a Taylor.
I had written something a few days ago, with I termed an "outlandish" scenario...

....and then deleted it, for that very reason!

Nonetheless, you seem to be thinking along similar lines, so... it went like this.

Sutton and Taylor were apparently fond of a practical joke, or hoax. What if they planned something spectacular, like, say, dressing a couple of monkeys up as 'little spacemen'. It's not at all clear how many creatures there actually were in our incident.

Where would they get them from...

In addition to a circus show, it seems monkeys were also used as acts in carnivals.

If they could persuade the necessary person to let them 'borrow' a couple of monkeys...

This would presumably require a swift return of same, presumably next day.

Where did Sutton go next morning... straight back to Evansville...

Obviously a number of objections... were there any monkeys at the Evansville carnival, how were they hidden at the farm and especially during the police investigation...

That duly noted, you would only need a couple of appearances, say, at a window, fire off a few shots adding to the deception and... so on...

Then you also have the problem that Sutton Jnr must have been in on any such ruse... although it does seem he was in awe of his older brother and maybe felt compelled to go along with it ..

One alternative to hiding monkeys, would be an accomplice from the carnival, who turned up on cue (our flashing light across the sky just an unexpected bonus!) and the trip to Evansville next morning to recompense... (perhaps the deal being some local moonshine in return...!)

Said it was outlandish! :evillaugh:
 
I had written something a few days ago, with I termed an "outlandish" scenario...

....and then deleted it, for that very reason!

Nonetheless, you seem to be thinking along similar lines, so... it went like this.

Sutton and Taylor were apparently fond of a practical joke, or hoax. What if they planned something spectacular, like, say, dressing a couple of monkeys up as 'little spacemen'. It's not at all clear how many creatures there actually were in our incident.

Where would they get them from...

In addition to a circus show, it seems monkeys were also used as acts in carnivals.

If they could persuade the necessary person to let them 'borrow' a couple of monkeys...

This would presumably require a swift return of same, presumably next day.

Where did Sutton go next morning... straight back to Evansville...

Obviously a number of objections... were there any monkeys at the Evansville carnival, how were they hidden at the farm and especially during the police investigation...

That duly noted, you would only need a couple of appearances, say, at a window, fire off a few shots adding to the deception and... so on...

Then you also have the problem that Sutton Jnr must have been in on any such ruse... although it does seem he was in awe of his older brother and maybe felt compelled to go along with it ..

One alternative to hiding monkeys, would be an accomplice from the carnival, who turned up on cue (our flashing light across the sky just an unexpected bonus!) and the trip to Evansville next morning to recompense... (perhaps the deal being some local moonshine in return...!)

Said it was outlandish! :evillaugh:
Who was Alene's husband? 'cause this might explain why she had so much to say to the newspaper...
 
Yep ... I'd been mulling over the possibility the whole incident was a hoax facilitated by Lucky's and Taylor's show biz connections for some time, but it wasn't until the last few weeks that I'd found enough suggestive facts to move that hypothesis higher on my list of possible explanations.

I've always liked the basic theme of the escaped (whatever ... ) monkey hypothesis. It reflects many of the documented aspects of the incident (including Ms. Lankford's mysterious pamphlet / booklet from the Fort Worth ministry, her references to others having seen something that looked like a monkey, and the descriptions of how the visitors moved).

Still, it didn't make sense to me that the guys could or would borrow one or more animals from as far away as Evansville. I'd checked out Davis' explanation some time ago, but even after determining her debunking was based on impossible 'facts' it still appeared there couldn't have been any connection to the King Bros. Circus.

I'd also searched for any clues to if and when a Shrine circus may have played Hopkinsville around that time. There was a local reminiscence article (I forget where; I think it was in the New Era newspaper) that mentioned a Shrine circus coming to town that summer, but I never could locate any confirmation of its timeframe. Your posting of the Nashville Banner item tipped the scales toward returning to the circus / monkey hypothesis.

If the Shrine circus had been sponsored / operated out of Evansville the circus convoy would have traveled to and from Hopkinsville on the very highway (US 41) that ran out front of the Lankford / Sutton house.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top