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

[EnolaGaia]

... There's also the report of an unidentified neighbor who'd seen lights in the field behind the Lankford / Sutton house and was preparing to go help round up the pigs he'd assumed had escaped when the first shots were fired, causing him to forget about going there. This report alleged the time was around 2000 - 2030. ...

Here's the relevant passage from Davis (D & B report, p. 63):

But one statement by a neighbor, though it comes to us fourth-hand, is interesting. It was made to the friend with whom Taylor went hunting Monday morning. The friend told Taylor who repeated it to Mr. Ledwith. This witness lived about a quarter-mile north of the Suttons. Early Sunday evening he had noticed lights moving in the fields behind the farmhouse, and thought the Suttons' pigs had gotten loose and were being rounded up. "I thought maybe I ought to go and help them. But I'm glad I didn't--I might have been shot." What is interesting is the time of the observation: the man was certain he saw the lights between 7:30 and 8 o 'clock--that is, between the time of the "landing" and the time when the creatures first approached the farmhouse.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Here's what I found regarding the visitors appearing to glow if in darkness but not if illuminated .

Fantastic - I had been thinking along similar lines and before this conceivable heron association came up had already written the following for posting:

GLOWING

The first mention I can find of a creature "glowing" is in the same 23 August, syndicated article as just mentioned in post #669 and the consecutive paragraphs claim::

"A few minutes later, a "little green man" approached the house. "He was about three feet tall, with eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart, with hands like claws and glowing all over," Sutton said".

About five feet from the door of the house he stopped snd retreated when the Suttons fired a shotgun off into the air. But soon he returned again, and the Suttons fired at him. He fell down from the blast, and then ran off into the fields".

As we know, there are descriptions of the creatures appearing to be 'shiny', etc in the 'Kentucky New Era', 'Madisonville Messenger' and 'Evansville Press' articles of 22 August.

Assuming we did actually have some enigmatic, smallish entities, were they still perceived to be glowing during the shooting episode(s)...
(END)

So, the question seems to be, when Sutton is quoted as saying the creature which approached was, "glowing all over"... do we take that as reliable, or is it a reference to a separate, initial sighting.

In other words, yes, there were glowing creatures observed, however, they were no longer glowing by the time they reached the farmhouse and just the way Sutton has reportedly phrased it, seemingly implies they were.

That's the difficulty, isn't it, we simply don't know and leaves the issue unresolved.

However, such a possibility remains open and accordingly, that there might have been two separate types of creatures involved - those 'glowing' and responsible for a commencing observation, resultant from checking out why the dog was barking and later, after they had been on standby with firearms for a considerable time, the subsequent appearance of different creatures at the farmhouse.

That's problematic though - isn't everything - and I shall endeavour to explain why in my next post.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I was just about to write off any correlation with herons as far too tenuous, when I recalled something quite specific I mentioned during my own freakish encounter.

I have also since gone back over Isobel Davis' comments regarding the creatures methods of 'locomotion', in which she writes, with my emphasis:

"When struck by shots on a tree-limb or on the roof, they performed their fantastic trick of not falling but floating toward the ground. But whenever they had been knocked over, while on the ground, by a shot, and had "flipped," in the Sutton's phrase, they moved differently. They lowered their hands to the ground and "ran" very rapidly--except that the arms seemed to furnish most of the propulsion; the thin legs, "as spindly as broom handles," seemed to be used only for balance and to move in unison.

The legs were inflexible. When the creatures "ran," the hip joints were flexed slightly— not much of a "bend" was necessary because their arms were so long and the huge hands so close to the ground.

But the legs were never seen to bend as if there were a knee joint; they seemed inflexible, and might have almost been stilts.

No one noticed the feet, although these must have been visible when the things floated".
(End)

Speculating - what if the long arms which seemed to be providing the propulsion were in fact wings and the inflexible, spindly legs which could almost have been stilts, were indeed simply that... could it, in the darkness and given a heron's common flight characteristic of 'skimming' just above the ground, if only flying a short distance... have resembled something like this:

@https://youtu.be/nozI2vom_gM

Isabel ends by saying:

"No one noticed the feet, although these must have been visible when the things floated".

This is what I recalled writing at the time:

"...this creature... slowly floats towards me...".

One thing which does seem permissible, is that herons, whilst obviously primarily reliant on a fish/crustacean food source, are known to also take small mammals.

There had been a long, dry spell of weather and possibly might have adversely affected their normal food sources?

Their preferred small mammals evidently include squirrels; the things you learn here...

Anyhow, just on the above points alone... not touching on any other of the shooting aspects whatsoever... some of it might tie-in?

First of all, it depends on where Isabel has obtained these precise details from - any ideas?

I can assure that in the dark, they certainly 'float'.... or seem to!

Interesting thought occurs that if I hadn't been able to afterwards look back and see exactly what it was and someone was to now suggested it was probably a heron... I would, seriously, be quite sceptical.

It genuinely looked nothing like a heron...

Neither of course did those creatures at the farmhouse.

Or did they...

Thoughts on this separately, in a moment.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

From Ledwith's notes, the only conceivable resemblance to a heron appears to be related to the eyes and legs:

- ACCORDING TO THE WOMEN,
THE BODY WAS THIN, WITH A FORMLESS STRAIGHT FIGURE.

- THE ARMS AND LEGS WERE "SPINDLY."

- AS THEY ALL AGREED, THE HUGE EYES WERE TREMENDOUSLY FASCINATING

- NOW THE THREE MEN AGREED - WITHOUT MY ASKING THEM ABOUT IT - THAT THERE WAS NO NECK

- AS THE MEN CONFIRMED OR DISAGREED WITH DETAILS IN THE WOMEN'S DRAWING. THE BODY ABOVE THE WAIST WAS POWERFUL, THEY SAID, AND THE UPPER ARMS ALSO: THE LEGS AND FOREARMS WERE THIN AND SPINDLY, AS IF THEY WERE "MADE OF BROOM HANDLES." THE MEN, LIKE THE WOMEN, HAD NOT SEEN ANY FEET.

- WE DID WIDEN THE AREA AT THE END OF THE LEG SLIGHTLY, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CREATURE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE THAN BROOMSTICK LEGS TO SUPPORT IT...
(End)

The long arms, large hands and perhaps especially the ears, look to be no match at all.

Plus we are, of course, missing a prominent bill.

What about the size perspective - this graphic from a web site is helpful!

No neck visible, so we would be contemplating something like this, seen in the dark and perhaps only briefly?

Hang on though... something has, quite literally, this very second just caught my attention. Like several of your good selves, I will have read the following many times before and never paid particular notice.

What about the claws?

Or, maybe in fact, the talons:

THE ARMS AND LEGS WERE "SPINDLY." THE ARMS WERE PECULIAR: THEY WERE ALMOST TWICE AS LONG AS THE LEGS , AND ALMOST TOUCHED THE GROUND WHERE THE FEET WOULD BE. THE HANDS WERE HUGE, BULKY-LOOKING THINGS, WITH CURLING TALONS SEVERAL INCHES LONG IN PLACE OF FINGERNAILS.

Exactly like this?

Maybe need a rethink here?

 

[marhawkman]

Well a classic form of mis-identification is getting outlines wrong, which is often because the object you're looking at is partially obscuring itself. such as having the head tucked, etc....

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Or, maybe in fact, the talons:

Can it be confirmed the creatures were never actually observed having 'claws' and it was in fact 'talons'.

This seems indisputable and at no time in either his documentation of events, or the sketches, does the word 'claws' appear, with Ledwith also noting:

T"HE HANDS WERE LARGE - WAY OUT OF PROPORTION, THEY ALL AGREED. LUCKY VENTURED THE POSSIBILITY - THIS REMARK, TOO, WAS UNSOLICITED - THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN WEBBING BETWEEN THE TALONS, ABOVE THE FIRST KNUCKLE. AND SO ON, UNTIL THE PICTURE INCLUDED EVERYTHING THE MEN COULD REMEMBER"

When did our talons become claws?

Not in the these two articles:

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

"The men decided to go outside and see if the visitor had been hit. Taylor was in front and when he emerged from the front door, a huge hand reached down from the low roof above the door and grabbed him by the hair. He pulled away, and the two men went on out of the house".
(End)


'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August

"Taylor started to step out the front door and one of the creatures reached down from the roof and grabbed at him".
(End)


This, however, seems to be our culprit, claiming of 'Lucky' Sutton:

'Evansville Press'
22 August

"He reported they had webbed hands with claws, their fingers were about six inches long and had ears that came to a keen point".

Next day, this is followed by our aforenoted, syndicated article:

Various
23 August

"A few minutes later, a "little green man" approached the house. "He was about three feet tall, with eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart, with hands like claws and glowing all over," Sutton said".
(End)


Isabel Davis makes reference to it twice.

Firstly, when Mrs Lankford reportedly told her that during the 3:30 a.m. sighting, a creature was observed at the bedroom window:

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

The second occasion, is during her narrative of the main events:

"It then jumped up, we thought, right on the roof of the house. As Billy went out the door to get another shot at it, the thing's clawy hands snatched at Billy's head".

Ledwith's next day documentation is critical here and would seem to leave no margin for any misunderstanding.

It's specific - even though arguably not quite reflected in the actual drawings.

Should there have been herons involved at some stage, it does seem perfectly conceivable that in darkness and confusion those lengthy wings tucked in could be perceived as arms and the long talons on their feet, mistaken for being duly attached - nobody apparently had a clear observation of the feet aspect.

Personally, whatsoever the explanation, I have now resultantly concluded it's not a massive problem if the ears are no match for any candidate. There was a dispute about how large they actually were and just a realisation that not everything is going to be an exact fit.

If there were actual creatures and perfectly terrestrial, then how can we expect the witness depictions to compare exactly?

There's nothing identical, otherwise it would have been resolved long time ago.

Something has to give, simply because, logically, something isn't right.

That is, as noted, subject to both assumptions!

As how to reconcile any candidate, not only this one, with the proclaimed survival of direct hits from gunfire at close range, something has to also be amiss here.

Will come back to that, as it involves both the connundrum with the timeline and Mrs Lankford's participation therein, plus an associated question which is becoming equally disconcerting... the alleged appearance of our creatures at the actual farmhouse itself.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This, however, seems to be our culprit, claiming of 'Lucky' Sutton:

Just to clarify, the 'Evansville Press' interview occured before Sutton returned to the farmhouse and raised the point with Ledwith about there possibly having been webbing involved.

It seems that whilst Sutton referred to 'claws' and Ledwith uses 'talons', it's the same so far as Sutton is concerned and would explain why the next day's syndicated article quotes Sutton again refererring to claws.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Can it be confirmed the creatures were never actually observed having 'claws' and it was in fact 'talons'. ...

I doubt the distinction between 'claws' and 'talons' was known to the residents, much less in play when describing what they claimed to have seen.

... Isabel Davis makes reference to it twice.

Firstly, when Mrs Lankford reportedly told her that during the 3:30 a.m. sighting, a creature was observed at the bedroom window:
""Close enough to put his little clawy hands up on it", she said.

The second occasion, is during her narrative of the main events:
"It then jumped up, we thought, right on the roof of the house. As Billy went out the door to get another shot at it, the thing's clawy hands snatched at Billy's head". ...

These two citations illustrate one of the key problems with the heron (etc.) hypothesis in relation to the reported events - i.e., how the 'clawy' parts were employed by the visitors. More specifically ...

(1) If a water / wading bird was what Ms. Glennie saw at 0330, the 'clawy hands' had to have been the bird's feet. Was it standing on its head outside? Was the allegedly oversized and rounded 'head' actually an inverted bird's butt?

(2) How realistic is it to suppose that a large water / wading bird sitting atop the sloped tin roof overhang could or would be reaching downward (to Taylor's head) with one of its feet?

Beyond that ...

(3) Were the 'raised hands' actually the feet of a gymnast bird walking upside down on its wingtips?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

You're right - Ledwith's report (included within the D & B report) makes no mention of this.

Just to clarify for anyone reading and hasn't seen the previous correspondence, which was a few posts back now, this was in reply to my observation

(Start)
Isabel Davis states, "Talking to Mr. Ledwith the next morning, Mrs. Lankford said she thought the slow approach and raised hands meant that the creatures were trying to establish communication".

So far as I can see, it's not mentioned in Ledwith's written documentation.
(End)

There is actually a reference to this in Isabel Davis' 'Close Encounters...'.:

"WE DID WIDEN THE AREA AT THE END OF THE LEG SLIGHTLY, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CREATURE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE THAN BROOMSTICK LEGS TO SUPPORT IT IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION WITH RAISED ARMS (PERHAPS THE ASSUMPTION WAS WRONG, HOWEVER, BECAUSE WEIGHT WAS
APPARENTLY NO PROBLEM TO THE CREATURES.)".

This does presumably explan Isabel's inclusion in her narrative of events - which draws on several sources:

"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".

This also apparently explains Isabel's resultant comments:

"Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of their behavior was their method of locomotion. Whenever they came toward the house they had an upright posture, walking slowly with their hands raised. (Talking to Mr. Ledwith the next morning, Mrs. Lankford said she thought the slow approach and raised hands meant that the creatures were trying to establish communication.)

When struck by shots on a tree-limb or on the roof, they performed their fantastic trick of not falling but floating toward the ground. But whenever they been knocked
over, while on the ground, by a shot, and had "flipped," in the Sutton's phrase, they moved differently. They lowered their hands to the ground and "ran" very rapidly--except that the arms seemed to furnish most of the propulsion; the thin legs, "as spindly as broom handles," seemed to be used only for balance and to move in unison. The legs were inflexible...". etc.

Shall leave it there for the moment and shortly, separately address the issue which this inevitably leads to, regarding Mrs Lankford's claim to have witnessed same.

 

[EnolaGaia]

If the creature was capable of standing erect on two limbs at all there's no additional issue of ability to support the entire body with the forelimbs raised. Naturally, there may be issues relating to balance and ability to walk, but not with regard to simply holding the body off the ground.

In any case, large walking / wading birds provide a clear example of relatively long slender legs supporting an entire body.

 

[Lb8535]

I doubt the distinction between 'claws' and 'talons' was known to the residents, much less in play when describing what they claimed to have seen.


These two citations illustrate one of the key problems with the heron (etc.) hypothesis in relation to the reported events - i.e., how the 'clawy' parts were employed by the visitors. More specifically ...

(1) If a water / wading bird was what Ms. Glennie saw at 0330, the 'clawy hands' had to have been the bird's feet. Was it standing on its head outside? Was the allegedly oversized and rounded 'head' actually an inverted bird's butt?

(2) How realistic is it to suppose that a large water / wading bird sitting atop the sloped tin roof overhang could or would be reaching downward (to Taylor's head) with one of its feet?

Beyond that ...

(3) Were the 'raised hands' actually the feet of a gymnast bird walking upside down on its wingtips?

Um. Cranes occasionally migrate at night in flocks but during normal operations are diurnal.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Um. Cranes occasionally migrate at night in flocks but during normal operations are diurnal.

Yep - cranes are another candidate bird.

 

[Nosmo King]

I doubt the distinction between 'claws' and 'talons' was known to the residents, much less in play when describing what they claimed to have seen.


These two citations illustrate one of the key problems with the heron (etc.) hypothesis in relation to the reported events - i.e., how the 'clawy' parts were employed by the visitors. More specifically ...

(1) If a water / wading bird was what Ms. Glennie saw at 0330, the 'clawy hands' had to have been the bird's feet. Was it standing on its head outside? Was the allegedly oversized and rounded 'head' actually an inverted bird's butt?

(2) How realistic is it to suppose that a large water / wading bird sitting atop the sloped tin roof overhang could or would be reaching downward (to Taylor's head) with one of its feet?

Beyond that ...

(3) Were the 'raised hands' actually the feet of a gymnast bird walking upside down on its wingtips?

Could the 'hands' and 'talons' have been the large flight feathers at the wing tips?

 

[Nosmo King]

I would question as to whether a wading bird would act in the manner as described, in my experience most bird would shy away from human contact and would certainly not hang around if firearms were being discharged.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Could the 'hands' and 'talons' have been the large flight feathers at the wing tips?

That's the only interpretation that made sense to me. If the plumage coloring was such as to give the appearance of thinner long arms (etc.) when viewed in low light conditions, that might explain it.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Shall leave it there for the moment and shortly, separately address the issue which this inevitably leads to, regarding Mrs Lankford's claim to have witnessed same.

In essence, it seems we have two versions of the earliest firearms usage.

Andre:

1. A creature approaches the back door. Taylor and Mrs Lankford await until it comes right up to the door. It is possibly scared away, just before Taylor shoots at it through the screen.

Davis:

2. A creature approaches the back door. Sutton and Taylor wait until it comes within 20 feet. Both men shoot at it.


Andre:

Thinking it might have jumped up onto the roof, Taylor goes out the door and as he does so, a creature's talon/claw appears to reach down and touch his head.

Davis:

Sutton and Taylor go into the living room. Another creature appears at the side window and they both fire at it through the screen.

Sutton and Taylor decide to go outside and check if it has been hit. As they do so, a creature's talon/claw appears to reach down and touch Taylor's head.


The difference is that in Andre's account, directly leading up the head-touching incident, it's only Taylor present at the back door and a shot fired through the door screen.

In Isabel Davis' account, both Sutton and Taylor are present (no clarification of whether Mrs Lankford is also there, or not), then there is a further shooting event through the screen of the side window and it's that which directly leads to the head-touching incident.

I won't go into the 10:30 timing aspect and its repercussions for now.

First of all, would we agreed this is the correct scenario to move forward with?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

That's the only interpretation that made sense to me. If the plumage coloring was such as to give the appearance of thinner long arms (etc.) when viewed in low light conditions, that might explain it.

Lest we also forget, herons will sometimes adopt a pose with one talon raised.

Does this, for example, look like it could be a 'spindly' arm ending in talons?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Does this, for example, look like it could be a 'spindly' arm ending in talons?

Just a further thought - all remaining speculative. Could this be why they couldn't seem to make out what the creatures' feet looked like? Those talons were in fact part of their feet, understandably mistaken as hands.

 

[BS3]

To return to an earlier theory on this, has anyone considered that there is one obvious possible identity for an external accomplice in any family "plot" to encourage Mrs Lankford to leave the property?

From a number of different sources I understand that:

- The McCords were relatives of the family and lived close by at the time
- The McCords took over the tenancy of the farm after the Suttons left

You have to wonder why, if one set of family members had been effectively frightened off the property, another set were seemingly content to move into it immediately afterwards.

I realise there are a number of structural problems with the "hoax perpetrated on Mrs Lankford" theory, but there are a couple of bits of possible supportive evidence too - eg the piece of aluminium foil supposedly found by the police.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

In any case, large walking / wading birds provide a clear example of relatively long slender legs supporting an entire body.

I recalled a more detailed description of the legs aspect was published in the 'Leaf-Chronicle' article of 24 August, which featured Pt. Gary Hodson' sketches of the creatutes, as described to him by Billy Ray Taylor alone.

For those unaware, these were also obtained next day, during the same time Ledwith interviewed the witnesses and in his notes, Ledwith writes

"THE BODY ABOVE THE WAIST WAS POWERFUL, THEY SAID, AND THE UPPER ARMS ALSO: THE LEGS AND FOREARMS WERE THIN AND SPINDLY, AS IF THEY WERE "MADE OF BROOM HANDLES." THE MEN, LIKE THE WOMEN, HAD NOT SEEN ANY FEET. TAYLOR, STILL BEING INTERVIEWED BY THE SOLDIER, TALKED ABOUT FEET THAT RESEMBLED SUCTION-CUPS, BUT SINCE HE WAS IN THE MINORITY WE DECIDED NOT TO INDICATE FEET AT ALL".

This is the relevant extract from that article. The 'witnesses" are not identified, however, Ledwith confirmed those who had traveled to Evansville, had returned before Hodson's departure.

"There was no feet attached to the mens' legs, all the witnesses agree. Instead there was something resembling suction cups. When they walked, they picked their "feet" straight up, and when did, so the cups on their legs appeared to collapse, further suggesting the suction cups.

But when the witnesses came to describe the method of walking of the little men, their descriptions differed a great deal.

The men, said different witnesses, 1) floated above the ground; 2) skimmed sbove the ground: 3) walked on their long arms and legs like an animal; 4) couldn't see how they traveled from one place to another".

From Ledwith's remarks, it does sound like Billy Ray Taylor was our advocate of 'suction cups'.

Nonetheless, this mention of the creatutes "walking' is intriguing and there is an informative YouTube video of herons demonstrating precisely that.

When the creatures are described thus; "they picked their "feet" straight up, and when did, so the cups on their legs appeared to collapse"... does it resemble this?:

 

[EnolaGaia]

Yes - Mr. McCord (William) was Ms. Lankford's nephew. His wife Juanita provided Davis with some of the most detailed information about the incident's setting (e.g., what firearms had been available in the house).

The McCords lived about 3 miles south of the Lankford / Sutton farmhouse at the time of the incident.

The majority of references to Ms. Lankford's tenancy indicate she was renting the house from a Mr. McGehe. If this is correct, it's unclear what it was she "sold" to the McCords to entitle them to occupy the house. It's also unclear when the McCords moved to the house.

 

[EnolaGaia]

In essence, it seems we have two versions of the earliest firearms usage.

No ... We have two shooting events that have been consistently reported as two separate events at different times, which you are attempting to combine into one event.

First of all, would we agreed this is the correct scenario to move forward with?

Well, no - and I've already said 'No' and explained why.

Am I missing something here or misunderstood you? I'm not understanding why you're pushing for merging these two events into one.

 

[BS3]

Yes - Mr. McCord (William) was Ms. Lankford's nephew. His wife Juanita provided Davis with some of the most detailed information about the incident's setting (e.g., what firearms had been available in the house).

The McCords lived about 3 miles south of the Lankford / Sutton farmhouse at the time of the incident.

The majority of references to Ms. Lankford's tenancy indicate she was renting the house from a Mr. McGehe. If this is correct, it's unclear what it was she "sold" to the McCords to entitle them to occupy the house. It's also unclear when the McCords moved to the house.

Thanks, this helps clarify a few things.

If the McCords were genuinely convinced of the reality of events, it does seem a little strange they would move in; maybe that's just my interpretation. And if we had family members as eager to take the property on as J. C. and Alene perhaps were to move out, there's an additional motive.

Of course this still doesn't explain how any hoax could have been timed to closely follow the appearance of a meteor.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The following may have a bearing on why one might want to merge the Ms. Glennie first sighting and the Lucky / Taylor first sighting.

First, let's recall the earlier mention of how much information other than the sketches Ledwith may have gathered from the witnesses on the 22nd. Davis specifically cited two things for which Ledwith contributed information other than his sketches:

It is at any rate verified that at least four or five shots were fired; Mr. Ledwith established the sequence of these (page 27). He also obtained from the McCords a reliable statement about the guns in the farmhouse that night, and which of the men used each one (page 21).

Absent any documentation (we've seen ... ) of these and / or any other information Ledwith may have gathered we have no basis for knowing whether Davis reasonably applied it in her exposition.

We've already established there are ambiguities - and even conflicts - in correlating the known shooters (Lucky, J. C., Taylor) with the particular weapons each was using. Moving on to the far more important issue of Ledwith having "established the sequence" of the shooting events ...

Davis says the sequence Ledwith prescribed is the sequence given on page 27 of her report. Here's the sequence as she presented it on page 27:

Shots had now been fired at the creatures at least four times:

- first, from the back door as the creature approached the house;
- second, the double shot from rifle and shotgun through the living room window;
- third, Lucky's shot from the front yard at the creature trying to touch Taylor's hair; and
- fourth, the double shot at the creature in the tree.

Now, as the creature came round the corner of the house, Lucky brought the shotgun down to bear on it and fired at point-blank range. It sounded as if the shots had hit a metal bucket. The thing "flipped over," got up, and ran off into the darkness, seemingly unhurt.

(Davis: D & B report, p. 27 - partially reformatted as a list for clarity)

Davis omits any mention of the 0330 sighting / shooting here. It may be because she was relating events in chronological order as she understood it, and the 0330 event was still in the future (relative to this point in her telling of the story). On the other hand, we don't know (and Davis nowhere says) that Ledwith's report of the night's events included the 0330 event at all.

Davis' recitation of the sequence she attributes to Ledwith also omits any reference to the murky kitchen roof-scratching and subsequent shooting event(s?) which O. P. Baker claimed occurred early in the evening's storyline.

Assuming her recitation of Ledwith's pre-evacuation sequence was something she believed was comprehensive, Davis thereby omits Ms. Glennie's first sighting / shooting, even though Ms. Glennie reported it in her signed statement and multiple reporters obtained it on the same day Ledwith was gathering information at the farm (the 22nd).

This strongly suggests Ledwith didn't hear about - or didn't document - Ms. Glennie's first sighting. That might explain why Davis had to insert mention of Ms. Glennie's delayed attention to the shenanigans and her first sighting by patching in material from Andre's interviews from 3 years later.

 

[EnolaGaia]

If the McCords were genuinely convinced of the reality of events, it does seem a little strange they would move in; maybe that's just my interpretation. And if we had family members as eager to take the property on as J. C. and Alene perhaps were to move out, there's an additional motive.

It's anybody's guess why William and Juanita were motivated to move to the Lankford house. It would have positioned them closer to "downtown" Kelly (e.g., the store). If the Lankford place included a tobacco allotment it might have been a factor (i.e., adding the opportunity to grow the most lucrative local cash crop).

It may have related to living closer to a relative. A Raymond McCord was mentioned as a neighbor to the Lankford place - a neighbor who'd claimed to have never heard any shots on the night of 21/ 22 August. According to the Gooch book on Madisonville history (source for what some consider Lucky's alleged confession of the incident being a "lie") it was Raymond McCord to whom Lucky confessed this.

As of 1966 a Raymond McCord was cited in a New Era article as living at the old Lankford / Sutton place. Then again, that same article mis-identifies Raymond as being Juanita's husband.

According to a 2010 obit for one of their sons, the McCords' full names were William Eugene McCord and Mary Juanita Samples McCord.
https://www.kentuckynewera.com/obituaries/article_7db350d0-972b-5417-9879-75f96b464a7e.html

 

[EnolaGaia]

BS3 said:
Of course this still doesn't explain how any hoax could have been timed to closely follow the appearance of a meteor.

It wouldn't have taken much imagination to anticipate a meteor. The incident occurred during the latter days of the well-known and typically prominent Perseid meteor shower.

I still tend to suspect it was a meteor sighting which motivated the creation of a UFO story rather than a meteor fortuitously supporting a planned story about a UFO. There's no solid indication any of the residents other than Taylor saw a meteor (UFO, whatever), but there were independent reports of a meteor observed in the same locale and timeframe moving in the same direction. Save for the sounds of gunshots this meteor (whatever) sighting is the only element in the story confirmed by third-party witnesses.

 

[marhawkman]

That's the only interpretation that made sense to me. If the plumage coloring was such as to give the appearance of thinner long arms (etc.) when viewed in low light conditions, that might explain it.

my thought was that maybe the mis-identification was sometimes flip-flopping? Hmmm hard to be sure of anything though.

Could the head grab be wing-feathers? Like if the bird was sitting on the porch roof and its wing drooped over the edge?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Am I missing something here or misunderstood you? I'm not understanding why you're pushing for merging these two events into one

Does this maybe help - on the understanding I may well be missing something which should be obvious!

Having gone over it all again and attempting to hopefully simplify matters, this looks to be the situation.

I am using the 22 August, 'Evansville Press' article as it is a helpful comparison.

Andre:

About 10 o'clock, Alene comes in terrified, saying she had seen one of the little men.

Mrs Lankford suggests turning out the lights, which they do.

She goes into the hallway, crouches down next to Taylor, asks what they have been firing at and Taylor replies, 'wait and see'.

They are at the front door, only three feet from the door.

Some 20 minutes later, a creature approaches and comes right up to the screen. It looks like a five-gallon gasoline can, etc.

Mrs Lankford tries to get up, however, her legs are stiff from crouching, plus she's quite heavy, loses her balance, falls over making a "thud-like" noise and lets out a shriek.

At that point the creature 'jumps back into the yard' and Taylor fires at it through the screen.

They think it might have jumped up onto the roof, so Taylor steps outside and a talon/claw seems to reach down at his head.

By this time, Alene had also come to the back door and she pulls Taylor back inside.

Sutton, who had been guarding the back door, also now arrives at the front door, goes outside and fires at the creature, which is apparently on the front door overhang.


'Evansville Press'

In the 'Evansville Press' article,
Alene says that when this front door, head-touch incident happened, she was at the back door and it was Baker who pulled Taylor back into the house.

Alene also mentions that at one point, Mrs Lankford "got only a glimpse of "one of those shiny things" through a screen door and fainted.


Conclusion

The 10:30 sighting documented in Mrs Lankford's written statement, given at the time, describes how she was "walking through the hallway" when she observed a "bright shiny object". She was around 18-20 feet away from it, couldn't make out any facial details, "fell backward and then was carried into the bedroom".

This is clearly the same incident as mentioned by Alene in the newspaper article and as recounted to Andre in 1959.

Her original statement makes no mention of a shooting incident at 10:30 and is merely the account of a brief sighting, then falling down and being carried to the bedroom. This agrees with Alene's untimed newspaper account, with the exception Alene refers to it as 'fainting'.

If there is no evidence for a related gunshot and inevitable damage, which would have been visible during the police investigation, the conclusion has to be that the version seemingly given to Andre in 1959 may be resultant from false memories.

Ostensibly, that now calls into question her entire 1959 claims about the head-touching incident occurring so late as 10:30. and consequently the shooting episodes being condensed within a short timescale, late at night.

One final question; If that official statement is more trustworthy and Mrs Lankford did witness a 'creature' at 10:30 and it was so close as 18-20 feet from a window, then what happened next?

There seems to be no record of it being fired upon?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Does this maybe help - on the understanding I may well be missing something which should be obvious

To hopefully help clarify further...

The 1959 account given to Andre is seemingly the 10:30 incident documented in Mrs Lankford's statement, with the falling down/fainting.

However, come 1959, she remembers it as leading to a gunshot being fired and immediately afterwards the front door, hair-touching incident.

She is confusing this with the shot fired through the window event, which was in fact the origin of that hair-touching occurrence.

In short, by 1959, her memory has skipped the window shot event.

The actual sequence:

- she witnessed a creature in the hallway, no shot was fired

- then, completely separately the window shot, Taylor goes to investigate & the head-touching.


However in 1959, she recollects:

- she witnessed a creature in the hallway

- a shot was fired at it through the screen

- Taylor went to check & the hair-touching

That's my understanding of it and although maybe not a huge issue - just that if come 1959 she's confusing that, what else in the later Andre retelling is an unreliable recollection.

I recalled you did mention that the part about both the supper dishes being washed and the children being put to bed circa 10:00, etc. was anomalous with your personal experiences.

If no contention otherwise, I am perfectly satisfied to leave the significantly later Andre retelling out of the equation entirely.

In fact, I now conclude that is essential.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Davis' recitation of the sequence she attributes to Ledwith also omits any reference to the murky kitchen roof-scratching and subsequent shooting event(s?) which O. P. Baker claimed occurred early in the evening's storyline. ...

Nonetheless, Davis (pp. 28 - 29) uses this murky kitchen-roof-scratching event as her illustration for the visitors' "floating" ability. She attributes multiple shots by multiple shooters in the back yard to this event. This raises two critical issues:

(1) Where did she get the story of this roof-scratching / back yard shooting? Did it come from Ledwith? If so ...

(2) Does her omission of this event from her listing of shooting events up through the front yard roof / tree shootings (p. 27) mean it occurred after the famed front yard shootings?