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

[Comfortably Numb]

This is maybe the first actual evidence I have seen which raises suspicions.

We would, for example, need some evidence that a conceivable candidate creature, say a heron, would perch on a slanted roof/overhang slope.

Something like this...

...and I suppose suspicions now perhaps slightly allayed.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Secondly, herons, do not typically peer through windows...

Conversely, we would only need a supporting example, of course.

Sheesh...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Conversely, we would only need a supporting example, of course.

The things you learn around here, that you never imagined possible.

Imagine if this happened, in the dark of night...

 

[BS3]

This is great. However if you look at it from the heron's perspective - if we assume the basic accuracy of the mens' account of the start of the incident - are you likely to go up to a window in the face of barking dogs, shouting humans and (at some later point) gunfire?

Whenever I've seen a heron, in the UK at least, I've been unable to get anywhere near them.

Other than the 3am incident, to work it requires a scenario where the birds are already hanging around outside before being seen.

 

[Lb8535]

The things you learn around here, that you never imagined possible.

Imagine if this happened, in the dark of night...

That's adorable. Everyone who lives in the area knows a heron when they see one. And I'm putting money on that heron scratched on the window because the owner had it trained to ask for a fish that way.

 

[Nosmo King]

The things you learn around here, that you never imagined possible.

Imagine if this happened, in the dark of night...

I would imagine a heron would explode in a big puff of gore and feathers if shot at point blank by a shotgun, if the report is accurate.

 

[EnolaGaia]

This is great. However if you look at it from the heron's perspective - if we assume the basic accuracy of the mens' account of the start of the incident - are you likely to go up to a window in the face of barking dogs, shouting humans and (at some later point) gunfire? ...

No barking dogs ... There was only one dog at the Lankford / Sutton place. According to the most detailed accounts it barked a lot before the first-seen visitor came into view, retreated beneath the house, and wasn't seen or heard until sometime the following day. The one account that mentions the dog being seen the following day is the only mention of the post-cowering dog in any / all the accounts.

While we're on the subject of the dog ...

Depending on which account you follow, only some or even none* of the residents arrived at the farmhouse with the first authorities on the scene. Why didn't the dog react to all the strangers showing up? Once the dog allegedly cowered underneath the house it's basically never mentioned again.

* Davis says June Taylor stayed behind at the police station (while everyone else presumably returned to the scene). Other accounts say one or two of the women stayed behind (at the station) with the 3 minor kids. Another says all the women stayed behind with the kids. There's even one account that claims none of the residents returned to the house until after the police had searched the premises.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Conversely, we would only need a supporting example, of course. ...

Now we need a video illustrating how a heron (or equivalent bird) reacts to a sudden gunshot at close quarters.

 

[BS3]

No barking dogs ... There was only one dog at the Lankford / Sutton place. According to the most detailed accounts it barked a lot before the first-seen visitor came into view, retreated beneath the house, and wasn't seen or heard until sometime the following day. The one account that mentions the dog being seen the following day is the only mention of the post-cowering dog in any / all the accounts.

While we're on the subject of the dog ...

Depending on which account you follow, only some or even none* of the residents arrived at the farmhouse with the first authorities on the scene. Why didn't the dog react to all the strangers showing up? Once the dog allegedly cowered underneath the house it's basically never mentioned again.

* Davis says June Taylor stayed behind at the police station (while everyone else presumably returned to the scene). Other accounts say one or two of the women stayed behind (at the station) with the 3 minor kids. Another says all the women stayed behind with the kids. There's even one account that claims none of the residents returned to the house until after the police had searched the premises.

As for the "barking dog" part of the story, I imagine that a dog's far more likely to bark at a person approaching the house than at approaching raccoons or birds. To me it seems like another thing that suggests a (human) accomplice.

 

[Nosmo King]

Now we need a video illustrating how a heron (or equivalent bird) reacts to a sudden gunshot at close quarters.

I cant find any information about whether herons are scared off by gunfire, let alone any footage, I did find some interesting information especially in the first few minutes of this video.

The herons behaviour and reaction to being scared in this video is very interesting and very loud.

 

[marhawkman]

You'd have to hypothesise a small flock of birds who stuck around while other members of the flock were getting blasted with shotguns. As herons are generally very wary this seems unlikely.

Did they though? There might have been as few as 4 shots fired... around 2230, and then the birds were gone until 0330, which might not even be the same birds. But if it's hungry birds wandering around looking for food? well, as odd a coincidence as it seems to be, two groups of birds showing up for the same reason isn't that big a stretch.

Also I have to wonder.... what do we know about the type of ammo used? I vaguely recall a mention of shooting at "pests".. like what? gophers?

 

[Nosmo King]

Also I have to wonder.... what do we know about the type of ammo used?

I think it has been mentioned up thread that the shotgun cartridges were standard bird shot and the other ammo was some sort of .22 bullets.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

However if you look at it from the heron's perspective - if we assume the basic accuracy of the mens' account of the start of the incident - are you likely to go up to a window in the face of barking dogs, shouting humans and (at some later point) gunfire?

For sure and that's one of the aspects which doesn't seem to make sense. It's related to why herons would be in that vicinity at all, in the first place. I suppose it could simply have been a pair of herons (seems never more than two creatures were seen at the same time) out looking for food further afield because of the long, dry spell adversely affecting their normal supply sources - perhaps low river water levels and less fish. All assumptions of course and we simply do not have any relevant background data.

I have wondered if the local tobacco harvesting might be an attraction. Perhaps this resulted in a sudden abundance of bugs and small prey being visible, or something similar.

Nonetheless, if there were in fact enigmatic, circa 3 feet tall creatures and not entirely imagination or a bogus story, plus they were not of extraterrestrial origin, then we have to accept the circumstances as reported.

Whilst seemingly unusual behaviour, it's perfectly plausible.

We are then left with the question of suitable candidates and as the evidence has apparently become significantly clarified, presently there is arguably one prime suspect.

One which point, having another look at the sketch based solely on Billy Ray Taylor's instructions and published by the, 'Leaf-Chronicle', on 24 August, for some reason, It depicts two different talons.

The illustration on the left-hand-side, seems more in keeping with what all the witnesses described.

 

[maximus otter]

Did they though? There might have been as few as 4 shots fired... around 2230, and then the birds were gone until 0330, which might not even be the same birds. But if it's hungry birds wandering around looking for food? well, as odd a coincidence as it seems to be, two groups of birds showing up for the same reason isn't that big a stretch.

Also I have to wonder.... what do we know about the type of ammo used? I vaguely recall a mention of shooting at "pests".. like what? gophers?

I think that the ammo used was:

a) .22LR from a "target pistol".

b) 12-bore, type unspecified.

maximus otter

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Everyone who lives in the area knows a heron when they see one. And I'm putting money on that heron scratched on the window because the owner had it trained to ask for a fish that way.

I have come across a report of identical heron behaviour:

"A White Faced Heron has been coming to the glass panel at my front door and knocking on it. This has been going on for a few weeks now. So much so that we have given him the name "Bonk", for the sound he makes tapping on the window. I realise he is obsessed with the bird he sees in the reflection".

Even if I knew this was a likely explanation beforehand and it happened, that would still be seriously scary.


On which, whilst everyone knows what a local heron looks like, I can personally vouch that they can masquerade as something profoundly anomalous in the dark.

I have previously mentioned my own experience of mistaking one for a vampire!

 

[BS3]

For sure and that's one of the aspects which doesn't seem to make sense. It's related to why herons would be in that vicinity at all, in the first place. I suppose it could simply have been a pair of herons (seems never more than two creatures were seen at the same time) out looking for food further afield because of the long, dry spell adversely affecting their normal supply sources - perhaps low river water levels and less fish. All assumptions of course and we simply do not have any relevant background data.

I have wondered if the local tobacco harvesting might be an attraction. Perhaps this resulted in a sudden abundance of bugs and small prey being visible, or something similar.

Nonetheless, if there were in fact enigmatic, circa 3 feet tall creatures and not entirely imagination or a bogus story, plus they were not of extraterrestrial origin, then we have to accept the circumstances as reported.

Whilst seemingly unusual behaviour, it's perfectly plausible.

We are then left with the question of suitable candidates and as the evidence has apparently become significantly clarified, presently there is arguably one prime suspect.

One which point, having another look at the sketch based solely on Billy Ray Taylor's instructions and published by the, 'Leaf-Chronicle', on 24 August, for some reason, It depicts two different talons.

The illustration on the left-hand-side, seems more in keeping with what all the witnesses described.

View attachment 45695

I find it interesting that the Hodson sketch, taken from Taylor's account, is a lot closer to some of those early newspaper descriptions (eg the head looking like a "skull") than Ledwith's.

One of the things that bothers me about the Ledwith sketches is those very large, near-spherical heads. You would think that feature would come across more in the written accounts, but I can't recall that it does - it's also one of the things that doesn't seem easily prompted by anything about heron anatomy, if it comes to it.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I think that the ammo used was:

a) .22LR from a "target pistol".
b) 12-bore, type unspecified.

There were supposedly two .22 caliber weapons at the farmhouse. One was a .22 rifle, which Davis (and some news stories) claimed Taylor was using throughout the incident.

The other was a .22 pistol (sometimes cited as a 'target pistol'), which is most often cited as a weapon J. C. Sutton was using. Some news accounts cite Taylor as using a .22 pistol at one time or another during the incident.

There were 2 shotguns in the house. One was an older 12-gauge single-barreled 'goose gun' that most all accounts claim Lucky Sutton was using throughout the incident. This is the gun he's seen holding in the photo of him and Taylor at the front door.

The other was a newer 20-gauge shotgun that had 3 choke attachments. This shotgun is most often claimed to be the weapon J. C. Sutton used for the living room window shooting. However, a few accounts claim Lucky was using a 20-gauge shotgun at one or another time.

The type(s) of .22 ammo used that night wasn't specified. In either a rifle or pistol the most likely cartridge would have been .22 Long Rifle (.22 LR). However, there were still plenty of older guns as of the 1950s that were chambered for older .22 cartridges (e.g., .22 Short), and most guns chambered for .22 LR could fire the shorter rounds as well.

There's no mention of whether the .22 weapons were repeaters versus single-shot guns.

The shotgun shells used weren't clearly specified. There's one account in which Lucky Sutton is cited as having used No. 5 shot with the 12-gauge. No. 5 shot has a relatively small diameter and is considered an appropriate load for squirrels and birds. The shot pellets dug out of the living room window frame weren't described in terms of their size (as I recall).

I have no reason to suspect the 20-gauge shotgun was loaded with anything heavier than the same No. 5 shot.

BOTTOM LINE: The accounts are mute, ambiguous, and / or conflicting on which shooter was using which gun at any given time. Taylor is cited as using a .22 weapon, but not any shotgun. Lucky is cited as using one or both the shotguns, but not any .22. J. C. is the only one cited as using both / either a .22 pistol and / or a shotgun.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I find it interesting that the Hodson sketch, taken from Taylor's account, is a lot closer to some of those early newspaper descriptions (eg the head looking like a "skull") than Ledwith's.
One of the things that bothers me about the Ledwith sketches is those very large, near-spherical heads. You would think that feature would come across more in the written accounts, but I can't recall that it does - it's also one of the things that doesn't seem easily prompted by anything about heron anatomy, if it comes to it.

Nope ... Three of the 4 earliest published accounts based on interviews on 22 August mention oversized heads, and one of them is the Clarksville article based on Hodson's visit and including his drawings.

"A short time later somebody reported some little men with big heads and long arms were approaching the house. The men were described as having huge eyes and hands out of proportion to their small bodies. "

Kentucky New Era, 22 August

" ... oversize hands, slick bald heads with big eyes and pointed ears. Their faces were like 'skin stretched over a skull'."

Madisonville Messenger, 22 August

"... huge heads and hands ..." "... most noticeable characteristic is a huge head ..."

Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle, 24 August (the report with Hodson's drawings)

Evansville Press, 22 August: No specific description of the head per se, but two mentions of wide-set eyes (6 to 8 inches apart, per Lucky) and one mention of "big" eyes (by Alene).

The two other drawings were made by newspaper staffers who didn't directly interview the witnesses.

The crude sketch I believe to be the one you described as looking like a skull came from the 24 August Madisonville Messenger article that mocked the residents for charging admission. That drawing was submitted by an unidentified third party and characterized as a joke.

The drawing accompanying the 22 August Evansville Press article was done by a newspaper reporter and / or artist based on notes from interviewing the witnesses, and it didn't involve feedback from those witnesses.

 

[BS3]

Nope ... Three of the 4 earliest published accounts based on interviews on 22 August mention oversized heads, and one of them is the Clarksville article based on Hodson's visit and including his drawings.


Kentucky New Era, 22 August


Madisonville Messenger, 22 August


Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle, 24 August (the report with Hodson's drawings)

Evansville Press, 22 August: No specific description of the head per se, but two mentions of wide-set eyes (6 to 8 inches apart, per Lucky) and one mention of "big" eyes (by Alene).

The two other drawings were made by newspaper staffers who didn't directly interview the witnesses.

The crude sketch I believe to be the one you described as looking like a skull came from the 24 August Madisonville Messenger article that mocked the residents for charging admission. That drawing was submitted by an unidentified third party and characterized as a joke.

The drawing accompanying the 22 August Evansville Press article was done by a newspaper reporter and / or artist based on notes from interviewing the witnesses, and it didn't involve feedback from those witnesses.

Yes, I understand that oversized heads were mentioned but why weren't they described as spherical? "Skin stretched over a skull" is absolutely nothing like the Ledwith drawings, particularly the one not derived from Taylor. The roundness of the head seems such a distinctive feature (unless "slick bald head" is hinting at it).

It's the Hodson drawing that seems more 'skeletal' and therefore more like what was initially described - that's the one I was referencing anyway, the one done by Hodson after Ledwith palmed Taylor off on him.

Ultimately I'm trying to work out which features are consistent so they can be compared against any bird candidates.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Oh, OK ... I thought you were referring to size rather than shape.

I agree - the size and shape (particularly the breadth) of the head are the primary features that make it difficult to correlate the sketchy sketches / descriptions with a known type of bird.

The most specific claims made with respect to the head area concern the eyes and ears. The eyes are commonly stated to have been set wide apart, and there are fewer claims that they were located at the corners or sides of the apparent face. A figure of "6 inches apart" is cited multiple times. The maximum inter-eye distance estimate is "6 to 8 inches" (from the Evansville Press of 22 August, if I recall correctly).

Not even a large owl has eyes set 6 to 8 inches apart.

 

[EnolaGaia]

It must be borne in mind that all three shooters (Lucky, Taylor, and J. C.) were effectively "ambushed" with the sketch Ledwith had developed with the 3 women witnesses when they returned to the farmhouse (Taylor in early afternoon; Lucky and J. C. in early evening). Ledwith and Hodson took the shooters' acceptance of the women's sketch as evidence of consistency that lent weight to their overall testimony.

There's an alternative interpretation in light of the fact the earliest sketch was a product of the women rather than the men who'd seen and engaged the visitors most closely and repeatedly.

This interpretation is based on the notion that both Taylor and the trio of Evansville travelers were confronted with a dilemma when discovering the women's sketch. In the event the women's composite description didn't match the shooters' perceptions each shooter had to tread carefully in making changes to what Ledwith had already produced.

Taylor initially described the visitors as quite similar to the women's sketch, but hours later began suggesting or making modifications that made Ledwith suspicious (and motivated Ledwith to hand Taylor off to Hodson). Ledwith specifically stated that Hodson hadn't seen the initial Taylor / Ledwith sketch when Hodson first engaged Taylor.

This means Taylor served as the informant for two separate sketches which differ to a greater degree than the women's versus the other men's drawings. In other words, Taylor changed his testimony to a notable degree.

When Lucky saw Ledwith's initial (women's) sketch he seemed to accept it, but immediately began prescribing changes (no neck; round face with no pointed or prominent chin). Later Lucky would dispute Taylor when he overheard Taylor talking about a nose. Lucky's revisions with Ledwith were less radical than Taylor's suggested revisions with Hodson.

I think there was a certain degree of acceptance both Taylor and the other men extended to the women's sketch because they'd been ambushed, they were thereby put on the spot, and it would look bad if they were to dispute the women's version too broadly or strongly.

In other words, they could only save face by adopting the women's sketch and minimally elaborating on it. Lucky seems to have understood this and acted accordingly to a much greater degree than Taylor.

I find it noteworthy that the features Lucky immediately prescribed in his / the men's version were precisely the features Taylor accepted from, or added to, the women's version with Ledwith and later further elaborated / emphasized (with Hodson) in his second version. Lucky insisted on:

- a head that did not taper to a prominent point or chin at its lower visible extremity;
- a complete removal of any hint of a neck; and eventually ...
- a denial of any prominent central feature suggesting a nose.

I also note that these revisions from Lucky had the effect of removing features that would suggest the head was similar to that of some bird.

 

[Nosmo King]

It must be borne in mind that all three shooters (Lucky, Taylor, and J. C.) were effectively "ambushed" with the sketch Ledwith had developed with the 3 women witnesses when they returned to the farmhouse (Taylor in early afternoon; Lucky and J. C. in early evening). Ledwith and Hodson took the shooters' acceptance of the women's sketch as evidence of consistency that lent weight to their overall testimony.

There's an alternative interpretation in light of the fact the earliest sketch was a product of the women rather than the men who'd seen and engaged the visitors most closely and repeatedly.

This interpretation is based on the notion that both Taylor and the trio of Evansville travelers were confronted with a dilemma when discovering the women's sketch. In the event the women's composite description didn't match the shooters' perceptions each shooter had to tread carefully in making changes to what Ledwith had already produced.

Taylor initially described the visitors as quite similar to the women's sketch, but hours later began suggesting or making modifications that made Ledwith suspicious (and motivated Ledwith to hand Taylor off to Hodson). Ledwith specifically stated that Hodson hadn't seen the initial Taylor / Ledwith sketch when Hodson first engaged Taylor.

This means Taylor served as the informant for two separate sketches which differ to a greater degree than the women's versus the other men's drawings. In other words, Taylor changed his testimony to a notable degree.

When Lucky saw Ledwith's initial (women's) sketch he seemed to accept it, but immediately began prescribing changes (no neck; round face with no pointed or prominent chin). Later Lucky would dispute Taylor when he overheard Taylor talking about a nose. Lucky's revisions with Ledwith were less radical than Taylor's suggested revisions with Hodson.

I think there was a certain degree of acceptance both Taylor and the other men extended to the women's sketch because they'd been ambushed, they were thereby put on the spot, and it would look bad if they were to dispute the women's version too broadly or strongly.

In other words, they could only save face by adopting the women's sketch and minimally elaborating on it. Lucky seems to have understood this and acted accordingly to a much greater degree than Taylor.

I find it noteworthy that the features Lucky immediately prescribed in his / the men's version were precisely the features Taylor accepted from, or added to, the women's version with Ledwith and later further elaborated / emphasized (with Hodson) in his second version. Lucky insisted on:

- a head that did not taper to a prominent point or chin at its lower visible extremity;
- a complete removal of any hint of a neck; and eventually ...
- a denial of any prominent central feature suggesting a nose.

I also note that these revisions from Lucky had the effect of removing features that would suggest the head was similar to that of some bird.

Just a quick question, would some if not all of the witnesses, especially the shooters who had a more enhanced view of the 'beings', be familiar with a herons appearance?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Just a quick question, would some if not all of the witnesses, especially the shooters who had a more enhanced view of the 'beings', be familiar with a herons appearance?

Quite possibly, if not probably ... As I noted earlier, there are a lot of ponds and small lakes in the vicinity. The Kentucky Lake / Land Between The Lakes wildlife refuge some 30(?) miles southwest of Hopkinsville hosts populations of grebes, egrets, and herons.

 

[BS3]

It must be borne in mind that all three shooters (Lucky, Taylor, and J. C.) were effectively "ambushed" with the sketch Ledwith had developed with the 3 women witnesses when they returned to the farmhouse (Taylor in early afternoon; Lucky and J. C. in early evening). Ledwith and Hodson took the shooters' acceptance of the women's sketch as evidence of consistency that lent weight to their overall testimony.

There's an alternative interpretation in light of the fact the earliest sketch was a product of the women rather than the men who'd seen and engaged the visitors most closely and repeatedly.

This interpretation is based on the notion that both Taylor and the trio of Evansville travelers were confronted with a dilemma when discovering the women's sketch. In the event the women's composite description didn't match the shooters' perceptions each shooter had to tread carefully in making changes to what Ledwith had already produced.

Taylor initially described the visitors as quite similar to the women's sketch, but hours later began suggesting or making modifications that made Ledwith suspicious (and motivated Ledwith to hand Taylor off to Hodson). Ledwith specifically stated that Hodson hadn't seen the initial Taylor / Ledwith sketch when Hodson first engaged Taylor.

This means Taylor served as the informant for two separate sketches which differ to a greater degree than the women's versus the other men's drawings. In other words, Taylor changed his testimony to a notable degree.

When Lucky saw Ledwith's initial (women's) sketch he seemed to accept it, but immediately began prescribing changes (no neck; round face with no pointed or prominent chin). Later Lucky would dispute Taylor when he overheard Taylor talking about a nose. Lucky's revisions with Ledwith were less radical than Taylor's suggested revisions with Hodson.

I think there was a certain degree of acceptance both Taylor and the other men extended to the women's sketch because they'd been ambushed, they were thereby put on the spot, and it would look bad if they were to dispute the women's version too broadly or strongly.

In other words, they could only save face by adopting the women's sketch and minimally elaborating on it. Lucky seems to have understood this and acted accordingly to a much greater degree than Taylor.

I find it noteworthy that the features Lucky immediately prescribed in his / the men's version were precisely the features Taylor accepted from, or added to, the women's version with Ledwith and later further elaborated / emphasized (with Hodson) in his second version. Lucky insisted on:

- a head that did not taper to a prominent point or chin at its lower visible extremity;
- a complete removal of any hint of a neck; and eventually ...
- a denial of any prominent central feature suggesting a nose.

I also note that these revisions from Lucky had the effect of removing features that would suggest the head was similar to that of some bird.

Yes, this is a great summary of what happened and are really the kind of questions that should have been asked at the time by investigators.

I'd personally say that the Hodson / Taylor sketch is arguably the most "birdlike", given the presence of a nose (i.e. a beak), shape of head, etc. I find it interesting that it is also most similar to a couple of the early verbal descriptions, e.g. the face like "skin stretched over a skull". I suppose the general sense that Taylor was a less reliable witness undermines this a bit - I note Ledwith does say he thought Hodson 'inadvertently 'led' Taylor a bit, though I don't know if this was Ledwith doing a bit of editorialising to forestall criticisms of the variation between sketches.

 

[BS3]

If anyone is interested on reading more evidence on luminosity in birds, there is an article "Luminosity in Birds" by W L McAtee in the Jul 1947 "American Midland Naturalist", available through Jstor (100 free article views for gmail logins) at

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2421636

This cites several examples of luminosity in herons, particularly a luminous spot on the breast area - not bright, but noticeable in darkness. I suppose you could imagine that if luminous spots on the breast area were perceived as eyes then the head and neck might be missed altogether?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The Clarksvillian article containing the quote is dated 20 December, 2020, and cites the D & B report as a source.

Just to clarify for anyone not sure what this relates to, as it goes back quite a few posts. It concerns the origin of a quote used by Isabel Davis in her 1978 publication, 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955', namely:

"real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow"

I have now discovered this exact quote also appears in an article published by 'The Indianapolis News', on 12 February, 1966.

It's a column published by Dr Webb Garrison, Central Methodist Church, Evansville, in which he features the Kelly-Hopkinsville case in his short treatise about whether God has created beings elsewhere in the universe and concludes it's not for himself to know of God's greater plan.

Furthermore, he quotes almost exactly the same phrase Isabel uses in her account of a meteor sounding like "artillery fire" - in his case, just "artillery".

The author notes that he hasn't read any of the 'Kentucy New Era' or Evansville articles.

I am presuming his source can not be Isabel Davis' use, as 'Close Encounters...' had not yet been published, unless some of the content was released before 1966?

I now wonder once more if there is an unseen source of rare, early evidence, which might offer further insight, especially as it sounds like these quotes have come from interviews.

Any ideas what the explanation might be?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I'd personally say that the Hodson / Taylor sketch is arguably the most "birdlike", given the presence of a nose (i.e. a beak), shape of head, etc.

How very interesting you should say that.

I had quite coincidentally been working on this very premise earlier today and had written the following:

Quoting Ledwith's notes:

"TAYLOR WAS TALKING TO HODSON AND HELPING HIM TO MAKE A SKETCH LIKE MINE (WHICH HODSON HAD NOT SEEN). I LOOKED AT THE DRAWING. THE SAD PART OF IT WAS THAT THE SOLDIER WAS SWALLOWING HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER, ALL THE NEW DETAILS - THE ANTENNAE ON THE HEAD, THE NOSE, AND A VARIETY OF OTHER FEATURES THAT ONLY TAYLOR HAD NOTICED".

Alternatively, Taylor's description as sketched by Hodson is the more accurate, illustrating both the 'skeletal' aspect and long, upturned talon.

Perhaps he was also entitled to suggest he had witnessed something like antenna.

Just to confirm, that is the photographer's caption, not my own.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

When herons came up as a tentative, speculative candidate, purely as an exercise, this was a comparison I had made between Taylor's solely inspired sketch and a heron photographed 'face-on'.

Having a clear out, I have just rediscovered it and in the light of discussions since, maybe now worth a mention? As always, it's open to interpretation:

 

[BS3]

One characteristic of Davis's and other tellings of the case is that Taylor's statements seem to be given slightly less weight than those of the Sutton brothers. Conversely Lankford's testimony is always given the highest weighting. The attitude continues throughout the Davis (and Ledwith) accounts: Taylor is said to be enjoying being the centre of attention, again as a point of comparison with the Suttons. The Taylors are later said to be "destitute".

This seems to be partly because he was perceived to have changed his description, though looking at the Ledwith and Hodson sketches dictated by Taylor, I actually see quite strong elements of consistency. Ultimately why should these two sketches be given less weight than the remaining two Ledwith ones?

I guess another part of it is that as a visitor to the house rather than a member of the family he had less authority; perhaps investigators were simply picking up on this dynamic, seen in the way Taylor's UFO story was supposedly initially laughed off. I note however that the latter is as much a narrative device picked up by Davis and others as anything. It establishes the Suttons as level headed, sensible people - it's kind of ironic that in some ways Taylor is by implication presented as a less credible witness to the "creatures" because he had also claimed to see a UFO.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Yes, I understand that oversized heads were mentioned but why weren't they described as spherical? ...

Ledwith's report on his activities during the 22nd refers to roundedness of the visitors' heads in describing his interviews with both the 3 women (midday) and the 3 men returned from Evansville (evening).

THE HEAD ITSELF WAS CIRCULAR AND COMPLETELY BALD ON TOP ...

Interview with the women - Davis, p. 43.

THIS WAS THE SCENE AND TEMPER OF THE PEOPLE WHEN LUCKY DESCENDED AT 8:30. ...
HOWEVER, BEFORE HE DID ANYTHING ELSE, HIS EYES DROPPED TO THE TABLE WHERE THE WOMEN'S DRAWING LAY. WITHOUT SAYING ANOTHER WORD, HE SAT DOWN ... HE LOOKED IT OVER, STARTED TO SHAKE HIS HEAD, AND SAID, "NO, THE FACE IS ALMOST ROUND, IT DOESN'T COME TO A POINT."

Lucky Sutton, quoted by Ledwith - Davis, p. 49.

THE MEN'S DRAWING PROGRESSED MUCH AS THE FIRST ONE DID. ... THE CHIN WAS ROUND, MAKING THE HEAD AN ALMOST PERFECT CIRCLE.

Interview with Lucky, J. C., and Baker - Davis, p. 50.