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

[EnolaGaia]

The more I've looked back over what we have discussed, the more interested I am in something in the Blue Book file, reproduced at p.107 of Davis's book. This is 1st Lt. Charles N. Kirk's copy of Maj. John Albert's statement that Lankford had heard a radio broadcast which had led her to send off for an article from the "Kingdom Publishers, Fort Worth 1" ...

Davis dismisses this with the usual hand waving; there was no radio in the Sutton household, Albert didn't talk to Lankford directly, no evidence of such an article, etc. Of course this overlooks the fact that Lankford could have listened to a radio somewhere else (even at the church itself if it was a religious broadcast, which seems likely when a bit of digging is done on "Kingdom Publishers", see below). ...

Right - Davis and Ledwith are very specific in claiming there was no radio or TV at the Lankford / Sutton farmhouse. Ledwith mentions letting Ms. Lankford hear the morning news story on WHOP radio from his(?) car.

There's another possibility. As far as I can tell, Ms. Lankford attended a Pentecostal church in Hopkinsville. It's conceivable she visited with her two other / oldest Sutton sons who lived in Hopkinsville whenever she attended a church service there. It would be reasonable to presume they had radios in their homes in town.

I don't believe the alleged article was ever identified but Google shows that was indeed a "Kingdom Publishers" in Ft Worth in the mid 50s, producing Pentecostal church literature. The key figure seems to have been a John A. Lovell who wrote pamphlets, or sermons turned into pamphlets, with titles like "The Coming Storm: Thirteen Prophetic Sermons" and "This Week in Prophecy" - no doubt full of signs, marvels and the snares and delusions of evil forces. It might be possible to track the original pamphlet down, but if not we can imagine what it might have looked like. ...

There were multiple religious media enterprises in Forth Worth at that time. There was a Kingdom Press, a Kingdom Publishers, a home study series published and distributed under the aegis of a Kingdom College, and a Kingdom Digest periodical which Lovell apparently edited.

John A. Lovell was an interesting character about whom there's very little online documentation. It seems he was already a long-time minister before formally joining the Pentecostals.

John A. Lovell, a leading proponent of British-Israel doctrine, was baptized in the Spirit in 1954 at Hemphill Heights Assembly of God (Fort Worth, TX). He had pastored Baptist or independent churches since the 1920s.

SOURCE: https://archives.ifphc.org/index.cf...&search_referrer=search.moreArchivesBySubject

The 'British-Israel doctrine' mentioned refers to 'British Israelism' (and, by extension, the American 'Christian Identity' movement).

British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a pseudoarchaeological belief that the people of the British Isles are "genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants" of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel. With roots in the 16th century, British Israelism was inspired by several 19th century English writings such as John Wilson's 1840 Our Israelitish Origin. Numerous British Israelite organisations were set up throughout the British Empire as well as in the United States from the 1870s onwards; a number of these organisations are independently active as of the early 21st century. In America, the idea gave rise to the Christian Identity movement. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

Christian Identity (also known as Identity Christianity)[1] is an interpretation of Christianity which advocates the belief that only Celtic and Germanic peoples, such as the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic nations, and/or Aryan people and people of kindred blood are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and are therefore the descendants of the ancient Israelites. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

 

[BS3]

What this could show is that while Davis and others have characterised Lankford's Christianity as "conventional", she may have had some exposure to some more fringe aspects - I suspect including the presentation of "little silver men" in an eschatological context?

 

[EnolaGaia]

That's a great find!
Davis's main objection to the Blue Book story is that it claims Lankford went to a religious meeting the night of the events, and it was at that meeting she discussed the article and picture. As this was untrue, she feels the whole story is dubious.

I don't have a problem believing nobody from the household attended any church services that evening, but I'm not confident this was the case based on Davis' claim(s) alone. Here's why ...

Davis never explains how she determined Ms. Lankford (at a minimum ... ) never attended any services on the evening of Sunday the 22nd. Davis simply states non-attendance as a fact.

Davis claims Ms. Lankford was the only church-going resident in the household, but again doesn't offer anything to support this claim.

As I mentioned on 19 August, Geraldine Stith's book claimed Ms. Lankford and other family members went to church on Sunday the 21st. According to Geraldine there were two trips to church that day: in the morning while Lucky went hunting and visited with his brothers in town, and in the late afternoon / evening after supper.

I'm also unconvinced by Davis' claim the Pentecostal church services Ms. Lankford attended were "entirely conventional" in any sense the New Yorker would understand. Being 'seized by the spirit', if only to the limited extent of verbal activity (as opposed to physical body movements or rolling on the floor), was a common feature of Pentecostal meetings in that region and era.

Albert's documented allusion to 'Holy Rollers' may have overstated an unconventional nature for Ms. Lankford's church, but Davis' blunt dismissal smells like a possible understatement in light of additional claims.

I'd also note that if Albert's testimony is questionable after 2 years one should also wonder how solid Davis' understanding may have been 1.25 years or more after she visited Kelly. Did she verify church attendance in her 1956 visit - before the Albert statement brought the church attendance issue into play?

Was she even aware of Albert's statement prior to 1975 (19 years after her own visit / investigation), when she writes Ledwith first became aware of it? According to the CSI News Letter items I cited earlier, the completion of her report was announced in May 1957 - 4 months before Kirk took Albert's statement.

This strongly implies Davis' original manuscript couldn't possibly have included discussion of Albert's claim(s). Did this May 1957 manuscript address church attendance at all?

Which brings me to another point ... If freshness of interviewer memory after the fact is an issue, why shouldn't we also assess freshness of the witnesses' memories and interviewers' information captured on the front end (the original interviews)? As far as we know, Albert spoke with Ms. Lankford within hours of the incident's close on the 22nd. Davis didn't speak with her until circa 10 months later - after Ms. Lankford had become embittered and limited the scope of what she'd discuss. I don't see that Davis' report offers any clues that she discussed church attendance in the first place.

However, Kirk was taking Albert's statement 2 years later - plenty of time for details of chronology to get mixed up. It appears that a copy of the article text, without the picture, was also attached to the Blue Book file at one point (but subsequently lost). If the article was obtained by Albert at the time the events happened then surely that is a strong indication that Lankford did in fact have a copy of it at some point? The only doubtful element is exactly when she supposedly discussed it with other people from her congregation.

My understanding of Albert's phrasing is that Ms. Lankford wouldn't release the article to him and he had to hand-copy its textual content. This alone indicates Albert was taking notes. His recollection of the article publisher's name and address further indicates he came away with some sort of documented notes of his interview with Ms. Glennie. Having said that ...

Even if hand-copied - yes, it would seem there's compelling support for the notion Albert actually saw the alleged article.

I agree this doesn't provide any strong clue(s) as to when she discussed it with others at her church. However, I would note once again that Ms. Lankford's testimony to Albert was considerably 'fresher' than her testimony to Davis.

Beyond recognizing the article's illustration as described was almost certainly the 1952 German hoax photo I can't give Davis much credit for authoritative comment on this matter - certainly not enough credit to accept her wholesale dismissal of Albert's testimony at face value.

 

[BS3]

I doubt she was aware of Albert's statement that early on - she later, amusingly, describes 1st Lt. Kirk as "Captain Kirk", a slip up far less possible in the 1950s.

 

[BS3]

I wonder if Albert's notes were the source of that unattributed drawing of a "creature" found in the Blue Book file and reproduced by Davis. This drawing looks very much like the model whose photograph also appears in Davis's text and which is linked with the story on page 59 of some USAF people turning up with a model of a "creature", surprising Lankford: "the man who made it must have known exactly what they looked like".

The ability of USAF personnel to work out what the "creature" looked like is less surprising if they were just copying a sketch made by Albert.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I wonder if Albert's notes were the source of that unattributed drawing of a "creature" found in the Blue Book file and reproduced by Davis. ...
The ability of USAF personnel to work out what the "creature" looked like is less surprising if they were just copying a sketch made by Albert.

Albert makes no mention of creating or obtaining a representative sketch. Considering his relative level of detail on other points I suspect he'd have mentioned it.

The image shown on p. 117 of the Davis report is anatomically erroneous according to the witness interview results of 22 August (as Davis notes). This suggests it's a third-party sketch uninformed (or maybe 'no more than partially informed') by either the Ledwith or Hodson interviews. Stylistically it seems quite different from either Ledwith's or Hodson's work.

A "reproduction of original" version of this sketch is used as an illustration at this entertainment website:

https://aiptcomics.com/2020/02/18/p...ville-goblin-encounter-into-a-literal-circus/

Unfortunately, that site makes no mention of its age, creator or source.

Here is the 'reproduction' version. You'll see it's obviously the same image, of which Davis' version seems to be a cropped copy.

 

[BS3]

I don't have a problem believing nobody from the household attended any church services that evening, but I'm not confident this was the case based on Davis' claim(s) alone. Here's why ...

Davis never explains how she determined Ms. Lankford (at a minimum ... ) never attended any services on the evening of Sunday the 22nd. Davis simply states non-attendance as a fact.

Davis claims Ms. Lankford was the only church-going resident in the household, but again doesn't offer anything to support this claim.

As I mentioned on 19 August, Geraldine Stith's book claimed Ms. Lankford and other family members went to church on Sunday the 21st. According to Geraldine there were two trips to church that day: in the morning while Lucky went hunting and visited with his brothers in town, and in the late afternoon / evening after supper.

I'm also unconvinced by Davis' claim the Pentecostal church services Ms. Lankford attended were "entirely conventional" in any sense the New Yorker would understand. Being 'seized by the spirit', if only to the limited extent of verbal activity (as opposed to physical body movements or rolling on the floor), was a common feature of Pentecostal meetings in that region and era.

Albert's documented allusion to 'Holy Rollers' may have overstated an unconventional nature for Ms. Lankford's church, but Davis' blunt dismissal smells like a possible understatement in light of additional claims.

I'd also note that if Albert's testimony is questionable after 2 years one should also wonder how solid Davis' understanding may have been 1.25 years or more after she visited Kelly. Did she verify church attendance in her 1956 visit - before the Albert statement brought the church attendance issue into play?

Was she even aware of Albert's statement prior to 1975 (19 years after her own visit / investigation), when she writes Ledwith first became aware of it? According to the CSI News Letter items I cited earlier, the completion of her report was announced in May 1957 - 4 months before Kirk took Albert's statement.

This strongly implies Davis' original manuscript couldn't possibly have included discussion of Albert's claim(s). Did this May 1957 manuscript address church attendance at all?

Which brings me to another point ... If freshness of interviewer memory after the fact is an issue, why shouldn't we also assess freshness of the witnesses' memories and interviewers' information captured on the front end (the original interviews)? As far as we know, Albert spoke with Ms. Lankford within hours of the incident's close on the 22nd. Davis didn't speak with her until circa 10 months later - after Ms. Lankford had become embittered and limited the scope of what she'd discuss. I don't see that Davis' report offers any clues that she discussed church attendance in the first place.


My understanding of Albert's phrasing is that Ms. Lankford wouldn't release the article to him and he had to hand-copy its textual content. This alone indicates Albert was taking notes. His recollection of the article publisher's name and address further indicates he came away with some sort of documented notes of his interview with Ms. Glennie. Having said that ...

Even if hand-copied - yes, it would seem there's compelling support for the notion Albert actually saw the alleged article.

I agree this doesn't provide any strong clue(s) as to when she discussed it with others at her church. However, I would note once again that Ms. Lankford's testimony to Albert was considerably 'fresher' than her testimony to Davis.

Beyond recognizing the article's illustration as described was almost certainly the 1952 German hoax photo I can't give Davis much credit for authoritative comment on this matter - certainly not enough credit to accept her wholesale dismissal of Albert's testimony at face value.

Church attendance on the date Albert claims is only, I think, critical if you want to take Albert's line that the whole thing was down to hysteria. The rest of the story could still put an entirely different complexion on the case, if any part is true. Not necessarily in terms of the family imagining the whole thing, but by making the misperception of, for example, birds or other wildlife more probable.

Having said that the chances of unfamiliar birds, or escaped monkeys, happening to appear around the time Lankford may already have been concerned about "little silver men" (if what Albert says is correct) seem rather slim. However I think his story makes the chance of a hoax or practical joke that got out of hand much, much more likely.

The dismissal of Albert's story reminds me that Davis and Bloecher's whole text is very selective about what it treats as credible. Bloecher's introduction invites us to regard European tales of saucer occupants kissing farmers on both cheeks or asking for fuel for their engine as "ridiculous", yet we are then asked to think of South American reports of "small, hairy humanoids" as totally credible. Surely these reports are all on a continuum of strangeness, and if some appear comical, doesn't that just reflect the range of human experience?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This is the last mention of the Davis report found in the archived CSI newsletters.

It's tempting to presume the report was made available in some form and the matter was closed. However, I can't conclusively confirm this happened.

All of your fantastic endeavours are a tremendous insight, enormously helpful and I am certain vastly appreciated by many aside from myself.

The genesis of Isabel's 1978 publication is perhaps a complexity on its own, never mind the case.

That accepted, one personally remains in a quandary about Mrs Langford's involvement throughout.

More on this separately...

Meantime, if nothing else ever, these snapshots of early ufology you have unearthed, are such a fabulous, historical treat.

The belief in flying saucers is so passionate.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

If only for a moment, going back to Andre's letter, in which he claimed Mrs Langford's first encounter, in the hallway, ended with Billy Ray Taylor firing a shot through the door screen.

Can we definitively clarify that during the police investigation, there was no such door screen damage witnessed, the only evidence of a gunshot being fired from within the house being that window shot?

The reason for querying is that I have recently come across references to this alleged door screen shot damage, discovered by the police, in a couple of articles.

I can find no supporting evidence and am almost certain it's all part of the tale growing in the telling.

Just checking and if nothing in response, shall dismiss entirely.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Can we definitively clarify that during the police investigation, there was no such door screen damage witnessed, the only evidence of a gunshot being fired from within the house being that window shot? ...

No, we can't ...

This is something I've been wanting to bring up.

Across the diverse accounts for what happened, there are multiple references to shots being fired through the screen doors in addition to however many shots were fired through that one living room window.

There's always been some ambiguity about the shooters' positions when they fired the very first time (i.e., the very first visitor sighting in the back yard). Lucky and Taylor were most often cited as: (a) being outside in the back yard when they first saw the visitor approaching, and (b) withdrawing back inside (the bedroom) to get guns.

The accounts become variable or mute as to whether Lucky and Taylor came all the way back outside before firing that first time. Some accounts state / imply they were outside, whereas others state / imply they were at the door with the door open. I recall there's at least one account that seems to claim those first shots were fired from inside the house (through the door).

There's still the ambiguity about where Ms. Lankford crouched with Taylor and had her first visitor sighting. Some accounts indicate a back door, but most (including her testimony to Andre) indicate it was the front door. If it had been a back door, we need to know whether it was the blocked back door in the corridor (dogwalk) or the back door in the bedroom.

There's also the pesky issue of there being only 2 alleged shotgun firings through the living room window but 3 apparent / alleged points of shotgun damage to that window noted by investigators and demonstrable from the physical evidence.

If we had firm information concerning the state of the front door and 2 of the 3 back doors it would help in determining what happened (or could have happened) as well as indicating which versions of specific events couldn't have happened as described.

Now here's the bad news ... I have yet to see any account that mentions the investigators (especially the cops on the night of the incident) examining the doors, much less what they did or did not find. In the absence of data we are left adrift and unable to pin down particulars.

The most extreme example of possible implications is this ... Owing to the fact there were more holes in the living room window than alleged shots to cause them, one must wonder if one or more shots alleged to have occurred at / through a door were actually fired through that same window. If this were to be the case, it would substantially alter the understanding of what happened and when.

 

[marhawkman]

hmm... could he have been standing at the front door then firing as it went around?

Or maybe the window incident wasn't a single shot? Maybe a quick barrage of as many shots as he could pump out?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

If this were to be the case, it would substantially alter the understanding of what happened and when.

Yep... this brings up my long-standing curiosity regarding police officer Ferguson's comments about the investigation - from an interview previously highlighted (see post #218) - and finding no evidence other than a "bunch of people running amok".

More thoughts on same, separately.

 

[maximus otter]

…there were more holes in the living room window than alleged shots to cause them…

lt’s not out of the question that one cartridge fired from a shotgun could leave two holes in a mesh window.

In every shotgun cartridge there is a component between the powder charge (the propellent) and the shot itself (the lead pellets), this is known as the wad.

The wad’s main function is to act as a “ram” to drive the shot out of the barrel in a small cluster; this keeps the shot in a smallish cloud known as a “pattern”, and makes the shotgun more accurate and effective at longer ranges.

FF to 1:30 in the following video to see the flight characteristics of wads from two brands of (admittedly modern) 12-bore buckshot cartridges at 12 yards:

As can clearly be seen, the wads and pellets impact in different places. One shot, two holes.

maximus otter

 

[EnolaGaia]

hmm... could he have been standing at the front door then firing as it went around?

I don't understand what you're asking at all ...

Or maybe the window incident wasn't a single shot? Maybe a quick barrage of as many shots as he could pump out?

The only multiple punctures (possible bullet / shot holes) in the window screen were a series of small holes arranged horizontally in the upper area of the screen. These suggest a series of shots fired from a repeater (revolver; semi-automatic) firearm.

If any of the known guns had been a repeater it would have been the .22 caliber weapon(s) (variably described as a rifle and / or a pistol). Taylor and J. C. (in accounts associating him with a .22 pistol rather than a shotgun) are the only shooters described as firing multiple times in apparently quick succession.

The 12-gauge shotgun most often attributed to Lucky was a single-shot / single-barrel shotgun.

The 20-gauge shotgun most often attributed to J. C. had a single barrel, but it's unclear whether it could have been a repeater (e.g., a pump-action shotgun). My guess is that it wasn't a repeater. There's nothing in any of the accounts to suggest multiple shotgun blasts were fired through the living room window screen during a single shooting event. This is one reason the claim of two such shots fired clashes with the apparent evidence of 3 such shots fired that night.

 

[Nosmo King]

Here is the photo I posted up thread of the holes in the window screen.

 

[EnolaGaia]

lt’s not out of the question that one cartridge fired from a shotgun could leave two holes in a mesh window. ...

Granted ... This may or may not provide a plausible explanation for an allegation of two (smoothbore) shots fired yielding three areas of impact damage.

When the law enforcement folks arrived at the house circa midnight they found only one hole in the living room window screen (the infamous 'square' hole that some mocked as fake). This was allegedly the 20-gauge shot J. C.[*] fired at a visitor peeking in the window earlier in the evening (prior to fleeing to Hopkinsville).

[*] Some accounts claim it was Lucky who fired this shot.

J. C. is generally believed / portrayed to have been standing at the corner of the chimney beside the punctured window, only a couple of feet or so away from the screen. From this alleged location he would barely have had room to raise the barrel at the window screen. From this point-blank distance any wadding wouldn't have traveled far enough to separate from the shot pellets (and vice versa).

This would explain why there was only one hole in the screen from that first shot when the cops arrived.

The later (0330) shot was fired by Lucky, who is generally believed / portrayed to have been standing no closer to the window than the middle of the living room and firing at an angle (relative to the window). This would afford some distance in which his shot's wadding could have diverged to punch through the screen while the shot pellets hit the window frame on the far side of the screen from his position.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Meantime, if nothing else ever, these snapshots of early ufology you have unearthed, are such a fabulous, historical treat.
The belief in flying saucers is so passionate.

There's an important point to bear in mind about these Fifties-era ufologists. They were explicitly focused on the UFOs / UAPs per se, and they didn't necessarily pay much attention to any other aspects of a reported incident - e.g., contact with occupants of the saucers they sought.

One reason the Kelly / Hopkinsville incident didn't receive much persistent interest in the hardcore UFO community of the day was that it was 99.5% 'encounter' and only 0.5% 'UFO'. Popular interest in the story wasn't enough to draw the attention of dedicated researchers like Hynek, who essentially said he hadn't found the story interesting.

 

[BS3]

There's an important point to bear in mind about these Fifties-era ufologists. They were explicitly focused on the UFOs / UAPs per se, and they didn't necessarily pay much attention to any other aspects of a reported incident - e.g., contact with occupants of the saucers they sought.

One reason the Kelly / Hopkinsville incident didn't receive much persistent interest in the hardcore UFO community of the day was that it was 99.5% 'encounter' and only 0.5% 'UFO'. Popular interest in the story wasn't enough to draw the attention of dedicated researchers like Hynek, who essentially said he hadn't found the story interesting.

Most of the '50s ufologists, especially in the United States, were earnest nuts-and-bolts ETH people - I guess they avoided occupant reports as the details of many of the latter often veered off into serious absurdity and weirdness, suggesting the phenomenon was something more complex than just physical spacefaring craft.

An extension of this is the selective attitude of Davis and Bloecher I talked about above - on the one hand, they can't take seriously a story about a UFO occupant happily chatting with a couple of people out picking berries, presumably because it doesn't seem "alien" enough; yet with a completely straight face they speculate about other aspects of sightings that are patently absurd.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The more I've looked back over what we have discussed, the more interested I am in something in the Blue Book file, reproduced at p.107 of Davis's book. This is 1st Lt. Charles N. Kirk's copy of Maj. John Albert's statement that Lankford had heard a radio broadcast which had led her to send off for an article from the "Kingdom Publishers, Fort Worth 1"; the article contained a picture which "appeared to be of a little man but was actually of a monkey, painted silver". Albert then claimed that Lankford had excitedly discussed the article (possibly with members of her church, although Kirk / Albert are a bit unclear). ...

This focus on a printed article (pamphlet; whatever) seems odd in light of the paucity of printed materials reported at the Lankford / Sutton house. Here are some notes about printed matter / reading materials associated with the farmhouse and / or its residents ...

The Sutton family were working farmers on a small farm, with a low cash income. They lived in an unpainted three-room frame house, without running water, telephone, radio, television, books, or much furniture. Probably none of them had gone beyond the fourth grade in school. Probably they did not see a newspaper once a month.

(Davis; D & B report, p. 75) (Emphasis added)

Billy Ray Taylor :

" ... was said to have been talking about a saucer sighting that he himself had heard of. ... He was said to have had newspaper clippings about it. Chief Greenwell, who conducted the search of the house, stated positively that he had seen no such clippings."

(Davis; D & B report, p. 84)

Deputy Batts seems to have been a doubter from the get go. One of the few people still alive and willing to talk when newspaperman J Robert Matyi traveled to Hopkinville to investigate the case in the late 1970s, Batts accused at least some of the witnesses of having consumed some alcohol and that the house was "full of comic books." (xx.) Well, no one else mentioned seeing comic books.

(xx) Matyi, J Robert. My God, They're Real Ashley Books, Inc • Port Washington, N.Y. 11050,1979 p70

Loren E Gross: UFOS: A HISTORY: 1955 July-September 15th SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES (2002), p. 18.

My point is that reading matter seems to have been limited and rare at the house. It seems strange to me that (given this broader context) Ms. Lankford would have gone to the trouble of sending off for an article she'd heard about. It seems clear from Albert's statement that she had this article or a copy of it. I'm not disputing that. However, I have to wonder if this article was something Ms. Lankford obtained at church from someone else, rather than its being something she'd proactively sent off to procure.

 

[Kondoru]

Could they have been influenced by comics? What might have been in comics in 1955?

 

[BS3]

This focus on a printed article (pamphlet; whatever) seems odd in light of the paucity of printed materials reported at the Lankford / Sutton house. Here are some notes about printed matter / reading materials associated with the farmhouse and / or its residents ...


(Davis; D & B report, p. 75) (Emphasis added)

Billy Ray Taylor :

(Davis; D & B report, p. 84)


Loren E Gross: UFOS: A HISTORY: 1955 July-September 15th SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES (2002), p. 18.

My point is that reading matter seems to have been limited and rare at the house. It seems strange to me that (given this broader context) Ms. Lankford would have gone to the trouble of sending off for an article she'd heard about. It seems clear from Albert's statement that she had this article or a copy of it. I'm not disputing that. However, I have to wonder if this article was something Ms. Lankford obtained at church from someone else, rather than its being something she'd proactively sent off to procure.

I think that's certainly possible given the generally offhand tone of Albert's statement - I'm not sure he was overly concerned to get details correct but rather to wash his hands of the thing ASAP by providing a couple of plausible explanations and getting out of there.

Given the above, I suppose my one concern is the "article" could be something Lankford took an interest in as a result of the events rather than something she saw beforehand. But I'm inclined to give Albert the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BS3]

Could they have been influenced by comics? What might have been in comics in 1955?

Little silver men!

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-ag...r-art-kane-gene-colan-and-sid/a/15062-17464.s

 

[EnolaGaia]

Given the above, I suppose my one concern is the "article" could be something Lankford took an interest in as a result of the events rather than something she saw beforehand. But I'm inclined to give Albert the benefit of the doubt.

Albert supposedly interviewed her within 12 - 24 hours of the incident, so Ms. Lankford didn't have time to have developed an interest and procured an article before speaking with him.

 

[BS3]

Albert supposedly interviewed her within 12 - 24 hours of the incident, so Ms. Lankford didn't have time to have developed an interest and procured an article before speaking with him.

Well, she certainly had a copy of the article before the incident in that case. I am certain we are most likely looking at a hoax aimed at her specifically.

I am surprised I haven't seen this information about the article, pamphlet, sermon (whatever it was) related more often. It's certainly a much more productive route towards explaining the case - the responses, at least, as opposed to the stimulus - than just saying "everyone was drunk".

 

[EnolaGaia]

Well, she certainly had a copy of the article before the incident in that case. I am certain we are most likely looking at a hoax aimed at her specifically.
I am surprised I haven't seen this information about the article, pamphlet, sermon (whatever it was) related more often. ...

The most tantalizing scenario is one in which the events occurred more or less as described in Major Albert's statement, and the family was worked up over some narrative related to the article (if not derived from the article alone).

Let's review ...

Albert was in direct contact with Ms. Lankford the day following the incident, as evidenced by his obtaining her signed statement. Where else did he / could he obtain the details of church attendance, the article, and an engrossing discussion of or relating to the article's content?

The only other contact Albert cites in his statement was Deputy Sheriff Batts, and then only in relation to the UFO per se. Nowhere does Albert indicate Batts was his contact / informant on anything other than what evidence had been found to support the report of a UFO / landing.

Davis dismisses Albert's comments about church by naively claiming Ms. Lankford's known church affiliation was with a Pentecostal church that couldn't possibly fit Albert's allusion to a 'Holy Roller' congregation - a church connection she whitewashed as "entirely conventional" in apparent ignorance of the fact 'possession by the spirit' and 'speaking in tongues' were among the 'conventions' of that denomination's praxis of worship.

Davis dismisses any notion of the family attending any church service(s) on 21 August on the basis of her (Davis) having found no evidence of it. You don't find evidence without looking for it. There's no reason to believe Davis ever asked about the family's activities on Sunday prior to Taylor's UFO sighting. There's no reason to believe Davis ever considered, much less investigated, the family's church attendance in 1956 because Albert's statement didn't surface until the Seventies. It was not until then - circa 2 decades after the fact - that Davis' local correspondent and fellow CSI investigator Ledwith even learned of it.

Davis then goes further to claim any emotional / agitated state among the residents "must be pure invention." (p. 110) At face value this assertion is nothing more than self-serving opinion rather than reasoned conclusion.

While she was at it, Davis continued by dismissing the existence / relevance of the alleged article on no more solid basis than the fact she hadn't heard anything about it during her own 1956 visit.

Finally ... Lucky Sutton eventually related the story of the incident to his daughter Geraldine (Stith), who went on (in her book) to state some or all the residents did in fact attend church services that day - twice.

We therefore have three documented accounts from three separate authors. Two of them (Albert; Stith) received information about residents' church attendance on Sunday the 21st directly from one of the residents / witnesses, and both of them formally documented and thereby attested what they'd received.

The third (Davis):

- didn't receive any such information;
- didn't seem to have any reason to suspect any such thing was a relevant issue;
- didn't invest any effort in backtracking to check further; and instead ...
- self-servingly dismissed the issue and the one account of it she'd belatedly learned about (Albert's) out of hand. [1]

It would seem that the reason the article stuff is rarely mentioned is because few among the many writers / regurgitators who've perpetrated the story exploited any source(s) beyond the Davis report (if that much).

[1] Gratuitously Snide Aside:
Yep - and she completely missed the fact a circus really had been in town the weekend of the incident, too.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This is the last mention of the Davis report found in the archived CSI newsletters.

It's tempting to presume the report was made available in some form and the matter was closed. However, I can't conclusively confirm this happened.

Determinedly remaining in search of an answer to where those apparent, aforementioned quotes originated - post #836 - I have discovered one further possible quote which is somewhat intriguing, to say the least.

It comes from a 2013 document and simply that person's summary of the story and case evidence - acknowledged as resulting from various sources.

However, in addition to using the unsubstantiated 'artillery' quote, there is a new one.

I might have tracked down the author of the upload and presently waiting on a reply to my query - if he can recall where this quote came from, or at least suggest possibilities:

"...the creatures walked with a swaying motion as though "wading through water"."

Need to resolve this, methinks.

 

[BS3]

[...] (Davis):

- didn't receive any such information;
- didn't seem to have any reason to suspect any such thing was a relevant issue;
- didn't invest any effort in backtracking to check further; and instead ...
- self-servingly dismissed the issue and the one account of it she'd belatedly learned about (Albert's) out of hand. [1]

It would seem that the reason the article stuff is rarely mentioned is because few among the many writers / regurgitators who've perpetrated the story exploited any source(s) beyond the Davis report (if that much).

[1] Gratuitously Snide Aside:
Yep - and she completely missed the fact a circus really had been in town the weekend of the incident, too.

Looking at it from Davis's perspective, you have invested a lot of time and effort over several years into producing a very detailed study of a case.

Then shortly before the thing is due to finally be printed, after 20 years or so of delay, you come across a dismissive contemporary account basically saying "the main witness had been worked up after reading an illustrated article about little silver men". Even worse, you suspect you know the illustration in question to be a well-known and laughable hoax. It's not really surprising that Davis tries to minimise Albert's account, even though her grounds for doing so are themselves pretty speculative.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Looking at it from Davis's perspective...

Ultimately, it was for Isabel and contemporary, supportive organisations, alll about the true existence of flying saucers.

Ironic, that, so far as Kelly-Hopkinsville, we have dismissed this from the start.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... 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".

There are two distinct categories of sounds reported for objects aloft the night of the incident:

- sound(s) attributed to the UFO during the initial sighting at the farmhouse, and ...
- sound(s) attributed to other objects (typically cited as 'meteors') witnessed by investigators traveling to, or at, the scene.

All allusions to 'artillery' sounds are associated with the 'meteors' reported by third parties (law enforcement personnel). Here are some excerpts relating to this set of reported sounds ...

---

At about 11 p.m. the entire group fled in terror in their two cars and drove at high speed into Hopkinsville to report the incident to the Police Dept. State police officer leaving the Shady Oaks restaurant 3 miles N of Hopkinsville in a car to respond to the call heard several meteor-like objects streaking over him sounding like artillery shells, and was able to see 2 in a series looking like meteors from the SW [or actually about S, from about 190° azimuth, headed towards Kelly from the direction of Fort Campbell and the TOP SECRET Armed Forces Special Weapons Project Site C, Clarksville Base, 36.665° N, 87.487° W, National Stockpile Site for nuclear weapons storage apparently recently including multi-megaton yield H bombs].

Item #936; page 128 in PDF version of:
Comprehensive Catalog of 1,500 Project BLUE BOOK UFO Unknowns: Work in Progress
(Version 1.7, Dec. 31, 2003) Compiled by Brad Sparks (2001 - 2003)
Cited Catalog Sources: (Davis-Bloecher 1978; Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 212-6; Vallée Magonia 372; FUFOR Index)

---

A state trooper and his wife said they heard a loud "swishing" noise which "sounded like a meteor" as they drove up to the farmhouse, yet they saw nothing.

Sanders, p. 21.
NOTE: This may or may not have been the same state trooper reporting meteors observed at the Shady Oaks diner, from which he departed for the farmhouse.

---

Following the second State trooper, Greenwell took the road to Kelly, traveling at 70 or 80 miles per hour. At the turnoff another State Trooper, from Madisonville, was waiting to follow them the rest of the distance to the farmhouse.
Shortly before this -- the exact time cannot be established, but it was sometime about the beginning of the night's investigation -- occurred the strange incident of the "meteors." One of the State Police reported that at Shady Oaks, a restaurant two or three miles out of Hopkinsville toward Kelly, he had heard several meteors passing overhead "with a noise like artillery fire" or "whining" and had looked out of his car in time to see two of them. They were traveling in a slightly descending trajectory from approximately southwest, in the general direction of the Sutton farm.

Davis, p. 33.

---

Notice that none of these reports allude to 'artillery' in terms of sounding like artillery being fired or artillery shells landing / exploding. They all apparently refer to a sound akin to an artillery shell flying overhead. As such, I think the 'swishing' and 'whining' descriptions are the most specific and accurate characterizations.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Here are some excerpts relating to sound(s) reported as accompanying the initially sighted UFO ...

---

The man was standing at the end of the hallway, looking out the back screen door. Suddenly there was a hissing sound and he saw a brilliant light. Some bright object seemed to have landed in a field about a city block in distance away from the house.

Sanders, p. 20.

---

At about 7:30 p.m., Sutton went to the well to draw some water. He never got there.
"I heard a hissing noise and saw a brilliant light," Sutton said. "Then all at once I saw this big saucer hover over my field, about a city block away."

Nashville Tennessean Magazine; 13 October 1957
(Original UFO sighting mis-attributed to a mis-represented Lucky Sutton)

---

NOTE: In her book Geraldine Stith writes that Billy Ray was first cued to the UFO when he thought he'd heard something as he was raising the well's pail.

---

This reminiscence from Bill Thomas refers to something almost certainly passing overhead early in the evening that strongly reflects descriptions of Taylor's initial sighting ...

Bill Thomas was 14 in 1955, and he worked at a truck stop diner about a mile and a half south of Kelly, Kentucky. On the evening of August 21, he rode his bicycle to his cousin’s home in town to help him fix a wagon wheel. That farm was just down the road from Glennie Lankford’s farmhouse, known as the Sutton Place.

As the sky grew dark ... Bill saw something strange in the moonless night.

“Something went over us when we was working on that wagon,” Bill tells me as we sit on a bench in the Kelly park. “I just looked up and there it was. And after it went by, a light lit up, like the whole sky.”

Bill thought it was a meteorite or a shooting star. But it had an odd purplish-blue color and seemed to leave a smoke trail behind it, like a craft of some sort.

“This went by, and it made a funny noise,” Bill says. “Like a hiss, Zzzzzzzz. ...”

Ripley's article; September 2020