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

[BS3]

The "wading through water" quote does ring a bell from...somewhere.

One thing that occurred to me earlier: has it been recorded anywhere why Davis's book wasn't published until 1978? I note that Lankford died in 1977 so am wondering whether she or other family members in fact vetoed publication of any further 'interview' while she was alive? They all seem to have been heartily sick of the situation by the time Davis turned up.

 

[BS3]

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.

My thoughts on this: by this point Lankford just wished the whole thing would go away, so why should she voluntarily bring up the fact that before the incident she'd been reading an article featuring little silver men, if she'd not been asked about it?

As for the fact that no-one else Davis spoke to mentioned it, I would say that if Lankford was going to mention it to anyone - perhaps seeking reassurance or some kind of explanation - an Air Force major would be the kind of authority figure she might be candid with. Maybe he responded "Ma'am, that's clearly a silver-painted monkey" from which point she simply kept quiet about it?

 

[EnolaGaia]

My thoughts on this: by this point Lankford just wished the whole thing would go away, so why should she voluntarily bring up the fact that before the incident she'd been reading an article featuring little silver men, if she'd been asked about it?

I think that's at least a portion of what was going on. However, it took a bit of time for her to get frustrated enough to evade the subject as she'd eventually do. Albert interviewed Ms. Lankford the day following the incident - before she totally burned out or soured on the experience. Davis didn't come along until 10 months later, after the ridicule had caused Ms. Glennie to completely close herself off from further contact on the matter.

On the other hand ... Ms. Lankford was quoted from the very beginning as telling interviewers she'd only discuss what she'd personally witnessed. I always found this interesting, insofar as it's easily interpreted as a defensive maneuver. It makes me think there was something from which she wished to carefully distance herself all along.

 

[BS3]

I think that's at least a portion of what was going on. However, it took a bit of time for her to get frustrated enough to evade the subject as she'd eventually do. Albert interviewed Ms. Lankford the day following the incident - before she totally burned out or soured on the experience. Davis didn't come along until 10 months later, after the ridicule had caused Ms. Glennie to completely close herself off from further contact on the matter.

On the other hand ... Ms. Lankford was quoted from the very beginning as telling interviewers she'd only discuss what she'd personally witnessed. I always found this interesting, insofar as it's easily interpreted as a defensive maneuver. It makes me think there was something from which she wished to carefully distance herself all along.

This latter point is absolutely critical. If you try and untangle the witness 'psychology' (for want of a better phrase) there's something not quite right here.

 

[EnolaGaia]

One thing that occurred to me earlier: has it been recorded anywhere why Davis's book wasn't published until 1978? I note that Lankford died in 1977 so am wondering whether she or other family members in fact vetoed publication of any further 'interview' while she was alive? They all seem to have been heartily sick of the situation by the time Davis turned up.

I think the publication delay had more to do with CSI / CUFOS not wanting to prioritize a case that presented almost no UFO aspect. Davis went looking for a UFO but found only goblins.

Unless there was some actionable contractual agreement no one's ever mentioned the Lankford / Sutton folks had no veto power with respect to publication. In any case, we've recently established Davis' original manuscript was almost certainly printed and disseminated in 1957.

Even Hynek admitted he'd not paid much attention to the case. However, by the time they were into the Seventies interactions with UFO occupants (e.g., abductions) had become the hot angle attracting public interest. The old well-documented Kentucky goblins case started looking more attractive as a publication product.

Finally getting access to the Project Blue Book files in the early Seventies may have induced some motivation to compile and (re-)publish what they (CUFOS) had sitting on the shelf.

 

[EnolaGaia]

This latter point is absolutely critical. If you try and untangle the witness 'psychology' (for want of a better phrase) there's something not quite right here.

Yep ... The one person who was clearly not 'with the program' (whatever it was ... ) was Ms. Lankford. This was the primary reason I began reviewing the documentation anew and eventually came up with the 'Gaslighting Ms. Glennie' hypothesis. There are other conceivable ways to spin the evidence, but her serving as the target audience for scare tactics seemed to be the best fit.

It wouldn't be until more recently - when Comfortably Numb obtained and posted the New Era piece of 23 August - that we'd learn Ms. Glennie herself had considered the possibility someone was trying to scare her.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I have literally just found the following, only listened to a couple of minutes of Geraldine's podcast interview and then realised it should be shared real time, forthwith.

Consequently, I know nothing more than your good selves... it does sound like it might be really interesting, though...

So, shall we venture...

https://www.owltail.com/people/beJU8-geraldine-sutton-stith/appearances

 

[Comfortably Numb]

So, shall we venture...

Aside from the one interview I came across, I have since realised this link features additional interviews with Geraldine.

That's what can happen if you post 'live'!

Perhaps no great surprise there are various nuances as to what she recalls being told by her late father, 'Lucky' Sutton and all a slightly different story than the one published in Geraldine's book.

Therr are some notable points of interest, particular Geraldine"s reference to gunshots having damaged screens on 'windows and doors'.

So another picture emerges in our ever changing story... in fact several, all at once!

The version where our dog barking had nothing to do with the original creature sighting and it resulted from 'Lucky' asking Billy Ray Taylor to show him where he had seen the sky phenomenon's trajectory, or vice versa, Billy Ray offering to show 'Lucky'... also caught my attention.

There's also some intriguing comments from Geraldine about what happened when various shots were fired, especially the 'fence' shot and how the entities survived, then 'floated' away, etc.

I shall now listen to them all again and document the salient points.

There will assuredly be a few things not quite taken in, first time around in what I found a fascinating experience and hope maybe likewise.

 

[EnolaGaia]

There are six podcasts. Is there a particular order in which they should be reviewed, or are there one or more of them that should be prioritized for reviewing?

 

[BS3]

With the involvement of descendants of the original witnesses I can't help but think this one is increasingly going down the route already taken by the likes of Roswell / Kecksburg.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

There are six podcasts. Is there a particular order in which they should be reviewed, or are there one or more of them that should be prioritized for reviewing?

They seem to be in date order and essentially, two detailed interviews:

Show #600: August 17, 2015 - 'The Little Green Men of 1955' with Geraldine Sutton Stith

In Conversation with Geraldine Sutton Stith, Midnight in Kentucky, 22 August, 2020

On further listening, it becomes quite evident the recollections from Geraldine about her father's story are significantly comprised by the case history she has since seen published and it's all now retold as perhaps an inevitable merger.

Any new insights are maybe consequently less than first impressions.

Those which could, simply can't be taken as reliable.

The story changes with each retelling.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

With the involvement of descendants of the original witnesses I can't help but think this one is increasingly going down the route already taken by the likes of Roswell / Kecksburg.

Having just experienced same...

Bizarrely, you have reminded that in a telephone conversation with the daughter of one central Roswell participant, she revealed something which was actually of potential significance and I can't recall actually ever following that up.

Seriously.... and shall delve into my archives, forthwith.

This place is bonkers mad, sometimes...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The "wading through water" quote does ring a bell from...somewhere.

Were you perhaps, like many of us, simply contemplating life...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

In one interview, Geraldine states of our initial creatures sighting, being told by her father:

"...it didn't seem to walk, it look liked it was floating over the top of the ground..."

We know, from Geraldine's book, that she remembers her father also explaining that 'skimming motion'.

Going back to, 'if herons', I was thinking that if our 'floating' attribute, later perceived to be 'standing upright' entities floating towards them, was in fact Herons, they could have seemed to be more like 'swimming, in the darkness?

Spectaculative check and:

"...as it hovered ghost-like while "swimming" through the air".

https://kyforky.com/blogs/journal/steven-spielberg-some-green-men-and-hopkinsville

That's an exact quote.

From where and whence...

 

[BS3]

Were you perhaps, like many of us, simply contemplating life...

Quite possibly!

The way the stories evolve seems almost to be an innate part of the phenomenon - in turn you see the emergence of fresh witnesses, relatives of witnesses, deathbed confessions, and all the while the core experience recedes further and further until you are left chasing shadows (or Venus). I think Vallée would have had plenty to say about that. Rendlesham is another example of course.

Hopkinsville seems to have remained relatively free of this sort of thing as, frankly, it's just too weird and too UFO-free for the 'structured craft' type of 'ufologist' but that could still change.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Quite possibly!

The way the stories evolve seems almost to be an innate part of the phenomenon - in turn you see the emergence of fresh witnesses, relatives of witnesses, deathbed confessions, and all the while the core experience recedes further and further until you are left chasing shadows...

You speak of intrinsic factors....



No, that's it, basically.

And I talk from experience.

 

[marhawkman]

They seem to be in date order and essentially, two detailed interviews:

Show #600: August 17, 2015 - 'The Little Green Men of 1955' with Geraldine Sutton Stith

In Conversation with Geraldine Sutton Stith, Midnight in Kentucky, 22 August, 2020

On further listening, it becomes quite evident the recollections from Geraldine about her father's story are significantly comprised by the case history she has since seen published and it's all now retold as perhaps an inevitable merger.

Any new insights are maybe consequently less than first impressions.

Those which could, simply can't be taken as reliable.

The story changes with each retelling.

Honestly? It was a given that she'd read about the case. It's like being ground zero in a nuclear blast, you can't AVOID noticing it. that doesn't invalidate the idea she knows stuff though. But it means you have to ... question where she heard each piece of information.

 

[BS3]

Honestly? It was a given that she'd read about the case. It's like being ground zero in a nuclear blast, you can't AVOID noticing it. that doesn't invalidate the idea she knows stuff though. But it means you have to ... question where she heard each piece of information.

I suppose the hope is that she would preserve a version of what Sutton and the others experienced unmediated by subsequent news stories or books. This might uncover some incidental detail that would be the key to explaining the case.

The problem is as soon as she got an audience - by definition one interested in UFOs - then like most people she will no doubt try and give the audience what they want, consciously or not. The thing that has always struck me about her account is how little in the way of detail it has actually added to the 'canonical' version - I was sort of expecting a bit more immediacy, a bit more local colour, that kind of thing. Maybe Lucky wasn't that interested in telling the story - for whatever reason.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

....that doesn't invalidate the idea she knows stuff though....

Absolutely not and a paramount example is Geraldine's explanation of how her father spoke about the 'skimming' attribute.

Perhaps that might be the crucial clue we have?

If this had never been mentioned in Geraldine's book and suddenly, maybe.... potentially... tied up with other evidence...?

Massive difference in perspective.

Sometimes it just takes one clue, although admittedly, whilst we may in discussions have unearthed several new of same, you can still end up entirely 'clueless'.





.......sorry, what was your question, again?

 

[marhawkman]

I suppose the hope is that she would preserve a version of what Sutton and the others experienced unmediated by subsequent news stories or books. This might uncover some incidental detail that would be the key to explaining the case.

The problem is as soon as she got an audience - by definition one interested in UFOs - then like most people she will no doubt try and give the audience what they want, consciously or not. The thing that has always struck me about her account is how little in the way of detail it has actually added to the 'canonical' version - I was sort of expecting a bit more immediacy, a bit more local colour, that kind of thing. Maybe Lucky wasn't that interested in telling the story - for whatever reason.

We're talking about someone who has second hand information she heard probably no less than a decade after the incident. But Lucky Sutton probably spent more time talking to her about it than he did in public. Sure, she's had decades to collect information from other sources, but she had the opportunity to spend decades talking to Lucky Sutton about it too. Very few people did.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

In support of my contention there were no shots fired before 10:30 and Glennie Lankford's, documented, first observation of a creature...

If we consider her statement again:

"On Sunday night, Aug 21, 55 about 10:30 P.M., I was walking through the hallway which was located in the middle of my house...".

If shots had been fired before this point, why would she, seemingly, be acting as if no precedent had occurred?

There is no semblence of alarm, or panic.

Mrs Lankford continues:

"and I looked out the back door south & saw a bright silver object about two and a half foot tall appearing round".

The next phase is critical:

"I became exited...".

You would surely only become "exited", if it was something intriguing, not if your house window had already been blasted by gunshot fire?

Mrs Lankford adds:

"I was about 15 or 20 feet from it. I fell backward, and then was carried into the bedroom'.

This seems corroborated by the following:

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August

"Mrs Lankford got only a glimpse of "one of those shiny things" through a screen door and fainted".

In, crucially, both Geraldine Stith's book account, plus Andre's retelling, the window shot and subsequent, immediately afterwards, hair-grab incident occurred after Glennie Lankford's sighting.

Consequently, so did everything else... the fence shot, roof shot following scratching noises, etc.

As we know, Mrs Langford's observation is timed at 10:30.

I simply cannot find any evidence she was aware of a profound window shot and hair-grab before then.

Geraldine's time-line equates with the sequence of events, however, she has not factored in that Glennie's initial glimpse statedly took place at 10:30, just shortly before they all left for Hopkinsville.

I think...

Never sure, because there is absolutely no chance you can be.

What do you reckon?

"I became exited...".

I believe that's the telling clue.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

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.

Following up your observations, if I might please suggest:

www.pentecostalarchives.org

There are a number of 1955 publications available as .pdf files and give a perspective of the time.
.
Just out of interest, you could see perhaps an image, as discussed, appearing in one of them.

Spent a couple of hours reading and found the publications fascinating. They essentially address family orientated issues which haven't changed since.

 

[BS3]

Following up your observations, if I might please suggest:

www.pentecostalarchives.org

There are a number of 1955 publications available as .pdf files and give a perspective of the time.
.
Just out of interest, you could see perhaps an image, as discussed, appearing in one of them.

Spent a couple of hours reading and found the publications fascinating. They essentially address family orientated issues which haven't changed since.

My impression of Lovell's output, based on the chapter headings of his pamphlets at least, is that it has a strongly apocalyptic / prophetic focus.

Although this is speculation without identifying the specific pamphlet, I think we can imagine some characteristics of the article Lankford had been reading which might have strongly influenced her response (and left her vulnerable to being hoaxed or pranked)

 

[EnolaGaia]

In support of my contention there were no shots fired before 10:30 and Glennie Lankford's, documented, first observation of a creature...

??? ... Have you stated this contention before? Or are you introducing it now, at this point in the thread?

I can't find any place where you'd previously raised the notion of no shots prior to the 2230 sighting.

 

[BS3]

??? ... Have you stated this contention before? Or are you introducing it now, at this point in the thread?

I can't find any place where you'd previously raised the notion of no shots prior to the 2230 sighting.

I think the two of you had previously discussed it, e g. in CN's post 662, in terms of "event #1" happening at 10:30:

"This means that if event #1 happened at circa 8:00 - 8:30, the duration was brief and then we have circa 2 hours of no shots until events #6 and #7

[...]

Isabel Davis times event #1 at circa 8:00 - 8:30, because she has been led to believe this from the newspaper reports, i.e., the shooting began straight away.

If event #1 is in fact the same and our 10:30 incident, then we have the following, continuous sequence of shots being fired between 10:30 and when our participants departed for Hopkinsville"

 

[EnolaGaia]

There's plenty of resident testimony (such as it is ... ) to support the notion there'd been shooting prior to Ms. Lankford's initial sighting at circa 2230. For example ...

---

The earliest newspaper accounts refer to Lucky and Taylor grabbing guns and firing at a visitor during the very first sighting, which is consistently cited as occurring circa 2000-2030. More specifically ...

---

Alene is cited in the Evansville Press article of 22 August as follows:

Mrs. Sutton said she saw the first little man right after dusk last night and that a number of shots were fired at it.

The article cites Alene as stating the hair-grab incident occurred "at one point", without so much as insinuating it occurred immediately following the initial sighting / shooting.
NOTE: This article also cites Lucky as claiming the first sighting occurred circa 45 minutes after the UFO was seen to land.

---

Ms. Lankford's description of events to Andre (cited / quoted by Davis) clearly indicates shooting occurred prior to her own first sighting circa 2 - 2.5 hours after the initial visitor sighting by Lucky and Taylor.

Mrs. Lankford, for example, when interviewed by Mr. Andre in 1959, thought the incident of Taylor's hair being touched occurred about 10:30 p.m. She said that at first she did not pay any attention to the boys, thinking they were only joking and shooting for the fun of it. She and the other women were busy with the supper dishes and putting the children to bed. "We thought the boys were only kidding, although they were coming into the house and telling about seeing and shooting at the things.

"I did not take them seriously until about 10 o'clock ...

Davis (D & B report, p. 30)

 

[Comfortably Numb]

lt was given that she'd read about the case. It's like being ground zero in a nuclear blast, you can't AVOID noticing it. that doesn't invalidate the idea she knows stuff though. But it means you have to ... question where she heard each piece of information.

Absolutely and we can detect these influences in Geraldine Stith's published account - for example, 'Lucky' Sutton telling Glennie Lankford he had seen something which looked like, "maybe a goblin".

Significant? I thought so at first, now I'm having serious doubts they might not be.

As highlighted, the radio/podcast interviews mentioned - and I have found a few others elsewhere since - are of note and she does tell an essentially consistent story.

Intriguingly, Geraldine doesn't go along with the 'accepted' account that it was a family dog barking which led to the initial alarm and that the shooting began relatively soon afterwards.

Just so difficult, isn't it, to know where the proverbial boundaries lie, between what her father recollected many years later and consequently could have, understandably, been incorporated from elsewhere.

The one, potentially, key clue Geraldine might have given us, originates from the interview aforementioned and her father's description of the entities "skimming" characteristic. At least we can be reasonably certain this has not been compromised.

She does actually kinda mention said attribute in the interviews, although it perhaps only makes sense now we have that specific "skimming" phrase.

Speaking of which, how about the word "atrophied", as describing the entities legs. I have seen this in a couple of online features about the case and used as a direct quote, as if published back then. Can't find any trace of it of course and seems reasonable to suggest it never originated from our participants.

 

[BS3]

Absolutely and we can detect these influences in Geraldine Stith's published account - for example, 'Lucky' Sutton telling Glennie Lankford he had seen something which looked like, "maybe a goblin".

Significant? I thought so at first, now I'm having serious doubts they might not be.

As highlighted, the radio/podcast interviews mentioned - and I have found a few others elsewhere since - are of note and she does tell an essentially consistent story.

Intriguingly, Geraldine doesn't go along with the 'accepted' account that it was a family dog barking which led to the initial alarm and that the shooting began relatively soon afterwards.

Just so difficult, isn't it, to know where the proverbial boundaries lie, between what her father recollected many years later and consequently could have, understandably, been incorporated from elsewhere.

The one, potentially, key clue Geraldine might have given us, originates from the interview aforementioned and her father's description of the entities "skimming" characteristic. At least we can be reasonably certain this has not been compromised.

She does actually kinda mention said attribute in the interviews, although it perhaps only makes sense now we have that specific "skimming" phrase.

Speaking of which, how about the word "atrophied", as describing the entities legs. I have seen this in a couple of online features about the case and used as a direct quote, as if published back then. Can't find any trace of it of course and seems reasonable to suggest it never originated from our participants.

"Atrophied" to me does not feel like the kind of language either one of the witnesses or a mid 50s local paper would use. If a quote, it probably originates in a later retelling.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The idea that some or all the most widely mentioned shooting may not have begun until later (e.g., following Ms. Lankford's first sighting) does have one advantage - it resolves an issue that's bugged me from the very start of our attempts to piece together a storyline ...

According to Ms. Lankford - the de facto head of household - she didn't pay attention to the men's shenanigans (and / or reports thereof) until circa 2200.

I've always found it hard to believe she wouldn't have gone ballistic or at least intervened once anyone had discharged a firearm inside the house. In the relative ordering of the most universally-cited shooting events* the living room shot through the window screen represents the earliest such shot fired from inside the house.

(* ... which doesn't include her crouched vigil with Taylor bit)

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I can't find any place where you'd previously raised the notion of no shots prior to the 2230 sighting.

This goes back to my post #643, on 15 September.

It has perhaps, quitenderstandly, become inseparable from various other scenarios we have discussed and wherein I have been so fortunate, herein, to contribute.

Or, put another way, I couldn't remember either and took a good half an hour to find it.

Shall we concur that we have done all we can and an explanation is ultimately outwith our grasp?

No matter where we turn, there's another anomaly we can't get a grip of, because there's insufficient evidence and what does exist tends to be contrary?

Pending any new developments, of course and willl continually be searching...