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

[EnolaGaia]

There's another lighting factor that nobody seems to mention. Out front of the Lankford / Sutton farmhouse were two sets of railroad tracks running north / south and on the order of 150 - 200 feet from the front of the house. The main highway (US 41) lay another circa 200 feet beyond the tracks, also running north / south. Any rail or road traffic passing in the night would have carried lights.

 

[EnolaGaia]

"When a reporter asked Hodson his opinion of the story...".
So, a reporter was present?
It all has the hallmarks of a reporter listening in to the story and specifically Taylor's input, then compiling a misconstrued article from notes taken.

Our only documentation for Hodson's visit to the farmhouse lies in Ledwith's embedded sub-report, and Ledwith makes no mention of Hodson arriving or accompanying anyone.

Hodson was at the farmhouse on his own initiative. He did not work for or with the Clarksville newspaper.

I therefore suspect the reporter mentioned here refers to a reporter or editor in Clarksville whom Hodson approached with the sketches he'd created on the 22nd.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The phrase about the eyes being "white with a cornea of luminous yellow" is closely mirrored in Ledwith's 'women's' drawing...

Reminding of these notes from Ledwith, you have helped myself track down something of potential importance.

This is a significantly different publication of the evidence.

From 'The Arizona Republic', 'The Honolulu Advertiser', 'Daily News (New York)' and the 'Pensacola News Journal', plus possibly others.

Reported as a quote from 'the Suttons', not 'Sutton' that phrase, "eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart", is the exact same description used in the 'women's' sketch.

Does this suggest the entire quotation,"with eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart who glowed all over," originates from Mrs Sutton?

 

[marhawkman]

Reminding of these notes from Ledwith, you have helped myself track down something of potential importance.

This is a significantly different publication of the evidence.

From 'The Arizona Republic', 'The Honolulu Advertiser', 'Daily News (New York)' and the 'Pensacola News Journal', plus possibly others.

View attachment 47967

Reported as a quote from 'the Suttons', not 'Sutton' that phrase, "eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart", is the exact same description used in the 'women's' sketch.

Does this suggest the entire quotation, "with eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart who glowed all over," originates from Mrs Sutton?

You mean Alene Sutton? hmmm... maybe?

 

[EnolaGaia]

... This is a significantly different publication of the evidence.
From 'The Arizona Republic', 'The Honolulu Advertiser', 'Daily News (New York)' and the 'Pensacola News Journal', plus possibly others.
Reported as a quote from 'the Suttons', not 'Sutton' that phrase, "eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart", is the exact same description used in the 'women's' sketch.
Does this suggest the entire quotation,"with eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart who glowed all over," originates from Mrs Sutton?

That text comes from the UP (United Press) wire service story that would have been distributed nationwide. It appeared as early as the morning of the 23rd in the Indianapolis Star morning edition.

In the Star's version of the wire service story there are only 2 witnesses cited by name - 'Cecil Sutton' (noted earlier as a mistaken naming of Elmer / Lucky) and 'Bill Taylor'. None of the women are cited by name. As a result, there's no clear basis for concluding whether 'Mrs. Sutton' meant Alene or Vera.

To the extent Ledwith's eventual report (embedded in the D & B report) provides firm evidence, the UP story text didn't come from him. Ledwith didn't misidentify Lucky as 'Cecil' Sutton.

If you (CN) have a published version of the published UP wire service report that cites anyone other than 'Cecil' and Taylor by name, please post about it. In any case, it would be interesting to know the dates of publication for these additional articles.

The most interesting part is the verbatim phrase about eyes like saucers that mirrors Ledwith's phrasing in his embedded sub-report.

The problem is pinning down when Ledwith first wrote this phrase into his notes or report(s).

There's one source (I forget which one ... ) that claims Ledwith compiled his notes during the night of 22 / 23 August after leaving the farmhouse at 2230 on the 22nd. Ledwith was involved in news programming at the WHOP radio station. If WHOP was a UP affiliate, it's conceivable Ledwith filed the story to UP from his office overnight.

Otherwise, we don't know when Ledwith may have completed or distributed the text that became the embedded sub-report in the D & B report. Davis didn't even know Ledwith's notes existed until the following year (June 1956).

On the other hand ...

We generally know there were reporters from multiple newspapers at the farmhouse on the 22nd. It could have been one of these other reporters who filed the story with UP, who then distributed it to the other newspapers you cited. The Indianapolis Star article carries a UP byline, which implies the Star obtained the story off the wire service.

It's even possible Ledwith adopted the phrasing from someone else's news story when drafting his final submission to Davis at some unknown time later.

 

[FunkyTT]

This is a great thread.

I always thought this was pretty much a closed case and it was basically owls the family saw and there wasn't much chat to be had about it in this day and age.

Really enjoyed reading through it. Some awesome contributions.

Ooh , a newbie ! Welcome to the forum

I agree , I've been following it with great interest too.

Ps - is that Leon from the Resident Evil games on your Avatar? I LOVE those games, and quite fancy myself as the " Resident Evil Mistress" as rather good at playing them. Had an epic score on RE4s Mercenaries .

 

[Floyd]

and quite fancy myself as the " Resident Evil Mistress"

I fancy you as the 'Resident Evil Mistress' as well.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The same UP wire service story is republished in:

M. K. Jessup, The Expanding Case For The UFO. New York: Citadel Press, 1957, p. 247.

Note that this version carries what's supposed to be the date of wire service filing, and it says 22 August.

If it was filed with UP on the 22nd, the chances of it having originated with Ledwith diminish. It's hard to see how he could have filed the story - including at least one quote from Lucky - within the 1.5 hours after departing the farmhouse at 2230.

On the other hand, I don't know whether UP routinely back-dated the filing of a story received overnight to the previous day's date.

SOURCE: https://archive.org/details/TheExpandingCaseForTheUFO/page/n128/mode/1up

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I had coincidentally come across the following January, 1951 publication and duly intrigued, wondered if there was ever a mention of comic books in relation to the Kelly-Hopkinsville case.

There assuredly is and more besides:

Evansville Press
29 January, 1967

"George Batts, formerly a sheriff's deputy and now Deputy Christian County Clerk, said of the story, "I have no more faith in that than I could take wings and fly to Evansville in the next 30 minutes.

There is," Batts said, "not anything to it."

Batts, who was the first to arrive on the scene, said "It was a drunken brawl. I was disgusted with the whole thing."

There were about 150 rounds of ammunition fired, and no shots struck the roof where one of the creatures was supposed to have perched.

There was dust on the roof and no tracks.

Batts said there were comic magazines in the house and he theorized that the residents had talked about it over their whisky".

www.forteanmedia.com/1967_01_29_Evansville.pdf

Were there any follow-ups to this story, or is it just left on file?

 

[EnolaGaia]

I had coincidentally come across the following January, 1951 publication and duly intrigued, wondered if there was ever a mention of comic books in relation to the Kelly-Hopkinsville case. ...

Batts said there were comic magazines in the house and he theorized that the residents had talked about it over their whisky".
www.forteanmedia.com/1967_01_29_Evansville.pdf
Were there any follow-ups to this story, or is it just left on file?

The 1967 Evansville Press article is the earliest one I've seen that mentions Batts' comment about comic books / magazines

According to Loren Gross's compilation of supplemental notes about UFO events in 1955, Batts' allusion to comic books occurs in:

Matyi, J Robert. My God, They're Real Ashley Books, Inc • Port Washington, N.Y. 11050,1979 p. 70

http://www.cufos.org/UFO_History_Gross/1955_07_09-15th_HistorySN.pdf

As Gross noted, " ... no one else mentioned seeing comic books."

Gross's 1992 book on these events mentions Batts in relation to the incident, but makes no mention of the comic books remark. Neither does Gross mention anything from any other writer / investigator about the comic book issue.

For more comments about reading materials found at the farmhouse see my post of 4 October:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2113033

 

[BS3]

Doesn't it just.

Furthermore, from the same article and just before that, it is also claimed:

"Sutton said that the little man, which he described as being three and a half to four feet tall, looked like the bones of a skeleton with shiny metal over them".

Coupled with:

Madisonville Messenger'
22 August

"The little men were described as follows... Their faces were like "skin stretched over a skull"."

Goodness sakes...

It's not as if we can trace this back and see how the descriptions might have evolved to be exaggerated - it is the earliest evidence!

If we thought it couldn't get any more confusing or complicated, it's now confirmed from coming across Hynek's remarks:

"Mr. Ledwith recorded the following comments from various of the witnesses...

"They would move slowly when in this position towards the houses and made no attempt to enter. They just stood and stared until they were frightened away".

When did this all happen?

It just seems to increasingly make less sense.

That's not taking into account the 22 August, 'Kentucky New Era' claim;

"Deputy Sheriff Batts said the men told him that in all they fired up about four boxes of .22 pistol shells".

Then, of course, the shots have no significant effect, every time a creature is hit, even at point-blank range, it just gets up and runs/skimms/floats away.

And they glow as well, maybe even light up when shot...

All the fun of the fair... or perhaps that should be carnival.

'Lucky', Billy Ray and their wives are only there for the weekend... or they have been staying at the farmhouse for months.

Mrs Langford's detailed account, as related to Albert Andre in 1959, completely alters the story and...

Aside from which, I think we have a much clearer understanding now.

Where to from here... perhaps we have been too charitable and might need to take a more critical view?

For a start, there is far too much detail, given the lighting conditions.

Yes, it is precisely those very early, slightly hallucinatory descriptions which initially suggested to me we cannot be looking at simple misidentification and should either consider 1. a hoax, or 2. some sort of rapidly escalating contagious hysteria, for want of a better term. The opinions of Maj. Albert, and the possible existence of Lankford's religious article and (maybe) comic books in the house just reinforce this.

By the time Ledwith came on the scene people had the opportunity to either (under scenario 1) firm up their story or (under 2) rationalise what they thought they saw into coherent and consistent 'visitors'.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The same UP wire service story is republished in:

M. K. Jessup, The Expanding Case For The UFO. New York: Citadel Press, 1957, p. 247.

Note that this version carries what's supposed to be the date of wire service filing, and it says 22 August.

This is fantastic and an enormous help.

To recap - and this is simply from searching through the invaluable newspaper.com archives for various key phrases:

There were at least two versions of a press release published on the 22nd August.

I say "a", rather than "the", because there are variations in what was actually published, suggesting this specific news release might have been reissued, perhaps more than once, with alterations.

Firstly, see my post #1,143.

As noted, there were at least two related newspaper publications on 22 August.

I have since check and as suspected, the 'Salinas Californian' (the saved .pdf is headed 'The Californian') front page confirms an evening edition. Although the 'Modesto Bee' doesn't, presumably it is also..

As we can see from the .pdfs I included, both use the UP newsfeed phrase, "glowed with an inner illumination".

However, for reasons unbeknownst, the related newspaper coverage published on 23, is in a slightly different incarnation.

The phrase "glowed with an inner illumination" hsd been replaced by a specific quote and there is additional detail.

Could we assume the original news release was superceded by a fresh update, in time for the morning newspapers?

As shown in the examples, there are two different quotations, again perhaps implying ongoing updates from UP. We have:

"A few minutes later, Sutton said, "A little green man, about three feet tall, with eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart who glowed all over," came near the house.

Sutton said the little man retreated when he fired a shotgun into the air, then fell and ran off when he fired a second time directly at him".


However, we also have (my italics highlighting key differences), from the 'Indianapolis Star':

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

About five feet from the door of the house he stopped and retreated when the Suttons fired a shotgun off into the air.

But soon he returned again, and the Suttons fired at him. He fell down from the blast, and then ran off into the fields".

When did the "five feet from the door" happen?

There is no attribution to where and when this was supposedly said by "the Suttons", or where and when 'the Suttons" ever fired a warning shot so close.

Herein, lies an integral problem with these newsfeeds - they can be perhaps be untrustworthy.

Continued in part 2...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Part 2

One example why the UP newsfeeds are perhaps unreliable:

"...a disgusted Sutton said, "If they come back I'm not going to let anyone know about it".

Sutton, who still stuck by his story today, added, "You can believe it or not, just don't laugh at it"."

However, this wasn't in fact a direct quote from Sutton at all, it's a second-hand account, as confirmed in another version, also published on 23 August:

"State Police Trooper G.W. Riley said he checked at the Sutton farm house about six miles from here last night, but that the "space visitors" had not returned.

He quoted a disgusted Sutton as saying, "If they come back, I'm not going to let anyone know about it"."

"Riley... said Sutton told some of the human visitors yesterday, "You can believe it or not, just don't laugh at it"."


In many associated articles on 23, it's claimed:

"The Suttons told this tale of the nightmarish visit: About 7:30 Sunday evening, Bill Taylor, a visiting relative, went to a well near the home and came back to the house excitedly talking of a 'spaceship" in a nearby field'.

There seems to be only one preceding newspaper report which uses "7:30" and that is from the 'Madisonville Messenger', on 22 August.

It's also the only earlier report which, like the 23 August news release, mentions creatures on the roof and in trees:

"About 35 or 40 minutes later, they noticed "two or three shiny little men," about three or four feet tall, walking toward the rear of the house.

In a moment the little men were "all over the place," about 15 of them in the yard, on the roof and in the trees".

Did those, "shiny little men', become "glowing" in the UP newsfeed?

So far as I can see, the sole basis for our growing creatures is that newsfeed, believed to have contained an established, direct quote from 'Lucky' Sutton.

It could equally have come from Alene Sutton.

The initial copy of a related news release incorporates, in reference to the creatures possibly returning:

"Mrs. Sutton said she was, "Skittedy about it".

Although not clarified whether this is Alene or Vera Sutton, it's surely, almost certainly Alene, who is quoted extensively in the 22 August Evansville Press article, including:

"...and if I see any more tonight, I'll pack my clothes and leave".

The original UP newsfeed claimed:

"Cecil Sutton, his family and several relatives said they were up all night fending off the little men which glowed with an inner illumination while climbing trees and crawling about the roof of his home".

Personally, I can see no credible evidence that the enigmatic entities ever glowed, any more than I can that they ever floated either.

It's this addition within the story that day, about a warning shot allegedly being fired at only five feet distance, which is arguably of more significance.

I can't, presently, locate any precedence where it's disclosed and shall pursue this further.

It's simply not acceptable evidence as things stand.

Furthermore, where and when, prior to its newspaper publication on the evening of 22 August, was any interview, other than by the Evansville Press, held with 'Lucky' Sutton on that day.

He had apparently been in Evansville since early morning, until returning to the farmhouse around 8:30 p.m.

 

[SimonBurchell]

Yes, it is precisely those very early, slightly hallucinatory descriptions which initially suggested to me we cannot be looking at simple misidentification and should either consider 1. a hoax, or 2. some sort of rapidly escalating contagious hysteria, for want of a better term. The opinions of Maj. Albert, and the possible existence of Lankford's religious article and (maybe) comic books in the house just reinforce this.

By the time Ledwith came on the scene people had the opportunity to either (under scenario 1) firm up their story or (under 2) rationalise what they thought they saw into coherent and consistent 'visitors'.

Only hoax or hysteria? There could have been something genuinely anomalous going on. We'll never know now.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The same UP wire service story is republished in:

M. K. Jessup, The Expanding Case For The UFO. New York: Citadel Press, 1957, p. 247.

Note that this version carries what's supposed to be the date of wire service filing, and it says 22 August.

On further reflection, when you study it carefully, the original 22 August press release actually states:

- the incident took place on Cecil Sutton's farm

- all of the participants said they had been up all night fighting creatures which they all said "glowed with an inner illumination"

- they all said a "little green man" approached the house

That's the genesis of the "little green man", it comes from this news release.

- Billy Ray Taylor was a relative

- Sutton said it had, "eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart"... and "glowing all over".

It doesn't really matter if the quote comes from Cecil or one of the Mrs. Suttons, as they had all already confirmed the little green man was lit up from an inner illumination

- he came up to the house and when only five feet away, Sutton fired a warning shot

- this solitary little green man retreated

- then he came back and "the Suttons" shot him. Who pulled the trigger isn't identified

- the creature fell down, got back up and ran off into the fields

- later, more of them arrived and were soon up in the trees and on the farmhouse roof, Sutton said

- three hours later, "the Suttons" ran for their car to call the sheriff in Hopkinsville.

That's the UP story which went out to the world.

Seeing it broken down like this, some things about the case interpretation, might now begin to make slightly more sense...?

 

[BS3]

Only hoax or hysteria? There could have been something genuinely anomalous going on. We'll never know now.

Oh, I agree in that sense, there is of course the "hypothesis of truth" as Davis referred to it. However I think the early accounts show that the sort of nuts-and-bolts, coherently described entities postulated by Davis aren't really borne out by what the witnesses were reporting at the time.

More importantly if Major Albert was correct in his assertion that Lankford had been reading about "little silver men" prior to that night's events, it puts a whole different complexion on it. The 'anomalous' bit then surely has to lie in the mental state and perception of the witnesses.
- or perhaps in that of one or two influential witnesses who can draw the others into a collective folie a famille.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... There were at least two versions of a press release published on the 22nd August.

I say "a", rather than "the", because there are variations in what was actually published, suggesting this specific news release might have been reissued, perhaps more than once, with alterations. ...

A wire service story is a single product that's distributed to all the service's affiliates. This doesn't mean it's a black box product that has to be used on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

The affiliates can either run the wire service story 'as is', or they can edit it to suit their needs and preferences.

The wave of stories flagged as sourced from UP and published across the USA represent locally-edited versions of a single UP product, not a set of different UP issuances.

 

[EnolaGaia]

On further reflection, when you study it carefully, the original 22 August press release actually states:
- they all said a "little green man" approached the house
That's the genesis of the "little green man", it comes from this news release.

Hold on ... You're reading perhaps a bit too much into the news story I posted that was dated 22 August.

Jessup provided no reference citations or blbiography in his 1957 book. As such, I have no idea where he got the text he quoted. Maybe it's the original UP issuance; maybe it's some unidentified newspaper's published version of the UP release.

I didn't claim the version Jessup quotes was the original UP release. I merely pointed out that its date attribution demonstrates the story was distributed nationwide via UP as of the 22nd, which in turn means someone filed a report on the incident with UP as of the 22nd.

I agree that this seems to be the earliest documented application of the 'little green men' trope to the Kelly story.

However, this original source attribution pertains only to characterizing the Kelly visitors as green. The little green men trope in UFO reports or writings didn't originate with the Kelly incident, and it had a long history in supernatural / folkloric stories before being cross-applied to extraterrestrials. See:

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

 

[marhawkman]

Oh, I agree in that sense, there is of course the "hypothesis of truth" as Davis referred to it. However I think the early accounts show that the sort of nuts-and-bolts, coherently described entities postulated by Davis aren't really borne out by what the witnesses were reporting at the time.

More importantly if Major Albert was correct in his assertion that Lankford had been reading about "little silver men" prior to that night's events, it puts a whole different complexion on it. The 'anomalous' bit then surely has to lie in the mental state and perception of the witnesses.
- or perhaps in that of one or two influential witnesses who can draw the others into a collective folie a famille.

Well, one of the repeated things that ahs been noted is that... there's only 5 actual witnesses, some of which apparently only got a short glimpse of the creatures. sooo yeah, this might actually be the case.

Like with Ledwith, he made a sketch based on input from 3 women who were there, but of the three, most of the input came from Alene. With the presumption that the others were agreeing with her.

 

[marhawkman]

A wire service story is a single product that's distributed to all the service's affiliates. This doesn't mean it's a black box product that has to be used on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

The affiliates can either run the wire service story 'as is', or they can edit it to suit their needs and preferences.

The wave of stories flagged as sourced from UP and published across the USA represent locally-edited versions of a single UP product, not a set of different UP issuances.

I guess part of this might be editing for length or to incorporate other information? Which could, if done badly, compromise accuracy..

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I agree that this seems to be the earliest documented application of the 'little green men' trope to the Kelly story.

Yes, only in relation to this case, as noted, I did find references dating way back to 1947!

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...oncept-the-meme-the-cliché.15469/post-2096595

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Like with Ledwith, he made a sketch based on input from 3 women who were there, but of the three, most of the input came from Alene. With the presumption that the others were agreeing with her.

Yep ... There's no mention anywhere (from Ledwith or any other source) of anything said by Vera about any aspect of the incident. Also remember than Ms. Lankford walked out of the women's sketching session while it was still in progress.

 

[BS3]

Well, one of the repeated things that ahs been noted is that... there's only 5 actual witnesses, some of which apparently only got a short glimpse of the creatures. sooo yeah, this might actually be the case.

Like with Ledwith, he made a sketch based on input from 3 women who were there, but of the three, most of the input came from Alene. With the presumption that the others were agreeing with her.

Yes, Alene is the source of most of the detail- Lankford either describes what others have seen or notes seeing a vaguely described shiny object like a "gasoline can". She sees something but is not at all clear as to what it is and in fact shies away in her statement from describing it as anything but a neutral "object". June Taylor explicitly refused to look at the visitors and Vera's contribution isn't described anywhere as far as I know.

Among the men, nearly all the direct quotes originate from Lucky - clearly the dominant character in the household - and the remaining information is largely Taylor, who as we know is identified by Ledwith as the most imaginative and possibly prone to exaggeration. That leaves J. C. and Baker; the only contribution I can recall from them is in Ledwith's notes disagreeing with Lucky over the presence of a 'mouth' - they saw one and he didn't. But by this point they all had seen the 'women's' drawing.

So really there are three main witnesses 'leading' everyone else - which to me points towards either of the two possible explanations mentioned earlier.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Jessup provided no reference citations or blbiography in his 1957 book. As such, I have no idea where he got the text he quoted. Maybe it's the original UP issuance; maybe it's some unidentified newspaper's published version of the UP release.

It's all absolutely fine. We can see how, in essence, some of the resultant newspaper reports came about.

The central issue was where and when did the creatures take on the glowing attribute.

The 22 August UP press release seems to have been instrumental and there doesn't appear to be any basis for the assertion that all the witnesses confirmed seeing this effect.

It's trying to track down the origin of what is and conversely isn't trustworthy evidence as reported by the contemporary press and has become accepted as fact, when it arguably isn't at all set in stone.

Whilst the UP newsfeed is one aspect, the unrelated and individual newspaper reports have been far more influential.

As we appreciate, there are effectively only three articles which were elemental and all published on Monday 22 August, the day afterwards - from the 'Kentucky New Era', the 'Madisonville Messenger' and the 'Evansville Press'.

Given a fair amount of skepticism, coupled with the witnesses sudden disappearance, the story had such a short shelf life back then.

Can we now perhaps understand how this all interplayed and better distinguish fact from fiction?

With so little actual direct witness testimony and often being reliant on what the newspaper's reporters heard from someone who had spoken to the witnesses, it's far from ideal.

Nonetheless, I am going to try for an update!

Starting, separately, with the key issue of where I believe we now stand as regards a summary of all known shots fired.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This is a latest attempt to both clarify and simplify the situation as, from my understanding, it now looks to be.

I don't think there's anything highly contentious, perhaps largely because there are relatively few, known, shots to analyse, given the evening's drama.

To recap, theses are seemingly the only shots reported in press coverage.

Kentucky New Era
22 August

- window shot.

- location unstated: another creature shot, knocked down, disappeared into the darkness.

Madisonville Messenger
22 August

- door awning shot.

Evansville Press
22 August

- location unstated, shot one twice from 30 feet, creature flipped over onto the grass, fell down, jumped up again and ran off.

- location unstated, John Sutton shot one of the creatures with his .22 and the bullets just glanced off the body.

Madisonville Messenger
23 August

- reported shooting two creatures, no location.

UP Newsfeed
23 August

- fired warning shot when creature five feet from door, creature returns, fires again, creature falls down and then runs into fields.

Nashville Banner
24 August

- Sutton and his brother were reported to have shot at one of the men who looked through a window, apparently wounding him with shotgun and pistol fire

- wounded man allegedly got up and ran into a nearby field.
(End)


Subsequently, these are the unidentified shots:

Kentucky New Era

1) location unstated: another creature shot, knocked down, disappeared into the darkness.

Evansville Press

2) location unstated, shot one twice from 30 feet, creature flipped over onto the grass, fell down, jumped up again and ran off.

3) location unstated, John Sutton shot one of the creatures with his .22 and the bullets just glanced off the body.

Madisonville Messenger

4) reported shooting two creatures, no location.

UP Newsfeed

5) fired warning shot when creature five feet from door, creature returns, fires again, creature falls down and then runs into fields.

6) Plus, we have to consider the claim in Ledwith's testimony, where Sutton apparently shot one creature from point-blank range, outside the farmhouse.

This could, of course, be a reference to one of the shots already accounted for.


Isabel Davis' Account of Shots Fired

This is Isabel Davis' summary of all shots she believes are known to have been fired.

The next intention is to try and equate these with the above numbered descriptions.

A) Withdrawing slightly into the house, they awaited the arrival of the creature. When it had moved to within 20 feet of the back door, both men fired. The creature somersaulted backwards - "did a flip," as the men put it - scrambled hastily upright, and scurried away into the darkness at the side of the house.
(End)

This seems to be both 2) and 3).

It also appears to account for 5) - albeit making allowance for variance as this only exists in the 22 August UP newsfeed, has no source attributed and isn't necessarily trustworthy.


B) Lucky and Billy Ray waited a few minutes, then went into the living room, where the women were.

Another creature appeared at the side window; the men fired at it through the screen. Again they apparently hit it, and again it "flipped" and disappeared.

(...)

The men decided to go outdoors and see whether they had actually hit the creature; as they started out the front door... those behind him in the hall saw a claw-like hand reach down and touch his hair.

...Sutton turned the .12 gauge shotgun up toward the creature on the overhang, fired, and knocked it over the roof.
(End)

A straightforward understanding. Both shots are described, although the direct association is questionable.


C) "There's one up in the tree, too," Billy Ray said - it was on the limb of the maple tree to the right as you leave the house. Both Lucky and Taylor shot at that one, knocking him off the limb; he floated to the ground, they shot at him again, and he too scurried off into the weeds.
(End)

There seems to be no known documented account; is this the genesis?

Kentucky New Era
22 August

"One of the strange little men was in a nearby tree, another on top of the house".

There's no mention of a shot being fired.

Jacqueline Saunders, writing in 'The Saucerian Review', January, 1956:

"Evidently the men opened fire on the weird little creatures which were perched in the trees and on the house".

There's still no evidence of a tree shot.


D) Almost at the same moment, around the north west corner of the house, right in front of Lucky, came another one - or the same one that had been knocked over the ridgepole.

(...)

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

This is 6).

However, it is speculation to link the claimed, point-blank shot here. We simply don't know which shot he is referring to.

Of more significance, the only tentative reference to any creature coming around a corner, would seem to be associated with Mrs Lankford's statement and the 22 August 'Evansville Press' article:

"Mrs. Lankford... said she saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house".


Summary

It's indeterminable what both of these relate to:

1) location unstated: another creature shot, knocked down, disappeared into the darkness.

4) reported shooting two creatures, no location.


That aside, only two shots of the five Isabel cites can be agreed upon:

- the window shot
- the door awning shot.

The other three appear to be devoid of supporting evidence.

Whilst it's arguably not a massive issue at this point, Isabel then introduces another two shots, based upon unpublished source evidence provided by Bud Ledwith:

"...a scraping or tapping noise was heard on the kitchen roof, and the men went into the back yard to see a creature moving up that roof. They shot at it and knocked it from the roof; then it "floated" to the back fence - a distance of some 40-odd feet - where it seemed to perch; they shot again, knocked it off the fence, and this time it scurried off into the weeds in the "all-fours" position".

It's inadmissible without seeing Ledwith's source material.


Complicating matters, is that Isabel's report doesn't feature the 'barrel shot', reported in 'The Saucerian Review' article:

"Taylor told of knocking one of them off a barrel with his .22. He said he heard the bullet strike the creature, then whine as it ricocheted off! The little man tumbled to the ground, rolled into a ball, then floated off in the direction of the spaceship".


Furthermore, we do have a crucial decision to make regarding the 1959 interview given by Mrs Lankford to Albert Andre. This portrays a different sequence of how events initially unfolded, specifically that there was a shot fired through the door screen, as a consequence of Mrs Lankford's 10:30 sighting.

This involves due consideration of the events timeline and can be addressed separately.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Only hoax or hysteria? There could have been something genuinely anomalous going on. We'll never know now.

There was a program on TV earlier, running in the background and I was half-watching same.

It was about some vintage car enthusiasts, keen to restore a classic model which had been neglected for many years.

First job was naturally to take it apart and clean up all the parts worth saving. Finally locating and sourcing the necessary replacements, it was time to put it all back together.

It struck that there seemed to be parallels, spending time researching this old classic 'flying saucer' case.

A fascinating challenge because it's something which interests you, the first step is to identify which components seem trustworthy and reliable, then clear up what you have. Get rid of the rubbish and clutter which has built up over decades, then try to locate and source the pieces you now know are missing.

Then, likewise, start putting it all together again and see what you actually have.

The alarming realisation though, was that they had a clear plan, an actual diagram of what they were trying to achieve.

Consummately devoid of any such luxury, it's still open-ended what we might end up with!

It's as good a cryptoid case that I know of and far more intriguing than many which are lauded, yet would not last five minutes of investigation by comparison to how well it can be argued this one is staying the course.

If our little critters conundrum doesn't in truth involve them beeing lit up like Blackpool tower, then get rid. It doesn't need that to survive.

Which leads nicely into another pivotal piece of the puzzle - why these shiny, chrome, aluminium, etc. like attributes in the first place?

Any documented, cryptoid cases where there might conceivably be a similarity?

 

[EnolaGaia]

It's all absolutely fine. We can see how, in essence, some of the resultant newspaper reports came about.
The central issue was where and when did the creatures take on the glowing attribute. ...

To expand on what I posted about the visitors' bodies glowing back in September ...

RE: The Visitors Themselves Glowing Persistently
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2107743

None of the 3 early / primary news reports (New Era; Evansville Press; Madisonville Messenger) mention any full-body glowing / self-illuminating feature.

The Evansville Press article of 22 August says the visitors' legs (alone) flashed like a fluorescent light when they ran.

Bottom Line:
It's Davis who repeatedly alludes to the visitors glowing all over and all the time. This glow increased if a given visitor was shot or shouted at.

The Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle article (24 August) claims only the visitors' eyes "shone in the dark." It then claims the visitors' whole bodies lit up when "they shouted." It's not clear whether this means when the visitors shouted or when a witness shouted at them.

The UP-based news stores of the 22nd / 23rd onward mention the visitors glowing as a persistent feature.

---

RE: Visitors Glowing In The Dark But Not When Illuminated
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2107744

Bottom Line:
This wasn't mentioned during the first 2 days following the incident until:

22 August: UP news release (or some paper's article) quoted in Jessup's 1957 book.

23 August; Indianapolis Star (i.e., the UP wire story) and other newspapers.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It's Davis who repeatedly alludes to the visitors glowing all over and all the time. This glow increased if a given visitor was shot or shouted at.

Quite in agreement and also merely to highlight - before the 1978 publication of Isabel Davis' 'Close Encounter at Kelly', Frank Edwards had incorporated this chacteristic (my emphasis) within his 1966 book, 'Flying Saucers: Serious Business':

"Around 8 o'clock the Suttons' dogs began to bark furiously, as they generally did when an intruder was about.Two of the men went to the back door and peered out. They later told authorities that about fifty or sixty feet distant was a creature of some sort: It glowed, they agreed, like the lettering on a radium-painted watch".

(...)

"The dogs were barking at a faintly luminous thing in a tree, but before they could get closer they discovered another of their strange visitors moving along the ridgerow of the house.

Elmer Sutton blasted the thing with the shotgun. Both men told authorities they could clearly detect the sound of the shot striking home... but the glowing thing seemed to dive off into the air and was seen a momen later running into a weed patch. Another shot caused the glowing thing in the tree to glide down into the weeds and be lost to sight".
(End)

 

[BS3]

Here's a thing: the 'canonical' description of a creature glowing in the dark, but a sort of dull (metallic?) colour when lit externally, to me feels quite different to those early descriptions - traceable both to Lucky and Alene - of an "aluminium foil" or "chrome" appearance (and later echoed by Lankford who compared it to the presumably chrome plated parts of her fridge).

We know that the picture featured in Lankford's supposed article, which she had allegedly been reading and discussing just before the incident, was almost certainly a well known hoax photograph in which the figure does indeed have a very shiny, chromium sort of appearance. Is there a possibility that after the first night, descriptions were subtly shifted to make the 'visitors' less like the picture in Lankford's article?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

As we know, according to Mrs Lankford's written statement, the following occurred at around 10:30 p.m. and would have been one of the last incidents before they all fled to Hopkinsville:

"On Sunday night Aug 21, 55 about 10:30 P.M. I was walking through the hallway which is located in the middle of my house and I looked out the back door south & saw a bright silver object about two and a half feet tall appearing round. I became excited and did not look at it long enough to see if it had any eyes or move. I was about 15 or 20 feet from it. I fell backward, and then was carried into the bedroom".

It appears to be corroborated by Alene Sutton in the 22 August 'Evansville Press' article:

"Mrs. Lankford saw one of the little men looking through a window at her, according to Mrs. Sutton, and Mrs. Lankford "fainted out cold"."

It's perfectly conceivable and on its own, would not raise any doubts about the length of time before Mrs Lankford had seen one of the creatures for herself.

Except... the perceived timeline of events, meant that Mrs Lankford's house had been under seige for almost three hours, the 'little men' had been fired upon when they first approached the farmhouse, one of her windows had been damaged by gunfire after a creature had been shot at through it, apparently the same entity had flown up onto the front door overhang, reached down with a claw at Billy Ray Taylor's head, had been shot again and none of gunfire appeared to have a meaningful effect on the strange beings, plus the other women and children were lying on the floor/hiding under the bed seeking safety.

There is no indication of this as Mrs Lankfords statedly become "excited" and doesn't seem to make any obvious sense.

Alternatively, if the shooting events within, or in the near proximity of the farmhouse had yet to take place, it might.

That would require a scenario where those events occurred within a short space of the time, following Mrs Lankford's 10:30 sighting.

As at 22 August, there was no reason for anyone following the newspaper reports, to suspect this could be the case.

It's a situation which continued throughout ensuing years and the accepted timeline and sequence of events became reinforced by notable publications such as Jacqueline Sanders' article from the January 1956 edition of 'Saucerian Review', Frank Edwards' detailed case history in his 1966 book, Flying Saucers: Serious Business'.

Countless other publications since have followed suit.

What is our understanding and accepted version of the timeline founded upon.

Presumably a clear and unequivocal account of how proceedings unfolded by one or more of the witnesses?

In fact, it would seem no such thing actually exists.

The sole foundation and genesis comes from one newspaper report, as published right at the outset, by the 'Kentucky New Era', on 22 August, 1955.

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

"Both Chief Greenwell and Deputy Sheriff Batts said they got approximately this story from the still terrified and excited Sutton and Taylor families.

(...)

A short time later somebody reported some little men with big heads and long arms were approaching the house.

(...)

The men got their guns, a shotgun for Sutton and a .22 caliber target pistol for Taylor. By and by one of the little men pressed his face against the window and the shotgun was fired through the window. The face disappeared.

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

One of the strange little men was in a nearby tree, another on top of the house. A blast from Sutton’s shotgun knocked another one of the men down but he did not appear hurt. He disappeared in the darkness'.
(End)


First issue would be that this is statedly an approximate story we are being told, about a story someone else has heard, from an unidentified person.

What if the actual, original account was:

- a shot was fired through a window
- also, at another point, Taylor went to step outside and... etc.

There is no witnesses testimony directly connecting them and indeed quite the opposite:

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August

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

"Lucky" Sutton, armed with a single-barrel .12 gauge shotgun, stepped out and shot the little man off the roof. The shot kocked the strange fellow down, but apparently didn't harm him".
(End)


'Evansville Press'
22 August

"Mrs. (Alene) Sutton said that at one point Billy Taylor went out the front door and something grabbed him by the hair. Baker pulled him back in the house.

Mrs. Sutton was at ther back door when this happened. She said the figure sermed to fly or jump right over the house, land in the back yard and then vanish".


Is there, additionally and potentially of profound importance, a competing testimony, perhaps within an existing newspaper report.

That is affirmative, in a little known article and seemingly nowhere else:

'Nashville Banner'
24 August

"Sutton and his brother were reported to have shot at one of the men who looked through a window, apparently wounding him with shotgun and pistol fire, Cowherd said.

The wounded man allegedly got up and ran into a nearby field".

If it's evidentially perfectly reasonable to question long-standing beliefs - which rarely, if ever, goes down well with those who hold them - then what evidence is on record to replace them.

It is, of course, Mrs Lankford's detailed, first-hand, witness testimony, from her 1959 interview by Albert Andre. Although we regrettably do not have a full transcript, there is sufficient revealed by Isabel Davis in her 1978 publication 'Incident at Kelly':

"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, when Alene came in terrified, white, nervously shaking, saying that she had seen one of the little men. She was terribly upset and her nervousness continued for several days. I suggested to the boys that we turn the lights out, which we did. I decided then to see just what it was they were seeing. I went out in the hallway and crouched down next to Billy and asked him, 'Now just what have you been seeing?' He replied, 'Wait and you'll see.'

"We remained crouched down about three feet from the screen door (the front door) for about 20 minutes, when I saw one approaching the door. Billy and I remained crouching until it came right up to the screen. It looked like a five-gallon gasoline can with a head on top and small legs. It was a shimmering bright metal like on my refrigerator.

"I tried to get up from my crouched position to move back farther from the door. I did not make it, as I am heavy and my legs had become stiff from remaining in a crouched position a long time; and being in the dark I lost my balance and fell flat on the floor, making a thud-like noise and letting out a shriek. At the same time the thing jumped back into the yard and Billy shot at it right through the screen.

"It then jumped up, we thought, right on the roof of the house. As Billy went out the door to get another shot at it, the thing's clawy hands snatched at Billy's head. By that time Alene had come to the door; she grabbed Billy's arm and snatched him back into the house. By then, my son, Lucky, who had been guarding the other doorway (the back door) had also arrived at the front door, coming through the house. He pushed out the door past Billy and Alene and shot at the thing while it was still on the overhang above the front door."
(End)

It's uncertain who attempted to clarify front/back door in brackets and whether Mrs Lankford, Andre, or Isabel Davis.

Ultimately, it's a judgement call as to which timeline and sequence of firearms discharge is more agreeable.

It seems to make little difference to the actual number of shots.

It could though, alter an overall perspective about the entire night's events.

Likewise, that is a conclusion for an individual interpretation.

My mission is accomplished, I simply wanted to try and set out the parameters involved.

This, especially so, given my own realisation that there wasn't in fact anything set in stone about the window shot/hair grab connection is only recent.

Should there be factual errors or missed evidence of significance, no doubt someone will point this out.

Anything which helps to make sense of it all, is naturally warmly embraced!