• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

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

stu neville said:
Well, this is interesting: currently on sale via Loren Coleman's International Cryptozoology Museum. Pukwudgies don't get a lot of attention, but they show curiosity towards humans, are stealthy, agile...
View attachment 42792
Click to expand...
Looks like a gremlin

Gremlin.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comfortably Numb said:
This is interesting.
It's the story as told, in six parts, by Geraldine Stith, daughter of 'Lucky' Sutton. ...
The Chronicles of Geraldine
Click to expand...
There are a number of points of correlation - and some of conflict - between Geraldine's account of the incident and other documented accounts.

For now I will focus on some general comments to set the context for her video exposition of the events.

First and foremost, the video series opens with Geraldine emphasizing that she's the child of one of the witnesses / participants, and she "knows" the true story of what happened. The implication is that she knows the story as well or better than anyone, but this impression needs to be put into context.

Geraldine is the oldest of 5 children from Lucky Sutton's second marriage. Lucky was married to his first wife in 1955. Geraldine was born circa 1960, and her first introduction to the story didn't occur until 1968, when she was 8 years old. Up until 1968 Lucky had withheld any mention of the story from the children of his second marriage. His introduction of the children to the story apparently resulted from a contact received asking to discuss "the green men" with Lucky - a contact that made the children curious what this "green men" business was about.

As such, Geraldine's account is second-hand and represents the story as it was handed down in one witness's line some 13 years after the incident. By and large, Geraldine's account generally reflects the storyline in the 1978 Davis & Bloecher report rather than the 1956 Sanders article (to the extent these two primary accounts differ).

This is no surprise, because the Sanders article seems to have relied exclusively on information gathered from the sheriff and / or other parties who'd responded to the incident as it unfolded.
 
Geraldine's account states that Ms. Lankford "sold" the house and moved to an apartment in Hopkinsville not long after the incident. The D & B account stated the family residents (Ms. Lankford? Lucky? Both?) were buying the house from a Mr. McGehe who owned the adjacent or surrounding property.

In contrast, Sanders stated the house belonged to McGehe and the residents were renting it. She wrote that Ms. Lankford had been contemplating buying the house, but was having second thoughts in the wake of the incident.

Geraldine stated Ms. Lankford had decided she ought to move away from the house and the hassles it now entailed by the time 2 weeks had passed (after the incident). Geraldine then states Ms. Lankford sold the house after 2 weeks. It's not clear whether these two events occurred more or less simultaneously or one after the other. In any case, it means the house was probably vacated no less than circa 2 weeks, and no more than circa 4 weeks, following the incident.

Sanders claimed the house was vacant at the time she visited Hopkinsville to investigate, and that the family had left within 48 hours of the incident. This couldn't have been the case according to the D & B / Geraldine accounts. If one accepts the D & B / Geraldine accounts, it implies Sanders didn't visit Hopkinsville until at least 2 - 4 weeks after the incident. This further reduces confidence in the timeliness and / or accuracy of the Sanders article.
 
EnolaGaia said:
There are a number of points of correlation - and some of conflict - between Geraldine's account of the incident and other documented accounts.

For now I will focus on some general comments to set the context for her video exposition of the events.

First and foremost, the video series opens with Geraldine emphasizing that she's the child of one of the witnesses / participants, and she "knows" the true story of what happened. The implication is that she knows the story as well or better than anyone, but this impression needs to be put into context.

Geraldine is the oldest of 5 children from Lucky Sutton's second marriage. Lucky was married to his first wife in 1955. Geraldine was born circa 1960, and her first introduction to the story didn't occur until 1968, when she was 8 years old. Up until 1968 Lucky had withheld any mention of the story from the children of his second marriage. His introduction of the children to the story apparently resulted from a contact received asking to discuss "the green men" with Lucky - a contact that made the children curious what this "green men" business was about.

As such, Geraldine's account is second-hand and represents the story as it was handed down in one witness's line some 13 years after the incident. By and large, Geraldine's account generally reflects the storyline in the 1978 Davis & Bloecher report rather than the 1956 Sanders article (to the extent these two primary accounts differ).

This is no surprise, because the Sanders article seems to have relied exclusively on information gathered from the sheriff and / or other parties who'd responded to the incident as it unfolded.
Click to expand...
And what she heard from her father was what he wanted the children to know. Another filter in the process of the story.
 
I don't follow UFO stories partly because many of them are as confused as this one and partly because I have never seen anything that in summary made me interested in investigating - nothing seems close enough to a believable narrative. That's not to say I don't think there are UFO's out there; we don't seem to process the experiences or the information usefully, with the exception of pilots, who keep their reports to the minimum of fact and don't elaborate later for the Enquirer. As an outsider to this genre, just want to point out aberrations: some people in the house went about their evening business despite monsters approaching and being shot at. No one trooped out to look at the saucer that landed. One of the principals who was shooting had had a previous experience with aliens not explained. Day after the event two of the principals took off for elsewhere for the day. Were they not worried about the family? Count of ammunition used wildly strange. Family was renting - was it farmland? Who were they? leading to, two of them at least were itinerant (not owner, the paper would have said "who owned") carnies, known informally to be a strange group.
 
Lb8535 said:
As an outsider to this genre, just want to point out aberrations: some people in the house went about their evening business despite monsters approaching and being shot at. No one trooped out to look at the saucer that landed. ...
Click to expand...
The failure to go to the allegedly probable site of the alleged landing is arguably the biggest hole in the evidence and the overall story.

Taylor did not see the UFO land. He is consistently reported as having seen the UFO come to an apparent halt after overflying him from the southwest and then descend out of sight behind the trees to his north. He estimated the UFO would have come to ground in the vicinity of a gulley / depression circa 300 feet north of the house's back yard.

At no time did Taylor nor anyone else from the house go to the gulley to confirm Taylor's presumptive landing, much less examine any craft or object that may have been there.

The authorities did advance into the woods during the night, and it's documented that they examined the gulley the following day. No evidence of any landing or other activity was found.

Lb8535 said:
Day after the event two of the principals took off for elsewhere for the day. Were they not worried about the family? ...
Click to expand...
It was three of the principals (3 of the men) who traveled to Evansville the following morning. The trip was planned prior to the incident. Evansville was the headquarters / home base for the carnival at which two of the men were employed.

Geraldine provides the most specific explanation for the trip, saying they went "to pick up some furniture."

Lb8535 said:
Family was renting - was it farmland? Who were they? leading to, two of them at least were itinerant (not owner, the paper would have said "who owned") carnies, known informally to be a strange group.
Click to expand...
See preceding posts. It's not clear whether the family was renting or buying the house and property. The source that claimed they were renting was the Sanders article, which seems to be the least credible of the bunch.
 
RE: Geraldine's Videos / The "Floating" Issue

One thing struck me about Geraldine's version of the story (i.e., the oral version passed down through Lucky Sutton) ...

I did not notice any mention of the "floating" ability / behavior among the visitors, nor did I notice any analogous description of the visitors' behavior or abilities analogous to the "floating" that's so commonly mentioned.

When Geraldine described Lucky shooting his shotgun at the visitor perched atop the roof at the front of the house (presumably the one who'd grabbed at Taylor's hair) she specifically said the shotgun blast knocked the visitor back. This is one of the rare descriptions suggesting the visitors weren't ephemeral and were subject to mechanical forces.
 
RE: Geraldine's Videos / The Guns

Geraldine specifically stated that Lucky and Taylor took up guns within the house, specifying that Lucky grabbed a shotgun and Taylor grabbed a rifle. She later repeats the claim that Taylor was using a rifle.

No calibers are cited for any of the guns being used.

Taylor is consistently cited as having wielded a .22 caliber weapon that night. Geraldine's description adds weight to the idea that Taylor was using the .22 rifle mentioned in the Davis & Bloecher report weapons inventory rather than any ".22 target pistol" that's often been mentioned.
 
EnolaGaia said:
RE: Geraldine's Videos / The "Floating" Issue

One thing struck me about Geraldine's version of the story (i.e., the oral version passed down through Lucky Sutton) ...

I did not notice any mention of the "floating" ability / behavior among the visitors, nor did I notice any analogous description of the visitors' behavior or abilities analogous to the "floating" that's so commonly mentioned.

When Geraldine described Lucky shooting his shotgun at the visitor perched atop the roof at the front of the house (presumably the one who'd grabbed at Taylor's hair) she specifically said the shotgun blast knocked the visitor back. This is one of the rare descriptions suggesting the visitors weren't ephemeral and were subject to mechanical forces.
Click to expand...
I don't have the Davis/Bloecher book immediately to hand, but I recall the visitors being flipped over when shot, and making a noise like a bucket or something when they were hit.
 
SimonBurchell said:
I don't have the Davis/Bloecher book immediately to hand, but I recall the visitors being flipped over when shot, and making a noise like a bucket or something when they were hit.
Click to expand...
I do:

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.

and

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.

and

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

Weird stuff.
 
EnolaGaia said:
I did not notice any mention of the "floating" ability / behavior among the visitors, nor did I notice any analogous description of the visitors' behavior or abilities analogous to the "floating" that's so commonly mentioned.
Click to expand...
The only account of the creatures floating, seems related to a brief sequence of events.

It's after the gunshot fired from within the house, through the window screen, when Taylor and Sutton check if the little entity has been hit.

At least one of the creatures is on the tin roof and reaches down, touching Billy Ray on the head. It's fired upon. Another is spotted in a nearby tree and also shot at.

The story of same resulting in the little creatures being hit and floating to the ground is apparently attributed to the recollection of Glennie Lankford. However, was she not still in the house at this point, i.e. this occured directly after the shot had been fired through the window and Mrs Lankford was in the house then.

In her 1978 publication, Isabel Davis claims the original newspaper stories were, "approximately as follows" and cites, "and they seemed to float rather than walk".

I can't find any reference to this in any newspaper reports at all.

The first published account I can locate comes from Isabel in the book itself, when she recalls how, in her 1959 interview with Mrs. Lankford, she had been informed that in Mrs. Langford's interview with Mr. Ledwith the morning after events, she had revealed how, "when struck by shots on a tree limb or on a roof, they performed their fantastic trick of not falling but floating toward the ground".

Isabel notes "(see below)", indicating this will be confirmed in the transcript of Ledwith's interwith with Mrs. Langford.

It isn't though, Ledwith makes no mention of it whatsoever.

If we consider the following, how does it equate to the entities floating, as opposed to simply climbing, jumping and scampering:

'The Indianapolis Star'
23 August, 1955

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

Later more of the men arrived and climbed about the trees and on the roof of the house, which the beleaguered Suttons watched furtively".


'Madisonville Messenger'
23 August, 1955

( 'Lucky' Sutton)... "said the tubmen made not a sound and didn't even make a sound when they hit the ground after jumping from the roof of the house or nearby trees.

They made a scraping sound when walking on the roof however, the earth folks said".


If, as Isabel Davis indicates, Glennie Lankford is the evidential source of our central case anomaly, how can she have witnessed this, if the following, published next day, is true:

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August, 1955

"'Lucky' Sutton, armed with a single-barrel 12- gauge shotgun gun, stepped out and shot the little man off the roof. The shot knocked the strange fellow down but apparently didn't harm him. The whole group of little men fled the scene".

(...)

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


Moving forward:

'The Cincinnati Enquirer'
16 June, 1978

This references an article published in the May, 1978 edition of the 'International UFO Reporter':

"As Taylor went through the door, the creature which had climbed onto the roof, reached down and touched his hair. He ran back into the house but Sutton fired at the creature pointblank, knocking it off the roof. He reported that it floated slowly in the air, about 40 feet to a fence, and then he blasted it again, knocking it off the fence.

Taylor then ran outside and both he and Sutton fired at another creature which was standing on a limb in a nearby maple tree, according to the men. This creature also was struck, they said, and fell out of the tree and floated to the ground, then ran off into the darkness".

When and where did either, or both, make such a claim?

I can find no trace and all roads apparently lead to Mrs Lankford, who seemingly could not have witnessed it.

Can this be resolved - are Sutton/Taylor on record anywhere as confirming the 'floating down' story?
 
Comfortably Numb:

What happened to all the linked material you set up (and posted links to earlier in this thread)?

As of this evening the forteanmedia.com domain is dead / expired and none of your links to it are usable.
 
Last edited:
This area is next door to Fort Campbell of the famous 101st airborne army.

Besides of all the local, county, and state police, Fort Campbell also sent several military police to investigate.

Fort Campbell usually stays to themselves, so this is odd to look into this local problem.

Also interesting is the Air Force sent their own men a few days later to examine everything.

Was the military looking for a UFO ?

As a note of interest, Fort Campbell is huge covering parts of Tennessee and Kentucky.
 
Speaking of Fort Campbell ...

Geraldine mentioned that nuclear weapons were alleged to have been stored at Fort Campbell, and at one point 2/3 of the American nuclear arsenal was stored there.

The first part is true; the second part is not. A special facility labeled Clarksville Base was the 2nd nuclear weapons depot (of an eventual 13) to be built starting in the late 1940s. It was built on or adjacent to Fort Campbell's lands and served as both a storage facility and a weapons modification depot. At one time a maximum of 1/3 of the US nuclear inventory was located there. Clarksville Base was basically retired and shut down as of the mid-1960s.

For more on Clarksville Base see (e.g.):

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/clarksville.htm
https://home.army.mil/campbell/index.php/clarksville-base
https://home.army.mil/campbell/index.php/clarksville-base/top-secret
https://www.theleafchronicle.com/st...clarksville-now-ghost-town-tunnels/458875002/
 
Comfortably Numb said:
Isabel notes "(see below)", indicating this will be confirmed in the transcript of Ledwith's interwith with Mrs. Langford.

It isn't though, Ledwith makes no mention of it whatsoever
Click to expand...
Found it - as published in aforementioned, "The Hynek UFO Report'":

"Mr. Ledwith recorded the following comments from various of the witnesses : many bullets were fired and a twelve-gauge shotgun was used. Whenever it was hit, it would float or fall over and scurry for cover. The shots when striking the object would sound as though they were hitting a bucket. The objects made no soundn - while jumping or walking or falling. The undergrowth would rustle as the objects went through it. There was no sound of walking. The objects were seemingly weightless as they would float down from trees more than fall from them".

It's a pity we don't have clarification who exactly made the claim about our small creatures appearing to float, however, this definitively resolves a key question - when did that claim first surface.

Clearly, from the outset , as importantly does mention of shots sounding as if they had struck metal.

I have also now come across a separate, early and contemporary source of the floating description - more on this shortly.
 
Comfortably Numb said:
The troopers comments are a real pain, he's insinuating, without being specific:

"I didn't find anything up there a except just a bunch of people running amok.

They had one specific emotion (laughs) and that's from, I think, a pretty wild day".

What this does is cast a doubt, which didn't exist beforehand.
Click to expand...
Isabel Davis writes:

Screenshot_20210728-021102.jpg


How many cans of beer is, 'a few'; 6... 8... 10... 12... or more?

Whatever the amount and whether they were from the previous night of events, or beforehand, it further undermines the proclaimed piety of an alcohol-free zone and causes more fundamental uncertainty about the sobriety of our firearms bearers.

What else might have been consumed outwith the actual house earlier that day, before events unfolded - some seriously potent spirit alcohol, maybe stashed away outside, because they knew it wasn't allowed in the house?

It unfortunately raises the spectre of our gunslingers not being capable of hitting the proverbial bull's arse with a banjo. :)

In all seriousness, it is case evidence now and simply adds unwelcome confusion.
 
The Great Horned Owl that bears an uncanny resemblance to the 'goblins' is found throughout the USA so I'm not buying the 'they hadn't been seen in that are for 20 years' dismissal. They have wings, after all:

https://birdwatchinghq.com/owls-in-kentucky/

The time of this incident is when these owls are feeding their young and as such are territorial and can become aggressive, even towards humans.

Add in the facts established in this thread that the 'UFO' was a meteor streaking across the sky, only a maximum of two 'goblins' were seen at any one time, that only a handful of shots were fired and that beer cans were found on the property and it's pretty ropey. I think this chap has called it right:

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4331

"Joe Nickell was clear in his analysis, and it aligned perfectly with the enormously detailed and thorough work done by French researcher Renaud Leclet in 2001. Although it may sound cynical and dismissive, there are simply too many similarities between the creatures reported by the families and an aggressive pair of the local Great Horned Owls, which do stand about 2/3 of a meter tall. Despite the reports of 12-15 creatures, the families themselves stated that only once did anyone see as many as two at the same time. Keeping in mind that the farmhouse had no exterior lighting, the appearance of an adult Great Horned Owl is substantially the same as that of the creatures described by Sutton and Taylor. Leclet noted that during August, these owls are feeding their young, and are known to belligerently defend their nests and even attack humans who come too near. They hunt one hour after sunset, smack dab in the middle of the firefight."

 
Personally, I just can't take anything Joe Nickell says seriously, and I don't go for either the meteor or the owl explanation. Nickell doesn't accept any kind of paranormal event, and just thinks everyone (except himself) is gullible and stupid. I gave up on him after reading one if his books which was particularly poor from an intellectual standpoint. On the other hand, I'm not a materialist, and have no need to explain away anything I don't understand.
 
WeirdExeter said:
Add in the facts established in this thread that the 'UFO' was a meteor streaking across the sky, only a maximum of two 'goblins' were seen at any one time, that only a handful of shots were fired and that beer cans were found on the property and it's pretty ropey.
Click to expand...
I guess we might as well add that since the people were rural, they were morons. That's about as factual as anything "proven" in this thread. I mean, they had to be fucking idiots to mistake owls or maybe raccoons for goblins. We'll just ignore the bulletproof part, because that couldn't possibley be true. We know they were drunk too, because some beer cans were seen later. Any UFO sighting can be explained away as mistaking a meteor or passing airliner for something descending in a nearby field.

Man, this stuff is easy!
 
Austin Popper said:
I guess we might as well add that since the people were rural, they were morons. That's about as factual as anything "proven" in this thread. I mean, they had to be fucking idiots to mistake owls or maybe raccoons for goblins. We'll just ignore the bulletproof part, because that couldn't possibley be true. We know they were drunk too, because some beer cans were seen later. Any UFO sighting can be explained away as mistaking a meteor or passing airliner for something descending in a nearby field.

Man, this stuff is easy!
Click to expand...

Ha ha! Its just an opinion from reading these posts, go ahead and make your case for it being something else...! What is undisputed is that the original witness accounts have been distorted and exaggerated over time and not by the witnesses themselves.

My main point is that you can't discount the owls simply by saying they hadn't been in that area for '20 years' as these birds range across the whole USA.
 
SimonBurchell said:
Personally, I just can't take anything Joe Nickell says seriously, and I don't go for either the meteor or the owl explanation. Nickell doesn't accept any kind of paranormal event, and just thinks everyone (except himself) is gullible and stupid. I gave up on him after reading one if his books which was particularly poor from an intellectual standpoint. On the other hand, I'm not a materialist, and have no need to explain away anything I don't understand.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that feedback, point taken.
 
Austin Popper said:
I guess we might as well add that since the people were rural, they were morons. That's about as factual as anything "proven" in this thread. I mean, they had to be fucking idiots to mistake owls or maybe raccoons for goblins. We'll just ignore the bulletproof part, because that couldn't possibley be true. We know they were drunk too, because some beer cans were seen later. Any UFO sighting can be explained away as mistaking a meteor or passing airliner for something descending in a nearby field.

Man, this stuff is easy!
Click to expand...
Your meteor comment is hilarious because... Ms. Lankford is quoted as saying that.... The guy who was visiting was like "I saw a flying saucer land!" and she's like "It was probably just a meteor"....
 
Comfortably Numb said:
One thing I can assuredly conclude about this case, is that now I understand it so much better, I understand it less than before...
Click to expand...
It's a weird one, alright. Investigations by various people and agencies, at various times, pretty much failed to establish even a reliable narrative. Add on decades of biased reporting, questionable editing, and jerks making things up to sell books, and you got yerself a right royal mess. Many reports like this are probably never going to be "solved", unfortunately. Most people just ignore them. Some, who need a pat answer, will do a drive-by and just say it's Venus or something.

I think a lot of the trouble is rooted in the attitudes people like the local law enforcement officers had toward the family. They were apparently considered marginal in one way or another, so the Sheriff's department, or at least some of the deputies, saw beer cans and used that as an excuse to blow it off and get back to town. I see that kind of attitude where I live. I haven't heard anything particularly good about the local Sheriff, but I have zero experience there so I don't know. There have been some real tragedies in the area though, in recent years, and I can't help getting the feeling that the more marginal victims can be, shall we say, less well served by the system. The murder victim was a meth head? Oh well, shit happens.
 
I can understand J. Alan Hynek and the Air Force showing up a few days later, but the piece of this puzzle that bothers me is that the Fort Campbell military police came to investigate.

I live about 80 miles south of Fort Campbell, and the only time I can remember military police leaving the base is when a soldier walked off the base with a loaded gun.

EnolaGaia said there were nuclear weapons on the base.

What do UFOs love ?

UFOs love nuclear weapons, military installations and airports and Fort Campbell Airborne teaches soldiers to attack from the air with parachutes, and jumping off helicopters with ropes, and landing in Osprey helicopters that have a questionable safety record.

This is a candy store for UFOs !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top