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

[Comfortably Numb]

The connection between the purported thing seen aloft and the figures emerging into the back yard is sheer assumption.

I'm not quite sure I follow. Surely that was the story - as highlighted, when they reached the police station, both incidents had become associated by everyone as connected. For example, from the next day's Kentucky New Era:

"Spokesmen for the crowd told of how something resembling a space ship or flying saucer had landed at the back of their house near Kelly and 12 or 15 men, who appeared to be about 4 feet tall, had got out of the ship and come up to the house and done battle with the occupants.

“We need help,” one of the men said, “we’ve been fighting them for nearly four hours.”
(End)

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Most descriptions of the police attention talk about how they interviewed witnesses and collected information(such as examining the site of the incident) and... seem to merely talk ABOUT the fact the police did stuff, but

It so happens I have just come access an early TV news feature, in which State Trooper Ferguson talks, albeit briefly, about the investigation.

As it refers to the incident happening "38 years ago", presumably a 1993 broadcast?

The Kelly Incident

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Why is there no mention of the local investigators considering the possibility of the visitors being mis-identified animals?

I shall venture an explanation - because our 'little men'', were not actually reported to be quite so diminutive:

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August, 1955

"Spokesmen for the crowd told of how... and 12 or 15 men, who appeared to be about 4 feet tall...".


'Madisonville Messenger'
Monday, August 22

"About 30 or 40 minutes later
they noticed "two or three shiny little men," about three or four feet tall...".

Did the Sutton's and Taylor ever refer to them being smaller?

It's just that I personally had a perspective from accounts of the shooting, how we were dealing with creatures about the size of a raccoon.

In those accounts, are we though, possibly dealing with creatures on the roof, in the trees, on a fence, on the ground, etc who were perceived to be 3 to 4 feet tall and correspondingly that in length when using all 4 limbs on the ground?

Aside from Mrs Langford's recollection of her later, circa 03:30 encounter, when she says the creature was about 2½ fet tall... I can't see any other reference which differs from the 3-4 feet we started off with.

Something about that size and we can maybe understand it never occurred the culprits might be local wildlife.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

...the story of small beings which at first sight, floated out of a mysterious glow towards the farmhouse?

Was there any mention of it before 'Close Encounters...' was published...

I have now confirmed, in fact, it goes right (near enough the same, without accompanying 'glow') to at least this publication.

From the 'Saucerian Review, ("First Printing January, 1956"):

"But according to some of the witnesses, they could soon discern. According to some of the witnesses they were not walking but "seemed to float" toward them."

So, where did this come from..

Shall see if I can trace it further down the line. The difficulty is, of course, we really don't have that much in the way of original statements, reliant on scant newspaper reports and Ledwith's narrative.

Surprised at this though, it seemed the specific, 'at first floating towards them' claim was a considerably later addition.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I'm not quite sure I follow. Surely that was the story - as highlighted, when they reached the police station, both incidents had become associated by everyone as connected. For example, from the next day's Kentucky New Era:
"Spokesmen for the crowd told of how something resembling a space ship or flying saucer had landed at the back of their house near Kelly and 12 or 15 men, who appeared to be about 4 feet tall, had got out of the ship and come up to the house and done battle with the occupants. ..."

That was the way they assembled the narrative that took hold, but the connection isn't reflected in the earliest / most reliable accounts of the evening's events.

There was a gap between Taylor's sighting (and presumed landing) and the first visitor sighting, during which nobody went out to the gulley to confirm the landing. It was only later that variants on the storyline blended these two reported items to claim one or more residents had witnessed little visitors emerging from the presumed craft or vessel.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The one exception is a supposedly detailed report filed by one or another of the Kentucky state troopers (Ferguson? Riley?). This state police paperwork was allegedly eventually copied and attached to the Project Blue Book file, but it had gone MIA by some later date..

If the original police report does actually still exist, then extraordinarily, I came across a reference only yesterday to where it might be.

I am referring to the original police report, not a copy!

Should hopefully be able to clarify more, when I hear back from related enquiries.

 

[EnolaGaia]

From the 'Saucerian Review, ("First Printing January, 1956"):
"But according to some of the witnesses, they could soon discern. According to some of the witnesses they were not walking but "seemed to float" toward them."
So, where did this come from ...
Surprised at this though, it seemed the specific, 'at first floating towards them' claim was a considerably later addition.

It was a later addition - at least later than the original accounts collected on or around August 21 - 22.

Recall that Sanders didn't mention speaking directly with anyone other than Sheriff Greenwell (and possibly others at the police station). There's no indication she interviewed any of the residents. She clearly states that when she was ready to travel out to the scene the residents had already left ("disappeared").

Sanders collected her information second-hand and days, if not weeks*, after the actual incident.

* There's the one vague account of the residents fleeing for Michigan to escape the sightseers during the days immediately following the incident, but returning soon after fearing the crowds would steal their possessions. The accounts we've turned up more recently (including Geraldine's) indicate the farm was sold to the nephew only 2 weeks after the incident.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It was only later that variants on the storyline blended these two reported items to claim one or more residents had witnessed little visitors emerging from the presumed craft...

Gotcha now! You are talking about beforehand and myself afterwards. Yes, this goes back to the kinda 'thinking out loud' scenario I outlined in post #448.

Whilst one is continuously musing over your thoughts and was contemplating how Mrs Langford's 03:30 sighting equates - it seems genuine enough - I realised we do of course have a similar conundrum as with the earlier shootings.

Where's the body...

 

[EnolaGaia]

Gotcha now! You are talking about beforehand and myself afterwards. Yes, this goes back to the kinda 'thinking out loud' scenario I outlined in post #448.

Whilst one is continuously musing over your thoughts and was contemplating how Mrs Langford's 03:30 sighting equates - it seems genuine enough - I realised we do of course have a similar conundrum as with the earlier shootings.

Where's the body...

I'm not sure there were any bodies in the first place, because I'm not sure anyone saw most of the targets except the shooters.

One or two accounts specifically indicate that during the first sighting / shooting Lucky fired into the air (i.e., aimed to scare, not to injure or kill). It's unclear whether he was doing the same on any subsequent shots.

The two shotgun blasts fired at the living room window by J. C. and Lucky may well have been fired while the shooter was standing so as to obscure anyone else's view of the window. This was certainly possible in the earlier shooting, because J. C. was standing at the corner of the fireplace no more than a couple of feet from the window.

It's unclear where in the room Lucky was standing when he got up off the couch and shot at the window in the second event. Even then, the most straightforward interpretation is that it was Lucky's circa 0330 shot that embedded the pellets over at one side of the window frame. Was he too drowsy to shoot straight, or was he deliberately directing his shot to the side?

Lucky was the only one who was definitely outside in the front yard and could see what he was shooting at on the roof over the front door (following the Taylor hair-grab event). Taylor and Lucky are the only ones cited as having seen the second visitor up in a tree in the front yard.

Except for Ms. Lankford's two personal sightings (along with either Taylor or Lucky), there's no specific claim anyone in the house directly witnessed any of the visitors except for Lucky, J. C., and Taylor.

The sole - and only partial - exception to this is the version of the front door hair-grab incident in which it is Alene (J. C.'s wife) and possibly others in the hallway (dogwalk) who saw a hand / paw reach down from the front door overhang for Taylor's head.

Beyond this exception there's not a single claim in any of the contemporary and seriously-researched accounts that anyone other than Lucky / J. C. / Taylor / Ms. Lankford actually saw a visitor with his / her own eyes.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The accounts we've turned up more recently (including Geraldine's) indicate the farm was sold to the nephew only 2 weeks after the incident.

Thank you for your as always helpful replies.

When you say 'sold', would that be the tenancy?

You might be aware of the following, however, if not so I wondered if it might assist with your research, as it seems to include property deeds, etc. going way back.

Christian County Legal Records

http://christiancountyky.gov/legal-records.htm

 

[EnolaGaia]

When you say 'sold', would that be the tenancy?

I don't know, because Ms. Lankford's entitlement to the property wasn't clearly established. Some sources state she had some sort of ownership right inherited from her late 2nd husband. Others state the family was renting the house. According to Sanders Ms. Lankford stated she was considering buying the place prior to the incident.

It seems to me the most likely scenario is that the late Mr. Lankford had some sort of contractual tenant farming arrangement with Mr. McGehe, and this formally or informally passed to Ms. Lankford after his death. This would explain the ambiguous tenancy variably described as renting, purchasing, or owning.

 

[marhawkman]

heh, found this at random today and found it to be useful for those pondering Raccoon behavior.

As far as I know... this was not staged, and was just a guy videotaping wildlife. then it had music added by a third party....

edit: non-music version:

 

[EnolaGaia]

That's a good illustration of raccoons standing erect. Note the 'standing' part. There's no question raccoons can stand erect and hold their forelimbs out to the sides.

There are two things I haven't been able to verify about raccoon behavior that would clearly support their serving as the described Kelly / Hopkinsville visitors:

(1) The more minor point is whether raccoons can stretch their forelimbs upward as well as outward. Multiple descriptions of the visitors describe them as holding their arms in a "hands up" position, analogous to a person who's threatened by an armed robber or surrendering. I have yet to find any photographic evidence of raccoons extending their forelimbs any farther upward than horizontal (when standing erect).

(2) The major point is that after checking multiple zoological and wildlife descriptions (and photos and videos) I can only find claims and evidence that raccoons walk upright / bipedally while holding something (e.g., food) in their forepaws. The Kelly witness accounts (that mention the visitors' approaches) uniformly describe the visitors as holding their 'arms' upraised while thay are moving (walking; floating; whatever).

 

[EnolaGaia]

It so happens I have just come access an early TV news feature, in which State Trooper Ferguson talks, albeit briefly, about the investigation.
As it refers to the incident happening "38 years ago", presumably a 1993 broadcast?
The Kelly Incident

The Lonnie Lankford segment in that news video is interesting for expressing things differently from anything we've found elsewhere. For example:

- He claims his mother (Ms. Glennie) was the first to see the creature(s).
- He claims she saw a creature at a window.
- He claims his half-brother (i.e., Lucky) shot at it with a 'double-barreled shotgun.'

In other words, Lonnie condenses the entire incident into a single act - the visitor at the living room / bedroom window circa 0330 on the 22nd. He doesn't mention the first phase of the incident at all.

 

[marhawkman]

That's a good illustration of raccoons standing erect. Note the 'standing' part. There's no question raccoons can stand erect and hold their forelimbs out to the sides.

There are two things I haven't been able to verify about raccoon behavior that would clearly support their serving as the described Kelly / Hopkinsville visitors:

(1) The more minor point is whether raccoons can stretch their forelimbs upward as well as outward. Multiple descriptions of the visitors describe them as holding their arms in a "hands up" position, analogous to a person who's threatened by an armed robber or surrendering. I have yet to find any photographic evidence of raccoons extending their forelimbs any farther upward than horizontal (when standing erect).

(2) The major point is that after checking multiple zoological and wildlife descriptions (and photos and videos) I can only find claims and evidence that raccoons walk upright / bipedally while holding something (e.g., food) in their forepaws. The Kelly witness accounts (that mention the visitors' approaches) uniformly describe the visitors as holding their 'arms' upraised while thay are moving (walking; floating; whatever).

I'm pretty sure they can hold their hands above their heads to grab at things at least.

As for walking like that... I wonder if raccoons just don't like to because they have trouble balancing that way. Perhaps it's like a Human walking on tiptoe. It's not natural and takes considerable practice.

And as discussed before... how many times were they said to walk with their hands up and who saw it?

EDIT: found this video of an idiot feeding raccoons:

They're definitely holding their hands up... But since they're grubbing at hot dogs they have their hands together near their faces.

At 8:44 and soon after some of the raccoons decide to climb up onto the handrail behind the bench and do so by standing on their hind legs and reaching up with their hands above their heads to grab the railing. So... whether they can WALK in that position is uncertain, but they CAN assume that position.

Then at 14:19 he's showing some piece of packaged electronic equipment to the camera and a raccoon tries to grab it.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Aside from Mrs Langford's recollection of her later, circa 03:30 encounter, when she says the creature was about 2½ fet tall... I can't see any other reference which differs from the 3-4 feet we started off with. ...

(1) Ms. Lankford claimed that size (2.5 feet tall) for both her personal sightings - the one at circa 2230 on the 21st and the one at circa 0330 on the 22nd. It's in her signed statement.

(2) There are multiple documented statements that don't conform to a "3 to 4 feet" estimate. Here are some examples to illustrate the variability ...

Davis reported Lucky and Taylor's first sighting had an estimated height of 3.5 feet (D & B report, p. 24).

Sanders describes the visitors as 3.5 - 4.0 feet tall. (p. 20)

Davis' introduction to the story gives a summary description of all the visitors, saying they were "about three feet tall." (D & B report, p. 1) It's not clear if this estimate is based on (e.g.) any averaging of reported estimates versus being just a nominal approximation to illustrate anomalous height.

The Kentucky New Era story of 22 August said the visitors "... appeared to be about 4 feet tall ..."

In the Ripley's article Bill Thomas states that Lucky told him on the 22nd the visitors were "3 to 4 feet tall."

Hynek wrote:

All groups agreed that the height of the creatures was from two and a half to three and a half feet.

(The Hynek UFO Report, p. 214)

Ledwith's earliest sketch (with the women) is annotated "Height: 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet".
(D&B report, p. 44)

Ledwith's sketch with Taylor alone is annotated "Height: 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet".
(D&B report, p. 48)

Ledwith's sketch with Lucky, J.C., and Baker also says 2.5 - 3.5 feet.
(D & B report, p. 51)

The Clarksville newspaper article of 24 August (based on Hodson) stated the visitors were "between 2 1/2 2-3 feet tall." (p. 1)
(That's no typo - that's how the estimate is rendered on the printed page. I parse this as "2.5 - 3 feet tall.")

As CN noted, the Madisonville Messenger article of 22 August quotes the visitors' height as 3 or 4 feet tall (and it's stated twice).

 

[EnolaGaia]

I found some info on Ms. Lankford's second husband. He was a WW1 US Army veteran. As it turns out, Ms. Glennie Lankford had been widowed for only 10 months at the time of the incident. This suggests her life and economic situations were in a recently upended state, and her future prospects could well have been a pressing concern.

Pvt Oscar Wallace Lankford
BIRTH 29 Apr 1887 Centerville, Hickman County, Tennessee, USA
DEATH 26 Oct 1954 (aged 67) Kelly, Christian County, Kentucky, USA
BURIAL Owen Cemetery Kelly, Christian County, Kentucky, USA

SOURCE: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/10354828/oscar-wallace-lankford

Photos of Mr. Lankford and his gravestone are posted at the source cited above.

NOTE: The caption on the photo of Mr. Lankford gives his middle name as "Wallis."

 

[EnolaGaia]

While I was at it I checked on Ms. Glennie. The name inscribed on her gravestone indicates she remarried at some point after the 1955 incident.

Glennie Mae Brasher Lankford
BIRTH 30 Jul 1905 Hopkinsville, Christian County, Kentucky, USA
DEATH 9 Oct 1977 (aged 72) Madisonville, Hopkins County, Kentucky, USA
BURIAL Owen Cemetery Kelly, Christian County, Kentucky, USA

SOURCE: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/10354868/glennie-mae-lankford

Name As Inscribed On Gravestone: Glennie Lankford Reynolds

 

[EnolaGaia]

I think I've finally solved the mystery of the many allusions to "Cecil Sutton", most of which seem to be referring to Elmer 'Lucky' Sutton.

The allusions apparently derive from authors' mistaken conflation of two Kentucky Sutton men of roughly similar age - both of whom died in 1994 and both of whom had "Elmer" in their given names. One is 'Lucky', and the other was an unrelated man from the Louisville area.

A tangential curiosity I've just discovered ... There's another possible - though indirect - connection between Elmer "Lucky" Sutton and the inexplicable allusions to a "Cecil Sutton."

J. C. and Alene had an infant son named Cecil Sutton who died in infancy circa 5 years before the famous incident.

Cecil Sutton
BIRTH 22 Jun 1948 Christian County, Kentucky, USA
DEATH 18 Mar 1950 (aged 1) Crofton, Christian County, Kentucky, USA
BURIAL Hale Cemetery Bluff Spring, Christian County, Kentucky, USA

Parents
John Charlie Sutton 1927–1981
Katherine Alene Baker Tillman 1928–1996

SOURCE: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/110623704/cecil-sutton

 

[marhawkman]

A tangential curiosity I've just discovered ... There's another possible - though indirect - connection between Elmer "Lucky" Sutton and the inexplicable allusions to a "Cecil Sutton."

J. C. and Alene had an infant son named Cecil Sutton who died in infancy circa 5 years before the famous incident.

SOURCE: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/110623704/cecil-sutton

I wonder if someone doing research pulled up a family tree and pulled the names off it, then forgot who the names were?

 

[EnolaGaia]

I wonder if someone doing research pulled up a family tree and pulled the names off it, then forgot who the names were?

I tend to think the most probable explanation was going from "Lucky" to "Elmer", searching for records on "Elmer", and conflating / confusing the two records for the two 'Elmer' Suttons (both showing the same year of death) in Kentucky.

The thing that makes me believe the person who first conflated these two men was referring to Lucky (rather than J. C.) is that most of the resultant allusions to a "Cecil" are pretty consistently and clearly referring to Lucky (if only in context).

I suppose there's still a small chance someone was looking for J. C.'s full name, found some sort of family records, and conflated J. C.'s name with that of his deceased infant son.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Beyond this exception there's not a single claim in any of the contemporary and seriously-researched accounts that anyone other than Lucky / J. C. / Taylor / Ms. Lankford actually saw a visitor with his / her own eyes.

Having considered all things in the cold light of day...

There are fundamental problems with any hoax contemplation and copious evidence some smallish creatures were involved:

- the children were genuinely traumatised for a lengthy period of time and even in a hoax scenario, so improbable that would be acceptable

- Mrs Lankford's observations that the small creatures didn't seem to be posing a threat, especially when seen to hold their arms aloft

- her two, seperate, initial and 3:30 observations of them at the windows

- the sketch by Alene and Vera Sutton confirming what they recalled seeing. Again, improbable they would participate in any deception which caused prolonged distress to 7, 10 and 12 year-old children

- the fact O.P Baker ratified that second sketch and also it presumably wasn't in his interest to see Mrs Lankford leave the smallholding, as he often stayed there because the location was convenient for his lift to work and back

- that it was reportedly those in the house who screamed when a clawed hand was seen reaching down to Billy Ray Taylor as he stood outside the front door and Alene pulled him back inside

- and other related issues.

Always open to revision, of course, should new case material surface.

 

[EnolaGaia]

- the children were genuinely traumatised for a lengthy period of time and even in a hoax scenario, so improbable that would be acceptable

The children were being put to bed (apparently unsuccessfully) prior to the events starting around circa 2200. No contemporary account of the incident claims any of the children personally witnessed any 'visitor' at any time. The children had no reason to get scared until the adults started freaking out, and that didn't happen until their mother (Ms. Lankford) started inquiring about what was going on and had her first sighting.

- Mrs Lankford's observations that the small creatures didn't seem to be posing a threat, especially when seen to hold their arms aloft

There were no 'observations' (regarding the visitors) in play on her part. She had no basis for knowing about the upraised arms bit other than hearsay from the shooters at or by the time she suggested leaving them alone because they posed no threat. By her own admission on multiple occasions she didn't pay any attention to whatever it was the boys were doing until circa 2200.

- her two, seperate, initial and 3:30 observations of them at the windows

Neither of which matched, much less validated, the elaborately detailed descriptions of the alleged visitors Alene and Vera proffered on the 22nd - while none of the shooters were present and people (e.g., Ledwith) were pressing them for details. It was their descriptions which became the seed sketches which Taylor and eventually Lucky seized upon once they returned to the house. Ms. Lankford walked out of the Ledwith sketch discussion after vaguely affirming what Alene and Vera had described. Unless she'd lied in her signed statement she hadn't seen what they were describing at all.

- the sketch by Alene and Vera Sutton confirming what they recalled seeing. Again, improbable they would participate in any deception which caused prolonged distress to 7, 10 and 12 year-old children

There's no evidence either Alene or Vera were in on it (any possible within-family hoaxing) until Alene approached Ms. Lankford claiming she'd seen one of the purported visitors and was frightened. According to Ms. Lankford this was the event that made her wonder about the activities she'd been brushing off ever since Taylor gave his first spiel about a UFO landing. Alene was the one who first made Ms. Lankford think there was something happening beyond mere horseplay. Alene was the only one of the 3 younger women who had a personal stake in Ms. Lankford's continued residence on the farm and / or the advantages of being free to move into town. Her husband (J. C.) was stuck with the role of farm operator, and she was stuck living there with him. Vera and June would soon be leaving again with Lucky and Taylor.

- the fact O.P Baker ratified that second sketch and also it presumably wasn't in his interest to see Mrs Lankford leave the smallholding, as he often stayed there because the location was convenient for his lift to work and back

Except for his own mention of having heard scratching / scrambling on the kitchen roof (in his video), there are no clues as to what Baker saw or did that night. He - like the other men - were producing a description based on what the women had produced in the earlier Ledwith sketch. There's no indication Ledwith attempted to get any descriptive details from Baker on the 22nd. In fact, there's nothing to indicate he was even present at the house during the day of the 22nd until the evening. If he'd been there, why didn't Ledwith approach him for a description and / or bring him into the conversation sparked with Taylor in the early afternoon?

- that it was reportedly those in the house who screamed when a clawed hand was seen reaching down to Billy Ray Taylor as he stood outside the front door and Alene pulled him back inside

In one and only one of the early accounts.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

There was a two page, Sunday feature article published by 'The Tennessean' on 13 October, 1957.

It features an interview with Police Chief Greenwelll in which he seems to get the background case details confused and considerably so.

At least that was my initial thought.

Or does he, though.

I will come back to this shortly.

Meanwhile, there is something in the article I would like to address separately. It's attributed as a direct quote from 'Lucky' Sutton:

"I saw one sitting on the rain barrel and I let him have it," Sutton said later.

"I heard the pellets ricochet off. The creature rolled off the barrel and then sort of scooted up into a tree. I fired again and he floated over to the top of the house...".

Do we know; where does this exact quote originate from?

 

[marhawkman]

I tend to think the most probable explanation was going from "Lucky" to "Elmer", searching for records on "Elmer", and conflating / confusing the two records for the two 'Elmer' Suttons (both showing the same year of death) in Kentucky.

The thing that makes me believe the person who first conflated these two men was referring to Lucky (rather than J. C.) is that most of the resultant allusions to a "Cecil" are pretty consistently and clearly referring to Lucky (if only in context).

I suppose there's still a small chance someone was looking for J. C.'s full name, found some sort of family records, and conflated J. C.'s name with that of his deceased infant son.

Yeah I was thinking that someone at some point saw a list of names of family members, but didn't actually know who they were and got them mixed up.

Having considered all things in the cold light of day...

There are fundamental problems with any hoax contemplation and copious evidence some smallish creatures were involved:

- the children were genuinely traumatised for a lengthy period of time and even in a hoax scenario, so improbable that would be acceptable

- Mrs Lankford's observations that the small creatures didn't seem to be posing a threat, especially when seen to hold their arms aloft

- her two, seperate, initial and 3:30 observations of them at the windows

- the sketch by Alene and Vera Sutton confirming what they recalled seeing. Again, improbable they would participate in any deception which caused prolonged distress to 7, 10 and 12 year-old children

- the fact O.P Baker ratified that second sketch and also it presumably wasn't in his interest to see Mrs Lankford leave the smallholding, as he often stayed there because the location was convenient for his lift to work and back

- that it was reportedly those in the house who screamed when a clawed hand was seen reaching down to Billy Ray Taylor as he stood outside the front door and Alene pulled him back inside

- and other related issues.

Always open to revision, of course, should new case material surface.

My thoughts? Wellll...
The children were traumatized... by what? they're little kids and have no idea what's going on. Hearing your uncle yelling about alien invaders before shooting though the window in your grandma's room? It is possibly the scariest thing ever to a small child.

A hoax is best when there is at least a grain of truth. The cops verified that the Suttons were shooting at SOMETHING, even if they don't know what. In fact having the majority of the family NOT know what's going on makes it more "real" unless they figure out the scam. They can't say anything they don't know. So if all they know is that you shot at "something". ,, that's what they'll tell the cops when the cops ask.

I dunno if that's what actually happened. but....maybe?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Do we know; where does this exact quote originate from?

No, this surely isn't a direct quote at all.

The article states:

"Here, according to Greenwell, is what Sutton told him".

It then goes on to claim that Sutton, not Billy Ray Taylor, went out to the well:

"I heard a hissing noise and saw a brilliant light," Sutton said. "Then all at once I saw this big saucer hover over my field, about a city block away".

This looks like it doesn't actually come from Greenwell, but from the article's author, who is using 'artistic license' and is erroneously based, albeit roughly, on what Taylor said some two years earlier.

Unless... and we earnestly do not need to invite any more confusion...that story has two separate versions?

As mentioned, I presumed our front cover photograph from the 'Evansville Press', on Monday, 22 August, which purports to show Sutton demonstrating how the 'flying saucer' had flown/landed was simply staged - Sutton never having actually seen any object - at the photographer's request.

What if it wasn't though and taken next day, when they were in Evansville, apparently to collect furniture, is in fact Sutton doing exactly that?

I personally have to doubt and expect the article is simply mixed up and the photograph indeed staged.

The key to unlocking much of the above might be obtaining a copy of that article and seeing what Sutton was claiming at the time.

On which, more in due course.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The children were being put to bed (apparently unsuccessfully) prior to the events starting around circa

Thank you again for so much thoughtful and indeed, thought provoking feedback.

Whilst further contemplating your ever so helpful response... there is this claimed 'lie', which was allegedly admitted.

Needs more thought...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Whilst further contemplating your ever so helpful response...

As we all know, much of the time it's an absolutely incomprehensible case to look back on and attempt a fresh analysis.

This is, of course, actually achievable with the assistance of 'modern technology' and access to archive material now readily available online.

There are however, two potentially crucial documents which do not exist online. One is that, 'Evansville Press' article, published next day and could feature a more detailed interview with 'Lucky' Sutton and JC Sutton. A primary difficulty is that we have so little actual, early testimonies from the Sutton brothers and Taylor.

What we do have, hardly makes any sense - even the number of shots supposedly fired.

I have requested a copy from one of the libraries who apparently have 1955 back issues and wondered if anyone else might have?

The other documentation which could be invaluable is, as @EnolaGaia noted, our formal police report.

Although apparently the Project Blue Book copy went astray, all may not be lost. As mentioned, I have come across a reference to where the actual original, may still exist.

I am awaiting a reply to establish what the situation is and whether a copy might be made available.

Meanwhile, what about this book - has anyone read it? If so, thoughts on same would be welcome. If not, I shall duly obtain a copy (seems to still be available) forthwith!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

There are multiple documented statements that don't conform to a "3 to 4 feet" estimate. Here are some examples to illustrate the variability ...

Great help, thanks

With the exception of Isabel Davis' epic treatise, not one account of the story, whether published or online has even the basic facts right.

Today's nomination goes to the, fairly lengthy, website case appraisal which begins by telling us how events unfolded on a farm owned by a Billy Ray Taylor.

 

[EnolaGaia]

There was a two page, Sunday feature article published by 'The Tennessean' on 13 October, 1957.
It features an interview with Police Chief Greenwelll in which he seems to get the background case details confused and considerably so.

The October 13, 1957, article in the Tennessean Sunday magazine supplement is an utter pile of crap.

It's clearly based in large part on Sanders' report in Saucerian Review - the only publication cited by name within the article. Recall that Sanders didn't speak with any of the residents / witnesses directly, but apparently interviewed only Sheriff Greenwell (and / or others at the police station) days or weeks after the event. This article doesn't cite any source(s) other than the ones to which Sanders was limited.

Certain chunks in this article are ripped directly out of Sanders' report - e.g., the "disappearance" 48 hours after the incident bit and the whole rain barrel bit. It even repeats the bit about Ms. Lankford's having considered buying the place (which appears nowhere other than the Sanders article). Other chunks are journalistic glosses that distort who's who, what happened, and what happened when.

The most original (and erroneous) contribution this article makes to the storyline is swapping personally identified references between Taylor and Lucky Sutton in multiple places (e.g., claiming it was Lucky's head a visitor grabbed for). It also scrambles and blurs together the shooting events into a sequence no other account claims.

The account attributed to Greenwell is odd and at odds with other accounts, including Sanders'. For example, it refers to only 5 adults and 2 children at the police station and attributes the children to Lucky and his wife. Lucky wouldn't have any children until his second marriage.