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

[EnolaGaia]

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?

Your presumption was correct. I've seen one credible account that specifically mentioned the photo was staged at the request of the Evansville newspaper, but I can't locate the specific documentation in which it appears.

It was taken on Monday, 22 August, when Lucky, J. C. and Baker traveled to Evansville.

I've seen no evidence indicating the Evansville Press dispatched any reporter(s) or photographer(s) to the Kelly scene on the night of the incident or the 22nd. This is why my working assumption is that Lucky and companions proactively contacted the newspaper while they were in town on the 22nd.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

---

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

I concur - you have made sense of its genesis!

Not often something actually falls into place: that though makes perfect sense now.

Whilst one pontificates further on whether we ever actually had any enigmatic critters at all, the thought occurs that even if we didn't, it might still be possible to attribute an indigenous species as most likely responsible.

This goes back to my expressed caution why because something seems to fit, that isn't necessarily the case.

Assume for a moment there were no creatures...and a number of anomalies vanish. No longer any requirement to explain why they suddenly appeared that night, why they were not recognised at any point and of course, why they were allegedly impervious to even shotguns fired at such close range.

There may well be some hocus-pocus afoot.

Conversely, another issue is why would 'Lucky' Sutton, in later years, give Geraldine such heartfelt accounts of what had transpired?

To perpetuate the myth? Just another lie from 'the biggest liar in Hopkinsville'?

What exactly does that even mean - in terms of being a practical joker, which supposedly both Taylor and himself were?

Needs clarification and in a speculative quest... much as I dislike Facebook, one has joined the 'Historical Hopkinsville' Facebook group and there's an outside chance it could provide some enlightenment.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

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

Needs more thought.

The outcome of which is... I do not in fact see indisputable evidence that Sutton was admitting to any deception at all.

It apparently originates from
'Just the Other Day: A History if Madisonville Kentucky', by A. J. Gooch:

"About three years [1958? Probably after the Armstrong Theatre show was aired] after the attack when Elmer Sutton and [Raymond] McCord were riding together in a truck, Elmer asked McCord, 'Do you remember the story about the little the little green men?'

"'Yeah.'

'Well that was just a big d... lie!
(End)

Isn't Sutton perhaps simply referring to the popularised, "little green men" characterisation being a lie?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Isn't Sutton perhaps simply referring to the popularised, "little green men" characterisation being a lie?

That's conceivable, but it's impossible to say one way or the other without more context. Referring to the "little green men" bit specifically (as opposed to the broader story) seems a bit too nuanced to be the most likely interpretation.

Furthermore ...

Gooch's cursory recounting of the alleged incident (such as it is ... ) makes a point of claiming Lucky's comment was made after the TV broadcast. Davis writes of it:

Nevertheless, when Lt. Col. Spencer Whedon of ATIC referred to the Kelly case on the famous Armstrong Theatre of the Air program on January 22, 1958, he allowed himself to hint broadly that liquor had been responsible for the whole story.

(D & B report, p. 15)

One could just as justifiably parse the Gooch story in terms of Lucky calling Whedon's drunkenness allusion - or the entire recently-aired TV program - a "damned lie."

 

[EnolaGaia]

Whilst one pontificates further on whether we ever actually had any enigmatic critters at all, the thought occurs that even if we didn't, it might still be possible to attribute an indigenous species as most likely responsible. ...

Unless it involved flying raccoons farting rainbows local wildlife wouldn't explain Taylor's initial (alleged) UFO sighting.

But seriously ...

The thing that's on the table for explanation is the classic / canonical Kelly / Hopkinsville UFO & 'Goblins' story. This has two components that are critical to the classic / canonical characterization of the story: (a) a UFO that landed in the field northward from the Sutton / Lankford house and (b) recurrent visits by what seemed to be (or were purported to be) anomalous little humanoid creatures.

As we've noted multiple times already, the presumptive linkage between the sightings underlying (a) and (b) is weak at best. It changes the story into something else entirely if you set aside or dismiss either of these key components. If there was no credible UFO sighting, there's no reason to suspect any little creatures subsequently seen were space-folk. If there was reasonable certainty each and every visitor shot at was actually a local animal there's no reason to associate them with anything Taylor saw in the sky earlier.

If you remove either or both these interpretations projected onto the alleged things observed it's still entirely possible there were actual observations of a mundane variety that were mutated into one or both the key story elements' "woo-factor-ized" famous form(s).

This is why I made a point to present my "gaslighting-Ms.-Glennie" hypothesis with the explicit concession that it related to how the incident was handled or played (in the theatrical sense), regardless of the actual incident(s) triggering it and / or any of its subsidiary scenes. Even if:

- Taylor had simply seen the meteor known and documented as having traveled northward over the area circa 1830 that evening, and
- he, Lucky, and J. C. had simply seen and fired at ordinary raccoons in the yard and at the window afterward ...

... that wouldn't change the fact they ended up convincing their fellow residents in the house that night (and telling everyone else) it was aliens swarming out of a UFO parked a few hundred yards out beyond the outhouse.

 

[Kondoru]

Enolagaia; your work is very insightful

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Gooch's cursory recounting of the alleged incident (such as it is ... ) makes a point of claiming Lucky's comment was made after the TV broadcast. Davis writes of it:

I was wondering about this Armstrong Theatre program - really interesting and much appreciated.

There was a moment this morning which perhaps encapsulates the
extraordinary difficulties apropos endeavours to spend time looking back on this case.

Without documenting exact quotes, I was rewatching that early TV feature highlighted in post #482.

Yes, Lonnie Lankford, whilst only 12 at the time, does say, "Well all I seen was."...and recounts having witnessed the same creatures in our sketches.

Took a minute to double-check an interview he gave to the 'Kentucky New Era' in more recent years, explaining how he had never seen any of the creatures himself...

I'm beginning to think this guy makes sense...

"It's like looking for a needle that no one ever lost in a haystack that never was".

That's awesome....

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Unless it involved flying raccoons farting rainbows local wildlife wouldn't explain Taylor's initial (alleged) UFO sighting.

Now you know that's gonna be way too tempting...



Just for a wee bit of fun - took five minutes and....

Didn't expect this, though...!

Can't remember the last time I was literally in tears laughing and hopeful this might bring a smile elsewhere as well...!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

At least there will be no repeat nowadays, of those '55 events...

My understanding is that the local police have been alerted to recent forum discussions and have putting these notices up everywhere...

Mate says his sister's pal heard about this on Facechat and her friend seen it on TikTac, so it must be true.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Yes, Lonnie Lankford, whilst only 12 at the time, does say, "Well all I seen was."...and recounts having witnessed the same creatures in our sketches.
Took a minute to double-check an interview he gave to the 'Kentucky New Era' in more recent years, explaining how he had never seen any of the creatures himself...

Yep ... IMHO the issue of who witnessed anything and what these witnesses saw is one of the key problems in disentangling the story.

It was my noticing how many of the alleged witnesses either:

(a) deferred / deflected personal responsibility for describing the visitors by alluding to what others had seen, and / or ...
(b) remained discreetly silent (toward inquiring reporters / authorities) about what they'd personally seen

... that motivated me to assemble the tabular summaries of who was documented as having seen what (or anything at all) in the two best-researched early reports.

This was evident even in the signed statement from Ms. Lankford. Her descriptions of her own (sole) two sightings were very vague. In her statement these two vague items bracket a detailed reference to the 3 married couples having seen something ("... this little man that looked like a monkey"). Ms. Glennie herself only claimed to have seen a bright silver object on two occasions - during one of which this object appeared to have hands placed on the window screen.

The most specific visitor description in Ms. Lankford's statement recounts others' observations, and the others cited are the 3 shooters and their wives.

The Ledwith and Hodson sketches are derived from the 3 shooters and their wives (other than June Taylor, who is consistently cited as having avoided seeing anything). Ms. Lankford sat in with Ledwith and the Sutton wives, but left during the interview / sketching session. Both Ledwith and Hodson interviewed Taylor (one of the shooters) while the other 3 men were gone to Evansville. O. P. Baker (a non-shooter) isn't documented as contributing anything to the Ledwith interviews with the men on the night of the 22nd.

The 3 minor children were proactively shielded from whatever was happening - even to the point of being hidden underneath the bed(s).

From the very beginning some news stories gave the impression everyone saw everything. Later scrutiny fails to support this impression.

 

[marhawkman]

Yep ... IMHO the issue of who witnessed anything and what these witnesses saw is one of the key problems in disentangling the story.

It was my noticing how many of the alleged witnesses either:

(a) deferred / deflected personal responsibility for describing the visitors by alluding to what others had seen, and / or ...
(b) remained discreetly silent (toward inquiring reporters / authorities) about what they'd personally seen

... that motivated me to assemble the tabular summaries of who was documented as having seen what (or anything at all) in the two best-researched early reports.

This was evident even in the signed statement from Ms. Lankford. Her descriptions of her own (sole) two sightings were very vague. In her statement these two vague items bracket a detailed reference to the 3 married couples having seen something ("... this little man that looked like a monkey"). Ms. Glennie herself only claimed to have seen a bright silver object on two occasions - during one of which this object appeared to have hands placed on the window screen.

The most specific visitor description in Ms. Lankford's statement recounts others' observations, and the others cited are the 3 shooters and their wives.

The Ledwith and Hodson sketches are derived from the 3 shooters and their wives (other than June Taylor, who is consistently cited as having avoided seeing anything). Ms. Lankford sat in with Ledwith and the Sutton wives, but left during the interview / sketching session. Both Ledwith and Hodson interviewed Taylor (one of the shooters) while the other 3 men were gone to Evansville. O. P. Baker (a non-shooter) isn't documented as contributing anything to the Ledwith interviews with the men on the night of the 22nd.

The 3 minor children were proactively shielded from whatever was happening - even to the point of being hidden underneath the bed(s).

From the very beginning some news stories gave the impression everyone saw everything. Later scrutiny fails to support this impression.

And now we come back to the hoax idea... hmm....

Most of the people there never claimed to see the creatures. Is it possible the 3 shooters were the only ones who knew what was going on and had come up with some crazy plan? Make a ruckus and terrify their wives, children, and mother, for... some sort of profit? All told they DID benefit financially overall.

Then there's how several early sources seemingly have different case details.... is it possible that part of this was because the first hand witnesses couldn't get the story together? Perhaps that quote about the 4 boxes of ammo was correct? The police officer who made the statement may have accurately recalled what he had been told. But we know the shooters didn't actually fire 4 boxes of .22 ammo. Also it still bugs me that there's a statement about quantity of .22 ammo... but not shotgun. Which... could indicate the person who made the claim lied to the police?

I can't really say we have PROOF of this though. However... I certainly can't rule out the fraud angle. And... what other explanations fit the facts?

 

[Paul_Exeter]

And now we come back to the hoax idea... hmm....

Most of the people there never claimed to see the creatures. Is it possible the 3 shooters were the only ones who knew what was going on and had come up with some crazy plan? Make a ruckus and terrify their wives, children, and mother, for... some sort of profit? All told they DID benefit financially overall.

Then there's how several early sources seemingly have different case details.... is it possible that part of this was because the first hand witnesses couldn't get the story together? Perhaps that quote about the 4 boxes of ammo was correct? The police officer who made the statement may have accurately recalled what he had been told. But we know the shooters didn't actually fire 4 boxes of .22 ammo. Also it still bugs me that there's a statement about quantity of .22 ammo... but not shotgun. Which... could indicate the person who made the claim lied to the police?

I can't really say we have PROOF of this though. However... I certainly can't rule out the fraud angle. And... what other explanations fit the facts?

Well the one thing we can be certain of is that this event took place at a time of intense media and Hollywood hype and hysteria about 'flying saucers. Also many so-called abductees from this period have subsequently been shown to be fantasists and hoaxers, especially their detailed claims of intelligent life on planets within our solar system.

But to be fair to these particular witnesses they did show up terrified at the police station immediately after the event. That counts for something in my own opinion.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Most of the people there never claimed to see the creatures. Is it possible the 3 shooters were the only ones who knew what was going on and had come up with some crazy plan? Make a ruckus and terrify their wives, children, and mother, for... some sort of profit? All told they DID benefit financially overall. ...

There was no demonstrable profit - at least no financial profit - evident in the subsequent lives of the shooters. If anything, the incident's legacy was uniformly negative for the shooters.

In particular, Lucky and J. C. bitterly complained about the ridicule they received in the wake of the incident.

Lucky seems to have refused to speak of it except for complaining and claiming they'd been unfairly characterized as drunks. J. C. is reported to have left 3 jobs following the incident because of jokes and jeers concerning his involvement. Billy Ray Taylor essentially disappears from subsequent reporting, so it's unclear whether or to what extent he similarly suffered as a result.

Save for the temporary fame that proved toxic, the only 'profit' one could claim accrued to the set of family members who left the farm that had been their primary residence. This set consists of Ms. Lankford and her son J. C. (along with his wife Alene).

Ms. Lankford is documented in the D & B report as having moved to a much nicer residential situation in Hopkinsville. This upgrade in living arrangements is the most apparent example of 'profit' any of the residents / witnesses enjoyed.

J. C. was relieved of the burden of trying to maintain the Kelly home as a working farm, and the move to Hopkinsville had to make his wife Alene's job (whatever it was) more convenient in terms of transportation and daily logistics. It bears pointing out that J. C.'s exit from 3 jobs was of his own choice, and if nothing else it illustrates he was able to find and hold 3 jobs in the first place.

Lucky and Taylor returned to the road, working with the carnival. O. P. Baker lost the convenience of staying at the farm to facilitate his getting a ride to work.

The most beneficial outcomes from the incident consisted of moving the permanent residents of the farm to Hopkinsville. If these beneficial outcomes represented the intended results of a successful plan it can only mean the plan was executed so as to get these parties off the farm.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Then there's how several early sources seemingly have different case details.... is it possible that part of this was because the first hand witnesses couldn't get the story together? ...

IMHO there's one aspect to the story that clearly illustrates how the story spun out of the control of the first-hand witnesses. This concerns the sketches that became the canonical basis for describing the mysterious visitors. These sketches originated on the 22nd with interviews conducted by Ledwith and Hodson.

Lucky and J. C. were out of town (on their trip to Evansville). Taylor was out of the house - hunting in the morning, then worked in the garden and / or tobacco patch until early afternoon. While these men - the only shooters and the only guaranteed first-person witnesses other than Ms. Lankford - were gone Ledwith showed up and began generating graphic documentation from the women. Ms. Lankford - the only guaranteed first-person witness present in Ledwith's original interview - acceded to the considerably more detailed* descriptions given by Vera and Alene and left the interview.

* - compared to her own vague description documented in her signed statement.

The descriptions Ledwith captured in his sketches represented a descriptive commitment which Lucky, J. C., and Taylor could only accept so as to avoid causing disagreements indicative of someone lying or nobody having clearly seen anything. Adopting the women's version of the visitors was the only way to maintain a semblance of coherent and consistent testimony.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Thanks for the link to that book, it makes for fascinating reading. It reinforces that in the 1950s and 60s we seemed on the verge of identifying what was behind the UFO phenomena and even making contact.

To recap, this refers to Frank Edwards' publication, 'Flying Saucers - Serious Business'..

 

[marhawkman]

IMHO there's one aspect to the story that clearly illustrates how the story spun out of the control of the first-hand witnesses. This concerns the sketches that became the canonical basis for describing the mysterious visitors. These sketches originated on the 22nd with interviews conducted by Ledwith and Hodson.

Lucky and J. C. were out of town (on their trip to Evansville). Taylor was out of the house - hunting in the morning, then worked in the garden and / or tobacco patch until early afternoon. While these men - the only shooters and the only guaranteed first-person witnesses other than Ms. Lankford - were gone Ledwith showed up and began generating graphic documentation from the women. Ms. Lankford - the only guaranteed first-person witness present in Ledwith's original interview - acceded to the considerably more detailed* descriptions given by Vera and Alene and left the interview.

* - compared to her own vague description documented in her signed statement.

The descriptions Ledwith captured in his sketches represented a descriptive commitment which Lucky, J. C., and Taylor could only accept so as to avoid causing disagreements indicative of someone lying or nobody having clearly seen anything. Adopting the women's version of the visitors was the only way to maintain a semblance of coherent and consistent testimony.

this might explain why MOST of the reports match that.... "most". Maybe they were originally planning to describe the aliens far differently? As was noted earlier, the revised skethes done are mutually incompatible with each other, and in some ways thematically different.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Thanks for the link to that book, it makes for fascinating reading. It reinforces that in the 1950s and 60s we seemed on the verge of identifying what was behind the UFO phenomena and even making contact...

To recap, the above was in reference to Frank Edwards' 1966 book, 'Flying Saucers - Serious Business'.

These covers of 1966 and 1967 publications, respectively... just photographed from my library

Ten years earlier, our Kelly-Hopkinsville story broke and was subjected to such ridicule in the press - not only locally, also nationwide - it quickly died.

Was it just, 'too far-fetched' for the time?

I find this historical aspect fascinating - seems like only a decade later, the perspective might have changed?

 

[Nosmo King]

To recap, the above was in reference to Frank Edwards' 1966 book, 'Flying Saucers - Serious Business'.

These covers of 1966 and 1967 publications, respectively... just photographed from my library

View attachment 44162

View attachment 44161

Ten years earlier, our Kelly-Hopkinsville story broke and was subjected to such ridicule in the press - not only locally, also nationwide - it quickly died.

Was it just, 'too far-fetched' for the time?

I find this historical aspect fascinating - seems like only a decade later, the perspective might have changed?

Roswell was taken pretty seriously in 1947, I suppose it depends on how genuine the public perceive the witnesses

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Roswell was taken pretty seriously in 1947.

You are highlighting the underlying connection. Nobody and alarming not the US government, knew what a 'flying saucer' actually was.

What happened at Roswell was simply a clarification that the artefact clearly wasn't from outer space.

Unfortunately, our official, 'flying saucer' landed denial and subsequently... all manner of nonsense.

Intriguingly, amidst this, is an incident which I personally can't see had any influence on Kelly-Hopkinsville.

You could understand though, he was from Kentucky....

https://www.guardmemorial.com/html/mantell_jr_thomas_f.html

 

[EnolaGaia]

Ten years earlier, our Kelly-Hopkinsville story broke and was subjected to such ridicule in the press - not only locally, also nationwide - it quickly died.
Was it just, 'too far-fetched' for the time?

I think the Kelly / Hopkinsville story never became more than a curious footnote to the UFO canon because it wasn't much of a UFO story.

The Kelly incident was alleged to involve a UFO, but the bulk of the story has no clear or necessary connection to an alien spacecraft or creatures that were clearly extraterrestrial. The initial sighting is only vaguely described, and it plays no role in the canonical narrative except as a preface imposing the sole context for interpreting the incident as a UFO event. Replace the alleged UFO as a source point with (e.g.) a circus clown car or some local cave and the story is 99% intact. The story is all about the 'goblins' rather than how they arrived at the Lankford / Sutton farm.

There was only one witness to any flying object and its alleged landing nearby (Taylor). The one thing connecting the incident to UFOs was hearsay - Taylor's hearsay to the other residents in the beginning; hearsay from the one guy the investigators found to be the least reliable witness in terms of consistency and details that he would certify as accurate and final.

The corroborating evidence (including that from the USAF) indicated a meteor observed over the area and traveling in the direction Taylor claimed at circa 1830 that evening. Nobody else reported the observed object had landed.

Nobody ventured out to the purported landing site during the time when the visitors were active. The two waves of investigations on 22 August (wee hours and during daytime) found nothing to substantiate the allegation of a landing. Nobody (at the time) so much as hinted anyone had seen the visitors take off again in their alleged craft.

Hynek himself admitted he'd paid little attention to the story until Davis dug up enough woo factor to make it worth mentioning in the context of serious UFO investigations.

Perhaps most importantly, the key witnesses clammed up and quit talking about it within days because they couldn't stand the blowback from their sudden celebrity (i.e., the ridicule and jokes).

 

[Kondoru]

Out of curiosity what did Hynek say?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Out of curiosity what did Hynek say?

In his 1972 book The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry Hynek wrote:

"I would not have given the Kelly-Hopkinsville case this much attention were it not for the fact that I know the principal investigators, Ledwith and Davis, well, particularly Ledwith since he was in my direct employ for nearly two years on the satellite tracking program."

(p. 154(?))

In his 1978 Hynek UFO Report, Hynek simply provides quotes from other reports (especially those of Davis and Ledwith) and makes a point to extol Ledwith and Davis as investigators. He also notes that his organization (CUFOS) is poised to publish the Davis & Bloecher compendium as a book.

Comfortably Numb posted the latter 3 (of 5) pages Hynek dedicated to the incident in his 1978 book in this July post:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2090712

... in which Hynek mentions his only investigative involvement was to check whether there might be any possibility the escaped circus monkey hypothesis was reasonable.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I have been able to obtain a copy of our news article published by the, 'Evansville Press'' on 22 August 1955.

Firstly, immense gratitude to librarian, Leigh Anne Johnson, at Indiana State Library for taking the time to assist.

This document is invaluable case evidence.

Secondly, I have only just received my copy and presently merely browsed its contents just the once - was always my intention that should this article become available, we could alll study the contents together.

Initial impressions... although much is a rehasash of what we already knew, there are several points which seem to be new case material.

One in particular is a revelation.

So, without going into any details for now, here it is:

www.forteanmedia.com/Eville_01.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/Eville_02.jpg

 

[Comfortably Numb]

One in particular is a revelation.

"(Elmer 'Lucky') 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.

When they ran, he said, their legs looked like "fluorescent lights flashing"."

Right then...

I definitely now don't think we are talking about any misidentified, localised, small creatures.

That's not even in, 'killer moonshine & really strong weed cocktail' territory.

Presumably '55 would be too early for LSD...?

Magic mushrooms...?

On which point, 'tis even more curiouser than before and shall return back down the rabbit hole to munch on a carrot and ponder further.

 

[Nosmo King]

"(Elmer 'Lucky') 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.

When they ran, he said, their legs looked like "fluorescent lights flashing"."

Right then...

I definitely now don't think we are talking about any misidentified, localised, small creatures.

That's not even in, 'killer moonshine & really strong weed cocktail' territory.

Presumably '55 would be too early for LSD...?

Magic mushrooms...?

On which point, 'tis even more curiouser than before and shall return back down the rabbit hole to munch on a carrot and ponder further.

Ergot has been known to be accidentally mixed in when making rye bread.

"The most prominent member of this group is Claviceps purpurea ("rye ergot fungus"). This fungus grows on rye and related plants, and produces alkaloids that can cause ergotism in humans and other mammals who consume grains contaminated with its fruiting structure (called ergot sclerotium)"

"The neurotropic activities of the ergot alkaloids may also cause hallucinations and attendant irrational behaviour,"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot

 

[Comfortably Numb]

.. in which Hynek mentions his only investigative involvement was to check whether there might be any possibility the escaped circus monkey hypothesis was reasonable.

Hynek states.

"And anyway, I was unable to find any trace of a traveling circus!".

I was actually looking into this before your post and unearthed a local newspaper report which indicates the collosal 'Ringland Brothers and Barnum and Bailey circus' was in Hopkinsville for three nights starting on 19th August, 1955 which would obviously place them nearby on the 21st and night of our incident.

They did feature monkeys, although whether at that precise date and at what time the circus packed up is anybody's guess.

The claim that some monkeys had escaped near Kelly when being transported by road, presumably after the show - apparently they had been let out for exercise and broke free - was published in a local newspaper a few days later and there was no attributed source.

Although the circus was essentially reliant on railway transport, dare say it could have been that road vehicles was also used. I have no idea.

There was though, a road running close to the farmstead. Was this to the back of the farmhouse, where our creatures were first witnessed?

Yes, therein lies a scenario which would explain why the enigmatic entities suddenly appeared and there are similar chacteristics and yes, also photographs of circus monkeys dressed in silver suits, which they might still have been wearing....

However... the same objections remain... how to explain the other features which do not equate and where are the dead bodies. If survivors, what happened to them - they would hardly have been inconspicuous.

Plus, of course, there does not seem to be a documented report of any such incident (unless, the circus didn't want to alert authorities because they feared causing alarm, with resultant adverse publicity).

Surely, default conclusion is that having read reports about 'monkey-like' creatures involved in the incident, someone suggested they could have escaped from a traveling circus and it so happens there was in fact one which...

Perhaps intriguing though, if nothing else.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I have been able to obtain a copy of our news article published by the, 'Evansville Press'' on 22 August 1955.

This is out-STAND-ing news!

The Evansville Press story has been the most presumably critical piece of evidence we'd been unable to access or obtain.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Hynek states.
"And anyway, I was unable to find any trace of a traveling circus!".
I was actually looking into this before your post and unearthed a local newspaper report which indicates the collosal 'Ringland Brothers and Barnum and Brother circus' was in Hopkinsville for three nights starting on 19th August, 1955 which would obviously place them nearby on the 21st and night of our incident.
They did feature monkeys, although whether at that precise date and at what time the circus packed up is anybody's guess.
The claim that some monkeys had escaped near Kelly when being transported by road, presumably after the show - apparently they had been let out for exercise and broke free - was published in a local newspaper a few days later and there was no attributed source.

See Davis & Bloecher, pp. 81 - 82.

Davis claims as fact the King Circus's motor convoy of trucks passed through Hopkinsville on Sunday night (the 21st), traveling west on US Route 68 and stopping some "few miles west" of Hopkinsville to exercise some of the animals.

Kelly is on the order of 8 miles north of Hopkinsville on US Route 41.

Davis focuses on the possibility one or more trucks mistakenly took Route 41 north, stopped at or near Kelly, and let some monkeys out for exercise (presumably on leashes). She then dismisses this theory on the grounds there's no evidence any of the King Circus trucks wandered off from the convoy that night. She was unable to obtain any solid confirmation of any King Circus activity in the area because she claimed the circus went out of business in July 1956 (the month after her local inquiries).

She doesn't mention any circus actually putting on a show in the Hopkinsville area during the time of the incident.

However, I'd previously found references to a "Shrine Circus" playing in the Hopkinsville area in the late summers of 1954 - 1956. A "Shrine Circus" was a circus sponsored by the Shriners and contracted to tour on behalf of their charity. The actual circus troupe was an independent outfit acting as a contractor to the Shriners. There was at least one circus that used Evansville, Indiana, as its home base during this period (but I don't recall its name).

Are you sure about the name of this alleged circus? The premier traveling circus at the time was the Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus.

If you can share this local newspaper report I'd love to see it ...

 

[EnolaGaia]

There was though, a road running close to the farmstead. Was this to the back of the farmhouse, where our creatures were first witnessed?

See the map in Davis & Bloecher, p. 7.

At the incident location (Kelly; Kelly Station) there were three north-south pathways running in parallel close to each other.

Immediately in front (not in back) of the Lankford / Sutton house there was the Old Madisonville Road - variously described as an old narrow paved or graveled roadway.

To the west of this road (beyond it by some yards from the house's vantage point) was the main north-south L&N RR rail line from Louisville to Nashville.

To the west of the railway (again by some yards) lies the more modern paved highway (US Route 41). Traffic on that highway is visible from the house on Old Madisonville Road. The distance from the house to the main highway is no more than a quarter mile.

These 3 tracks still exist in their 1955 locations and are visible on Google Maps (Satellite View).

 

[marhawkman]

mmmm... delicious, delicious data..... *chews it up and spits it out*
https://www.deviantart.com/marhawkman/art/Eville-01-2-890480368
I choppy-pasted it, but it wouldn't fit as an attachment.

Sooo..... that sketch is very different from the other one. The main pic seems to be a photo of the men talking to journalists.
This quotes Deputy George Bates, and Police Chief Russell Greenwell as thinking the incident was "imagination".
hmmmmm