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

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Who was Alene's husband? 'cause this might explain why she had so much to say to the newspaper...
Alene's husband was J. C. (John Charley) Sutton - the Sutton brother who was formally residing at the house and attempting to operate the place as a working farm. He and Alene were the residents most likely to benefit from Ms. Lankford's abandoning the farm so they could all move to town (Hopkinsville).
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
3,711
Points
164
I had written something a few days ago, with I termed an "outlandish" scenario...

....and then deleted it, for that very reason!

Nonetheless, you seem to be thinking along similar lines, so... it went like this.

Sutton and Taylor were apparently fond of a practical joke, or hoax. What if they planned something spectacular, like, say, dressing a couple of monkeys up as 'little spacemen'. It's not at all clear how many creatures there actually were in our incident.

Where would they get them from...

In addition to a circus show, it seems monkeys were also used as acts in carnivals.

If they could persuade the necessary person to let them 'borrow' a couple of monkeys...

This would presumably require a swift return of same, presumably next day.

Where did Sutton go next morning... straight back to Evansville...

Obviously a number of objections... were there any monkeys at the Evansville carnival, how were they hidden at the farm and especially during the police investigation...

That duly noted, you would only need a couple of appearances, say, at a window, fire off a few shots adding to the deception and... so on...

Then you also have the problem that Sutton Jnr must have been in on any such ruse... although it does seem he was in awe of his older brother and maybe felt compelled to go along with it ..

One alternative to hiding monkeys, would be an accomplice from the carnival, who turned up on cue (our flashing light across the sky just an unexpected bonus!) and the trip to Evansville next morning to recompense... (perhaps the deal being some local moonshine in return...!)

Said it was outlandish! :evillaugh:
Performing monkeys are expensive. No one would loan them especially if they were going to be let loose in the country. Not to mention planning to shoot at them. It's dangerous, they might wander off. And monkeys need handlers to perform.
 
Last edited:

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
3,711
Points
164
The Pennyroyal Fairgrounds had ceased to operate as a business under that name years before the 1955 incident. As a result, I presume the former site continued to be mentioned under the old name. According to old references the Pennyroyal Fairgrounds were located on the south side of Hopkinsville in the vicinity of South Virginia St. and Pardue Lane. I believe the old fairgrounds were located at or around:

36°50'53.4"N 87°30'07.4"W
36.848172, -87.502047
Yep ... I'd been mulling over the possibility the whole incident was a hoax facilitated by Lucky's and Taylor's show biz connections for some time, but it wasn't until the last few weeks that I'd found enough suggestive facts to move that hypothesis higher on my list of possible explanations.

I've always liked the basic theme of the escaped (whatever ... ) monkey hypothesis. It reflects many of the documented aspects of the incident (including Ms. Lankford's mysterious pamphlet / booklet from the Fort Worth ministry, her references to others having seen something that looked like a monkey, and the descriptions of how the visitors moved.

Still, it didn't make sense to me that the guys could or would borrow one or more animals from as far away as Evansville. I'd checked out Davis' explanation some time ago, but even after determining her debunking was based on impossible 'facts' it still appeared there couldn't have been any connection to the King Bros. Circus.

I'd also searched for any clues to if and when a Shrine circus may have played Hopkinsville around that time. There was a local reminiscence article (I forget where; I think it was in the New Era newspaper) that mentioned a Shrine circus coming to town that summer, but I never could locate any confirmation of its timeframe. Your posting of the Nashville Banner item tipped the scales toward returning to the circus / monkey hypothesis.

If the Shrine circus had been sponsored / operated out of Evansville the circus convoy would have traveled to and from Hopkinsville on the very highway (US 41) that ran out front of the Lankford / Sutton house.
If you seriously want to research a small traveling circus contracted to the Hadi Shrine in 1955, you might see if the theatre collections at the NY Public Library https://www.nypl.org/locations/lpa/billy-rose-theatre-division or the Harvard Theatre Collection https://library.harvard.edu/collections/harvard-theatre-collection have any vaudeville/circus material on line. Unfortunately a press release in the local paper and/or an ad a few days before the opening might be the only evidence of what the program was.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... were there any monkeys at the Evansville carnival, how were they hidden at the farm and especially during the police investigation...
One alternative to hiding monkeys, would be an accomplice from the carnival, who turned up on cue ...
There's one claim by a neighbor of having seen lights out in the woods / fields behind the Lankford house in the early evening, prior to hearing any shooting. He(?) mentioned thinking the Lankford / Sutton folks were searching for one or more escaped pigs and preparing to go help until he heard the first shots.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
He and Alene were the residents most likely to benefit from Ms. Lankford's abandoning the farm so they could all move to town (Hopkinsville).
The light dawneth... finally.

Now I understand... this is one aspect which I couldn't see any motivation for. It would also explain Alene's really surprising appearance as a key witnesses in our 'Evansville Press' article.

As expressed, said article is maybe new case material which takes quite a bit of time to proverbially, 'sink in'.

Why was, as you highlighed, Alene quoted so much, indicating her presence in Evansville next morning - wasn't Alene supposed to be at the farmhouse, assisting Ledwith with his sketch?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
That duly noted, you would only need a couple of appearances, say, at a window, fire off a few shots adding to the deception and... so on...
On which point, I wonder how reliable Mrs. Lankford's account of her circa 03:30 sighting really is.

Remove same as trustworthy and our case becomes much more straightforward - we don't have to factor in any 'return of the creatures'.

This is a fundamentally important point.

Going over her recollections time and again, it's clear Mrs Lankford was admittedly 'half asleep' with exhaustion and had to look several times, not being sure it wasn't just her imagination.

Did she wear glasses (from the few contemporary photographs I have, it seems so, although not certain) and maybe had taken them off at this point?

It would never 'stand up in court' as evidence.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Why was, as you highlighed, Alene quoted so much, indicating her presence in Evansville next morning - wasn't Alene supposed to be at the farmhouse, assisting Ledwith with his sketch?
As I noted earlier (twice) it appears the Evansville Press article was assembled from an interview with the 3 travelers to Evansville on the 22nd *as well as* additional material that could only have been obtained from other newspapers' reporters or one or more of the Press's own reporters who'd visited the house on the 22nd.

Alene is directly cited and even quoted in the article. There's no way a responsible reporter and / or editor would have allowed that impression to be spun based on the 3 men's testimonies in Evansville.

One must also note that some of the comments attributed to Alene conflict with descriptions Lucky and / or Taylor had given during the night or during the following day before the 3 travelers returned from Evansville.

I'm confident Alene remained during at lease part of the day on the 22nd and gave her personal - and sometimes variant - testimony to someone who managed to forward it to the Press before they went to press that afternoon.
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
On which point, I wonder how reliable Mrs. Lankford's account of her circa 03:30 sighting really is. ...
I generally agree that the circumstances may have rendered her 0330 sighting less clear and reliable than her 1030 sighting.

First - as you noted - there's the issue of her eyeglasses. She definitely wore them by default during the day and wouldn't be expected to wear them in bed at night. I've not seen any account in which she mentions putting her eyeglasses on.

Second - her bed was oriented in the living room / bedroom such that the head of the bed was pointed toward the window. This means she had to turn in some fashion to even look at the window. The first thing that cued her to another possible visit (per her own claim) was seeing a glow from the window that caused her to look and see what appeared to be another visitor peering in with its 'clawy hands' on the screen. She would have most probably noticed this glow on the wall at the foot of her bed before turning to looking at the window. She specifically said she had to look at the window 3 times before being confident she was really seeing the visitor there.

Regardless of how clearly she could see what she reported, there's a third element in this 0330 sighting I find curious. At no point during the earlier events had the visitors attempted to enter the house, and Ms. Lankford herself had asked the shooters to back down because the mysterious visitors weren't causing any harm. Why, then, did Lucky post himself on watch with a loaded shotgun as everyone else went to bed? And why did he choose to maintain his watch in the same room in which his mother was going to sleep? What might he have been fearing that would justify this action? Perhaps more to the point, what might he have been expecting to motivate him to do this?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
While I'm on the subject of shotguns fired through the living room window ...

There's a point I don't believe I've mentioned before. There's one too many points of alleged or apparent shotgun damage to the living room window / screen compared to the number of shotgun blasts (only two) alleged to have been fired at or through the window.

The oddly "square" hole that was the only one seen by the police (etc.) in the night was ridiculed by Deputy Sheriff Batts, and this seems to have been a key reason for his dismissing the whole incident as a hoax. When investigators returned the following day they found two additional damages to the window - a second, larger, rounder hole through the screen and a group of shot pellets embedded in the window frame to the side of the window opening. These, added to the purported shotgun cause of the "square" hole, imply there had been three shotgun blasts fired at the window rather than the two that were consistently explicitly claimed.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
Performing monkeys are expensive. No one would loan them especially if they were going to be let loose in the country. Not to mention planning to shoot at them. It's dangerous, they might wander off. And monkeys need handlers to perform.
All intriguing points!

This, as emphasised, is mere 'what if'... so, your observations lead to... it might work as an incredibly speculative hypothesis, should there have been an accomplice - perhaps a good mate who could sneak the monkeys out, stops off at our road near the farmhouse, introduces the monkeys at a window... remember, Mrs Lankford says she fell over and scarred it away before a shot was fired...

Then, maybe....

:rcard:

OK... fair enough... and thank you for the perspective.

However, the reason we have revisited a conceivable primate explanation - is keeping in mind our already existing case evidence of a monkey-like depiction - including the creatures' 'locomation' on the ground, with their long forearms being the means of propulsion. :thought:

:dunno:

Furthermore, this is a discussion on the Forteana forums, where all manner of eclectic phenomena are possible.

Rule any explanation out at your peril!

:wtf:

Right then, who's betting on Murphy...

Museum-Monkey-Speedway.jpg



 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
Why, then, did Lucky post himself on watch with a loaded shotgun as everyone else went to bed?
You mean, as in, why not still keeping vigilance by a window that would be the most likely vantage point for any further attacks...

As we know, this was the only one later shot fired and available evidence says that was resultant to Mrs. Langford's alarm she thought one of the creatures had returned.

There's something inextricably linked here and which has been troubling from the outset.

Our entities are not shy of human contact.

Yet, nowhere to be seen during the police investigation, which involves a considerable number of personnel.

The police depart, at least one creature returns shortly afterwards.

Wary of the law...?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
You mean, as in, why not still keeping vigilance by a window that would be the most likely vantage point for any further attacks...
No ... The living room window was neither the most prominent point of prior contacts with the visitors nor the most obvious vantage point for seeing additional visits.

The living room window had been the location of only a single sighting, in response to which J. C. and Taylor had fired and caused the visitor to disappear.

The front door / front yard was the scene of three distinct sightings and shootings - the visitor perched on the front roof overhang, the visitor in a tree event, and the visitor who came around the corner to be shot at point-blank range.

The back yard area was the scene that most recommended itself for vigilance. It had been the scene of the initial sighting / shooting, the kitchen roof sighting / shooting, Ms. Lankford's and Taylor's 1030 sighting / shooting, and the vaguely described event involving a barrel and fence (which may have been part of the kitchen roof event). Even more importantly, the back yard was the only witnessed avenue of visitors' approaches to the house from their presumed point of origin at the gulley to the north beyond the back yard.

From a tactical point of view the living room window was the least justifiable point of prior contact to be monitored through the night.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
767
Reaction score
853
Points
99
As I noted earlier (twice) it appears the Evansville Press article was assembled from an interview with the 3 travelers to Evansville on the 22nd *as well as* additional material that could only have been obtained from other newspapers' reporters or one or more of the Press's own reporters who'd visited the house on the 22nd.

Alene is directly cited and even quoted in the article. There's no way a responsible reporter and / or editor would have allowed that impression to be spun based on the 3 men's testimonies in Evansville.

One must also note that some of the comments attributed to Alene conflict with descriptions Lucky and / or Taylor had given during the night or during the following day before the 3 travelers returned from Evansville.

I'm confident Alene remained at the house through the day on the 22nd and gave her personal - and sometimes variant - testimony to someone who managed to forward it to the Press before they went to press that afternoon.
Hmm.... Well... the sketch that was made was made in the morning... what did Alene do after that? Was she at home ALL day? I suspect no. Hmmm... not sure where one could find solid info though.

At any rate though, if this was a conspiracy... it's a conspiracy that might have required as many as 4 people to pull off.

And now I have to wonder again... why did Glennie decline to participate in making the sketch? It always felt odd, important, but I dunno what to make of it in the new context. :/
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Hmm.... Well... the sketch that was made was made in the morning... what did Alene do after that? Was she at home ALL day? I suspect no. Hmmm... not sure where one could find solid info though. ...
There's only one mention of any of the 4 women residents leaving the property during the day of the 22nd, and whoever it was wasn't identified.
Was the hoax dreamed up for profit? ... One of the women went to her regular job in Hopkinsville. The only people left at home to carry out the supposed purpose— to get money from gullible visitors— were the children and three of the women— none of whom made any attempt to do anything of the kind.
Davis (D & B report, p. 89)

As I believe I'd mentioned earlier, I suspect this was Alene - the only adult female resident (rather than guest ...) at the house other than Ms. Lankford.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
And now I have to wonder again... why did Glennie decline to participate in making the sketch? It always felt odd, important, but I dunno what to make of it in the new context. :/
Ms. Glennie did participate in Ledwith's interview along with Alene and Vera Sutton. According to Ledwith she contributed little to the discussion and left to go back outside at some point during the overall time the women's interview lasted.

Alene and / or Vera were providing Ledwith with details that were never mentioned or suggested by Ms. Glennie's signed statement or her sightings as reported in the Evansville Press article of 22 August.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
From a tactical point of view the living room window was the least justifiable point of prior contact to be monitored through the night.
That's an awesome analysis, thank you....

:thought:

You have clearly made a Minecraft simulation of the entire farmhouse and surroundings... :p

Seriously going back to one aspect, if there were actual entities involved, can we determine the minimum number?

Might that be only 2 or 3, perhaps even the former?

In essence, is it possible there were only a couple or so and repeat sightings of them giving the illusion of more?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
We need to determine which circus was appearing as the Shrine Circus in Hopkinsville in August 1955 and determine where this circus was based. If it was a smaller outfit affiliated with, or conceivably assembled by, the Hadi Shrine it may well have been based in Evansville (a long-time base and hub for circus / carnival companies in the Midwest).
Well this has been fascinating to research.

Although I can not offer a definitive answer as yet, I have now accumulated enough material to possibly do so.

What an astonishing search, because the trail involved a connection back here, in Scotland and connections to freemasonry:

Scottish Rite & Masonic Museum Library Blog

https://nationalheritagemuseum.typepad.com/library_and_archives/2017/03/the-shrine-circus.html

Hopefully more insight in due course, I am presently sifting through more 'shrines' than you would find in a Buddhist temple.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Seriously going back to one aspect, if there were actual entities involved, can we determine the minimum number?
Might that be only 2 or 3, perhaps even the former?
The minimum defensible number of visitors involved is 2. This is based on the front yard episode - the only scene in which more than one visitor was observed at a time (or in such rapid succession as to rule out the same one). According to the canonical accounts the visitor up in the tree was spotted either more or less simultaneously with, or immediately following, Lucky's shooting at the one on the roof and blowing it out of sight over the roof's peak.

This is also the only documented episode in which as many as 3 visitors were claimed to have been observed in a short timeframe. At some unspecified point after Lucky and Taylor shot the figure down out of the tree out front another figure came around the corner of the house and Lucky shot it at point-blank range. This third front yard figure came from the general direction of the back yard, toward which the one on the roof had been blown away. As such, this leaves open the possibility the third figure was the one shot off the roof returning to the front area.
Lucky, close behind Taylor, pushed past him into the yard, turned the 12-gauge shotgun up toward the creature on the overhang, fired, and knocked it over the roof. "There's one up in the tree, too,"Billy Ray said— it was on the limb of the maple tree to the right as you leave the house. Both Lucky and Taylor shot at that one, knocking him off the limb; he floated to the ground, they shot at him again, and he too scurried off into the weeds. Almost at the same moment, around the northwest corner of the house, right in front of Lucky, came another one--or the same one that had been knocked over the ridgepole.
Davis (D & B report, p. 25)

According to Davis (Ibid., p. 27) Ms. Lankford insisted only a single visitor had ever been seen at a given time. However, the front yard episode is usually described as occurring soon after Ms. Lankford's first sighting, when she had fallen / swooned and been carried or helped to her bedroom (the living room). This suggests she didn't witness the front yard episode at all.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
767
Reaction score
853
Points
99
The minimum defensible number of visitors involved is 2. This is based on the front yard episode - the only scene in which more than one visitor was observed at a time (or in such rapid succession as to rule out the same one). According to the canonical accounts the visitor up in the tree was spotted either more or less simultaneously with, or immediately following, Lucky's shooting at the one on the roof and blowing it out of sight over the roof's peak.

This is also the only documented episode in which as many as 3 visitors were claimed to have been observed in a short timeframe. At some unspecified point after Lucky and Taylor shot the figure down out of the tree out front another figure came around the corner of the house and Lucky shot it at point-blank range. This third front yard figure came from the general direction of the back yard, toward which the one on the roof had been blown away. As such, this leaves open the possibility the third figure was the one shot off the roof returning to the front area.

Davis (D & B report, p. 25)

According to Davis (Ibid., p. 27) Ms. Lankford insisted only a single visitor had ever been seen at a given time. However, the front yard episode is usually described as occurring soon after Ms. Lankford's first sighting, when she had fallen / swooned and been carried or helped to her bedroom (the living room). This suggests she didn't witness the front yard episode at all.
and if we use the idea that all of the witnesses other than Glennie Lankford were actually in on the hoax.... that means you only need one.

Now that I think again... that point in the narrative has highly varied descriptions. hmm... Which... if any.. is right?

Yes I'm implying that I think they didn't "get their story straight".
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
and if we use the idea that all of the witnesses other than Glennie Lankford were actually in on the hoax.... that means you only need one.
True ... The only people guaranteed to have actually seen the visitors were the shooters and Ms. Lankford (who only saw 1 per sighting).

The only shooters who were jointly or individually present at each and every reported sighting event were Lucky and / or Taylor. J. C. was allegedly involved in only two sighting / shooting events - the first visitor-at-the-living-room-window and the vaguely-described back yard incident with the kitchen roof visitor.

Lucky and Taylor were at the front door and thereby blocking everyone else's view when they exited and immediately shot at the visitors on the front roof overhang and up in the tree. They were the only source of the claim there'd been 2 visitors visible at the same time.

Nobody else is clearly documented as having witnessed any of the visitors. There's only one possible exception. Ms. Lankford said she didn't take Taylor's report of a UFO landing or the subsequent outdoor shooting shenanigans seriously until circa 2200, when Alene approached her in an apparently shaken state and claiming to have seen one of the visitors. This was what prompted Ms. Glennie to look into the situation more closely, leading to her first personal sighting alongside Taylor. Alene's sighting was every bit as much hearsay as the ones Lucky and Taylor reported.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
3,711
Points
164
True ... The only people guaranteed to have actually seen the visitors were the shooters and Ms. Lankford (who only saw 1 per sighting).

The only shooters who were jointly or individually present at each and every reported sighting event were Lucky and / or Taylor. J. C. was allegedly involved in only two sighting / shooting events - the first visitor-at-the-living-room-window and the vaguely-described back yard incident with the kitchen roof visitor.

Lucky and Taylor were at the front door and thereby blocking everyone else's view when they exited and immediately shot at the visitors on the front roof overhang and up in the tree. They were the only source of the claim there'd been 2 visitors visible at the same time.

Nobody else is clearly documented as having witnessed any of the visitors. There's only one possible exception. Ms. Lankford said she didn't take Taylor's report of a UFO landing or the subsequent outdoor shooting shenanigans seriously until circa 2200, when Alene approached her in an apparently shaken state and claiming to have seen one of the visitors. This was what prompted Ms. Glennie to look into the situation more closely, leading to her first personal sighting alongside Taylor. Alene's sighting was every bit as much hearsay as the ones Lucky and Taylor reported.
This is turning into a very plausible screenplay.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
This is turning into a very plausible screenplay.
Duly returning for a moment to our hoax scenario.

I wonder if it's mistaken to have assumed the intention was to scare Glennie Lankford with 'little men from outer space'.

Given that she was such a religious woman, what would be more frightful than...

Little demons from hell...

In Geraldine Stith's book, recalling the story told by her father, 'Lucky' Sutton, she writes that the first association with the creatures' orign, came when Billy Ray Taylor spoke to Mrs Lankford:

Screenshot_20210904-092918.jpg


So what subsequently changed
the plan...

Our 'light flashing across the sky' sighting.

After the 'incident' is effectively over, there is quite a lengthy delay before a fundamental decision is made

Whilst you might not go running to the police, alerting them about demons... perhaps somewhat ironically, in 1955 a 'flying saucer' with little men embarking, would not be nearly so unbelievable.

Informing the police, cements a storyline.

What was never taken into account, would be the press immediately latching on to it and resultant publicity?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
As I believe I'd mentioned earlier, I suspect this was Alene - the only adult female resident (rather than guest ...) at the house other than Ms. Lankford.
RE: The woman resident who left the house on the 22nd to go to a job.

An addendum ... I'd forgotten that Davis made a second, more direct reference, to one of the women working in Hopkinsville and even identified the woman as Alene. In discussing the "status, reputation, and character" of the residents she wrote:
They had links with Hopkinsville: Mrs. J.C. Sutton was working there, Mrs. Lankford's other two sons lived in town, Mrs. Lankford belonged to a Hopkinsville church.
Davis (D & B report, p. 75)
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,817
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
In Geraldine Stith's book, recalling the story told by her father, 'Lucky' Sutton, she writes that the first association with the creatures' orign, came when Billy Ray Taylor spoke to Mrs Lankford ...
Bear in mind that Geraldine first learned of the story at the age of 8 circa 13 years after the incident (in 1968), and that she wrote her book on the order of another 50(?) years later.

This description of Taylor's answer to Ms. Lankford when she asked what it was they were seeing is certainly interesting, but nowhere is it supported by any of the accounts documented at the time or shortly thereafter.

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

"I did not take them seriously until about 10 o'clock, when Alene came in terrified, white, nervously shaking, saying that she had seen one of the little men. ...

I went out in the hallway and crouched down next to Billy and asked him, 'Now just what have you been seeing?' He replied, 'Wait and you'll see.' ...
Davis (D & B report, p. 30)

I've found no mention of the "crouching with Taylor" / "falling or swooning Ms. Glennie" aspects of her 2230 (first) sighting in any other third-party documentation of the incident. Indeed, Ms. Lankford's first (2230) sighting is not mentioned (nor even alluded to ... ) in any of the newspaper reports or the Sanders report.

The only mention of her 2230 sighting at or around the time of the incident seems to have been in her signed statement, which doesn't mention being with Taylor or any conversation with him.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
3,711
Points
164
Bear in mind that Geraldine first learned of the story at the age of 8 circa 13 years after the incident (in 1968), and that she wrote her book on the order of another 50(?) years later.

This description of Taylor's answer to Ms. Lankford when she asked what it was they were seeing is certainly interesting, but nowhere is it supported by any of the accounts documented at the time or shortly thereafter.

Davis describes Ms. Lankford's testimony to Mr. Andre in 1959 as follows:

Davis (D & B report, p. 30)

I've found no mention of the "crouching with Taylor" / "falling or swooning Ms. Glennie" aspects of her 2230 (first) sighting in any other third-party documentation of the incident. Indeed, Ms. Lankford's first (2230) sighting is not mentioned (nor even alluded to ... ) in any of the newspaper reports or the Sanders report.

The only mention of her 2230 sighting at or around the time of the incident seems to have been in her signed statement, which doesn't mention being with Taylor or any conversation with him.
Just as a side note, 1955 is way late for anyone to be "swooning," that description of what women might do to avoid facing something went out around the first world war, with hobble skirts. I would look askance at any writer who used it.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
767
Reaction score
853
Points
99
Just as a side note, 1955 is way late for anyone to be "swooning," that description of what women might do to avoid facing something went out around the first world war, with hobble skirts. I would look askance at any writer who used it.
I know a lot of people who use it for any sort of thing even similar to fainting. The key distinction here seems to be the idea that it's not full unconsciousness. It's generally archaic nowadays, but... elderly people who started using it when they were young? Some still use it.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
3,711
Points
164
I know a lot of people who use it for any sort of thing even similar to fainting. The key distinction here seems to be the idea that it's not full unconsciousness. It's generally archaic nowadays, but... elderly people who started using it when they were young? Some still use it.
Where do you live?
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
767
Reaction score
853
Points
99
Where do you live?
Heh, I think the real question is where the people I was talking to lived. :p some of them were in Ohio, some Arkansas. Maybe some in Indiana too. IIRC it was a word my grandmother used to use, not often, but she rarely had reason to use it.

And no, I've never even set foot in Kentucky.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
3,711
Points
164
Heh, I think the real question is where the people I was talking to lived. :p some of them were in Ohio, some Arkansas. Maybe some in Indiana too. IIRC it was a word my grandmother used to use, not often, but she rarely had reason to use it.

And no, I've never even set foot in Kentucky.
When you said you had heard it I thought well maybe in an Appalachian dialect, so that's close.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
Newfound musings from the safety of my burrow...

I still don't see how either a hoax or escaped monkeys - which, of course, there remains zero evidence of, fits.

Way too many nuances for a hoax:

- small creatures climbing trees, running on all four limbs, glowing/metallic, with glowing yellow eyes, 'lighting up' at times, making scratching noises on the roof, performing backflips when shot, floating away when hit...

That's leaving aside Sutton Jnr's involvement and the witness sketches, which are intrinsically connected and have equal issues.

As an outright hoax, or prank, how much of same was necessary?

Involving the police, profoundly no need for that whatsoever.

You would only require one mock-up caricature of something 'unworldly'. Why employ more than one creature and start shooting all over the place?

There's one thing which resonates from the 'Evansville Press' article:

"Elmer Sutton said, "I hold up my hands to God and swear on my mother this is true"."

Botton line.. extraordinarily, fabulous, perplexing, Forteana case to discuss.

For those behind this wonderful forum's curtains and make it all possible... massive gratitude.

Whilst Sutton and Taylor might have enjoyed 'pulling someone's leg', similar to many of us, that doesn't mean you can never have a genuinely anomalous experience.

Charles Fort would be happy here. :)
 
Top