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

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
If that 10:30 timeline is correct...
Mrs Lankford's 10:30 sighting and fainting, also ties--up with her statement:

hopkinsville-encounter-1955-08.jpg


Maybe some leeway here for a revised timescale of events..?

Although the 'Kentucky New Era', article of 22 August states:

"More than a dozen state, county, and city officers from Christian and Hopkins counties went to the scene between 11 p.m. and midnight"...

The 'Evansville Press' article of 22 August, has 'Lucky' Sutton saying they left for the police station "about midnight".
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
"I only know what I saw", Mrs. Lankford said. "I saw two of the men. Or maybe I saw the the same one twice. I saw one about 10:30 p.m. and the other around 3 a.m.".
If that 10:30 timeline is correct, then it would appear to dramaticly alter the entire perspective of how events unfolded.
The 2230 timeframe for Ms. Lankford's first sighting is one of the most consistent points in the various witnesses' testimonies and original newspaper reports.

It's cited in her signed statement and 2 of the 3 initial newspaper reports (Madisonville; Evansville) on the 22nd.

The timing of Ms. Lankford's first sighting is one of the only points where Davis' version is the variant / outlier account. (See my Table of Events). Davis (p. 24) states the first living room window shooting occurred "a few minutes" after Lucky and Taylor first witnessed a visitor and fired at it in the back yard. Most all accounts agree this first sighting / shooting occurred circa 2000 or shortly thereafter, approximately 30 - 45 minutes following Taylor's UFO sighting.

Davis (p. 25) then claims the Taylor hair-grab event (and the sequence of following events) occurred immediately following the first living room window shooting event. This alleged timeline places the entire series of most-cited events (after the first shooting) in the 2000 - 2100 timeframe and leaves 1.5 - 2 hours before the residents pile into the cars and head to the Hopkinsville police station.

Ms. Lankford's version of events (which don't originate solely from Andre's 1959 account) puts her first sighting at circa 2230 and compresses the most-cited events into a flurry of activity and shooting that leads directly into a panicked exit into the cars and off to Hopkinsville at circa 2245 - 2300. This version leaves a vague or relatively uneventful span of 2 - 2.5 hours between the first one or two shooting events (depending on which account is being followed) and this late flurry of excitement.

I think the latter version is the one most probably reflecting what really happened.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
The 'Evansville Press' article of 22 August, has 'Lucky' Sutton saying they left for the police station "about midnight".
This claim is clearly mistaken. Multiple accounts specify the residents' arrival at the Hopkinsville police station occurring circa 2300 on the 21st. This is consistent with the few specific claims the residents departed the farmhouse circa 2245. Eight miles on open highway with no traffic in the wee hours is quite do-able in circa 15 minutes - especially if one is panicked and speeding.

Multiple accounts state Chief Greenwell was called at home prior to midnight. This phone call was made only after the residents appeared at the police station and (somewhat chaotically) told the officers on duty what had happened.

In the mean time the officers on duty had begun calling for responses from other authorities (county sheriff's office, state police, etc.). The contingent that embarked from the Hopkinsville police station is typically described as having departed circa midnight.

This Evansville bit could well represent a misquote rather than a false statement by Lucky - i.e., he may have said they left the police station about midnight and the reporter simply screwed up the eventual text of the report.
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
This version leaves a vague or relatively uneventful span of 2 - 2.5 hours between the first one or two shooting events (depending on which account is being followed) and this late flurry of excitement.

I think the latter version is the one most probably reflecting what really happened.
Assuredly seems that way, doesn't it.

So, the popularised story of them seizing a break in the perceived attack to make run for it and seek help, maybe isn't correct?

They must have departed shortly after those pivotal shooting incidents at the farmhouse itself?

Billy Ray Taylor's visit to the well is cited as circa 7:30 p.m. and the first sighting of strange creatures some 30-45 minutes afterwards.

As you note, that means there is a significant period between, say, 8:00-8:15 p.m. to 10:30 during which...

What exactly?

These are statedly questions, as obviously still latent uncertainties.

From the 'Evansville Press' article of 22 August:

"Mrs Lankford told today of seeing a kind of round shiny circle hovering in the air three times during the night. She said she saw it at 7:30, 10:30 p.m. and at 3:30 a.m. She said she saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house. She said he was about two and a half or three feet tall".

I am presuming this is the newspaper's mistaken rehash of different aspects, with the 'round shiny circle' referencing Taylor's sighting, as does the 7:30 p.m. time.

It's the "little old man or monkey walking around her house" claim which intrigues and leads to a key question concerning our timeline...

What precisely did Mrs Lankford see and when?

Aside from the fact Mrs Lankford's version of events as related to Isabel Davis is completely different, her earliest first-hand account seems to include the following, from Isabel Davis' 'Close Encounters...':

The Ledwith Inquiries: 11:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
by Andrew B. Ledwith


AFTER THE BASIC SHAPE HAD BEEN SKETCHED, AND THE HEAD ADDED AT THE TOP, MRS. LANKFORD SAID THAT IT WAS SO LIKE THE APPARITION SHE HAD SEEN THAT SHE WAS NOT GOING TO LOOK AT IT ANY LONGER, AND SHE WENT BACK OUTDOORS.

(...)

THE THREE OTHER WOMEN, MY COMPANION, AND I STAYED INSIDE TO PUT THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON THE DRAWING. WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED, WE TOOK IT OUTSIDE TO SHOW TO MRS. LANKFORD, WHO TOOK ONE LOOK, SAID WE HADN'T MISSED A THING, AND ASKED ME TO TAKE IT AWAY - SHE DIDN'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT ANY MORE.
(End)

Additionally, Isabel Davis writes:

"Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of their behavior was their method of locomotion. Whenever they came toward thehouse they had an upright posture, walking slowly with their hands raised. (Talking to Mr. Ledwith the next morning, Mrs. Lankford said she thought the slow approach and raised hands meant that the creatures were trying to establish communication.)
(End)


Therefore, from the outset, we do appear to have Mrs. Lankford conforming she did see the creatures slowly approaching, with arms raised and also had a sufficiently close view enabling recognition of features to an extent the sketches were such a likeness she was distressed.

When did she observe both?

Seemingly, it can't have been during the 10:30 incident, certainty not according to her written statement and the story apparently told to Andre, nor according to the apparent confirmation from the 'Madisonville Messenger', article on 22 August:

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

How to reconcile?

I wonder if both the Evansville claim and her acceptance of the Ledwith 'women's sketch' are both explicable by her 3:30 sighting - the 'Evansville Press' article already has her claiming to witness a 'round shiny circle' on three occasions.

She did get a 'closer look' at 3:30., which could explain her reaction to the sketch.

This leaves us with the other reported observations. Isabel Davis states, "Talking to Mr. Ledwith the next morning, Mrs. Lankford said she thought the slow approach and raised hands meant that the creatures were trying to establish communication".

So far as I can see, it's not mentioned in Ledwith's written documentation.

The point being, Isabel Davis wrote:

"Throughout the night Mrs. Lankford had been the most self-
possessed and observant of those present. It was she who mentioned that the creatures always approached the house slowly, with raised hands, as if they were trying to reassure their hosts or even communicate with them. Had she been able to control the situation, the shooting might have stopped. "I kept telling them to come into the house and shut the doors," she said to me. "The things weren't doing us any harm."
(End)

That perspective has been a mainstay in endeavours to make some sense of the case.

Is there, in fact, any evidence to back it up?

If a falsehood, its removal from the puzzle leaves a much simpler picture.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
767
Reaction score
853
Points
99
The point being, Isabel Davis wrote:

"Throughout the night Mrs. Lankford had been the most self-
possessed and observant of those present. It was she who mentioned that the creatures always approached the house slowly, with raised hands, as if they were trying to reassure their hosts or even communicate with them. Had she been able to control the situation, the shooting might have stopped. "I kept telling them to come into the house and shut the doors," she said to me. "The things weren't doing us any harm."
(End)

That perspective has been a mainstay in endeavours to make some sense of the case.

Is there, in fact, any evidence to back it up?

If a falsehood, its removal from the puzzle leaves a much simpler picture.
Well we know this incident has grown into a tall-tale. I guess the real question is if this is part of that?

Davis seemed to suggest this piece of info wasn't first hand, it's something she heard from Ledwith. However, you can split it into two parts. 1: The description of the creature's behavior, and 2: the speculation of the creature's intent. 2, doesn't require Mrs. Lankford to see the creature before 1030. 1... could easily be gloss created by mixing accounts. Perhaps Ledwith's re-telling mixed together what he heard from Alene and Glennie?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Assuredly seems that way, doesn't it.
So, the popularised story of them seizing a break in the perceived attack to make run for it and seek help, maybe isn't correct?
They must have departed shortly after those pivotal shooting incidents at the farmhouse itself?
Billy Ray Taylor's visit to the well is cited as circa 7:30 p.m. and the first sighting of strange creatures some 30-45 minutes afterwards.
As you note, that means there is a significant period between, say, 8:00-8:15 p.m. to 10:30 during which...
What exactly? ...
I'll have to answer your latest post in sections, because the questions you (correctly, IMHO ... ) raise touch on a number of different aspects of this jumbled and convoluted story.

I'll start with the issue of a lull in the documented activity, and the apparent fact this lull might be attributed to two different periods during the circa 3-hour "siege" that comprises the canonical opening act within the incident. The alternatives are:

- An 'Early Lull' (circa 2030 - 2200, more or less) and ...
- A 'Late Lull' (circa 2100 - 2245, more or less)

The sensationalized newspaper accounts (and other retellings over the decades) often portray the initial acts as a continuous firefight stretching from the initial visitor sighting / shooting through to the point when the residents fled to Hopkinsville.

As we've seen, a more careful reading of the various better-researched accounts indicates the sequence of events starting with the living room window sighting / shooting and extending through the front yard sightings / shootings are described as having happened in a fairly rapid succession. This is most evident in Davis' account in the D & B report (with and / or without her reliance on the testimony to Andre).

What is the single most consistently cited impression the third party law enforcement personnel had of the residents on the night of the 21st? The residents were unanimously and emphatically described as scared, frantic, panicked, etc.

Now consider this ... Which makes more sense - that the residents were in a panic after having had 1.5 - 2 hours to cool down and slip out of the house after a long period of non-activity (Late Lull), or that the residents were in a panic immediately after experiencing the most intense and continuous series of stressful events that evening (Early Lull)?

I vote "Early Lull."
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
This claim is clearly mistaken. Multiple accounts specify the residents' arrival at the Hopkinsville police station occurring circa 2300 on the 21st.
Confirmed then, thank you. I can't see any clear evidence which backs up the early newspaper reports that they took advantage of a significant stoppage in proceedings to make a dash for the safety of the police station and seek help.

Seems more of an assumption than anything else.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
...or that the residents were in a panic immediately after experiencing the most intense and continuous series of stressful events that evening (Early Lull)?
Is definitely this context - things were seemingly spiralling out of control.

So, where does that leave a hoax scenario...

Mere speculation... if Andre's retelling is the more accurate, one aspect it would open up is, should there have been an intent to scare Mrs. Lankford, there was a sizablele lull in proceedings during which to conjure up any such wicked ruse.

Furthermore, quoting Andre's letter -

"We thought the boys were only kidding, although they were coming into the house and telling about seeing and shooting at the things.

"I did not take them seriously until about 10 o'clock, when Alene came in terrified, white, nervously shaking, saying that she had seen one of the little men. She was terribly upset and her nervousness continued for several days. I suggested to the boys that we turn the lights out, which we did. I decided then to see just what it was they were seeing. I went out in the hallway and crouched down next to Billy and asked him, 'Now just what have you been seeing?' He replied, 'Wait and you'll see.'

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

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


So 'Lucky' was posted missing at 10:30, believed to have been guarding the back door.

After the 'creature' appears and then disappears, seemingly having moved away before a shot was fired, 'Lucky' reappears...

The 'creature' "looked like a five-gallon gasoline can with a head on top and small legs. It was a shimmering bright metal like on my refrigerator".

Doesn't sound much like the depictions from our other witnesses, which is why I was querying what exactly did Mrs Lankford see and when.

Still helluva convoluted though and would apparently involve Alene's direct participation, in addition to J.C. Sutton's compliance and so on...

Why also, as previously questioned, run to the police - surely the last thing they would do?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
Well we know this incident has grown into a tall-tale. I guess the real question is if this is part of that?
I'm beginning to wonder if I should, personally, have dismissed the 'flying saucer' element instantly.

It explains where the creatures suddenly came from, why the descriptions make no sense and if conceivably wearing some type of 'armour protection', how they might have survived being hit by gunfire.

Coincidentally, running a reverse-image search on our sketches, I came across this:

Screenshot_20210915-161625_resize_3.jpg


It too, similarly accompanied by a companion, reportly arrived in a 'flying saucer' whilst visiting Venezuela.

Mercifully, this probably didn't occur in 1955, otherwise I might seriously start to wonder.

So, I checked, just for the record...

13 February, 1955

Maybe they were on a 6 month deployment, Earth reconnaissance mission?:

http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/press/wacotribuneherald13feb1955.htm
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
3,711
Points
164
Is definitely this context - things were seemingly spiralling out of control.

So, where does that leave a hoax scenario...

Mere speculation... if Andre's retelling is the more accurate, one aspect it would open up is, should there have been an intent to scare Mrs. Lankford, there was a sizablele lull in proceedings during which to conjure up any such wicked ruse.

Furthermore, quoting Andre's letter -

"We thought the boys were only kidding, although they were coming into the house and telling about seeing and shooting at the things.

"I did not take them seriously until about 10 o'clock, when Alene came in terrified, white, nervously shaking, saying that she had seen one of the little men. She was terribly upset and her nervousness continued for several days. I suggested to the boys that we turn the lights out, which we did. I decided then to see just what it was they were seeing. I went out in the hallway and crouched down next to Billy and asked him, 'Now just what have you been seeing?' He replied, 'Wait and you'll see.'

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

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


So 'Lucky' was posted missing at 10:30, believed to have been guarding the back door.

After the 'creature' appears and then disappears, seemingly having moved away before a shot was fired, 'Lucky' reappears...

The 'creature' "looked like a five-gallon gasoline can with a head on top and small legs. It was a shimmering bright metal like on my refrigerator".

Doesn't sound much like the depictions from our other witnesses, which is why I was querying what exactly did Mrs Lankford see and when.

Still helluva convoluted though and would apparently involve Alene's direct participation, in addition to J.C. Sutton's compliance and so on...

Why also, as previously questioned, run to the police - surely the last thing they would do?
Um There are strange little beings approaching the house and they dodge gunfire and you wait for one to approach right at your open screened door? And the windows are open with screens while all this is going on? None of this makes any sense . Forget the aliens, people don't act like these folk say they did.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
From the 'Evansville Press' article of 22 August:
"Mrs Lankford told today of seeing a kind of round shiny circle hovering in the air three times during the night. She said she saw it at 7:30, 10:30 p.m. and at 3:30 a.m. She said she saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house. She said he was about two and a half or three feet tall".
I am presuming this is the newspaper's mistaken rehash of different aspects, with the 'round shiny circle' referencing Taylor's sighting, as does the 7:30 p.m. time.
It's the "little old man or monkey walking around her house" claim which intrigues and leads to a key question concerning our timeline...
What precisely did Mrs Lankford see and when?
This bit from the Evansville newspaper is either critical or problematic for multiple reasons.

First ... At face value it states this description of Ms. Lankford's sightings came from Ms. Glennie herself on the 22nd. This implies the Evansville Press sent someone to Kelly on the 22nd - someone who interviewed Alene and Ms. Glennie at the very least. This article is the sole basis for inferring such a visit by someone from Evansville (over 80 miles away) on the 22nd.

Second ... If accurately reported, this bit about Ms. Lankford's sightings clearly contradicts Ms. Lankford's signed statement concerning how many times she actually witnessed a visitor.

Third ... It also contradicts Ms. Lankford's signed statement in terms of describing what she saw. This is the only account in which she refers to having witnessed a visitor with a humanoid or monkey-like appearance.

Fourth ... It can also be construed as contradicting Ms. Lankford's claims regarding who'd seen a visitor and who described visitors as having a humanoid / monkey-like appearance. Her signed statement includes June Taylor as someone who'd seen such a humanoid visitor. Other accounts consistently claim Mrs. Taylor avoided seeing anything (or even hid herself). The signed statement claims the other six people (3 couples) saw "this little man that looked like a monkey", but doesn't state that Ms. Glennie herself saw the same thing at the same time(s) nor that she could confirm their characterization of its appearance.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
If it helps, I have put this summary together using only the first two days newspaper reports.

Is there anything therein which significantly disagrees with the main encounter taking place circa 10:30?

It seems these original newspaper reports have interpreted the sequence of events as being an ongoing occurrence and that perception has pervaded ever since.

Does it actually make more sense that the creatures were scared away for a long spell after the initial shots fired, before two or more returned?

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

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

About 7 p.m. one of the men went out of the house to get a bucket of water. He saw what looked like a flying saucer come over the trees and land in a field at a point about a city block behind the house. There was no explosion, only a semi-hissing sound, and the watcher returned to the house with the bucket of water.

A short time later somebody reported some little men with big heads and long arms were approaching the house. The men were described as having huge eyes and hands out of proportion to their small bodies. The visitors were wearing what looked to be metal plate.

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

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

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

Taylor reportedly opened fire on other members of the invading party, also with little effect. The battle went on for some time. When the occupants of the house saw their chance, they jumped into their cars and drove to Hopkinsville for help.

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

(...)

Two officers who returned to the Kelly area early this morning reported hearing that the “little men” had reappeared around the Sutton home about 3:30 a.m.

Other investigators who went to Kelly later during the morning said they were told Sutton and Taylor had gone to Evansville today.
(End)


'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August

...at about 7:30 p.m. on Sunday when they noticed an object "all lighted up" glide into a field. At an estimated distance of one quarter mile, it looked to be the size of a No. 2 washtup and was egg-shaped.They paid little attention to it, however.

About 35 or 40 minutes later, they noticed "two or three shiny little men," about three ir four feet tall, walking toward the rear of the house. In a moment the little men were "all over the place," about 15 of them in the yard, on the roof and in the trees.

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

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

But "when things quited down" the little men came back. In the course of about three hours the strange fellows made six visits to the house, being run off each time by 'Lucky' Sutton's shotgun or his brother's .22 pistol.

John Sutton said he fired four boxes (200) of .22 cartridges at the creatures, but they had no effect, ricocheting off the little men like they would off a steel plate.

The creatures made no apparent attempts to harm the earth folk, other than the one grab at Taylor. "They uttered not a sound," and when they jumped from the roof or from trees did not even make a sound when they hit the ground.

The little men were described as follows: three to four feet tall, shiny "like chrome" all over, arms which stretched to the ground and oversize hands, slick bald heads with big eyes and pointed ears. There faces were like "skin stretched over a skull".

Mrs Lankford got only a glimpse of "one of those shiny things" through a screen door and fainted. Mrs Taylor was "so scared" she hid in the house, and didn't see them at all.
(End)


'Evansville Press'
22 August

Mrs Sutton said she saw the first little man after dusk last night and that a number of shots were fired at it.

Mrs Sutton said the figure "looked like it was made of aluminium foil. It had two big eyes pretty far apart," she said.

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

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

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

(...)

Elmer Sutton said they first saw the little man about 45 minutes after he and Taylor first saw the object land. At first there seemed to be only one, he said. Later they "seemed to be swarming all over the place."

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". He reported they had webbed hands with claws, their fingers were about six inches long and had ears that came to a keen point.

(...)

In describing the creatures Elmer Sutton said they had eyes about six to eight inches apart that "shine like new money."

Elmer Sutton said he shot at the creatures 17 times with a point .12 gauge shotgun. He said his brother, John, used four boxes of .22 shells in his pistol, shooting at the little men.

He said that when bullets hit the creatures they bounced off "like from a concrete pavement."

"I shot one twice," Elmer said. He said he was about 30 feet from the creature when he shot it with the shotgun and it flipped over and onto the grass then fell to the ground. He said the creature jumped up again and ran off.

He said John Sutton shot one of the creatures with his .22 and the bullets just glanced off the body.

During the entire incident John and Elmer Sutton posted themselves at two windows and kept the women and children on the floor.
(End)


"Kentucky New Era'
23 August

"I only know what I saw", Mrs. Lankford said. "I saw two of the men. Or maybe I saw the the same one twice. I saw one about 10:30 p.m. and the other around 3 a.m.".

"That time," Mrs Lankford said, "I watched this little man for more than a minute. I had gone to bed and was seeing him through the window."
(End)
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
There are strange little beings approaching the house and they dodge gunfire and you wait for one to approach right at your open screened door?
This scenario is't that far removed from the entire version of events as related by Mrs Lankford's granddaughter, Geraldine Stith - see post #422.

In fact, although Geraldine's account is naturally second-hand, it his purportedly her late father, 'Lucky'Sutton's story and suddenly might begin to make more sense than at first appeared.

Geraldine also claims the families only waited "a minute" after the shooting ended before leaving for the police station.

Furthermore, she explains something I am now wondering about. Were there any shots fired after the initial sighting of those enigmatic creatures, some 45 minutes after Taylor's return..

According to her publication, no, it was a standby situation. Then much later, all of the shooting happens, including Mrs Lankford's sighting, followed by their almost immediate departure to Hopkinsville.

Obvious question now arises; what evidence exists to contradict this?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
Obvious question now arises; what evidence exists to contradict this?
We already seem to have sufficient evidence that the main encounter occurred circa 10:30.

If we add this possibility of there having been no shots at all fired at the creatures before then, I similarly can't locate any obstacles in those early newspaper reports.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
If it helps, I have put this summary together using only the first two days newspaper reports.
Is there anything therein which significantly disagrees with the main encounter taking place circa 10:30?
Not necessarily. However, one has to choose whether everything from the first living room window sighting / shooting through the escape to the cars happened in a continuous series or in two sequences separated by an unknown length of time.

It's reasonably clear the first sighting / shooting in the back yard occurred sometime around 2000 - 2030 on the 21st.

How long after that the first living room sighting / shooting occurred varies among the documented accounts.

The Taylor head-grab event is usually mentioned as occurring when Taylor exited the front door to check whether a visitor had been hit. That much is pretty consistent. What's not consistent is the identification of the shot after which Taylor is checking on the visitor.

Some accounts are written so as to imply Taylor was exiting the front door to check on the visitor at which J. C. had fired the shotgun in the living room. The problem here is that the accounts don't agree when it was this first living room sighting / shooting occurred. Davis and some others place it as occurring only minutes after the first shooting. This would be circa 2030 or so.

Other accounts (particularly any relying on the testimony to Andre) more clearly indicate Taylor was exiting the front door to check on the visitor at which he'd fired through the screen door - i.e., the visitor Ms. Lankford first saw. This would be 2230 or so.

In contrast, Davis' account claims Ms. Lankford's first sighting was at one of the back doors. Davis' diagram of event locations around the property reflects this as well. [*] Ms. Lankford's signed statement claims she was at a back door. It makes no sense that Taylor would have shot at the visitor Ms. Lankford first saw at a back door but exited to check on the result through the front door.

Ms. Lankford's own signed statement of 22 August (as early as any of the news reports) says she first saw a visitor at around 2230. This was when she fell and called out (others would say "fainted"). Her testimony to Andre repeats this claim about the timing. The early news accounts mention her "fainting", but give no clue as to when during the incident's overall timeframe this happened.

[*] See: https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2093554

It seems these original newspaper reports have interpreted the sequence of events as being an ongoing occurrence and that perception has pervaded ever since.
Does it actually make more sense that the creatures were scared away for a long spell after the initial shots fired, before two or more returned?
Assuming there were creatures in the first place, their remaining away from the house immediately following the first sighting / shooting is possible. It wouldn't be until some undetermined time later that the lights were turned off and the visitors approached the house again. Ms. Lankford stated she was the one who'd suggested turning off the lights. Because she also claims she didn't pay any attention to the shooting (etc.) shenanigans until around 2200, this implies the lights were on from circa 2000 (?) onward.

In any case, the scenario shifts depending on which account(s) you use as your basis and which time / place claims you accept for the events' occurrences and sequencing.
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
The signed statement claims the other six people (3 couples) saw "this little man that looked like a monkey", but doesn't state that Ms. Glennie herself saw the same thing at the same time(s) nor that she could confirm their characterization of its appearance.
Absolutely and methinks we have been led a merry dance concerning our little simiens, fascinating though it was.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
It's reasonably clear the first sighting / shooting in the back yard occurred sometime around 2000 - 2030 on the 21st.
Is this from Isabel Davis, where she writes:

"The creature's hands were raised now, "as if someone had told him he was about to be robbed." He was approaching the house slowly, moving toward the back door.

Confronted by the frightening unknown, men used to guns reach instinctively for something to shoot with. Lucky and Billy Ray armed themselves - the 20-gauge shotgun for Lucky and the .22 rifle for Billy.

Withdrawing slightly into the house, they awaited the arrival of the creature. When it had moved to within 20 feet of the back door, both men fired. The creature somersaulted backwards...".
(End)

How do we know when the shooting Isabel Davis references actually took place, if at all?

She associates it as being directly related to when the creatures were first seen, circa 8:00 - 8;15.

Based on what though?

It seems to be Mrs Lankford's recollections as apparently retold to Isabel Davis and comes back to the questions I raised in post #634.

By her own accounts published elsewhere, Mrs Lankford had not witnessed anything until that 10:30 incident.

It would appear this quandry equally applies to the bulk of evidence published by Isabel Davis, which is reliant on Mrs Lankford's claimed observations from the commencement of events.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Aside from the fact Mrs Lankford's version of events as related to Isabel Davis is completely different, her earliest first-hand account seems to include the following, from Isabel Davis' 'Close Encounters...':
I have to respectfully dispute any certainty about the notion Ms. Lankford related her version of events to Isabel Davis. Here's why ...

Davis visited Ms. Lankford twice - once to attempt to interview her, and a second time to thank her for agreeing to be interviewed earlier. Davis' account of the first (interview) visit provides no clearly reported specific descriptions of whatever it was Ms. Glennie told her that day. Davis doesn't even specify what questions she asked or what issues she inquired about.

Instead, Davis (p. 30) switches to noting Ms. Lankford told Andre 3 years later the Taylor head-grab event occurred at circa 2230. The following 4 paragraphs are rendered as quotes. These 4 paragraphs describe the Ms. Lankford first sighting and the opening of the head-grab / front yard shootings scene - a critical juncture at which Ms. Glennie first becomes involved and the climactic shootings begin.

Who is Davis quoting here - Ms. Lankford (from Davis' own interview), or Mr. Andre's report from 1959?

Is Davis merely citing Andre as the source of the 2230 timeframe for Ms. Glennie's first sighting and nothing more? She could have gotten that time from Ms. Glennie's statement or multiple of the newspaper articles. If Davis was citing Andre solely for the timeframe claim it implies she hadn't familiarized herself with the documentation before undertaking her investigation.

There are three interpretations that don't render Davis as such an ill-prepared bumbler:

(a) the paragraphs rendered as quotes are the result of her interview with Ms. Lankford;
(b) those paragraphs were pulled from Andre's report to fill the gap left by Davis' inability to get anything out of Ms. Glennie in the one interview she conducted with her; or ...
(c) those paragraphs were pulled from Andre's report to replace Davis' own original description (e.g., because she'd re-thought or abandoned whatever she'd originally written).

In multiple places Davis states she received very little information from Ms. Lankford that day. Davis (p. 27) finishes relating her own summary of the events starting with the first sighting / shooting up through the trio of front yard sightings / shootings (overhang; tree; coming around the corner), then describes the visitors' observed locomotion and concludes with:

When I interviewed her, Mrs. Lankford, in fact, insisted that no more than one had ever been seen at a time.
I did not have an opportunity to ask her about the incident described above.
Davis (D & B report, p. 27)

It's therefore unclear which "incident" (which Davis had already summarized in her preceding exposition) it was for which she was unable to interrogate Ms. Lankford: the first sighting; the first living room sighting / shooting; the head-grab and three-way front yard shootings; or the overall series of events of which these were subsidiary scenes.

If the 4 quoted paragraphs on pp. 30 - 31 came directly from her interview with Ms. Lankford, Davis misstated things on p. 27. If Davis was accurate on p. 27, the 4 quoted paragraphs came from some other source - most probably Andre's report.
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
I have to respectfully dispute any certainty about the notion Ms. Lankford related her version of events to Isabel Davis
I don't believe we are that far apart at all... just this question about the exact sequence of events and related timescale.

Although here may only be slight variations - we are only talking about a 4 hour period - the implications are fundamental and allow some new possibilities as regards what they were actually shooting at.

We are still going to end up with that core puzzle. We can obviously never solve it and any suggestions will always be open to interpretations.

However, historically this case consists of two elements - the 'flying saucer' and its occupants. The published context has always been an inextricable link between them, with the creature sightings an aftermath, only 30-45 minutes later.

If that's not the situation and there were no actual creature observations until some 3 hours subsequent, our connection becomes more tenuous and new trains of thought emerge.

I am by no means certain about this potential revised timescale and might end up completely agreeing with you.

My intention is to break down Isabel Davis' summation of events and address each of the points you raise individually and keep the related responses to short, separate, posts.

It's quite straightforward actually and that will be pretty much it, I think.

So, what has changed the perspective, at least for myself? That recent discovery of the "Kentucky New Era', 23 August article via the Google newspaper archives. It's not available on newspapers.com. Specifically this quote:

""I only know what I saw", Mrs. Lankford said. "I saw two of the men. Or maybe I saw the the same one twice. I saw one about 10:30 p.m. and the other around 3 a.m".

This tied-in with Andre's account of the story he had been told in 1959 and now also seems agreeable with Geraldine Sutton Stith's published version of events, as she recalled hearing from her late father, 'Lucky'' Sutton.

As I have expressed, Isabel Davis' research is a 'tour de force', especially of its time

Nonetheless, this results in Isabel Davis' narrative being... not so much 'isolated'... just somewhat 'out of kilter'.

I shall duly endeavour to explain why I believe it is.

In essence, the root cause is how our story was originally reported in the press and quite understandably, erroneous assumptions being made regarding how events unfolded at the farmstead. These have been a mainstay of the case ever since, simply because we effectively never heard from our main participants - the Sutton brothers and Taylor - ever again.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
I don't believe we are that far apart at all... just this question about the exact sequence of events and related timescale.
Agreed ...
So, what has changed the perspective, at least for myself? That recent discovery of the "Kentucky New Era', 23 August article via the Google newspaper archives. It's not available on newspapers.com. Specifically this quote:
""I only know what I saw", Mrs. Lankford said. "I saw two of the men. Or maybe I saw the the same one twice. I saw one about 10:30 p.m. and the other around 3 a.m".
The odd thing is that Ms. Glennie seems to have said this from the beginning (in her signed statement). However ...

Her description of events (given to Andre; received via Davis' account) offers an explanation for why she, at least, didn't witness anything herself until circa 2230 - 3 hours after Taylor's reported UFO sighting. She claimed she was busy cleaning up and getting the children ready for bed. She didn't turn her attention to the shooting shenanigans until Alene approached her all shaken up and claiming to have seen one of the alleged visitors.

I haven't yet responded with comments on the Kentucky New Era article of 23 August. It contains multiple comment-worthy bits.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... From the 'Evansville Press' article of 22 August:
"Mrs Lankford told today of seeing a kind of round shiny circle hovering in the air three times during the night. She said she saw it at 7:30, 10:30 p.m. and at 3:30 a.m. She said she saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house. She said he was about two and a half or three feet tall".
I am presuming this is the newspaper's mistaken rehash of different aspects, with the 'round shiny circle' referencing Taylor's sighting, as does the 7:30 p.m. time. ...
I agree about this account confusing Ms. Lankford's two admitted sightings of a visitor with the original sighting of the alleged UFO.

I'm not willing to commit to an interpretation that her allusion to a "round shiny circle" referred to the UFO rather than the visitor(s). One reason is that such an interpretation means the UFO was witnessed multiple times during that night, and it was buzzing the house. No other account alleges such a thing.

Another reason is that Ms. Glennie's most detailed description of what she saw (such as it is ... ) bears no relation to Taylor's description of the alleged UFO.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
I shall duly endeavour to explain why I believe it is.
The First Engagement

In 'Close Encounters...', Isabel Davis writes:

"Approaching from the fields was a strange glow. As it came nearer..."

True or false...? It doesn't really impact on what follows, so shall leave this aside.

Continuing:

"...they could make out what seemed to be a small "man" - though a man not much like any they had ever seen before.

He was about three and a half feet tall, with an oversized head...".

Again, the description doesn't affect anything as regards the next phase and will move on:

"The creature's hands were raised now, "as if someone had told him he was about to be robbed." He was approaching the house slowly, moving toward the back door".

Our first major obstacle.

Where does the observation of 'raised hands' come from?

So far as I can see, this is its origin - Isabel Davis stating:

"Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of their behavior was their method of locomotion. Whenever they came toward the house they had an upright posture, walking slowly with their hands raised. (Talking to Mr. Ledwith the next morning, Mrs. Lankford said she thought the slow approach and raised hands meant that the creatures were trying to establish communication.)".

Simple question, which applies throughout Isabel's narrative and is the apparent dilemma;

How could Mrs Lankford have witnessed this, if it was only at 10:30 when she actually observed a small creature for the first time?

Unless... could it have been the 10:30 sighting Mrs Lankford was referring to when she reportly told Ledwith about the 'raised hands' and Isabel is inadvertently attributing it to an earlier incident, which never happened, i.e., they are one and the same thing, only that Isabel is working on the premise the shooting began some 30-45 minutes following the 'saucer' sighting as was the accepted understanding?

The scenario is that Isabel dismisses the 10:30 timing in Andre's letter because it doesn't fit, without realising it actually does.

Isabel is caught up in the popularised version where our first shots were fired straight after the initial sighting of the creatures.

Isabel's version:

"He was approaching the house slowly, moving toward the back door".

Andre's version:

"We remained crouched down about three feet from the screen door (the front door) for about 20 minutes, when I saw one approaching the door".

I also agree with the conclusion that in Andre's version Mrs Lankford is mistaken about it being the front door and it was in fact the back door.

If the same incident, then Mrs Lankford might well have thought she had seen 'raised arms' as it approached and only mentioned it to Ledwith, but not Andre.

Then, Isabel's timeline would be more or less on the same track, it's just that she is unaware there was a sizablele period of relative inactivity between the dog barking/first creature(s) sighting alert and any actual firearms engagement, as Geraldine Sutton Stith's version further confirms.

So, I shall stop at this point and see what you all make of it.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
One thing is increasingly apparent - we're unlikely to resolve some of these issues until and unless we can review Alex Andre's documented results from his interview with Ms. Lankford. The interview occurred in 1959. Andre was active in NICAP and the New York-based UFO investigation group CSI.

I'm unable to locate any trace or mention of whatever Andre submitted to NICAP. If it was published anywhere it would have been in NICAP's periodical The U.F.O. Investigator.

Edit to Add:
It's worth noting that multiple references to Albert Andre misstate his town of residence in Tennessee. It's "Greenbrier" - not "Green Brier" or "Green Briar."
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
So, I shall stop at this point and see what you all make of it.
There's actually nothing else to add.

I can't see anything further in Isabel Davis's full narrative which is significantly at odds.

Simply move the first shooting incident to later in the evening, circa 10:30 and all the subsequent pieces in Isabel's timeline, plus Andre and Geraldine Sutton Stith's account seem to fit.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
@Comfortably Numb, @EnolaGaia,
Just a quick question, have any of the witnesses ever given any interviews on camera, be that news, investigative journalism, podcast (dont know if any of all are still alive)?
Good question! ... To the best of my knowledge, the answer for the immediate August 1955 timeframe is 'Once; Any Others Unknown'. The one documented recording was done by Frank Cameron of radio station WHOP (Ledwith's employer) on the morning of the 22nd.
Meanwhile, the windmills of publicity had begun to spin. The story had been told briefly over station WHOP in their 7:15 and 9:25 a.m. news broadcasts, and soon afterwards the station's news reporter, Mr. Cameron, arrived at the farm to tape a short interview (2 1/2 minutes) with the witnesses for the 12:30 and 6 p.m broadcasts. (This tape was erased routinely by the station at the end of 1955.)
Davis (D & B report, p. 41)

Davis wrote (Ibid.) that there were numerous other reporters - including radio reporters - who came to the farmhouse on the 22nd, but she doesn't mention any recordings being made. Nobody mentioned any recording (other than photographs) done by the Hopkinsville and Madisonville reporters on the scene in the wee hours of the 22nd (along with the law enforcement folks).

If you mean at any other time during the intervening 66 years ... The only one that comes to mind is the one video interview with O. P. Baker, which I believe someone cited much earlier in this thread.

There are one or more videos (whatever ... ) involving the grown children (minors at the time of the incident), but Ms. Lankford clearly claimed none of them had witnessed the visitors that night.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Aside from the fact Mrs Lankford's version of events as related to Isabel Davis is completely different, her earliest first-hand account seems to include the following, from Isabel Davis' 'Close Encounters...':

The Ledwith Inquiries: 11:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
by Andrew B. Ledwith

AFTER THE BASIC SHAPE HAD BEEN SKETCHED, AND THE HEAD ADDED AT THE TOP, MRS. LANKFORD SAID THAT IT WAS SO LIKE THE APPARITION SHE HAD SEEN THAT SHE WAS NOT GOING TO LOOK AT IT ANY LONGER, AND SHE WENT BACK OUTDOORS. ...
THE THREE OTHER WOMEN, MY COMPANION, AND I STAYED INSIDE TO PUT THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON THE DRAWING. WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED, WE TOOK IT OUTSIDE TO SHOW TO MRS. LANKFORD, WHO TOOK ONE LOOK, SAID WE HADN'T MISSED A THING, AND ASKED ME TO TAKE IT AWAY - SHE DIDN'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT ANY MORE. ...
I've discussed this earlier ... Ms. Glennie walked out of the Ledwith interview, and she perfunctorily waved off Ledwith's finished sketch. My impression is that she had nothing (more?) to offer, insofar as Alene (and perhaps Vera) were deluging Ledwith with fine-grained details Ms. Glennie never claimed to have discerned (and which conflicted with the few details she did claim to have discerned).

Recall that in her own signed statement she states it was the 3 couples who'd seen the visitors in any detail. The only detail she ever offered that matched their more elaborate descriptions was her reference to the 0330 visitor having "clawy hands" against the window screen. That's it; that's all. As a result ...

Your apparent typo sums it up for me:
Therefore, from the outset, we do appear to have Mrs. Lankford conforming <-------
IMHO her behavior in the Ledwith women's sketching exercise was absolutely a matter of 'conforming' - i.e., deferring to the others who offered more detailed descriptions and cursorily approving a finished sketch that she had no experiential basis for evaluating above and beyond its inclusion of "clawy hands."
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,814
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... Isabel Davis states, "Talking to Mr. Ledwith the next morning, Mrs. Lankford said she thought the slow approach and raised hands meant that the creatures were trying to establish communication".

So far as I can see, it's not mentioned in Ledwith's written documentation.
You're right - Ledwith's report (included within the D & B report) makes no mention of this.

Furthermore, Ledwith's report makes no mention whatsoever of his directly interviewing the 3 women about the events of the prior evening. His documented interaction with them is tightly focused on the visitors' appearance rather than the sequence or nature of the past night's events.

As far as I've been able to ascertain, the Ledwith account embedded within the D & B report represents the entirety of his documented report. If he had additional notes - most particularly notes drawn from questioning the women about events rather than appearances - I have yet to find them or locate any reference to their existence.

The point being, Isabel Davis wrote:

"Throughout the night Mrs. Lankford had been the most self-possessed and observant of those present. It was she who mentioned that the creatures always approached the house slowly, with raised hands, as if they were trying to reassure their hosts or even communicate with them. Had she been able to control the situation, the shooting might have stopped. "I kept telling them to come into the house and shut the doors," she said to me. "The things weren't doing us any harm."

That perspective has been a mainstay in endeavours to make some sense of the case.
Is there, in fact, any evidence to back it up?
If a falsehood, its removal from the puzzle leaves a much simpler picture.
Here's my take on it ... I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a deliberate falsehood on Ms. Glennie's part. I think it was a misunderstanding / misinterpretation on the part of Davis. Here's why ...

There's not a single documented claim that Ms. Lankford personally witnessed any visitor approaching with its arms upraised in an (e.g.) "I surrender" configuration.

The detailed account of her first sighting (apparently borrowed from Andre) doesn't mention arms at all. Neither does she mention any arms or hands in her statement about the 2230 sighting. In her signed statement she specifically says she didn't observe the visitor "long enough to see if it had any eyes or move (sic)."

She mentions "clawy hands" in her 0330 sighting, but they were already affixed or pressed to the window screen. She never saw the 0330 visitor approach the window - it was already there when she first noticed it.

I believe Ms. Lankford adopted the "hands-up" bit from descriptions given by Lucky and / or Taylor. She stated those two had been outside from the beginning and that they'd occasionally come inside to update the others on what they'd seen. In other words, I believe Ms. Lankford's allusions to the "hands-up" bit were based on hearsay and not on her own personal observation. I therefore believe she was relying on nothing more than this hearsay in asking the shooters to back down.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
13,529
Points
284
Location
Phone
Here's my take on it ... I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a deliberate falsehood on Ms. Glennie's part.
Absolutely not, personally, never entered my thoughts.

I am perfectly satisfied that Isabel Davis' version of the first encounter is the same incident which Andre reports occurred at 10:30.

Isabel places it as an event directly following the first creature(s) sighting, circa 8:00 - 8:00 p.m. because in January 1956, such is the story and sequence of events she knows from the newspaper reports.

If correct, all that's really happened is our participants have informed the police of the perceived 'flying saucer' and how they had to fight off its apparent occupants, which they were alerted to some 30-45 minutes later by the dog barking.

Naturally, it's assumed the 'battle' began at said point, especially if they reported the ordeal lasted for some 3 hours.

However, so far as I can see, they never actually stated this... essentially it wasn't a situation, or necessary, to explain the timescale in any great detail, only the gist of it all.

The ensuing newspaper interviews are brief and focused on what the creatures looked like, not how events unfolded. We are then left with a story which sounds as if the '3 hours fighting' began straight away.

It's only now, with the resources at our disposal, we can analyse (or analyze!) the entire perspective and it does appear there was a pivotal time delay involved.

Geraldine Sutton Stith's version becomes massively supportive and important in this respect.

As noted, If accepted, it doesn't alter anything as regards the evidence of what happened when shots were fired.

What it at least enables, is some further thoughts concerning same.

As we have contemplated, there surely had to be something amiss, or missing from our understanding and I would have to conclude it's been resolved.

Effectively, although some of the 'finer points' may vary, it's simply now recognising how the sequence of events could have gradually unfolded, which Geraldine Sutton Stith's publication told us all along.

What would any obstacles be...?
 
Top