• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
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?
Sorry for the delay in answering - I had to dispense with the many issues embedded in CN's post (immediately preceding yours) so as to maintain a semblance of coherence.

As I've more recently mentioned - yes, I think Ms. Glennie initially and solely knew of the "hands up" bit by hearing it from others (most probably Lucky and / or Taylor). The various accounts relating her pleas to back down mention she was aware of the visitors' non-aggressive behavior, but none of them indicate - nor even suggest - she personally witnessed any of it.

None of the 3 immediate news articles (Hopkinsville; Madisonville; Evansville) mention the raised arms / hands bit at all. The Sanders report makes no mention of the raised hands bit. The earliest documented mention of the raised hands bit seems to be Davis' report (D & B, p. 24). She mentions the upraised hands in relation to Lucky's and Taylor's first sighting / shooting (0.75 - 1 hour after Taylor's reported UFO landing; in the back yard or at the back door).

This initial sighting / shooting is the only event during which the visitors were described as approaching the house with upraised arms / hands. Ms. Lankford's second (0330) sighting is the only other event in which upraised arms / hands can be inferred (based on her estimate of the visitors' height and her claim the 'clawy hands' were resting on the window screen).

Davis conducted her investigation in June 1956 - 10 months after the incident. It's not clear where she heard or read about the upraised hands.
 
Last edited:
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.
I've spent ages looking for it and even managed to find 1959-1960 contemporary issues of the magazine! No trace of it there either.

If we do have a condensed timeframe for the actual firearms discharges, then would 30 minutes - between, say 10:30 and 11:00 p m. or thereabouts, have been sufficient for this scenario to be credible?

I can see no problems whatsoever.

If we consider your incredibly helpful timeline of events:

Screenshot_20210917-145545.jpg


Significantly, the shots fired from event #1 through to event #5, all occur within a short space of time.

This means that if event #1 happened at circa 8:00 - 8:30, the duration was brief and then we have circa 2 hours of no shots until events #6 and #7.

I am suggesting the evidence actually indicates event #1 and event #6 are the same.

Isabel Davis times event #1 at circa 8:00 - 8:30, because she has been led to believe this from the newspaper reports, i.e., the shooting began straight away.

If event #1 is in fact the same and our 10:30 incident, then we have the following, continuous sequence of shots being fired between 10:30 and when our participants departed for Hopkinsville.

From your table of events:

#1 and #6 are the same event and occurs circa 10:30

#2 Still follows next

#3A Still follows next

#3B Still follows next

#4 Still follows next

#5 Still follows next

#6 obviously becomes #1

#7? Now follows next

Except for two variables, the above also agrees with Geraldine Sutton Stith's timeline. These are:

1. She does not include any shot being fired during event #1, the story simply being that Mrs Lankford was at the back of the house and then she heard the shot from event #2.

2. She has two incidents occurring at event #7?.

The first is when 'Lucky' fires at a creature on a fence - it 'floats down and runs off'.

The second is when 'Lucky' hears scratching on the roof, goes outside and fires at a creature on the roof - it 'rolls down and runs off'.

Crucially, according to Geraldine's account, 'Lucky' decided that as the shots seemed to be having little effect and as the creatures might return armed, the sensible move would be going immediately to Hopkinsville police station.

They only hesitated for "a minute" to make sure it 'looked safe', before making a run for the cars.

This does seem to further evidence the late hour...
 
As far as I can tell, Andre's report wasn't published anywhere.
There might be one further source of early evidence.

In 'Close Encounters...', Isabel Davis' full narrative of the incident states:

"As he was bringing up the bucket, he said, a silvery object, "real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow"...".

I have tracked this apparent exact quote from Taylor to have seemingly originated from an article in the 'Clarksvillian'.

That's all I can find - the quote and its source is mentioned on a web site feature about the case.

I have certainly never seen any such article and apparently no online archives for the newspaper.

Do we have any further information about it?
 
@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)?
Aside from our initial newspaper accounts, there is relatively little available, if in fact anything else, which originates from them, because of the abject, nationwide ridicule they endured.

That's been the prime difficulty in trying to piece together the sparse evidence which does exist.

Also, when it does, we are usually left with unresolved questions about evidence which seems to make little sense and often seems contradictory.

This especially applies to descriptions of our enigmatic little creatures - the main aspect of course.

However, that's the next topic I want to have another look at!
 
In 'Close Encounters...', Isabel Davis' full narrative of the incident states:
"As he was bringing up the bucket, he said, a silvery object, "real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow"...".
I have tracked this apparent exact quote from Taylor to have seemingly originated from an article in the 'Clarksvillian'.
That's all I can find - the quote and its source is mentioned on a web site feature about the case.
I have certainly never seen any such article and apparently no online archives for the newspaper.
Do we have any further information about it?
It's the other way around ...

The Clarksvillian is apparently a purely online / electronic news aggregator founded in 2020.
The Clarksvillian article containing the quote is dated 20 December, 2020, and cites the D & B report as a source.
Dave McGuire
Dec 20, 2020
The First Contact with "Little Green Men"
https://www.clarksvillian.com/post/aliens-ufo-hopkinsville-ky
 
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.
This is intriguing.

According to Andre's account of Mrs Lankford's recollections, it's only some 20 minutes or so after the lights are switched on, that the creatures come close enough to be deemed a serious threat and are directly fired upon.

Does this imply they were wary of bright lights at night... possibly nocturnal?

Or... could it be, as 'Lucky' is quoted in the press, as explaining why police officers could find no trace of small entities:

"That is because they used lights all over the place, you can only see them in the dark".

On which... and although perhaps unrelated, we also have this extract from Isobel Davis' publication:

"...the creatures were the same "color" all over. In the dark, this was a phosphorescent or luminescent glow, but when a light was turned on them this changed to a dull metallic look".

I'm not sure where this claim comes from, however, we now further have the following, from recently located 'Evansville Press' article, of 22 August and quoting 'Lucky' Sutton:

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

Taking it at 'face value', even if just for a moment, anyone offer a suggestion?

Anything, anywhere we can think of which might help explain?

It seems associated with other descriptions of the entities 'glowing'.
 
This is intriguing.

According to Andre's account of Mrs Lankford's recollections, it's only some 20 minutes or so after the lights are switched on, that the creatures come close enough to be deemed a serious threat and are directly fired upon.

Does this imply they were wary of bright lights at night... possibly nocturnal?

Or... could it be, as 'Lucky' is quoted in the press, as explaining why police officers could find no trace of small entities:

"That is because they used lights all over the place, you can only see them in the dark".

On which... and although perhaps unrelated, we also have this extract from Isobel Davis' publication:

"...the creatures were the same "color" all over. In the dark, this was a phosphorescent or luminescent glow, but when a light was turned on them this changed to a dull metallic look".

I'm not sure where this claim comes from, however, we now further have the following, from recently located 'Evansville Press' article, of 22 August and quoting 'Lucky' Sutton:

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

Taking it at 'face value', even if just for a moment, anyone offer a suggestion?

Anything, anywhere we can think of which might help explain?

It seems associated with other descriptions of the entities 'glowing'.
My thought here... how many people described them THAT way? this sort of extreme variance in the descriptions is why I lean towards the hoax angle. It suddenly makes a lot of sense if you think of it as an attempt to make things sound cooler than they were.

Also I have to wonder at the fact they got written off as crazies THAT hard. Is it because, well, most people didn't see them as truthful? Sure, people can point at newspaper clippings where they are said to be honest and sincere.... Was that the majority or the exception? Is it possible that some papers considered running a story but went "lol, no, that's fake" and declined it?

Maybe this explains why some reports seem to be second hand? The effort required to get a first hand report was deemed too expensive when compared to the likelihood of the case being fake?
 
According to Andre's account of Mrs Lankford's recollections, it's only some 20 minutes or so after the lights are switched on off, that the creatures come close enough to be deemed a serious threat and are directly fired upon.
Does this imply they were wary of bright lights at night... possibly nocturnal?
I believe I've fixed that for you ... If not - please explain.

Yes - an alleged visitors' aversion to lights is something that surfaced early in the narrative and was mentioned a lot. It's not clear when it occurred to any of the residents that light seemed to repel (or at least daunt) the visitors. It's also unclear if and / or when any of the residents began to realize the visitors were visible only in the dark (cf. Lucky's outburst at the investigators).

Depending on when you pinpoint events' times, the first sighting / shooting (back yard; Lucky and Taylor) occurred during dusk or about the time it became completely dark outside. The earliest detailed accounts of that first sighting mention the men noticed a glow first, and this glow turned out to be the first approaching visitor.

There were electric light bulbs installed under the overhangs at the front door and the middle back door (i.e., the doors at either end of the house's central corridor / 'dogwalk'). As far as I've been able to ascertain these were the only exterior lights at the house. Any other light would have had to come from the interior light(s), which were never described.

I've not seen any indication when any lights were turned on as night fell. It's reasonable to believe interior lights were on as the women cleaned up and prepared the children for bed. However, it's unclear when any exterior lights may have been turned on.

I presume it was the exterior lights (at a minimum) that Ms. Glennie recommended be turned off. Based on passing comments among the accounts it's my understanding all the house's lights (both interior and exterior) were extinguished.

Given this interpretation, it would indicate all the events beginning with Ms. Lankford's first sighting occurred in darkness.
 
I am suggesting the evidence actually indicates event #1 and event #6 are the same.
We might have an issue here.

Going back over this, on 23 August, several newspapers published what was presumably a syndicated article and it included the following:

"About five feet from the door of the house he stopped snd retreated when the Suttons fired a shotgun off into the air. But soon he returned again, and the Suttons fired at him. He fell down from the blast, and then ran off into the fields".

Is this the source of Isabel Davis writing, in her narrative timeline, regarding the first shooting incident, i e. Event #1:

"Withdrawing slightly into the house, they awaited 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 - "did a flip," as the men put it - scrambled hastily upright, and scurried away into the darkness at the side of the house.

Lucky and Billy Ray waited a few minutes, then went into the living room, where the women were".
 
I need to make a note about the night's events and the timeline along which they occurred, because it has a significant bearing on how and to what extent we might be able to rearrange the reported events into a coherent timeline.

The single murkiest event mentioned across the diverse accounts is the mysterious kitchen roof / back yard encounter and shooting that's only mentioned in fragments here and there. This is the event labeled "7?" on the table of events (D & B Basic) to which you've (CN) most recently referred.

This event - which may represent more than one shooting event - apparently starts with scratching being heard on the kitchen roof in the rear of the house. Other fragments mention two or three shooters (Lucky; Taylor; J. C.) going outside into the back yard and firing at a visitor on the kitchen roof.

The targeted visitor then "floats" to a fence bordering the back yard. One or more shooters fires at it again, and it drops to the ground and scuttles away out of sight.

To further complicate things, Taylor made reference to shooting a visitor off a barrel at some point during the night's fracas. He's reported as leading an investigator out to the barrel alongside a fence out back of the house, beyond which Taylor is self-evidently too scared to venture. Sanders mentions it thus:
Taylor told of knocking one of them off a barrel with his .22. He said he heard the bullet strike the creature, then whine as it ricocheted off! The little man tumbled to the ground, rolled like a ball, then floated off in the direction of the spaceship.
Taylor took Chief Greenwell around to the back of the house to show him where the little man had fallen off the barrel. One thing was certain; the man was still frightened. He stood at the low fence which separated the back yard from the field and pointed to the barrel
but refused to set foot into the field.
(Sanders, p. 21)

It was the kitchen roof onto which Chief Greenwell (and / or some other investigator(s)) climbed on the 22nd to search for signs that something had been "scratching" at the roof there. He / they found no evidence of such scratching or any tracks up there.

As if all these tidbits weren't problematic enough, there's one final issue relating to timing ...

In the 2020 video Monsters of the UFO: The Incident at Kelly, cited in:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2093018

... there's a brief snippet of an interview with O. P. Baker - the least-mentioned adult present at the incident and the only surviving adult witness at the time of production.

Baker specifically states the scratching on the kitchen roof occurred circa 2000 on the 21st. This estimated time conflicts with all other accounts, because depending on whose time figures you believe:

- this roof-scratching event occurred before Lucky and Taylor saw the first visitor approach the house or ...
- this event happened around the time of the first sighting / shooting (and somehow nobody ever mentioned a visitor on the roof).

As a result, I can't bring myself to believe Baker's allegation of a 2000 timeframe (over 60 years after the fact) carries much weight at all. Nonetheless, his acknowledgment of the kitchen roof noises carries weight in combining with the other documented bits to indicate there was a distinct kitchen roof encounter / shooting event.

There remains the problem of merging this event (or set of events) into the overall timeline.
 
Last edited:
My thought here... how many people described them THAT way? this sort of extreme variance in the descriptions is why I lean towards the hoax angle. It suddenly makes a lot of sense if you think of it as an attempt to make things sound cooler than they were.
I tend to agree. One thing that stands out for me is the way Lucky and Taylor (in particular) were enthusiastically spinning elaborate and detailed versions of the story from the beginning. After delving into the documentation I've also come to understand Alene (J. C.'s wife) also played a central role in glossing the story at every turn (see, e.g., the Evansville article of 22 August).

Also I have to wonder at the fact they got written off as crazies THAT hard. Is it because, well, most people didn't see them as truthful? Sure, people can point at newspaper clippings where they are said to be honest and sincere.... Was that the majority or the exception? Is it possible that some papers considered running a story but went "lol, no, that's fake" and declined it?
Multiple accounts mention local folks' comments to the effect Lucky Sutton was known to be a big talker and adept tall tale teller. Taylor was recognized as a suspiciously talkative witness who tended to continuously embroider his testimony (see Ledwith's report). Otherwise, what few comments there were painted the family as honest and upstanding. At the other extreme, Ms. Lankford herself was consistently described as extremely honest and beyond reproach as a witness.

Maybe this explains why some reports seem to be second hand? The effort required to get a first hand report was deemed too expensive when compared to the likelihood of the case being fake?
The incident was a big hit in the media of the day, but this initial burst of stardom faded in the space of a week or so. Newspapers from as far as 80-some miles away (Evansville) invested in reporting the initial story. Then things began to change ...

Some newspapers turned sarcastic once news of the charging admission gambit (on the 22nd) spread. The fact that the investigators quickly and consistently stated they hadn't found any evidence for any UFO or visitors put a damper on the story, too. Once the even more cynical comments (e.g., accusations of simple hysteria or drunkenness) spread, the residents were faced with the opposite effect - the notoriety of being seen as liars, simpletons, scammers or drunks. This last effect seems to have been the primary motivation for the witnesses' shutting down and avoiding further discussion of the incident.
 
One of the problems in studying the Kelly / Hopkinsville incident is simply visualizing the scene. In the Loren Gross CUFOS Supplemental Notes compendium:

http://www.cufos.org/UFO_History_Gross/1955_07_09-15th_HistorySN.pdf

... there are a couple of hideously fuzzy photocopied photos from the New York Sunday News of 12 March 1967. These photos were published with an article about the incident, and they show (former?) police chief Greenwell at the farmhouse. One of these photos is the only pic I've found that illustrates the rear of the house and the back yard.

Below is a cropped copy of this back yard image, annotated to indicate the locations of the kitchen window, the kitchen door, and a bit of the back door at the end of the hallway / dogwalk. It's a poor image, but it's all we have ...

NYSunNews-FOTO-A-3.jpg

To see how this scene correlates with the overall house and property, refer to the Davis diagrams posted earlier in this thread at:

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

The kitchen window (a double window) sits directly above the sink where the women would have been cleaning up the evening meal's dishes.

Neither of the two back doors illustrated in the picture are doors through which any residents were documented as entering or exiting the house during the incident. Such movements were done via the third back door - the one in the bedroom (out of frame to the left in the picture above).

The hallway / dogwalk back door was blocked with a chest or dresser. If Ms. Lankford's first sighting was made at a back door it was this blocked one in the corridor. At one time or another she claimed to have been at the front or a back door at the time, but she was consistent in indicating she was in the hallway / dogwalk at the time of her first sighting.
 
@Comfortably Numb, @EnolaGaia,
Idk how authentic these are but the purport to be the house in question.
The first and third (monochrome) images are authentic pictures taken at the incident scene. The first is Ms. Lankford's niece-in-law Mrs. McCord in 1956 at the living room window, pointing to the holes shot through the window screen. The third was taken the night of the incident and was published in a newspaper article the following day (22 August). It shows Lucky Sutton (left) and Billy Ray Taylor (right) at the front door of the farmhouse.

The other two (and many others over the years) are unrelated and misleading images of the house and the scene.
 
This is the full article from the 'Kentucky New Era', published on 23 August, 1955, in which Mrs Langford comments on the possibility that someone was trying to scare her, can't think of any motive, confirms she was thinking of buying the property and is now uncertain. ...
Here are my thoughts and comments about the 23 August article ...


The photo shows Ms. Glennie pointing at a spot where a visitor allegedly fell after Lucky shot it with a shotgun. I've tried before when seeing this photo elsewhere, and I still can't convince myself where on the property this spot was located. A larger, clearer, version of this photo can be found in the D & B report, p. 17.


The article is based on a visit from a newspaper reporter and photographer on the morning of 23 August. Ms. Glennie and her daughter Mary are noted as the only residents present.


One must wonder where everyone else may be. On the one hand, one might wonder whether the absence of most residents (including the two minor boys) could have been the basis for the claim (cf. Sanders) everyone had abandoned the house within 48 hours of the incident. On the other hand, one might suggest the presence of Ms. Lankford and Mary indicates any abandonment of the house didn't occur that soon.

Alene and O. P. may well have been gone to their respective jobs.

Could the others have been occupied with some activity involving the truck that may have been borrowed from Evansville? If so - it would be interesting (and quite possibly illuminating) to know what that project may have been.


This article specifies that curiosity seekers were still driving by the house as late as 11:00 - 12:00 the previous night (the 22nd), and that state police were asked to come and help manage the traffic. This situation (both traffic and police assistance) had resumed by the time the news guys arrived that morning.


The article states the incident story had been publicized nationwide by the morning of the 23rd.


The negative rebound / blowback effects from the preceding 36 hours and publicity were all evident on the morning of the 23rd.


Some of the phrasing on the article's first page mirrors Davis' later phrasing in the D & B report - indicating Davis drew some of her report's nuanced passages from the Kentucky New Era reports.

The same can be said of Sanders - some of the phrasing in her report seems to have been copied from this article.


Ms. Lankford's statements on the article's second page are verbatim copies of her testimony in her signed statement and multiple other accounts - including Davis' report from the following year.

One slight mismatch in her otherwise verbatim comments is that she attributes her second sighting to 0300 on the 22nd rather than 0330.


This article correctly states there were 11 people at the house during the incident, but it incorrectly lists who they were. It seems to list O. P. Baker as one of three married sons of Ms. Lankford and notes Taylor as the single unattached participant.


This account states the Taylor hair-grab event occurred after the first shot had been fired from inside the house (i.e., the first living room window shooting). This sequencing seemed pretty certain from other accounts, but this article may be the only account that definitively states it.


This is the first and only account (that I've seen or recall) in which J. C. is cited as having been dismissive of the situation at first. To the best of my recollection, this represents the earliest and only clue that J. C. started the evening as an audience member rather than an active participant in any hoax or prank that may have been perpetrated.


This article - like Davis' account - makes it clear the 'No Trespassing' sign wasn't posted until Tuesday the 23rd, and the 50-cent admission sign was posted afterward.


Mary stated she was there during the incident but hadn't seen anything. Ms. Lankford added that none of the minor children had seen anything.

This implies that any panic instilled in the minor children derived from their observations of the adult's behaviors rather than any direct observations of the little men.


Ms. Lankford noted the possibility that someone had been trying to scare her, and that there'd never been any little men. To the best of my recollection this is the first and the only time she mentioned the notion she'd been pranked or the incident was a hoax.

Ms. Glennie mentions her older son Junior (living in Hopkinsville) had suggested the possibility of such a prank / hoax intended to scare her. This contrasts with claims elsewhere that the two oldest sons (Junior and Frank) had simply claimed the odd encounter(s) must have been real if their mother had said it all really happened.

Ms. Glennie said she didn't know why anyone would prank her or attempt to scare her.


This article states she had been contemplating buying the property, but was having second thoughts after the incident. This must be the original source for Sanders' almost verbatim statement of the same facts.
 
Last edited:
Researching further the characteristics of our enigmatic creatures - or at least which applies to one or more, not necessary all - I have come across the following.

It's from an interview with Geraldine Sutton Stith, published in 'The Paducah Sun', on 6 January, 2003:

""(Dad) said they appeared to have a human shape, but with some modifications which made them different," Sutton said.

"He called them little green men. He called them green, but said they actually weren't green. He said they were silver, but they had a greenish silver glow to them. He said they were about 3-foot-tall.

"'Their arms were double the length of humans' and had pointed ears. He said the eyes were in the same place as humans, but were more of an almond shape. The eyes had a luminous glow.

He said they really didn't walk, just skimmed on top of ground, but moved their legs."
(End)


Soon as I had read this specific description, I realised that not only did it sound familiar, on another thread I had posted my own night-time experience with a baffling, 2½ - 3 feet tall creature, which had yellow almond- like eyes, spindly legs and skimmed across the ground:

Ever Seen A Vampire?' https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/ever-seen-a-vampire.64160/

Although herons are indigenous to Kentucky, I wouldn't have thought Kelly, Hopkinsville would be their habitat. However, I don't know enough about this possibility.

It's always been my suspicion that should the explanation for our unrecognised creatures be indigenous wildlife, there might have been more than one candidate involved.

Fot example, there are YouTube videos of great horned owls and racoons fighting over nesting rights, or food and one where even a fox joins in the battle for the spoils, etc. in their co-existence, amongst of course many others striving for survival.

In the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, we have two or more unidentified entities which sometimes seem to fly and on other occasions run away on all four limbs. How they can still do either after apparently being hit by gunfire, is another matter.

I had to take a closer look at the likelihood of a heron being involved, even if that might coincidentally have been on a single occasion.

The objective was to locate any conceivable connection between herons and how they might appear to be glowing or moreso, exhibit a phosphorus condition.

Doubtless there would be zero evidence of either, otherwise we would have heard about it at some time.

So, this was a revelation:

Screenshot_20210918-210517~2.jpg


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...AI#v=onepage&q=herons phosphorus legs&f=false

I am presuming this to be factually correct (can't easily seem to find more information).

I guess the point is, if true, we do not necessarily require an otherworldly explanation for whatever our participants might have been deceived by, as regards the 'glowing'' attribute.

There may well be other examples which we simply have never come across previously.
 
I tend to agree. One thing that stands out for me is the way Lucky and Taylor (in particular) were enthusiastically spinning elaborate and detailed versions of the story from the beginning. After delving into the documentation I've also come to understand Alene (J. C.'s wife) also played a central role in glossing the story at every turn (see, e.g., the Evansville article of 22 August).

Multiple accounts mention local folks' comments to the effect Lucky Sutton was known to be a big talker and adept tall tale teller. Taylor was recognized as a suspiciously talkative witness who tended to continuously embroider his testimony (see Ledwith's report). Otherwise, what few comments there were painted the family as honest and upstanding. At the other extreme, Ms. Lankford herself was consistently described as extremely honest and beyond reproach as a witness.
And Glennie is also cited as the LEAST talkative witness. Which makes one have to wonder about the overall veracity of the story. :/ the bulk of it is seemingly from the LEAST credible witnesses.

The reveal that Glennie had moments where she questioned if it was a hoax make me wonder things that I don't have evidence to confirm or deny. IE did she clam up because she realized she'd been tricked?
 
Best heron pics I could find at night:
Not high quality, and it's not really doing much other than preening.
 
... Soon as I had read this specific description, I realised that not only did it sound familiar, on another thread I had posted my own night-time experience with a baffling, 2½ - 3 feet tall creature, which had yellow almond- like eyes, spindly legs and skimmed across the ground ...
Although herons are indigenous to Kentucky, I wouldn't have thought Kelly, Hopkinsville would be their habitat. However, I don't know enough about this possibility.
It's always been my suspicion that should the explanation for our unrecognised creatures be indigenous wildlife, there might have been more than one candidate involved.
In the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, we have two or more unidentified entities which sometimes seem to fly and on other occasions run away on all four limbs. How they can still do either after apparently being hit by gunfire, is another matter.
I had to take a closer look at the likelihood of a heron being involved, even if that might coincidentally have been on a single occasion. ...
Yep ... If the visitors were actually indigenous wildlife, some sort of large wading bird (e.g., heron; egret) was my favorite candidate. The "flipping" behavior in response to a gunshot, the spindly unarticulated legs, the floating / gliding, the perching on high points (roof; tree) and the scrambling away using the forelimbs for primary locomotion all seemed more bird-like than mammal-like to me.

The only bird that's been seriously nominated as being involved is a large owl. The main problem with the owl hypothesis is size (alleged height of 3 - 4 feet). Another problem is that owls' eyes aren't 6 inches apart and located at the corners of the face when viewed head-on.

Here's some background ... If you survey the area (e.g., using Google Maps / satellite view) you'll see that the landscape is pockmarked with ponds or small lakes. One of the largest wildlife refuges in the eastern USA (the Land Between the Lakes; Kentucky Lake) lies only circa 30 miles southwest of Hopkinsville. That refuge / park is home to multiple species of egrets and herons.

There's no problem suggesting there could have been egrets or herons around Kelly that night. Some such birds have elongated tufts on the sides of their heads analogous to the 'ears' described for the visitors.

On the other hand ...

Large wading birds don't have oversized round heads of the sort described for the visitors. The women Ledwith interviewed initially described a pointy 'chin' on the visitors, but Lucky disputed this the first time he saw their sketch. Lucky also disputed Taylor when he overheard Billy Ray telling Hodson about a prominent nose.

Another issue concerns mistaking wings - especially if held up / away from the body - as long arms ending in oversized hands. This would seem to require a coloring pattern that would have partially obscured the wings' breadth in the low-light conditions.
 
And Glennie is also cited as the LEAST talkative witness. Which makes one have to wonder about the overall veracity of the story. :/ the bulk of it is seemingly from the LEAST credible witnesses.
Yes - up to a point ...

Ms. Glennie was the least talkative witness, but she was the most consistent and specific one. Her limited account of the night's events from her perspective was cited again and again in the newspaper articles and researchers' reports.

She's also the one adult witness who continued (however sporadically) to talk to outside investigators after the first couple of days.

On the other hand ... There was a widespread impression Taylor was the least reliable witness, owing to his tendency to spontaneously come up with new slants and details. This, combined with his obvious inclination to talk, made him the documented or probable source for much of the variation in the residents' accounts. Lucky and Alene also served as proactive sources and promoters of the sensational overall story, but it was Taylor who was the loose cannon that needed to be reined in.

The reveal that Glennie had moments where she questioned if it was a hoax make me wonder things that I don't have evidence to confirm or deny. IE did she clam up because she realized she'd been tricked?
It was both the differences between her testimony versus the others' claims, as well as her actions to distance herself from the others' chatter about the incident's particulars, that first struck me as potentially symptomatic of something deeper going on. This started my re-examination of the documented evidence leading to my "gaslighting Ms. Glennie" hypothesis (see my posts of 19 August).

There's another conceivable angle on the "within-family-hoaxing" notion that leads to a different interpretation of her reluctance to discuss the incident and / or her insistence on repeating the same few basic facts without addressing any of the stuff the others had claimed. This is the idea that Ms. Glennie herself was involved to some extent in generating and perpetrating the hoax, only to regret it almost immediately. Under this interpretation it was J. C. who was the focal target of gaslighting intended to motivate abandoning the farm and moving to town.

Another, simpler, interpretation is that the whole "little men" publicity circus and its unwelcome side effects disturbed her to the point she decided to discuss only her own limited participation in the storyline and leave it to the others to deal with the complications and elaborations of the narrative(s) they'd created and promoted.

Note that Ms. Glennie indicated her oldest son (Tillman Jr.; Junior) had raised the possibility she'd been the target of trickery intended to scare her. As I noted on 19 August, Lucky was reported to have traveled to Hopkinsville on Sunday the 21st to visit with his older brothers Junior and Frank. This report and the New Era article on the 23rd are the only evidence (I've seen ...) for any contact between anyone living at the Kelly house and the two older brothers. A month ago I suggested this could have represented a brothers-only consultation to discuss the viability of the farm in Kelly and whether / how Glennie and J. C. might be facilitated in moving to better situations. Maybe Junior cued Glennie to the trickery angle and this caused her to see things in a new light.

In any case, on those occasions when she'd deign to discuss the incident Ms. Glennie consistently stuck to the bare facts of what she'd personally experienced and nothing else.
 
There's no problem suggesting there could have been egrets or herons around Kelly that night. Some such birds have elongated tufts on the sides of their heads analogous to the 'ears' described for the visitors.
That's another revelation then.

Thank you so much, again, for taking the time.

An important point is that this is a discussion forum - in all its wonderous glory - and if come across something which, like this, may be a new take on part of the evidence, I will post it for everyone else to consider and give any feedback. It's not presenting a scientific paper, which has been scrupulously checked, for peer review!

That's why I was hesitant about going any further with regard to this unexpected discovery - it might have no validity whatsoever.

There seems to be little information online about the phenomenon, however, I have come across one trustworthy, scientific source - albeit it dates back to July 1947!

The American Midland Naturalist
Vol. 38, No. 1 (Jul., 1947), pp. 207-213 (7 pages)
Published by: The University of Notre Dame

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2421636?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

It is documented therein and now duly satisfied we do appear to have a legitimate possibly, what becomes quite striking is the following observation from Isabel Davis, in 'Close Encounters...'.

"...the creatures were
the same "color" all over. In the dark, this was a phosphorescent or luminescent glow, but when a light was turned on them this changed to a dull metallic look".

Especially when coupled with 'Lucky' Sutton's remark:

"That is because they used lights all over the place, you can only see them in the dark".

However... the latter is entirely open to interpretation and we don't know what he meant.

In Ledwith's notes, he writes:

"WE DID WIDEN THE AREA AT THE END OF THE LEG SLIGHTLY, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CREATURE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE THAN BROOMSTICK LEGS TO SUPPORT IT IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION...".

I referred to the heron as having 'spindly' legs and that was before I came upon Ledwith's remarks just a short time ago. I was wondering if he had mentioned anything which might be related and might have gone relatively unnoticed in my previous readings... and there it is.

Whilst ostensibly impossible to equate any such heron sighting with the shooting episode(s), I wonder if the connection from our patchwork of available testimonials might be an initial observation, which results in the 'glowing' figures which gave rise to the story of them first 'floating towards the farmhouse'.

From descriptions of the enigmatic small creatures with later appeared and were fired upon, do we have much, if anything, which implies they were also 'glowing' during this time?

Anyway, merely some further thoughts for debate and of all the eclectic things discussions on the Forteana forums surprise us with, maybe a fair assumption one thing we had never seen coming (sic), were phosphorus herons.

I expect Mr Fort would be suitably amused.
 
... The glowing feature is mentioned as a harbinger of the visitor's arrival in the first sighting, but the visitor isn't always described as glowing persistently. It's interesting to note that descriptions of sightings later and later into the evening mention less and less about glowing. ...
Just for the record ... I've gone back and reviewed the earliest and seemingly best researched documentation about the incident to see what is said about visitors "glowing." I've restricted the search to mentions of the visitors emitting / radiating perceptible light (as opposed to reflecting ambient light).


A note about such ambient light available for reflection ... There was a new moon on the night of August 21 / 22, and it set circa 2030 - around the time the last vestiges of dusk turned into full darkness. The first visitor sighting (circa 2000 - 2030) occurred during the latter phase of dusk following sunset circa 1930. It is therefore reasonable to consider the possibility of faint moonlight at the time of the first sighting / shooting.

Any sightings after this first one could only have been illuminated by:

- light coming from the farmhouse itself (either through the windows from the interior or from the light bulbs suspended over the doors at each end of the dogwalk;

- whatever light may have come from neighboring houses (all of which were at least one or more hundred yards away as I reckon it); and / or ...

- whatever stray vehicular lights might have shone to the house from the railway tracks out front of the house or the highway beyond those tracks.


Here's what I found among the earliest key documents relating to glowing by the visitors themselves ...

RE: Glow / Glowing Of The Visitors

Sanders
: No mention of this.

Davis writes:
The creatures were about three feet tall, with oversized heads, huge luminous yellow eyes, big ears, long arms, and big hands ending in "talons"; they glowed all over with a silvery luminescence, and they seemed to float rather than walk.
(D & B report, p. 1)

Approaching from the fields was a strange glow. As it came nearer, they could make out what seemed to be a small "man"--though a man not much like any they had ever seen before. ... The whole creature was seemingly made of silver metal that gave off an eerie light in the darkness, like the light from the radium dial on a watch.
(D & B report, p. 24)

Except for the big glowing yellow eyes, the creatures were the same "color" all over. In the dark, this was a phosphorescent or luminescent glow, but when a light was turned on them this changed to a dull metallic look. The body surface gave the witnesses the impression that it was skin; if it was some kind of a space suit, as has been suggested, it covered them completely. The glow of the bodies increased when they were shot at or shouted at--as if noise affected the luminosity. ...
(D & B report, p. 29)

We have less information about the return of the creatures than about the hours when they were first at the farmhouse, but it was during this period that Mrs. Lankford saw the little man with his hands on the window screen. She had gone to bed. All the lights were off (the investigators had reassured the family to that extent). Her head was toward the window and she was trying to go to sleep, when she became aware of a glow at the window.
(D & B report, p. 37)

Kentucky New Era (22 August): No mention of this.

Kentucky New Era (23 August): No mention of this.

Clarksville Leaf Chronicle (24 August; Based on Hodson)
Only the yellow corneas of the visitors' eyes were described as luminous: "... lumious (sic) yellow that shone in the dark."

" ... their entire bodies lit up or glowed when they shouted, according to all of the witnesses."

Madisonville Messenger (22 August): No mention of glowing. Visitors were described as "shiny like chrome."

Evansville Press (22 August): No mention of glowing. Visitors "... were described as being shiny all over as if wearing some sort of 'nickel plated' armor, according to ... Greenwell."
 
Last edited:
Here's what I found regarding the visitors appearing to glow if in darkness but not if illuminated ...

RE: Visitors: Glowing In The Dark Vs. Appearance Under Direct Illumination

Sanders
: No mention of this.

Davis: No mention of this.

Kentucky New Era (22 August): No mention of this.

Kentucky New Era (23 August): No mention of this.

Clarksville Leaf Chronicle (24 August): No mention of this.

Madisonville Messenger (22 August): No mention of this.

Evansville Press (22 August): No mention of this.

Indianapolis Star (23 August):
State police and local authorities combed the area surrounding the farm house yesterday and Sunday night but failed to find any trace of the weird visitors.

"That is because the used lights all over the place," Sutton said, "you can't see them except in the dark."
 
Here's what I found regarding the odd luminous patch in the grass within an adjacent field ...

RE: The Luminous Patch In The Grass

Sanders
: No mention of this.

Kentucky New Era (22 August): No mention of this.

Kentucky New Era (23 August): No mention of this.

Clarksville Leaf Chronicle (24 August): No mention of this.

Madisonville Messenger (22 August): No mention of this.

Evansville Press (22 August): No mention of this.

Indianapolis Star (23 August): No mention of this.

Davis wrote:
Another odd item was mentioned by Chief Greenwell. He had finished his search of the immediate premises, and had interviewed the family as well as he could in the prevailing confu sion. Going into the back yard, he joined a group of men who stood inside the fence, looking out toward the fields and woods where other searchers were moving about with their flashlights. On the outer side of the fence, about where one of the creatures was supposed to have been knocked onto the grass by a shot, several men saw a luminous patch, roughly 1 1/2 feet in diameter, on the grass. From the side of the fence nearer the house, the patch was visible from only one angle; Greenwell and others examined the spot carefully, but at close range nothing at all was visible and the grass did not seem different in any way. The contrast between the surrounding grass and the luminous patch was definite, Chief Greenwell said— of about the same magnitude as the contrast between the white background of the topographical map that was on his desk and the brown contour lines of the map.
(D & B report, pp. 35 - 36)
 
Just for the record ... I've gone back and reviewed the earliest and seemingly best researched documentation about the incident to see what is said about visitors "glowing." I've restricted the search to mentions of the visitors emitting / radiating perceptible light (as opposed to reflecting ambient light)

A note about such ambient light available for reflection ... There was a new moon on the night of August 21 / 22, and it set circa 2030 - around the time the last vestiges of dusk turned into full darkness. The first visitor sighting (circa 2000 - 2030) occurred during the latter phase of dusk following sunset circa 1930. It is therefore reasonable to consider the possibility of faint moonlight at the time of the first sighting / shooting.
this gave me the idea of looking up when the moon would have been visible that night.
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224689365

variables input:
long: -87.488889
lat: 36.854722
altitude(I left at 0, not sure if I should change)
Aug 21 1955
time zone -6(I think this is just to set local time?)

results output:
moonrise: 0917(morning)
moonset: 2023(oh hey it's THAT time again!)
also it listed the phase(Moon's Age) as 3.9 days and represented that as a small sliver? Is that 3.9 days since the peak dark moon? IE early waxing phase?

hmmm interesting..... So... SOME but very little moonlight.... that quickly waned after sundown?

And... I just realized you actually said that already. But yeah.... seems like a starlit night... and only the stars.
 
... This means that if event #1 happened at circa 8:00 - 8:30, the duration was brief and then we have circa 2 hours of no shots until events #6 and #7.
If one accepts the timeline that's apparent in Davis' uneven exposition, I agree.

However, I don't think this Davis timeline is either comprehensive or accurate enough to accept "as is." I say this because of its inconsistencies and the fact its content and sequencing clash with other accounts. Its content clashes with the items labeled 6X and "7?". Its sequencing significantly conflicts with 6X (the first Glennie sighting / shooting, as apparently adopted from Andre).

NOTE: In the event my Table of Events (the one you've cited) has confused you ... That table (cf. the title) contains the events specifically mentioned in Davis' account and Ms. Lankford's signed statement. In other words, this "Basic" table is essentially based on Davis alone, augmented by data provided in Ms. Lankford's statement alone.

Two additional items (6X and 7?) are added from different original sources (6X from Andre; 7? from Sanders and one or more others). These were added for the sake of illustrating two substantially documented events outside the scope of Davis' own exposition - two items that would have to be reconciled with Davis' account to be merged into her timeline. I consider item 6X outside the scope of Davis' own exposition (even though she embedded it within her text) to the extent it clashes with other statements that are clearly her own.
 
... I am suggesting the evidence actually indicates event #1 and event #6 are the same.
Isabel Davis times event #1 at circa 8:00 - 8:30, because she has been led to believe this from the newspaper reports, i.e., the shooting began straight away.
If event #1 is in fact the same and our 10:30 incident, then we have the following, continuous sequence of shots being fired between 10:30 and when our participants departed for Hopkinsville. ...
Given the state of the evidence, I'm not convinced event #1 (the initial Lucky / Taylor sighting & shooting) and event #6 (Ms. Glennie's first sighting with Taylor & his shooting) can be merged without adopting a radically new theory. This radical new theory would entail *everybody* lying about what had happened prior to leaving the farmhouse for the police station - up to and including the fabrication of all allusions to a UFO and visitors.

I'm not dismissing this rearrangement and requisite radical new theory out of hand, though ... It's just that I still have sufficient faith in the consistencies (such as they are ... ) in the documented corpus from the 1950s and the integrity of Ms. Lankford to afford me confidence in considering these as two separate events.

Ms. Lankford had no reason to seek out the armed Taylor and inquire what they'd been shooting at unless they'd already been shooting at something. There was also no reason to wait until circa 2200 for the shooting events (actual or faked) to be conducted. There was no reason to poke or shoot a hole in the living room window screen if they were faking the entire story.

There's also the report of an unidentified neighbor who'd seen lights in the field behind the Lankford / Sutton house and was preparing to go help round up the pigs he'd assumed had escaped when the first shots were fired, causing him to forget about going there. This report alleged the time was around 2000 - 2030.

I continue to extend enough benefit of the doubt to believe the shooting started no later than an hour after sunset, one or more shooting events could have occurred between that first sighting and the time Ms. Lankford started taking things seriously, and things culminated in a concentrated flurry of shooting before the residents fled to Hopkinsville.
 
Back
Top