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

[Comfortably Numb]

In essence, what precisely is the evidence for each and where can we find it?

Quoting my own post #750, I can find no evidence supporting Isabel Davis' claims as highlighted therein and resultant from our discussions since, increasingly wonder if there actually isn't any.

If that's the situation, then we have a fundamentally different and significantly less complex scenario.

No such evidence, then?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I can find no evidence supporting Isabel Davis' claims as highlighted therein and resultant from our discussions since, increasingly wonder if there actually isn't any.

This illustrates one of the possible anomalies highlighted.

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

"One of the strange little men was in a nearby tree, another on top of the house'.

There's no mention of shooting that one in the tree.

Isabel Davis writes:

"There's one up in the tree, too," Billy Ray said - it was on the limb of the maple tree to the right as you leave the house. Both Lucky and Taylor shot at that one, knocking him off the limb; he floated to the ground, they shot at him again, and he too scurried off into the weeds".

Where does Isabel get this from?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I think this is a good fit for the Stockton case I mentioned elsewhere, and Flatwoods of course...

There's a similar case we can investigate....?



Alternatively... I was only just talking to my daughter last night about the extraordinary, eclectic, tangents which have come up here.

I did mention that having, necessarily, during the past couple of weeks watched numerous videos of Herons and their behavioural characteristics... particularly their predilection for gophers, it had 'put me off my dinner' more than once.

So, no more cases like Kelly-Hopkinsville for myself, thanks all the same.

I thought they only ate fish.

 

[Nosmo King]

I have given this much consideration and It works, up to a point.

Great Horned Owls do not, however, have spindly legs, nor 6-inch long, upturned claws and are apparently only around 2 feet tall. Close though and obviously comparative facial characteristics, especially having ears.

All duly still 'on file', in the overflowing 'pending' tray.

Owls do have quite long spindly legs

s

 

[BS3]

This illustrates one of the possible anomalies highlighted.

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

"One of the strange little men was in a nearby tree, another on top of the house'.

There's no mention of shooting that one in the tree.

Isabel Davis writes:

"There's one up in the tree, too," Billy Ray said - it was on the limb of the maple tree to the right as you leave the house. Both Lucky and Taylor shot at that one, knocking him off the limb; he floated to the ground, they shot at him again, and he too scurried off into the weeds".

Where does Isabel get this from?

It's going to have to be one of her acknowledged sources - so, Lankford or Alene (possibly); the police chief; Ledwith or his notes; Andre; or Juanita McCord. In any case neither of the people involved in the actual shooting?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Owls do have quite long spindly legs.

They do not, however, normally go around holding their 'skirts/kilts' up...

https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/27/the-internet-cant-cope-with-how-long-this-owls-legs-are-6600783/

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Owls do have quite long spindly legs

When viewed in perspective, Great Horned Owls seem too small for a match?

 

[BS3]

It's going to have to be one of her acknowledged sources - so, Lankford or Alene (possibly); the police chief; Ledwith or his notes; Andre; or Juanita McCord. In any case neither of the people involved in the actual shooting?

Just replying to my own post, Davis says "I did not have the opportunity to ask [Lankford] about the incident described above" (I.e. the sequence of Lucky shooting at a 'creature' on the roof, followed by Taylor and Lucky shooting at one in the branches of a tree). So it wasn't direct from Lankford either. To me that suggests Andre or Ledwith as a source.

 

[BS3]

There's a similar case we can investigate....?



Alternatively... I was only just talking to my daughter last night about the extraordinary, eclectic, tangents which have come up here.

I did mention that having, necessarily, during the past couple of weeks watched numerous videos of Herons and their behavioural characteristics... particularly their predilection for gophers, it had 'put me off my dinner' more than once.

So, no more cases like Kelly-Hopkinsville for myself, thanks all the same.

I thought they only ate fish.

The Stockton case is another one of those ones that turn up periodically in compendiums of entity reports from the '50s. There's very little to it - some small figures seen in car headlights with no explicit UFO connection - and the only originating source is an account by Leonard Stringfield of MUFON (or one of the other acronyms about at the time). Like Flatwoods, it all has a very nice prelapsarian feel to it (to steal a word Peter Rogerson used about the Levelland case). A simpler time.

However I agree with Leclet that owls could explain it pretty well.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It's going to have to be one of her acknowledged sources - so, Lankford or Alene (possibly); the police chief; Ledwith or his notes; Andre; or....

So far as I can see, it's none of them and neither is it resultant from Isabel Davis' intererviews with Mrs Lankford.

If we back to the genesis of these claims, it's the story as told by Isabel Davis in her co-publication with Ted Bloecher, 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955'.

The key word is, 'story', because Isabel describes the chronology of events in a narrative, giving the, albeit unintended, impression all these details were factually documented.

Setting the stage - and we need to keep in mind her intended audience are 'flying saucer' afficiendos from that era - Isabel writes:

"Billy Ray Taylor had gone out to the well in the back yard for a drink of water , and came running back into the house with a wild story about seeing a "flying saucer".

As he was bringing up the bucket, he said, a silvery object, "real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow" came silently toward the house from the southwest about 30 to 40 feet overhead. It continued down the fields on a horizontal course: then it slowed down, came to a stop in the air, and dropped straight to the ground, seeming to disappear into a 40-foot gully at the end of the fields. After that, nothing could be seen from the yard where Billy Ray stood".

Here, Isabel has taken a hotchpotch of snippets, particularly from newspaper reports and presents them as a factual account.

She continues:

"Half an hour or so later... the dog began to bark violently... Lucky Sutton and Billy Ray Taylor went to the back door and looked out to see what was bothering the animal.

The dog then put his tail between his legs and ran under the house, not to be seen again until the next day. Lucky was sarcastic: "Shit! A real good dog--ran away after
this thing appeared"."

It's all a narrative, incorporating some artistic license, with a direct quote implying this was documented at the time.

Nonetheless, the scene is set for our opening performance from the little creatures:

"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:

"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".

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

It's questionable, yet presented as fact.

Subsequently, it's claimed:

"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".

Again, this is entirely unsubstantiated and a one-off anecdote which originated from the 'Leaf-Chronicle' article of 24 August:

"One very peculiar thing about these little visitors was that although, of a shiny appearance most of the time, their entire bodies lit up or glowed when they shouted, according to all of the witnesses".

Furthermore, this was in relation to "when they shouted", not "when they were shot at or shouted at", as stated by Isabel Davis.

In essence, there seems to be legitimate grounds for questioning what else in Isabel Davis' account of events might actually be unsubstantiated and simply her own take on the available evidence at that time.

It is an aspect we might, perhaps now should, be able to clarify and move on.

If there is, in truth, no actual evidence to justify Isabel's claims I have highlighted, then would we not have a profound paradigm shift?

 

[EnolaGaia]

I have given this much consideration and It works, up to a point.
Great Horned Owls do not, however, have spindly legs, nor 6-inch long, upturned claws and are apparently only around 2 feet tall. Close though and obviously comparative facial characteristics, especially having ears.

I agree that an owl recommends itself as a candidate animal that could have been translated via poor observation and panic into a 'goblin', but I can't reconcile two key features cited by witnesses - the widely separated eyes and the 2.5 - 3.5 ft. minimum claimed height - with an owl.

 

[BS3]

If we back to the genesis of these claims, it's the story as told by Isabel Davis in her co-publication with Ted Bloecher, 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955'.

The key word is, 'story', because Isabel describes the chronology of events in a narrative, giving the, albeit unintended, impression all these details were factually documented.

Setting the stage - and we need to keep in mind her intended audience are 'flying saucer' afficiendos from that era - Isabel writes:

"Billy Ray Taylor had gone out to the well in the back yard for a drink of water , and came running back into the house with a wild story about seeing a "flying saucer".

As he was bringing up the bucket, he said, a silvery object, "real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow" came silently toward the house from the southwest about 30 to 40 feet overhead. It continued down the fields on a horizontal course: then it slowed down, came to a stop in the air, and dropped straight to the ground, seeming to disappear into a 40-foot gully at the end of the fields. After that, nothing could be seen from the yard where Billy Ray stood".

Here, Isabel has taken a hotchpotch of snippets, particularly from newspaper reports and presents them as a factual account.

She continues:

"Half an hour or so later... the dog began to bark violently... Lucky Sutton and Billy Ray Taylor went to the back door and looked out to see what was bothering the animal.

The dog then put his tail between his legs and ran under the house, not to be seen again until the next day. Lucky was sarcastic: "Shit! A real good dog--ran away after
this thing appeared"."

It's all a narrative, incorporating some artistic license, with a direct quote implying this was documented at the time.

Yes, as I mentioned above, she does list the sources she uses for Close Encounter at Kelly early on in the chapter. The problem is, as nothing is footnoted you cannot see which element of the narrative is traceable to which interviewee or article.

As noted she explicitly says she did not get to ask Lankford about the shooting-in-a-tree incident so it must be sourced somewhere else.

While obviously Davis's account is pretty much worthless as a critical 'investigation' of what happened - as you noted, that's not its purpose - then I don't see this necessarily negates everything seen within it; eg the raised hands were very clearly described to Ledwith by someone because he drew them. What really needs to be done is a process of reverse annotation to supply the source of each part of the narrative. As we do not have Andre's notes, in particular, the task is harder. I'm not even sure it would get us much further in understanding the case, although it would do a lot to illuminate Davis's reliability as a writer.

 

[BS3]

I agree that an owl recommends itself as a candidate animal that could have been translated via poor observation and panic into a 'goblin', but I can't reconcile two key features cited by witnesses - the widely separated eyes and the 2.5 - 3.5 ft. minimum claimed height - with an owl.

Precisely my concerns, along with the fact that the owl behaviour cited as the main positive of this theory would be happening at a quite different time of year.

I think the owl theory probably seems sufficiently certain to lazy Internet Sceptic types, but there's plenty to pick apart in it.

 

[EnolaGaia]

If we back to the genesis of these claims, it's the story as told by Isabel Davis in her co-publication with Ted Bloecher, 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955'.
The key word is, 'story', because Isabel describes the chronology of events in a narrative, giving the, albeit unintended, impression all these details were factually documented.
Setting the stage - and we need to keep in mind her intended audience are 'flying saucer' afficiendos from that era - ...
Here, Isabel has taken a hotchpotch of snippets, particularly from newspaper reports and presents them as a factual account. ...

As we've collected and inspected the various newspaper accounts, etc., I've similarly come to believe Davis stitched together her exposition from a variety of sources, over an unknown span of years, and with a certain degree of bias.

She doesn't provide a single linear exposition of the events. She first skims through a summary that draws heavily on the most commonly cited elements of the storyline, then inserts chunks from others' investigations as asides or flashbacks she never integrated into a coherent timeline / storyline / narrative flow. This seemingly post hoc insertion-without-integration is most obvious with Ledwith's report (embedded whole as an internal addendum) and the material she seems to have adopted from Andre (but didn't integrate into her main review of events).

I can't figure out why it took such a patchwork assemblage more than two decades to see the light of day (publication).

IMHO the later sections of her report - ostensibly an analysis and the conclusions - exhibit a persistent tendency to make excuses for how the available evidence might be construed as a viable UFO encounter rather than a balanced assessment that recognizes the gaps, inconsistencies and outright conflicts in the reported bits she chose to include. For example, she casually blows off the fact investigators (including Ledwith himself) failed to locate any traces of a landing site by hand-waving - noting other incidents had mentioned craft that simply hovered near the ground and never actually landed or stood upon it. She similarly blows off the obvious conflicts among reported storylines by simply claiming no one was keeping track and it's all confused as a result.

In essence, there seems to be legitimate grounds for questioning what else in Isabel Davis' account of events might actually be unsubstantiated and simply her own take on the available evidence at that time. ...

I'm more concerned about the things she may have proactively omitted from her compendium report. She's willing to include Ledwith's account of the sketches' origin, but one must wonder whether Ledwith had additional notes on the incident's events that never made it into his embedded report. It's as if Ledwith's account is filtered to only include the drawing-related bits. Nonetheless, her and others' accounts indicate Ledwith was the source for some of the alleged storyline details. Did Ledwith withhold them in his report to Davis, or did she restrict the scope of his contribution?

Similarly, her inclusion of the Andre bits about Ms. Lankford's first sighting (etc.) are far more substantive than her own event descriptions. One must ask why she didn't attempt to include Andre's report as an addendum within her compendium.

 

[BS3]

As we've collected and inspected the various newspaper accounts, etc., I've similarly come to believe Davis stitched together her exposition from a variety of sources, over an unknown span of years, and with a certain degree of bias.

She doesn't provide a single linear exposition of the events. She first skims through a summary that draws heavily on the most commonly cited elements of the storyline, then inserts chunks from others' investigations as asides or flashbacks she never integrated into a coherent timeline / storyline / narrative flow. This seemingly post hoc insertion-without-integration is most obvious with Ledwith's report (embedded whole as an internal addendum) and the material she seems to have adopted from Andre (but didn't integrate into her main review of events).

I can't figure out why it took such a patchwork assemblage more than two decades to see the light of day (publication).

IMHO the later sections of her report - ostensibly an analysis and the conclusions - exhibit a persistent tendency to make excuses for how the available evidence might be construed as a viable UFO encounter rather than a balanced assessment that recognizes the gaps, inconsistencies and outright conflicts in the reported bits she chose to include. For example, she casually blows off the fact investigators (including Ledwith himself) failed to locate any traces of a landing site by hand-waving - noting other incidents had mentioned craft that simply hovered near the ground and never actually landed or stood upon it. She similarly blows off the obvious conflicts among reported storylines by simply claiming no one was keeping track and it's all confused as a result.


I'm more concerned about the things she may have proactively omitted from her compendium report. She's willing to include Ledwith's account of the sketches' origin, but one must wonder whether Ledwith had additional notes on the incident's events that never made it into his embedded report. It's as if Ledwith's account is filtered to only include the drawing-related bits. Nonetheless, her and others' accounts indicate Ledwith was the source for some of the alleged storyline details. Did Ledwith withhold them in his report to Davis, or did she restrict the scope of his contribution?

Similarly, her inclusion of the Andre bits about Ms. Lankford's first sighting (etc.) are far more substantive than her own event descriptions. One must ask why she didn't attempt to include Andre's report as an addendum within her compendium.

I suppose the reason for focusing on the drawing-related material from Ledwith is that it provides a kind of exciting immediacy to that bit of the narrative, e g. the dramatic "that's it!" from Taylor as he arrived, giving them all "cold chills". It's a journalistic device.

It would as you said have been far more useful, looking at this from the perspective of sixty years and more and through the psycho-social lens, to provide a parallel analysis of all the accounts she had collected, looking at inconsistencies and points of agreement. Particularly Andre's, which I have a suspicion is the source for much of the narrative. But where's the fun in that?

 

[BS3]

Marvin Kottmeyer wrote a nice article years ago on how many UFO sightings had the logic of "theatre", noting the large number of chase episodes (saucer chases car, car chases saucer, saucer blows up plane, things crashing, etc - "every permutation of vehicular mayhem") none of which really made sense except as enjoyable narrative.

I think we can see a similar thing here in that authors have worked on confusing and contradictory material from frightened, and increasingly reticent witnesses, to produce something which makes sense as a nice little B-movie plot but which doesn't really do justice to the strangeness of what they experienced, assuming it wasn't a simple hoax, or accurately represent what was said.

This is why seeing some of the very early newspaper reports has been good as a couple (particularly the Evansville one) are as messy and incoherent as you might imagine under the circumstances.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

As we've collected and inspected the various newspaper accounts, etc., I've similarly come to believe Davis stitched together her exposition from a variety of sources, over an unknown span of years, and with a certain degree of biasm.

Amazingly wonderful input and feedback from everyone.

I think.... tentatively... that the entire case perspective is significantly clearer and in terms of evidence, comes down to this.

We have our original newspaper reports, which are effectively a brief summary and the public attention span only lasted about 3 days. There are no further follow-up interviews, because the witnesses have gone to ground.

If we rely on that earliest evidence soley, does a different picture perhaps emerge?

I had highlighted the following:

'Madisonville Messenger'
23 August

"Cecil (Lucky) Sutton, 26 reported shooting two of the little men with a shotgun Sunday night, knocking the creatures down but apparently not hurting them".

Posing the question, "Only two?", I have extracted the available evidence.

Using the original wording where possible, this is a summary of all related shots fired, as originally reported:

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

- shotgun fired through the window and the face disappeared

- blast from Sutton’s shotgun knocked another one down, did not appear hurt and disappeared in the darkness.

'Evansville Press'
22 August

- Sutton "shot one twice"

- about 30 feet when he shot, it flipped over, onto the grass, fell to the ground, jumped up again and ran off.

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August

- after hair-grab incident, Sutton shot little man off the roof, it fell down, apparently unharmed.

'Madisonville Messenger'
23 August

- Sutton reported shooting two of the little men, knocking them down, apparently unharmed.

Syndicated Article (Various)
23 August

- about five feet from the door, creature stopped and retreated. Creature returned, "Suttons" fired, it fell down and then ran off into the fields.
(End)

In short:

'Kentucky New Era'
- shot through window
- one other shot - unspecifed

'Evansville Press'
- one shot - 30 feet away

'Madisonville Messenger'
- roof shot after hair-grab

'Madisonville Messenger'
- simply confirming two shots in total?

Syndicated Article
- one shot - unspecifed.
(End)

These are not, of course, necessarily all the shots fired, simply those reported in the press and it would appear we need to account for two others. One is from Ledwith's notes:

"LUCKY STOOD UP TO DESCRIBE HOW HE HAD FIRED ON THE APPARITION THE NIGHT BEFORE, BRINGING THE SHOTGUN DOWN TO BEAR ON THE LITTLE CREATURE, ONLY A FEW FEET AWAY. HE VOLUNTEERED THE INFORMATION AT THAT POINT THAT WHEN THE SHOT STRUCK THE CREATURE, "IT SOUNDED AS THOUGH I HAD BEEN FIRING AT A BUCKET."

(...)

WHEN THE 12-GAUGE SHOTGUN DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY EFFECT, HE TURNED AND RETREATED INTO THE HOUSE".

Also, although seemingly not revealed until a later interview with Chief Greenwell appeared in 'The Saucerian Review', January 1956:

"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 into a ball, then floated off in the direction of the spaceship".

What's missing are subsequently claimed, direct hits, including the roof shot after a scratching sound was heard from the tin roof and the tree shot, direct hit.

It's arguably not a major problem.

What is though... we can't easily, if at all, equate those originally published with herons, or indeed anything which makes sense.

Firstly, we still have the central question of why, at no point whatsoever, didn't anyone recognise what the creatures actually were.

Secondly, herons, do not typically peer through windows, nor ignore warning shots and return to the scene.

Thirdly, neither herons, or any indigenous local creature, tend to survive gunfire, especially at close proximity.

Additionally, neither herons, or anything... etc. have a 'metallic' appearance. Then there's the problem with herons not having ears, let alone large ones.

Yet, that distinctive claw, the spindly legs and skimming flight characteristics seem such a good fit. The 'glowing' aspect is intriguing, however it's apparently a rare observation and perhaps a tenuous link.

Essentially, I personally remain flummoxed.

Plus, running out of ideas.

All just a hoax?

It's tempting... we do only have anecdotal evidence...

What if we might go back to this possibility for a moment.

Where would it stand now, in the light of what we have more recently unravelled?

Is it still tenable?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

What really needs to be done is a process of reverse annotation to supply the source of each part of the narrative.

Clearly thinking along the same lines!

I've realised, from my posting just made, that something of possible note results.

Take Isabel Davis' epic treatise out of the equation - whether the creatures hands were raised or otherwise, et al and...

It makes no difference.

This case stands on its original merits.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I suppose the reason for focusing on the drawing-related material from Ledwith is that it provides a kind of exciting immediacy to that bit of the narrative, e g. the dramatic "that's it!" from Taylor as he arrived, giving them all "cold chills". It's a journalistic device. ...

I don't know whether the focus on the drawing stuff resulted from Davis versus Ledwith filtering / editing the material. Ledwith's report was written and inserted into the eventual book-length D & B report as a whole - a unitary chunk. It's always struck me that what we see embedded within the D & B report is the entirety of what Ledwith submitted for publication in that particular document.

However, there are passing comments here and there insinuating Ledwith was hearing (and perhaps soliciting) information from the residents about what had happened the preceding night. I've always had the impression Ledwith knew - and quite possibly wrote - more about the incident than what we see in the D & B report.

 

[EnolaGaia]

'Madisonville Messenger'
23 August

??????? ...

I haven't seen any Madisonville Messenger news article from 23 August. Did you post it on your forteanmedia.com site?

 

[BS3]

Another thought. If there was a hoax, how would you do it? Was the foil discovered caught on a fence significant in view of the 'foil clad' appearance described in early articles? Obviously if at least some of the 'shooters' are in on the prank and can convincingly 'react', you need not put together anything too elaborate to badly frighten those who aren't.

Another idea. Is there anything impervious to bullets, movable yet 'rigid', which can flip when hit, makes a clang when hit, and which can be illuminated? Which might even have illuminated eyes?

How about contemporary shooting gallery targets, like you might find at a carnival?

Even an "articulated owl" is mentioned below:

https://www.antiquetrader.com/.amp/auctions/shooting-gallery-targets

 

[Nosmo King]

Amazingly wonderful input and feedback from everyone.

I think.... tentatively... that the entire case perspective is significantly clearer and in terms of evidence, comes down to this.

We have our original newspaper reports, which are effectively a brief summary and the public attention span only lasted about 3 days. There are no further follow-up interviews, because the witnesses have gone to ground.

If we rely on that earliest evidence soley, does a different picture perhaps emerge?

I had highlighted the following:

'Madisonville Messenger'
23 August

"Cecil (Lucky) Sutton, 26 reported shooting two of the little men with a shotgun Sunday night, knocking the creatures down but apparently not hurting them".

Posing the question, "Only two?", I have extracted the available evidence.

Using the original wording where possible, this is a summary of all related shots fired, as originally reported:

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

- shotgun fired through the window and the face disappeared

- blast from Sutton’s shotgun knocked another one down, did not appear hurt and disappeared in the darkness.

'Evansville Press'
22 August

- Sutton "shot one twice"

- about 30 feet when he shot, it flipped over, onto the grass, fell to the ground, jumped up again and ran off.

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August

- after hair-grab incident, Sutton shot little man off the roof, it fell down, apparently unharmed.

'Madisonville Messenger'
23 August

- Sutton reported shooting two of the little men, knocking them down, apparently unharmed.

Syndicated Article (Various)
23 August

- about five feet from the door, creature stopped and retreated. Creature returned, "Suttons" fired, it fell down and then ran off into the fields.
(End)

In short:

'Kentucky New Era'
- shot through window
- one other shot - unspecifed

'Evansville Press'
- one shot - 30 feet away

'Madisonville Messenger'
- roof shot after hair-grab

'Madisonville Messenger'
- simply confirming two shots in total?

Syndicated Article
- one shot - unspecifed.
(End)

These are not, of course, necessarily all the shots fired, simply those reported in the press and it would appear we need to account for two others. One is from Ledwith's notes:

"LUCKY STOOD UP TO DESCRIBE HOW HE HAD FIRED ON THE APPARITION THE NIGHT BEFORE, BRINGING THE SHOTGUN DOWN TO BEAR ON THE LITTLE CREATURE, ONLY A FEW FEET AWAY. HE VOLUNTEERED THE INFORMATION AT THAT POINT THAT WHEN THE SHOT STRUCK THE CREATURE, "IT SOUNDED AS THOUGH I HAD BEEN FIRING AT A BUCKET."

(...)

WHEN THE 12-GAUGE SHOTGUN DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY EFFECT, HE TURNED AND RETREATED INTO THE HOUSE".

Also, although seemingly not revealed until a later interview with Chief Greenwell appeared in 'The Saucerian Review', January 1956:

"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 into a ball, then floated off in the direction of the spaceship".

What's missing are subsequently claimed, direct hits, including the roof shot after a scratching sound was heard from the tin roof and the tree shot, direct hit.

It's arguably not a major problem.

What is though... we can't easily, if at all, equate those originally published with herons, or indeed anything which makes sense.

Firstly, we still have the central question of why, at no point whatsoever, didn't anyone recognise what the creatures actually were.

Secondly, herons, do not typically peer through windows, nor ignore warning shots and return to the scene.

Thirdly, neither herons, or any indigenous local creature, tend to survive gunfire, especially at close proximity.

Additionally, neither herons, or anything... etc. have a 'metallic' appearance. Then there's the problem with herons not having ears, let alone large ones.

Yet, that distinctive claw, the spindly legs and skimming flight characteristics seem such a good fit. The 'glowing' aspect is intriguing, however it's apparently a rare observation and perhaps a tenuous link.

Essentially, I personally remain flummoxed.

Plus, running out of ideas.

All just a hoax?

It's tempting... we do only have anecdotal evidence...

What if we might go back to this possibility for a moment.

Where would it stand now, in the light of what we have more recently unravelled?

Is it still tenable?

Do I recall from earlier reports that there were box(es) of .22 ammo discharged?

 

[BS3]

Another thought. If there was a hoax, how would you do it? Was the foil discovered caught on a fence significant in view of the 'foil clad' appearance described in early articles? Obviously if at least some of the 'shooters' are in on the prank and can convincingly 'react', you need not put together anything too elaborate to badly frighten those who aren't.

Another idea. Is there anything impervious to bullets, movable yet 'rigid', which can flip when hit, makes a clang when hit, and which can be illuminated? Which might even have illuminated eyes?

How about contemporary shooting gallery targets, like you might find at a carnival?

Even an "articulated owl" is mentioned below:

https://www.antiquetrader.com/.amp/auctions/shooting-gallery-targets

Warming to my own theme here. How would they end up in trees and perhaps on roofs?

Nobody saw them climb up. They were already in that position when people looked outside. After all, the men had been fooling around out there for a while, according to Ms Lankford - plenty of time to shin up a tree and place something there while setting up the joke.

I note also a description in, I think, Davis that nothing about the figures was seen to move relative to other parts other than a possible flexion of the 'claws' reaching for Taylor's head. Sounds a bit like a rigid target in that respect.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Another thought. If there was a hoax, how would you do it? Was the foil discovered caught on a fence significant in view of the 'foil clad' appearance described in early articles?

It was Alene Sutton - quoted in the 22 August Evansville Press - who said a visitor "looked like it was made of aluminum foil."

It was a Kentucky New Era photographer and / or reporter visiting the farmhouse on the morning of Tuesday, 23 August, who found a piece of aluminum foil near a fence where one of the visitors had perched and been knocked off. (D & B report, pp. 54 - 55)

The only mentions of visitors being knocked off a fence or perching on a fence row involve the back yard (which was bordered by fencing on 3 sides).

Davis dismisses this discovery in terms of its being the entirety of what was seen. (D & B report, p. 81) She never addresses it in terms of possibly being a piece off some bigger object.

This back yard location for the foil puts it in the vicinity of the mysterious "luminous patch" noticed by police investigators. This patch lay on the other side of a fence from the house, and it was mildly lighter than the surrounding grass. Its location was also claimed to be approximately where a visitor was knocked off the fence. (D & B report, pp. 35 - 36)

It's interesting to note that the luminous patch was described as being visible from only a certain angle, otherwise it didn't contrast with hte surrounding grass at all. The visitors were described as glowing like a radium (-painted) clock face in darkness, but appearing to be dull grey when directly illuminated.

This differential glow / no effect duality suggests a possible connection between the luminous patch and whatever the residents interpreted as an animate visitor.

The exact locations of these finds were never specified in any documentation I've seen.

My point is that either or both these finds could be construed as possible evidence of a 'fabricated' visitor simulacrum, but Davis never addressed this possibility.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Another idea. Is there anything impervious to bullets, movable yet 'rigid', which can flip when hit, makes a clang when hit, and which can be illuminated? Which might even have illuminated eyes?

First and foremost - it's unclear whether the shooters were aiming to hit any of the visitors at which they fired. Some accounts of the initial sighting / shooting state Lucky's shotgun blast was fired into the air to scare the creature. The only other shooting events in which the shooter is described as aiming directly at a visitor from point-blank distance were: (a) Lucky's final shot in the front yard (at a visitor that allegedly came around the corner after the two roof / tree shootings) and (b) J. C.'s shot through the living room window.

As I recall, there's no mention of metal bucket or ricochet sounds until later shooting events (the front yard 3-way shootings; the fence row / barrel / kitchen roof event).

If the shooters weren't aiming directly at whatever-it-was the simulacrum wouldn't have to be all that resistant to damage, and the metal / ricochet sounds could have been coming from hits on who-knows-what else.

The 'flipping' behavior could (in theory) be attributed to a quite lightweight object reacting to a near-miss or even being pulled away suddenly (e.g., via an attached string or line).

As noted earlier, the visitors are explicitly described as glowing or associated with a telltale glow or shining only during the initial event (back yard; first approach) and Ms. Lankford's 2230 sighting. The record is ambiguous on the other events. In the 0330 event Ms. Lankford was prompted to look at the window because she detected a glow coming from the direction of the window (which was behind her given the orientation of her bed). However, she did not state that the visitor she saw at the window was itself glowing.

The ultimate ambiguity lies in the fact that no non-shooter besides Ms. Glennie is documented as having actually seen a visitor, and then only at 2230 and 0330. She didn't report any clanging or flipping in either event. She didn't see the result of Taylor's shot in the 1030 event, and she simply claimed the visitor disappeared in the 0330 event.

Then there's Alene Sutton. She claimed to have seen one, but there are at least two different versions of her sighting. According to Ms. Lankford's testimony to Andre, Alene came to her circa 2200 saying she'd just seen one and was shaken by the experience. In the 22 August Evansville Press article Alene is cited as claiming she'd seen one just past dusk (i.e., around the time of the initial sighting / shooting at circa 2000 - 2030) - a point mentioned nowhere else. In this same newspaper account Alene is cited as having witnessed one fly over the house and land in the back yard, where it immediately disappeared - again, a point mentioned nowhere else. I tend to downgrade Alene's testimony owing to the fact I consider her a prime suspect for hoaxing, because she had a demonstrable motivation for abandoning the Kelly farmstead to live in Hopkinsville (where she worked).

My point is that the odd features that would have to be explained for a hoaxed simulacrum are in play if and only if one assumes those features were actually observed. It's not clear to me they were anything more than hearsay from the shooters and Alene - i.e., the most likely candidates for hoaxers.

 

[EnolaGaia]

How about contemporary shooting gallery targets, like you might find at a carnival?

I mentioned some time ago that a shooting gallery might serve as an interesting connection between the incident and Lucky's / Taylor's employment with a carnival. This was floated in relation to the .22 ammunition used. There are archaic / specialized .22 caliber cartridges used in shooting galleries that are quite weak.

Your allusion to shooting gallery targets is interesting, but I'm not sure they're likely candidates for faking a visitor. Most shooting gallery targets (I've seen ... ) are made of stout cast iron or steel - good for clanging, but inconvenient for suspending in midair, moving in a "floating" fashion or withdrawing quickly and silently.

 

[BS3]

I mentioned some time ago that a shooting gallery might serve as an interesting connection between the incident and Lucky's / Taylor's employment with a carnival. This was floated in relation to the .22 ammunition used. There are archaic / specialized .22 caliber cartridges used in shooting galleries that are quite weak.

Your allusion to shooting gallery targets is interesting, but I'm not sure they're likely candidates for faking a visitor. Most shooting gallery targets (I've seen ... ) are made of stout cast iron or steel - good for clanging, but inconvenient for suspending in midair, moving in a "floating" fashion or withdrawing quickly and silently.

Agreed, I think I was more going through the thought process of whether anything (non natural) existed that could replicate the key features.

As you point out a similar effect could be more simply achieved by a small mannequin type thing suspended from strings. I'd been thinking that the raised arms might indicate those were in fact the suspension points. This would be even easier if you had an accomplice nearby and was the reason I was interested in the role (and location) of the McCords, who also seem to have gained from Lankford giving up the farm.

The identification of a strong hoaxing motive for J C and Alene, at least, has really opened up some new avenues I think (although it's not absolutely critical - you can also hypothesise a practical joke).

Do we anywhere have any indication who made the suggestion to go to the police? I've not seen a reference to this; it would be telling if it was Lankford, I think. The anxiety displayed by the men could be explained by the fact they had frightened the other family members a bit more than expected and were now increasingly worried by the police and press involvement - in other words their anxiety was genuine, but was from a different cause than suggested in the 'canonical' account.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I have found copies of two related photographs which seem higher quality:

The latter seems to be a depiction of where the hair-grab incident reportly occurred.

That overhang is a fair height above, plus, it's significantly more of a steep slope than I appreciated.

A circa three feet tall creature, for some reason perched on a slope and then being able to reach down to grab Taylor's hair, without slipping off'?

This is maybe the first actual evidence I have seen which raises suspicions.

As always, thoughts most welcome!

 

[Nosmo King]

I have found copies of two related photographs which seem higher quality:

View attachment 45651

View attachment 45652

The latter seems to be a depiction of where the hair-grab incident reportly occurred.

That overhang is a fair height above, plus, it's significantly more of a steep slope than I appreciated.

A circa three feet tall creature, for some reason perched on a slope and then being able to reach down to grab Taylor's hair, without slipping off'?

This is maybe the first actual evidence I have seen which raises suspicions.

As always, thoughts most welcome!

The pic I posted up thread is slightly better quality than the second of your photos.
Here it is again.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The pic I posted up thread is slightly better quality than the second of your photos.
Here it is again.

I don't know how/why, but the suspicion didn't kick in until I came across the close-up/enlargement.

And I was just about to have a look back, to see if there was a high quality photo posted of the proverbial bigger picture.

Reason being, I wanted to reconsider this claim:

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August

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.
(End)

Still in the process of doing so!