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

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
855
Points
99
This goes back to my post #643, on 15 September.

It has perhaps, quitenderstandly, become inseparable from various other scenarios we have discussed and wherein I have been so fortunate, herein, to contribute.

Or, put another way, I couldn't remember either and took a good half an hour to find it.

Shall we concur that we have done all we can and an explanation is ultimately outwith our grasp?

No matter where we turn, there's another anomaly we can't get a grip of, because there's insufficient evidence and what does exist tends to be contrary?

Pending any new developments, of course and willl continually be searching...
Yeah, we can't prove any proposal to be definitively correct, but we can make a list of things that can't be proven to be wrong.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
This goes back to my post #643, on 15 September.

It has perhaps, quitenderstandly, become inseparable from various other scenarios we have discussed and wherein I have been so fortunate, herein, to contribute.

Or, put another way, I couldn't remember either and took a good half an hour to find it.

Shall we concur that we have done all we can and an explanation is ultimately outwith our grasp?

No matter where we turn, there's another anomaly we can't get a grip of, because there's insufficient evidence and what does exist tends to be contrary?

Pending any new developments, of course and willl continually be searching...

An important bit of evidence for me would be confirmation of the existence of a pamphlet published by Kingdom Publishers containing a picture of a "little silver man". We already know that this imprint existed, that it was publishing in the right time frame, the nature of its output (Pentecostal Christian), the likely author (Lovell) and his usual themes (prophecy), but confirmation would verify Maj. Albert's story of Lankford reading about, and discussing, "little silver men" prior to the incident. The only question then would be - hoax or misperception?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
Now here's the bad news ... I have yet to see any account that mentions the investigators (especially the cops on the night of the incident) examining the doors, much less what they did or did not find. In the absence of data we are left adrift and unable to pin down particulars.
What if we mght have?

To make sense of this, we need read the full post #880, I am replying to.

Despite all its flaws, as discussed, in, 'Flying Saucers - Serious Business', by Frank Edwards, published in 1966, Edwards account does cite an actual conversation he had with Police Chief, Russell Greenwell, on 23 August:

It's quite specific, the question being how reliable are these later recollections.

Resize_20211013_132504_4261.jpg


Resize_20211013_132504_4510.jpg
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
I've always found it hard to believe she wouldn't have gone ballistic or at least intervened once anyone had discharged a firearm inside the house. In the relative ordering of the most universally-cited shooting events* the living room shot through the window screen represents the earliest such shot fired from inside the house.
Going back over Geraldine's YouTube articles, I now note something which might be significant.

If accurate, it's a critical event which is simply not mentioned in her book and does seem to tie-in with Andre's letter, recalling the story as retold by Glennie Lankford some years later.

The disparancy has been that, other than Andre's letter, we seemed to have no evidence of Mrs Lankford's door sighting, ending with Billy Ray Taylor firing at the perceived, threatening entity.

In Geraldine's book, Mrs Langford's observation is interrupted by our gunshot fire through the window - no door shot.

In Andre's letter, Taylor fires the first shot at end of that door sighting, which is then followed by the window shot.

However, in the following introduction to her story, as related by 'Lucky' Sutton, Geraldine does actually state that Billy Ray Taylor fired the first shot, at the door, then the window shot occurred.

In this interview Geraldine appears to corroborate the version and sequence of events from Andre's letter regarding Glennie Lankford's more detailed testimony.

Again, this is clearly the 10:30 incident Mrs Lankford describes in her statement, albeit without mentioning a shot being fired.

Consequently, everything which took place at the farmhouse - the window shot, hair-grab/touch, then shooting at one creature seen in a tree, or on a fence, or on the roof, following a scratching noise, must have occurred rapidly, between 10:30 and when they fled to Hopkinsville.

Furthermore, if the back door shot was almost immediately followed by J. C. Sutton's window shot, a question obviously arises if the latter was a 'spooked' reaction and whether anything ever peered through the window at all.

The Chronicles of Geraldine: Episode 2

 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
The disparancy has been that, other than Andre's letter, we seemed to have no evidence of Mrs Lankford's door sighting, ending with Billy Ray Taylor firing at the perceived, threatening entity. ...

I'm not sure what it is you think lacks evidence except for Andre's account (as quoted by Davis, pp. 30 - 31):

- Ms. Lankford's sighting?
- The idea Ms. Lankford's sighting occurred at a door?
- The claim Ms. Lankford's sighting occurred while she was with Taylor?
- The idea that Ms. Lankford's sighting was followed by one or more gunshots?

In Andre's letter, Taylor fires the first shot at end of that door sighting, which is then followed by the window shot.

If you're referring to Davis' quote from Andre (pp. 30 - 31), the living room window shot did not immediately follow the hallway / door / fainting event. Andre's account (p. 31) has Ms. Lankford claiming it was the front door hair-grab event which immediately followed her sighting / falling / shrieking event.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
The idea that Ms. Lankford's sighting was followed by one or more gunshots?
Yes, that's the one!

Glennie Lankford's brief statement doesn't mention her sighting being followed by Billy Ray Taylor firing at the 'creature'.

In Andre's letter, she expands on the incident and reveals Taylor fired at it through the door screen.

Likewise, in Geraldine's book, she describes Mrs Lankford first witnessing the creature when accompanied by Taylor, yet doesn't include this episode ending with Taylor firing at it.

However, in the video highlighted, she does.

Both Andre and Geraldine's account (irrespective of whether in the her book or video) cite the window shot as occurring directly after Mrs Langford seeing a creature for the first time and both tie-in with her statement of this "excited" observation occurring at 10:30

Therefore, the window shot, et al which ensued, could not have happened until after 10:30.

Prerequisite.... at least I think so! :)
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
Just to clarify something of importance.

In Geraldine's accounts, she seems to consistently confirm that 'Lucky' Sutton and Billy Ray Taylor's first observation of the 'floating creatures' occurred after Sutton and Taylor, some time after Taylor's 'light streaking across the sky' sighting, went back outdoors to 'have a look'.

They could see nothing of note until returning towards the back of the house and then from the woods behind the house, noticed our anomalous entities.

Am I correct in thinking this means the creatures were not seen by them in the direction of Taylor's 'at the well' sighting - back of the house - the creatures first appeared from the opposite direction - the woods beyond the front of the house, as they made their way back?
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
Just to clarify something of importance.

In Geraldine's accounts, she seems to consistently confirm that 'Lucky' Sutton and Billy Ray Taylor's first observation of the 'floating creatures' occurred after Sutton and Taylor, some time after Taylor's 'light streaking across the sky' sighting, went back outdoors to 'have a look'.

They could see nothing of note until returning towards the back of the house and then from the woods behind the house, noticed our anomalous entities.

Am I correct in thinking this means the creatures were not seen by them in the direction of Taylor's 'at the well' sighting - back of the house - the creatures first appeared from the opposite direction - the woods beyond the front of the house, as they made their way back?

Looking at the map of the Sutton farmstead I'm not sure - there doesn't seem to be enough 'woodland' at the front for this to take place surely?

This leads into another related point - based on some retellings, I always had a mental image of the Sutton house being surrounded by trees to some degree. If you look at the map given by Davis and the few contemporary pictures however, there are literally a couple of shade trees out the front, and a couple out the back. Then a long open expanse of what the photos show to be tall "weeds" down to what was presumably the tobacco field and gully. Out front you have the couple of trees I've just mentioned and then a fairly short driveway to the Old Madisonville Road. The farm land is edged by a narrow belt of woodland of course.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
Looking at the map of the Sutton farmstead I'm not sure - there doesn't seem to be enough 'woodland' at the front for this to take place surely?
This is from Isabel Davis' publication and seems possible?

Compress_20211016_073134_4692.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
This is from Isabel Davis' publication and seems possible?

View attachment 46696

It's just three trees out the front, then you're on the road! (assuming Davis's map is accurate). The trees even look like they overhang the road and, as Davis notes, the ground under them is quite bare. I was thinking what the 'creatures' apparently emerged from, wherever that was, would have been somewhere in those "3ft. high" weeds that seem to surround the property.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
My impression was that the first "creature" was spotted coming "from the fields", which would mean in a north easterly direction, or from the direction of point "4" on Davis's diagram.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... Both Andre and Geraldine's account (irrespective of whether in the her book or video) cite the window shot as occurring directly after Mrs Langford seeing a creature for the first time and both tie-in with her statement of this "excited" observation occurring at 10:30 ...
No ... See my most recent post. Andre's version (quoted by Davis) specifically states that Taylor advanced out the front door after firing on the creature Ms. Lankford first saw, and that's when the hair-grab incident occurred.

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

"It then jumped up, we thought, right on the roof of the house. As Billy went out the door to get another shot at it, the thing's clawy hands snatched at Billy's head. By that time Alene had come to the door; she grabbed Billy's arm and snatched him back into the house. By then, my son, Lucky, who had been guarding the other doorway (the back door) had also arrived at the front door, coming through the house. He pushed out the door past Billy and Alene and shot at the thing while it was still on the overhang above the front door."
Davis (D & B report; pp. 30 - 31)
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... Glennie Lankford's brief statement doesn't mention her sighting being followed by Billy Ray Taylor firing at the 'creature'. ...
Her statement is quite cursory, and it focuses on her sightings with little or no context.

Her description of the 2230 incident focuses on the sighting, her falling, and her being carried into the bedroom.

She mentions somebody (son(s)?) firing at the 0330 visitor, but leaves out any context concerning how she came to notice this later visitor.

In both cases she focuses on what she saw rather than what anyone else did.

Given the sketchy nature of her statement I don't think it's so comprehensive or carefully detailed to permit us to assume absence of evidence (for a 2230 gunshot) constitutes evidence of that gunshot's absence.

Ms. Lankford's account given to Andre has Lucky standing guard at the bedroom door on the other side of the house - a position from which Lucky couldn't have witnessed what was going on in the corridor / dogwalk with Ms. Lankford (with or without Taylor).

Geraldine received her understanding of events from Lucky - a witness who could not have witnessed what happened in the corridor during Ms. Glennie's first sighting.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
Looking at the map of the Sutton farmstead I'm not sure - there doesn't seem to be enough 'woodland' at the front for this to take place surely?

This leads into another related point - based on some retellings, I always had a mental image of the Sutton house being surrounded by trees to some degree. If you look at the map given by Davis and the few contemporary pictures however, there are literally a couple of shade trees out the front, and a couple out the back. Then a long open expanse of what the photos show to be tall "weeds" down to what was presumably the tobacco field and gully. Out front you have the couple of trees I've just mentioned and then a fairly short driveway to the Old Madisonville Road. The farm land is edged by a narrow belt of woodland of course.

Further to my ramblings above, I've had a look again at the relevant bit of Geraldine Sutton Stith's book. And what do we see?

"out from the woods came a little figure..."

There are no "woods" for a figure to come from, if Davis's map of the property is correct. There are two trees at the back of the house then largely open land (with occasional saplings and scrub) all the way to the fence, McGehee's field, and the 'gully' where the object was supposed to have landed. Davis in fact specifically says "there are no other trees of any size".

So...either Davis's map isn't accurate, or GSS's account doesn't get even the basic topography right. I wonder in which account this idea of there being 'woods' originated, as GSS's own supposedly straight-from-the-witness version has clearly been contaminated by it. Or perhaps the mention of creatures in trees simply leads people to assume there was woodland close up to the back of the house, an error GSS appears to have replicated.

This "out of the woods" trope seems very pervasive: see for example the Bob Gymlan YouTube video posted earlier in the thread, which inserts an entire belt of trees behind the house. Why? I suppose scary things come out of woods: "coming out of the weeds" doesn't have quite the same satisfying ring to it. So, if the woods aren't there, you might as well add some in.
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... There are no "woods" for a figure to come from, if Davis's map of the property is correct. ...
The area around the site of the house is considerably more overgrown / treed than it was in 1955. Here's Davis' overview map of the terrain around the house (D&B report, p. 9).

MAP-Overview-Terrain.jpg
As you can see, the alleged landing site is at some distance from the back side of the house and back yard. It's unclear which line of trees it was from which the first visitor was observed to approach the house, but in any case there was no wooded area immediately adjacent to the back yard.

On the other hand ... There's really no clear evidence for how overgrown the area(s) surrounding the house's yards may have been at the time. The photo of Lucky and Taylor taken the night of the incident (D&B report, p. 26) shows no grass immediately in front of the front door but insinuates heavy foliage in the background.

This photo from the New Era article of 23 August:

Glennie&Mary-550823.jpg

... shows no trees in the background. The location of this latter snapshot is uncertain. Davis' map does not specify the locations of structures other than the house, well, and outhouse.

I suspect the wooden structure in the photo is a pen - possibly a pig pen - and this photo was taken in the back yard facing more or less south or southeast. As you can see, the nearest foliage consists of tall weeds extending into the field beyond.

These two cited photos - plus the Evansville Press photo of Lucky, J. C., and Baker - are the only photos taken immediately following the incident that I've seen.

Tthe photos of Mrs. McCord at the window pointing to the holes in the screen weren't taken until June 1956 - after the McCords had moved into the house.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
I always thought of that snapshot as showing the corner of the "goatpen built of rough lumber" mentioned by Davis, though confusingly marked "Outhouse" on her map, at the northern corner of the rear 'yard'; Lankford is therefore pointing at where the "glowing spot" (4 on Davis's plan of the property) was seen. The "goatpen" and "outhouse" are clearly the same building as the cyclone fence is stated to be attached to the goatpen in the text, and shown as attached to the outhouse on the map.

So yes, no trees, as Davis says.

The area around the site of the house is considerably more overgrown / treed than it was in 1955. Here's Davis' overview map of the terrain around the house (D&B report, p. 9).

As you can see, the alleged landing site is at some distance from the back side of the house and back yard. It's unclear which line of trees it was from which the first visitor was observed to approach the house, but in any case there was no wooded area immediately adjacent to the back yard.


Davis only says the visitors came "from the fields"; I think the idea of them coming out of a line of trees, or woods, is fundamentally a later elaboration, which is why I find it interesting that Geraldine repeats it.
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
I always thought of that snapshot as showing the corner of the "goatpen built of rough lumber" mentioned by Davis, though confusingly marked "Outhouse" on her map, at the northern corner of the rear 'yard'; Lankford is therefore pointing at where the "glowing spot" (4 on Davis's plan of the property) was seen. The "goatpen" and "outhouse" are clearly the same building as the cyclone fence is stated to be attached to the goatpen in the text, and shown as attached to the outhouse on the map. ...
I disagree ...

The house had no indoor plumbing, so there had to be an outhouse. The crudely constructed pen in the Ms. Glennie pointing photo isn't an outhouse. There is no cyclone (chain link) fence visible in the photo. There is, however, a barbed wire fence visible. If Davis' 1956 map / diagram was accurate for August 1955* this would seem to place the photo location on the north / northwest / chimney side of the house.

(* As far as I can tell from 1956 photos the McCords cleared out a lot of foliage / weeds / etc. around the house after they moved in.)

The 23 August newspaper caption for this photo states Ms. Glennie is pointing at a place where a visitor fell after Lucky shot at it with a shotgun. There are two shooting events to which she is most probably referring:

- the visitor that fell / floated from the tree in the front yard
- the visitor from the kitchen roof (?) that floated to perch on a fence before being shot (at) again

This latter event is the murky fence-row shooting that may or may not be part of the kitchen roof incident.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
Well, even if we suggest that the rough lumber "goatpen" is not identical to the "outhouse", the goatpen still has to be on the line of the cyclone fence somewhere - so the northern corner of the yard seems right to me (I'm less bothered about whether the fence is visible or not since Davis said much of it had fallen down). The lighting is also (depending on the time of day) consistent with the northern corner of the yard.

The vegetation in the picture looks very much like the 3ft high weeds Davis draws all around the rear of the house, and this is what I think the visitors would have been spotted emerging from - not some 'woods' that do not exist on Davis's map.

I find it interesting that GSS's account makes the same erroneous (I believe) assumption about 'woods' that a lot of modern retellings do, but which isn't seen in Davis.
 
Last edited:

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
855
Points
99
Well, even if we suggest that the rough lumber "goatpen" is not identical to the "outhouse", the goatpen still has to be on the line of the cyclone fence somewhere - so the northern corner of the yard seems right to me (I'm less bothered about whether the fence is visible or not since Davis said much of it had fallen down). The lighting is also (depending on the time of day) consistent with the northern corner of the yard.

The vegetation in the picture looks very much like the 3ft high weeds Davis draws all around the rear of the house, and this is what I think the visitors would have been spotted emerging from - not some 'woods' that do not exist on Davis's map.

I find it interesting that GSS's account makes the same erroneous (I believe) assumption about 'woods' that a lot of modern retellings do, but which isn't seen in Davis.
Hmm I wonder if she's even been there in person? Lucky moved out before she was born didn't he?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Oh, I agree with the idea the visitors emerged from the weeds / undergrowth rather than from among trees.

Davis states only that the cyclone fence was nailed to the goatpen "at one point." She doesn't claim that point is at one end of the cyclone fence's span. The cyclone fence also had a gate through it (underneath the maple trees).

She doesn't specify the type of structure / enclosure used for the pigpen, but does state it was located "southeast of the yard" (presumably the back yard or side-yard at the bedroom end of the house). This would put the pigpen outside the yard and in a field, which is consistent with the heavy weed growth seen in the pointing photo.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Hmm I wonder if she's even been there in person? Lucky moved out before she was born didn't he?
Geraldine wasn't born until circa 1960 - 5 years after the incident - to Lucky and his second wife (not the wife present at the incident).

She first learned of the incident when Lucky told her about it in 1968. Geraldine (in one of her videos) states Lucky took her to the old house after telling her the story for the first time (i.e., 1968 - ish).

Lucky and Taylor worked for a traveling carnival but were staying at the farmhouse during the summer of 1955. They both left there to rejoin the carnival some weeks after the incident. Billy Ray / June left first (date unknown), and Lucky / Vera left in early October.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
I think what all this suggests is that either:

- Geraldine's account is heavily contaminated by other present day retellings
- Geraldine does not recall key details of Lucky's account too well
- Lucky himself did not remember the details too clearly by 1968, 13 years later

While I would very much like her account to represent a pristine version free of later editorialising, I don't think we can be this certain. The "out from the woods" line and other details such as the immediate comment that a witness has seen "maybe a goblin" raise some red flags.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
I think what all this suggests is that either:

- Geraldine's account is heavily contaminated by other present day retellings
- Geraldine does not recall key details of Lucky's account too well
- Lucky himself did not remember the details too clearly by 1968, 13 years later
I'd say "all of the above" are in play to some extent.

There's also a fourth factor - the extent to which the version of the story Lucky told Geraldine was tailored / spun so as to avoid and / or gloss certain details that Lucky didn't wish to have others know or remember.

Perhaps most surprising is no mention (I've seen or heard) of Geraldine consulting her grandmother (Ms. Glennie) about the incident between the time she learned of it (1968) and Ms. Lankford's (Reynold's) death in October 1977.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
130
Points
43
I'd say "all of the above" are in play to some extent.

There's also a fourth factor - the extent to which the version of the story Lucky told Geraldine was tailored / spun so as to avoid and / or gloss certain details that Lucky didn't wish to have others know or remember.

Perhaps most surprising is no mention (I've seen or heard) of Geraldine consulting her grandmother (Ms. Glennie) about the incident between the time she learned of it (1968) and Ms. Lankford's (Reynold's) death in October 1977.

Absolutely, this is a really important point.

I have no idea why the only 'family' account should be such a bland, uncontroversial retelling (even including a discussion of the ongoing "meteor shower" after Taylor's original sighting - I'm sorry, but this detail doesn't quite ring true either) unless....well.

Given that Alene seems (as you identified) to have been as heavily involved both as a witness and in terms of speaking to the papers, her almost complete absence is also puzzling.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
This is the last mention of the Davis report found in the archived CSI newsletters.
I continued to pursue this matter and recently, followed up what turned out to be more or less the same and final trail, ending at the online CUFOS archives! :)

Thus ends the matter and unless new evidence emerges, it does indeed seem Isabel Davis' report was never published until 1978, within 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955'.

Separately and as you are doubtless aware, the 'Civilian Saucer Intelligence of New York' newsletter of 28 April, 1956, features related details from a talk given by Frank Edwards. This is simply for the record and may be of interest to others:

Compress_20211020_052622_2678.jpg


Compress_20211020_052622_2367.jpg


Compress_20211020_052622_2157.jpg
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
Just to clarify for anyone not sure what this relates to, as it goes back quite a few posts. It concerns the origin of a quote used by Isabel Davis in her 1978 publication, 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955', namely:

"real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow"

I have now discovered this exact quote also appears in an article published by 'The Indianapolis News', on 12 February, 1966.
This is a follow up to my own post #836.

The source of the phrases used by both the Rev Webb and Isabel Davis remains elusive.

This equally applies to a couple of other apparent quotes (because they are reproduced within quotation marks). One is which refers to the enigmatic entities "swimming" motion and one, if I recall, relates to how, when they walked, it resembled a creature "wading" through water.

I have searched everywhere conceivable.

Nevertheless, we move on and if anyone ever identifies the origins, do please let me know!

The attribute of them walking as if wading, is naturally of immense interest should we be contemplating some involvement re two or so herons at any time.

When were they seen walking and by whom?

There was one claim we have spoken of and that originates from the 22 August, 'Evansville Press' article, which claims of Glennie Lankford:

"She said she saw a figure like a little old man or monkey walking around her house".

However, there is now another I have unearthed, from the 24 August 'New York Journal American' - see photocopy of said article on Geraldine Stith's web site, at:

https://alienlegacy1955.com/my-story/

How trustworthy is this, though - the Sutton's supposedly lived in a farm nearby to Mrs Lankford (both names misspelled as 'Glenie Langford') and they all departed for Missouri (or, is that meant to be a joke?)! :)
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
Lucky and Taylor worked for a traveling carnival but were staying at the farmhouse during the summer of 1955. They both left there to rejoin the carnival some weeks after the incident. Billy Ray / June left first (date unknown), and Lucky / Vera left in early October.
This is important and completely at odds with Geraldine Stith's account.

Before I go further, could you please clarify your source for same - it's an issue I have found confusing. Would it be Isabel Davis?

You are leading perfectly into some new case evidence territory. Although I had read and highlighted material from Geraldine's book, 'Alien Legacy Revisited', I have only recently seen the original publication, 'Alien Legacy'.

I had presumed there wouldn't be much varience, the latter merely being an update.

It's actually quite significantly different regarding certain key respects and some material in the original has been left out from the sequel.

More on this shortly.

If of interest to anyone, a copy of 'Alien Legacy' can be downloaded free from scribd.com - you can take advantage of a 30 day free trial.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Before I go further, could you please clarify your source for same - it's an issue I have found confusing. Would it be Isabel Davis?
I'm too pressed for time to search everything everywhere, but I can answer with regard to Davis ...

Davis claimed the Taylors and the (Lucky) Suttons arrived at different times earlier that summer, and both couples departed for the men's carnival jobs in early October.
The permanent residents of the farm were Mrs. Lankford, the J.C. Suttons, and the three children, but the Taylors and the Elmer Suttons had been staying there for some months.
Davis, D&B report, pp. 14-15.
One fact was considered by the skeptics to weigh particularly heavily in favor of the hoax theory— that Billy Ray Taylor and Lucky Sutton worked for a traveling carnival. They had come to the farm from the carnival some time that summer (though they did not arrive together), and rejoined it when they left, early in October.
Davis, D&B report, p. 77.

There's at least one account I can recall stating the Taylors left some weeks after the incident, with the Suttons departing even later in early October.

Geraldine's book is at odds with these claims - most particularly in claiming the Suttons were simply visiting Ms. Lankford's place that weekend. Geraldine's account further conflicts with earlier documented accounts in claiming Ms. Lankford "sold" the farm and moved away within circa 2 weeks of the incident.

We know the McCords were occupying the house by the time Davis visited in June 1956. I've never seen a detailed chronology for when the August 1955 permanent residents moved out or the McCords moved in.

Geraldine also persistently refers to Ms. Lankford "selling" the house. I believe the preponderance of the evidence indicates she was neither formally buying nor owning the house at the time of the incident.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
13,538
Points
284
Location
Phone
Geraldine received her understanding of events from Lucky - a witness who could not have witnessed what happened in the corridor during Ms. Glennie's first sighting.
As just aforementioned, Geraldine's original publication, 'Alien Legacy', is revealing and confirms a considerable influence from Isabel Davis' in Geraldine's retelling of events.

Unfortunately, we do seem to have a combined mixture of the story Geraldine's father, 'Lucky' Sutton, may have told her and what she has gleaned from Isabel Davis' case report.

A primary difference from the sequel, 'Alien Legacy Revisited'', is that whilst in the latter there is no mention of a shot being fired through the door screen, following Mrs Lankford's initial sighting in the corridor, within 'Alien Legacy', that shot is included.

In fact, the accompanying narrative in our earlier version, could have come straight from Andre's letter, as described by Isobel Davis.

Consequently, I don't see how we can take Geraldine's account of the incident as corroborating Andre's letter, which she was obviously aware. There are several references to Isabel's report, within both of Geraldine's books.

The more I consider it all, it's clear that reading the original 'Alien Legacy' is essential for anyone trying to understand the overall perspective.

I've just finished reading it for about the fifth or sixth time and new realisations are still springing up! :)

The book is incredibly helpful, it's just our perennial difficulty in extracting the meaningful facts.

Aspects of the sequence concerning how events unfolded, as related by Geraldine, do tie-up with original case evidence and more on that separately, in due course.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
37,895
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
How trustworthy is this, though - the Sutton's supposedly lived in a farm nearby to Mrs Lankford (both names misspelled as 'Glenie Langford') and they all departed for Missouri (or, is that meant to be a joke?)! :)
That article is a load of crap. It claims J. C. lived "miles" away from Ms. Lankford. It misstates Ms. Lankford's age (she was 50, not 58, at the time of the incident).

I suspect the "Missouri" bit is a distorted version of the "family disappeared" meme that was going around (and Sanders emphasized).

Ms. Lankford also had an adult daughter (Violet) who was married and living in Michigan (not Missouri). Davis claims:
By this time the air was thick with rumors, counter-rumors, statements, charges, theories, allegations, and speculations, but the disappearance rumor was only partly true. What did happen was that the Suttons, sick of the unwelcome publicity, started out for Michigan where Mrs. Lankford's married daughter lived. But before they got very far they realized what would happen to the farmhouse at the hands of souvenir-hunters, and came back to protect their belongings. The report that the family had vanished was still current in Hopkinsville, however, when I visited there; it was mentioned by one skeptic as proof that the story was fraudulent .
Davis (D & B report, pp. 56, 59)
 
Top