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

[Comfortably Numb]

Hers is the only account I've ever seen that claims those two couples were at the Kelly house only for the weekend. I'd have to see some more evidence to accept this weekend-only presence and overturn the other 'fresher' (more contemporary) documented claims of a longer-ter

This is an astonishing discrepancy.

How could either Isabel Davis, or Geraldine Stith, be mistaken to such an extent?

It seems to be Isabel's version - presumably via her interviews with Glennie Lankford? - or Geraldine's, as related by her father, 'Lucky' Sutton.

In her first publication, 'Alien Legacy', Geraldine claims they arrived on Friday night and on the Sunday, prior to our escapades, 'Lucky' Sutton took advantage of the opportunity to see his brothers, "Frank and Junior", in Hopkinsville.

Sutton, Taylor and their wives, all made the trip, before returning for supper.

A supportive indication it was simply a weekend, appears to exist within aforementioned 1977 article by Gray Barker, in which he writes:

"Cecil "Lucky" Sutton and his family, along with his mother, Mrs Glennie Lankford, lived in an isolated farmhouse about a mile from the main highway. Some relatives were staying overnight, along with another visitor, Billy Ray Taylor".

Allowing for the fact it was actually John C. Sutton, who lived there, we do have this 1977 reference - long predating Geraldine's involvement - to an "overnight" stay.

In the light of this, only discovered after your post, what do you reckon?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Gross claims Raymond "was still spreading the word" as of 1995, and cites the 1995 New Era article.

Brilliant! Now it makes more sense and thank you so much for taking the time.

Bet you there's a McCord tartan...

{Checks with a fair amount of confidence...}

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Interesting that the father of Grey Barker's correspondent described the incident as a "joke".

Perhaps ultimately of fascination is that it evidently wasn't for those involved.

I thought this was quite poignant:

(Start)
The next morning, Lucky came to the diner to see Bill.

“We’d talk about everything in the world,” Bill says. “So when I saw him I asked him what happened last night.”

“I wished I’d never said nothing,” Lucky told him. “People think we’re drunks.”

And Lucky told him the story. The creatures. The shootout. He told him everything. And when he did, he got scared all over again—goosebumps sprung out on his arms and tears filled his eyes.

“Sure enough, these little creatures were there,” Lucky told him. “They were 3 to 4 feet tall, the color of silverish-blue. They had big, almond-shaped eyes, long ears, and arms. And when you shot one it would knock them down, but then they’d get back up and float off. I don’t know what it was, but we told the police and they think we’re a bunch of damn idiots—or liars. I wish I hadn’t said nothing. But it happened. And I don’t think I’ve ever been scared that bad in my whole life.”

He said the police told them they’d probably gotten ahold of some bad whiskey.

The funny thing was, Lucky didn’t drink. Not then.

A few days later, Bill went out to the Sutton Place. He says he saw the evidence. There were burn marks in the field where Billy Ray said something landed. There were holes in the roof and door. The windows were shot out. And there were peculiar scratches near the windows and on the front of the house.

There was no doubt in Bill’s mind: his friend was telling the truth".

(...)

“These folks were God-fearing, honest, hard-working people,” Bill says. “They would not have shot up their own house.”

A few days after the incident, Grandma Lankford moved out. She feared whatever showed up that night may come back. “Well,” she told her family, “It could have been some kind of Martians. But, what if they were in trouble and had to land? I wish we’d have helped them.”

About eight months later, Bill said his family sold the diner, and they moved to another town. He lost touch with Lucky but kept up with him through mutual friends.

What he heard wasn’t good. Lucky, a man who’d been a responsible worker his entire life, spiraled out of control. He started drinking, and it became more and more difficult for him to keep a job.

“I was really heartbroken to find out he started drinking,” Bill says. “But I think back to what he said. He wished he’d never said anything. People thought he was a liar, and that means something here. That he would lie to me wasn’t even part of the equation. We loved each other.”
(End)

https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2020/09/16/65-years-later-kelly-residents-still-battle-ufo-stigma/


Having spent considerable time the past couple of weeks, looking back the copious library of contemporary 1955 'fying saucer' publications now available online, especially nascent magazines and newsletters, it's an overwhelming belief in the reality of same and how proof is being kept from people by the 'government'.

Kelly-Hopkinsville is proverbially, 'part and parcel' of that same era, I guess.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... One further and final case report I have come across, which predates 1978 Isabel's treatise, is a complete surprise and I had previously never seen this mentioned anywhere.
Published in 'UFO Report' magazine, from October 1977, it's a lengthy article by 'flying saucer' research stalwart, Gray Barker ...

Sometimes I think you post these newly-discovered accounts like folks say you should scatter objects on a floor before a vampire - to knowingly distract him into obsessively dealing with the novelty / disorder ...



As expected, I've chewed on (and chewed up) the Barker article. I have to say Barker proved himself an even more egregious distorter of documented evidence than Frank Edwards. There are obvious errors, an obviously slavish reliance on Sanders' report (which, of course, would have been in his files), multiple obviously erroneous claims, and multiple obvious instances of fanciful embroidery. On the other hand, some of the things unique to his article are tantalizing. If only I could tell the well-founded ones from the hyped fiction ...

Anyway ... Here are my notes from reviewing the article ...

---

NOTES: Gray Barker: Extraterrestrials and the Worldwide Panic Factor
UFO Report, October 1977.
=============================

NOTE: Barker (p. 41) acknowledges drawing on Sanders' report for "most of the details", as will become evident below. He characterizes her investigation as "thorough", even though we've established it was anything but ... She didn't directly interview any of the witnesses, and apparently obtained most of her information from the police.

Ronald Westrum - sociologist; Eastern Michigan University.
Barker had sent him some info / documentation prior to their meeting at a 1976 MUFON conference.

Barker claims Greenwell was a skeptic as of 21 August 1955. This conflicts with Greenwell's open admission he'd experienced a UFO sighting himself, as well as Greenwell's being cited as open to the notion of interplanetary / interstellar travel.

Barker mistakenly claims Hopkinsville lies in southeastern rather than southwestern Kentucky.

It's unclear who / what Barker is citing in describing the Gary Wexford story. This was the only account I'd seen to date that mentions any police chasing the Sutton group on their way to the police station in Hopkinsville. Barker describes the Sutton group as driving recklessly - speeding, running red lights and cornering hard.

Neither Davis nor Sanders mention the police chase nor any officer Wexford.

Sanders does mention: "Two automobiles with terrified and excited people in them screamed around corners on two wheels, rushing to the station from nearby Kelly to report a strange battle." (p. 20)

This is the only account I've seen that claims the police station entrance was locked and the group had to pound on the door to be let in.

Wexford is cited as the (an?) officer who phoned Greenwell in response to the group's story. Barker claims Wexford handed the phone off to Lucky, who talked with Greenwell.

This is the only account I've seen that claims any of the Sutton group spoke directly with Greenwell on the phone during the phone call alerting the chief to the problem.

Barker's description of the initial contact with Greenwell is an elaborated version of Sanders' text.

Like Sanders, Barker mis-identifies Lucky as a 'Cecil' Sutton.

Wexford is cited as advising Greenwell the group lived on the Gaither McGehe property. Sanders is the only other source that cites the property owner with this name / spelling.

Barker claims Chief Greenwell had Lucky ride with, and brief, him on the way out to the farm. This is the only account I've seen that mentions Lucky riding back with the chief.

Barker says relatives were "staying overnight", without noting some of them were residents of the house. It's not clear whether this "staying overnight" was supposed to connote "they live at this house" versus "they're visiting for tonight."

Barker mentions only a single non-relative visitor (Billy Ray Taylor), omitting reference to June. This matches Sanders' account.

Barker vaguely estimates the number in the group (based on 2 car-loads) as "about a dozen people, with maybe one or two more squeezed in." There were eleven.

NOTE: Sanders is the only early investigator who admits being unable to determine how many people were at the house. (p. 20) This is another clue that Barker is relying heavily on Sanders.

Barker's version of the initial sighting (by Taylor) is radically different from any other account I've seen. Here are some of the points on which it diverges from all other accounts ...

Barker has Taylor walking to one end of the house's corridor ('dog walk') and standing looking out through the screen door. There were screen doors at each end of the corridor, and Barker doesn't specify which was the one at which Taylor stood.

This account roughly recapitulates Sanders in terms of interior location and looking out a door.

NOTE: Assuming he meant the back door (in the corridor), that's the door that was blocked with a dresser or chest. It's therefore unclear how much Taylor could have seen from that position.

Barker then claims Taylor "went outside and sat on the porch steps." There are problems with this description of events:

- Taylor couldn't have exited the house through the blocked back door in the corridor.
- If he did exit, he must have done so via either the kitchen or bedroom back door.
- There was no 'porch' at any of the doors in the house.
- There were no 'steps' at any of the house's doors.

The most significant divergence between Barker and Sanders - and indeed between Barker and all other accounts - occurs next.

Sanders wrote that Taylor (inside the door) heard a hissing sound and saw a bright light. She then states, "Some bright object seemed to have landed in a field about a city block in distance away from the house." She then claims Taylor called to the others, and those who came to look immediately saw 3 or 4 little men approaching.

Barker writes that (Taylor; sitting outside on the non-existent porch steps) "... noticed something odd. Somebody, apparently, was snapping a flashlight on and off down in a nearby ravine." Following another hissing sound and Taylor walking out to the yard's border this light became larger and more intense, illuminating the entire area. The light became continuous as a "steady bright glow."

Barker has Taylor running back into the house and calling to Lucky and "one other man", who came and upon exiting through the door witnessed 4 little men approaching.

Barker's description of the little men basically matches most accounts. He adds a claim that Lucky told Chief Greenwell they were horrible looking and resembled the Devil.

Barker states Lucky grabbed a shotgun and Taylor grabbed a .22 target pistol (just like Sanders). They'd apparently re-entered the house to do this, because Barker describes them as waiting defensively inside the house.

As of this point in the narrative:

- Barker has inserted a completely unique account of Taylor's actions.
- Barker has completely omitted any mention of Taylor going to the well (like Sanders).
- Barker has omitted any mention of seeing a UFO aloft (like Sanders).
- Barker has omitted any mention of seeing anything land (which may or may not match Sanders).

Then his version of events gets really jumbled and odd (by comparison with most other accounts) ...

Barker has Ms. Lankford grabbing the barrel of Lucky's shotgun and pleading with him not to shoot. The grabbing the barrel bit is unique to Barker. The bit about Ms. Glennie pleading to hold their fire before the first shots were fired matches Sanders.

Next, Barker writes (of Ms. Lankford):
"Then she screamed, her gaze fixed on an ugly thing peering through the window. "Shoot!" she gasped. "Shoot!""

Barker describes the visitor as grasping a ledge beneath a window (second mention of an approach to a window rather than a door) and making scratching sounds as if it were trying to open the window.

- This correlation of Ms. Lankford's scream with the first shot(s) fired is unique to Barker.
- Ms. Lankford's exhorting Lucky to shoot is unique to Barker.
- Barker frames the first approach as happening at a window rather than a door (like Sanders).
- The scratching suggestive of the visitor's attempting to breach the window is unique to Barker.

Barker then says Lucky "let go with both barrels" - no mean feat when armed with a single-barreled non-repeating shotgun.

Barker then mentions glass being shattered and / or falling out of the window. Damage to the window glass during a shooting event is mentioned only within Barker's account.

This is presumably Barker's (like Sanders') version of the living room window shooting event. Most other accounts attribute the shotgun firing to J. C. rather than Lucky.

Like Sanders, Barker has some folks leave to check for a visitor's body.

He claims they "yanked open the locked door." None of the house's doors had locks.

Sanders describes the Taylor head-grab bit at this point. Barker doesn't mention the head-grab at all.

Barker claims they didn't find a body - implying they exited the house and came around to the living room window side to ascertain this. Barker mentions visitors in trees and on the roof (as do other accounts at this point).

Barker mentions Lucky shooting a visitor down from a tree, but mentions nothing about Lucky (or anyone) shooting at the visitor(s) on the roof.

Barker has Taylor going back into the house, gathering 4 boxes of .22 ammo, and shooting all of it before the incident was over. Save for the bit about gathering 4 boxes all at once, his account roughly matches the points in Sanders' account.

Barker mentions Taylor shooting a visitor perched on a rain barrel. Sanders' account is the only other one that mentions this.

Like Sanders, Barker makes no specific mention of Lucky shooting a visitor off the roof.

Like Sanders, Barker makes no mention of the scratching on the kitchen roof bit.

Like Sanders, Barker makes no mention of the visitor Lucky shot at point-blank range in the front yard.

Barker's account summarizes the battle as the shooters hitting two visitors who then retreated.

Barker claims the nighttime investigators found Lucky's and Taylor's tracks in the dusty soil. No other account claims any tracks were ever found.

Except for claiming a window was shattered, Barker's description of the aftermath the nighttime investigators found essentially matches Sanders'.

Barker (unlike Sanders) omits even so much as a passing allusion to the return of the visitors and Ms. Lankford's 0330 sighting.

The 'John Wayne Gullet' (newsboy) incident that concludes Barker's account is interesting for a number of reasons.

For one thing, Barker claims Sanders interviewed Gullet. She makes no mention of any such interview.

The Gullet story is somewhat reminiscent of the story from Bill Thomas (Lucky's young friend who worked at his family's diner). The difference is that Thomas claimed to have talked with Lucky the morning following the incident, and Gullet claims the house was abandoned a few days after the incident.

Gullet's story adds yet another version of the 'Suttons abandoned the house' claims to the already confusing mix of such claims. He claims a uniformed man came to the house while he was inside, asked what he was doing there, and told him to leave. The man was wearing a military-ish uniform and driving a Jeep. The man claimed the residents had left for Louisiana - an alleged destination unique to Barker's article.

I can't figure out why Sanders didn't seize on this encounter, given her willingness to cite USAF collusion in making the family disappear.

Some bits Barker attributes to Gullet's story conflict with most / all other accounts, and even with Barker's preceding text. For example, Barker claims Gullet found supper uneaten / untouched on the dining table. Barker himself (p. 40) claimed the family had finished supper, and most accounts that mention the early phase of the incident claim Ms. Glennie and the other women were cleaning up the dishes.

The only part of the Barker article that suggests he'd seen the Davis report is the fact he follows his Kelly story with summary reviews of the same 1955 sightings that are covered by Bloecher in the second major part of the D & B report. We don't know enough about the D & B report's publication history to judge whether Davis' and Bloecher's parts had been combined as of 1976 / 1977, and hence we can't tell whether this apparent Bloecher review suggests Barker had seen the combined manuscript.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Wow, Vallee came one step from accusing her of plagiarism.. O-o'

Now, I wonder, what was she copying? do we have that available?

this also makes me wonder if the Davis report became functionally public domain because of this fracas causing Davis to drop it and never touch it again?

Clearly wasn't too impressed, our Monsieur Vallee!

Of course, coming from a scientific background, this type of occurrence would conceivably be an anathema to him.

The offending extract from Isabel Davis certainly doesn't appear in later editions of his book and should it exist at all (unless Isabel had seen a pre-qualification copy of the manuscript and it was removed before actual publication?), this seems to be the first edition, before the book was republished by 'Ace Books, Inc':

It would absolutely be of interest to see a copy, although not to the extent at that price!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Sometimes I think you post these newly-discovered accounts like folks say you should scatter objects on a floor before a vampire - to knowingly distract him into obsessively dealing with the novelty / disorder ...

Who... moi?



The bizarre thimg is... and oh so delightfully Fortean... I noted Vallee's attribution in 'Anatomy of a Phenomenon' to his contemporary British 'UFO' researcher, Brinsley Le Poer Trench's book, 'The Sky People'.

As there's no mention of the Kelly-Hopkinsville case therein, I followed up a speculative search and eventually found a reference to Brinsley Le Poer Trench and an article about our case in the 1977 magazine publication.

Eventually tracking down an online copy of the entire magazine, indeed there it was, a lengthy interview with the man himself.

So, I've read it several times and can't understand why Kelly-Hopkinsville doesn't come up in discussions at all.

I presume it's because the article spans several pages and has several, 'continued on page number...'. and I keep missing the relevant passage.

Keep rechecking and it's still nowhere to be found.

Don't understand, so run a search for 'Hopkinsville' and up comes Barker's article!

The original search result is correct - 'Brinsley Le Poer Trench' and 'Hopkinsville' do exist within the same magazine.

I had no idea about Barker's article and never once seen it being mentioned beforehand, in all my previous research.

Looking forward to seeing your thoughts on same in a moment.. as noted, I found it an interesting and worthwhile read - left myself with...

 

[BS3]

"I don’t know what it was, but we told the police and they think we’re a bunch of damn idiots—or liars. I wish I hadn’t said nothing. But it happened. And I don’t think I’ve ever been scared that bad in my whole life.”

It's this kind of stuff, albeit second hand and long after the event, that gives me a few lingering doubts about what happened. Can Lucky have really said this?

After what's been unearthed and discussed I really cannot see how misperception of ordinary wildlife is involved. Everything about this shouts "hoax" or "joke that got out of hand" and it is logical that while the fear of some of the household was almost certainly genuine, then the three with guns at least - Lucky, J. C. and Taylor - must have been in on it. The only other alternative is some anomalous stimulus or psychological state.

 

[EnolaGaia]

"I don’t know what it was, but we told the police and they think we’re a bunch of damn idiots—or liars. I wish I hadn’t said nothing. But it happened. And I don’t think I’ve ever been scared that bad in my whole life.”
It's this kind of stuff, albeit second hand and long after the event, that gives me a few lingering doubts about what happened. Can Lucky have really said this?

Personally, I think he could have said all but maybe not the last sentence - and meant it ... That doesn't mean I'm convinced he did so; I'm only saying it's still an open possibility.

The one thing consistently expressed about Lucky was that he played the 'alpha male' in the whole drama. The impression one gets is that he was temperamental and somewhat aggressive in tone, if not always in actions.

Whether or not there had been an actual threat, I think he realized he (and maybe some others) had overplayed his / their hand (i.e., gone too far) when he arrived back at the house from Evansville the night of the 22nd and discovered the whole thing had mushroomed into a spectacle.

Except for revealing the story to his own kids 13 years later the only time he seemed to cave in and act politely was that night, when he saw Ledwith's sketch, sat down, and began discussing the 'little men' with the others. My take on this is that he seized on it as the only way to 'go with the flow', deal with the situation, and not make it even worse.

About the 'never been scared that bad' bit ... The passage you quoted comes from the 2020 Ripley's article, 65 years after the fact and the first time Bill Thomas' testimony appeared.

As far as I can tell the only contemporary (1955) version of such an expression is attributed to J. C. Sutton (a Korean war veteran) in the Evansville Press article of 22 August. I suppose Lucky could have said something to that effect as well, but it doesn't seem to be documented that he did so at the time of the incident.

After what's been unearthed and discussed I really cannot see how misperception of ordinary wildlife is involved. Everything about this shouts "hoax" or "joke that got out of hand" and it is logical that while the fear of some of the household was almost certainly genuine, then the three with guns at least - Lucky, J. C. and Taylor - must have been in on it. The only other alternative is some anomalous stimulus or psychological state.

I generally agree with all this ... I really wish we could have convincingly linked the incident to circus monkeys, but we couldn't. I think herons are a better explanation than raccoons, but I'm not convinced wildlife caused the incident. The shooters were all experienced with hunting, and IMHO it would have required some exotic animal to make them think it was an extraterrestrial.

The primary third-party witnesses on the night of the incident were the law enforcement personnel, and they seem to have been impressed with what they characterized as the witnesses' fear. On the other hand, the witnesses' behavior was described as 'excited' about as often as it was characterized as 'frightened' - meaning one has to choose which interpretation best reflects the residents' actual emotional states.

In the final analysis, the residents' emotional states don't really carry any weight in assessing the possible involvement / presence of a UFO or extraordinary creatures. Conceding they ended up agitated / upset doesn't automatically mean they'd encountered aliens.

As far as I can tell from the documentation there were only 5 people who expressly claimed to have seen any of the visitors - the 3 shooters, Alene, and Ms. Lankford. This is why I zeroed in on this subset of the farmhouse folks and shifted to thinking of things in terms of a psycho-social explanation.

 

[GNC]

In the latest Trailers from Hell podcast, they briefly discuss this case... because there was a film based on it! It's Invasion of the Saucer Men, from 1957.

IMDB page:
Link

I've seen it (ages ago) and never made the connection, I must admit. Host Joe Dante admits the goblins do resemble the Gremlins of his 1984 movie.

 

[BS3]

I agree Lucky's behaviour seems central to interpreting what happened.

Personally, I think he could have said all but maybe not the last sentence - and meant it ... That doesn't mean I'm convinced he did so; I'm only saying it's still an open possibility.

The one thing consistently expressed about Lucky was that he played the 'alpha male' in the whole drama. The impression one gets is that he was temperamental and somewhat aggressive in tone, if not always in actions.

Whether or not there had been an actual threat, I think he realized he (and maybe some others) had overplayed his / their hand (i.e., gone too far) when he arrived back at the house from Evansville the night of the 22nd and discovered the whole thing had mushroomed into a spectacle.

Except for revealing the story to his own kids 13 years later the only time he seemed to cave in and act politely was that night, when he saw Ledwith's sketch, sat down, and began discussing the 'little men' with the others. My take on this is that he seized on it as the only way to 'go with the flow', deal with the situation, and not make it even worse.

About the 'never been scared that bad' bit ... The passage you quoted comes from the 2020 Ripley's article, 65 years after the fact and the first time Bill Thomas' testimony appeared.

As far as I can tell the only contemporary (1955) version of such an expression is attributed to J. C. Sutton (a Korean war veteran) in the Evansville Press article of 22 August. I suppose Lucky could have said something to that effect as well, but it doesn't seem to be documented that he did so at the time of the incident.


I generally agree with all this ... I really wish we could have convincingly linked the incident to circus monkeys, but we couldn't. I think herons are a better explanation than raccoons, but I'm not convinced wildlife caused the incident. The shooters were all experienced with hunting, and IMHO it would have required some exotic animal to make them think it was an extraterrestrial.

The primary third-party witnesses on the night of the incident were the law enforcement personnel, and they seem to have been impressed with what they characterized as the witnesses' fear. On the other hand, the witnesses' behavior was described as 'excited' about as often as it was characterized as 'frightened' - meaning one has to choose which interpretation best reflects the residents' actual emotional states.

In the final analysis, the residents' emotional states don't really carry any weight in assessing the possible involvement / presence of a UFO or extraordinary creatures. Conceding they ended up agitated / upset doesn't automatically mean they'd encountered aliens.

As far as I can tell from the documentation there were only 5 people who expressly claimed to have seen any of the visitors - the 3 shooters, Alene, and Ms. Lankford. This is why I zeroed in on this subset of the farmhouse folks and shifted to thinking of things in terms of a psycho-social explanation.

Didn't one of the more sceptical law enforcement personnel use the phrase that he thought people were "running amok"?

I'm not a fan of the rather facile theory that people were drunk and hallucinating, and indeed doubt that drink was involved at all, but note that one thing it could do is make people more reckless, less inhibited. Perhaps a creeping realisation that a hoax had badly scared some other family members and was suddenly taking on a life of its own is enough to explain any 'agitation'.

Again we come back to the question of whether Lankford really had been reading about, or discussing, "little silver men". Thus primed you could almost - as Maj. Albert seems to imply - imagine the experience being generated through suggestion alone. Effectively the most imaginative and excitable of the men (Taylor) and the most dominant (Lucky) lead everyone else. The question is did they do it deliberately?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Didn't one of the more sceptical law enforcement personnel use the phrase that he thought people were "running amok"?

State trooper(?) Ferguson says this in the video Comfortably Numb posted in:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2090766

The relevant snippet begins at around 5:30.

He says the only thing he and the other law enforcement personnel found evidence for at the farmhouse that night was "a bunch of people running amok."

I can't locate any reference to "running amok" in the textual documentation, but the thrust of this statement clearly reflects the conclusion(s) of other officers - especially Deputy Sheriff Batts.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

After what's been unearthed and discussed I really cannot see how misperception of ordinary wildlife is involved.

Yes and no.

And that's about it, really.

There are three stubborn obstacles to indigenous wildlife being involved:-

- the glowing/metallic conundrum
- the 'hair grabbing' incident
- the fact that close-up shots were fired, with no evident casualties.

We can surmise wildlife to a certain extent and evidence possibilities, however, it all fails when these key factors are introduced.

You further comment:

"Everything about this shouts "hoax" or "joke that got out of hand" and it is logical that while the fear of some of the household was almost certainly genuine, then the three with guns at least - Lucky, J. C. and Taylor - must have been in on it. The only other alternative is some anomalous stimulus or psychological state".

Whilst comprehensively appreciating your conclusions and earnestly searching for confirmation of same, I can find no persuasive evidence for either.

The case has nothing to do with a 'flying saucer' landing, so where does that leave us.

Still in search of that one telling clue, methinks.

Something which is our 'eureka' moment!

Geraldine's simple mention, in one instance only, of how her father 'Lucky', revealed the entities 'skimmed' across the ground, is along these lines

On which, there is a full-length chapter feature about the case in a generic book entitled something like, '10 Unsolved Mysteries'. I had dismissed it as being 'fanciful' and a factually incorrect retelling. However, it did contain elements I have never seen elsewhere and in the light of Gray Barker's account - which does exactly the same - I am having second thoughts and trying to track it down again. If the claims therein are true, then it's precisely the type of thing which would change our perspective.

More on same, hopefully, in due course.

Yea, I know, should have bookmarked it at the time...

 

[EnolaGaia]

... There are three stubborn obstacles to indigenous wildlife being involved:-
- the glowing/metallic conundrum
- the 'hair grabbing' incident
- the fact that close-up shots were fired, with no evident casualties.
We can surmise wildlife to a certain extent and evidence possibilities, however, it all fails when these key factors are introduced. ...

I don't find these 3 elements all that inimical to some sort of wildlife explanation. Perhaps more accurately - I don't find them equally problematic in the context of evaluating wildlife as an explanation. More specifically ...

- the glowing/metallic conundrum
To my mind these are two distinct issues.

The glowing is the more problematic of the two in terms of relating it to some sort of animal. The type of glowing evident in some of the various narratives (such as they are ... ) is persistent and intense enough to be visible from a distance. It's hard to attribute these characteristics to phosphorescence.

In the case of the 0330 bedroom sighting the glow was strong enough to be noticeable by Ms. Glennie when facing away from the window and on the other side of the room.

The allusions to metallic skin (or possibly garb) are less problematic, because they might be explained by glossy coats / plumage. The scattered allusions aren't consistent - some allude to shiny metal ('nickel-plated'), whereas others describe the surface color as more of a dull finish.

---

- the 'hair grabbing' incident
I don't have a big problem with the alleged hair-grab incident being the work of an animal - including a large bird perched on the front door overhang. This incident occurred in darkness, so the grabbing might well have been a long-necked peck rather than a taloned reach as far as any witnesses were concerned.

There's also the issue of whether or not the head-grab really occurred. In the dark it would have been an easy and effective little bit of acting to increase the drama / excitement level.

---

- the fact that close-up shots were fired, with no evident casualties.
I don't think we can confidently claim all shots were fired directly at the creatures. Some accounts state Lucky's first shotgun blast (first sighting; back yard) was aimed into the air, intended to scare rather than injure. The earliest shot that definitely had to be aimed squarely or closely at a visitor was J. C.'s shotgun blast through the living room window.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Still in search of that one telling clue, methinks.

https://archive.org/details/ufonewsletters?query=hopkinsville&sin=TXT&sort=-date&page=7



If you change the 'filter' from 'Title', 'Date Published', 'Date Archived', etc., then a new collection comes up!!

Might be there a while....

 

[marhawkman]

- the 'hair grabbing' incident
I don't have a big problem with the alleged hair-grab incident being the work of an animal - including a large bird perched on the front door overhang. This incident occurred in darkness, so the grabbing might well have been a long-necked peck rather than a taloned reach as far as any witnesses were concerned.

There's also the issue of whether or not the head-grab really occurred. In the dark it would have been an easy and effective little bit of acting to increase the drama / excitement level.

If it's the Heron hypothesis, the hair "grab" could just be the wing drooping down and a total coincidence that a person was standing there.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I don't find these 3 elements all that inimical to some sort of wildlife explanation. Perhaps more accurately - I don't find them equally problematic in the context of evaluating wildlife as an explanation. More specifically...

Fascinating and challenging as always.

I think that's the absolute value of this wonderful place... there's always a reasoned, alternative perspective and conclusion.

No disagreement with your assessment of this, at all.

I will get back shortly re your summary of Gray Barker's article, I first need to refind the book mentioned, which has a chapter with a contentious claim, related to the first impression given by the witnesses at Hopkinsville.

Meantime, I wonder if my posting re the archives just discovered might help.

Irrespective of this case, what an astonishing treasure trove of overall historical material to coincidentally unearth.

I shall duly and most diligently highlight same on the appropriate thread.

Straight away, I do note from therein:

A.P.R.O. Bulletin, January, 1958

 

[Comfortably Numb]

If it's the Heron hypothesis, the hair "grab" could just be the wing drooping down and a total coincidence that a person was standing there.

Originally, from the 'Evansville Press', article on 22 August, 1955:

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

I did notice that Isabel Davis refers to it as a 'touch'

"...those behind him in the hall saw a claw-like hand reach down and touch his hair".

Either way, this comes directly after the window shot, followed by Sutton then stepping outside to find the apparent culprit perched on an awning, above the door, shoots it point-blank, etc.

However, in the same 'Evansville Press' article, it continues:

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

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

No mention of a shot being fired and reference to the 'figure' possibly flying over the house.

This touches on central questions about the Evansville article, as @EnolaGaia has previously highlighted.

We know that Sutton, Taylor and Baker were in Evansville the next day, as photographed by the newspaper. According to Geraldine Stith's account, they went to pick up some furniture.

Mrs. Sutton wasn't with them - she was giving her description to Ledwith, back at the farmhouse.

Where, when and by whom was she interviewed for these quotes - the farmhouse had no telephone.

Why also, were Sutton and Taylor not back at work that Monday. Geraldine's version has them only staying from the Friday until Sunday and making most of their last night with family - before our incident unfolded - as they had to return for work at the Evansville carnival next morning?

One further query relates to an accompanying sketch in the article, by Larry Hill, from descriptions given by, "Elmer and John Sutton" - no influence from Taylor or the others:

Was this sanctioned by the Suttons as accurate, or merely Hill's interpretation?

Just that, there are discernibly no large ears, two 'antenna' and this...

Which looks strikingly familiar!

Doubtless merely all coincidental...

 

[EnolaGaia]

View attachment 47312

Was this sanctioned by the Suttons as accurate, or merely Hill's interpretation? ...

It's merely Hill's interpretation. On p. 57 (Figure 11) in the D & B report this figure is presented along with other newspaper sketches from the days immediately following the incident. This presentation's caption includes the following:

Drawing was not checked with the Suttons.

 

[EnolaGaia]

We know that Sutton, Taylor and Baker were in Evansville the next day, as photographed by the newspaper. According to Geraldine Stith's account, they went to pick up some furniture.
Mrs. Sutton wasn't with them - she was giving her description to Ledwith, back at the farmhouse.
Where, when and by whom was she interviewed for these quotes - the farmhouse had no telephone.

I can't prove it from the available documentation, but I have confidence in the following interpretation ...

Davis (p. 41) states the news traveled fast, and reporters flocked to Hopkinsville and the farm on the 22nd:

... The Kentucky New Era reporter and photographer were there for a story and more pictures for the afternoon issue (the paper comes out at about 3:30 p.m.). Reporters from the wire services and from individual newspapers in Kentucky, Indiana and Tennessee descended on the Hopkinsville police station, and some of them went out to the farm. There were other radio reporters. There was talk of re-enacting the story on T.V. In Evansville, Indiana, the Press found the three men from the farm and took their picture, which shows Lucky demonstrating, as J.C. Sutton and O.P. Baker watch, how the "spaceship" had come down over the fields.

Davis also mentions WHOP (the Hopkinsville radio station) had broadcast the news at 0715 and 0925 on the morning of the 22nd. (p. 41)

The state troopers had been dispatched from a state police post in Madisonville (30 miles north of Hopkinsville; 50 miles south of Evansville), and a Madisonville reporter had been on the scene with the police when they investigated in the night.

IMHO the most likely explanation is that the Evansville Press offices had to have learned of the incident no later than early on the 22nd - e.g., from the first WHOP broadcast or via a report from whomever monitored the Madisonville state police as their stringer. The Evansville paper dispatched a reporter, who visited Hopkinsville and / or Kelly and file a report in time for the newspaper's final (afternoon) edition.

IMHO the second-most-likely scenario is that Lucky and company contacted the Press early on the morning of the 22nd. Recall that they supposedly left the farmhouse very early (some accounts say at sunrise) to go to Evansville. This would have triggered (among other things) the newspaper dispatching a reporter to Kelly.

Either way, there had to be a Press reporter who traveled to Christian County KY to check the news. In the mean time Lucky and J. C. were interviewed in Evansville (perhaps by the same reporter before or after a trip southward), and that would have been the source of the quotes directly attributed to them (in addition to the photo).

Did that reporter go to Hopkinsville, to Kelly, or both? It could be both, or it could be Kelly alone. Why? In one place the resulting news article clearly indicates a direct contact with Ms. Glennie ("Mrs. Lankford told today of ..")*, and Ms. Lankford was at the Kelly farmstead all day on the 22nd. At face value, this precludes the notion a reporter could have collected all the article's material from Hopkinsville alone.

* NOTE: This assumes the insinuated direct contact with Ms. Lankford was true / accurate. It's suspect because this allegedly direct testimony is the only documented claim that Ms. Glennie witnessed a visitor on 3 occasions (including the first sighting) rather than the 2 she claimed in her signed statement.

Except for this one apparent direct contact with Ms. Glennie, the reporter possibly could have obtained all the material in Hopkinsville. But what about the extensive quotes from Alene? Davis claims Alene went to Hopkinsville for her regular job on the morning of the 22nd. She was obviously back at the farm by midday when Ledwith visited. If the reporter had checked with the police station, contacted Chief Greenwell, Deputy Sheriff Batts, and the state troopers mentioned in the article in Hopkinsville, then somehow found Alene while she was still in town it's conceivable the article could have been assembled without any interview(s) at the Kelly farmhouse other than the single cited direct contact with Ms. Glennie.

Conversely, (and more probably IMHO) the reporter spoke with Ms. Glennie, Alene, Greenwell, and the other police personnel at the Kelly farmhouse. Greenwell and the others returned to the scene the following day, so they could have been interviewed there.

There's another clue ... Taylor wasn't interviewed or directly quoted in the Evansville Press article of the 22nd. He's quoted indirectly via Alene. This suggests Alene was interviewed prior to Taylor's return to the farmhouse at circa 1345.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This presentation's caption includes the following...

Indeed it does, thank you.

Another thing which had 'slpped my mind' .... within Isabel's report and just came across it again earlier, is her remark, later on, that Taylor described the object sighted as being, "like a fireball".

Once again, the question - where does this originate? I have never come across any other such reference.

No matter, I am more interested in tracking down the source of this:

"Lucky got a bead on it and hit it again, but it just did a backflip and ran off, using its arms in a swimming-like motion as if it was wading through the air".

It's from one web site's case article and appears on others as 'wading through water', sometimes attributed to walking characteristics.

A bird could of course conceivably appear to have a 'swimming motion', especially if it had large wings and they were relatively slow wingbeats... etc.

It's not a priority, finding that aforementioned '10 Unsolved Mysteries', or whatever, book chapter is.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This is simply for information.

Regarding the availability of Isabel Davis' 1978 publication, prior to that date, there is the following book, dated 1975, which has a case article, seeming to clearly be based on Isobel's report:

The reference to a hair 'touch' and especially that phrase, "scurried away", are confirmation of same?

I have never come across the author before - a biography:

https://www.jacketflap.com/david-c-knight/34063

I wonder if he did not have access to an actual copy of Isabel's report and instead, this is based on something else he has read, which was, in turn, written by someone who did have a copy and published these related contents prior to 1975?

 

[marhawkman]

Maybe that one is just one of the first few re-hashed versions that's not directly based on the facts? It feels very fanciful compared to the original accounts.

 

[EnolaGaia]

This is simply for information.

Regarding the availability of Isabel Davis' 1978 publication, prior to that date, there is the following book, dated 1975, which has a case article, seeming to clearly be based on Isobel's report ...
The reference to a hair 'touch' and especially that phrase, "scurried away", are confirmation of same?
I wonder if he did not have access to an actual copy of Isabel's report and instead, this is based on something else he has read, which was, in turn, written by someone who did have a copy and published these related contents prior to 1975?

I don't think Knight was relying solely - if at all - on Davis' manuscript. There are as many points of divergence as points of commonality between Knight's snippet illustrated here and Davis' version of events.

Knight's snippet misidentifies the initial encounter shooters as two Suttons. It describes the visitor as wearing a shiny suit like aluminum foil. Davis attributes the initial encounter shots to Taylor and Lucky, and never mentions 'aluminum foil' except in relation to the strip of that material the newspaper photographer discovered near a fence row the following day.

Knight mentions a scream associated with the living room window shooting event. Davis mades no such claim.

Knight says the men retreated inside and locked the doors. Davis clearly stated there were no locks on the farmhouse's doors.

These points don't match Davis at all. However, they all match the account given in Frank Edwards' 1966 book Flying Saucers - Serious Business.

 

[BS3]

I note there was a United Press report of this case on 23 August 1955 (given as a reference in that clunky old period piece, "The Humanoids", where the Hopkinsville incident is related by Coral Lorenzen). As this would have had quite a wide readership nationally could this be the source of some of the phrases in later accounts we haven't been able to trace yet?

 

[EnolaGaia]

In The Humanoids (Charles Bown et al., 1969 edition) the visitors 'scuttled' away, and one of them reached down to 'brush' Taylor's hair.

https://issuu.com/dirkthedaring11/docs/charles-bowen--ed.----the-humanoids

These aren't exactly the same, but they're roughly equivalent as figurative ways of expressing the action.

As to the United Press wire service affiliation ... This August 23rd attribution by Lorenzon (citing the Chicago Sun Times and Omaha World Herald) need not represent the point of origin. Any participating UP newspaper or journalist could have submitted the story to the overall wire service.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I don't think Knight was relying solely - if at all - on Davis' manuscript. There are as many points of divergence as points of commonality between Knight's snippet illustrated here and Davis' version of events.

I see precisely what you mean and you have hit upon something I perhaps didn't quite appreciate.

Firstly though, it does seem we have significant evidence that in Knights's 1975 publication, he was aware of Isabel Davis' report, not of course released publicly until 1978.

I have checked and the book I have drawn attention to, does definitely appear to be the 1975 first edition.

Edwards, perhaps surprisingly, doesn't seem to mention the 'hair-grab' incident, whilst Isabel writes:

"...about to step down into the yard, those behind him saw a claw-like hand reach down and touch his hair".

Knight states:

"... those behind the first Sutton saw a clawlike hand reach down from the low roof and touch his hair".

Isabel appears to be the first person to refer to it as a "touch''.


Additionally, describing the maple tree shot, Isabel writes:

"There's one up in the tree, too," Billy Ray said - it was on the limb of the maple tree... 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 woods".

Knight's version, reads:

"When the one in the tree was hit squarely, it did not fall but floated to the ground and scurried away".

Edwards does refer to this shot:

"Another shot caused the glowing thing im the tree to glide down into the woods and be lost from sight".

He does though use 'glide', not 'floated' and no mention of it scurrying off anywhere.

The exact phrase used by Knight, "scurried away", is also used by Isabel in a separate passage:

"The creature somersaulted backwards - "did a flip", as the men put it, scrambled hastily upright, and scurried away...".

Certainly, Edwards' book can not be responsible for Knight's remarks about the 'hair-touch'. As noted, he doesn't appear to mention the occurrence at all and '"touch", not 'grab' or 'grabbing', is seemingly unique to Isabel's report.

All very odd...

That aside, I have obviously read Edwards book, having quoted from it re his telephone conversation with Police Chief, Russell Greenwell.

However, I maybe hadn't made the connection you highlight with Edwards' book, largely because it's a while back since I did read same.

Going over the related contents again, it's striking how much of Isabel's report may be reliant on Edwards and as you astutely note, Knight absolutely seems to draw on Edwards' book in his summary.

I wondered if there is anything in Edwards' book which might now require further thought, for example:

"A porch light was turned on, At that moment one of the ladies screamed that something was peering into the dining room window. The men rushed into the room in time to see a creature with some sort of helmet and wide, slit-eyes...".

 

[EnolaGaia]

I wonder if Albert's notes were the source of that unattributed drawing of a "creature" found in the Blue Book file and reproduced by Davis. ...

Some clues to the provenance of this non-Ledwith / non-Hodson drawing can be found in The Humanoids (1969 edition, p. 179):

NOTE: The footnote #1 refers to a Brazilian incident cited on page 179, not to the Hopkinsville / Kelly incident.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I don't think Knight was relying solely - if at all - on Davis' manuscript.

You are correct and believe I can now explain...

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Firstly though, it does seem we have significant evidence that in Knights's 1975 publication, he was aware of Isabel Davis' report, not of course released publicly until 1978. ...

That wouldn't be news. As I previously reported, CSI announced the completion and imminent printing of Davis' report (her original manuscript) in May 1957. Assuming this printing (and, presumably, distribution) of the report occurred as announced there's every chance that Knight (and, for that matter, Edwards and any number of other UFO writers) had access to it.

Since I don't have access to the entirety of Knight's text, I can't say. I don't intend to seek Knight's text in any case. He was a writer of books intended for children and / or juvenile readers. I don't see any reason to waste time treating him as a serious / dedicated ufologist.

It seems pretty obvious Knight was blending together others' earlier accounts of the incident, just as the journalist Edwards was wont to do.

The only thing I find curious about Knight's treatment is the use of phrasing closely similar to Davis' detailed account while producing a condensed and error-ridden account more akin to Edwards' mishmash.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Is Knight simply referring to our seminal 22 August, 1955 'Kentucky New Era' article:

"Taylor was in front and when he emerged from the front door, a huge hand reached down from the low roof above the door and grabbed him by the hair".

Knight stating:

"... those behind the first Sutton saw a clawlike hand reach down from the low roof and touch his hair".

It's just coincidental he writes, "touch"?

Everything else does equate with Frank Edwards' published account.