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

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
40,580
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Given Knight's role as a writer of children's books I don't find his use of 'touch' and 'scurried' odd at all. Even if he was re-using the phrasing he'd seen in Davis' original manuscript (or any other of her writings) I don't see it as significant, insofar as we've already confidently established he was recycling others' accounts of the incident.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
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.
What this has brought to light, certainly for myself, is the very thing which was slightly confusing. Isabel's report does seem to itself draw upon Edwards earlier publication - all that narrative about the dog, etc.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
852
Reaction score
954
Points
99
Given Knight's role as a writer of children's books I don't find his use of 'touch' and 'scurried' odd at all. Even if he was re-using the phrasing he'd seen in Davis' original manuscript (or any other of her writings) I don't see it as significant, insofar as we've already confidently established he was recycling others' accounts of the incident.
I now feel the urge to make a flow chart to link accounts in sequence in an effort to diagram who got their data from whom...
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
197
Reaction score
273
Points
63
Speaking of sources, I recently re-read Joe Nickell's 2006 article which put forward the 'owls aggressively defending nest' idea. I've actually seen this cited as a definitive explanation.

I was rather hoping that Nickell had addressed why in late August owls would bother defending a nest that they would have established in January or so, been sitting on in Feb / March and which the young owls would have left by early summer. Rather disappointingly, he doesn't. Nor does it explain where this nest might have been, given that we've established that the ground around the farmhouse was actually mostly open and tree-less.

I don't offer this as a vindication of anything, more an observation that in this endlessly frustrating case even the skeptical arguments often turn out to have gaping holes in them.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
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.
Having duly read your observations several times and mulled over same...

Just a tremendous contribution and resolves many of the inherent questions.

Really fantastic endeavour and helps to further fight our way through the tangled web we have to contend with! :)

At present, I am only trusting such as the following... and it's reliant on newspaper reports!

Not sure if I have posted this before... a summary of what seems to be all the earliest accounts re shots fired:

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August


"...and by one of the little men pressed his face against the window and the shotgun was fired through the window. The face disappeared.

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

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

Taylor reportedly opened fire on other members of the invading party, also with little effect".
(End)


'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)


'Evansville Press'
22 August


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

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

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

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


'Madisonville Messenger'
23 August


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


'The Indinapolis Star'
23 August


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


'Nashville Banner'
24 August


"Sutton and his brother were reported to have shot at one of the men who looked through a window, apparently wounding him with shotgun and pistol fire, Cowherd said.

The wounded man allegedly got up and ran into a nearby field".
(End)


Been going over this again the past couple of days and keep thinking there's a clue here, somewhere...

This seems unique:

'The Indinapolis Star'
23 August


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

"About five feet from the door of the house he stopped and retreated...".

Front door or back door? Where is any other evidence about one of our entities being only 5 feet away and then 'retreating'?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
40,580
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
'The Indinapolis Star'
23 August

"About five feet from the door of the house he stopped and retreated when the Suttons fired a shotgun off into the air. But soon he returned again, and the Suttons fired at him. He fell down from the blast, and then ran off into the fields".
(End)
"About five feet from the door of the house he stopped and retreated...".
Front door or back door? Where is any other evidence about one of our entities being only 5 feet away and then 'retreating'?
Back door. This is the condensed Star description of the initial sighting.

Note that this version insinuates Lucky was outside (or the door was open) when he fired "into the air." Other versions that describe this opening scene at all imply Lucky and Taylor had withdrawn inside the house before firing their first shots.

Some accounts (e.g., the earliest Madisonville and New Era articles) skip the first sighting / shooting entirely and begin their descriptions of the 'battle' with the face-at-the-window event.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
I don't offer this as a vindication of anything, more an observation that in this endlessly frustrating case even the skeptical arguments often turn out to have gaping holes in them.
Coincidentally.... or otherwise!... I came across this only yesterday:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kelly–Hopkinsville_encounter

"Ufologists Bud Ledwith and Isabel Davis interviewed the witnesses and were among the first to cash in with a book about the incident...".

:hahazebs:

"...and ceatures made of shiny silver metal were swiftly added to the story by other ufologists".

Excepting the fact those witness descriptions were with us from the outset.

"These owls stand about two feet tall".

Think I might have pointed out that the owl explanation comes up a bit... 'short'.

As I have always said, scepticism is a double-edged sword and sometimes you need to be sceptical about sceptical claims.

You might sail all four corners of the earth and still never find an auditorium like this, where a fair and reasoned hearing may be assembled. :)

Resize_20211030_034916_6842.jpg
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
197
Reaction score
273
Points
63
Coincidentally.... or otherwise!... I came across this only yesterday:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kelly–Hopkinsville_encounter

"Ufologists Bud Ledwith and Isabel Davis interviewed the witnesses and were among the first to cash in with a book about the incident...".

:hahazebs:

"...and ceatures made of shiny silver metal were swiftly added to the story by other ufologists".

Excepting the fact those witness descriptions were with us from the outset.

"These owls stand about two feet tall".

Think I might have pointed out that the owl explanation comes up a bit... 'short'.

As I have always said, scepticism is a double-edged sword and sometimes you need to be sceptical about sceptical claims.

You might sail all four corners of the earth and still never find an auditorium like this, where a fair and reasoned hearing may be assembled. :)

View attachment 47422

Quite, in this game you have to be patient and try not to leap to any obvious or comfortable conclusions - or just let the 'damned' data parade past for a while, as Fort might have put it. A lot of the most convincing solutions are still highly improbable, even if not 'paranormal' - see the possible explanation for Manises in another thread quite recently.

As for 'rationalwiki', taking I look I see - "In August they would have been feeding their young and would belligerently defend their nest and attack humans who approach too closely". Yes, well - a bit of basic research missing there. Experienced, intelligent sceptics like Menzel or Sheaffer have usually checked their solutions in detail.

The funny thing is that the Air Force 'investigator' that they claim is a ufologist's invention does seem to have not only been real, but also to have quickly identified what I think is the real answer to this case.
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
I can't presently locate a copy of this 2001 issue available online and if anyone can, please let us know.

I'm not prepared to post Ferguson's apparently disparaging remarks about the family. If we find the original article and it confirms same, then fine, it can be made available as a genuine publication and duly contemplated.
See post #350.

I have finally managed to obtain a copy of this magazine:

Resize_20211031_020118_8783.jpg


It can be downloaded from the Swedish online project, 'Archives for the Unexplained', here:

http://files.afu.se/Downloads/Magazines/France/Phenomena/Phenomena - No 45 - La nuit des extra-terrestres.pdf

As noted, the article is significant as it features a detailed, on-site interview with State Trooper Russell Ferguson.

I have attempted a rough Google translation of the contents and get the gist of it. However, I am not going to post this, because Ferguson's claims about our adult witnesses need to be translated precisely. In fact, Ferguson insists he is not misquoted.

So, if anyone with expertise would like to please assist...?

The relevant comments are on page 11 and available here, as a hi-res image (file size too large for posting):

www.forteanmedia.com/Phenomena.jpg

It's no secret that Ferguson is a massive skeptic about the case and especially suspicious about the window screen damage evidence - which he addresses in the article. I thought there was also some interesting, overall insight, about the police investigation - he did not observe any other obvious damage.

No door screen shot evidence, then?

As it's a .pdf file, you can cut and paste the text in sections, pasting directly into Google translate.

Ferguson's summary of his conclusion, is much more straightforward to translate:

We were returning to Hopkinsville when,
finally, I asked him his personal feelings on the Kelly' incident.

The reply was clear.


"Pure manufacture".
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
197
Reaction score
273
Points
63
My rough understanding of the key bits:

"I don't have a very exact memory of the Suttons. I only recall that they were complaining...groaning...they were very agitated. I also recall they were drinking..."

"Would you say they were drunk?"

[...]

"Don't make me say what I haven't said. I didn't say they were drunk, I said they were drinking. In general terms you wouldn't say they were very 'stable' people, if you know what I mean".
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
197
Reaction score
273
Points
63
"Now, to be absolutely clear and precise: I found nothing. Absolutely nothing, you have my word. Everything was completely normal. I did not find any trace of anything strange - neither footprints nor anything else".
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
197
Reaction score
273
Points
63
I suppose the comments from Ferguson lead me towards two scenarios - just suggestions of course.

The first is, essentially, @EnolaGaia 's "Gaslighting Miss Glennie" hypothesis. I can iimagine the brothers cooking up a scheme when it emerges Lankford is thinking about buying the farm, inadvertently condemning the family, notably, J.C. and his wife, to a continued hardscrabble existence. Lankford's excited discussion in the preceding weeks of a religious article she had seen may have provided the immediate inspiration. Taylor is convinced to announce he saw a 'spaceship' and - perhaps with the aid of some simple props and inhibitions a little loosened by alcohol - the men put on a show of repelling the intruders. Unfortunately people get a little carried away and the almost immediate press interest means that the prank takes on a life of its own.

The second is that, after a period of stress, a return to a crowded family environment, and suitable 'priming' - eg Lankford fretting about the article she had seen - a man essentially suffers a transient psychotic or paranoid episode triggered by a friend's report that a flying saucer had landed close by. Being the dominant character in the family, he to varying degrees convinces the others that what he is seeing is really there - as can sometimes happen - but in the cold light of day the experience remains frightening and baffling, not to mention humiliating.

No owls, or goblins, required at any point.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
40,580
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
I suppose the comments from Ferguson lead me towards two scenarios - just suggestions of course.

The first is, essentially, @EnolaGaia 's "Gaslighting Miss Glennie" hypothesis. I can iimagine the brothers cooking up a scheme when it emerges Lankford is thinking about buying the farm, inadvertently condemning the family, notably, J.C. and his wife, to a continued hardscrabble existence. ...
Yep - that's an excellent summary of the family psycho-social scenario underlying my earlier train of thought.

In the ensuing weeks a possible variation on this theme occurred to me. Maybe the person who was targeted for gaslighting (being influenced) was the property owner / landlord - Gaither McGehe - rather than Ms. Lankford (and / or any of the other residents).

Ms. Lankford's late husband Oscar Lankford had some sort of tenant / sharecropper / rental arrangement with Mr. McGehe. The exact nature of the arrangement isn't described. Mr. Lankford died circa 10 months before the incident. The incident occurred near the end of the first summer (i.e., the first growing season / farm production period) following his death - a time when the futility in continuing the previous farm life would have become all too apparent.

If Ms. Lankford and / or J. C. and Alene had concluded abandoning the Kelly farmstead was inevitable, there may have been an issue with breaking whatever arrangement / contractual obligation(s) governed their presence in the house. Generating a problematic scenario, much less a media circus, may have been seen as a way to create a rationale for asking Mr. McGehe to release them from those obligations and clear the way for moving to Hopkinsville.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
197
Reaction score
273
Points
63
Yep - that's an excellent summary of the family psycho-social scenario underlying my earlier train of thought.

In the ensuing weeks a possible variation on this theme occurred to me. Maybe the person who was targeted for gaslighting (being influenced) was the property owner / landlord - Gaither McGehe - rather than Ms. Lankford (and / or any of the other residents).

Ms. Lankford's late husband Oscar Lankford had some sort of tenant / sharecropper / rental arrangement with Mr. McGehe. The exact nature of the arrangement isn't described. Mr. Lankford died circa 10 months before the incident. The incident occurred near the end of the first summer (i.e., the first growing season / farm production period) following his death - a time when the futility in continuing the previous farm life would have become all too apparent.

If Ms. Lankford and / or J. C. and Alene had concluded abandoning the Kelly farmstead was inevitable, there may have been an issue with breaking whatever arrangement / contractual obligation(s) governed their presence in the house. Generating a problematic scenario, much less a media circus, may have been seen as a way to create a rationale for asking Mr. McGehe to release them from those obligations and clear the way for moving to Hopkinsville.

I think it's identifying this potential motive that makes the hoax theory really strong. I was never convinced that the Suttons could or would have done this for fame or fortune, but the above is plausible and convincing.

I'm wondering whether once the police had become involved, Sutton may have considered he might have been liable for charges for wasting police time, possibly even some form of fraud? That might explain some of the agitation the men the men displayed?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
40,580
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... I'm wondering whether once the police had become involved, Sutton may have considered he might have been liable for charges for wasting police time, possibly even some form of fraud? That might explain some of the agitation the men the men displayed?
Under a hoax / gaslighting interpretation ...

I'm not sure Lucky (I assume you mean Lucky ... ) was thinking that broadly or far ahead, but there does seem to be a sort of escalation in risk for any / all co-conspirators throughout the first 24 hours. Things progressively got out of hand, and Lucky (et al.*) had to adapt and adjust to keep their stories consistent and coherent. They faced ridicule (or worse) from family, the authorities, and the public if they couldn't keep a lid on things.

(*) Lucky was almost certainly involved, but I'm not sure who else may have been in on it (under a hoax interpretation).

Here's what I see as the course of escalation ...

First was the escalation from mere shenanigans (including shooting) in the back yard to something perceived as a threat, with panic spreading among the residents.

Second was the escalation from a household-only problem to a public problem. This resulted from the panic reaching a point at which there was little reasonable choice except to make a run to Hopkinsville and the police station. Was this done because of fear and tactical futility, or was it motivated as a means to accommodate other residents who'd seriously freaked out? It was at this point (at the latest) when things slipped beyond the control of any conspirators / jokers.

Third was the escalation the following morning when Lucky, J. C., and Baker went off to Evansville, only to be tracked down by the newspaper* and put on the spot to provide details - quite possibly in the face of details newly delivered by a reporter who'd been at the Kelly farmstead that day. Many of the details published in the Evansville Press were unique to these guys' interviews and / or supplied by Alene, whom they couldn't easily dispute without undermining the story. In any case, Davis and other investigators were baffled why the 3 men would leave town the morning after, leaving the other residents in varying states of upset. Nobody's ever clearly explained why they went to Evansville, and there's no mention of their returning with a truck some accounts claim they'd gone to borrow nor furniture other accounts claim they'd gone to pick up. Maybe they were simply ducking out of town to let things cool down ...

(*) The Evansville Press article explicitly states the newspaper staff had "found" the trio in Evansville (implying Lucky et al. had been sought).

This was paralleled by the escalation of public intrusions and continuing police investigations in Kelly while the trio was off in Evansville.

Things didn't cool down while the 3 men were off to Evansville ...

Fourth was the escalation when the trio returned to Kelly that evening, only to find a media / sightseer circus focusing the spotlight upon them, while they had few or no clues as to what any other residents had claimed while the trio had been out of town. I attribute much significance to the fact Lucky spied the women's sketch then immediately (and quietly, for him ... ) engaged in discussing it with Ledwith. At this point he / they had totally lost control of the narrative and had to play catch-up.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
197
Reaction score
273
Points
63
Under a hoax / gaslighting interpretation ...

I'm not sure Lucky (I assume you mean Lucky ... ) was thinking that broadly or far ahead, but there does seem to be a sort of escalation in risk for any / all co-conspirators throughout the first 24 hours. Things progressively got out of hand, and Lucky (et al.*) had to adapt and adjust to keep their stories consistent and coherent. They faced ridicule (or worse) from family, the authorities, and the public if they couldn't keep a lid on things.

(*) Lucky was almost certainly involved, but I'm not sure who else may have been in on it (under a hoax interpretation).

Here's what I see as the course of escalation ...

First was the escalation from mere shenanigans (including shooting) in the back yard to something perceived as a threat, with panic spreading among the residents.

Second was the escalation from a household-only problem to a public problem. This resulted from the panic reaching a point at which there was little reasonable choice except to make a run to Hopkinsville and the police station. Was this done because of fear and tactical futility, or was it motivated as a means to accommodate other residents who'd seriously freaked out? It was at this point (at the latest) when things slipped beyond the control of any conspirators / jokers.

Third was the escalation the following morning when Lucky, J. C., and Baker went off to Evansville, only to be tracked down by the newspaper* and put on the spot to provide details - quite possibly in the face of details newly delivered by a reporter who'd been at the Kelly farmstead that day. Many of the details published in the Evansville Press were unique to these guys' interviews and / or supplied by Alene, whom they couldn't easily dispute without undermining the story. In any case, Davis and other investigators were baffled why the 3 men would leave town the morning after, leaving the other residents in varying states of upset. Nobody's ever clearly explained why they went to Evansville, and there's no mention of their returning with a truck some accounts claim they'd gone to borrow nor furniture other accounts claim they'd gone to pick up. Maybe they were simply ducking out of town to let things cool down ...

(*) The Evansville Press article explicitly states the newspaper staff had "found" the trio in Evansville (implying Lucky et al. had been sought).

This was paralleled by the escalation of public intrusions and continuing police investigations in Kelly while the trio was off in Evansville.

Things didn't cool down while the 3 men were off to Evansville ...

Fourth was the escalation when the trio returned to Kelly that evening, only to find a media / sightseer circus focusing the spotlight upon them, while they had few or no clues as to what any other residents had claimed while the trio had been out of town. I attribute much significance to the fact Lucky spied the women's sketch then immediately (and quietly, for him ... ) engaged in discussing it with Ledwith. At this point he / they had totally lost control of the narrative and had to play catch-up.

In terms of being in on the truth of events I would imagine Lucky, J.C. and Taylor - Lucky's friend and the person tasked with spotting a 'flying saucer' - would be there as a minimum. Having someone with a gun who wasn't part of the conspiracy would be idiotic. Beyond that I would suspect Alene.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
I still have a gnawing suspicion that there is a news account out there somewhere with the phrase "real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow" in it.
Personally, I am now reasonably satisfied it's simply 'artiistic license' on the part of Isabel Davis and not an actual quote.

That said, how do we explain the following, which also doesn't appear to originate from any newspaper report - the dog(s) involvement.

In his June, 1966 book publication, 'Flying Saucers - Serious Business', Frank Edwards writes:

"About 8 o'clock the Suttons' dogs began to bark furiously, as they generally did when an intruder was about".

"...by this time, the dogs had taken refuge under the house..".


In her 1978 publication, 'Close Encounter...', Isabel Davis corroborates

"...around 8 o'clock, the dog began to bark violently".

(...)

"The dog then put his tail between his legs and ran under the house...".

Did Isabel use Edwards' book as her source?

It's a claim which has become a mainstay of our story and is important, implying there was actually something which had both alerted the farmhouse witnesses and terrified the dog(s).

I can find no mention of these claims, prior to Edwards' book.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
Some accounts (e.g., the earliest Madisonville and New Era articles) skip the first sighting / shooting entirely and begin their descriptions of the 'battle' with the face-at-the-window event.
I have been wondering if this first sighting / shooting isn't in fact the same 10:30 door screen shot seemingly described by Mrs. Lankford to Albert Andre.

I am currently....subject to change.... of the opinion that the window shot, then the hair-grab / door overhang shot, roof scratching shot, occurred within a short period after 10:30, as claimed in the Andre letter.

Still working on this... however, reading Frank Edwards account again has reinforced my conclusion, as he does have to invoke that two hour or so period with no gunshot activity, in order to explain why the window shot, etc. all apparently took place around 8:00 p.m. and then they waited until about 11:00 p.m. before leaving for help in Hopkinsville.

Trying to put it all together and doesn't help that I'm also not convinced the maple tree and fence shots, plus the barrel shot claimed by Taylor - if that even happened - did not in fact take place before those events, rather than following on from them.

The pivotal New Era account implies a certain sequence, however, what if that's simply the way it's written and had instead read:

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

Taylor reportedly opened fire on other members of the invading party, also with little effect.

...and by one of the little men pressed his face against the window and the shotgun was fired through the window. The face disappeared.

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

I know... highly speculative... just that I'm not sure it isn't open to interpretation and this could explain all the shots supposedly fired and unaccounted for...

In essence, it might tie-in with Mrs. Langford's apparent claim, via Andre:

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

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

'Now just what have you been seeing?'

He replied, 'Wait and you'll see.'".

Something along those lines conceivable?

Or, can we actually dismiss this out of hand?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
"Now, to be absolutely clear and precise: I found nothing. Absolutely nothing, you have my word. Everything was completely normal. I did not find any trace of anything strange - neither footprints nor anything else".
Not quite - see post #218... Ferguson 'fnding no evidence other than a "bunch of people running amok".'

There were empty .22 cartridges discovered during the police investigation, albeit only a couple according to the newspaper report (almost impossible to find relying on torches?) and Isabel Davis writes:

"During this visit, Mr. Ledwith's companion picked up a shotgun shell from the floor of the living room. The first investigator on the scene the night before had noticed a few shells around the front door, but apparently there was no attempt to collect or keep these".

Also, although Ferguson cites only the window damage, as recently noted, Frank Edwards spoke to Police Chief Russell Greenwell, who confirmed extensive gunshot evidence - see post #933.

Perhaps a bit more to it than Ferguson implies in the article.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
40,580
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Did Isabel use Edwards' book as her source?
It's a claim which has become a mainstay of our story and is important, implying there was actually something which had both alerted the farmhouse witnesses and terrified the dog(s).
I can find no mention of these claims, prior to Edwards' book.

We've been through the timeline of Davis' report before ...

Davis' original manuscript was announced as ready for publication as of May 1957. She had presented the results of her June 1956 investigatory trip at a special July 9th (1956) meeting of the CSI group in New York. Edwards was familiar to the CSI group, having made a presentation to them in April 1956.

During this presentation Edwards cites the Hopkinsville incident (in highly condensed form). He makes no mention of the dog(s).

Davis confirmed the presence of a single dog during her June 1956 visit.

The earliest account I've seen that mentions the dog would be Davis' (assuming the relevant text in the eventually published report appeared in her initial 1957 report).
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
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.
There was an extensive case article in Swedish UFO related magazine 'ufo-nyt', March-April, 1982 issue:

www.forteanmedia.com/UFO_Nyt.pdf

This features a detailed map, on page 9, which might be helpful. I have no idea where it originates from, or how accurate it might be! :)

The magazine copy is of higher quality, however, if sufficient:

Screenshot_20211029-042408.jpg



They, likewise, clearly tried to make some sense of it all back then and the Google translation from above is:

1. Back door.
2. First shot fired when the creature was about around here.
3. Here saw Mrs. Lankford at 22.30 the creature.
4. Approximate position of illuminated spot in the grass.
5. The creature tumbles over the roof after being been hit.
6. Being comes around the corner
the house.
7. Being seen on a branch the tree.
8. Window at the south of the site.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
40,580
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
While we're on the subject of Davis vs. Edwards ...

There is one item that suggests an early sharing / borrowing between them (either directly or indirectly).

The CSI summary of Edwards' presentation to the group in April 1956 includes a transcript of the Q&A session following his talk. In answering a question about the Kelly / Hopkinsville creatures Edwards refers to a 'clawy hand'. I can't find any of the early accounts that cites a 'clawy hand', but the phrase appears multiple times in Davis' finally-published report.

I wonder whether Edwards' April 1956 presentation was the source for the phrase. It occurred circa 2 months before Davis traveled to Hopkinsville, and the phrase doesn't appear in Sanders' article published earlier that year. Edwards claimed he managed to travel to Hopkinsville circa 3 days after the incident.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
40,580
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
There was an extensive case article in Swedish UFO related magazine 'ufo-nyt', March-April, 1982 issue:
www.forteanmedia.com/UFO_Nyt.pdf
This features a detailed map, on page 9, which might be helpful. I have no idea where it originates from, or how accurate it might be! ...

It's a transcription / translation of Figure 4 in the D & B report (p. 11).

Edit to Add:

Here's the Davis diagram from p. 11 in the D & B report.


MAP-Overvue-House&Yards.jpg
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
14,019
Points
284
Location
Phone
While we're on the subject of Davis vs. Edwards ...

There is one item that suggests an early sharing / borrowing between them (either directly or indirectly).
Possibly also the following?...:

Edwards: "They later told authorities that about fifty or sixty feet distant was a creature of some sort: It glowed, they agreed, like the lettering on a radium-painted watch".

Davis: "The whole creature was seemingly made of silver metal that gave off an eerie light in the darkness, like a light from the radium dial on a watch".

Although I thought I had and might be mistaken here, as regards witnesses actually describing the creatures as glowing like the 'radium dial on a watch', I can not locate any such phrase ever being used, other than in both these accounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
26,116
Reaction score
40,580
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
The summary transcription of Edwards' April 1956 talk at CSI mentions both the visitors' eyes and bodies glowing but doesn't mention any analogy to the radium dial of a clock or watch.

The radium analogy doesn't appear in the Evansville Press article of 22 August, which is the only specific documentation source Edwards mentioned he'd relied upon.

It's anybody's guess which of these two writers first mentioned the radium analogy. Unless Edwards mentioned it in his 1956 presentation the next-earliest juncture would seem to be Davis' 1957 manuscript.
 
Top