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

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
We know that the picture featured in Lankford's supposed article, which she had allegedly been reading and discussing just before the incident, was almost certainly a well known hoax photograph in which the figure does indeed have a very shiny, chromium sort of appearance. Is there a possibility that after the first night, descriptions were subtly shifted to make the 'visitors' less like the picture in Lankford's article?
These seem to be the only related, published, descriptions;

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August


"The visitors were wearing what looked to be metal plate".

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August


About 35 or 40 minutes later, they noticed "two or three shiny little men," about three or four feet tall...".

"The little men were described as follows: three to four feet tall, shiny "like chrome" all over, arms which stretched to the ground and oversize hands, slick bald heads with big eyes and pointed ears".

'Evansville Press'
22 August


Mrs. Sutton said the figure "looked like it was made of aluminium foil. It had two big eyes, pretty far apart," she said.

(...)

Sutton said that the little man, which he described as being three and a half to four feet tall, looked like the bones of a skeleton with shiny metal over them".


However, not one of these characteristics seems to have been mentioned to Ledwith and are absent from the resulting drawings.

In the 'women's' sketch, which is based only on Alene and Vera's description, whereas Alene is quoted as saying on that same day, the creature "looked like it was made of aluminium foil", it's noted on the sketch:

Skin (or covering) -
"...it seemed to be the actual skin".

Not exactly consistent and yet another questionably aspect of the story.

Perhaps we can also exclude this 'metallic' attribute as reliable evidence?
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
234
Points
43
These seem to be the only related, published, descriptions;

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August


"The visitors were wearing what looked to be metal plate".

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August


About 35 or 40 minutes later, they noticed "two or three shiny little men," about three or four feet tall...".

"The little men were described as follows: three to four feet tall, shiny "like chrome" all over, arms which stretched to the ground and oversize hands, slick bald heads with big eyes and pointed ears".

'Evansville Press'
22 August


Mrs. Sutton said the figure "looked like it was made of aluminium foil. It had two big eyes, pretty far apart," she said.

(...)

Sutton said that the little man, which he described as being three and a half to four feet tall, looked like the bones of a skeleton with shiny metal over them".


However, not one of these characteristics seems to have been mentioned to Ledwith and are absent from the resulting drawings.

In the 'women's' sketch, which is based only on Alene and Vera's description, whereas Alene is quoted as saying on that same day, the creature "looked like it was made of aluminium foil", it's noted on the sketch:

Skin (or covering) -
"...it seemed to be the actual skin".

Not exactly consistent and yet another questionably aspect of the story.

Perhaps we can also exclude this 'metallic' attribute as reliable evidence?

I should rather say that as the 'metallic' attribute seems to be concentrated in newspaper accounts on 22 Aug - which means they were likely collected in the early hours of 22 Aug, or perhaps during the morning - I'm inclined to give it primacy over whatever is in Ledwith's drawings.

Imagine for a second that you've been describing figures looking like they were "made of aluminium foil"; then during a search of the property a piece of foil is found, as apparently happened, leading perhaps to a few sceptical comments - isn't it natural that the stories were "refined"?
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
234
Points
43
How about this kind of detail, from Edwards:

The dogs were barking at a faintly luminous thing in a tree

So, dogs, plural, barking at a thing in a tree, as opposed to Davis's dog, singular, who runs under the house for the duration almost immediately, complete with an illustrative quote from Lucky ("shit, a real good dog"). Is any detail in this case ever narrated consistently? How many dogs were there and what did they actually do, if anything? Were the children under the bed, or was one in the front yard at one point? Were Lucky et al. there for the weekend or for an extended stay?

Against this kind of background the "metallic" thing appears almost consistent!
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
234
Points
43
Another example: who pulled Taylor back into the house after a 'visitor' apparently grabbed his hair?

New Era, 22 Aug: No-one, Taylor pulled himself away and went out the front door (source: maybe Greenwell)

Evansville Press, 22 Aug: Baker did (source: Alene, who was at the back door)

Andre / Davis (1959): Alene did (source: Lankford)
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
On 7 August, 2005 the 'Tennesseean' published a 6 page feature about the case:

www.forteanmedia.com/2005_Tennessean_01.pdf

www.forteanmedia.com/2005_Tennessean_02.pdf

www.forteanmedia.com/2005_Tennessean_03.pdf

www.forteanmedia.com/2005_Tennessean_04.pdf

www.forteanmedia.com/2005_Tennessean_05.pdf

www.forteanmedia.com/2005_Tennessean_06.pdf

It's notable for a rare comment and fascinating snippet from Mike Lackey, who accompanied Ledwith:

"He remembers that there was a concession stand set up on the property.

"I guess you could use the term "carnival-like atmosphere'."

I thought the 'concession stand' wasn't present until the following day, Tuesday, unless Lackey had seen it just having been set up, when he was leaving.

I wonder if he was aware of 'Lucky' Sutton and Billy Ray Taylor's background, both working for a carnival.

'Step right up folks, step right up...'.

Of course, according to his daughter, Geraldine Sutton Stith, as a 'barker' at the carnival, that was precisely one of her father's roles...

The newspaper's coverage, also includes an interview with Lonnie Lankford, who recalls his mother, Glennie Lankford hiding the kids under a bed. He has the timeline completely askew, incorporating Mrs Lankford's 3:30 a.m. sighting as occurring during the commotion.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting contribution and he does imply a critical factor I have always suspected.

The 'went out to the well for a drink of water', was a 'diplomatic' euphemism for Billy Ray 'needing the toilet'.

Allegedly.... :)
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
"He remembers that there was a concession stand set up on the property.

"I guess you could use the term "carnival-like atmosphere'."
I was thinking a 'concession stand', meant something like a table.

Having looked up what it actually means, turns out that in 1955 a 'concession stand'' had become popular in fairs and carnivals.

Are we talking about something a bit more substantial than I imagined.

Isabel Davis writes:

"Daytime Investigations : Monday Morning to 11 a.m. The Suttons had little sleep that night, and they were up early. Shortly after sunrise Lucky Sutton, J.C. Sutton, and O.P. Baker left by car to drive to Evansville, Indiana, 85 miles north, to borrow a truck (or to pick up some furniture in a borrowed truck; the detail is uncertain)".

'Furniture', as in a 'concession stand'?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... It's notable for a rare comment and fascinating snippet from Mike Lackey, who accompanied Ledwith:
"He remembers that there was a concession stand set up on the property.
"I guess you could use the term "carnival-like atmosphere'."
I thought the 'concession stand' wasn't present until the following day, Tuesday, unless Lackey had seen it just having been set up, when he was leaving. ...

According to Ledwith's embedded sub-report within the D & B report, Lackey accompanied him to the farmhouse on both his visits there on the 22nd (midday until mid-afternoon, and circa 1930 until circa 2230).

There's no reason to believe Ledwith returned to the farmhouse on the 23rd.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... The newspaper's coverage, also includes an interview with Lonnie Lankford, ... and he does imply a critical factor I have always suspected.
The 'went out to the well for a drink of water', was a 'diplomatic' euphemism for Billy Ray 'needing the toilet'.

I'd wondered about that myself, but I'd never seen any clue to Taylor's excursion "to the well" being a euphemism for going to the outhouse or any other objective.

Check the posted diagrams of the farmhouse property and its layout. The outhouse was farther from the house, and it was located off the opposite corner of the house's rear side.

If Taylor had indeed been at the outhouse rather than the well, I think it would have afforded him a better vantage point for seeing a UFO aloft, and it most certainly would have given him a better vantage point for estimating a landing spot at the gulley.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
On 7 August, 2005 the 'Tennesseean' published a 5 page feature about the case ...
It's notable for a rare comment and fascinating snippet from Mike Lackey, who accompanied Ledwith ...
??? ... I don't see any mention of Lackey in the 5 pages you posted.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
On 7 August, 2005 the 'Tennesseean' published a 5 page feature about the case ...

Here are my notes concerning points within the 5 posted pages that caught my attention. Text in italics represents commentary.


Lonnie Lankford notes he doesn't remember much about it, and states "Mama told me about it." (p. 50)

He confirms that Ms. Glennie put the children under a bed, and he states his strongest memory is of "the commotion" in general. He reiterates that what he knows of the incident is based on what Ms. Glennie told him. (p. 53)

This supports Ms. Lankford's contention of 23 August 1955 that none of the 3 children saw anything.

Hopkinsville police officer Frank Dudas (cited occasionally in relation to his own UFO sighting) was not one of the officers who responded to the Kelly site the night of the incident. (p. 53)

Norma Malone (daughter of William & Juanita McCord) confirms her parents "bought" the farm soon after Ms. Lankford et al. moved out. She states Ms. Glennie 'sold' the place "right after it happened." (p. 53)

Lonnie Lankford states the family did in fact attend church services late on Sunday the 21st. However, he states they attended a revival at the Kelly Holiness Church, which is located near the farmhouse. (p. 54)
  • This supports Geraldine Stith's claim that the family attended afternoon / evening church services that Sunday.
  • This contradicts Davis' presumption that a Pentecostal church in Hopkinsville was the (main? only?) church Ms. Glennie attended.
  • The Holiness movement is closely related to the Pentecostal movement, but personal actions such as speaking in tongues are less readily / less commonly considered integral components of worship or worshipfulness.

This church's proximity to the house (within walking distance) eliminates issues relating to who traveled to / from Hopkinsville by car that evening to attend church.

Ms. Glennie's great nephew Wendell McCord pastors at the Holiness church (as of 2005). He seems to hint at a secret or alternative view of the incident as follows:
Even though he doesn't believe the aliens landed, he does believe in Aunt Glennie.
"She was a fine lady. They scared her to death."
Who was they? "I'm just going to keep shut on that."
(p. 54)

Lonnie describes the UFO Taylor saw as follows:
"When he came back in he said he saw something round, with lights all around that blinked" in the sky.
(p. 54)

No other account - especially the earliest ones and the sketches / comments from Ledwith and Hodson - includes anything about blinking lights.

This article states:
"Eventually everyone went either home or to bed, which was where the widow was when she saw a big-eyed alien at her window."
(p. 54)

(1) This is the first and only account I've seen that suggests any of the residents were living / sleeping anywhere other than the farmhouse. Who among them had a separate 'home' to which they could go?

(2) This version of the living room window shooting event generally matches what is more widely described as the 0330 event - Lucky is the shooter, and Ms. Glennie observed a visitor from her bed.


Absent mention of any preceding sightings / shootings, Lonnie's 2005 account seems to suggest the living room window shooting event was in fact the earliest point at which anyone shot at visitors.

Lonnie doesn't seem to remember the residents' flight to Hopkinsville. He states:
"Mama told me that a bunch of us went in the car and went to town" to get help.
(p. 54)

Lonnie (apparently based on what he'd been told by Ms. Glennie) states the authorities found a "big round spot in the field" the next day (i.e., the 22nd). (p. 54)
  • This 'big round spot' bit is mentioned by Geraldine as something she saw in 1968 when Lucky took his kids to the scene of the incident.
  • No contemporary or investigatory account claims any trace of a possible landing spot was found by the authorities.

Lonnie's cousin Gail Cook said, "I remember there was a big, burnt spot out there where nothin' would grow." (p. 54)

This matches Geraldine's description of a purported landing site she saw in 1968. Again, no contemporary / investigatory account mentions any such thing.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
??? ... I don't see any mention of Lackey in the 5 pages you posted.
It's at top-left of page 6.

You know, the page I didn't include in the 6, not 5, page feature... :)

Post duly edited, with due apologies.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
It's at top-left of page 6.
You know, the page I didn't include in the 6, not 5, page feature... :)
Post duly edited, with due apologies.

OK ... Thanks ... Got it ...

Lackey's comments seem to pertain to the two visits he made with Ledwith on the 22nd. I don't see anything that clearly clashes with Ledwith's account of the day's activities.

Given the apparent crowd(s) that descended on the scene on the 22nd I can only suspect someone was hawking wares where there were known to be people. Davis wrote that multiple people approached the family with proposals to sell souvenirs, etc., but the family rejected the proposals. This still wouldn't have prevented someone from setting up shop out of their car. Recall that cars were allegedly parked for up to a half-mile around the farmhouse by the time Lucky and the other two men returned from Evansville.

The main thing I see on the sixth page (p. 56) that surprises me are the comments by Greenwell's widow, who says she drove her husband to the farm in their car. Davis (p. 33) describes Chief Greenwell as driving 'his police car' to the farmhouse and declining to give June Taylor a requested lift back to the farmhouse because he expected to drive fast.

Mrs. Greenwell's comments state Chief Greenwell "talked to an elderly lady that was there" and told his wife this lady was sincere. The lady could only have been Ms. Glennie. However, there's at least one account that claims Ms. Glennie (possibly with one other adult woman such as June) stayed behind with the kids at the police station when the first wave of vehicles headed out to the farmhouse.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
Mrs. Greenwell's comments state Chief Greenwell "talked to an elderly lady that was there" and told his wife this lady was sincere. The lady could only have been Ms. Glennie. However, there's at least one account that claims Ms. Glennie (possibly with one other adult woman such as June) stayed behind with the kids at the police station when the first wave of vehicles headed out to the farmhouse.
The only related account seems to be fom the
22 August 'Madisonville Messenger':

"The men and the two Sutton women returned to the scene with the police officers while the two women and children waited at the police department. All said they did not intend to stay the rest of the night in the house".
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
The lady could only have been Ms. Glennie. However, there's at least one account that claims Ms. Glennie (possibly with one other adult woman such as June) stayed behind with the kids...
Mrs Lankford had stately (Andre's letter) been carried into the bedroom after she fell (also confirmed in her written statement) following her 10:30 sighting.

The cars left for Hopkinsville shorty afterwards - she was presumably well enough to travel.

However, if her account via Andre's letter is accurate, then the hair grab, followed by door overhang shot, must also have taken place between the time she fell down and they all left for Hopkinsville.

It's not making sense, this 10:30 timing for her sighting.

Isabel Davis precedes Mrs Lankford's quoted account from Andre's letter by revealing it also apparently states:

"She and the other women were busy with the supper dishes and putting the children to bed".

As you astutely noted way back in early discussions, that's not typical at around 10:00 in the evening.

Also, in the Andre letter details, Mrs Lankford claims:

"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".

As previously highlighted, Alene is quoted in 22 August 'Evansville Press' article:

"Mrs Sutton said she saw the first little man right after dusk last night and that a number of shots were fired at it".

It's obviously incompatible.

Why would Mrs Lankford get the timing so wrong though?

Unless she is confusing two separate incidents?

This remains unexplained - from that same article:

"Mrs. Lankford today told of seeing a kind of round shiny circle hovering in the air three times during the night. She said she saw it at 7:30, 10:30 p.m. and at 3:30 a.m."

We seem to have no information about a 7:30 sighting.

If all the details of her 10:30 report are transferred to circa 7:30, then everything else looks like it falls into place much closer.

I wonder if there are further clues.. any ideas..?
 
Last edited:

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
234
Points
43
Even though he doesn't believe the aliens landed, he does believe in Aunt Glennie.
"She was a fine lady. They scared her to death."
Who was they? "I'm just going to keep shut on that."

There does seem to be a very strong sense that some locals know something, although are keeping it quiet for the sake of propriety.

So if Lankford had been to a revival at the Kelly congregation - this is a lot closer to home. These people would have been neighbours (in a rural sense of the word). Is this where she'd been discussing an article featuring "little silver men"? What are the chances that hoaxers could just have easily have come from other members of this congregation?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
Mrs Lankford had stately (Andre's letter) been carried into the bedroom after she fell (also confirmed in her written statement) following her 10:30 sighting.

Assuming for the sake of discussion Andre's account (and Davis' recital of it ... ) is sound / accurate ...

There's a potentially significant, yet ambiguous, issue concerning Ms. Lankford being carried "into the bedroom" after collapsing or falling down.

Ms. Glennie clearly indicated the sighting / swooning event occurred with Taylor in the central corridor / dogwalk. The two main rooms of the house were located on either side of the dogwalk (see the house layout diagram posted much earlier). The more southerly side room off the dogwalk was called the bedroom, and the more northerly side room (leading to the ktchen) was called the living room.

Ms. Lankford's bed was in the living room (the room where shots were fired through the window more than once).

Which 'bedroom' was it into which Ms. Lankford was carried or helped (accounts vary) following her falling / fainting / whatever in response to first seeing a visitor - the room called a "bedroom", or the room that served as her own bedroom - i.e., the 'living room'?

The answer to this question has a bearing on whether and to what extent the jumbled set of reported sighting / shooting events could be collapsed / compressed to correlate with a broader array of the diverse newspaper and investigatory accounts.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
There does seem to be a very strong sense that some locals know something, although are keeping it quiet for the sake of propriety.

Agreed ... There are scattered hints and clues that there's something more to the situation than has ever been documented in relation to the allegedly UFO-related incident.

Save for the situational / contextual aspect of Ms. Glennie's farm lifestyle having become untenable I haven't mentioned any other possibilities for things the family and / or community may have wished to keep discreetly secret.

It's also possible the immediate deluge of publicity and nosy outsiders (in and of itself) shocked the family and community into clamming up as a defensive measure, regardless of what (if anything) the locals may have believed was best left unspoken.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
So if Lankford had been to a revival at the Kelly congregation - this is a lot closer to home. These people would have been neighbours (in a rural sense of the word). Is this where she'd been discussing an article featuring "little silver men"? ...

Yes.

Major Albert's statement (As documented by Lt. Kirk; Document D; pp. 107-108 in the D & B report) claims the discussion of the article / photo occurred after the "religious meeting" she'd attended the evening of the incident.

Unfortunately, Major Albert's statement isn't clear as to who was involved in such discussion(s). The statement indicates all 3 farmhouse resident couples (Lucky, J. C., and Taylor along with their wives) accompanied Ms. Glennie to the meeting / revival. It's not clear whether the discussion of the little man article / picture "after the religious meeting" involved only the residents themselves or the residents plus other revival attendees.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
811
Reaction score
895
Points
99
Agreed ... There are scattered hints and clues that there's something more to the situation than has ever been documented in relation to the allegedly UFO-related incident.

Save for the situational / contextual aspect of Ms. Glennie's farm lifestyle having become untenable I haven't mentioned any other possibilities for things the family and / or community may have wished to keep discreetly secret.

It's also possible the immediate deluge of publicity and nosy outsiders (in and of itself) shocked the family and community into clamming up as a defensive measure, regardless of what (if anything) the locals may have believed was best left unspoken.
Yeah it's like what that one German UFO magazine said. Apparently Alene decided to distance herself from it so much that (as of 1986) had refused to talk to her own daughter about it?

that's real strange. But why? Trying to guess? mmmm that's a challenge and a half.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
We seem to have no information about a 7:30 sighting.... I wonder if there are further clues...
The 'Evansville Press' article of 22 August, 1955, reported:

"Mrs. Lankford today told of seeing a kind of round shiny circle hovering in the air three times during the night. She said she saw it at 7:30, 10:30 p.m. and at 3:30 a.m.

She said she saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house. She said he was about two and a half or three feet tall".

This doesn't sound like the newspaper had actually interviewed Mrs Lankford and more like a report they had picked up on.

It seems to match what is in her written statement re the 10:30 sighting.

"...saw a bright silver object about two and a half feet tall appearing round".

"My two sons Elmer Sutton age 25 and his wife Vera age 29, J.C.Sutton age 21 and his wife Aline age 27 and their friends Billy Taylor age 21and his wife June, 18 were all in the house and saw this little man that looked like a monkey".


If it was from an interview, why then necessary to separately add:

"Mrs. Lankford saw one of the little men looking through a window at her, according to Mrs. Sutton, and Mrs. Lankford "fainted out cold"."

I'm not so sure this apparently one and only reference to a monkey hasn't been taken entirely out of context.

Firstly, at no time does she describe anything other than:

10:30 - "a bright silver object about two and a half feet tall appearing round".

03:30 - "a small silver shinning object"

Even in the description from Andre's letter, the 10:30 observation is of something which, "looked like a five-gallon gasoline can with a head on top and small legs".

I interpret the remarks as simply noting that, quite separately, other members of her family "were all in the house and saw this little man that looked like a monkey".

Secondly, it's clearly nothing whatsoever to do with, as the newspaper reports "a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house" - the phrase is "little man that looked ike a monkey".


Nonetheless, by the time of Frank Edwards' 1966 book publication "Flying Saucers: Serious Business", we read of Alene:

"Mrs. J. C. Sutton also told officers that she saw the same creature at the same time. "It was as shiny as aluminum foil," she said, "and it walked like a very old man - or some sort of monkey - mostly with its hands"."

Might we conclude not only does the alleged 7:30 sighting appear to have no supporting evidence, Mrs Lankford's 'monkey', in fact, never existed at all either?
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
234
Points
43
The 'Evansville Press' article of 22 August, 1955, reported:

"Mrs. Lankford today told of seeing a kind of round shiny circle hovering in the air three times during the night. She said she saw it at 7:30, 10:30 p.m. and at 3:30 a.m.

She said she saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house. She said he was about two and a half or three feet tall".

This doesn't sound like the newspaper had actually interviewed Mrs Lankford and more like a report they had picked up on.

It seems to match what is in her written statement re the 10:30 sighting.

"...saw a bright silver object about two and a half feet tall appearing round".

"My two sons Elmer Sutton age 25 and his wife Vera age 29, J.C.Sutton age 21 and his wife Aline age 27 and their friends Billy Taylor age 21and his wife June, 18 were all in the house and saw this little man that looked like a monkey".


If it was from an interview, why then necessary to separately add:

"Mrs. Lankford saw one of the little men looking through a window at her, according to Mrs. Sutton, and Mrs. Lankford "fainted out cold"."

I'm not so sure this apparently one and only reference to a monkey hasn't been taken entirely out of context.

Firstly, at no time does she describe anything other than:

10:30 - "a bright silver object about two and a half feet tall appearing round".

03:30 - "a small silver shinning object"

Even in the description from Andre's letter, the 10:30 observation is of something which, "looked like a five-gallon gasoline can with a head on top and small legs".

I interpret the remarks as simply noting that, quite separately, other members of her family "were all in the house and saw this little man that looked like a monkey".

Secondly, it's clearly nothing whatsoever to do with, as the newspaper reports "a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house" - the phrase is "little man that looked ike a monkey".


Nonetheless, by the time of Frank Edwards' 1966 book publication "Flying Saucers: Serious Business", we read of Alene:

"Mrs. J. C. Sutton also told officers that she saw the same creature at the same time. "It was as shiny as aluminum foil," she said, "and it walked like a very old man - or some sort of monkey - mostly with its hands"."

Might we conclude not only does the alleged 7:30 sighting appear to have no supporting evidence, Mrs Lankford's 'monkey', in fact, never existed at all either?

I think the Evansville Press comment about the monkey is either misquoting Lankford or mistakenly attributing a quote by Alene to her. The only other comments about a monkey-like, or old man-like, figure come from Alene (while Lucky seems to be the source of some of the more far-out "bones of a skeleton" stuff).

As I noted up thread somewhere, when Lankford is giving her statement to Maj Albert she is very careful to describe what she has seen using only the neutral term "object", which she furthermore clarifies that she did not see move. This to me seems very deliberate, as is the statement that others in the house said they had seen a "figure". Given the context of the signed statement, I think Lankford is trying her best to be scrupulously honest here.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
In Frank Edwards' book 'Flying Saucers: Serious Business', published in 1966, he makes the following claims;

- the object witnessed by Taylor was silent, when in fact it was described as having a 'semi-hissing' sound

- Taylor's sighting was initially dismissed a "shooting star"

- the dogs started barking

- the dogs took refuge under the house

- the creatures' glowing attribute resembled the radium dial on a watch.

There seems to be no documented account of the dogs(s) barking, or taking shelter and no trace of there ever being this analogy to a radium dial.

However, within Isabel Davis' 1978 publication, she incorporates all of the above (albeit the 'dogs' have become 'dog'), including the mistaken 'silent' object claim. The exact same phrase, "shooting star" is used.

The obvious question, particularly, is why does this apparently untraceable material also appear in Isabel's case report?

Was there a central source for each author, or is one heavily reliant on the other and prepared to take the other's material at face value, without any validation?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
I think the Evansville Press comment about the monkey is either misquoting Lankford or mistakenly attributing a quote by Alene to her. The only other comments about a monkey-like, or old man-like, figure come from Alene (while Lucky seems to be the source of some of the more far-out "bones of a skeleton" stuff).

Agreed ... I'd expressed this same opinion some weeks ago.

As I noted up thread somewhere, when Lankford is giving her statement to Maj Albert she is very careful to describe what she has seen using only the neutral term "object", which she furthermore clarifies that she did not see move. This to me seems very deliberate, as is the statement that others in the house said they had seen a "figure". Given the context of the signed statement, I think Lankford is trying her best to be scrupulously honest here.

Ms. Lankford said exactly the same things repeatedly (only two sightings at 2230 and 0330) starting on the 22nd in her signed statement.

The Evansville Press claim is an odd outlier. On balance, I discount the 1930 sighting claim as an error, and I believe it probably resulted from crossing or merging Alene's own statement(s) with first- or second-person claims regarding Ms. Glennie (probably from Alene; conceivably from Lucky and / or J. C.).

The article definitely strikes me as a composite of two or more sources that were frankensteined into a single text.

NOTE: For what it's worth ... The Evansville Press article author was Bill Burleigh, who would go on to be an eminent journalist and head of the Scripps Group. As of August 1955, though, he was still a college student and probably working on his hometown's Press staff as a summer job.
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
In Frank Edwards' book 'Flying Saucers: Serious Business', published in 1966, he makes the following claims ...
The obvious question, particularly, is why does this apparently untraceable material also appear in Isabel's case report?
Was there a central source for each author, or is one heavily reliant on the other and prepared to take the other's material at face value, without any validation?
We've been through this before ... See my posts from 31 October / 1 November:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2122818

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2122829

Davis reported the results of her June 1956 investigation to the CSI group in July 1956. Her written report apparently didn't emerge until the following summer (1957). Edwards was known to the CSI group, having addressed them about Hopkinsville in April 1956. He had almost a decade in which to see Davis' original manuscript (assuming it was disseminated as promised in 1957).
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
Davis reported the results of her June 1956 investigation to the CSI group in July 1956. Her written report apparently didn't emerge until....
Gotcha now. It has taken a while to get my head around all these various tangents related to this aspect.

Bottom line seems to be a shared quandary.

Illustrated in Frank Edwards' account:

"After their ineffectual foray into the yard, the men went back into the house and stood guard at the windows... By 11 o'clock, after at least two hours of this watchful waiting, the men decided that the weird beings had left".

Two hours of inactivity?

How does Isabel Davis contend with the issue. Although there are a few more incidents to include, it doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference after they are all accounted for.

"Several times, apparently, the men thought they had driven the creatures off for good, only to have them return after an interval. This is indicated by Lucky's statement, quoted in one newspaper, that the creatures "came up to the house six times," and also by the fact that the family waited so long before going for help".

This naturally necessities six further incidents, of which there is apparently no mention of.

That is surely an untenable suggesion.

Their apparent dilemma is, when you set out the evidence for a prolonged, circa 3 hour perceived seige, there doesn't appear to be sufficient material evidence to accommodate this?

Aside from which, why wait until around 11:00 p.m. before rushing in a panic for help at Hopkinsville?

If Mrs. Lankford's narrative of events via Andre's letter is in truth reasonably reliable (allowing for the fact it's from 1959), could that have been a decisive factor?

We obviously don't know, however one thing I can not see any justification for, is proverbially 'moving the goalposts'. It just doesn't seem to work if we assume the events she describes actually occurred much earlier than 10:30 and she is somehow mistaken.

As previously noted, it's Frank Edwards' book, which provides some supporting evidence for the door screen shot, noting that when he spoke with Police Chief Russell Greenwell on 23 August, Greenwell stated:

"Those people saw something strange. I don't know what it was... but they saw it and they shot at it right through the doors and the windows and the sides of the house... the holes are there to prove it."

Anyway, much appreciated that you have taken the time to further clarify, perhaps not only for myself, the Edwards/Davis interaction.

That's done and dusted now, I'm sure you will be pleased to hear. :)
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
38,936
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... "After their ineffectual foray into the yard, the men went back into the house and stood guard at the windows... By 11 o'clock, after at least two hours of this watchful waiting, the men decided that the weird beings had left".
Two hours of inactivity?
How does Isabel Davis contend with the issue. Although there are a few more incidents to include, it doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference after they are all accounted for. ...
Their apparent dilemma is, when you set out the evidence for a prolonged, circa 3 hour perceived seige, there doesn't appear to be sufficient material evidence to accommodate this?
Aside from which, why wait until around 11:00 p.m. before rushing in a panic for help at Hopkinsville?
If Mrs. Lankford's narrative of events via Andre's letter is in truth reasonably reliable (allowing for the fact it's from 1959), could that have been a decisive factor? ...

First and foremost, and as we've consistently discovered ... The scattered, fragmentary, and sometimes mutually contradictory collection of documented reports on the incident make it very difficult to discern what happened at all, much less when, for how long, or in what sequence(s) whatever it was that happened happened.

Is this the fault of the investigators, the witnesses, or the reporters / writers? I think the most reasonable hypothesis is that all three categories of relevant parties could have done better.

Of these three categories, the one ultimately most responsible for creating a coherent account of the incident is the set of witnesses (i.e., the farmhouse residents).

Some time ago I tried to list the various cited sighting / shooting events to see whether we could sort them out into at least an outline of activities and actions. I pursued this while attempting to accommodate as many of the alleged events and actions as possible.

The more I look at the documented corpus the more I'm struck by how few separate sighting / shooting events are explicitly cited in the earliest accounts and reports. The earliest resident accounts (as documented) rely a lot on the claim there was a vague, general period of ongoing sightings and gunfire bridging the gap between Taylor's initial UFO sighting and fleeing in the cars to Hopkinsville. This smacks of hand-waving, prevarication, and / or self-serving glossing.

In recent weeks I've been toying with the idea that maybe the earliest accounts (with the fewest separately specified events) are accurate. In other words, I've been toying with the idea there were very few actual shootings, and much of the additional ill-defined scenes and events represented no more than elaborations or glosses.

This has led me to consider condensing or collapsing the full set of alleged shooting events into as few as possible (i.e., as few as are most commonly / widely cited). This condensation exercise is dependent upon choosing which accounts to believe and which to demote as potential 'fluff' inserted by non-participants who didn't have any hard testimony to offer or for the sake of inflating the overall incident's gravity.

There are also issues of timing and time attributions. It takes no more than a single shift of about an hour to align Taylor's initial UFO sighting with third-party reports of 'meteors' (whatever) early that evening. It takes little beyond condensing the main shooting events into a rapid series essentially consisting of Ms. Glennie's dogwalk sighting (a la Andre), the first living room event, and the head-grab / front yard fracas to change the storyline into more of an all-at-once frenzy and late departure rather than an extended / protracted standoff with an arbitrarily-long cooling off period. The later, post-police, 0330 event then becomes a gratuitously added coda to further inflate the story's apparent seriousness.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
234
Points
43
First and foremost, and as we've consistently discovered ... The scattered, fragmentary, and sometimes mutually contradictory collection of documented reports on the incident make it very difficult to discern what happened at all, much less when, for how long, or in what sequence(s) whatever it was that happened happened.

Is this the fault of the investigators, the witnesses, or the reporters / writers? I think the most reasonable hypothesis is that all three categories of relevant parties could have done better.

Of these three categories, the one ultimately most responsible for creating a coherent account of the incident is the set of witnesses (i.e., the farmhouse residents).

Some time ago I tried to list the various cited sighting / shooting events to see whether we could sort them out into at least an outline of activities and actions. I pursued this while attempting to accommodate as many of the alleged events and actions as possible.

The more I look at the documented corpus the more I'm struck by how few separate sighting / shooting events are explicitly cited in the earliest accounts and reports. The earliest resident accounts (as documented) rely a lot on the claim there was a vague, general period of ongoing sightings and gunfire bridging the gap between Taylor's initial UFO sighting and fleeing in the cars to Hopkinsville. This smacks of hand-waving, prevarication, and / or self-serving glossing.

In recent weeks I've been toying with the idea that maybe the earliest accounts (with the fewest separately specified events) are accurate. In other words, I've been toying with the idea there were very few actual shootings, and much of the additional ill-defined scenes and events represented no more than elaborations or glosses.

This has led me to consider condensing or collapsing the full set of alleged shooting events into as few as possible (i.e., as few as are most commonly / widely cited). This condensation exercise is dependent upon choosing which accounts to believe and which to demote as potential 'fluff' inserted by non-participants who didn't have any hard testimony to offer or for the sake of inflating the overall incident's gravity.

There are also issues of timing and time attributions. It takes no more than a single shift of about an hour to align Taylor's initial UFO sighting with third-party reports of 'meteors' (whatever) early that evening. It takes little beyond condensing the main shooting events into a rapid series essentially consisting of Ms. Glennie's dogwalk sighting (a la Andre), the first living room event, and the head-grab / front yard fracas to change the storyline into more of an all-at-once frenzy and late departure rather than an extended / protracted standoff with an arbitrarily-long cooling off period. The later, post-police, 0330 event then becomes a gratuitously added coda to further inflate the story's apparent seriousness.

The idea that the 'canonical' timeline was the result of people attempting to inflate the seriousness of events, either to cover embarrassment at their own panic or to hide evidence of a hoax, would explain a lot. Notably it explains why the 10:30 events led everyone to decamp to the police station, but the supposed 3:30 appearance led to nothing more than everyone going about their business as normal (including leaving the women and children at home to collect some furniture).

My only misgiving is that if true it means that either Lankford lied to Maj Albert in her statement, which seems unlikely given her attempts to be clear she saw only an "object" and her apparent transparency about the article she read, or she was herself confused about chronology.
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
In recent weeks I've been toying with the idea that maybe the earliest accounts (with the fewest separately specified events) are accurate. In other words, I've been toying with the idea there were very few actual shootings, and much of the additional ill-defined scenes and events represented no more than elaborations or glosses...
I believe you are what's known as 'preaching to the converted', so far as I am concerned.

Look forward to hearing more....
 
Top