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

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
This naturally necessities six further incidents, of which there is apparently no mention of. That is surely an untenable suggesion.
There seems to be crucial evidence, that Isabel might have inadvertently been misled about this fundamental aspect.

To briefly recap, Isabel's explanation for what perhaps appears to have been a significantly lengthy period of inactivity, before they decided to seek help, is;

"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"."

There doesn't appear to be a direct quote as such and presumably Isabel is thinking of the following, from a seminal article published next day, on 22 August, by the 'Madisonville Messenger':

"About 35 or 40 minutes later they noticed "two or three shiny little men," about three or four feet tall, walking toward the rear of the house. In a moment, the little men were "all over the place," about 15 of them in the yard, on the roof and in the trees.

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 knocked the dame fellow down but apparently didn't harm him. The whole group of little men fled the scene.

But "when things quieted down the little men came back. In the course of about three hours the strange fellows made six visits to the house, being run off esch time by 'Lucky' Sutton's shotgun or his brother's .22 pistol".


It implies there was a period of calm and thereafter six incidents we have no information about.

As expressed, this doesn't seem to make sense.

However, the following day's edition published an update article, 'Report No New Visits of Tubmen From Space'.

Content from the 22 August publication is included. This time though, the wording is elementally different:

"The earth people told police they fought off six attacks by the strange little men during a course of about three hours, and that they finally mustered courage to flee the house, load into two cars and speed to Hopkinsville where they pleaded for police".

The 'six attacks' are not a separate and subsequent occurrence, there were in fact 'six attacks' during the entire three hours.

Obviously, an entirely different scenario and one which is profoundly closer to our understanding.
 

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 seems to be crucial evidence, that Isabel might have inadvertently been misled about this fundamental aspect.
To briefly recap, Isabel's explanation for what perhaps appears to have been a significantly lengthy period of inactivity, before they decided to seek help, is;
"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"." ...
Obviously, an entirely different scenario and one which is profoundly closer to our understanding.

Yep ... In her initial introduction to the incident Davis more or less follows the timeline implied in both the Madisonville Messenger and Evansville Press stories of 22 August. Both these accounts mention the head-grab / roof shot event so as to imply it happened at an early (Messenger) or indeterminate (Press) point in the storyline.

However, Davis also cites Andre's report, which puts the head-grab incident at around 2230, not all that long before the residents fled in the cars.

She never notes the discrepancy between these early / late versions of the head grab event, nor does she indicate any preference or conclusion regarding which version she believed. It's never clear whether Davis thought the attempted exit when the head-grab occurred immediately followed the first living room window event or the Lankford first sighting (with Taylor).
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
She never notes the discrepancy between these early / late versions of the head grab event, nor does she indicate any preference or conclusion regarding which version she believed.
It seems Isabel simply puts the variance down to this:

"Understandably, the sequence of events was and remains confused. No one was keeping a log. Mrs. Lankford, for example, when interviewed by Mr. Andre in 1959, thought the incident of Taylor's hair being touched occurred about 10:30 p.m".

Her dilemma is appreciated, as trying to equate Mrs Lankford's 10:30 timing for the hair grab/door overhang is problematic.

Yes, it works to a reasonable extent if we accept her account - which is so specific - confirms that shots were being fired and she thought the men were just foolin' around. It's how late at night though, she places her first, direct involvement and the door screen shot, followed by our hair grab/door overhang incident.

It's a detailed narrative - she crouches down beside Billy Ray Taylor for 20 minutes, then after the door screen shot, falls down as s result of her weight and being crouched for do long.

The 10:30 timing, sighting and fallling are, of course, recorded in her written statement, so that all agrees.

Personally, still unsure and can't see how it can be resolved without knowing the full content of Andre's letter.

Isabel writes:

"...when interviewed by Mr. Andre in 1959... She said that at first she did not pay any attention to the boys, thinking they were only joking and shooting for the fun of it. She and the other women were busy with the supper dishes and putting the children to bed".

What exactly did Mrs Lankford say though, about these significant claims. Is there crucial evidence revealed we are unaware of - perhaps more about ehen the shooting began and why. What about the window screen shot, etc. :comphit:

This case is assuredly the :evil: 's work...
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
think the Evansville Press comment about the monkey is either misquoting Lankford or mistakenly attributing a quote by Alene to her.
As evidenced, it does indeed look like a misconstrued remark - completely in agreement.

Never mind, the amount of knowledgeable we now possess about Shrine circuses and related freemasonry, will doubtless prove invaluable.

Speaking of eclectic tangents which often come up in forum discussions, if of interest, our Mr Ledwith features prominently in a quite significant event of its time:

"The Voice of "Sputnik"
The Spokesman-Review
8 October, 1957


SATELLITE HINTS OF SPACE TRAVEL

"Russia's whirling satellite and its timetable for speed makes the human mind spin, even in this jet age".

www.forteanmedia.com/1957_10_08_Spokesman.pdf
 

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 seems Isabel simply puts the variance down to this:
"Understandably, the sequence of events was and remains confused. No one was keeping a log. Mrs. Lankford, for example, when interviewed by Mr. Andre in 1959, thought the incident of Taylor's hair being touched occurred about 10:30 p.m".
Her dilemma is appreciated, as trying to equate Mrs Lankford's 10:30 timing for the hair grab/door overhang is problematic. ...

It's not problematic for Ms. Glennie - the one person most consistently claimed to be honest and a no-nonsense witness.

Recall that Ms. Glennie declared 2230 on the 21st as the time of her first sighting, and she first declared this as early as the 22nd (in her signed statement). She never varied thereafter in citing 2230 as the time of her first sighting. This timing claim doesn't depend on the Andre report - it's explicit and repeated from the beginning.

As far as we know from the records we've reviewed to date, the Andre report is novel in providing a correlation of this separately attested first sighting time with one of the canonical events (the head-grab at the front door). Her (via Andre) correlation of the head-grab with her first sighting, along with:

(a) the less clearly specified time of Taylor's sighting the alleged UFO;
(b) the less clearly specified time of Lucky and Taylor's first sighting of a visitor and
(c) the consistently specified time of Ms. Glennie's second sighting / second living room window shot circa 0330

... are the only sighting / shooting events any witnesses correlated with a specific time or timespan.
 
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
It seems Isabel simply puts the variance down to this ...
Her dilemma is appreciated, as trying to equate Mrs Lankford's 10:30 timing for the hair grab/door overhang is problematic. ...

In contrast to its being no big problem for Ms. Glennie, this is quite problematic for Davis ...

The Andre version of events places Ms. Lankford with Taylor in the corridor / dogwalk facing the front door rather than the back door Davis claimed.*

This means that Davis' characterization of Ms. Glennie's first sighting as occurring at the corner of the kitchen extension, as well as Davis' diagram illustrating it, are dead wrong.

* Ms. Glennie's statement of the 22nd is clearly amended to specify the "south" door. The front door - facing the road - was the only door on the more southerly side of the house.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
Ms. Glennie's statement of the 22nd is clearly amended to specify the "south" door. The front door - facing the road - was the only door on the more southerly side of the house.
That is obviously of significance.

It's only now I realise you are satisfied with this explanation.

Does it then help to make sense of what might be important evidence and I couldn't reconcile.

From the 23 August, 'Evansville Press' article:
"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 ther 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.

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

If Alene was at the back door when the hair grab/door overhang shot occurred... then the figure which flew/jumped over the roof would be resultant?

Please forgive if this is a dumb question - I am perfectly capable of same - Alene says "through a window" and we have a window screen shot after a creature had seemingly appeared there and the sequence of events which seemed to be implied from the 22 August 'Kentucky New Era' article was:

"...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".

... there's not conceivably a connection - the window screen and door screen shots are definitely separate incidents?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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
That is obviously of significance.
It's only now I realise you are satisfied with this explanation.
Does it then help to make sense of what might be important evidence and I couldn't reconcile.

RE: The 'south' (front) door

Taking the annotation on Ms. Lankford's statement at face value, plus accepting the Andre narrative and the fact it came from Ms. Lankford herself ...

It would seem there's considerable evidentiary 'weight' to the idea Ms. Lankford was with Taylor in the corridor / dogwalk circa 2230 on the 21st.

Other accounts of Ms. Glennie's first sighting (especially Davis' version) put her at one or another of the back doors (other than the kitchen door).

On the other hand, the association of this event with Ms. Lankford's falling / fainting / swooning would suggest she was helped or carried into "the bedroom" (unspecified) before anyone exited the house to check for a fallen visitor. If the bedroom to which she was helped was the living room (where her bed was located) it opens up the possibility of re-framing the context, timeframe, and story of the living room window shot.
 

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
If Alene was at the back door when the hair grab/door overhang shot occurred... then the figure which flew/jumped over the roof would be resultant?

The bit about Alene witnessing a visitor flying over / off the roof into the back yard comes from the Evansville Press article of 22 August. As an apparent direct quote from Alene, this bit would have had to originate with a reporter on the scene on the 22nd.

On the one hand, this is the sole account that can be interpreted to suggest anyone witnessed what happened to the visitor Lucky allegedly shot off the roof after the head-grab event.

Even more interesting is the fact this account makes no mention of the visitor Alene saw (or any visitor on the house's roof) being shot at. It merely states Alene saw the visitor fly over or from the roof and land in the yard. This account doesn't specifically mention any shots that clearly correlate with the alleged roof or tree shootings in the front yard.

... Please forgive if this is a dumb question - I am perfectly capable of same - Alene says "through a window" and we have a window screen shot after a creature had seemingly appeared there and the sequence of events which seemed to be implied from the 22 August 'Kentucky New Era' article was:
"...one of the little men pressed his face against the window and the shotgun was fired through the window. The face disappeared. ... "

This is an issue I've not yet broached. Recall I was talking about the possibilities for condensing or compressing the various alleged events into a smaller narrative.

One of the key problems in doing so relates to seeing visitors through doors versus windows, shots fired from or through doors versus windows, and whether two or more sighting / shooting events involving the living room and / or Ms. Glennie can reasonably be merged (if only hypothetically for the sake of discussion).

There's also an unavoidable issue regarding how many shooters there were and who was shooting in which specific shooting event(s).
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
If the bedroom to which she was helped was the living room (where her bed was located) it opens up the possibility of re-framing the context,l
That is requiring some thought... it does indeed offer an intriguing new scenario....

From Andre's letter:

"We remained crouched down about three feet from the screen door (the front door) for about 20 minutes, when I saw one approaching the door. Billy and I remained crouching until it came right up to the screen".

This is the door screen.

"I lost my balance and fell flat on the floor, making a thud-like noise and letting out a shriek".

At the same time the thing jumped back into the yard and Billy shot at it right through the screen".

What if this isn't the door screen and instead refers to the window screen.

What if Billy had to move away from the door, into the living room to get a clearer shot because it had now "jumped" into the yard.

Could you see into the yard from the window?

All (highly) speculative of course and merely for discussion purposes.

It just seems such a close similarly between the door screen/window screen - both occur after a creature is believed to be have been seen in close proximity outside and both have been associated with the hair grab/door overhang shot directory resulting.

Also, Mrs Lankford gives no indication of the window shot being fired from within the house, beforehand.

She statedly thinks the 'men' are just messin' around outside with their guns.

it's not until Alene comes in, quite obviously terrified, that Mrs Lankford takes it all seriously.

Another point is that if the window shot had already occurred, why would the children just be about to go to bed. There's no sense of them being traumatised by loud gunfire from inside the farmhouse, at this time.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
This is an issue I've not yet broached. Recall I was talking about the possibilities for condensing or compressing the various alleged events into a smaller narrative.
I have spent some time trying to track back and trace the origin of certain claims.

These are a couple from the foundation of the Kelly-Hopkinville case, I have already endeavoured to understand the genesis of.

The much maligned Billy Ray Taylor...

Isabel Davis writes:

"Taylor's story amused the family; they were not in the habit of taking him seriously. He must have seen a shooting star, they said. They talked about it for a while, then everyone passed it off as a joke.

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

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

A good story.

And that"s all it seems to be.

The claim that nobody took his report seriously, might have originated from the transition between the following two articles, published next day, on Monday 22, August.

The 'Kentucky New Era' edition seems to be accepted as the first newspaper report and does not feature any direct witness interviews: In summary from therein;

...story broke around 11 o’clock last night when two cars... drove up to Hopkinsville’s police headquarters.

Officers then at the station said... at least five adults and several children. All appeared highly excited.

Spokesmen for the crowd told of how something resembling a space ship or flying saucer had landed at the back of their house near Kelly and 12 or 15 men, who appeared to be about 4 feet tall, had got out of the ship and come up to the house and done battle with the occupants.

Both Chief Greenwell and Deputy Sheriff Batts said they got approximately this story...

About 7 p.m. one of the men went out of the house to get a bucket of water. He saw what looked like a flying saucer come over the trees and land in a field at a point about a city block behind the house...

A short time later somebody reported some little men with big heads and long arms were approaching the house...
(End)


Only one identified person, which we know wasTaylor, witnessed what is being reported here as 'resembling a space ship or flying saucer'.

The 'Madisonville Messenger' then publishes a different version, claiming all of the adults had observed an unidentified object land, as also summarised here;

...but the fact that all the adults excitedly told the same story...

Three men in the group were the most eager to talk of their experience... Billy Ray Taylor, 'Lucky' Sutton and John Sutton...

Here is the story they told to officers and reporters...

The three and their wives, plus Mrs. Glennie Lankford... and O. T. Baker, were in the house, along with four children, at about 7:30 p.m. Sunday when they noticed an object "all lighted up" glide into a field...

They paid little attention to it, however.
(End)


It is merely my suggestion that when it later came to writing a narrative account, the 'paid little attention' has been attributed to Taylor informing the others and not being taken seriously, when it was actually in relation to all of the adults not giving much attention to their erroneously avowed collective observation.


Whilst not a critical issue itself, this has led to a continuous realisation how influential these earliest newspaper reports became, even if replete with what we can now appreciate to be factual errors.

Following the object's sighting, how many creatures were first observed;

'Kentucky New Era'

"Spokesmen for the crowd told... and 12 or 15 men, who appeared to be about 4 feet tall, had got out of the ship and come up to the house and done battle with the occupants".

"...a short time later somebody reported some little men"...

'Madisonville Messenger'

"...about 35 or 40 minutes later they noticed "two or three shiny little men..."

However, the later edition 'Evansville Press', having apparently now interviewed 'Lucky' Sutton, states:

"Elmer Sutton said they first saw the little man about 45 minutes after he and Taylor saw the object land.

At first there seemed to be only one, he said. Later they "seemed to be swarming all over the place"."
(End)


This brings up a foremost question, where does the allusion to "12 or 15 men" come from?

It looks to an arbitrary figure, presumably from one of the participants and actually indicates overall events gave this impression, not that there ever were so many seen at any one time.

As we know, there were never more than perhaps only two observed at the same moment and as Isabel Davis notes, Mrs. Langford questions if there might even only have been one.

An entirely different picture thus emerges from the, quite understandably, confused myre.

There was no social media around in those days, to quickly fact check astonishing stories!
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
At the same time the thing jumped back into the yard and Billy shot at it right through the screen".

What if this isn't the door screen and instead refers to the window screen.
As highlighted, this is the earliest, albeit second-hand account of the window screen shot

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

"By 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..."

So Billy Ray Taylor was first to check it out?

Would that be because he had fired the window screen shot?
 

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
About the UFO ...

The preponderance of claims indicate it was Taylor - and Taylor alone - who purportedly witnessed an object overfly the farm and land in the gulley area roughly north-northeast of the farmhouse. This, plus other clues (e.g., no one else offering specific details of the UFO sighting) gives me confidence the Taylor-as-sole-UFO-witness version of the storyline is the most reliable. I don't know whether it's the most 'true', but it's the most demonstrably 'solid' ...

I also discount the Evansville Press story wherein Lucky claims he and Taylor jointly witnessed the landing. I'm skeptical about this claim because it was given to a distant city's newspaper where Lucky and two other men had traveled without Taylor, and where those three men would largely exclude Taylor from their versions of what happened.

NOTE: One of the themes that's loomed larger and larger for me in examining this case is the way Taylor-derived and Sutton-derived accounts of events seemed to have diverged after the night of the incident.

There's also the issue of the photo taken of the 3 men, showing Lucky illustrating the way the UFO landed. The newspaper account would have been pretty obviously flawed if it had run a photo of Lucky illustrating an event the text indicated he hadn't witnessed at all.

As I've previously noted, Taylor's position at the well (or possibly the outhouse, per Lonnie's much more recent suggestion) did not afford him an unrestricted view of either the sky overhead or the terrain extending out toward the gulley area.

I'm convinced there's absolutely no way anyone inside the house (even positioned at any of the back doors) could have seen the object overflying the house and / or landing in the distance in the direction of the gulley. As a result, I discount all accounts that claim the UFO was witnessed by any number of residents from inside the house.
 

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
As highlighted, this is the earliest, albeit second-hand account of the window screen shot

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August

"By 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..."
So Billy Ray Taylor was first to check it out?
Would that be because he had fired the window screen shot?

It depends on which shooting event was being described, and (as with most aspects of this case) it gets even more complicated than that ...

The Davis account is in the minority (or maybe the sole source ... ) when it comes to claiming Taylor shot at the living room window during the first window shooting. This is an important qualification ...

If you follow / accept the Davis interpretation (cf. p. 25 in the D & B report) ... J. C. fired point blank through the window screen while standing at the corner of the fireplace. Taylor followed up by firing one or more times through the living room window screen. Taylor's position within the room when he allegedly fired is unknown, but Davis suggested he couldn't have been more than circa 16 feet away, nearer the door into the corridor / dogwalk.

Ledwith's examination of the living room window screen noted there were five small holes in the lower panel surrounding the purported shotgun holes - holes which would have been consistent with .22 caliber shots being fired through the window screen. (See Figure 15, p. 71, in the D & B report). The law enforcement personnel made no mention of these 5 holes, and we don't know enough about the .22 caliber weapons (rifle; 'target pistol') to determine which one(s) could have fired up to 5 times through the screen at once or in a short span of time.

In any case, there's plenty of reason to believe someone wielding a .22 caliber weapon fired through the living room window - possibly during the same event when J. C. supposedly fired that first shotgun blast through the screen.

One way or the other, Taylor was nearer the living room's doorway (and the front door) than J. C. In the context of Davis' version of events, Taylor would therefore have been the first to reach the front door from the living room.

Having said that ...

Lucky's location at the time of the first living room window shooting is not given by Davis. This omission has potentially significant ramifications.

First, Davis seems to lose track of Lucky at the time of the living room window shooting, yet it's Lucky and Taylor who exit the front door and start shooting at visitors on the roof and / or the tree. Davis (p. 25) specifically states Lucky was close behind Taylor. There's no mention of J. C. going outside. Indeed, there's no specific mention of J. C. in relation to the head-grab / front yard events at all.

Second, some other (than Davis') accounts claim Lucky and Taylor were stationed at windows or doors on opposite sides of the house. This would imply Lucky was manning the back door (of the bedroom) at the time of the living room shooting event. This conflicts with some accounts that claim Lucky and Taylor proceeded to the living room immediately following their first shooting event in the back yard.

Finally ... Davis' account is the only one that claims (a) J. C. was wielding the other (20-gauge) shotgun and (b) J. C. was the shooter who blew the mysteriously 'square' hole through the screen that the cops found during their initial inspection. In contrast, most other accounts that name the living room window shooter (for the earlier window shot) either directly claim it was Lucky who fired that shot or indirectly claim it was Lucky via reference to the non-existent 'Cecil' Sutton. There's no account that implies, much less clearly indicates, the misnamed 'Cecil' was J. C. rather than Lucky.
 

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
234
Points
43
That is obviously of significance.

It's only now I realise you are satisfied with this explanation.

Does it then help to make sense of what might be important evidence and I couldn't reconcile.

From the 23 August, 'Evansville Press' article:


If Alene was at the back door when the hair grab/door overhang shot occurred... then the figure which flew/jumped over the roof would be resultant?

Please forgive if this is a dumb question - I am perfectly capable of same - Alene says "through a window" and we have a window screen shot after a creature had seemingly appeared there and the sequence of events which seemed to be implied from the 22 August 'Kentucky New Era' article was:

"...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".

... there's not conceivably a connection - the window screen and door screen shots are definitely separate incidents?

Alene was quoted as saying she was at the back door during the head-grab incident, and O P Baker pulled Taylor back into the house, following which Lucky and Taylor went outside and shot at the creature.

Other accounts simply have Taylor and Lucky going outside following the head-grab.

By the time of Lankford's account to Andre a few years later, she thought Alene was at the front door and performed the role of pulling Taylor back inside.

That's the three versions in a nutshell. Just have to decide which is plausible.
 

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
Yep - only a subset of the head-grab incident accounts include reference to a 'Taylor-grab' (someone pulling Taylor back inside the door).

Of the remainder, some claim Taylor simply continued outside (with or without shaking off the grabbing whatever-it-was), others claim Lucky pushed through the doorway past Taylor (and / or whomever else was there), and yet others don't indicate any resistance to the two men getting themselves into the front yard.

The second-most-consistent claim relating to the head-grab event is that one or more shooters (if named, always Lucky and Taylor or Taylor alone) were exiting the house to check on a visitor at whom someone had just shot from inside the house.

The most consistent claim relating to the head-grab event is that Lucky and Taylor successfully exited into the front yard.

The most consistent / complete omission involves J. C., whom some accounts cite as the shooter who'd fired the shot(s) whose results motivated exiting the house. J. C. is never cited as ever being a shooter in the front yard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3

BS3

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
234
Points
43
I am inclined to believe Alene's version for the following reasons:

- It was collected by the Press reporter immediately after the incident
- It's attributed to a specific individual rather than being a general editorial statement
- This is one of the few times Baker is mentioned at all, so if he is mentioned you'd think it would be for good reason
- Alene was Baker's sister (I think?) so you would think she got this detail right

I think Lankford's version is probably faulty memory several years later and the version/s without Taylor being pulled back just a result of the reporter not picking up on that detail.

NB I should add that by "believe" I mean "believe it to be the originally told version"; as for what actually happened....
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
I have spent some time trying to track back and trace the origin of certain claims.
The '5 feet from the door of the house' shot...

Firstly, there are two slightly different variations of this from a 23 August, UP newsfeed.

The earliest publication I can find is within
'The Indianapolis Star', 23 August, 'Morning Edition'.
"State Police Trooper G. W. Riley said he checked at the Sutton farmhouse about six miles from here last night, but that the "space visitors" had not returned.

The Suttons told this tale of the nightmarish visit...

"About 5 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".
It's similarly published in other newspaper articles that day.


However, the 'Lexington Leader' has an article, covering the newsfeed and which contains additional background information, noting that Riley was accompanied.

This is from their 23 August, 'Afternoon Edition':
"The family of Cecil Sutton, bothered by swarms of curiosity seekers Monday, were today more than willing to forget about the "little green men" they reported paid them a visit in a "spaceship" Sunday night.

State Police Trooper G. W. Riley said he checked at the Sutton farmhouse... Monday night.

He said he and Christian County Deputy Sheriff George Batts asked the sightseers to go home.

(...)

The spaceman hunt began Sunday night after Bill Taylor, a relative, told of seeing a spaceship land in a nearby field.

A few minutes later, Sutton said, "A little green man about three feet tall, with eyes like saucers and set about six inches apart who glowed all over," came near the house.

Sutton said the little man retreated when he fired a shotgun into the air, then fell and ran off when he fired a second time directly at him.

He said more of the lttle men, glowing eerily, returned to climb about in nearby trees and on the roof of the house. He and his excited family drove off in their car to summon help from Hopkinsville.

(...)

The farm was jammed Monday with sightseers and neighbors and a disgusted Sutton said, "If they come back I'm not going to let anyone know about it".

Sutton, who still stuck by his story today, added, "you can believe it or not, just don't laugh at it".

This exact same paragraph, also features in articles published same day by 'The Honolulu Advertiser' and 'The York Dispatch', plus others.

Why '5 feet from the door of the house' isn't mentioned...?

Personally, I had understandable doubts when I first read the claim. Why would you wait until only 5 feet away before firing a warning shot?

More importantly, does this claim actually have any supporting evidence.

This is a newsfeed update and specifically concerns latest developments from Riley and Batts' visit on Monday evening.

It ncludes a summary of events as already reported, e.g. "A few minutes later, Sutton said, "A little green man...', etc.

The 'warning shot, retreat, return and further gunshot' are included therein.

Ostensibly, it's not therefore cited as new case evidence and presumably must relate to something already published, simply in a different guise.

As there would appear to be nothing obvious, it is entirely unsubstantiated and no reason to accept it ever happened.

Would that be a reasonable conclusion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
If you follow / accept the Davis interpretation (cf. p. 25 in the D & B report) ... J. C. fired point blank through the window screen while standing at the corner of the fireplace.
Isabel's narrative:

1) The creature's hands were raised now, "as if someone had told him he was about to be robbed."

2) He was approaching the house slowly, moving toward the back door.

3) Lucky and Billy Ray.... withdrawing slightly into the house...waited the arrival of the creature. When it had moved to within 20 feet of the back door, both men fired.

4) Lucky and Billy Ray waited a few minutes, then went into the living room, where the women were.

Another creature appeared at the side window; the men fired at it through the screen. Again they apparently hit it...

5) Taylor, using the .22 rifle, also fired through the screen at this creature.


What evidence exists to support any one of these claims?

The 'hands raised' seems to come from Mrs Lankford alone, who didn't witness a creature until 10:30 and then only a glimpse.

There's seemingly no account of a shot from 20 feet. This appears to be solely based the 22 August 'Evansville Press' article, where Sutton claims;

"I shot one twice," Elmer said. He said he was about 30 feet from the creature w.hen he shot it with the shotgun".

Sutton doesn't clarify where and when that happened.

There is seemingly no account regarding 4) or 5) either.

The only documented reports with any connection would appear to be:

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August


"The men got their guns, a shotgun for Sutton and a .22 caliber target pistol for Taylor. By and by one of the little men pressed his face against the window and the shotgun was fired through the window".

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August


"While the officers were investigating "Lucky" Sutton showed them an additional oddity... square hole through s window screen which he said resulted in firing one blast shot from his shotgun with a No. 5 shot through the screen".

If I am missing something, obviously please do enlighten. It's just that the above two, brief, mentions seems like all we only have to go on.
 

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
Your questions relate to the line of discussion I had started to unfold yesterday ...

Davis' account (apparently based on information from Ledwith) is the only early account that specifically mentions:

- the 20-gauge shotgun being used the night of the incident;
- J. C. Sutton being the one who used the 20-gauge shotgun to make the first living room window screen hole; and ...
- the 20-gauge shotgun being used by anyone else (in this case, Lucky).

The first living room window shooting event is the only event for which it's claimed (and Davis the only writer who claims) the first window screen shot came from the 20-gauge and the shooter's identity was J. C. rather than Lucky (who according to most all other accounts was already armed with the other / 12-gauge shotgun).

Indeed, the majority of accounts that identify the shooter who fired the first living room window screen shot claim it was Lucky (either cited as Lucky or mis-identified as "Cecil").

Nonetheless, Davis claims J. C. was also a shooter that night and he was using the 20-gauge shotgun (D & B report; p. 21). She also claims Taylor was using a .22 rifle, which is never specifically mentioned in any other account. The only pistol she mentions (a "miniature German pistol") was claimed to have not been used.

Davis then contradicts herself 3 pages later. (See p. 24) In describing Lucky and Taylor initially arming themselves, she specifically states Lucky took up the 20-gauge shotgun. This is the shotgun she claimed Lucky used in firing the very first shot at the first-seen visitor, from the back door and at a distance of circa 20 feet. She then says Lucky and Taylor went into the living room "a few minutes later."

The very next event Davis describes (p. 25) is the first living room window screen shooting. She states, "... J. C. Sutton was standing at or near the corner of the fireplace nearest the window; he now had the 20-gauge shotgun ..."

After claiming J. C. fired that first living room window shot, Davis switches back to talking of Lucky and Taylor alone as they go to the front door and the head-grab event occurs.

It's therefore only reasonable to ask whether Davis got the details of the shotguns and the shotgun wielder(s) wrong at this sole juncture where her account differs from most all the other early ones.
 

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
Now here's the critical piece of evidence supporting the idea that Davis screwed up the correlation between Suttons, shotgun(s), and the first living room window screen shooting ...

In the Madisonville Messenger article of 22 August (derived at least in part from a Madisonville reporter on the scene the preceding night) it says:
"While the officers were investigating 'Lucky' Sutton showed them an additional oddity, a 1 1/2 inch square hole through a window screen which he said resulted from firing one blast from his shotgun with No. 5 shot through the screen."
(p. 3)

Lucky himself claimed to be the shooter who put that first hole in the window screen.
 

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 have more recently taken the approach of going right back to the earliest evidence and attempting to isolate and extrapolate the actual evidence, prior to it naturally becoming misconstrued within the media.

Incredibly difficult because so much of the earliest material is second-hand and reliant on what the local law enforcement recall being told at the outset.

The only direct quotes are scarce and describe shooting incidents which involve bizarre entities which are seemingly capable of surviving shotgun fire.

Depictions of the entities themselves make little, if in fact any, sense as fathomable wildlife.

Yet, clearly something occurred, seemingly beginning at around 7:45 and ending around 10:30.

Although it has been perceived to be a continuous series of events, when we break it down, there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to substantiate this.

As noted, a striking example is the lengthy account published in 1966 by Frank Edwards.

In total, the number of occasions when shots are fired at the entitiies amounts to just four and two of those appear to be devoid of any known, supporting evidence.

Surprisingly, Edwards doesn't include the door overhang shot, however, even if he had , it arguably makes little difference, leaving him to conclude:

"...after at least two hours of this watchful waiting, the men decided that the weird beings had left'.

As discussed, Isabel Davis, even with the addition of more and often also seemingly unsubstantiated, shooting incidents, faced the same dilemma. As also highlighted, her rationale there would be more involved because the creatures statedly returned "a further six times" and we merely don't have any information concerning same, is based on a single, misleading remark in one newspaper article.

Where there is a proverbial gap in our knowledge, party relates to the following, as featured in the earliest newspaper articles:

Kentucky New Era
22 August


"Deputy Sheriff Batts said the men told him that in all they fired up about four boxes of .22 pistol shells".

Madisonville Messenger
22 August


"John Sutton said he fired four boxes (200) of .22 cartridges at the creatures, but they had no effect, ricocheting off the little men like they would off a steel plate".

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".

We have previously surmised this barrage of alleged shots could have taken place outdoors, following an initial observation of an unidentified, possible threatening being, or more than one.

That could explain the duration of a perceived 'siege' and why we have no further explanation.

It would also equate with Mrs Lankford's account from the Andre letter of shots being fired outside and that she believed it was just some foolin' around.

A 'condensed' period of activity... would this be at the end and with regards to the farmhouse shots?

This is all my simply my own understanding as present and I think the word is 'flexible'.

As always, thoughts most welcome.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
Now here's the critical piece of evidence supporting the idea that Davis screwed up the correlation between Suttons, shotgun(s), and the first living room window screen shooting ...
This is the very thing I was wondering about.

The firearms Isabel attributes at the outset of her report, in some detail, doesn't seem to match the accounts we have.

You are making a whole lot of sense about this entire aspect.
 

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
Kentucky New Era
22 August

"Deputy Sheriff Batts said the men told him that in all they fired up about four boxes of .22 pistol shells".

Madisonville Messenger
22 August

"John Sutton said he fired four boxes (200) of .22 cartridges at the creatures, but they had no effect, ricocheting off the little men like they would off a steel plate".

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".

You missed one - perhaps the most telling one ...
"Investigating officers reported they found only two empty .22 cartridges in the area."
Madisonville Messenger; 22 August (p. 3)
 

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 most specific tally of shotgun shell evidence is to be found in the D & B report.
Only a few shotgun shells were found. The first investigator on the scene noticed "two or three" around the front door; Mr. Ledwith's friend Mr. Lackey found one in the living room the next day; and Chief Greenwell dug shotgun pellets out of the frame of the window next to the fireplace ...

Discovery of three shotgun shells "around the front door" (presumably outside the door) supports Davis' storyline (cf. pp. 25 - 27) that has Lucky firing at least 3 times after exiting the front door - at the roof visitor, at the visitor in the tree, and at the visitor that came around the corner of the house after the prior two shooting events.

It's actually one shell too few to fully match Davis' narrative, because she wrote that both Lucky and Taylor fired twice at the visitor seen in the tree - once when the visitor was in the tree and a second time after it had landed on the ground.

The discovery (by Ledwith's companion Lackey on the 22nd) of a shotgun shell in the living room supports the narrative of shotgun blasts fired through the window, though the physical damage to the window screen and the window frame indicated at least two, and possibly three, such shots.

Adding the maximum number of shotgun firings specifically described in Davis' report (1 initially in the back yard; 2 - 3 in the living room; and 4 in the front yard) we can account for 8 shots at most.

If Lucky's claim of having fired the shotgun 17 times was accurate, a minimum of 9 additional shots must have been fired during miscellaneous skirmishing or simply horsing around with the guns.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
There's also the issue of the photo taken of the 3 men, showing Lucky illustrating the way the UFO landed. The newspaper account would have been pretty obviously flawed if it had run a photo of Lucky illustrating an event the text indicated he hadn't witnessed at all.
It's also perhaps understandable why the newspaper reports and particularly that 24 August 'Leaf-Chronicle' article with Hodson's sketch of the 'flying saucer' portray a scenario where everyone had seen the object land (and in the 'Leaf-Chronicle' article, depart as well!).

There was never an environment where anyone had the opportunity to correct what had been published and with 'Lucky' being caught up in a blaze of publicity, unlikely he would take time to clarify the precise facts. It was a 'flying saucer' with 'little green men' - too late for any alterations!

It is so reminiscent of Kenneth Arnold's situation.- the misconstrued, popularised depiction of his crescent-shaped objects had likewise spiraled out of control.

On which, I did make a note about something, further directly related - our 'No. 2 washtub'.

Where did that come from... this apparently.

Amongst others, it was reported as;

Madisonville Messenger
22 August


"An egg-shaped No. 2 washtup, "lit up like a stream of fire" and loaded with 15 "shiny little men" landed near Kelly Station, Christian County last night.

So said eight nervous adults and four children when they burst into Hopkinsville Police Department".

Seemingly, what was actually claimed - and it's later within the same article!

"At an estimated distance of one-quarter mile, it looked to be the size of a No. 2 washtup and was egg-shaped".

Nothing to do with it looking like a washtub at all - simply a size comparison.

Que, of course, headlines about the 'little tubmen'...:)
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
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.
Should this be factual, could the article have been in relation to the following 1953 news story, which involves both a 'flying saucer'and a 'Martian'!

It does also feature a painted monkey and although it was green paint, could look silver in photographs, especially b/w....

Compress_20211118_084549_9985.jpg


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_Monkey

See also:

The Monkey from Mars!

https://ghostradio.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/the-monkey-from-mars/
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
8,614
Reaction score
13,690
Points
284
Location
Phone
Although it has been perceived to be a continuous series of events, when we break it down, there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to substantiate this.
What if.... there was no continuation.

Instead, it all concerned two completely separate sequences of events, which appeared to be connected.

Each involving an entirely different, species of indigenous wildlife.

Initially, one which has 'long, spindly legs', six-inch or so 'upturned talons' and which typically 'skims' across the ground. When in flight, especially at night, it can seem to 'float' and become mystifying. Even alarming. I know that for sure, because I have experienced exactly this, first-hand. It also 'perches on a tree branch'.

These local creatures are scared off and things 'quieten down'.

Later that night though, other ones appear. They are nocturnal, around the same size and also have claws, although more of a 'clawy hand'. These also often 'perch on a tree branch'. They can be a nuisance, often curious and scratching about rooftops.

If threatened, they wil tend to :scurry' away on all fours, into the nearest ground cover, such as undergrowth like 'weeds'. They can also, if threatened, 'use the claws to swipe' as a defence.They will also seek cover, if a sudden light might expose them to danger. One might even say, you can only see them in the dark.

I shall not and never will, put a name to them. The entire notion is positively absurd....

Aside from the YouTube videos, you would never encounter both in the same environment at approximately the same time.

Plus, the latter especially would likely be identifiable, unless you were already expecting something else entirely, maybe some kind of almost unearthly creature and it was really dark and you were highly stressed, almost on the verge of hysteria even and rational thinking was nonexistent.

Chuck in a 'flying saucer' landing earlier that evening and what a 'riot' that night might be.
 

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
Should this be factual, could the article have been in relation to the following 1953 news story, which involves both a 'flying saucer'and a 'Martian'!
It does also feature a painted monkey and although it was green paint, could look silver in photographs, especially b/w....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_Monkey

It's conceivable the "Kingdom Press" article (pamphlet; whatever) somehow referred to the Atlanta 1953 "Monkey Hoax", but I tend to doubt it.

The Atlanta story was quickly revealed to be a hoax, making it a poor choice of evidence to support claims of end times signs or actual alien activity. If an editor wished to use a photo insinuating ongoing mystery rather than demonstrated prankishness the earlier German photo makes more sense.

On the other hand, the story and associated photos ran in LIFE magazine and therefore received national exposure in a publication more likely to be retained and available for perusal than a newspaper article.

The more interesting aspect of this hoax in relation to the Kelly incident doesn't focus on the monkey at all. Check the Wikimedia photo of the GBI display. In the lower left corner of the display case is a July 1953 Atlanta Journal Constitution article that includes a sketch of the hoaxers' alleged saucer that clearly resembles the Ledwith and Hodson sketches based on Taylor's description of the UFO he'd seen.
 
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
As I've noted, I don't believe the residents (as a group) could have collectively witnessed a UFO overflight or landing from inside the farmhouse.

Our recent discovery of Lonnie Lankford's revelation the entire group indeed attended evening church services in Kelly (quite possibly within walking distance of the farmhouse) opens up the possibility the entire group could have feasibly witnessed something in the sky.
 
Top