• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
The Davis and Bloecher report (pp. 59 - 61) specifies that Taylor was the only one who witnessed the UFO / object / vehicle / whatever and that none of the others ever went out to the gulley where he'd said it had landed to confirm its existence or nature.
 
The must-read for Hopkinsville is "Close encounters at Kelly and others of 1955"...
This is absolutely fantastic - when you have been digging for evidence, I think they call it the, 'motherlode'!

Initial thoughts from a cursory browse..

Firstly, my personal take on the case remains 'default', as with others: "I can't be sure, I wasn't there".

No harm though in highlighting evidence which might imply an explanation and on which...

... supportive data to suggest raccoons may have been responsible?

Absolutely, there's an abundance.

...supportive data to suggest the creatures could 'float', or defy gravity, whatever?

Now, for the first time, there is a wealth of related material.

... Where did all of the above originate, in this published research?

Not quite clear on this, so far. There seems to be a considerable amount with no attributed source.

... Anything particularly notable on first browse of contents?

Yes, the description of how one creature on the roof, merely reached down and touched Sutton's head. It did not attempt to, 'pull him up'

...Is attempting to extrapolate fact from fiction in this enormous research evaluation, likely to be a major undertaking?

That would be affirmative... :)

9c4d6bf6d4950e379fd9df4f3cbca86c-0_resize_25.jpg
 
The first time I heard of the case was when when I was around 10, so mid 70s. It was in the book 'UFOs & Other Worlds' (1975 Puffin) and was described as "the Kentucky Glowing Man". This is the accompanying picture.
20210724_135121.jpg

..distinctly non-goblin-like, but more glowy and floaty. The emphasis on the home invasion seems to have developed later. I wish I could remember how the Puffin book wrote it up, but the pic is what stayed with me (a definite sleep-with-the-light-on for a few days job!).
 
Of course I was not in Kentucky in 1955, but after all is said and done, the police said the people involved were really stressed to their capacity.

Glennie Lankford sold the property and moved to town after years that their family owned this property.

The 11 people involved endured years of harassment from this event.

So why would this family bring this grief upon themselves ?

Today, Kelly, Kentucky celebrates yearly “ Little Green Men “ UFO festival to make money.
 
I thought the glowing man was a different case?
Nope - not unless there's a different case in which a UFO supposedly landed in 1955 and one or two unknown figures approached two Kentucky farmers who shot at them.

The label "Kentucky Glowing Man" seems to be used only in the 1975 Puffin book by Peter Ryan. I can't find any evidence for anyone else citing the incident this way.
 
The first time I heard of the case was when when I was around 10, so mid 70s. It was in the book 'UFOs & Other Worlds' (1975 Puffin) and was described as "the Kentucky Glowing Man". This is the accompanying picture.
View attachment 42509
..distinctly non-goblin-like, but more glowy and floaty. The emphasis on the home invasion seems to have developed later. I wish I could remember how the Puffin book wrote it up, but the pic is what stayed with me (a definite sleep-with-the-light-on for a few days job!).
I've been trying to identify this book for ages! I used to have it and remember some of the art... I even posted a thread for ideas on which book it could be. Now I know! Thanks for this!
 
The must-read for Hopkinsville is "Close encounters at Kelly and others of 1955" by Isabel Davis and Ted Bloecher.
Subject to revision, if evidence to the contrary surfaces...

What has now become clear is,
as indicated by the absence of any such reference whatsoever in newspaper reports during the following days, claims about the creatures ability to float, is a later addition to the story.

How much later, might depend on the following article referenced by Isabel Davis:

Panic in Kentucky
by Jacqueline Saunders
The Saucerian Review
January 1956
pages 19-23

I don't suppose anyone...
 
Nope - not unless there's a different case...
It seems our, 'glowing' creature grew out of early references to them sometimes appearing to look 'silverly' when moonlight reflected from them.

In what might be a revelation to many, there is one reference (shall provide the source when I can locate same!), in which Glennie Lankford recalls how the creatures appeared to 'shimmer' when they 'let out a call'.

This might be the only ever mention that our little creatures could be vocal as well

Certainly during the night, anyway...
 
The first time I heard of the case was when when I was around 10, so mid 70s. It was in the book 'UFOs & Other Worlds' (1975 Puffin) and was described as "the Kentucky Glowing Man". This is the accompanying picture.
View attachment 42509
..distinctly non-goblin-like, but more glowy and floaty. The emphasis on the home invasion seems to have developed later. I wish I could remember how the Puffin book wrote it up, but the pic is what stayed with me (a definite sleep-with-the-light-on for a few days job!).
Memories of that pic have haunted me since childhood!
 
It seems our, 'glowing' creature grew out of early references to them sometimes appearing to look 'silverly' when moonlight reflected from them.

In what might be a revelation to many, there is one reference (shall provide the source when I can locate same!), in which Glennie Lankford recalls how the creatures appeared to 'shimmer' when they 'let out a call'.

This might be the only ever mention that our little creatures could be vocal as well

Certainly during the night, anyway...
Well I found this: which... has a lot of... shall we say, polished versions of the story that incorporate later inventions, but does at least try to sort out embellishments from the original. one thign he does have is the old sketches, and annotations about he descriptions:
The sketches DO come with details claiming the creatures glowed.... somewhat... It also has a note that they were seemingly photophobic, and it's not that they were invisible in bright light, but they refused to make themselves seen in bright light.

I'm not sure where ANY of this guy's information came from though. He shows copies of some of his sources... but only some of them.
 
... I'm not sure where ANY of this guy's information came from though. He shows copies of some of his sources... but only some of them.
The basics come straight from the Davis and Bloecher report - the sequence of exposition, some text and phrasings, the black & white illustrations, some copied B & W published photos, certain points regarding possibilities, and images of official documents. The color photos and illustrations come from other sources findable on the 'Net (e.g., some of the ones I've cited in this thread).

If the video piqued your interest I recommend you download the Davis & Bloecher document and get more of the details, gaps, exceptions, etc.
 
Last edited:
The basics come straight from the Davis and Bloecher report - the sequence of exposition, some text and phrasings, the black & white illustrations, some copied B & W published photos, certain points regarding possibilities, and images of official documents. The color photos and illustrations come from other sources findable on the 'Net (e.g., some of the ones I've cited in this thread).

If the video piqued your interest I recommend you download the Davis & Bloecher document and get more of the details, gaps, exceptions, etc.
Ah, I see, I remember he mentioned some report about the case that he thought to be exceptional. thanks. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People who live in the sticks in Kentucky are very familiar with raccoons. Duh.
Although I have replied previously, simply noting that people do make incredible mistakes sometimes, I would like to revisit this.

If considering the possibility, one thing assuredly remains troubling... how in hell would they not have recognised racoons?

Were they a rare sighting in 1955 and before?

The other factor, is that should it indeed have been such an extremely unusual occurrence, it coincidentally happens shortly after our observation of what is perceived to be a spaceship landing

However, if you take away the detail of those creatures apparently being capable of floating, there's not that much difference from raccoons at all, in fact, quite the opposite.

Can we remove our floating element? That seems to be key and we have this puzzle of it never being mentioned in original newspaper reports.

However, that can possibly be rationalised, as the early accounts are relatively brief and seem more focused on the siege and 3-4 battle which unfolded!

There wasn't, of course, any actual malice shown by the creatures, other than that one on the roof taking a swipe at Lucky Sutton's head (that's all it was, according to Isabel Davis), which seems to have morphed into a tale of it attempting to drag Sutton up by his hair.

There clearly seems to have been mass hysteria, resulting in everyone seizing an opportunity to flee the battlefield.

Either way, raccoons, or otherwise, it remains crazy stuff!

We might be able to make some more sense of it.

We just might not though. :)
 
If the video piqued your interest I recommend you download the Davis & Bloecher document and get more of the details, gaps, exceptions, etc.
It would appear that Isabel Davis references the creatures ability to float on nine occasions, essentially:

Screenshot_20210725-082333_compress9.jpg

Screenshot_20210725-082401_compress81.jpg

Screenshot_20210725-082439_compress12.jpg

Screenshot_20210725-082523.jpg


Does it all come down to these much later anecdotes from Glennie Lankford, in our 1978 publication, being the genesis?

Were there any related reports in newspapers at the time - as highlighted, I can't find a single mention.

Did either 'Lucky' Sutton, John Sutton, or Billy Ray Taylor actually ever make reference to any such 'floating' occurrence?

The only witness interviewed by Isabel Davis was Glennie Lankford, in 1956?
 
Last edited:
...at what point do we have one coincidence too many...
Like our little rascals, it would seem this conceivable explanation ain't going away...

Quite the reverse and quoting Isabel Davis, from the aforementioned 1978 publication:

"Perhaps the most extraordinary nature of their behavior was their method of locomotion. Whenever they came toward the house they had an upright posture (Taking to Mr. Ledwith the next morning, Mrs Lankford said she thought the slow approach and raised hands meant that the creatures were trying to establish communication)".

Don't shoot!

EKPcCMFWkAEU3Uj_resize_2.jpg
 
Well I found this: which... has a lot of... shall we say, polished versions of the story that incorporate later inventions, but does at least try to sort out embellishments...
Really enjoyed watching that - most interesting and thank you for taking the time. :)
 
Like our little rascals, it would seem this conceivable explanation ain't going away...

Quite the reverse and quoting Isabel Davis, from the aforementioned 1978 publication:

"Perhaps the most extraordinary nature of their behavior was their method of locomotion. Whenever they came toward the house they had an upright posture (Taking to Mr. Ledwith the next morning, Mrs Lankford said she thought the slow approach and raised hands meant that the creatures were trying to establish communication)".

Don't shoot!

View attachment 42566
I note that raccoons are not native to the UK so perhaps many have not seen one. They are intensively and obnoxiously native to the US. The are very intelligent, aggressive, have damn near opposable thumbs, and do stand on their hind legs when necessary although only when leaning against a trash can to tip it over. One in my back yard is at least 3' high standing next to said trash can (and trying to remove the lid). They cannot sit or walk on their hind legs. They carry rabies. They are excellent climbers. They will work in family pairs but not in groups. They are very cute. I find this event resonant with group hysteria, and the original reports reprinted here indicate some very unanswered questions. Like someone comes in and says that a flying saucer landed (he waits a while to report this) and the whole family doesn't troop out carrying shotguns to look at it? I wish I could say raccoons but they just don't behave that way .
 
... I wish I could say raccoons but they just don't behave that way .
Same here ... I don't see the raccoons theory as a reasonable explanation for the witnesses' accounts of the incident.

The escaped monkey theory makes more sense in light of the witnesses' descriptions, but I haven't been able to convince myself the claim monkeys may have escaped from a circus convoy in the area at the time is persuasive.
 
It strikes me that much of the weirdness in the witness accounts relates to what could or could not have been seen with the available lighting. This in turn leads me to wonder about something in the Davis & Bloecher report ...

On page 66 it states the Suttons (et al.) had only two forms of lighting available - the house lights (low output bulbs) and flashlights. However ...

Nowhere in the rest of the report do they ever mention any of the house's occupants using a flashlight. The only parties described as having, much less using, flashlights were the law enforcement and other folks who came out to the house on the first night. The report even states more than once that when these outsiders left they took the flashlights with them.

Perhaps it's a matter of insufficiently precise exposition, but at face value I don't find any reason to believe the house occupants witnessed anything illuminated by anything other than the house's own interior and / or exterior lights.

There wasn't any substantial moonlight, because it was a new moon. The moon had set by 2030 local time - approximately 1 hour after Taylor claimed to have seen the UFO land and circa 30 minutes after Sutton and Taylor reported first seeing a strange figure approaching the house.
 
Raccoons seem like a creature that the rural residents would be familiar with and not mistake for goblins. They are apparently very common in Kentucky.
True ... Also, raccoons don't exhibit the lanky long-limbed body form witnesses attributed to the strange visitors.
 
Same here ... I don't see the raccoons theory as a reasonable explanation for the witnesses' accounts of the incident.

The escaped monkey theory makes more sense in light of the witnesses' descriptions, but I haven't been able to convince myself the claim monkeys may have escaped from a circus convoy in the area at the time is persuasive.
I just went back and re read the next morning's local newspaper report. I think something was going on with those folk and it wasn't little floating men.
One of the persons present had also reported a saucer incident elsewhere.
People who lived way out in the country and no doubt hunted for food said they fired four boxes of ammunition (only two were armed per the paper, one with a shotgun) with evidence of one hole in a screen and no shells or shot crunching underfoot.
The abnormal response to someone seeing a saucer land.
I have to believe that professional officers said alcohol was not a factor.
They did try to cash in on the event later.

Not a very clean event, but then how many of them are?
 
People who lived way out in the country and no doubt hunted for food said they fired four boxes of ammunition (only two were armed per the paper, one with a shotgun) with evidence of one hole in a screen and no shells or shot crunching underfoot.
They were not so much way out in the country as commonly believed. We tracked the location down. To our surprise here on the forum the property was less than 10km from Hopkinsville proper, and also adjacent to a highway and railway.
 
They were not so much way out in the country as commonly believed. We tracked the location down. To our surprise here on the forum the property was less than 10km from Hopkinsville proper, and also adjacent to a highway and railway.
Yes, I looked at the google map . Now it might be suburbia (although Hopkinsville now has a pop of about 32,000.) At the time the highway would have been a 2-lane road. They had a well - I'm surprised that they had electric.
 
They will work in family pairs but not in groups.
You can be sure I would have checked this out and they do sometimes form large groups.

If you Google same, there are countless factual references.

One striking example of which is the video in post #105. :)
 
It strikes me that much of the weirdness in the witness accounts relates to what could or could not have been seen with the available lighting. This in turn leads me to wonder about something in the Davis & Bloecher report ...

On page 66 it states the Suttons (et al.) had only two forms of lighting available - the house lights (low output bulbs) and flashlights. However ...

Nowhere in the rest of the report do they ever mention any of the house's occupants using a flashlight. The only parties described as having, much less using, flashlights were the law enforcement and other folks who came out to the house on the first night. The report even states more than once that when these outsiders left they took the flashlights with them.

Perhaps it's a matter of insufficiently precise exposition, but at face value I don't find any reason to believe the house occupants witnessed anything illuminated by anything other than the house's own interior and / or exterior lights.

There wasn't any substantial moonlight, because it was a new moon. The moon had set by 2030 local time - approximately 1 hour after Taylor claimed to have seen the UFO land and circa 30 minutes after Sutton and Taylor reported first seeing a strange figure approaching the house.
Along this line of thinking, one thing mentioned about the goblins was that they were photophobic. One of the witnesses specifically claimed that the lights used by the police were bright enough to scare them away.

Then you're like... wait... what lights? hand-held flashlights? Seemingly yes. Does this mean the creatures refused to come near the house while there were lights on inside the house? Maybe. One of the incidents where one was looking in a window was after midnight or close to it, and the occupant of the room was trying to sleep. She yelled when she noticed it in the window, and when others entered the room it fled. Did they startle it by turning on a light?
 
... To our surprise here on the forum the property was less than 10km from Hopkinsville proper, and also adjacent to a highway and railway.
At the time the house faced on a small old road. Across the road (from the house) was a railroad track, and beyond the railroad track was the newer highway. All three ran north-south roughly in parallel at the house's location. Davis reported that when she visited Ms. Lankford she could watch traffic on the newer highway from the house (i.e., all three pathways were visible from the front of the house).
 
Back
Top