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

[EnolaGaia]

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

I don't suppose anyone...

The January 1956 edition of Saucerian Review is accessible as a 313 Mb PDF file at:

https://documents2.theblackvault.com/casefiles/matthewriot/TheSaucerianReviewGrayBarker.pdf

NOTE: The Table of Contents indicates the Sanders article is on pages 19 - 23. Pages numbered 18 and 19 are missing from this PDF file (a collection of imaged pages; hence the massive size). The actual Hopkinsville story seems to open on page 20. I don't know whether there's anything other than an editorial introduction lost with the missing / omitted pages.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Going back to those sketches published in the 'Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle' on 24 August, 1955, it's reported:
" ... All agreed however, that the men arrived and departed from their farm near Hopkinsville in a flying saucer".

The Clarksville news item is the only one I've seen that claims the visitors both arrived and departed using the saucer Taylor claimed to have seen land in the gulley / ravine around 1930 on the 21st.

Both sides of this claim clash with all the other accounts I've seen.

Taylor didn't claim to have gone out to the gulley to inspect the saucer, and he said nothing about mysterious visitors when he returned from the well saying he'd seen a saucer land. In fact, there's no documentation (I've seen) claiming anybody ventured out to the gulley earlier than the following day.

I have no idea where the Clarksville writer received a claim the visitors departed using the alleged saucer. I don't recall any account claiming the time or method of the visitors' departure was observed. Descriptions of the individual clashes between the house's occupants and the visitors generally indicate the visitors retreated in the direction of the woods (brushy area; whatever) between the house and the gulley. That's the extent of any observed / reported departure I've seen.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The January 1956 edition of Saucerian Review is accessible...

I was in the process of writing that we really need to get a look at this. Apparently, it was the outcome of work undertaken by a 'private investigator'.

It's crucially early and could be so significant.

Let's see what unfolds then and thank you for taking the time to track this down.

 

[maximus otter]

The area in 1870:

Created / Published: Philadelphia : D.G. Beers & Co., 1878

https://www.loc.gov/item/2012593102/

maximus otter

 

[SimonBurchell]

The January 1956 edition of Saucerian Review is accessible as a 313 Mb PDF file at:

https://documents2.theblackvault.com/casefiles/matthewriot/TheSaucerianReviewGrayBarker.pdf

NOTE: The Table of Contents indicates the Sanders article is on pages 19 - 23. Pages numbered 18 and 19 are missing from this PDF file (a collection of imaged pages; hence the massive size). The actual Hopkinsville story seems to open on page 20. I don't know whether there's anything other than an editorial introduction lost with the missing / omitted pages.

After a quick scan through it, for such an early report, it already seems significantly embellished.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

After a quick scan through it, for such an early report, it already seems significantly embellished.

A first extract, which is of paramount significance:

'But they were not ordinarily men, they could soon discern. According to some of the witnesses they were not walking, but "seemed to float" towards them".

That's it then! The genesis of this claim does in fact go back to at least our January 1956 article.

That aside, for now, this might be hugely insightful:

"They didn't wait to see what the little men were up to. Extremely frightened by that time, they ran for their guns. Sutton grabbed a shotgun, Taylor a .22 caliber target pistol.

While they waited apprehensively inside the house for the creatures to attack. Mrs. Lankford begged them not to shoot. The creatures had not harmed them or made any hostile moves.

Then a face appeared at the window, and Sutton let go with his shotgun. The face disappeared, seemingly unharmed".

Is this consistent with our pivotal, initial newspaper reports...?

No... there are clearly profound discrepancies

What about those warning shots, fired into the air beforehand, etc.

It is nonetheless an invaluable contribution and requires more detailed study.

Even at a cursory read, there are a number of aspects which further intrigue.

For example:

"Taylor told of knocking one off a barrel with his .22. He said he heard the bullet strike the creature, then whine as it ricocheted off. The little man tumbled to the ground, rallied like a ball, then floated off in the direction of the spaceship".

Really....?

Note: You may find yourself distracted by many other articles in this wonderful snapshot of 1956 perceptions about the reality of flying saucers, how and why the truth is being withheld and that something is imminent.

I think it"s called, 'disclosure'...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Courtesy of, 'The Hynek UFO Report', this features our earliest case documentation - from the next morning/day after events.

It definitively resolves some questions concerning the origin of specific claims.

It seems to necessitate a rethink on where this leaves us...?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Is there something critical missing from the evidence?

I have come across a claim, which if true, changes the entire perspective.

Although Glennie Lankford seeming didn't permit alcohol in the house, it doesn't of course mean it wasn't being consumed on the property without her knowledge.

What about earlier in the day, maybe outwith the house?

It was after all a family gathering and as confirmed here, the brothers 'did like a drink'... perhaps at the carnival?

This video is a foreign production with interviews, including a first hand account from Russell Ferguson, State Trooper, at 5:30 into the footage.

la familia sutton El encuentro Kelly--Hopkinsville-1955

@https://youtu.be/eDFqvf9Y8Ys

 

[EnolaGaia]

Courtesy of, 'The Hynek UFO Report', this features our earliest case documentation - from the next morning/day after events.
It definitively resolves some questions concerning the origin of specific claims.

(Emphasis added)

A point of clarification ... The content of Ledwith's statement may represent the results of one of the earliest interviews conducted at the Lankford house on Monday the 22nd (the day following the nighttime incident(s)), but it does *not* represent the earliest case documentation.

The earliest documentation of the incident is the Kentucky New Era newspaper article published the afternoon of 22 August. This local newspaper was issued circa 1530 each afternoon. The Evansville Press published a story about the incident on the 22nd, including a sketch made by their staff and a photo taken of Lucky and John Sutton with O. P. Baker during their visit to Evansville that same day. I don't know when during the 22nd the Evansville paper's edition was issued.

Ledwith's statement includes reference to observations of, and conversations with, the 3 men who'd traveled to Evansville (Indiana) on the 22nd and who didn't return to the Lankford house until circa 2030 that evening.

At least two newspaper articles had been published by the time Ledwith could have compiled all his notes into a statement and had it notarized. Hynek's account clearly states he was quoting excerpts from Ledwith's notarized statement.

 

[charliebrown]

Living not too far from Kentucky, there are even today places in Kentucky that are desolate with no cell phone services.

There are places where it is just you and corn fields, no people, no cell phone service, and narrow roads.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Although Glennie Lankford seeming didn't permit alcohol in the house, it doesn't of course mean it wasn't being consumed on the property without her knowledge.
What about earlier in the day, maybe outwith the house?
It was after all a family gathering and as confirmed here, the brothers 'did like a drink'... perhaps at the carnival? ...

I've also wondered about alcohol consumption having occurred in spite of, or outside the scope of, Ms. Lankford's prohibition. She seems to have been a dour and serious person. She attended a Pentecostal church, and Pentecostals explicitly prohibit alcohol.

Ledwith supposedly noticed beer cans in a trash receptacle at the house the following day (22nd) (see Davis & Bloecher, p. 35). This doesn't prove anything, because the cans could have been discarded on the 22nd and never seen by the law enforcement personnel who reported no signs of alcohol consumption after searching the place the night before.

On the other hand ... Menfolk in that place and era who wanted to drink in spite of womenfolk's household rules typically did so outside the house. Who's to say there couldn't have been booze stashed outside (e.g., near the well Taylor visited to start the whole affair or in the trunk of either car known to have been present)?

 

[SimonBurchell]

On the other hand, getting pissed doesn't make you see aliens...

 

[EnolaGaia]

Here's another point concerning the guns that's been bugging me.

Davis & Bloecher's account lists 4 firearms at Ms. Lankford's house the night of the incident: a 12-gauge shotgun; a 20-gauge shotgun; a .22 rifle (exact .22 caliber unspecified); and a German "miniature pistol" described as a WW2 souvenir of unknown caliber.

Multiple of the early news stories refer to Taylor wielding a ".22 target pistol" during the incident rather than a .22 rifle. This is curious, insofar as (a) it induces a conflict among reports and (b) a "target pistol" would be an odd weapon found in a modest farm home of that place and period. A nominally equipped farm house of that place and era would be likely to have a .22LR (Long Rifle) rifle and at least one shotgun.

However ...

At least two of the menfolk worked with or for circus / carnival operators. If the weapon Taylor used was indeed a "target pistol" (whether for competition or arcade / gallery use) it might well have been chambered for the significantly less powerful .22 Short cartridge. If the pistol had been a gallery piece from the circus (whatever) the ammunition could conceivably have been gallery cartridges designed to disintegrate upon impact to avoid ricochets at shooting booths. I mention this because using .22 Short cartridges (whether gallery ammo or otherwise) would go a long way toward explaining why the .22 caliber weapon had little or no discernible effect on the mystery visitors.

 

[Nosmo King]

Here's another point concerning the guns that's been bugging me.

Davis & Bloecher's account lists 4 firearms at Ms. Lankford's house the night of the incident: a 12-gauge shotgun; a 20-gauge shotgun; a .22 rifle (exact .22 caliber unspecified); and a German "miniature pistol" described as a WW2 souvenir of unknown caliber.

Multiple of the early news stories refer to Taylor wielding a ".22 target pistol" during the incident rather than a .22 rifle. This is curious, insofar as (a) it induces a conflict among reports and (b) a "target pistol" would be an odd weapon found in a modest farm home of that place and period. A nominally equipped farm house of that place and era would be likely to have a .22LR (Long Rifle) rifle and at least one shotgun.

However ...

At least two of the menfolk worked with or for circus / carnival operators. If the weapon Taylor used was indeed a "target pistol" (whether for competition or arcade / gallery use) it might well have been chambered for the significantly less powerful .22 Short cartridge. If the pistol had been a gallery piece from the circus (whatever) the ammunition could conceivably have been gallery cartridges designed to disintegrate upon impact to avoid ricochets at shooting booths. I mention this because using .22 Short cartridges (whether gallery ammo or otherwise) would go a long way toward explaining why the .22 caliber weapon had little or no discernible effect on the mystery visitors.

The German WWII miniature souvenir pistol of unspecified caliber, could have been a .22 caliber

 

[EnolaGaia]

The German WWII miniature souvenir pistol of unspecified caliber, could have been a .22 caliber

True, but ... The single mention of this pistol (in the Davis & Bloecher report) indicates it was small - only 2-3 inches in length, and hence not anything one would call a "target pistol."

 

[EnolaGaia]

... "Taylor told of knocking one off a barrel with his .22. He said he heard the bullet strike the creature, then whine as it ricocheted off. ...

There are multiple mentions of sounds that occurred when the men shot at the visitors, but they vary among the different accounts.

In addition to Taylor's description of a whining sound of a ricochet, Lucky Sutton claimed that when he fired a shotgun directly at a visitor it sounded like he'd shot a bucket (i.e., hit metal).

These aspects of solidness and metallic sounds correlate with the earliest published descriptions of the "little men" in the newspapers and Sanders' article, in which the witnesses said the first visitors they saw appeared to be "nickel-plated." The Davis & Bloecher report states the witnesses' first impression was that the earliest-observed visitors were made of silvery metal.

 

[EnolaGaia]

There's another mismatch between the Davis & Bloecher report and the earliest (newspaper; Sanders) reports. The earliest reports don't mention Lucky Sutton firing his shotgun at the visitor perched above the door that seemed to reach for or actually grab Taylor's hair as he and Sutton were exiting the house. The New Era article says Taylor simply pulled free and went on out into the yard. The Davis & Bloecher report claims Sutton stepped outside past Taylor, turned, and fired his 12-gauge shotgun at the grabby visitor.

 

[marhawkman]

I've also wondered about alcohol consumption having occurred in spite of, or outside the scope of, Ms. Lankford's prohibition. She seems to have been a dour and serious person. She attended a Pentecostal church, and Pentecostals explicitly prohibit alcohol.

Ledwith supposedly noticed beer cans in a trash receptacle at the house the following day (22nd) (see Davis & Bloecher, p. 35). This doesn't prove anything, because the cans could have been discarded on the 22nd and never seen by the law enforcement personnel who reported no signs of alcohol consumption after searching the place the night before.

On the other hand ... Menfolk in that place and era who wanted to drink in spite of womenfolk's household rules typically did so outside the house. Who's to say there couldn't have been booze stashed outside (e.g., near the well Taylor visited to start the whole affair or in the trunk of either car known to have been present)?

One thought has occurred to me. The way some of the commentary on alcohol is phrased, the person making the comment is discussing their prior knowledge of the individual's behavior, and not specific information about the incident. It may not be important.... may..... or it might mean it had been a problem in the past. The officers seemingly knew about it long before this incident for some reason... what sort of reason?

There are multiple mentions of sounds that occurred when the men shot at the visitors, but they vary among the different accounts.

In addition to Taylor's description of a whining sound of a ricochet, Lucky Sutton claimed that when he fired a shotgun directly at a visitor it sounded like he'd shot a bucket (i.e., hit metal).

These aspects of solidness and metallic sounds correlate with the earliest published descriptions of the "little men" in the newspapers and Sanders' article, in which the witnesses said the first visitors they saw appeared to be "nickel-plated." The Davis & Bloecher report states the witnesses' first impression was that the earliest-observed visitors were made of silvery metal.

Hmmm interestingly the annotations on the sketches specify on the first sketch that the texture of the creatures was bare skin.

 

[EnolaGaia]

One thought has occurred to me. The way some of the commentary on alcohol is phrased, the person making the comment is discussing their prior knowledge of the individual's behavior, and not specific information about the incident. It may not be important.... may..... or it might mean it had been a problem in the past. The officers seemingly knew about it long before this incident for some reason... what sort of reason?

In her report Sanders wrote, "A check with neighbors disclosed that they "were not a drinking family" ... " She's not specific about which or how many of the witnesses were included in neighbors' definition of the resident "family." Some of the witnesses were house guests, and some weren't members of the Lankford / Sutton family at all.

 

[Austin Popper]

Hoo boy. This raccoon business is just silly. If the menfolk didn't keep a coonhound or two themselves, they'd have been out coon hunting with others, if for no other reason than everyone would think there was "something funny" about them if they didn't. Seriously, I'm sure they ate raccoon occasionally. Hell, I've eaten raccoon and I'm a city boy. They were and are hunted for fun and pest control. If there was a wild critter none of those people would mistake for a freaky goblin, it would have to be a raccoon. They would have dealt with them on a daily basis living out in the sticks, and they did live out in the sticks no matter how many highways might have been nearby. Was there a mention of raccoons by any law enforcement people? I'd bet not, because it would have been ludicrous and insulting.

Kentucky coonhound

 

[EnolaGaia]

RE: The Saucerian Review article by Sanders ...

I was in the process of writing that we really need to get a look at this. Apparently, it was the outcome of work undertaken by a 'private investigator'.
It's crucially early and could be so significant. ...

Is this consistent with our pivotal, initial newspaper reports...?
No... there are clearly profound discrepancies
It is nonetheless an invaluable contribution and requires more detailed study.
Even at a cursory read, there are a number of aspects which further intrigue.

After a quick scan through it, for such an early report, it already seems significantly embellished.

The more I look at the Sanders article, the less I trust it. The primary reason is because Sanders never actually visited the farm nor spoke directly with the witnesses. Her account of the events seems to be assembled from information gathered at the Hopkinsville police station. The only person there Sanders clearly cites as a source is Police Chief Greenwell.

Sanders didn't visit the farm because she claimed the entire family had "disappeared" within 48 hours of the incident. It's true that the following day (Monday; 22 August) 3 of the men (all but Taylor) traveled to Evansville (Indiana; circa 80 - 85 miles north) on a trip that had been previously planned. They were gone until early evening (circa 1930 - 2000; 24 hours after the incident's beginning). The one thing known about their time in Evansville is that they were in touch with the Evansville newspaper and posed for a photograph that accompanied an article about their experience.

According to the Davis & Bloecher report the entire family was at home through the day on Tuesday (23 August) dealing with the influx of visitors who wouldn't go away. At some point during the week the family left town headed to a relative's place in Michigan to escape from the publicity and hassles, but soon returned to Kelly rather than leave their home and possessions unprotected. It's not known when they left for Michigan or how long they were absent. Sanders' claim of their disappearance within 48 hours probably (IMHO) derived from her relying on second-hand information.

There are multiple other points on which Sanders' account is either entirely mute or clearly conflicts with other accounts based on actual interaction with the witnesses. For example ...

Sanders' versions of Taylor's initial UFO sighting and the family's first visitor sighting don't match any other account I've read in terms of description or timeline. Sanders claimed Taylor had first spied the UFO from inside the house around 1900.

D & B (and most other versions) claim Taylor was outside at the well when he saw it around 1930 and hurried back to the house to report it.

Sanders claimed Taylor called to the others (inside the house) when he saw the "saucer", they came to him, and all of them immediately(?) saw multiple "little men" approaching the house.

D & B (and most others) claim Taylor came back into the house, reported his sighting, and was laughed off by the others. It would be another half-hour (circa 2000) until Taylor and others exited the house in response to the dog's barking, then observed an approaching glow that resolved itself as a single little man.

And so on ...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

On the other hand, getting pissed doesn't make you see aliens...

It might contribute to making you think so though!

However, it would not apply to Glennie Lankford''s observations.

The troopers comments are a real pain, he's insinuating, without being specific:

"I didn't find anything up there a except just a bunch of people running amok.

They had one specific emotion (laughs) and that's from, I think, a pretty wild day".

What this does is cast a doubt, which didn't exist beforehand.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Is this also an evidential problem, re anything anomalous occurring.

Isabel Davis writes:

So. initially the women weren't bothered at all and thought the men were just fooling around with their guns.

The women were making supper and putting the children to bed.

None of them had witnessed anything related.

When that first shot was fired from with the house, at whatever had appeared in the window, it didn't hit the creature at point blank range,

Glennie Lankford had fallen over, that noise had scared the creature which "jumped back into the yard" before Billy Ray took a shot at it "through the blinds".

Critically, if this what actually happened, Glennie Lankford had not personally observed any of the foundation occuring outside, leading up to this point?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This raccoon business is just silly

Ultimately, as we realised from the outset of taking a closer look at this quite bizarre case, it is like proverbially trying to unscramble an omelette.

If the little varmints were terrestrial and whether we would have expected the men engaged three hours, or whatever, of shooting at them, to realise, is intrinsically compromised by the fact Billy Ray seemingly believed a spaceship had landed nearby.

We have to keep in mind this was 1955 when 'flying saucers' and invading 'little green men' were perceived to be a real threat. Maybe there just wasn't a scenario to be 'quick thinking and rational'.

It 'all depends' on factors we can't really comprehend, not having been there ourselves.

There obviously appears to initially have been enough which was unfamiliar to have spooked them and perhaps then, as Isabel Davis quotes Chief of Police Greenwell:

'These aren't the kind of people who normally run to the police for help. When they feel themselves threatened, what they do is reach for their guns".

The ensuing, lenthy 'batttle' is farcical, with the little creatures never offering any threat, other than of them, perhaps so terrified they had statedly climbed up trees onto the roof, took a swipe at Blly Ray's head when he stepped out the door.

Given the number of contempory meteor reports as well, arguably the notion that these small creatures came from outer space, is the silliest idea of all.

No spacecraft, no ETs.

Personally, one remains ambivalent and will take a while yet to sift through all the new data, presumably much of which was previously unseen by many, as well as myself.

If nothing else, we maybe all understand the case evidence significantly more than we did.

 

[marhawkman]

Ultimately, as we realised from the outset of taking a closer look at this quite bizarre case, it is like proverbially trying to unscramble an omelette.

If the little varmints were terrestrial and whether we would have expected the men engaged three hours, or whatever, of shooting at them, to realise, is intrinsically compromised by the fact Billy Ray seemingly believed a spaceship had landed nearby.

We have to keep in mind this was 1955 when 'flying saucers' and invading 'little green men' were perceived to be a real threat. Maybe there just wasn't a scenario to be 'quick thinking and rational'.

It 'all depends' on factors we can't really comprehend, not having been there ourselves.

There obviously appears to initially have been enough which was unfamiliar to have spooked them and perhaps then, as Isabel Davis quotes Chief of Police Greenwell:

'These aren't the kind of people who normally run to the police for help. When they feel themselves threatened, what they do is reach for their guns".

The ensuing, lenthy 'batttle' is farcical, with the little creatures never offering any threat, other than of them, perhaps so terrified they had statedly climbed up trees onto the roof, took a swipe at Blly Ray's head when he stepped out the door.

Given the number of contempory meteor reports as well, arguably the notion that these small creatures came from outer space, is the silliest idea of all.

No spacecraft, no ETs.

Personally, one remains ambivalent and will take a while yet to sift through all the new data, presumably much of which was previously unseen by many, as well as myself.

If nothing else, we maybe all understand the case evidence significantly more than we did.

An interesting thought occurred to me after studying these old sketches and pondering the reality of the lighting conditions, and their known behavior..... the people doing the shooting barely saw what they were shooting at. This is reflected in the sketch notes by how he mentions that certain aspects... the witnesses couldn't describe to him and how it took hours to get the ladies to give him the cobbled together bits they did. For the two "refined" sketches, he started by showing the first sketch and asking what changes to make. even then... some parts just... didn't have a description.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This is interesting.

It's the story as told, in six parts, by Geraldine Stith, daughter of 'Lucky' Sutton.

I have split the contents over two postings, as maybe a bit lenghy for one page.

The Chronicles of Geraldine -
Page 1

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The Chronicles of Geraldine -
Page 2

 

[SimonBurchell]

This is relevant due to the discussion earlier in the thread about possible alcohol consumption:

The Times: drunken-witnesses-recall-as-accurately-as-sober-ones-study-finds

 

[James_H]

Raccoons are a trickster spirit in various Native American cultures.

(The similar-looking but unrelated tanuki or raccoon-dog is also a trickster spirit in Japanese folklore, and has the ability to shape-shift. See the movie Pom Poko for an account of magical tanuki scaring away humans with a supernatural display).

 

[stu neville]

Well, this is interesting: currently on sale via Loren Coleman's International Cryptozoology Museum. Pukwudgies don't get a lot of attention, but they show curiosity towards humans, are stealthy, agile...