• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
... The first alert to anything 'suspicious' outside, does appear to be their dog barking, some time after. ...
About the dog ...

According to the D & B report:
Livestock consisted of pigs, several cats and kittens, one dog, perhaps a few goats (their existence is uncertain), and no chickens.
(p. 10)

In the D & B account the dog was the initial indicator of something odd following Taylor's report of seeing something aloft:
Half an hour or so later--around eight o'clock--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, not to be seen again until the next day. Lucky was sarcastic: "Shit! A real good dog--ran away after this thing appeared."
(pp. 23 - 24)

There's no further mention of the dog during the night's events. Neither is there any mention whatsoever about a reaction among any of the other animals.

According to this account the dog retreated into hiding while there was no more than a glow visible approaching the yard from a distance - a glow that eventually resolved into the first little man seen by anyone.

I find the dog's rapid retreat (before anything odd came into sight) and the lack of any reaction from the other animals a bit strange.
 
... If I might please enquire, what would be your rationale for a coincidental 'paranormal event?
Something akin to Bigfoot, etc.? ...
Here's an example of a possible non-UFO context ...

Late in her series of videos Geraldine Stith mentions being contacted by crypto(?) researchers Greg Newkirk and Dana Matthews.

Newkirk and Matthews had been investigating a separate story about "goblins" somewhere farther east or northeast in Kentucky. In this separate case the goblin figures were associated with local caves. They came from the caves and returned to the caves - sometimes carrying items they'd snatched from nearby homes and farms.

Hopkinsville is not all that far away from the Bowling Green / Mammoth Cave area, which is riddled with caves.
 
It's really interesting to hear the people who were there describe what happened.
Absolutely brilliant, isn't it.

On which note, I have just discovered it's possible to purchase an ebook copy of the following, written by 'Lucky' Sutton's daughter, Geraldine and have duly seized upon this opportunity.

Screenshot_20210805-071420_resize_81.jpg


Does it help to unravel, 'who, what, why, where and when'...

So far... kinda... if you 'read between the lines' and take into account much of the content has been passed down to Geraldine from her father and particularly her grandmother - Glennie Lankford.

One immediately striking example is that we no longer have a creature being shot and floating down to the ground, it floated off into the woods...

However, I believe it might be clarified where exactly this claim originated. If possible, that would be a significant development.

Just a cursory read through, so far... obviously needs more time than that.

Another point of note, is that hunting seems to have been 'second-nature' in the family.

Geraldine makes reference to both a .12 gauge and .20 gauge shotgun and we might have some further insight regarding same.

Let's see then {jumps down the rabbit hole}...
 
We can evidence this.

Allowing for the obvious errors in who saw what and when and with my emphasis - one earliest report, from next day's newspaper:

'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August


"The three men and their wives... noticed an object, "all lighted up"... They paid little attention to it, however.

About 35 to 40 minutes later, they noticed "two or three shiny little men..."

Unquestionably, the 'spacecraft' became inextricably linked, however, was this in retrospect?

The first alert to anything 'suspicious' outside, does appear to be their dog barking, some time after.

If I might please enquire, what would be your rationale for a coincidental 'paranormal event?

Something akin to Bigfoot, etc.?

Would it be related to the publications by Ivan Sanderson?
My ideas on a paranormal event would be the intervention of a non-human intelligence from a reality other than our everyday reality, almost a temporary reality imposed from... somewhere else. Pretty vague, 'cause I don't have any answers.
 
In her report Sanders wrote, "A check with neighbors disclosed that they "were not a drinking family" ...
In her aforementioned book, Geraldine writes:

"Yes the boys liked to drink but they knew better than to do it around their mother and younger siblings. When the premises were searched, there was no sign of alcohol present".

This doesn't equate, we have Ledwith's testimony of beer cans being noticed in an outside bin next morning.

Add the state trooper's first hand account of 'a merry day' having been quite evident to himself and this aspect increasingly manifests.

Whether a factor or not, we don't know, it's just that evidential doubt which compromises the entire scenario.

"Yes the boys liked to drink...".

I did not expect to read this.
 
I like to drink. There are more than a dozen beer bottles in the recycling bin here, plus a wine bottle or two. That's a few weeks' worth for the two of us. So what? Beer cans in the trash mean nothing without some real evidence of drunkenness. Drinking does not cause hallucinations, unless of course one is pickled and then it's rare. If anything, a few beers in those guys would maybe make them bad shots and that would be about it. Also, it's amazing how quickly a shot of adrenaline will sober you up.

Hunting was second nature? That would describe pretty much anyone living in the country back then. Those people no doubt hunted in order to eat during the Great Depression, as my ancestors did.

1955 was 66 years ago. Trying to solve this case from in front of a computer now might be an interesting puzzle, but no such "solution" is provable or even very useful. Might make people feel better, not having to worry about monsters, but that's about it. The people investigating this episode in 1955 were not stupid, and most of them had a far better handle on what sort of people the witnesses were, what other variables might enter into the questions, and so on. I think it takes a certain arrogance, or at least some presumptions that are not warranted, to think it can be solved from here. This, in my opinion, applies to many, many cases of reported weirdness from decades past. I don't mean that we should not look into these cases, and see if there is "new" information available, but we certainly should keep our own limitations in mind, and our expectations in context. We are just as likely to come up with a solution that is preposterous as one that's actually plausible. And then what? We have a plausible explanation? So? Doesn't mean it's correct.
 
I like to drink. There are more than a dozen beer bottles in the recycling bin here, plus a wine bottle or two. That's a few weeks' worth for the two of us. So what? Beer cans in the trash mean nothing without some real evidence of drunkenness. Drinking does not cause hallucinations, unless of course one is pickled and then it's rare. If anything, a few beers in those guys would maybe make them bad shots and that would be about it. Also, it's amazing how quickly a shot of adrenaline will sober you up.

Hunting was second nature? That would describe pretty much anyone living in the country back then. Those people no doubt hunted in order to eat during the Great Depression, as my ancestors did.

1955 was 66 years ago. Trying to solve this case from in front of a computer now might be an interesting puzzle, but no such "solution" is provable or even very useful. Might make people feel better, not having to worry about monsters, but that's about it. The people investigating this episode in 1955 were not stupid, and most of them had a far better handle on what sort of people the witnesses were, what other variables might enter into the questions, and so on. I think it takes a certain arrogance, or at least some presumptions that are not warranted, to think it can be solved from here. This, in my opinion, applies to many, many cases of reported weirdness from decades past. I don't mean that we should not look into these cases, and see if there is "new" information available, but we certainly should keep our own limitations in mind, and our expectations in context. We are just as likely to come up with a solution that is preposterous as one that's actually plausible. And then what? We have a plausible explanation? So? Doesn't mean it's correct.
Excellent post.
 
Anyone who has the Davis/Bloecher book, there's a wonderfully creepy high strangeness account in chapter VII, it gives me goosebumps every time I read it. The Hunicutt encounter, starting on page 138.
 
1955 was 66 years ago. Trying to solve this case from in front of a computer now might be an interesting puzzle, but no such "solution" is provable or even very useful. Might make people feel better, not having to worry about monsters, but that's about it. The people investigating this episode in 1955 were not stupid, and most of them had a far better handle on what sort of people the witnesses were, what other variables might enter into the questions, and so on. I think it takes a certain arrogance, or at least some presumptions that are not warranted, to think it can be solved from here. This, in my opinion, applies to many, many cases of reported weirdness from decades past. I don't mean that we should not look into these cases, and see if there is "new" information available, but we certainly should keep our own limitations in mind, and our expectations in context. We are just as likely to come up with a solution that is preposterous as one that's actually plausible. And then what? We have a plausible explanation? So? Doesn't mean it's correct.
To the extent there is a point in examining such old cases, the point isn't so much arriving at a "correct" solution as putting the subject in context and testing whether it necessarily deserves the weight and facticity attributed to it.

Once a story attains the status of a canonical example of a given interpretation / spin / mythos it becomes a fixed point of reference for further amplifying and promoting the interpretation / spin / mythos it allegedly validates. It's taken as evidence for beliefs that can then be leveraged and expanded.

People can dedicate their time - even their lives - to such belief systems. People can make money, and even base entire careers on, shilling for the belief system. People can argue and / or steer public policy with reference to such belief systems. People can even get so caught up in such belief systems as to go crazy or die in the course of pursuing them.

We are justified in exploring what we make of such incidents (or at least what we can make of such incidents) because in cases such as Kelly / Hopkinsville their fame and lasting effects are based on nothing more tangible than what people made of them in the past.
 
Without any further comment at present - I need to think this through - Geraldine spends considerable time in her book concerning the following account, which she finds relatedly fascinating.
It dates from more recently and was brought to her attention via correspondence from the proclaimed witness.
Based on what she related in her videos these "kids without hair" are the "goblins" Newkirk and Matthews have been investigating elsewhere in Kentucky.
 
Beer cans in the trash mean nothing without some evidence of drunkenness.
Said to you from the outset, I don't like this aspect... it casts doubt which may not be valid.

However, as emphasised, we also have that state trooper's, first-hand experience, interview and that does imply 'drunkenness'.

Nonetheless, as equally highlighted, it does not impact on the other accounts, as regards what they believed was seen.
 
Based on what she related in her videos these "kids without hair" are the "goblins" Newkirk and Matthews have been investigating elsewhere in Kentucky..
Does that account, which so intrigued Geraldine, read like a classic case of raccoon invasion?

Do raccoons 'chirp' as the witness says the unknown creatures did?

If entirely unrelated, perhaps we shouldn't be finding an exact match?

"...raccoon babies will make a chirping sound that's very similar to high-pitched birds".
 
Do raccoons 'chirp' as the witness says the unknown creatures did?
"...raccoon babies will make a chirping sound that's very similar to high-pitched birds".
Raccoons make a wide variety of sounds. The 'chirping' you cited for baby raccoons is often referred to as 'twittering'. Adult raccoons' similar high-pitched vocalizations are typically called 'chittering' or 'chattering' - both of which can be construed as synonyms for creating a 'chirping'-like sound.
Raccoons of all ages can make various types of noises including a chittering sound, purring, snorts, growls, snarls, whimpers and screams. Baby raccoon sounds can also include whining, mewing and crying. When calling out to each other, it’s possible that a raccoon sounds like a screech owl’s whistle.
https://www.terminix.com/blog/education/what-does-a-raccoon-sound-like/
 
Does that account, which so intrigued Geraldine, read like a classic case of raccoon invasion?
The invasive / intrusive behavior described is entirely consistent with raccoon activity. However, the description of the 'kids without hair' doesn't match up well with raccoons - especially the bit about the intruders standing circa 4 feet tall.
 
..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...
Such an elemental genesis of the subsequently popularised creatures.

From 'The Hynek UFO Report':

My synopsis of the case is based on material obtained directly from Bud Ledwith, who at that time was engineer-announcer at radio station WHOP in Hopkinsville, and who on the morning after the event interviewed all seven adult members of the group.

What follows are a number of relevant passages from the notarized account of the investigation he made on the morning following the sighting:

"Seven adults were interviewed in three groups : the three women at noon the following morning, the one man who had been in the field working since about eight A.M. the same morning, and the other three men after they had returned from an ali-day trip to Evansville, Indiana, about eight P.M. that evening.

The following was a correlation between those three separate reports. None of the involved groups had an opportunity to talk to each other about the event since around eight A.M. that morning.

All groups agreed that the height of the creatures was from two and a half to three and a half feet.

They all agreed that the head was bald, the same color as the body; the head was rather oblong like an egg.

(...)

I had them describe, to the best of their ability, each individual detail that is in the picture. I attempted not to lead them but rather tried to follow their lead in drawing it part by part but the whole operation took about an hour and a half before the final drawing was made.

As for the three men: I had laid
the drawing on the table before the men came in and one of them picked up the drawing and exclaimed, "That's it!" We sat down to make changes in accordance with what they saw.

The two main differences were the shape of the face . . . and the husky upper body".
(End)

That's why we have those two, separate drawings.

Unfortunately, despite Ledwith's attempts not to have any related influences, the men had seen that earlier drawing beforehand.

We then have an article from the 'Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle', published on Wednesday 24, August,

This illustrates a strikingly different sketch, also from Monday 22, August and again based on witness agreements.

This time, all of them are present and presumably was undertaken later on the Monday.

The artist was Pte. Gary Hodson, from Fort Campbell and the depiction now incorporates what resembles a black eye-mask.

The article is available here:

www.forteanmedia.com/Hville_02.pdf

So, which one is the most reliable?
 
Okay, if we're still talking about raccoons, I'm outta here.
Just a world of coincidences then...

- they are indigenous

- size isn't far off

- they hold their arms aloft

- they assemble in groups

- they have talons

- they are 'silvery'

- they have black marks, like a 'bandit mask' on their face

- they climb

- they jump

- they run

- they are nocturnal

- they call out

- and their eyes glow yellow in the dark.

And sure look a helluva lot like this...

See post #197.

Lest we should forget, this case is ludicrously farcical as regards the hysteria of any invading attack by monsters.

It's against this background, we have to rationalise
 
Just a world of coincidences then...

- they are indigenous

- size isn't far off

- they hold their arms aloft

- they assemble in groups

- they have talons

- they are 'silvery'

- they have black marks, like a 'bandit mask' on their face

- they climb

- they jump

- they run

- they are nocturnal

- they call out

- and their eyes glow yellow in the dark.

And sure look a helluva lot like this...

See post #197.

Lest we should forget, this case is ludicrously farcical as regards the hysteria of any invading attack by monsters.

It's against this background, we have to rationalise
Argh. They do not hold their arms up. They are capable of reaching up to get something (edible). At rest or just sort of being or moving forward their arms are down. They do not vocalize - silence is one of their strategies. Cubs and mothers will vocalize as signals but not during hunting. They growl etc when they're scared or pissed off to try to scare away the predator coming at them. They are also pretty easy to scare off with a gunshot, a stone or a loud noise - they cut their losses and find another food source.
 
This is the sworn testimony of Glennie Lankford, taken the following morning:

www.forteanmedia.com/Langford.jpg

She is a key witness and prime source of subsequent details, as to what actually occurred.

However, if Mrs Lankford "was statedly, "carried into the bedroom", at this exact point, how much did she really observe?
 
They do not hold their arms up. They are capable of reaching up to get something (edible). At rest or just sort of being or moving forward their arms are down. They do not vocalize - silence is one of their strategies.
Thank you for these observations.

Firstly, I am a vastly experienced, some 25 years now, researcher, not only re UFO related cases. I have learnt enough during that time to make sure I check, double-check and then check again any evidence I might highlight.

However, there's always, naturally, scope for new information completely changing matters.

In this instance, it seems clearly evidential that raccoons do sometimes stand with their arms raised - another example:

Pet-Raccoons-770x405.png


The accepted scientific understanding of this behaviour, seems to be that it is a defence mechanism, if they feel threatened.

Not so much, 'I surrender', more, 'look how big I am'!

The night calling also looked to be evidenced - see:

What do Raccoons Sound Like?

https://pestlockdown.com/what-do-raccoons-sound-like/

Feedback like the is immensely important and much appreciated.

'A cautionary tale'... just because something might appear to fit, doesn't mean that is so.

I have come across several examples of exactly this.

One comparison was illustrated by my little granddaughter, when she was about 6-y-o.

I had bought a jigsaw puzzle for her age-group and there was one of those pieces which looked as if fitted, although it was from another part of the jigsaw.

Despite my advice that it actually could not make sense, as the picture did not match, the determined said child came up with a physical solution.

She simply 'bashed' it into place, with a triumphant, 'See, I told you...'.

I am acutely aware of such issues and particularly so regarding the sensitivity inherent to this case study.
 
Last edited:
My ideas on a paranormal event would be the intervention of a non-human intelligence from a reality other than our everyday reality, almost a temporary reality imposed from... somewhere else. Pretty vague, 'cause I don't have any answers.
I might just print that out and put it up as a poster.
 
Here are the diagram illustrating the house's layout with the numbered locations of various events around the house on the night of August 21-22, as well as the legend explaining the numbered locations.

House-Plan.jpg


Figure 5. PLAN OF FARMHOUSE

1. Back door. From here the first creature was seen and the first shot fired, and from here Mrs. Lankford first saw one of the creatures at 10:30 p.m.
2. Approximate position of creature when seen by Mrs. Lankford at 10:30 p.m.
3. Back door of dogwalk, not in use at time of landing.
4. Dresser or chest blocking back door of dogwalk.
5. Overhanging roof above back door of dogwalk, later replaced by a porch (broken line)
6. Window outside which a creature stood on at least two occasions.
7. Approximate position where J.C. Sutton stood when he fired the first shot through the screen; short arrow shows suggested trajectory of this shot.
8. Creature seen outside window by Mrs. Lankford, 3:30 a.m.; "it seemed to come round the chimney."
9. Bed from which Mrs. Lankford (her head toward window) saw creature, 3:30 a.m.
10. Approximate position from which Lucky Sutton fired at creature outside window, 3:30 a.m.; long arrow shows suggested trajectory of this shot.
11. Side of window frame from which shotgun pellets were dug the next day (see photograph on page 76).
12. Overhanging roof above front door.
13. Creature that came around corner of house was shot approximately here.
14. Creature seen on limb of maple tree approximately here.

SOURCE: Davis & Bloecher, p. 12.
(The apparent horizontal cropping of the diagram reflects its appearance in the PDF file of the D & B report.)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top