• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
CN:

i see your most recent post (about the blue-paper sketches) - which you've deleted.

If you ever want comment on those sketches you need to post their source.

More generally - please include your source for any future new items you lob into this thread. I'm getting irritated at having to waste my time searching for something you've already found from some source you've failed to specify.
 
Could the head grab be wing-feathers? Like if the bird was sitting on the porch roof and its wing drooped over the edge?
IMHO that makes a lot more sense than assuming a bird could extend one leg / foot down off the tin roof overhang without losing its balance / grip.

However ... If we're talking 'bird' here - especially a long-necked wading bird - the 'clawy hand' alleged to have come down from the overhang could have been the bird's head / beak.

This front door head-grab incident may well have occurred in total darkness on a moonless night (depending on which storyline / sequence one relies upon).
 
I had originally posted these earlier today as seemingly being draft sketches drawn by Hodson - the creature 'locomotion' depicted had deceived because it resembled Hodson's published one image of this.

Suddenly realised... these are Ledwith's draft sketches!

I have previously mentioned seeing a reference to their existence and was attempting to locate a copy.

It has turned up quite unexpectedly, on an otherwise typical website feature about the case

A reverse image search indicates only one other online copy and that's on a similar website, which also has an accompanying, relatively straightforward article.

Although the source is unattributed, it seems genuine and I have certainly never seen it before.

The website notes that the original is drawn on yellow paper - presumably the online copy has been changed to light blue for improved clarity?

There is one image in these unpublished drafts which caught my immediate attention.

We evidently have proof that Mrs Lankford did describe to Ledwith that she thought the creatures had their arms raised at some point - according to Isabel Davis, reportedly as they approached the farmhouse.

These newfound sketches, depicting the creatures' 'locomotion', might also help explain Isabel Davis' reference to same.

They certainly require further contemplation, as do other aspects now.

For a start, when did Mrs. Lankford observe the creatures approaching with seemingly raised arms, as if gesturing they posed no threat?

According to her written statement, she only had that one, statedly brief, glimpse from the hallway of a "bright silver object" at 10:30, could not make out any facial features, then "fell backward, and was then carried into the bedroom".

Nonetheless, what an extraordinary find, especially as it was so inadvertently fortunate - I was beginning to suspect its invaluable existence was doubtless just a rumour. :)

Screenshot_20210921-094117.jpg


Screenshot_20210921-094310_resize_73.jpg
 
Speculating - what if the long arms which seemed to be providing the propulsion were in fact wings and the inflexible, spindly legs which could almost have been stilts, were indeed simply that...
Now that there is an accompanying sketch, how might this
compare....

Screenshot_20210921-094117~2_resize_85.jpg


Screenshot_20210921-111147_resize_98.jpg


Hmmm.....
 
... We evidently have proof that Mrs Lankford did describe to Ledwith that she thought the creatures had their arms raised at some point - according to Isabel Davis, reportedly as they approached the farmhouse. ...
No, we don't ...

Ledwith's own account of his sketching session with the women at midday on the 22nd states that Ms. Lankford left the session while it was in progress. The one sketch of a visitor holding its arms up is at the bottom of the page - almost certainly one of the later items added to the overall multi-figure drawing. After Ms. Glennie left the sketch interview Ledwith continued the discussion with Vera and Alene. Alene is the only one of the women documented as having mentioned the raised arms based on personal observation.

There's no particular reason to believe Ms. Glennie was still participating in the interview session when the raised-arms figure was added.

Edit to Add:

Ledwith himself states Ms. Glennie left the sketch interview early in the overall multi-figure sheet's production:
AFTER THE BASIC SHAPE HAD BEEN SKETCHED, AND THE HEAD ADDED AT THE TOP, MRS. LANKFORD SAID THAT IT WAS SO LIKE THE APPARITION SHE HAD SEEN THAT SHE WAS NOT GOING TO LOOK AT IT ANY LONGER, AND SHE WENT BACK OUTDOORS.
(Ledwith, in D & B report, p. 45)
 
Last edited:
There's another interesting thing about the alleged Ledwith original sketches ...

Two of the smaller figures sketched at the bottom of the sheet are shown in poses which display articulated legs.

Davis (p. 28) states:
The legs were inflexible. When the creatures "ran," the hip joints were flexed slightly— not much of a "bend" was necessary because their arms were so long and the huge hands so close to the ground. But the legs were never seen to bend as if there were a knee joint; they seemed inflexible, and might have almost been stilts. ...

In her Figure 11 (p. 57) displaying newspaper illustrations of the visitors Davis criticizes the Hodson drawings published in the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle, writing, "Many details questionable, especially the bent knees."

If Ledwith's sketches included bent legs, why doesn't Davis criticize his drawings as well? Here is what I believe to be the most straightforward and reasonable explanation ...

Ledwith states (D & B report, pp. 46 - 47) he returned to the farmhouse on the evening of the 22nd with two sketches - the one from the women's interview session (which he'd redrawn in better form) and the one he'd drawn talking with Taylor later during the earlier visit at midday / early afternoon.

Taylor began to offer modifications to Ledwith's sketch (the Taylor version, not the women's) which Ledwith attempted to incorporate on the Taylor sketch. These speculative / experimental revisions made Ledwith suspicious of Taylor, and he gladly handed Taylor off to Hodson.

If Hodson's version of the Taylor sketches are the only ones cited as including bent / articulated legs Taylor mentioned in the evening of the 22nd, doesn't this imply the blue-paper multi-figure sheet is the Taylor / Ledwith sketch (augmented in response to Taylor's evening glosses) rather than the women / Ledwith sketch?

More specifically, doesn't it imply the smaller figures at the bottom of the sheet (2 of which have bent legs) represent Ledwith's attempts to incorporate Taylor's add-ons that weren't mentioned until the evening?

NOTE: Ledwith's account of the women's sketching session doesn't indicate the finished product displayed anything more than the front / side views that were subsequently published.

I'm not convinced the blue-paper sketch is a product of the women's interview at all. I think it's the Taylor session sketch with Taylor's evening add-ons.
 
There's another interesting thing about the alleged Ledwith original sketches ...

Two of the smaller figures sketched at the bottom of the sheet are shown in poses which display articulated legs.

Davis (p. 28) states:


In her Figure 11 (p. 57) displaying newspaper illustrations of the visitors Davis criticizes the Hodson drawings published in the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle, writing, "Many details questionable, especially the bent knees."

If Ledwith's sketches included bent legs, why doesn't Davis criticize his drawings as well? Here is what I believe to be the most straightforward and reasonable explanation ...

Ledwith states (D & B report, pp. 46 - 47) he returned to the farmhouse on the evening of the 22nd with two sketches - the one from the women's interview session (which he'd redrawn in better form) and the one he'd drawn talking with Taylor later during the earlier visit at midday / early afternoon.

Taylor began to offer modifications to Ledwith's sketch (the Taylor version, not the women's) which Ledwith attempted to incorporate on the Taylor sketch. These speculative / experimental revisions made Ledwith suspicious of Taylor, and he gladly handed Taylor off to Hodson.

If Hodson's version of the Taylor sketches are the only ones cited as including bent / articulated legs Taylor mentioned in the evening of the 22nd, doesn't this imply the blue-paper multi-figure sheet is the Taylor / Ledwith sketch (augmented in response to Taylor's evening glosses) rather than the women / Ledwith sketch?

More specifically, doesn't it imply the smaller figures at the bottom of the sheet (2 of which have bent legs) represent Ledwith's attempts to incorporate Taylor's add-ons that weren't mentioned until the evening?

NOTE: Ledwith's account of the women's sketching session doesn't indicate the finished product displayed anything more than the front / side views that were subsequently published.

I'm not convinced the blue-paper sketch is a product of the women's interview at all. I think it's the Taylor session sketch with Taylor's evening add-ons.

I'd concur with that - the series of poses at the bottom looks more like a later attempt to rationalise or fit together the various pieces of information Ledwith had received by that point into a biologically 'credible' whole, hence why it abandons the idea of "inflexible" legs (or legs having the appearance of flashing fluorescent lights, for that matter).
 
I'm beginning to wonder if I should, personally, have dismissed the 'flying saucer' element instantly.

It explains where the creatures suddenly came from, why the descriptions make no sense and if conceivably wearing some type of 'armour protection', how they might have survived being hit by gunfire.

Coincidentally, running a reverse-image search on our sketches, I came across this:

View attachment 45099

It too, similarly accompanied by a companion, reportly arrived in a 'flying saucer' whilst visiting Venezuela.

Mercifully, this probably didn't occur in 1955, otherwise I might seriously start to wonder.

So, I checked, just for the record...

13 February, 1955

Maybe they were on a 6 month deployment, Earth reconnaissance mission?:

http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/press/wacotribuneherald13feb1955.htm

Just to return to this for a second, the details of that incident are quite something; the driver lifted one of the unfortunate creatures up and "tried to take him back to his car", finally attacking it with a knife when that was unsuccessful. Gives a whole new meaning to "alien abduction".

I suppose the one that interests me most is a point of comparison is the Symmonds case from Stockton, GA, if only because here we also have the very distinctive "raised arms" motif. The Ledwith drawings above reminded me that this seems to be one of the best points of either cracking whatever it was people saw, or misperceived, at Hopkinsville, or perhaps providing a mechanism for explaining how a hoax was conducted (eg some sort of figure suspended from above by the "arms"?). Leclet of course thought this suggested both cases were owls.

https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/ce3/1955-07-03-usa-stockton.htm

The Symmonds case was supposedly from July 1955 but, perhaps critically, doesn't seem to have been reported until September, by which time the Hopkinsville incident had been widely reported.
 
That's a good illustration of a water bird's flying posture near the surface / ground. The legs are essentially unused, and this correlates with multiple comments made about the visitors. The descriptions emphasizing the visitor flailing / flopping away using the forelimbs with no visible help from the hind limbs were a key factor for my returning to consider the possibility the visitors could have been birds (other than owls).
 
No, we don't ...

Ledwith's own account of his sketching session with the women at midday on the 22nd states that Ms. Lankford left the session while it was in progress.
I see where you are going with this and duly noted. Definitely need to place this in my 'pending' tray.... which is beginning to overflow!

Amazingly helpful feedback, as always, and this needs yet another rethink on my part, which is fair enough and the entire point of being able to discuss this case openly and in real time.

The whole thing is like one of those slide puzzles where you have to keep reshuffling the tiles to make one fit and then realise if you do that, another one no longer does! :)
 
I'm not convinced the blue-paper sketch is a product of the women's interview at all. I think it's the Taylor session sketch with Taylor's evening add-ons.
Brilliant detective work.

I concur with your conclusions and as noted, I originally posted this, before a quick deletion, as being Hodson/Taylor's work.

I think you might just have drawn my attention back to something which could be significant.

It's actually related to an aspect I was half-way through writing about and shall now need to revise.

Been through more revision on this case, than for all those exams at Uni...
 
The whole thing is like one of those slide puzzles where you have to keep reshuffling the tiles to make one fit and then realise if you do that, another one no longer does! :)
Yep ... Any coherent model for what happened on 21 / 22 August can only be a house of cards - delicately balanced and vulnerable to collapse if any components is shifted ever so slightly.
 
About the blue-paper drawing ...

There's an alternative interpretation for what it represents, but Ledwith's report (within the D & B report) isn't detailed enough to demonstrate whether it's more compelling than the hypothesis the drawings are based on Taylor.

It was after Ledwith had handed off Taylor to Hodson that the 3 travelers to Evansville (Lucky; J. C.; O. P. Baker) arrived and sat down with Ledwith to work on a sketch.

I've compared the blue-paper figure against the 3 Ledwith sketches in the D & B report (pp. 44, 48, and 51). The blue-paper drawing's figures most closely resemble Ledwith's final draft of the 3 men's (other than Taylor's) version of the visitor. It has the rounded chin as opposed to Taylor's pointed chin. The ears sit closer to the head. The upper body is more robust than the women's version (similar to Taylor's version). The thin wide mouth is a default Ledwith inserted owing to the 3 men's uncertainty; Taylor's version is different.

In his report (within the D & B report) Ledwith clearly indicates he'd started a second sheet when he began interviewing Taylor during the first visit to the farm (midday / early afternoon). He does not clearly indicate whether he started with a new sheet when interviewing the 3 men later versus re-using the Taylor sketch as a starting point and revising it in that last sketching session. Without knowing the medium and pen / pencil / whatever being used, I can't confirm whether the Taylor sketch was edit-able or not.

One way or the other, the blue-paper sketch is not the one that came out of the women's interview earlier in the day. That much seems clear. The blue-paper figures seem to be derived from the men's interview rather than the women's or Taylor's interviews. My point is that the blue-paper drawing may represent:

- Taylor's sketch, modified per Taylor's evening add-ons, then revised again to contain the 3 men's version with Taylor's add-ons still visible at the bottom, or ...

- A wholly new sketch created when interviewing the 3 men - meaning the odd poses with the articulated legs were suggested and approved by the 3 men in addition to Taylor.

If it had been the latter possibility it would mean all 3 shooters described articulated legs, and this feature wasn't the peculiarity of Taylor's testimony alone that Davis makes it out to be.
 
If Ledwith's sketches included bent legs, why doesn't Davis criticize his drawing as well...
It could look similar to a crouched heron... :)

When is a suitable intro to the following.

As with any conceivable explanation for the baffling creatures, eventually it has to to meet that seemingly impenetrable, triple-fence, barrier:-

- why would they approach the farmhouse in the first instance

- why would they keep returning if being shot at

- why did the apparent direct hits seem to have little effect, other than to knock them over.

None of which appears to make the slightest sense pertaining to herons, nor indeed anything else, of course.

If we leave this entirely aside, for now and first consider if it's even tenable...

So, if maybe herons...we do have that stilt-like appearance of the creatures' legs, distinctively matching talons and also documented accounts of them emitting a phosphorus glow, albeit this seems rarely observed.

What else... amongst competing accounts of the creatutes' manoeuvrability, in the aforementioned 'Leaf-Chronicle' article of 24 August, we do have, "skimmed above the ground".

That's precisely the word and description you would be looking for.

It might help revisiting the evidence concerning what was reportedly observed in the very first place and resulted in our, 'floating, glowing' little men.

So, what do we have in that respect?

Shall see what I can find and how it looks when reconsidered in the light of recent developments re this conceivable heron connection.
 
I’m completely lost in this complicated story and chronology, but a simple point occurs to me: l find it extremely unlikely that birds would hang around the area with all of the human activity going on, much less return to the house after the repeated gunfire.

maximus otter

This is also the big stumbling point for me. I know that Leclet's owl theory answers this by saying owls are aggressively territorial, but doesn't explain why they would be territorial for a period of a few hours on one night. This is one place where the "escaped monkey" (or even "borrowed monkey" in the case of a hoax or a practical joke that went a bit far) is a much better fit.

Having said all that, some of the descriptions recently unearthed in this thread (which has been fascinating to read so far) lead me to think we have to be looking at a hoax or practical joke, if not some more anomalous stimulus for what they were seeing (nb. the latter doesn't necessarily have to imply "little green men"). Herons and owls might glow occasionally but I can't see any easy fit with the 'aluminium foil' appearance repeatedly mentioned.
 
Last edited:
What else... amongst competing accounts of the creatutes' manoeuvrability, in the aforementioned 'Leaf-Chronicle' article of 24 August, we do have, "skimmed above the ground".
This is Isabel Davis' summary of all shots she believes are known to have been fired:

(Start)
Withdrawing slightly into the house, they awaited they awaited the arrival of the creature. When it had moved to within 20 feet of the back door, both nen fired. The creature somersaulted backwards - "did a flip," as the men put it - scrambled hastily upright, and scurried away into the darkness at the side of the house.

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, and again it "flipped" and disappeared.

(...)

The men decided to go outdoors and see whether they had actually hit the creature; as they started out the front door... those behind him in the hall saw a claw-like hand reach down and touch his hair.

...Sutton turned the .12 gauge shotgun up toward the creature on the overhang, fired, and knocked it over the roof.

"There's one up in the tree, too," Billy Ray said - it was on the limb of the maple tree to the right as you leave the house. Both Lucky and Taylor shot at that one, knocking him off the limb; he floated to the ground, they shot at him again, and he too scurried off into the weeds.

Almost at the same moment, around the north west corner of the house, right in front of Lucky, came another one - or the same one that had been knocked over the ridgepole.

(...)

Now, as the creature came round the corner of the house, Lucky brought the shotgun down to bear on it and fired at point-blank range. It sounded as if the shots had hit a metal bucket. The thing "flipped over," got up and ran off into the darkness, seemingly unhurt".
(End)


There are only five occasions when it seems a creature has been hit and the outcomes were:

- "did a flip," scrambled upright and scurried away

- "flipped" and disappeared

- was knocked over the roof

- floated to the ground, was shot again and scurried off into the weeds

- "flipped over," got up and ran off.

Solely based on this summary - primarily because it's the main one to go on - and *tentatively* surmising... *if* this is correct...

On only three occasions was a creature actually seen to depart after apparently surviving a direct hit and it either:

- scurried away
- scurried off
- ran off

What if this has, quite inadvertently, been a deceptive portrayal since the very beginning and doesn't actually mean 'scurried, or 'ran' on legs, as an animal would.

Suppose, for a moment, it was a creature which perhaps started off running and then quickly took flight, low above ground, as in a 'skimming' motion, same as a heron (which is apparently ecomonical and rarely requires raising its wings above parallel).

In her book, 'Alien Legacy Revisited', Geraldine Sutton Stith recalls how her late father, 'Lucky' Sutton explained to her in later years:

"He said they really didn't walk, just skimmed on top of ground, but moved their legs."

With the up/down motion of those large wings, possibly perceived to be long arms propelling the creature forward, whilst the trailing 'broomstick' legs puzzled, as they seemed to serve no assistance?

We might also have a later sighting of one creature reportedly shot on the roof.

From the 22 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 the 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".

Although no mention of a shot being fired, she reportedly says it might have flown "over the house...".

Anyway, it's not remotely the perspective I personally started with, having been deceived by indications of creatures who could climb up trees, leap onto the rooftop, float down from them when shot and then skedaddle on all four limbs.

The question of how our creatures, should they be herons, were believed to be slowly walking towards the farmhouse, let alone with arms raised... shall have to come back to - maybe enough more mere musings for now...!
 
Just one further brief note; If herons, this also offers to resolve the paradox why no creatures were found when the police investigated.

Yes, creatures had been shot and doutless injured, however, the evidence implies they had survived, at least for a while anyway.

Whilst not a particulary pleasant scenario, we also have to keep in mind there was never remotely any threat before the creatures were fired upon, only some 'itchy trigger fingers' and arguably not a lot of rational thought.
 
... - why did the apparent direct hits seem to have little effect, other than to knock them over.
None of which appears to make the slightest sense pertaining to herons, nor indeed anything else, of course.
There's a general issue regard the shootings and what it is we presume the shooters were actually doing when they fired. It breaks down into two parts:

(1) Who besides the shooters themselves actually saw a visitor at which anyone shot?
(2) Did the shooters always aim to hit any visitor at which they were shooting?

The number of sighting / shooting events for which anyone other than a shooter attested being a witness is much less than the number of reported shootings. There are only two residents other than the 3 shooters documented as having claimed to have personally seen a visitor - Ms. Lankford and Alene Sutton.

There's no question shots were fired, but there remains a question whether - and on which occasion(s) - the shooter(s) actually fired directly at a visitor. Other than the shooters themselves - coincidentally the sole sources for claims about sounds made by hits - who was in a position to confirm any shooter's aim?
 
Just one further brief note; If herons, this also offers to resolve the paradox why no creatures were found when the police investigated.

Yes, creatures had been shot and doutless injured, however, the evidence implies they had survived, at least for a while anyway.

Whilst not a particulary pleasant scenario, we also have to keep in mind there was never remotely any threat before the creatures were fired upon, only some 'itchy trigger fingers' and arguably not a lot of rational thought.
Um. Once again, herons sleep at night. Near water. They do not investigate human habitats. Esp. if someone has shot a gun. But primarily, they would be asleep. Just reading all the excellent analysis above, still leaning toward they made it all up and sold it.
 
What else... amongst competing accounts of the creatutes' manoeuvrability, in the aforementioned 'Leaf-Chronicle' article of 24 August, we do have, "skimmed above the ground".
That's precisely the word and description you would be looking for.
It might help revisiting the evidence concerning what was reportedly observed in the very first place and resulted in our, 'floating, glowing' little men.
So, what do we have in that respect?
Consider the descriptions given by witnesses ...

None of them describe the visitors' locomotion when approaching. The only sighting event in which a visitor was claimed to have been seen approaching was the first one (Lucky and Taylor; back yard), and neither witness is documented as mentioning how the visitor(s) walked. Those two shooters were the only ones who witnessed the visitor's approach, and they allegedly watched it come up to the house across the open space of the back yard. If anyone had a good opportunity to observe the visitors' lower extremities and / or locomotion it should have been them.

Ms. Glennie said in her statement she didn't see the 2230 visitor in motion. She only states she saw the 0330 visitor once it was already at the window.

Nobody (shooter or non-shooter) could confidently describe a visitor's feet to Ledwith. The residents seemed to consistently evade any mention of articulation in the legs. Assuming Hodson's sketch accurately reflected what Taylor told him, Taylor was the only witness who claimed the legs bent.

The only testimony insinuating the visitors walked or ran related to casual mentions of their having run away after a shot was fired. This implies nothing more substantive than moving along the ground. There are no descriptions of legs moving, footfalls, stride length, etc. In contrast, there are descriptions of how inert or motionless the legs seemed to be as a visitor scuttled away using its forelimbs for primary propulsion.

All descriptions of visitors fleeing afoot came from the shooters themselves. The sole non-shooter witnesses (Ms. Glennie and Alene) only said or insinuated the given visitor simply "disappeared."

The closest thing to any description of the legs in motion was Lucky's (?) statement that the legs flashed like a fluorescent light bulb when the visitors were 'running' away. He's not reported to have linked this flashing to any footfalls, stepping, etc.

There's no solid testimony to be found that indicates the visitors had feet on the ground. There's nothing to contradict the notion they always skimmed or floated above the ground except the vague mention of scratching on the kitchen roof. If the witnesses' sketches are reliable, the only way the visitors could have made scratching sounds on the roof was with their forelimbs / arms.

The real issue isn't whether the visitors could "float" - it's whether the visitors ever "walked."
 
Consider the descriptions given by witnesses ...

None of them describe the visitors' locomotion when approaching. The only sighting event in which a visitor was claimed to have been seen approaching was the first one (Lucky and Taylor; back yard), and neither witness is documented as mentioning how the visitor(s) walked. Those two shooters were the only ones who witnessed the visitor's approach, and they allegedly watched it come up to the house across the open space of the back yard. If anyone had a good opportunity to observe the visitors' lower extremities and / or locomotion it should have been them.

Ms. Glennie said in her statement she didn't see the 2230 visitor in motion. She only states she saw the 0330 visitor once it was already at the window.

Nobody (shooter or non-shooter) could confidently describe a visitor's feet to Ledwith. The residents seemed to consistently evade any mention of articulation in the legs. Assuming Hodson's sketch accurately reflected what Taylor told him, Taylor was the only witness who claimed the legs bent.

The only testimony insinuating the visitors walked or ran related to casual mentions of their having run away after a shot was fired. This implies nothing more substantive than moving along the ground. There are no descriptions of legs moving, footfalls, stride length, etc. In contrast, there are descriptions of how inert or motionless the legs seemed to be as a visitor scuttled away using its forelimbs for primary propulsion.

All descriptions of visitors fleeing afoot came from the shooters themselves. The sole non-shooter witnesses (Ms. Glennie and Alene) only said or insinuated the given visitor simply "disappeared."

The closest thing to any description of the legs in motion was Lucky's (?) statement that the legs flashed like a fluorescent light bulb when the visitors were 'running' away. He's not reported to have linked this flashing to any footfalls, stepping, etc.

There's no solid testimony to be found that indicates the visitors had feet on the ground. There's nothing to contradict the notion they always skimmed or floated above the ground except the vague mention of scratching on the kitchen roof. If the witnesses' sketches are reliable, the only way the visitors could have made scratching sounds on the roof was with their forelimbs / arms.

The real issue isn't whether the visitors could "float" - it's whether the visitors ever "walked."

Unless, of course, you attach any credit to the sentence from the Evansville Press Aug 22nd article, "she said she saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house".

There is also Ledwith's comment "Instead there was something resembling suction cups. When they walked, they picked their "feet" straight up, and when did, so the cups on their legs appeared to collapse" - the source was not indicated but @Comfortably Numb suspected Taylor.
 
Last edited:
Unless, of course, you attach any credit to the sentence from the Evansville Press Aug 22nd article, "she said she saw a figure like that of a little old man or monkey walking around her house".
That's an indirect citation from a notably jumbled newspaper article. It's not clear she ever spoke with anyone from the Evansville Press. We've inferred the Evansville paper may have sent a reporter to the scene on the 22nd, but this is only a working assumption.

It conflicts with her signed statement of the same day in which she explicitly states it was others who saw such a figure. This statement definitely came from her and has to be accorded a higher degree of confidence.
 
There is also Ledwith's comment "Instead there was something resembling suction cups. When they walked, they picked their "feet" straight up, and when did, so the cups on their legs appeared to collapse" - the source was not indicated but @Comfortably Numb suspected Taylor.
Ledwith's own account attributes this to something overhead while Taylor was speaking with Hodson on the evening of the 22nd, while Ledwith himself was working with the 3 men who'd returned from Evansville:

TAYLOR, STILL BEING INTERVIEWED BY THE SOLDIER, TALKED ABOUT FEET THAT RESEMBLED SUCTION-CUPS, BUT SINCE HE WAS IN THE MINORITY WE DECIDED NOT TO INDICATE FEET AT ALL.
(D & B report, p. 52)

The 3 men Ledwith was interviewing at the time couldn't offer any description of the visitors' feet, and Ledwith went so far as to write neither these men nor the 3 women he'd interviewed earlier had seen any feet. (Ibid.)

The 'suction cups' bit was 100% Taylor, and the only place it was reported at the time was in the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle article on 24 August. That news article is the source of the quote, not Ledwith.
 
This is Isabel Davis' summary of all shots she believes are known to have been fired:

(Start)
Withdrawing slightly into the house, they awaited they awaited the arrival of the creature. When it had moved to within 20 feet of the back door, both nen fired. The creature somersaulted backwards - "did a flip," as the men put it - scrambled hastily upright, and scurried away into the darkness at the side of the house.

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, and again it "flipped" and disappeared.

(...)

The men decided to go outdoors and see whether they had actually hit the creature; as they started out the front door... those behind him in the hall saw a claw-like hand reach down and touch his hair.

...Sutton turned the .12 gauge shotgun up toward the creature on the overhang, fired, and knocked it over the roof.

"There's one up in the tree, too," Billy Ray said - it was on the limb of the maple tree to the right as you leave the house. Both Lucky and Taylor shot at that one, knocking him off the limb; he floated to the ground, they shot at him again, and he too scurried off into the weeds.

Almost at the same moment, around the north west corner of the house, right in front of Lucky, came another one - or the same one that had been knocked over the ridgepole.

(...)

Now, as the creature came round the corner of the house, Lucky brought the shotgun down to bear on it and fired at point-blank range. It sounded as if the shots had hit a metal bucket. The thing "flipped over," got up and ran off into the darkness, seemingly unhurt".
(End)


There are only five occasions when it seems a creature has been hit and the outcomes were:

- "did a flip," scrambled upright and scurried away

- "flipped" and disappeared

- was knocked over the roof

- floated to the ground, was shot again and scurried off into the weeds

- "flipped over," got up and ran off.

Solely based on this summary - primarily because it's the main one to go on - and *tentatively* surmising... *if* this is correct...

On only three occasions was a creature actually seen to depart after apparently surviving a direct hit and it either:

- scurried away
- scurried off
- ran off

What if this has, quite inadvertently, been a deceptive portrayal since the very beginning and doesn't actually mean 'scurried, or 'ran' on legs, as an animal would.

Suppose, for a moment, it was a creature which perhaps started off running and then quickly took flight, low above ground, as in a 'skimming' motion, same as a heron (which is apparently ecomonical and rarely requires raising its wings above parallel).

In her book, 'Alien Legacy Revisited', Geraldine Sutton Stith recalls how her late father, 'Lucky' Sutton explained to her in later years:

"He said they really didn't walk, just skimmed on top of ground, but moved their legs."

With the up/down motion of those large wings, possibly perceived to be long arms propelling the creature forward, whilst the trailing 'broomstick' legs puzzled, as they seemed to serve no assistance?

We might also have a later sighting of one creature reportedly shot on the roof.

From the 22 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 the 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".

Although no mention of a shot being fired, she reportedly says it might have flown "over the house...".

Anyway, it's not remotely the perspective I personally started with, having been deceived by indications of creatures who could climb up trees, leap onto the rooftop, float down from them when shot and then skedaddle on all four limbs.

The question of how our creatures, should they be herons, were believed to be slowly walking towards the farmhouse, let alone with arms raised... shall have to come back to - maybe enough more mere musings for now...!
Sooo... if we use the heron hypothesis, Maybe none of them actually came back?

People keep talking about the illogic of a creature that got shot at coming back for more.... the heron idea lends itself to a scenario where they actually DON'T come back at all. Each time a creature was seen fleeing... that specific creature left and stayed gone. It's 5 friends though? well, each got scared off individually... perhaps. Maybe there really was 10-15 of them?
 
Another way we might look at this is via "eyeshine".

Two out of the three sets of drawing annotations collected by Ledwith talk about yellow and white eyes (with the caveat that Ms Lankford separately stated she didn't see any eyes at all). A bit of online reading indicates that the colour of eyeshine seen at night can be fairly diagnostic - yellow rules out most owls, other than the great horned owl, and even that looks a bit on the red-orange side in the night time pictures I can find. Conversely the red-orange eyes seen in the Stockton case I mentioned above are a good fit for the eagle owl suggested by Leclet.

The one thing yellow certainly rules in (other than deer) is a raccoon.

Monkeys are a non-starter, as other than primitive ones like lemurs they do not have a tapedum lucidum, hence no eye shine.
 
Last edited:
Eyeshine color varies among species, but it can also vary within a single species based on the angle of the incoming light being reflected. Purely yellow eyeshine isn't all that widespread, but the more common green eyeshine might appear yellowish depending on the orientation to the light source.

... Which leads to another issue ...

For eyeshine to be visible, the observer has to be aligned to both the creature's eyes and the light source so as to see the light reflecting back through the eyes' retinas. This makes eyeshine most visible in animals that have both eyes oriented in the same (face-forward) direction. The most detailed descriptions of the Kelly visitors said the eyes were widely spaced at the corners of the face. This suggests eyeshine would have been a very transient effect rather than a persistent feature.

More importantly .... Eyeshine is reflected light from an external source - usually a strong single-point source. What light source(s) at the farmhouse may have caused eyeshine effects?

It's not clear what (if any) lights were in play during the first sighting at mid-dusk or something like a quarter-hour after sunset. It's apparent one or both outside lights (at the front and rear doors in the central dogwalk) were shining early in the evening. However, the culminating / later sighting events occurred after the lights had been turned off - i.e., in complete darkness.

Then again ... The witnesses' mentions of glowing eyes are associated with giving an overall / general description, and there aren't any ascribed correlations or associations with the various sighting events. In other words, perhaps it's the case the glowing eyes weren't seen to be glowing in some of the sighting events.

Once the house's lights were extinguished it becomes more difficult to understand just how visible any visitors could have been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
Eyeshine color varies among species, but it can also vary within a single species based on the angle of the incoming light being reflected. Purely yellow eyeshine isn't all that widespread, but the more common green eyeshine might appear yellowish depending on the orientation to the light source.

... Which leads to another issue ...

For eyeshine to be visible, the observer has to be aligned to both the creature's eyes and the light source so as to see the light reflecting back through the eyes' retinas. This makes eyeshine most visible in animals that have both eyes oriented in the same (face-forward) direction. The most detailed descriptions of the Kelly visitors said the eyes were widely spaced at the corners of the face. This suggests eyeshine would have been a very transient effect rather than a persistent feature.

More importantly .... Eyeshine is reflected light from an external source - usually a strong single-point source. What light source(s) at the farmhouse may have caused eyeshine effects?

It's not clear what (if any) lights were in play during the first sighting at mid-dusk or something like a quarter-hour after sunset. It's apparent one or both outside lights (at the front and rear doors in the central dogwalk) were shining early in the evening. However, the culminating / later sighting events occurred after the lights had been turned off - i.e., in complete darkness.

Then again ... The witnesses' mentions of glowing eyes are associated with giving an overall / general description, and there aren't any ascribed correlations or associations with the various sighting events. In other words, perhaps it's the case the glowing eyes weren't seen to be glowing in some of the sighting events.

Once the house's lights were extinguished it becomes more difficult to understand just how visible any visitors could have been.

These are all great points and as with the creatures' "locomotion", I think, feed into the idea that whatever the witnesses were describing doesn't seem particularly biologically credible even when you look at the most consistent features between the descriptions. Which to me pushes it back towards the idea of a hoax or practical joke, albeit one not all witnesses were in on.
 
Sooo... if we use the heron hypothesis, Maybe none of them actually came back?

People keep talking about the illogic of a creature that got shot at coming back for more.... the heron idea lends itself to a scenario where they actually DON'T come back at all. Each time a creature was seen fleeing... that specific creature left and stayed gone. It's 5 friends though? well, each got scared off individually... perhaps. Maybe there really was 10-15 of them?

You'd have to hypothesise a small flock of birds who stuck around while other members of the flock were getting blasted with shotguns. As herons are generally very wary this seems unlikely.
 
People keep talking about the illogic of a creature that got shot at coming back for more.... the heron idea lends itself to a scenario where they actually DON'T come back at all.
On which note, the following is crucial and can this be definitively clarified?

Isabel Davis claims:

""There's one up in the tree, too," Billy Ray said - it was on the limb of the maple tree to the right as you leave the house. Both Lucky and Taylor shot at that one, knocking him off the limb; he floated to the ground, they shot at him again, and he too scurried off into the weeds.

Almost at the same moment, around the north west corner of the house, right in front of Lucky, came another one - or the same one that had been knocked over the ridgepole.

(...)

Now, as the creature came round the corner of the house, Lucky brought the shotgun down to bear on it and fired at point-blank range. It sounded as if the shots had hit a metal bucket. The thing "flipped over," got up and ran off into the darkness, seemingly unhurt".
(End)

Where is she sourcing this information from, specifically:

- Sutton and Taylor shot at one on the limb of a maple tree

- it floated down and they shot it again

- another one comes around the corner and Sutton shoots it at point blank range.

In essence, what precisely is the evidence for each and where can we find it?
 
Back
Top