• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Geraldine also persistently refers to Ms. Lankford "selling" the house. I believe the preponderance of the evidence indicates she was neither formally buying nor owning the house at the time of the incident.
Thank you so much, that's all really helpful.

There are more details and insight regarding the house sale in Geraldine's original publication.

There seems no question that the Sutton's and Taylor's were simply visiting for the weekend and again, Geraldine's original publication goes into considerably more background.

One tangent she mentions, is something of a revelation:

Compress_20211020_214303_3222.jpg


Compress_20211020_214303_3756.jpg


Subsequently.... as Geraldine explains:
Resize_20211020_214242_2350.jpg


So, 'Lucky' Sutton had a reason to visit his friend Hubert and 'Lucky''s future wife 'next morning'?

I don't remember that being in the script.

Hmmm.... :thought:
 
There seems no question that the Sutton's and Taylor's were simply visiting for the weekend and again, Geraldine's original publication goes into considerably more background.
My interpretation is that there seems no question that in Geraldine's memory / retelling - initiated 13 years after the fact and undocumented for another 40 - 50 years - the Lucky Suttons and Taylors were simply visiting for the weekend.

I don't buy that for an instant. Hers is the only account I've ever seen that claims those two couples were at the Kelly house only for the weekend. I'd have to see some more evidence to accept this weekend-only presence and overturn the other 'fresher' (more contemporary) documented claims of a longer-term presence extending both before and after the incident.
 
The following page features a newly discovered article published by the "Evansville Press', on 23 August, 1955.

I believe it may contain the only official, contemporary quote on the incident, attributed to "Capt. Robert White, Air Force flying saucer expert".

I have never seen this before:

Spacemen Linked To River Monster

www.forteanmedia.com/Eville_23.pdf
 
Last edited:
It seems that the Evansville "claw" case was potentially part of what could be called a "flap" that included Kelly-Hopkinsville. Leonard Stringfield was keeping track of these. There had been sightings in the Cincinnati area, some of which were tied to hoaxes, and the ideas moved down the Ohio valley.
 
It seems that the Evansville "claw" case was potentially part of what could be called a "flap" that included Kelly-Hopkinsville. Leonard Stringfield was keeping track of these. There had been sightings in the Cincinnati area, some of which were tied to hoaxes, and the ideas moved down the Ohio valley.
Yep ... The possible connections among these 1955 sightings were noted at the time, and they're the basis for Ted Bloecher's review of that summer's strangeness (Part Two in the Close Encounter at Kelly report).
 
I have seen one...

Today...

One of the small creatures...

Well, it might be similar...

For the first time in over 10 years, I witnessed a heron at the nearby, small, man-made loch.

As an observation point, It had chosen one of the nesting platforms, which have been installed for the indigenous loch residents, usually coots.

This has proven to be an extraordinary revelation as regards the overall context of Kelly-Hopkinsville and confirms elemental doubts.

How much could our witnesses actually have been able to discern in the dark of night, primarily regarding the appearance of our enigmatic entities?

I may actually be able to illustrate this to a significant degree.

This equally applies, no matter what the identity of any actual approximately 2½ -3ft creature(s) might be.

My sighting occurred from some 35-45 feet away - I know that's roughly where the platform is located.

I naturally took several photographs, particularly some including the perimeter paving, in an attempt to help demonstrate the distance factor.

These are three images, which might hopefully prove insightful.

The first is an enlargement, which shows our visitor:

Compress_20211021_174032_2250.jpg


However, this is the true perspective:

Compress_20211021_174436_6229.jpg


My initial, quite striking, thought on seeing the heron standing there, was just how small it looked.

Therein lies the source of my primary concern. Even in daylight, I could hardly make out any details, only that it was a creature which had short (being in a crouched position) thin legs, a long, yellow beak and possibly black facial markings.

For a brief time, it raised one leg. I could not see any claws/talons. Neither, at any point did the heron raise its wings, or give an impression of having arms, or large ears and I could determine what its eyes looked like, from so far.

If it had taken off, even in daylight, all I would have observered is a bird, some 35-45 feet away, which was simply larger than any bird would typically look from that distance.

In essence, it would still be a relatively, very small object.

Next, some clouds arrived, it grew steadily darker and then I couldn't see the heron at all, even although this was mid-afternoon:

Compress_20211021_172438_8488.jpg


Consequently, how could our witnesses actually make out anything at all, particularly when Sutton and Taylor first believed there was an unidentified creature approaching, so best for them to head back indoors and grab their weapons.

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August


"A short time later somebody reported some little men with big heads and long arms were approaching the house. The men were described as having huge eyes and hands out of proportion to their small bodies. The visitors were wearing what looked to be metal plate".
(End)


'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August


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

The little men were described as follows: three to four feet tall, shiny "like chrome" all over, arms which stretched to the ground and oversize hands, slick bald heads with big eyes and pointed ears. There faces were like "skin stretched over a skull"."
(End)

Etc., etc..

If it was pitch black outside and then also as Sutton is quoted, explaining why the investigators didn't witness any creatures for themselves...

"That is because they used lights all over the place, you can only see them in the dark".

Nonetheless, if it might hopefully further assist with anyone's deliberations about all of the above, I also took some video footage, to evidence the perspective of my own 'encounter'. :)

Heron at Loch

(tap on video to expand)


 
The following page features a newly discovered article published by the "Evansville Press', on 23 August, 1955.
I believe it may contain the only official, contemporary quote on the incident, attributed to "Capt. Robert White, Air Force flying saucer expert".
I have never seen this before:
Spacemen Linked To River Monster

www.forteanmedia.com/Eville_23.pdf
Did you notice that two quotes attributed to John (J. C.) Sutton in this article were attributed to Lucky in the Indianapolis Star article published the same day (23 August)?

This 23 August article effectively repeats the claim made in the same newspaper's article of 22 August that Ms. Lankford herself observed a monkey-like figure the night of the incident. In the 22 August article the only person cited as claiming a monkey-like figure was Ms. Lankford, who is further cited as claiming the other adults had seen the same sort of figure. As noted earlier, this conflicts with Ms. Lankford's signed statement, which clearly and solely attributes the monkey-like characterization to the other adult witnesses.
 
Geraldine wasn't born until circa 1960 - 5 years after the incident - to Lucky and his second wife (not the wife present at the incident).

She first learned of the incident when Lucky told her about it in 1968. Geraldine (in one of her videos) states Lucky took her to the old house after telling her the story for the first time (i.e., 1968 - ish).

Lucky and Taylor worked for a traveling carnival but were staying at the farmhouse during the summer of 1955. They both left there to rejoin the carnival some weeks after the incident. Billy Ray / June left first (date unknown), and Lucky / Vera left in early October.
hmmm thinking about this, it would seem that Lucky gave her the VIP tour of the place as regarded the event. But I don't know what he told her though. :/
 
I have seen one...

Today...

One of the small creatures...

Well, it might be similar...

For the first time in over 10 years, I witnessed a heron at the nearby, small, man-made loch.

As an observation point, It had chosen one of the nesting platforms, which have been installed for the indigenous loch residents, usually coots.

This has proven to be an extraordinary revelation as regards the overall context of Kelly-Hopkinsville and confirms elemental doubts.

How much could our witnesses actually have been able to discern in the dark of night, primarily regarding the appearance of our enigmatic entities?

I may actually be able to illustrate this to a significant degree.

This equally applies, no matter what the identity of any actual approximately 2½ -3ft creature(s) might be.

My sighting occurred from some 35-45 feet away - I know that's roughly where the platform is located.

I naturally took several photographs, particularly some including the perimeter paving, in an attempt to help demonstrate the distance factor.

These are three images, which might hopefully prove insightful.

The first is an enlargement, which shows our visitor:

View attachment 46984

However, this is the true perspective:

View attachment 46985

My initial, quite striking, thought on seeing the heron standing there, was just how small it looked.

Therein lies the source of my primary concern. Even in daylight, I could hardly make out any details, only that it was a creature which had short (being in a crouched position) thin legs, a long, yellow beak and possibly black facial markings.

For a brief time, it raised one leg. I could not see any claws/talons. Neither, at any point did the heron raise its wings, or give an impression of having arms, or large ears and I could determine what its eyes looked like, from so far.

If it had taken off, even in daylight, all I would have observered is a bird, some 35-45 feet away, which was simply larger than any bird would typically look from that distance.

In essence, it would still be a relatively, very small object.

Next, some clouds arrived, it grew steadily darker and then I couldn't see the heron at all, even although this was mid-afternoon:

View attachment 46986

Consequently, how could our witnesses actually make out anything at all, particularly when Sutton and Taylor first believed there was an unidentified creature approaching, so best for them to head back indoors and grab their weapons.

'Kentucky New Era'
22 August


"A short time later somebody reported some little men with big heads and long arms were approaching the house. The men were described as having huge eyes and hands out of proportion to their small bodies. The visitors were wearing what looked to be metal plate".
(End)


'Madisonville Messenger'
22 August


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

The little men were described as follows: three to four feet tall, shiny "like chrome" all over, arms which stretched to the ground and oversize hands, slick bald heads with big eyes and pointed ears. There faces were like "skin stretched over a skull"."
(End)

Etc., etc..

If it was pitch black outside and then also as Sutton is quoted, explaining why the investigators didn't witness any creatures for themselves...

"That is because they used lights all over the place, you can only see them in the dark".

Nonetheless, if it might hopefully further assist with anyone's deliberations about all of the above, I also took some video footage, to evidence the perspective of my own 'encounter'. :)

Heron at Loch

(tap on video to expand)



In addition to the above you'd have to think of it emerging from a landscape of 3 foot high weeds.

Really useful to think about and, herons aside, another reason that I personally think the "owl" theory is a waste of time.

Essentially, the visitors were either 'glowing' enough to be spotted at a fair distance, or the story of the initial approach to the house described by Sutton and Taylor is fabricated. And if that is untrue, their role in the rest looks in doubt as well.
 
hmmm thinking about this, it would seem that Lucky gave her the VIP tour of the place as regarded the event. But I don't know what he told her though. :/
There's one item Geraldine cites about Lucky's "tour" given his children in 1968 that stands out.

Geraldine claims in her videos that Lucky took the kids out into the field out back of the farmhouse. Geraldine says she saw a large circular place on the ground where grass didn't grow, and she (her 8-year-old version) took this to be the place where the saucer had landed. This interpretation (wholly on her part) seems to have been pivotal in convincing her there'd really been a UFO landing.

I can't find any claim that Lucky himself showed the kids a place where the saucer allegedly landed. If he had, it would be in conflict with the earliest documented accounts, which cite Taylor as the sole witness to the alleged landing (and then only from some distance). Lucky had no first-hand knowledge of the alleged landing site. Furthermore, the earliest accounts repeatedly indicate none of the residents ventured out into any of the fields while the investigators were present on the night of the incident. Investigators returned during the following day (22nd) and explored the fields, but found no trace of a landing place. During these day investigations on the 22nd Lucky wasn't even at the scene - he was traveling to Evansville and wouldn't return until after dark.
 
There's one item Geraldine cites about Lucky's "tour" given his children in 1968 that stands out.

Geraldine claims in her videos that Lucky took the kids out into the field out back of the farmhouse. Geraldine says she saw a large circular place on the ground where grass didn't grow, and she (her 8-year-old version) took this to be the place where the saucer had landed. This interpretation (wholly on her part) seems to have been pivotal in convincing her there'd really been a UFO landing.

I can't find any claim that Lucky himself showed the kids a place where the saucer allegedly landed. If he had, it would be in conflict with the earliest documented accounts, which cite Taylor as the sole witness to the alleged landing (and then only from some distance). Lucky had no first-hand knowledge of the alleged landing site. Furthermore, the earliest accounts repeatedly indicate none of the residents ventured out into any of the fields while the investigators were present on the night of the incident. Investigators returned during the following day (22nd) and explored the fields, but found no trace of a landing place. During these day investigations on the 22nd Lucky wasn't even at the scene - he was traveling to Evansville and wouldn't return until after dark.
Well what I've heard most often is the claimed landing site wasn't even on their property. So whatever Geraldine saw in their backyard wasn't it. It sounds like someone burned leaves or trash TBH....
 
Well what I've heard most often is the claimed landing site wasn't even on their property. So whatever Geraldine saw in their backyard wasn't it. It sounds like someone burned leaves or trash TBH....

The supposed "landing site", which was mostly conjectured anyway due to the shallow ravine there being the only place an object could land and remain invisible, was beyond the fence line of the Lankford farm and on the land of a Mr. (Joseph) Gaither McGehee. I think McGehee was actually Lankford's landlord.

I agree she probably saw a place someone had had a fire, or multiple fires.
 
Last edited:
Well what I've heard most often is the claimed landing site wasn't even on their property. ...
The supposed "landing site", which was mostly conjectured anyway due to the shallow ravine there being the only place an object could land and remain invisible, was beyond the fence line of the Lankford farm and on the land of a Mr. (Joseph) Gaither McGehee. I think McGehee was actually Lankford's landlord.
Right ... See Davis' overview map of the area around the farmhouse:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ucky-goblins-incident-1955.17926/post-2117386

The Lankford / Sutton farmstead extended well beyond the fences immediately surrounding the house and its front / back yards.

Davis illustrated the Lankford / Sutton farm's boundary on its northern side. It's unclear where the farm's boundary lay on the southern side.

Unfortunately, Davis didn't illustrate the locations of the farmstead's various pens and structures (save for the outhouse), the home garden, or the tobacco patch(es).
 
This is a follow up to my own post #836.

The source of the phrases used by both the Rev Webb and Isabel Davis remains elusive.
Mystery maybe solved!

The article by Rev. Webb (a freelance author who has written elsewhere on the subject of UFOs and the Bible), mentions that he has read Jacques Vallee.

This is 1966, so a prime candidate must be Vallee's, 'Anatomy of a Phenomenon', published in June, 1965.

However, there seems no trace of any reference to Isabel Davis' work therein.

I believe we now might understand why that is and you might have to find a copy of the first edition.

I have eventually unearthed a link, which seems to be self-explanatory and is yet another unexpected little twist, admist the various intriguing tangents of our case.

The first is from Vallee's publication:

Forbidden Science
Journals 1957 - 1969


Compress_20211022_192631_1273.jpg


Compress_20211022_192631_1532.jpg


It seems reasonable to conclude that the Rev. Webb had indeed taken this exact quote from reading Vallee - although, as noted, I can't find any mention of Isabel Davis in later versions of 'Anatomy'.

As to where Isabel Davis obtained the quote, which has been reproduced many times since, I am not convinced it is actually a quote from Billy Ray Taylor at all.

I have previously mentioned that Isabel Davis is prone to using 'artistic license' in her report, qouoting Sutton and Taylor's conversations as if they had been documented.

I suspect this particular 'quote':

"real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow"...

...is partially sourced from the 'Leaf-Chronicle' article of 24 August, which claims of the witnesses, "All agreed, however, that the men arrived and deparated from their farm near Hopkinsville in a flying saucer, which glowed all over and spewed fire of a wonderful kind from its rear".

Given it was, of could, only Billy Ray Taylor who had observed anything and that was apparently a light streaking across the sky, then this is obviously nonsense.

So, however, is the full extent of Isabel Davis' related claims:

"As he was bringing up the bucket, he said, a silvery object, "real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow" came silently toward the house from the southwest about 30 to 40 feet overhead. It continued down the fields on a horizontal course: then it slowed down, came to a stop in the air, and dropped straight to the ground, seeming to disappear into a 40-foot gully at the end of the fields".

Anyway, hopefully all of some interest. :)
 
Mystery maybe solved!

The article by Rev. Webb (a freelance author who has written elsewhere on the subject of UFOs and the Bible), mentions that he has read Jacques Vallee.

This is 1966, so a prime candidate must be Vallee's, 'Anatomy of a Phenomenon', published in June, 1965.

However, there seems no trace of any reference to Isabel Davis' work therein.

I believe we now might understand why that is and you might have to find a copy of the first edition.

I have eventually unearthed a link, which seems to be self-explanatory and is yet another unexpected little twist, admist the various intriguing tangents of our case.

The first is from Vallee's publication:

Forbidden Science
Journals 1957 - 1969


View attachment 47038

View attachment 47039

It seems reasonable to conclude that the Rev. Webb had indeed taken this exact quote from reading Vallee - although, as noted, I can't find any mention of Isabel Davis in later versions of 'Anatomy'.

As to where Isabel Davis obtained the quote, which has been reproduced many times since, I am not convinced it is actually a quote from Billy Ray Taylor at all.

I have previously mentioned that Isabel Davis is prone to using 'artistic license' in her report, qouoting Sutton and Taylor's conversations as if they had been documented.

I suspect this particular 'quote':

"real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow"...

...is partially sourced from the 'Leaf-Chronicle' article of 24 August, which claims of the witnesses, "All agreed, however, that the men arrived and deparated from their farm near Hopkinsville in a flying saucer, which glowed all over and spewed fire of a wonderful kind from its rear".

Given it was, of could, only Billy Ray Taylor who had observed anything and that was apparently a light streaking across the sky, then this is obviously nonsense.

So, however, is the full extent of Isabel Davis' related claims:

"As he was bringing up the bucket, he said, a silvery object, "real bright, with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow" came silently toward the house from the southwest about 30 to 40 feet overhead. It continued down the fields on a horizontal course: then it slowed down, came to a stop in the air, and dropped straight to the ground, seeming to disappear into a 40-foot gully at the end of the fields".

Anyway, hopefully all of some interest. :)
Wow, Vallee came one step from accusing her of plagiarism.. O-o'

Now, I wonder, what was she copying? do we have that available?

this also makes me wonder if the Davis report became functionally public domain because of this fracas causing Davis to drop it and never touch it again?
 
I'm not sure who he means by "one of Hynek's former assistants". Is this a mistaken reference to Albert Andre? Andre conducted interviews and produced a report that was sent to NICAP; Davis did acknowledge it was one of her sources.
 
I'm not sure who he means by "one of Hynek's former assistants". Is this a mistaken reference to Albert Andre? Andre conducted interviews and produced a report that was sent to NICAP; Davis did acknowledge it was one of her sources.
That would be Ledwith. Hynek had worked with him previously:
"I would not have given the Kelly-Hopkinsville case this much attention were it not for the fact that I know the principal investigators, Ledwith and Davis, well, particularly Ledwith since he was in my direct employ for nearly two years on the satellite tracking program."
Hynek, The UFO Experience.
 
About Ledwith's role in the Kelly / Hopkinsville investigation ...

I've long wondered how much information Ledwith obtained from the farm residents during his visits to the house on 22 August and his interviews that produced his sketches. More specifically, I've wondered how it is that Davis' compiled report is tailored to make it appear Ledwith's role was limited to the sketching. CN's discovery and posting of the Vallee bit (above) rekindled my curiosity.

Note that Hynek lists Ledwith first among the 'principal investigators' of the Kelly incident (see my post above).

Vallee's claim about Hynek's 'former assistant', as well as the suspicion Ledwith's role was greater than Davis portrays, is reinforced by the following:
In July 1956 Isabel Davis traveled to Hopkinsville to do a complete investigation. She already had Bud Ledwith's extensive notes taken the morning after the all the excitement to work with but there were many questions yet to be asked BLUE BOOK advisor Dr. J Allen Hynek would later call the results of Davis' investigation, which incorporated Ledwith's interviews, "an excellent document worthy of publication."
(Emphasis added)
SOURCE:
THE FIFTH HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE
UFOS: A HISTORY

1955 July-September 15th: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
By Loren E Gross (2002)
http://www.cufos.org/UFO_History_Gross/1955_07_09-15th_HistorySN.pdf

The D & B report that would eventually be published doesn't mention, much less present, any notes from Ledwith beyond the basic facts of his 22 August visits and his activities strictly limited to the production of the sketches.

The obvious, if cynical, interpretation is that much of Davis' own text is her own retelling of material collected by Ledwith the previous year.

The additional speculative, but even more cynical, interpretation is that Davis' purported signed non-publication promise (if not interpersonal skirmishing) played a part in delaying the publication of any CUFOS / CSI report for decades.
 
About Ledwith's role in the Kelly / Hopkinsville investigation ...

I've long wondered how much information Ledwith obtained from the farm residents during his visits to the house on 22 August and his interviews that produced his sketches. More specifically, I've wondered how it is that Davis' compiled report is tailored to make it appear Ledwith's role was limited to the sketching. CN's discovery and posting of the Vallee bit (above) rekindled my curiosity.

Note that Hynek lists Ledwith first among the 'principal investigators' of the Kelly incident (see my post above).

Vallee's claim about Hynek's 'former assistant', as well as the suspicion Ledwith's role was greater than Davis portrays, is reinforced by the following:

(Emphasis added)
SOURCE:
THE FIFTH HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE
UFOS: A HISTORY

1955 July-September 15th: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
By Loren E Gross (2002)
http://www.cufos.org/UFO_History_Gross/1955_07_09-15th_HistorySN.pdf

The D & B report that would eventually be published doesn't mention, much less present, any notes from Ledwith beyond the basic facts of his 22 August visits and his activities strictly limited to the production of the sketches.

The obvious, if cynical, interpretation is that much of Davis' own text is her own retelling of material collected by Ledwith the previous year.

The additional speculative, but even more cynical, interpretation is that Davis' purported signed non-publication promise (if not interpersonal skirmishing) played a part in delaying the publication of any CUFOS / CSI report for decades.
Ok, so, what did Ledwith actually write? is there an extant copy of that?
 
Ok, so, what did Ledwith actually write? is there an extant copy of that?
The only Ledwith documentation I've ever seen is his narrative about visiting the farmhouse on the 22nd and drawing the sketches (pp. 42 - 54 in the D & B report). This embedded sub-report mentions some points unrelated to the sketching / sketches per se, but it's unclear whether this text represents the entirety of Ledwith's 'interviews' with the 7 adult witnesses (i.e., all the adults except June Taylor). In her introductory comments (p. 42) Davis claims the embedded sub-report was written "in the evening after his interviews" (i.e., after he left the farmhouse at circa 2230 on the 22nd).

Davis mentions Ledwith's contributions to the D & B report as follows:
Not only did Mr. Ledwith make his written report of the interviews and his sketches available for this report, he also carried on many further inquiries that arose while the report was being prepared.
(D & B report, p. 4)

Note that this means Ledwith apparently obtained and forwarded additional information other than what was already recorded in his embedded sub-report (assuming Davis was correct that his sub-report dated back to the night of August 22nd).

Davis herself mentions (p. 20) that she first became aware of Ledwith's "written record" and the sketches during her visit to Kentucky in June 1956 (10 months after the incident). Note that this contradicts the highlighted claim in the Loren Gross text (above) that she already had Ledwith's notes before visiting Kentucky.

There are scattered places within Davis' text where she cites things attributed to Ledwith as their source. It's unclear to what extent these additional Ledwith citations represent items from his original notes that weren't embedded 'as is' versus items that Ledwith collected and forwarded after having drafted his sub-report.

In his 1978 book The Hynek UFO Report Hynek describes Davis' investigation as follows:
The Center for UFO Studies is shortly to publish a detailed account of this case by Isabel Davis, incorporating much of the investigation of the incident performed by Bud Ledwith and therefore made before Mrs. Langford and her family had grown thoroughly disgusted with curiosity-seekers.
(Emphasis added)
Hynek (1978), p. 213 (Sphere Books edition)

This statement - made during the same period as the long-delayed report publication - strongly suggests Davis did not include or make use of all the information / documentation Ledwith had submitted.

It's anybody's guess how much more Ledwith material there ever was. If it was separately recorded or archived I haven't seen any clues as to where / when that might have occurred.

Ledwith was affiliated with the CSI group, but I don't know if this affiliation began before or after the Kelly / Hopkinsville incident. I didn't see any reference to a separate Ledwith report or submission when I reviewed the archived CSI reports (see my earlier post).
 
I'm wondering if phrases like "real bright, with an exhaust [...]" might therefore be in quotes as Davis took them from more extensive interview notes by Ledwith. Ledwith was one of the few people to interview Taylor directly.

My guess is if any of this stuff is archived anywhere it would be by NICAP, given that Davis and Bloecher later became NICAP 'staff members'. That the CSI files at least were combined with NICAP's is confirmed by an interview with Bloecher in Vol 1, no 5 of the "Journal of UFO history":

http://www.nicap.org/jufoh/JUFOH_Index.htm
 
It apparently originates from
'Just the Other Day: A History if Madisonville Kentucky', by A. J. Gooch:

"About three years [1958? Probably after the Armstrong Theatre show was aired] after the attack when Elmer Sutton and [Raymond] McCord were riding together in a truck, Elmer asked McCord, 'Do you remember the story about the little the little green men?'

"'Yeah.'

'Well that was just a big d... lie!
(End)
See my full post #513, for more detailed background.

I have further unearthed the following, full page case feature, published by the ''Kentucky New Era' on 30 October, 1995.

It includes comments from a then contemporary neighbour, Raymond McCord, who claims to have bought the farmhouse property some six years later.

Subsequently, he happened to meet 'Lucky' Sutton, who was apparently, for some unexplained reason, in the area and McCord alleges Sutton revealed the true nature of events on the night of Sunday 21 August, 1955.

As our understanding was that the McCord family took over from Mrs Lankford, the 'six years later' doesn't seem to make sense?

Perfectly in tune with most of this case, of course.

It's kinda similar to the tale published in Gooch's book, albeit not quite the same.

iIn this version, McCord claims that Sutton told him...

Well, I'll just upload the article (best copy available) and let you see for yourself and doubtless contemplate what to make of it all:

World won't let community forget Kelly space creatures

www.forteanmedia.com/1995_10_30.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
See my full post #513, for more detailed background.

I have further unearthed the following, full page case feature, published by the ''Kentucky New Era' on 30 October, 1995.

It includes comments from a then contemporary neighbour, Raymond McCord, who claims to have bought the farmhouse property some six years later.

Subsequently, he happened to meet 'Lucky' Sutton, who was apparently, for some unexplained reason, in the area and McCord alleges Sutton revealed the true nature of events on the night of Sunday 21 August, 1955.

As our understanding was that the McCord family took over from Mrs Lankford, the 'six years later' doesn't seem to make sense?

Perfectly in tune with most of this case, of course.

It's kinda similar to the tale published in Gooch's book, albeit not quite the same.

iIn this version, McCord claims that Sutton told him...

Well, I'll just upload the article (best copy available) and let you see for yourself and doubtless contemplate what to make of it all:

World won't let community forget Kelly space creatures

www.forteanmedia.com/1995_10_30.jpg
Can you give us a hint? No way I can make this legible.
 
... As our understanding was that the McCord family took over from Mrs Lankford, the 'six years later' doesn't seem to make sense? ...
Different McCord ...

The McCords who moved into the house when Ms. Lankford et al. left were Ms. Glennie's nephew William E. McCord and his wife Juanita. Juanita is the woman in the photos who's pointing at the holes in the window screen.

Raymond McCord was a neighbor (and quite possibly a relative of unknown relationship) who was critical of the UFO / creatures story. Davis doesn't mention him by name, but he might be one of the unnamed skeptics she cites.

There are references to Raymond McCord (by name) in Loren Gross's notes compilation ...

(1) Gross quotes a passage from a 1966 Kentucky New Era article* that erroneously claims Juanita was married to Raymond and Raymond was the McCord who moved into the farmhouse.

*(Dorris, Joe "Watching the Parade." Hopkinsville, Kentucky New Era 8 March 66.)

(2) Gross cites Raymond as the person to whom Lucky confessed(?) it "was just a big ******* lie", as attributed to Gooch's 1999 book.

NOTE: This 1995 New Era article doesn't specify the timeframe for this 'confession' incident. Neither does it mention the conversation occurring while they were riding in a truck (as Gooch is cited as claiming). Instead, it only claims Raymond said the conversation occurred while Lucky was "down here" (i.e., visiting Kelly). It's therefore unclear whether the 1995 newspaper item could have been Gooch's source.

(3) Gross claims Raymond "was still spreading the word" as of 1995, and cites the 1995 New Era article.
 
Did you notice that two quotes attributed to John (J. C.) Sutton in this article were attributed to Lucky in the Indianapolis Star article published the same day (23 August)?
I did, however, II hadn't quite made all the connections to the extent you have homed in on.

As you astutely observe, this further evidences how our story has evolved, right from its publicised genesis.

This is essentially what had seemingly become clearer and especially the fundamental influence in later years, of Isabel Davis' 1978 publication within, 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955'.

Resultant from the paucity of early evidence - effectively just those handful of newspaper reports from the following couple of days, much of what has become accepted as the 'story' originates therein and appears to be increasingly contentious as fact.

One further and final case report I have come across, which predates 1978 Isabel's treatise,
is a complete surprise and I had previously never seen this mentioned anywhere.

Published in 'UFO Report' magazine, from October 1977, it's a lengthy article by 'flying saucer' research stalwart, Gray Barker:

Compress_20211024_035600_0068.jpg


Whilst this contains some almost prerequisite 'artiistic license' as regards his understanding of events, it's an interesting read and I especially like how he leaves us with a 'Marie Celeste' ending to the tale.

Quite appropriately fitting, I thought... :)

On my understanding that 'fair use' applies - it's only the case reference, not Barker's entire article, duly uploaded to:

EXTRATERRESTRIALS AND THE WORLDWIDE PANIC FACTOR

Page 1
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_01.jpg

Page 2
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_02.jpg

Page 3
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_03.jpg

Page 4
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_04.jpg

Page 5
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_05.jpg

Page 6
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_06.jpg
 
In addition to the above you'd have to think of it emerging from a landscape of 3 foot high weeds.

Really useful to think about and, herons aside, another reason that I personally think the "owl" theory is a waste of time.
Amazingly fortunate that I had plenty of time to watch the heron and consider possibilities.

The real shock - and it was - happened to be comprehensively appreciating just how small it looked from that distance.

As I endeavoured to explain, even if had come much closer towards myself, in daylight, it would still be impossible to make out profoundly concise details - assuredly not to the extent our enigmatic creature is described on its first appearance,.apparently merging from afar and also at night.

Fascinating and an absolute, 'no way, that just doesn't work"...

Conclusion.... I wondered if the detailed description attributed to our initial sighting by Sutton and Taylor was retrospective, i.e. they did subsequently have a significantly closer observation and our story, understandably, has them witnessing all of this from the outset.

If that heron had silently glided out of a nearby wood and even though glowing, it would still remain no more than an enigmatic 'creature', albeit notably larger than a normal sized bird.

'Arms reaching down to the ground, spindly legs, long talond, oversized ears', et al, would have been entirely obscured and oblivious.

The point being, this would equally apply, no matter what the puzzling creature actually was. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
I did, however, II hadn't quite made all the connections to the extent you have homed in on.

As you astutely observe, this further evidences how our story has evolved, right from its publicised genesis.

This is essentially what had seemingly become clearer and especially the fundamental influence in later years, of Isabel Davis' 1978 publication within, 'Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955'.

Resultant from the paucity of early evidence - effectively just those handful of newspaper reports from the following couple of days, much of what has become accepted as the 'story' originates therein and appears to be increasingly contentious as fact.

One further and final case report I have come across, which predates 1978 Isabel's treatise,
is a complete surprise and I had previously never seen this mentioned anywhere.

Published in 'UFO Report' magazine, from October 1977, it's a lengthy article by 'flying saucer' research stalwart, Gray Barker:

View attachment 47171

Whilst this contains some almost prerequisite 'artiistic license' as regards his understanding of events, it's an interesting read and I especially like how he leaves us with a 'Marie Celeste' ending to the tale.

Quite appropriately fitting, I thought... :)

On my understanding that 'fair use' applies - it's only the case reference, not Barker's entire article, duly uploaded to:

EXTRATERRESTRIALS AND THE WORLDWIDE PANIC FACTOR

Page 1
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_01.jpg

Page 2
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_02.jpg

Page 3
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_03.jpg

Page 4
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_04.jpg

Page 5
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_05.jpg

Page 6
www.forteanmedia.com/Journal_06.jpg

Interesting that the father of Grey Barker's correspondent described the incident as a "joke".
 
Back
Top