Talk:Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter/Archive 1

Concerning the encounter

I know this will come off as sounding as vicious sarcasm, but I wonder if alcohol and drugs had anything to do with it at all. www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

These are extremely religious people and they are not "religious nuts" either. This sounds like the Robertson Panel protocol, related protocol used to insult, ridicule them. I've had contacts in the military and in law enforcement.Martial Law 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a bug on my Sat IP that will not allow me to log in at all. Martial Law 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a documentary on the case a few years ago, and apparently some of the local police felt that "moonshine" had been involved. However, other people in the community disputed this, pointing out that the Sutton family were not known as drinkers, and the police who investigated that night found no alcohol in or around the farmhouse, and no members of the family appeared drunk, although they were highly agitated and frightened. The documentary provided some possible explanations (such as escaped circus monkeys, owls, or the "bad moonshine" angle), but never really settled on any one explanation, and basically left the case as unsolved.70.145.229.162 (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently asking myself if it wasn't just a very well made prank including some strings and a fishing rod and some figures made of metal, wood and other stuff. Some people who knew the family and knew that they'd have guests wanted to scare them. I don't know what exactly happened with the first creature that emerged from the woods, but all the other sightings could be explained by some buffon, hiding on the roof with his fishing rod. Chris 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.149.17.94 (talk)

Wikipedia article vs. Contemporaneous Newspaper Article

I have the original newspaper article from the August 25, 1955 Louisville Courier Journal (I'm from Hopkinsville). It contains the details obtained by the Courier Journal from the eywitnesses and local police within a day or two of the incident. I feel that it is the definitive source for information on this subject. I recently added the drawings of the creatures that appeared in the newspaper article. My problem is that the Wikipedia article contains several facts that are at variance with the Courier Journal's reporting. I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia and am not sure what to do about these inaccuracies. Anyone?

Mthsr1 16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Change the erroneous details, give a citation for your corrected details. That should prevent them from being changed back later. --208.204.155.241 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I know the above comments are old, but I wanted to add that the Kentucky New Era (Hopkinsville) is on Google News Archives now, and you can look and see their first-hand reporting on the alien encounter. I added a link to the initial report in the article.--Milowent (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• On Aug 23, 1955, the New Era ran an amusing ad for Indiana Cafe[1] (scroll down from that link) on its back page that says "EXTRA! We haven't had any LITTLE MEN But We Sure Have Had Some BIG MEN For What? Our fine foods ... Indiana Cafe". haha.--Milowent (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

This picture does not have a description and I don't think it reflects what we know about this encounter. Maybe the pic should be removed and a better one found. Mstuomel 09:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanations

I am suprised this wiki article does not include the "Cansler Cat Theory" printed in the local Kentucky New Era in 2003. The orignal article is only searchable in the archives for subscribers, but a transcript exists at http://ufoevidence.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=STRANGE&action=display&num=1058558014 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.145.31.10 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

why is there a picture of an owl on this page?

As noted in the text, the owl is one of the most probable explanations for this case. Mstuomel 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why. And so everyone can compare with the drawings above.--JMA1 10:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And get the govt. approved conclusion of the family being drunk, ignorant hillbillies. More govt bullshit. 65.173.105.7 06:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree here. that owl is more Govt. horseshit to make hard working, religious people look like idiots and jackasses.65.173.104.138 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we lose that owl pix? It makes the Sutton family look like idiots. Is that the intent of the owl pix? 65.163.117.135 (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true that it sounds just stupid, but people indeed believe in UFOs from stupid evidence. Againme (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to say that the owl theory is the same as calling the Suttons (and where is the evidence that they were hard-working and religious, anyway?) stupid. It's not calling them stupid, it's calling them human. Billy saw a strange light (a meteor) that he was not familiar with, then panicked and this panic spread. Look, it can happen to the best of us. Even the most intelligent people can misidentify a situation if they are spooked enough or in the right atmosphere. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.144.16 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Slphymon?

The 1st picture looks like a certain digimon from season 2/adventure 02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.123.125 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Owl bodies?! WTF

The reason that "we're" looking for intelligent life elsewhere is that there is none here on Earth. WTF are owls being used to "explain away" targets that were shot at by this family? WTFH are the bodies of those owls?65.173.104.138 (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Being shot at and hit are two different things, duh. Owls are fast. The people were in a panicked state. They were in the dark. We have no proof they were good shots to begin with. Certainly they weren't expert marksmen. They were shooting like mad, and they missed. As R. Leclet put it:

"These humanoids look very much like eagle owls. The Suttons did not recognize the night raptors because of some anxiety, that surely began with Billy's sighting and went growing when the dog began barking and a glow was seen in a field. The anxiety increased among the different people who were in the farm that evening and became a collective fear. Mrs Lankford became afraid only around 10 p.m. when Billy Taylor, who was under the overhang, was touched by the entity. Until then, she believed the men were playing (shooting training) (5). The window where the men shot at the entity is 86.7 cm high (5). If we take the lower two thirds as being the aimed area (judging from the holes in the mosquito screen), we have a height of 57.8 cm, and the eagle owl is 50 to 68 cm tall. If the owl was perched on the windowsill, the shooter would have aimed up to this height. Moreover, on a photograph (5, fig.16, p.72), white traces can be seen on the outer sill: are they bird droppings or putty pieces that fell from the window? It is one of the facts that, if verified, could have contributed to resolve the case as a misperception. It is worth noting that there are no hens or other poultry in the farm, and that owls would inevitably have lost some feathers during the shoot-out. Concerning shots fired by the Suttons, bullet holes were found in the upright of the mosquito screen. Policemen searched the house and found, without really looking for them, some cartridges (less than a dozen) but neither owl corpse nor blood… Can we be sure that the panicked men did not miss a moving target in the dark? Did they not somewhat exaggerate the number of gunshots that were really fired (200 cartridges!)? As for the alien (or bird) "invulnerability", when the Suttons shoot for the first time at the entity, from the door, they hear a kind of metallic sound. If we look at the map, we see that the well and the bucket are not far from the being, at its right. It is only in this occurrence that the Suttons state to have heard this sound. It is to be noted that those who speak about an "armoured" entity forget that the Suttons did not report many impact noises, what proves they missed their target. That the entity be an armoured alien or a bird changes nothing to this. Another evidence is what Brad Steiger writes in Project Blue Book: he says that whatever the invaders were, bullet holes in the walls testify that the farmers considered the creatures as real enough for shooting at them. As the Suttons never said the beings entered the house, why then these impacts in the walls? The case was considered as doubtful by policeman R.N. Ferguson, who stated that one of the holes in a window frame had been cut with a razor blade (10). This is not concluding, as witnesses or investigators could have used a blade for removing the bullet from the wall (5). Moreover, a MUFON magazine reader learned, when meeting R.N. Ferguson, that the witnesses were not very stable people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.144.16 (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary F. Hodson pictures

Where, exactly, do these come from? I can't find any reference to Gary F. Hodson outside of Wikipedia mirrors and sites using Wikipedia as sources. Were they scanned from an old newspaper, or something? Zagalejo^^^ 20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see Mthsr1's comments above. But anyway, it would be nice to have a more precise citation for the newspaper article (author name, article name, page number, etc) so that someone else can find it. Zagalejo^^^ 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The following images were added in 2006 [2], [3]. The claim they were both the work of US Army soldiers "sent to investigate" is uncited and unverified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, current discussion about these images at User talk:Mthsr1. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dick Van Dyke

Added a citation tag to the photo of Dick Van Dyke. No reference for it, and I suspect vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen e nelson (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Kelly-Hopkinsville peice, it stated that an alien was singing a line from Fiddler on the Roof. The year of the incedent was 1955. Fiddler on the Roof did not come out as a Musical until 1964. The movie Tavye came out in 1938 but in Yiddish, not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.147.101 (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Location of the farm

http://mickswilderside.blogspot.com/ The farmhouse was torn down sometime in 2009 or 2010. The farm property still exists. Its coordinates are 36°58'39.31"N 87°28'43.22"W and if you go to the 10-15-2011 layer you can see the sandy patch of land where the house stood. All the older layers show the house as standing. It looks like all the illstrations I've seen -- simple building with a nearly square footprint. --67.171.164.195 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing and attribution

This article is in dire need of proper sources for claims and attributions of interpretation. As it now stands it is a mix of plain fact, claims from the participants and analysis by both ufologist who believe it was extraterrestrials and skeptics without any clear attribution of which is which. In a case like this were there are few facts and lots of interpretation, we need to ensure that all interpretations have citations and are attributed. Ashmoo (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Even attributed text fails to be NPOV: "The encounter has shaped much of the narrative of the UFO tradition, including flashing lights appearing in rural areas and sightings of so-called little green men." clearly this wording assumes the phenomenon is entirely psychological, because real encounters are shaped by witness testimony and physical evidence. If there are honestly reported flashing lights, then it is the phenomenon itself that shapes these, not "tradition". -- 135.23.66.249 (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Need Citations For Paragraph

Does anyone know if any of the claims made in this section are valid????? They aren't sourced.

"As reports reached the newspapers, public opinion tended to view the story as a hoax[citation needed] and showed only brief interest in the event. Some residents of the local community, including members of the police department[who?], were skeptical of the Sutton's story and believed that alcohol (possibly moonshine) may have played a part in the incident. The fact that some of the witnesses[who?] worked for a carnival contributed to the belief in a hoax."[citation needed] --Royale-les-Eaux (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Project UFO

Would it be worth mentioning that this was the basis for the "The Howard Crossing Incident" episode of Project UFO ?--2606:A000:7D44:100:492A:DF7C:B219:934E (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad citation

Currently there is a citation in the article that makes no sense.

• Rodney Schmaltz; Scott O. Lilienfeld (22 July 2015). Pedagogical Psychology: Beyond the 21st Century. Frontiers Media SA. ISBN 978-2-88919-562-6. PMC 4028994 .

What is meant?

• Schmaltz, Rodney; Lilienfeld, Scott O. (2014). "Hauntings, homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: using pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking". Frontiers in Psychology. 5: 336. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00336. PMC 4028994.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

or

• Reevy, Gretchen M.; Bursten, Stanley N. (2015). "Pedagogical psychology: beyond the 21st century". Frontiers in Psychology. 6: 280. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00280. PMC 4355983.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

or

• Reevy, Gretchen M.; Bursten, Stanley N. (2015). Pedagogical Psychology: Beyond the 21st Century. Frontiers Media. doi:10.3389/978-2-88919-562-6. ISBN 978-2-88919-562-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

?

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Confusing. The intended citation was always to this Schmaltz-Lilienfeld article. Could have been a PMC number mixup?- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Could be. The article appears in the book, which simply seems to be an edited collection of Frontiers in Pyschology articles. But that'd need to be cited as

• Schmaltz, Rodney; Lilienfeld, Scott O. (2015). "Hauntings, homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: using pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking". In Reevy, Gretchen M.; Bursten, Stanley N. (eds.). Pedagogical Psychology: Beyond the 21st Century. Frontiers Media. p. 18. ISBN 978-2-88919-562-6.

And would not be particularly helpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Article criticisms

Today, I came across this article that has some criticisms of Wikipedia's coverage of this encounter/incident. Since I have never heard of this story before, I thought I'd post a link to the article here to bring it to the attention of this article's editors. Libertybison (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I could find no criticisms of this Wikipedia article in your linked Skeptic.com article. It does note that a paranormal podcast had criticized Schmaltz and Lilienfeld's paper: apparently one of the paper's internal citations erroneously attributed to Davis and Bloecher something that should have been attributed to Joe Nickell. (It's worth noting that, according to Skeptic.com, Lilienfeld has contacted the journal publisher to request the error be corrected) However, since our article makes no reference to Davis and Bloecher, either in text or citations related to Schmaltz and Lilienfeld's paper, I can see nothing here that would need correcting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200643/http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm to http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)