Talk:Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Image

The aliens in the image "Artist's impression of supposed aliens" looks nothing like the traditional image of the aliens described by this case's "witnesses". If there are no voices against, I'm going to remove it shortly. Thanks. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Image looks like other depictions I've seen before. Also, the witnesses themselves gave multiple different descriptions:

Other details are also somewhat fuzzy. The beings were described in the first newspaper story as “about four feet tall,” having “big heads” with “huge eyes,” and “long arms” ([Dorris] 1955). However, they were downsized by Glennie Lankford (1955) to “two and a half feet tall” and were said to have large pointed ears, clawlike hands (with talons at the fingers’ ends), and eyes that glowed (or shone) yellow. They also had “spindly,” inflexible legs (Clark 1998; Davis and Bloecher 1978, 1, 28).[1]

The image appears in line with Glennie's description. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Intoxication

Re [2], the newspaper account cited contains all kinds of hyperbole and credulous references to little green men, so the WP:SENSATIONAL source shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt vs. a more sober (sorry for the pun) arms-length analysis by experts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, with all due respect, I strongly disagree. The newspaper report is sensational because it's a contemporaneous report recording the claims in this (weird) incident. There is nothing sensational or unusual about officials claiming the participants did not seem drunk, nor for that matter, about the investigative steps taken. The paper quite soberly reports the evidence discovered: none. I'm fine, of course, including the claim of intoxication, but I think it should be balanced this way. This next bit is, of course, very much WP:OR and so not reliable, so take it for what you wish, but in everything I have been able to read over the years, the claim of intoxication is 100% post hoc rationalization based on nothing factual at all. Do I believe that the Suttons, et al, engaged in a firefight with aliens? I sure don't. But I also don't think it logically follows that they must have been drunk. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel I have to add that Schmaltz and Lilenfield rely on the CUFOS report of Davis and Bloecher (itself probably not a reliable source) for the claim of intoxication. What Davis and Bloecher actually say is: Some skeptics thought that the "little men" were purely products of the imagination; the Suttons were hallucinating. Then the question is, what caused them to create imaginary figures? Hallucinations are internally induced by alcohol and many drugs, but there is no evidence of these at the farmhouse that night. (Alcohol had been ruled out early by all the official investigators, though not by the public, to judge by the way the accusation still rankled in Mrs. Lankford's mind when I talked to her.) I apologize if I am a bit strident here; this has stuck in my craw for a while as one of those "facts" that has crept into the record with little to sustain it. Cheers yet again. Dumuzid (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry we seem to disagree on how the article should treat this aspect of the story. The Kentucky New Era piece, especially the last three paragraphs, clearly leans sensational, and even ends with an unabashedly credulous quote from an official. The Schmaltz-Lilienfeld source, albeit tersely worded, contains quite an extensive bibliography that indicates they reviewed a great number of sources in addition to Davis-Bloecher. BTW I think you'll agree, Davis-Bloecher rather stridently conclude with refutations of all explanations except for alien visitation. Where I'm at: I don't think we need to give equal validity to both historical primary sourcing (Kentucky New Era)/UFOlogists (Davis-Bloecher) — and secondary sourced analysis from modern-day science educators. So I'm not sure where to go with this. Any suggestions for how the existing phrasing might be tweaked to satisfy your concerns? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Schmaltz and Lilenfeld have an extensive bibliography, but the claim of intoxication is cited to nothing other than the CUFOS report. And I am not proposing using Davis-Bloecher for anything, really (and I wish Schmaltz and Lilenfeld hadn't). I am not asking for any sort of massive rewrite here; so long as we include something like the current language that no drinking was reported at the time (more elegantly than that, of course), I am content. As I say, it's stuck in my craw, but I am quite aware of the difference between my craw and Wikipedia's craw. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the authors, Schmaltz-Lilienfeld, there was an error in the initial publication; the reference should have been Nickell, 2006, not Davis and Bloecher, 1978. The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. And here is their slightly rephrased correction to the original text: “It is plausible, if not likely, that the ‘aliens’ were Great Horned Owls, and there is some evidence that the eyewitnesses may have been intoxicated during the ‘alien attack’ (Nickell, 2006).” —Schmaltz, 2017. That said, I'm OK with leaving the text as is for the moment. Maybe some long term editors will have some thoughtful ideas. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That makes more sense! And I haven't subscribed to SI for a long time now, so I haven't looked at the Nickell article, but yes, I am fine waiting to hear from others. As noted, I am aware this is a bugbear of mine, and I don't want to be too obstreperous about it, but thanks for hearing me out on this insanely meaningless subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

...and I subscribed to SI just to read the Nickell article; it's also pretty equivocal on alcohol! Here's the extended quote In addition to those who thought it was a hoax, some attributed the affair to alcohol intoxication. I talked with one of the original investigators, former Kentucky state trooper R.N. Ferguson (2005), who thought people there had been drinking, although he conceded he saw no evidence of that at the site. He told me he believed the monsters “came in a container” (i.e., a can or bottle of alcohol). A visitor to the farm the next day did notice “a few beer cans in a rubbish basket” (Davis and Bloecher 1978, 35). Whether or not drinking was involved, it was not responsible for the “saucer” sighting; other UFOs were witnessed in the area that evening (Davis and Bloecher 1978, 33). I don't think this really changes anything, but it does strengthen my belief that we need to not present the drinking as unassailable fact. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

2024 discussion

Apparently a total of four beer cans were found on the entire farm. Reports at the time noted the individuals involved were sober, but terrified. Why does the article reference a skeptical article written years after the event alleging intoxication when there is no evidence the individuals were intoxicated? Are we pushing the “drunken hicks” stereotype? Personally I think it was owls- but that doesn’t mean the people were drunk! Sushisnake (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the article is pushing the “drunken hicks” stereotype. If anything, it comes a little too close to WP:GEVAL: Although contemporary newspaper stories reported that "all officials appeared to agree that there was no drinking involved", Schmaltz and Lilienfeld suggest that intoxication may have played a part in the sighting. Wikipedia prefers to summarize the analysis of WP:SECONDARY expert sources rather than sifting through primary sources and making our own analysis, and this is especially important with WP:FRINGE topics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, I added that language. And though it certainly cites primary sources, the language itself comes from a secondary source, a newspaper. I'd also point out this source [3] which I am still considering how to use. I will note the author is also a Wikipedia editor, but to my knowledge he has never edited this article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is, and I certainly wouldn't remove or dilute the Schmalz and Lilienfeld source, as Sushisnake seemed to suggest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just read the Blake Smith piece in Skeptic.org that you linked. Interesting, but it strikes me not so much as a useful analysis of the incident, but rather as a critique of Wikipedia and the author's perceived failings of skepticism. After all that complaining, "The real explanation isn’t any one thing, it’s the complicated web of culture, perception, society, narrative, and psychology" is too murky a summary to be useful for us. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree. Definitely interesting for background, and I would recommend anyone editing here read it, but I am less certain about it as an actual source in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's an interesting question, and one I wish I'd posed when I was corresponding with Scmalz and Lilienfeld. "Is there any evidence that alcohol is an hallucinogen?"

The answer should be obvious. The idea of pink elephants (or goblins) coming out of a body is amusing in cartoons, but it is not a sensible claim that people hallucinate after drinking.

A second question: "Do people who are not drinking also hallucinate when they're near people who are drinking?"

Again, I think it should be obvious that if alcohol does not cause hallucinations that we don't need to worry about the transitive properties of same.

So why is it pushed in THIS story? I would argue that it's a class issue and that locals in the community were trying to explain a strange and uncomfortable story that had a poor farmers and carnies through associations that devalued their perspective as witnesses. If you read the Schmalz & Lilienfeld article (which is NOT about this story, but uses it as a mere example) they're doing the same thing. There are so many real investigations into this work it feels ridiculous to insist on including THIS as evidence when it's so far removed from their expertise and the point of their paper. If they'd been seriously investigating the case, vs using it as an off-hand example, maybe?

If the point of Wikipedia is to provide accurate unbiased explanations for stuff in the world, why is this article so slavishly insistent on keeping THIS nonsense idea in the story? Trevor Sinclair (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers reliable WP:SECONDARY sources that are WP:FRIND, and these sources are not required to be unbiased. In this case, they are properly attributed, so the opinions are not expressed in Wikipedia's voice. What's not to like? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So if I found secondary sources that suggested that the root cause was - say... ALIENS?

(Not a thing I believe, but I can find plenty of sources that suggest that.)

Would it be appropriate to say Aliens were the cause?

They're equally likely as "alcohol caused hallucinations" which is to say neither explanation is correct.

So why prefer alcohol? 73.184.168.206 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Because we have a reliable source saying alcohol was responsible (even if I also find that explanation somewhat dubious). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

They're equally likely

If you're saying the existence of aliens is "equally likely", you're not going to win anyone over. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultimate origin of Green Man From Outer Space

Harold Sherman, The Green Man: A Visitor From Space (1946) Octavius88 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You'll need a citation to show this is the actual origin of the "little green men" phenomenon. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence it originated with this UFO incident. Octavius88 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Urban Legend?

Hi ‎LegalSmeagolian, I thought it might be best to hash out this (fairly minor) disagreement. Urban Legend strikes me as bit of a poor fit here. Our page defines such legends as "stories about an unusual (usually scary) or humorous event that many people believe to be true but largely are not." The basics of the story here are basically accepted to be true--family sees something outside of house, gets scared, engages in firefight with something (quite possibly imaginary). Now, the idea that they were fighting aliens, or goblins, or something else definitely sounds 'urban legend-y' to me, but I see that as sort of a side element of the event. Moreover, "[i]n the past, urban legends were most often circulated orally, at gatherings and around the campfire for instance" (again from our article). Again, that is not the case here, as our article states "the family's claims received widespread coverage in local and national press." So, is there a lot of nonsense associated with whatever this was? Absolutely. But, for me, that does not mean it fits into the category of an urban legend. But reasonable minds can certainly differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a major element of the event, as the urban legend aspect is why it was notable. Otherwise it was just people shooting guns into the woods because they were scared, which is not really notable. I think the distinction between Category:Supernatural legends and Category:Supernatural urban legends is poorly defined, but I think if the press or tabloids reported on it in a way that highlights "ALIENS" then it fits urban legend status. Also List of Urban Legends has a lot of overlap with Category:Supernatural legend. Idk this is a much broader issue on wikipedia regarding catagories in the UFO/Fringe/Folklore space. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Supernatural legend" would be a closer fit for me, but--the only universally agreed upon part of the event was "people shooting guns into the woods because they were scared." Again, I think the fact that the story can be pinpointed as to the participants, the location, and the timing, belies the classic "friend of a friend" nature of urban legends which tend to have very malleable details. For me, the fact that the press did report on it so much--even if much of it was woo--takes it out of the 'urban legend' genre. But I'll leave it at that, and will revert no more unless and until it appears there's a majority for my view (and I'm not holding my breath). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Dumuzid, it's not an urban legend. It would be different if many people believe to be true the tale of a rural family attacked by aliens. But this was a print press story that went the equivalent of viral in its time, due to a rash of media attention to unidentified flying object reports in the 1950s. Are there any sources that specifically cite this as an urban legend, a supernatural legend, or a legend? That would be the definitive answer of how we should categorize it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@User:AHI-3000, join the conversation, don't just revert with no explanation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't even understand why there's a dispute about this? I just created Category:Supernatural urban legends, I saw that this article had both Category:Supernatural legends and Category:Urban legends, so might as well reduce the redundancy by replacing them with the appropriate combined subcategory. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, about categorizing this article's subject as a supernatural/urban legend, I don't see why you guys think that's not an appropriate label? This is a relatively modern folktale involving alleged visitation by otherworldly creatures, so this is both a supernatural legend and an urban legend. AHI-3000 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, we should probably have some citations to books of folk tales in which this has an entry. Since it's supposedly a regional folk tale, a collection of Kentucky folk tales should contain it. Got a link? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not even sure 'folk tale' is an especially appropriate label: it was a widely reported incident at the time. There is a sort of folktale element in that people have, over the years, embraced the 'alien' bit to some degree. But the basic event does not fit 'folklore' to me. Everyone agrees it happened. It was investigated by authorities, and reported widely in otherwise respectable publications. The fact that those involved had an outlandish tale to tell does not, to me, make it folklore. In our article, some of the ways to identify bits of folklore are that they are "passed along informally, as a rule anonymously, and always in multiple variants." None of these apply to the encounter here. Much less is it, to me, an urban legend, which is a particular genre of folk tale. Usually these are passed orally (or personally online in the modern day, as on message boards). These often have malleable details and are frequently ascribed to "a friend of a friend." Consider this language from our "urban legend" article: "Urban legends typically include common elements: the tale is retold on behalf of the original witness or participant; dire warnings are often given for those who might not heed the advice or lesson contained therein (a typical element of many e-mail phishing scams); and the tale is often touted as "something a friend told me", the friend being identified by first name only or not identified at all." None of these apply to the encounter here. My argument is not that anything we're talking about here is "real," I am merely saying that both folklore and urban legends are distinct genres, and it is possible for a something to be a load of nonsense and yet not fall into either genre. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't help being a wise guy. Let me clarify. Those who want to categorize it as folklore, urban legend, superstition, etc. should provide citations to help demonstrate that it has notably been included in those categories. Example; if it's a well known fact it is an urban legend, it should be easy to find a RS that describes it as such. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, and yours is, all things equal, the more salient Wikipedia point. But I also think the overarching point is relevant here, and worth bringing up -- even if I am being a bit pointy-headed about the whole deal. To be clear, my screed above was aimed (in a respectful manner, I hope!) at the other two, not you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal either way, do whatever ya'll. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm less inclined to object to either version, since our main WP:FRIND source describes the story as "Filed under Aliens & UFOs, Urban Legends". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)