Most cases in UFO files are there for an immediately recognizable reason. Others seem forced. Others still are clear outliers. Because the 1950s was so rich in UFO CE3 case claims, it was a decade ripe for containing some such enigmas, and let's look at a few here.
Yep. Kelly-Hopkinsville. Cennini, too. Let's take a closer look.
A. Kelly-Hopkinsville, KY 1955. The provenance here is solid as the Appalachians, and within that, the credibility is pretty good too. This incident has had interviews and follow-ups a-plenty. Because it so multi-witnessed, any individual personality questions are muted. This case was worked to death by UFO researchers Bud Ledwith (a one-time colleague of Allen Hynek), and legends of the field, Isabel Davis and Ted Bloecher. It's rare that there is anything approaching this in fairylore work.
The encounter: (I'm going to be lazy here as I have already written this case up elsewhere --- I don't think that you can plagiarize yourself, but if I'm wrong I apologize to me.)
Scared at the weirdness, they went inside only to see the creatures keep coming on. A type of siege ensued with creatures going all about and climbing on the roof. Shots were fired at nearly point blank range to no avail. This strangeness continued most of the night. In the morning, upon going outside, no evidence that anything had been there was discernible except for empty cartridges, and damage by the bullets to farm property. [I'm telling the story almost off the top of my head, by the way, so a small detail could be off here or there].
The police were informed and the family gave witness. The military sent an investigator [he was from the Army base] to also write up a report. The drawings on yellowed paper [it's colored blue on the accompanying illustration below] are his, [It is possible that the Army guy just took the drawings made by Bud Ledwith who was on the scene rapidly] taken from the witness descriptions. Following that, many news outlets also came by, and most importantly, an engineer/scientist named Bud Ledwith, who had worked in the Moonwatch Program, and knew Allen Hynek well. [He was working at a nearby radio station at the time].
As was said, although the family literally felt the physicality of the experience, no such physical evidence persisted. The whole thing smacks not only of the Uncanny but also the paranormal. These were country people who don't miss shooting things at close range. These are outdoors people who would laugh at your face [if you were lucky] if you suggested that they couldn't recognize an owl [certain "intellectual" clowns have recently suggested that this was nothing more than owls protecting nests --- note the "unusual" owl crawling on all fours behavior in one of the drawings --- these sorts of "intellectuals" are societal criminals deliberately confusing the search for truth with their hung-up garbage].
Throughout her life, the central female figure in the Sutton family was engaged in reflection about that night by prominent townspeople. The sheriff said that there always came that time in those reflections where she would just go silent with a look of awe on her face. The Kelly-Hopkinsville event happened, whatever it was. My belief is that it was not "biological"; that is not part of the evolution of lifeforms of the Universe of physical laws. Why? Even setting aside for the moment the apparent non-hit-ability by rifle shot, and the floating-slowly-about the landscape, the form of the creatures is "unlikely".
These things, if biological, are not water creatures and are sizable. They look sort of like they should be mammals or something which would have a chance for a large brain and intelligence, and if they are to be guessed as UFOnauts must be quite brainy. But their heads are absurdly gigantic in proportion to their bodies. This next thought doesn't HAVE to be true, but, if it is not, someone needs to do some real thinking as to why not: Those heads could never come through a birth canal of anything remotely shaped like the creatures drawn. Could the females be wildly different in shape than the males? If so, there is nothing on Earth remotely comparable in terms of divergent sexual dimorphism in large animals. Could the things be birdish and come from eggs? Eggs have real structural size limits and so the heads would have to be small and do a tremendous amount of growing while "outside" exposed to natural threat. Growing and remaking skulls to accommodate growing brains would take a very great risk-taking time using soft malleable skulls. Anything's possible, I suppose, but these things REALLY don't look like normal evolutionary biology to me. The only hope I'd believe would be that they were artificially grown. If so, why bother with the out-sized ears if you had that technology? Nothing about these critters says anything but "bogan" "bauchan" "trickster" to me.
I'm maybe overdoing it here but I'm going to give you an added treat. Following are Bud Ledwith's notes comparing the several witnesses' testimonies, as found in the Center for UFO Studies files.
B. Stockton, GA 1955. Back to normal (descriptive amounts, that is. The Kelly case will doubtless exceed any other example incident writing in volume by factors of ten.) The provenance of the Georgia case is similar to Kelly, as Isabel Davis and Ted Bloecher hunted down it and others which were occurring at the same time. It appears that a handful of encounters with mysterious boggart like beings happened almost simultaneously and with very weak UFO connections.
As far as this following story is concerned, there is not a lot to it. A woman was driving along a road at night and saw "beings doing road construction" ahead. She slowed way down --- they were in the middle if the road, and gingerly inched past. They were very strange non-human "workmen" more like boogeymen than people. They were three to four foot tall.
C. Cennini, Italy. 1954. A famous case in the history of the UFO subject. Even given its early occurrence, it was pretty well investigated and followed up over several years (The lady involved did maintain that her narrative of the encounter was true for decades thereafter.) The incident is weird even for a UFO close encounter, but I've read a lot about this thing, meditated about it more than most of my files, and I believe that Senora Dainelli told the truth as she felt it.
In brief: Rosa Dainelli (she has been described as a simple Italian peasant woman) was preparing to go to Church for Mass. She had collected some flowers for the Church, and was walking in the woods, the grass of which was wet with dew. To avoid soaking her shoes and stockings, she had removed them, and was carrying them along with the flowers. She then came across two small "men" who could easily be labeled as "imps." Dressed as old time aviators, they began harassing her, trying to take the flowers and her stockings. Though frightened by this, she fought with them, and succeeded in salvaging her stockings but not her flowers, which the imps took. She hurried on to church where she told her story. Some rumors ultimately arose about seeing a light in the sky or whatever (not by her) but nothing substantial was reported.
Rosa and her family at the time: to my knowledge her testimony did not waver and all she got out of it was some hassle and unwanted publicity. The Cennini case probably happened, but what was it? UFO researchers stick it into the early stage of the massive European UFO Wave of 1954 (which though dominant in France, did express in other European countries.) If I had to choose (and though I don't have to, I do), I'd say fairy-trickster not "UFO."
Although some CE3 UFO beings act weirdly, they seldom act "impactfully" upon the witness, but fairylore knuckleheads OFTEN do. These guys are classic knuckleheads.
Let's look at the "craft." Odd shape. I've read the reports and believe that the magazine version got it at least somewhat wrong (the spindle was fatter and the door opened differently), so for whatever it's worth I've redrawn it on the right. This "craft" was not seen "in flight" at all. Rosa Dainelli saw a structure on the ground in the woods which was no longer there later on, and leaving no trace. The interior of the thing could be seen through the open hatch. It resembled more something out of an old Jules Verne idea or an H G Wells story than a "saucer", with its padded plush looking interior a la an English Gentleman's way of outfitting a ship to the Moon.
D. Everittstown, NJ. 1957. Provenance is quite good in a legitimate sense of that quality as we've been using it. BUT this is one of the screwiest things in UFO research investigation history (well, maybe that's overstated given our history, but it's still screwy.) The case comes to the perfect group: CSI-NY (Ted Bloecher, Isabel Davis, Lex Mebane et al.) Unfortunately, the "et al" included an intelligent man named Jules St.Germain, who had a bad theory about investigating it, and really messed up. This left the community with the firm belief that this case was bad. But I think that the predecessor of St. Germain collected quite a bit of worthwhile information before the later boondoggle, trying to entrap the witnesses and causing them to bail from the story. My reading of this is that the earliest narrative might well be honest, but St. Germain blundered the approach and caused a what-the-hell-it's-not-worth-pursuing response. Anyway, I'm for the moment going to go with the original information and see what we might see.
The original report got to a CSI-NY investigator named Dick Harpster and he immediately personally interviewed the wife in the encounter, and the husband by phone. He was impressed by these narratives. The case as he heard it commenced with the husband going outside to the barn to look into what was alarming their dog. Both witnesses saw a small (9 to 12 foot long) "egg" which was bobbing up and down a few feet off the ground. From the wife's position in the house, she could not see the "little man" but her husband was right in front of it. This being was dressed "leprechaun-style", all in green with shiny buttons and a green cap. His eyes were very big and round, and his voice scratchy. The Little Man said that "they were peaceful" but wanted his dog. The husband yelled "Get the Hell out of here!", and the "leprechaun" went back to the floating egg. The egg rose and went rapidly off. The wife said: you "should have let them take King, he's half blind and so cross I don't know who else would ever want him." ... that's almost hilarious, and strikes a good note with me.
The case was screwed up when CSI-NY sent St. Germain to do a longer follow-up. He opened up with a warning that some people have gotten into trouble for telling UFO yarns that proved bogus. This caused the witnesses to go into a private room, converse and return with a somewhat different story. St. Germain then (happily?) wrote them off as hoaxers. No evidence of hoaxing ever surfaced and no attempts at profiting ever occurred.
Leprechaun-trickster in a floating egg? Maybe.
E. Bells Corners, ONT. 1958. Very bizarre thing. Few moments of "action" therefore a brief tale. Provenance/credibility? You decide. This incident occurred in August of 1958, was talked about with friends shortly thereafter, but not publicly until February 1960. The primary (of two) witness was listening to a radio show where the speaker was a famous and controversial person in UFO history named Wilbert B. Smith. The witness called in, and shortly Smith and a second investigator went to her home and the site. Bells Corners is a small village in the vicinity of Ottawa.
While there, Smith and his associate did a good job with the interview and the site investigation. Smith's unusual beliefs about UFOs apparently did not damage his scientist training in gathering simple facts. So, it is my (romantic?) opinion that the case report is pretty good.
This night in August, the woman saw an oddly colored bluish patch of light in the back area of her home, perhaps twenty-five feet away. She went to investigate, as did her son, but he had reservations and asked her to not go too close. She ignored him and walked right up to the light patch. (two or three feet.) There is to my knowledge no imagery of this encounter, so I've attempted to "art" one. Whatever the success, in my opinion the best way to "read" the encounter is to look at a picture --- so, better or worse:
Here's what the lady and to a lesser degree her son said they saw: A child-like form lying on its belly in the grass/pasture, head raised slightly so that mainly its eyes were all you could see. Tight curly brownish golden hair. A "patch" of bright bluish light which seemed perhaps to originate from the eyes. Very large eyes seemingly faceted like jewels. Very white skin. No motion.
After watching this being for a minute or so, the son became so agitated (the mother was not afraid) that he insisted that they return to the house. They did. Once inside, they looked out and the patch of light was gone. A year and a half later, the investigators thought that they could discern an irregular area of dead grass in that field, where the being lay. It measured approximately 3x1 1/2 feet in size.
And so what is that all about? Doesn't look like UFOlogy to me, but what DOES it look like?
So, what do we know? We know at least that there are unusual cases which get into the UFO files which seem to fit better elsewhere. They aren't a high percentage --- in my experience far lower than 1precent. But now and then an incident gives you pause.
Where to draw the Line? .... and IS there a Line? I "feel" that there is a clear feeling line. UFO cases are "cold." Faery cases are "alive." So, for me, things like
Are much more like Faery than UFOlogy.
HEY, Mike! What about THIS?
Bangor, Washington. 1989.
What did the beings look like?
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! ................. till next time folks. (I won't have the help of the UFO community so it shouldn't be so long a posting.)