Overview
On July 21, 1967, 14-year-old Ronnie Hill of Pamlico County, North Carolina, said he smelled a strong, unfamiliar odor, then noticed a spherical white object in a nearby field. He ran inside, grabbed a Kodak camera, and took photographs that appear to show a reflective, gnome-headed figure in front of a white sphere with a dark opening. The story reached writer John A. Keel, who published “The Little Man of North Carolina” in Flying Saucer Review in early 1969. The photos have circulated for decades as a curiosity, with believers and skeptics both pointing to visual details in the scans. noufors.com
Timeline
- Afternoon, July 21, 1967 — Hill reports a pungent odor, watery eyes, and sees a white sphere settle in a field near his family’s yard in Pamlico County. He retrieves a camera and takes two frames that include a reflective humanoid and the sphere. noufors.com
- Late 1967 — Hill mails the photos and a letter to the magazine Flying Saucers–UFO Reports. The editor forwards the material to John Keel after that publication ceases. fotocat.blogspot.com
- Jan–Feb 1969 — Flying Saucer Review prints Keel’s article describing the images and Hill’s account. noufors.com
- 2000s–present — The images recirculate online, often with retellings of Keel’s write-up and modern skeptical commentary about scale, lighting, and composition. theironskeptic.com
Primary sources
- John A. Keel, “The Little Man of North Carolina,” Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, Jan–Feb 1969. (Primary narrative and publication of the case.) noufors.com
- FOTOCAT blog summary of Keel’s notes and how the material reached FSR. fotocat.blogspot.com
- Iron Skeptic overview with a skeptical reading of the photos and story. theironskeptic.com
Claims and counterclaims
Claim: The photos show a small reflective being exiting or working beside a roughly nine-foot white spherical craft. The scene was silent and the odor resembled propane. noufors.com
Counter: Skeptical writers argue the figure could be a model or costumed doll and the white sphere could be a staged prop. Points raised include inconsistent scale cues, possible light blooming on the figure, and the overall low information content of the scans. theironskeptic.com
Claim: Keel’s publication indicates the case passed a journalist’s initial sniff test.
Counter: FSR printed many witness narratives for the record. Publication is not validation, and Keel himself was known for collecting provocative reports, not certifying them. noufors.com
Credibility meter
- Witnesses: 1 of 5
Single teen witness, no corroborating on-scene testimony in the public record. noufors.com - Physical evidence: 1 of 5
Only photographs and a written account are known publicly. No site trace work is documented in the sources cited here. - Documentation: 3 of 5
Contemporary publication in FSR plus later retellings keep the record alive, but lack chain-of-custody detail and negatives access. noufors.com+1 - Expert review: 2 of 5
Mostly armchair analysis. Skeptical reviews point to staging possibilities. No peer-reviewed forensic study exists in the open record. theironskeptic.com
Overall: ~1.75
Red flags
- Single witness and no independent contemporaneous investigation cited in the public sources. noufors.com
- Unknown camera settings, unknown negative provenance, and scans of uncertain quality.
- Composition raises scale and depth questions that can mimic a “small being” near a “large sphere.” theironskeptic.com
What we know
- The photos and Hill’s account were published by FSR in 1969 and continue to circulate. noufors.com
Unknowns
- Where the original negatives are, and whether first-generation prints or contact sheets survive.
- Exact shooting position, lens focal length, and field geometry.
- Whether any neighbors, family, or local officials were interviewed at the time.
What If…?
If authentic: The reflective suit and small stature could indicate a compact environmental garment and helmet, with a white sphere acting as a small landing device or equipment pod. A dark port on the sphere could be an access or sensor aperture. Predictions include measurable compression of grass at the site and chemical residues that would have been detectable if sampled in 1967.
If staged: A homemade figure wrapped in reflective foil and a painted spherical prop could produce similar silhouettes at dusk. With a short focal-length camera, foreground placement would enlarge the “being” and push the sphere slightly back while keeping both legible, which matches the look of the scans. Controlled re-creations could test this rapidly. theironskeptic.com
Where to dig next
- Locate provenance: Track the negatives or first-gen prints cited by Keel, then commission a modern forensic scan with color targets and scratch mapping. noufors.com
- Photo-forensics pass: Analyze grain pattern continuity, edge halos, and lighting direction. Attempt photogrammetry for scale using vegetation heights.
- On-site reconstruction: If the field location can be narrowed from Keel’s description in Pamlico County, run a daylight and dusk re-shoot with period Kodak 126 film and a similar lens to test the staging hypothesis. noufors.com
- Oral history: Search local papers and archives for any mention in 1967–1969 and attempt to contact family or neighbors.
Receipts
- Keel’s original article in FSR that names the location and summarizes Hill’s narrative. noufors.com
- FOTOCAT note that the boy’s submission to Flying Saucers–UFO Reports ended up with Keel after the magazine closed. fotocat.blogspot.com
- Iron Skeptic’s critique of the photos’ plausibility and staging possibilities. theironskeptic.com
