I recently received an email forwarded from Kendrick Frazier, editor of Skeptical Inquirer, titled “Cube Shaped UFO Known to Military? Popular Mechanics Says ‘Yes!’” Naturally, this intrigued me; I have an interest in all things strange, and I have been a casual fan of Popular Mechanics magazine for many years. Well, up until now.
I clicked on the provided link, which took me to a recent Popular Mechanics article called “Leaked Government Photo Shows ‘Motionless, Cube-Shaped’ UFO.” A side-by-side image just under the headline showed (on the left) most of the original photo: a view from the rear seat of an F/A-18 Super Hornet, looking over the pilot’s right shoulder at blue skies and some white clouds in the lower half of the image. Just below and to the left of dead center, there is a tiny object that resembles an inverted triangle. It is mostly in silhouette, due to the sun being behind it and to the left. On its left side we can see the reflection of sunlight.
Next to this image is a close-up, which offers more details: The top of the object is slanted toward the center from both sides. Along each side, we can see three points/edges that stick out from the main body. These look very much like the wings of a bat.
After looking at the included “UFO” photograph for a few seconds, I recognized the familiar shape of a mylar balloon, the type often sold at commercial stores. Over the past decade or so I have been providing photo analysis for several members of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), so I’ve grown quite familiar with mylar balloons being mistaken for alien spacecraft. A quick Google search revealed the most likely culprit: A Batman balloon, available from Party City and other party-supply stores.
I read over the Popular Mechanics article, which focused on the alleged UFO photographed that, according to the article, was recently “leaked” from an intelligence report from the newly established the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, which is under the direction of the Department of the Navy. I expected to see the same Batman-balloon image pop up with the author comparing it to the UFO. After all, it took me just a few seconds to find a matching “Batman” shape. However, I was disappointed to find that not only did the Batman-balloon not make an appearance in the article, there was no attempt to offer a logical explanation for this alleged UFO.
The idea of a balloon briefly comes up but is quickly squashed with a quote from another Popular Mechanics contributor, Tim McMillan. On a website called The Debrief, McMillan writes, “Pilots who encountered the object described that, unlike a balloon under similar conditions, the object was completely motionless and seemingly unaffected by ambient air currents.” I will address the “motionless” description in more detail below, but for now I want to point out that this dismissive statement comes (allegedly) from three unnamed U.S. officials. Honestly, both the Popular Mechanics and The Debrief articles read like they were taken directly from a conspiracy theory website, with lots of nameless “officials” who can’t officially say anything … yet do anyway.
I quickly responded to Kendrick’s email (and everyone else included), stating I was going to write up this story because I had found the cause of the “UFO.” However, I quickly learned (and should have expected) that newly elected CSI Fellow Mick West had already made this discovery over on his Metabunk site a week prior, connecting the alleged UFO with the Batman balloon.
West provides a ton of valuable information, from simulations demonstrating how objects can appear “motionless” while speeding by to pictures and video of amateur radio balloons called PICO balloons. These high-altitude PICO balloons are fitted with a solar-powered radio tracker transmitter (called a Skytracker) and can reach altitudes of 40,000 feet; larger balloons can reach 100,000 feet.
Many amateur groups and science classes often use party balloons (mylar) for their projects. Mylar balloons are cheap and readily available—both beneficial for schools with small budgets. The balloons are filled with a specific amount of helium and launched into the sky. These balloons are never fully inflated, because as they rise, the helium inside begins to expand due to the atmospheric pressure around the balloon decreasing. This is likely why the balloon-UFO in the “leaked” photograph looks fully inflated; the helium inside has expanded to fill the balloon.
The smaller party balloons do not reach the higher altitudes; they usually float between approximately 10,000 and 23,000 feet. According to the original description in The Debrief article (which the Popular Mechanics article is based on), our three unidentified U.S. officials claim “the object appeared to be at an altitude of roughly 30,000 to 35,000 feet.” This would seem to disqualify our Batman-balloon as the cause. However, there has been no confirmation that this “rough altitude” is accurate. Because we are dealing with mysterious, unnamed officials, I am not inclined to accept their estimates so easily.
Even though West had “out-Sherlocked” me and “beaten me to the punch,” I still wanted to dive into the Popular Mechanics article a little bit and explain my disappointment in the magazine. I also wanted to see if I could replicate (as close as possible) what we see in the alleged UFO photograph.
The article starts off with the headline “Leaked Government Photo Shows ‘Motionless, Cube-Shaped’ UFO.” There are several red flags that pop up from the start. First, the term leaked has become an overused buzzword recently. It is often used to grab the attention of those with an interest in conspiracy theories that focus on the government keeping some secret from the people. We learn in the first line of the article that the image was unclassified. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the term unclassified, without any other designation with it, means “unclassified Information not requiring control, but requiring review before public release.” If it really went through government channels, it was most likely cleared to be released (because it is a balloon), rather than “leaked” to the public.
The second point to address is the term motionless as it pertains to the alleged UFO. According to a December 2, 2020, article, three unidentified (of course) officials “agreed that based on the photo, the object appeared to be at an altitude of roughly 30,000 to 35,000 feet and approximately 1,000 feet from the fighter jet.” The F/A-18 Super Hornet has a typical cruising speed of 580 knots (667 mph/1074 kp/h) at high altitude (720 knots at low altitude). At cruising speed, the F/A-18 would have passed the object in just over one second (667 mph = 978 feet per second), provided the “1,000 feet from the fighter jet” estimate was accurate (which I doubt). I have no doubt in my mind that a balloon would appear “motionless” as the jet sped by. Mick West also provides several videos on his Metabunk site that demonstrate how objects in motion can easily appear motionless while speeding by them.
The last issue from the headline is the description of “cube-shaped.” According to an article from The Debrief, three U.S. officials (again, unidentified) who had seen it, “the photo showed an unidentified silver ‘cube-shaped’ object.” As you can see from the provided image, the alleged UFO is most certainly not cube shaped. Although this seems to be part of the original description, I see no reason why another author—especially one from a magazine such as Popular Mechanics—
would continue to use such an erroneous description in their own headline.
After re-reading the entire Popular Mechanics article, I felt a sense of extreme disappointment with the magazine. It published an article filled with conspiracy theory–like content, and the author failed to spend any time independently verifying the information presented. In fact, the article was basically a summary of the Debrief article mentioned previously.
When I looked at the About section of the Popular Mechanics website, I see that it states “We bring our audience the latest news on innovations and inventions across the automotive, DIY, science, technology, and outdoor spaces. We also serve our readers with the knowledge they need to get the most out of life.” I seriously doubt the last statement, because this balloon-UFO article served the readers a lot of uncritical nonsense rather than any quality information. I am terribly disappointed in the magazine and have no desire to pick up another issue.
Even though we have briefly covered PICO balloons (thanks to Mick West), there is also a simpler idea that we should consider: that some kid had a Batman-themed birthday party and after a few days (after it slowly leaked helium), it was accidently freed from its anchor and set off on a journey of its own. With this idea in mind, I went online and ordered two similar Batman balloons (two just in case I screwed up and lost one). I have always been a hands-on investigator and like to recreate events whenever possible, so it would really bug me if I didn’t at least attempt to recreate this balloon-UFO.
A week later the balloons arrived, so my wife and I had them filled with helium and headed out to a local park. My wife secured one of the balloons by a length of ribbon measuring about 100 feet, which placed the balloon well above the trees surrounding the park. I walked approximately 500 feet from her and took some photos. Although I did not have the same clear blue sky as a background, I am satisfied this flying object has been identified.
