A Hoax or a Plant?

There is an Oklahoma file in PBB that is interesting on more than one level. It is labeled a hoax but it does not include the normal filing papers, reports, or connections to Wright-Patterson AFB. The following, is from the upcoming book, SOONER SAUCERS, VOL. 2 (due out later this year).

"1953, June (Summer), Muskogee, Oklahoma [Hoax Image]; 3 files (one spelled Miskogee), this case is  a fascinating story featuring somewhat of a mystery man, a postal worker from Tulsa, who left a lunch room in Muskogee (50 some miles southeast of Tula), saw the object, just happened to snap a photo. The most questionable aspect may be the fact it was one report that involved the OSI out of Tinker (the law enforcement arm of the Air Force) and a letter from or to the Inspector General of the Air Force. 

The unnamed witness reported  the sighting and his photograph to the 11th Division Office of Special Investigations Detachment Commander, Tulsa.  The file has a communication with the OSI head office and a “spot intelligence” report. 

The witness reported an object traveling 300-500 mph, at 6000-7000 ft. altitude on a level horizontal plane. It was about 65 to 5 ft. in diameter and moved southward. He had delayed reporting it because it did not want to get involved. in   The witness had his Super Ikonta type camera with him. 

This file lacks the normal filing papers of a normal UFO report of the time via Project Blue Book. The photo was deemed questionable validity; it did look much like an outdoor light fixture. The file appears to not have been deeply investigated and does contain the image (1 image and 1 negative). There is no evidence, also, that the image is what the man photographed.  Source: Project Blue Book, online files, 6982463 (photos); 8712953 (see also 1954); 7275579 (photos); 6384127; Super Ikonta was a German made camera with plants in both East and West Germany (information at http://camera-wiki.org/index.php?title=Ikonta). 

The object in the photograph "lacked veracity" said the cover sheet of the PBB file, and it was uncategorically labeled a hoax. They did, however, include the speed, height and size provided by the witness.  Why did they do that?

Why did this case not go through normal PBB filing channels, as required by AFR 200-2. Instead, the regulation cited is AFR 124-1.  This case was handled not as a UFO but as a criminal act. Was espionage suspected? Had the witness seen a super-secret craft and his photo replaced by the image in the file? 

Images from the two files; apparently one was darkened by it is unclear which was the "original" submitted.  Given the fact the witness said it was clear and bright day with only a few clouds neither image seems to fit. The witness also said he had finished lunch in Muskogee; was he in town, on the road, so many questions are missing as well as their answers.  The altitude and the speed are not represented in this image that looks like an outdoor light fixture. If a hoax, a most obvious attempt. If a hoax, why was this not touted by the AF as a sample of the things people did to "prove" the phenomena?

Is it possible, this was not the photo taken?

The original negative was, according to the file, returned to the witness.