Cincinnati, Ohio ! 3 . Sl1tJ RCE . 10. CONCLUSION Ci vil i\l:l 4. NUMBER OF OSJECTS INSU~FICIENT DATA FOR EVALUATION INSU ICIENT ~ATA FOR EBALUATI~ S. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 11. BRIEF SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS 6. TYPE OF OBSERVATION Ground Visual 9. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE The observer stated that he photographed an object that app- eared to be so big or a ~tle bigger than a station-wagon. Comments: Additional information, camera data, and the orig. negatives were requested but the observer failed to provide any of these. Pilat cs ARF. V t:(l(y .)i.NII I AI~ r. A r/f,~b<!C:.. FTD SE P 6 3 0-329 (TOE) Prevloue edltlone o f thh form mey be u .. d. I . TDPT (UJO) ~j Quintanilla/70916/mhs/12 Feb 68 Re ~.unidentified flying object (UFO) o . tion and subaequent photogzapha of September 20 of October lO, 1967 requested additional 1~oruaation on your . sighting and your origjnol negatives. Since you did not provide. the data we requested we ing yoo.r photog141 hs without having them analyzed. Major, USAIP iet, Aeria1 Phenomena Ottice Aerospace Teclmologiea Division Plodu ll" z ectorate Two Photographs o o fl II UFO Obaex1at1on,. Sept ~0, 1967 C1Dcfnat1, 1. JOU tor your sighting of' September 20, 1967 to the Air . Ho-wever j additional 1nfoftnat1on is needed. I:r you \IOUld complete the inclosed F1'D Fotaat 164. and Phot6 De.ta Sheet 1 t '\uY()Uld be belptul in our analysis. Also, ve request the original negative of the-pboto-to be sent to u3~ C. MANA~, Colonel, USAF . ll!rector of Technology and SUbsystems 2 . Photo Data Sheet