UFO? Sabino Canyon, Arizona

[zorgon]

Posted by Charla Gené at Facebook



I didn't see this (UFO) when I snapped these consecutive photos.
What could it be?
Taken at Sabino Canyon 1/1/2013 approx. 11am —

Following photos used by permission

[zorgon]

Kinda brings to mind THIS one in Arizona

UFO crashes in the White Sands desert, New Mexico - Colafeed

[ArMaP]

It looks like a reflection, like the one on the left.

Both are in front of the plants, both have the same relative positions.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Sure doesn't look like a cloud

I remember that film, they said it was the Cassini probe

But if you listen carefully (to the original film), they call it 'the object'.....
You wouldn't call it that if you knew it was the probe, you would simply call it 'the probe' or 'the sattelite'.....

[astr0144]

I have seen some clouds or photos of clouds in the past that have looked like UFOs...

to me part of the object appears fuzzy as if it may be cloud or as Artmap indicated it maybe some sort of lens reflection dependent upon what type of lens were on the camera.

Having said all that, photos 2 and 4 does look like one of the better clearer photos of a white type of plasma like UFO..

One would need to see how it moved to make a comparison...
if it just slowly drifted... and if it remained in tact or broke apart.. or if it moved quicker at some time of witnessing it.

[astr0144]

Something else that I just noticed..

If you look at the top of the large left cactus... there appears to be some sort of cloud or image distortion coming from the cactus.

Maybe its been faked..

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Yes, i see it too, missed it first time around, looks like a wisp of cloud merged in with the cactus.
I've seen lenticular (disc shaped) clouds before, but nothing quite like this.

She says she didn't notice it when she took the pics, which means it was hovering or moving very slowly.
I'm going to mark it up as 'unknown' LOL

[ArMaP]

Yes, i see it too, missed it first time around, looks like a wisp of cloud merged in with the cactus.

Yes, that's the one on the left that I was talking about on my previous post.

She says she didn't notice it when she took the pics, which means it was hovering or moving very slowly.

Or that it existed only in the camera.

Unfortunately we don't have the EXIF data to know what time passed between photos and other data.

[astr0144]

Artmap,

Sorry , I hadnt read your comment correctly or Iwas slow fully understanding you comments as you had not referred to what I later noticed..

I was thinking cloud on the cactus or that you meant lens distortion reflection..

you referred to plant , I thought it as cactus...

I can see what you meant know ! 

===============

It looks like a reflection, like the one on the left.

Both are in front of the plants, both have the same relative positions.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

In the first picture, it's definitely behind the branches of the tree, so it's not a lens effect or a reflection.....
And if you compare the object's position relative to the cactus, you can see it has moved upwards, not something clouds usually do, in fact lenticular ones tend to descend.

ETA; the other clouds have moved away from the camera.

'columbus lenticuli' (i'm guessing that's what it's called) tends to appear over mountains, and there is a mountain under it

Doesn't explain the wisp from the cactus, which could be an optical effect, or why that disc-shape moved upwards.
Still an 'unknown' in my book

<snip>

[astr0144]

Some good points PWM,

But I note as the Object rises upwards, so has the flaw shown on the Cactus...( what ever it maybe ! )

In the first picture, it's definitely behind the branches of the tree, so it's not a lens effect or a reflection.....
And if you compare the object's position relative to the cactus, you can see it has moved upwards, not something clouds usually do, in fact lenticular ones tend to descend.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

You're right, i missed that also, probably because i have just one eye & that's -5

Should i bother to re-map this & enlarge it?

[ArMaP]

But I note as the Object rises upwards, so has the flaw shown on the Cactus...( what ever it maybe ! )

That's why I said that they have the same relative positions.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Right.
So maybe we should focus on the 'wisp'?
I wouldn't be a good debunker if i didn't TRY to explain all of it

[ArMaP]

So maybe we should focus on the 'wisp'?

I think we should focus on everything.