<The Persistence of the O’Hare UFO: A Case Study in Skepticism>
Written on
Twilight of the Skeptics, Part II When Robert Sheaffer of Skeptical Inquirer attempts to discredit a notable UAP sighting using questionable science, his efforts fall short.
This piece is part of an ongoing series published by Trail of the Saucers this fall, focusing on Skeptical Inquirer magazine's critique of those who entertain the notion that non-human intelligence may be linked to the UFO phenomenon. — The Editors
The September/October issue of Skeptical Inquirer, touted as the “magazine for science and reason,” features UFOs prominently with the headline “UFOs (or UAPs) Hit the News.” The issue contains several articles critiquing mainstream media's coverage of UFOs, particularly in light of the recent Pentagon report on UAPs, while advocating for a skeptical perspective.
In our first article, we highlighted the issues with Sheaffer's analysis of the 1965 Kecksburg incident, which was riddled with inaccuracies. He later published a lengthy response on his blog, correcting one date error we acknowledged, but his arguments raised further contradictions. I addressed those in our prior discussion.
Today, we will dissect another UFO event that Sheaffer mishandled more egregiously: the multiple eyewitness accounts of a disc-shaped object hovering over O'Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006.
Last spring, The New Yorker featured an article titled "How the Pentagon Started Taking U.F.O.s Seriously," authored by Gideon Lewis-Kraus. It serves as a primer on ufology for readers who may not typically engage with such topics. In discussing journalist Leslie Kean's burgeoning interest in UFOs, Lewis-Kraus references several compelling reports that caught her attention. Sheaffer, however, takes issue with these “really good cases,” aiming to dismiss them as debunked.
Among these is the O'Hare sighting, which notably became the most-read online piece for the Chicago Tribune several months after being covered by one of its columnists.
On a cloudy afternoon, a disc-like object was observed above United Airlines' Gate C17 by numerous witnesses, including pilots, ground staff, and mechanics. Descriptions varied, noting the object to be between six and 24 feet in diameter, hovering below the clouds. Some witnesses reported it spinning while others disagreed. It was characterized as dark grey, silent, and lacked any lights, standing out against the low cloud cover estimated to be a few hundred feet above. Despite the differing accounts, all witnesses concurred: it was a clearly defined object, distinct from the clouds. Eventually, it shot straight up, disappearing instantaneously and leaving a circular hole in the cloud cover that lingered momentarily before closing. Notably, the UAP did not register on radar.
The aftermath of the incident raises valid doubts about the official explanation, which attributed it to a rare weather phenomenon. Skeptics often overlook details that suggest officials may be concealing information, venturing into what they deem “conspiracy theory” territory—a topic explored in a separate article in Skeptical Inquirer by Mick West, which we will revisit later.
For instance, a United Airlines tower employee asserted that a photo of the UAP was captured, and numerous others reportedly took pictures with their cell phones; yet, no verified images have emerged. Initially, United Airlines claimed ignorance about the incident, while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was similarly reticent, ultimately releasing audio from the tower but attributing the event to weather without further comments.
Consider this: the incident occurred just months after the fifth anniversary of 9/11, when a United Airlines flight was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. Yet, we are expected to believe that United Airlines and the FAA were unaware or uninterested in a strange object hovering over a major airport? One witness, a baggage handler, expressed frustration with the lack of transparency amidst heightened security concerns:
“Some of us are getting angry with this being hushed up with all the terrorism and TSA idiots hanging around. If we see a funny-looking bag, all hell breaks loose, but park a funny silver thing a few hundred feet above a busy airport and everyone tries to hush it up. It just doesn’t make sense.”
Such details may not intrigue skeptics, as they fall outside the realm of “scientific” inquiry. The skeptic’s goal is to swiftly dismiss any evidence of the unexplained. While eyewitness accounts can be unreliable, Sheaffer positions them as perpetually suspect, conveniently when it suits his narrative.
In Skeptical Inquirer, Sheaffer remarks:
> "Unfortunately, no photographs exist of this supposed 'metallic-looking disc' hovering over one of the world’s busiest airports in daylight, and nothing showed up on radar."
The term “supposed” raises questions about Sheaffer’s understanding of eyewitness perceptions. Are we to believe that witnesses were merely “supposing” they saw a disc-shaped object? Or that the shape they observed was “metallic-looking”? Is human observation so flawed that rational adults cannot accurately identify basic shapes and colors? Sheaffer’s skepticism regarding witness accounts in this and other UFO cases appears boundless.
The Investigation
The O'Hare incident was investigated by the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP), established in 1999 to document and analyze aviation-related encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena. Their inquiry into the O'Hare event resulted in the organization’s most extensive technical report (152 pages), released in March 2007, concluding that the object remains unidentified.
One might suspect that the strength of this case makes it imperative for skeptics to discredit it. Sheaffer’s methods in addressing the O'Hare sighting raise legitimate concerns about the integrity and intellectual honesty of his skepticism, not to mention his research capabilities.
Let’s discuss the weather conditions at O'Hare that day. There is ample scientific and anecdotal evidence available.
The Chicago Tribune’s initial report noted that the object navigated through “thick clouds,” a claim echoed by Sheaffer, who referred to “dense clouds.” Data from the National Weather Service confirms that a solid overcast layer existed at an altitude of 1,900 feet across the Chicago area. Witnesses described “normal low ceiling overcast” conditions. This information is corroborated by Doppler radar data, indicating cloud cover between 1,900 and 3,700 feet, with no complicating factors such as temperature inversions, nearby freezing levels, winds, or convective activity.
The official explanation for the O'Hare UAP identified the sighting as likely an unusual weather phenomenon known as a “hole-punch” cloud, which can appear in sub-freezing temperatures. This explanation was supported by both the FAA and an astronomer from the Adler Planetarium, who, in a follow-up article years later, clearly misunderstood the situation: the temperature at 1,900 feet that day was 53 degrees—far too warm for a hole-punch cloud.
Sheaffer concedes that this information is “probably correct,” yet he presents a highly implausible theory of his own:
> "But the low ceiling could easily have been partially obscuring a much higher cloud layer, where a hole-punch cloud could exist because of much lower temperatures. Hole-punch clouds occur in cirrocumulus or altocumulus clouds, approximately 8,000 to 39,000 ft. elevation—not in low clouds at 1,900 feet! Thus, there is no reason to reject the FAA’s explanation."
Two of the three statements in this quote are demonstrably incorrect. First, Sheaffer disregards the supposed fallibility of human observation, attributing to witnesses an almost superhuman ability to discern a rare weather phenomenon through nearly two thousand feet of dense clouds.
We consulted several meteorologists specializing in cloud physics, and they affirmed that a hole-punch cloud could exist separate from a lower cloud layer. However, one pointed out the obvious issue: unless one is looking from an airplane or has a satellite view, it would be impossible to see it.
Sheaffer then posits an additional hypothetical scenario: a rogue hole-punch cloud existing “much higher” over O'Hare Field, only partially obscured by “dense” clouds, where temperatures were supposedly “much lower.” Voilà—the O'Hare UFO incident is explained!
However, this speculative revisionist history overlooks a critical detail from the NARCAP report: a second cloud layer was present, located between 8,000 and 9,000 feet, with the freezing level situated 1,000 feet above that. Hole-punch clouds can only form when ice crystals exist.
"You can’t create new ice in a cloud that is above freezing," one meteorologist explained. "Clouds typically need to be significantly colder than freezing—around five to minus four degrees Fahrenheit—before ice can start to form."
Yet in Sheaffer’s world, where the goal is to “debunk” UFOs, there’s no reason to challenge the FAA’s implausible weather explanation. Instead, dozens of witnesses “could” have miraculously spotted a rare weather anomaly above another cloud deck, even when it was impossible for it to exist due to temperature conditions.
This approach raises questions about “science and reason.” How did such fallacies make it past the editorial oversight at Skeptical Inquirer?
Moreover, Sheaffer’s imaginary hole-punch cloud must have been extraordinary. In preparing this article, we reviewed over 150 images of hole-punch clouds. While they are indeed captivating phenomena, most images depict openings that are far from the “crisp cookie-cutter-like hole” Sheaffer described. Typically, the openings are oblong, oval, or irregularly shaped, often with visible moisture partially filling the center, resembling a piece of cloud breaking apart. Wikipedia notes that due to their rarity and unusual appearance, hole-punch clouds are sometimes mistaken for UFOs. However, we found no image that a reasonable person would confuse for anything other than an unusual cloud formation, especially given the ample time the O'Hare witnesses had to observe it.
An Error and a Foul
Sheaffer’s disregard for the NARCAP report and his tendency to present unsupported theories as plausible is evident in another example from his Skeptical Inquirer article, which he refers to as “The Fly.”
Briefly, a celebratory flyover by the Chilean Air Force over El Bosque Air Base in Santiago in November 2010 yielded video footage that some believe shows UAPs. Following a formal inquiry by the Chilean government, Kean and Ralph Blumenthal wrote about it for the Huffington Post. Sheaffer contended on his blog that the UFO was merely a fly buzzing by the lens. Lewis-Kraus, the seemingly credulous journalist, gives Sheaffer credit for this claim, appearing to accept it at face value. Sheaffer, in turn, complains about the lack of a URL for readers to verify it.
In recounting this, Sheaffer references the Huffington Post article by Kean and Blumenthal, first published in March 2012 and updated in 2017.
> "I was not able to find the original article in the internet archive or anywhere else," he claims, leading him to suspect that it was "undoubtedly" updated to cover up any embarrassment.
I easily located the original article, which was reprinted in NARCAP’s June 2012 report on the case. Sheaffer appears not to have conducted even a basic keyword search. As for the update he insinuates was meant to obscure an “embarrassing” instance? Not quite.
The 2017 update removed a paragraph that simply restated the date, location, and circumstances of the incident, as it had already been mentioned earlier in the article. This minor editing oversight hardly reflects poorly on the authors, nor does it indicate an attempt to hide an embarrassing moment. Sheaffer’s response here is more snark than substance.
The ‘Ah-HA!’ Moment
Despite his indifference to NARCAP’s investigation into the O'Hare incident, Sheaffer employs another familiar skeptical tactic in Skeptical Inquirer to dismiss the Chicago case—one that underpins his skepticism of nearly everything Kean says or does.
This age-old strategy serves skeptics well when faced with challenging UFO cases. It reveals an “Ah-HA!” moment they can use to discredit NARCAP and UFO researchers broadly, which Sheaffer frequently resorts to:
NARCAP, he informs readers, is a “pro-UFO investigative team.”
We’ll address this misleading accusation in our forthcoming article.
> Trail of the Saucers is edited by writer/producer Bryce Zabel and published by Stellar Productions. Zabel co-hosts the well-regarded podcast Need to Know with Coulthart and Zabel, available across all major platforms.
A ‘Skeptic’ Aims at Kecksburg’s UFO and The New Yorker — and misses
- Skeptical Inquirer ‘debunker’ Robert Sheaffer employs obfuscation and omission to dismiss an exhaustively documented UFO.*
- medium.com *