# The Phenomenon: What is it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2025, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583 "2025-05-20T13:19:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/181 "2025-05-27T19:38:04Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Aguadilla isn’t the hill I die on. It’s just one of the better ridgelines on the way up. Then, _this_ time, could you possibly just give us your _best_ example, instead of just an example for you to just handwave away after the hoops you require are jumped through? ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/182 "2025-05-27T19:40:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You gave your example, and an explanation for said example was provided. What is your response? Someone offered an explanation, and I listened to it. That’s part of the process. But an explanation existing isn’t the same as it being fully sufficient. It answers some elements of the case, sure, but not all. That’s why I’m still interested. And again, this isn’t about hanging the entire Phenomenon on one video. That case was just a launch point. What I’m getting at is the persistence of high-strangeness over time, across geography, and in contexts where we’d expect better control over error. If this really is all noise, we should be able to reduce it. But it’s not reducing it’s accumulating. And that’s why I’m still asking questions. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/183 "2025-05-27T19:44:47Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Someone offered an explanation, and I listened to it. _And then you respond to it because you are the one who provided the example and claimed there wasn’t a scientific explanation for it._ You _listened_ to it?? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/184 "2025-05-27T19:46:33Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > If this really is all noise, we should be able to reduce it. But it’s not reducing it’s accumulating. And that’s why I’m still asking questions. Then you really have to start listening to the answers, or all you are doing is saying “Why?” over and over again until you get your desired response. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/185 "2025-05-27T19:53:42Z")
If you’ve looked into these incidents and found the explanations persuasive, that’s fair. But proper skepticism isn’t just about reaching conclusions it’s about staying honest about the limits of those conclusions. When an event is “found wanting,” that doesn’t mean it’s fully explained. It means some interpretations hold more weight than others. That’s not the same as resolution, it’s just prioritizing likelihoods. Real skepticism isn’t about shutting the door and saying “done.” It’s about keeping the door open enough to notice if something doesn’t quite add up, especially when patterns persist. So no, I don’t expect belief. But I do expect people to recognize the difference between “explained to my satisfaction” and “explained completely.” > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then, _this_ time, could you possibly just give us your _best_ example, instead of just an example for you to just handwave away after the hoops you require are jumped through? Fair ask. But let’s be real: if I present any case, someone’s going to pick it apart and call it insufficient. That’s not a bad thing, it’s how scrutiny works. But let’s not pretend one case is going to carry the whole weight of the Phenomenon. That said, if you want what I personally find strongest, it’s not a single incident, it’s the recurring structure across military encounters: objects tracked visually and on multiple sensor platforms -intelligent maneuvering -lack of observable propulsion -evasive behavior relative to human systems The specific cases, like the 2004 Nimitz incident, Aguadilla, or the 2019 Navy videos, are just data points, not the destination. You can debate the details of each, but the pattern is the point. And I’m not handwaving, I’m saying the anomaly is bigger than any one datapoint. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/186 "2025-05-27T19:56:46Z")
If it is a “fair ask”, why are you avoiding it like the plague? Yes-let’s definitely be real. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/187 "2025-05-27T19:57:30Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Someone offered an explanation, and I listened to it. That’s part of the process. But an explanation existing isn’t the same as it being fully sufficient. It answers some elements of the case, sure, but not all. Please be specific: what elements of that specific case are unanswered? > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > And again, this isn’t about hanging the entire Phenomenon on one video. That case was just a launch point. What I’m getting at is the persistence of high-strangeness over time, across geography, and in contexts where we’d expect better control over error. From what you’ve shown me, the pattern you’re describing doesn’t exist. The single best data point in your pattern appears to be a couple of heart-shaped lanterns. I suspect the pattern only exists like the pattern of gray smudges in the grid I showed you: it’s an illusion caused by fallible human perceptions, an illusion that disappears under scrutiny. To the extent that it tells us anything, it tells us about how human perceptions can fail. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/188 "2025-05-27T19:57:48Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > If you’rer standard is “anything unexplained is automatically unworthy of exploration,” you’re not defending science, you’re defending comfort. Who is doing that? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/189 "2025-05-27T19:58:19Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But proper skepticism isn’t just about reaching conclusions it’s about staying honest about the limits of those conclusions. Proper skepticism also isn’t ignoring all explanation until you get the one you want. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/190 "2025-05-27T19:58:46Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But let’s not pretend one case is going to carry the whole weight of the Phenomenon. So the ambulatory goalposts are baked in? That’s convenient. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/191 "2025-05-27T20:00:50Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > The specific cases, like the 2004 Nimitz incident, Aguadilla, or the 2019 Navy videos, are just data points, not the destination. You can debate the details of each, but the pattern is the point. > > And I’m not handwaving, I’m saying the anomaly is bigger than any one datapoint. It sounds like you’re saying that we could examine every case in turn and even if we were to find a completely plausible natural explanation for all of the observed phenomena, you would still argue that there is some sort of unexplained pattern? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/192 "2025-05-27T20:00:54Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > And I’m not handwaving, I’m saying the anomaly is bigger than any one datapoint. Is the anomaly made up of data points? It feels like I tell you that the beaches of the world contain billions of grains of sand shaped exactly like Barack Obama’s face. When I ask for evidence you’re handing me a grain of sand that doesn’t look much like Obama’s face at all. When I point that out, you tell me that “the anomaly is bigger than any one data point.” So: is the anomaly made up of data, or not? If not, what makes you think it exists? How can there be a pattern without individual elements of a pattern? If so, please just show us a single data point. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/193 "2025-05-27T20:03:54Z")
Straight to the point: _Does the OP want an answer to the question posted in the title, or not?_ ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/194 "2025-05-27T20:17:51Z")
Exactly this. I think we are in Great Debates. I can’t be sure because I am on my phone and I have problems using it. A thread started in GD should include a debate- solid arguments built on logic and backed by cites. Every poster in this thread has done that, except the OP. He has not proven the existence of a pattern. He claims, also without evidence, that everybody else is ignoring the existence of the pattern. Eventually, he provided cites. Those were debunked. When asked for his best case, he provided one. It was debunked. He continues to make the same claims. IMHO he is not debating. He is _witnessing_. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/195 "2025-05-27T20:29:33Z")
It occurs to me that there might be a disconnect over the standards of proof for patterns and for individual events. @Ryan_Liam , you keep saying things like, > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > it’s not a single incident, it’s the recurring structure across military encounters: and > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But this isn’t about proving one video equals aliens. It’s about saying: look, over decades, we have recurring reports and it’s very frustrating. Because you seem to be saying that the standard of proof for establishing a pattern is lower than, or at least unrelated to, the standard of proof for establishing a single event. But it’s not. The standard of proof for a pattern is **higher than, and entirely inclusive of,** the standard for establishing a single event. A pattern consists of multiple events. To establish a pattern, you have to establish multiple events individually. That’s why people are asking you for your best evidence. You’re being asked to establish the first element in the pattern. Once you show that there’s no plausible explanation for a specific event without bringing in extradimensional aliens (or whatever), then you’ll be asked for a second, third, fourth, fifth event. Because that’s what you need to have a pattern. But you haven’t even gotten a single event in the pattern. And a pattern without a single element isn’t a pattern at all. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/196 "2025-05-27T20:36:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Does the OP want an answer to the question posted in the title, or not? The OP was given an answer early on. In response to “If we take seriously Jacques Vallée’s proposition …” the answer is that there is no reason whatsoever to take him seriously, and every reason **not to** , because the man has absolutely no evidence for his grandiose claims. Vallée’s entire thesis is “sometimes weird things happen, and they’re not always readily explainable”. To which my response is, “yes, we know. Why do you find this so surprising?” It’s the explicit claim of supernatural causation that sends him off the rails. I occasionally hear a creak or pop or some other little noise in the night. I don’t always have an explanation for it, but I do not conclude that my house is haunted by supernatural forces beyond the understanding of science. Occam’s Razor suggests that it’s more likely thermal expansion or contraction of different building materials, or the ductwork running hot or cold air, rather than ghosts. I would need extraordinary evidence to believe otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/197 "2025-05-27T20:37:11Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > First off, I’m not married to Aguadilla being definitive. I offered it because it’s multi-sensor, government-sourced, and still debated over a decade later. With respect, the evidence for Aguadilla relies on a single sensor (the infra-red camera in the helicopter). It was not seen on radar, since it was probably a fire lantern. I am not certain whether the pilot or crew ever even saw this with their own eyeballs, although I would not be surprised if they did. The lantern would have performed the same apparent manoeuvres (caused by parallax) whether it was observed by camera or by eye. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/198 "2025-05-27T20:39:08Z")
I do listen. I just don’t think the answers resolve everything as neatly as claimed. Asking “why” isn’t about chasing a preferred outcome, it’s about not pretending partial explanations are the full picture. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/199 "2025-05-27T20:41:39Z")
You’re not arguing with Vallée you’re arguing with a cartoon version of him. He’s not saying “ghosts did it.” He’s saying: if strange events keep recurring across history, geography, and now even sensor data, maybe it’s not just creaky floorboards and overactive imaginations. Maybe there’s a deeper pattern we haven’t named yet. Dismissing that with “weird stuff happens” is just intellectual laziness dressed up as skepticism. If that’s your final answer, fine, but don’t pretend it’s some mic-drop moment. Occam’s Razor isn’t about picking the most familiar answer. It’s about picking the simplest explanation that still accounts for the evidence. And sometimes the evidence is just… weird. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2025, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/200 "2025-05-27T20:45:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Straight to the point: > _Does the OP want an answer to the question posted in the title, or not?_ If the only takeaway is “weird stuff happens, move on,” then no, you’re not engaging the question, you’re shutting it down. That’s not skepticism that’s avoidance. > [@DocCathode](#): > > IMHO he is not debating. He is _witnessing_. If this were “witnessing,” I wouldn’t be responding to criticism or acknowledging counterpoints I’d be preaching. I’ve made my case, responded in good faith, and even conceded when explanations held weight. What I haven’t done is pretend that gaps in current explanations mean the conversation’s over. That’s not witnessing that’s what debate should be: holding space for unresolved questions. You don’t have to agree with me. But let’s not pretend disagreement = disengagement. I’m still here, still listening, and still arguing the case. That’s debate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583.md?page=11)