# 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:** 13
**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 28, 2025, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/241 "2025-05-28T17:41:02Z")
No ridicule taken, analogy noted. But here’s the thing: I’m not afraid of mundane explanations. I welcome them. That’s the point. But some of the explanations being offered aren’t as airtight as you’re making them out to be, they just shift the mystery sideways, or rely heavily on assumptions. If a case is solidly debunked, I drop it. But what I don’t do is pretend that because some are explained, all must be. I’m not here to prove aliens, I’m here because a persistent cluster of credible reports keeps nudging at the edges of what we understand. Maybe it’s nothing. Maybe it’s a mirror. But I’m not going to stop looking just because some folks are more comfortable with certainty. ---
**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 28, 2025, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/242 "2025-05-28T17:45:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > He actively disregarded his own example when an explanation was given. But I didn’t disregard it, I acknowledged the explanation and moved on. That’s what you do when a case is no longer compelling. One explained case doesn’t erase the broader signal. If you think one debunked example disproves an entire field of inquiry, that’s not skepticism, that’s intellectual triage. ---
**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 28, 2025, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/243 "2025-05-28T17:48:33Z")
But I’m not saying every blurry light is a ‘unicorn’ I’m saying the fact that we keep thinking we see one might be worth exploring. Maybe it’s all horses, sure. But the persistence of the impulse to ask, to wonder, to investigate, that’s what I’m defending. Not any specific claim, but the right to be curious even when the answer isn’t clear-cut. Its not gullibility, its intellectual honesty. Dismissing all of it as nonsense shuts down the exact kind of thinking that leads to real discovery. ---
**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 28, 2025, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/244 "2025-05-28T17:50:48Z")
Ok, but I think you’re framing curiosity like it has to pass a cost-benefit analysis before it’s allowed. I’m not trying to assign odds, I’m saying the sheer recurrence of high-strangeness in credible contexts suggests there’s something here we don’t fully understand yet. Not proof. Not certainty. Just a good reason to stay curious, even if the odds are cosmic dust. ---
**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 28, 2025, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/245 "2025-05-28T18:02:34Z")
Forgive me. I am currently on my phone and copying and pasting is exceedingly difficult with my poor dexterity. What do you mean “challenged “? If the explanations given are wrong or insufficient what, specifically and exactly, is wrong or insufficient about them? You say that other events prove the pattern. Then provide them. We will examine them and see if they can be explained. You say “. . . These patterns persist. . .” Again how are the explanations of every example you have given wrong or insufficient? If they are correct and sufficient, why do you keep claiming a pattern exists? For the third time, how is it not resolved? How are the explanations of every example you have given wrong or insufficient? I am not threatened by unresolved ambiguity. Kindly quote where i said that I was, or any post of mine that could be reasonably read to mean that. If you cannot find such a post, you should respond to what I have actually written. ---
**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 28, 2025, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/246 "2025-05-28T18:11:49Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > . But some of the explanations being offered aren’t as airtight as you’re making them out to be, they just shift the mystery sideways, or rely heavily on assumptions. Again: please be specific. I offered a specific rebuttal to your strongest point. In what way isn’t it airtight? > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > the anomaly isn’t any single incident, it’s that events “Events” is the plural of “event.” If you want us to believe that there are events, start by showing us a single event that meets these conditions. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > events across decades, locations, and sensor systems keep almost breaching our frameworks of explanation, and then slipping just out of reach. What does this even mean? They almost breach our frameworks of explanation? Meaning, there are events that don’t breach our frameworks of explanation? I’m not sure whether you think this is horseshoes or hand grenades, but it ain’t. ---
**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 28, 2025, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/247 "2025-05-28T18:29:46Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But I didn’t disregard it, I acknowledged the explanation and moved on. That’s what you do when a case is no longer compelling. So, you will not use that particular case any more as an example of “The Phenomenon”? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/248 "2025-05-28T18:58:43Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But I’m not saying every blurry light is a ‘unicorn’ I’m saying the fact that we keep thinking we see one might be worth exploring. But we have - this has been explored in great detail and there are very detailed studies of how human perception and need to find familiar patterns create reports of ghosts, UFOs, etc. You seem to be unwilling to accept that this framework of incidents you insist upon is fully explained by human nature and the limits of our senses. That’s something that can be tested and verified (and has been) rather than an unverifiable hypothesis with multiple unnecessary assumptions. ---
**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 28, 2025, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/249 "2025-05-28T19:03:53Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But I’m not saying every blurry light is a ‘unicorn’ I’m saying the fact that we keep thinking we see one might be worth exploring How much investigation would satisfy you? ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/250 "2025-05-28T19:16:57Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > But Vallée replaces it with a hypothesis that says these (apparent) visitors are instead from another, presumably nearby, dimension, a vantage point from which they can come and go at will and merely do so to cause mischief. Ah. A “Teaser.” ---
**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 28, 2025, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/251 "2025-05-28T19:20:32Z")
You’re conflating curiosity with credulity. I’m not defending every case as airtight, I’m pointing to the statistical weight of recurrence across credible platforms, not just late night Reddit threads. You say it’s all psychological. Fine. Then let’s apply that rigorously and investigate the psychology of denial too especially when people twist themselves into knots to dismiss anything anomalous outright. No one’s claiming a unicorn here. But when the herd keeps getting spotted, the least we can do is stop pretending that the branch on the horse’s head always explains it away. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/252 "2025-05-28T19:21:55Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I’m asking why, if it’s all explainable, we keep circling the same kinds of events again and again. > > You don’t have to agree. But let’s not pretend it’s all resolved, because no serious analysis says that. And if that bothers you, maybe ask why unresolved ambiguity feels so threatening. You still have it backwards… > **[UFO: A Living Myth of Transformation](https://www.jcf.org/post/ufo-a-living-myth-of-transformation)** > > If we ever wanted to find a contemporary exemplar of living myth par excellence, we would need to look no further than the UFO phenomenon—especially with the recent video leaks and subsequent Pentagon disclosures on “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”... > the _belief_ in UFOs “suits the general opinion, whereas disbelief is to be discouraged. And yes, one notices how Joseph Campbell deals with what it is more likely: Our human physique following myths literally instead of metaphorically. That is more likely than interdimentional beings or aliens. The possibility that a few unexplained encounters are more likely to be related to the militaries of the world **is** the real dangerous thing, pushing for a phenomenon explanation is really, really, the lazy and (popular) safe option. ---
**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 28, 2025, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/253 "2025-05-28T19:28:33Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I’m not defending every case as airtight Well, you utterly failed at defending the one case you put forth as a good example. NOBODY is asking you to present all cases as “airtight”. _NOBODY_. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/254 "2025-05-28T19:39:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > > > But I’m not saying every blurry light is a ‘unicorn’ I’m saying the fact that we keep thinking we see one might be worth exploring > > How much investigation would satisfy you? Or more importantly, what sort of investigations? Because our scientific progress is, as you are saying you want to do, a history of investigating things that we wonder about. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But I’m not saying every blurry light is a ‘unicorn’ I’m saying the fact that we keep thinking we see one might be worth exploring. Maybe it’s all horses, sure. But the persistence of the impulse to ask, to wonder, to investigate, that’s what I’m defending. Not any specific claim, but the right to be curious even when the answer isn’t clear-cut. Its not gullibility, its intellectual honesty. Dismissing all of it as nonsense shuts down the exact kind of thinking that leads to real discovery. Science is exactly about what you’re describing. The scientific process involves wondering about something (“What could be going on with this thing I don’t understand?”), coming up with some kind of explanation (“It could be this particular thing.”), and then running experiments to get a better understanding of whether or not that possible explanation is correct or incorrect (“If it is that particular thing I think it might be, that means we should see x when we do y”). Instead it seem like your proposing a way of looking at things where we say “I wonder what that could be, maybe it’s such and such, but because such and such are too far advanced from what we currently or could possible understand, let’s just stick to wondering, because investigating is useless.” If that isn’t what you propose, than what is it that you do propose? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/255 "2025-05-28T20:07:27Z")
I’m sure this map has already been shown in this really long thread that I read half of: > **[Reddit - The heart of the internet](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/odqjef/this_is_a_map_of_all_reported_ufo_sightings/)** It’s weird that such a huge number of sightings are in the US, and then in other Anglophone areas. What are the chances? One of the comments was: So, a population density map of English speakers. ---
**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 28, 2025, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/256 "2025-05-28T20:15:40Z")
As I am sure you know, you have described the Scientific Method. Observe. Formulate a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. Discard or modify the hypothesis based on results of repeated tests. As you also said- the OP seems to have done the opposite. He has come to a conclusion and then discarded any data that contradicts that conclusion. It appears that the OP has also not fully researched the examples given. OTTOMH this reminds me of creationism. Start with the conclusion that G-d created everything and that “macro evolution “ doesn’t happen. Ignore any evidence that contradicts creationism. Don’t bother to research examples that seem at first to prove creationism. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/257 "2025-05-28T20:25:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How many pieces of bad evidence equal one piece of good evidence? I tried to identify a logical fallacy based on that, but the best I could come up with was “the plural of anecdotes is not data”. Maybe we can propose a variant of the leaky bucket syndrome: a thousand leaky observations does not equal a watertight theory. ---
**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 28, 2025, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/258 "2025-05-28T20:25:48Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But I’m not saying every blurry light is a ‘unicorn’ I’m saying the fact that we keep thinking we see one might be worth exploring. I think that’s fair, up to a point; but after the 1,000th unicorn turns out to just be a horse juxtaposed with some coincidental pointy background/foreground object, would you agree that it’s reasonable to scale down the search a bit, and maybe accept the default assumption that there probably aren’t unicorns and that the phenomenon causing us to see them is that our perception is not perfect? > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But the persistence of the impulse to ask, to wonder, to investigate, that’s what I’m defending. ‘Investigate’ was what everyone here seemed to want to do; the problem was getting you to pony (pun intended) up the evidence on which to perform the investigation. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Dismissing all of it as nonsense shuts down the exact kind of thinking that leads to real discovery. Nobody did that, at least not before looking at the evidence and seeing that it was in fact nonsense. If you don’t want people to dismiss _actual nonsense_, as nonsense, you’re going to be out of luck. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/259 "2025-05-28T20:30:34Z")
Why is it always the [Rosicrucians](https://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Science-1957-1969-Jacques-Vallee/dp/1556431252)? (Please don’t waste your money and buy the damned thing. The link just happened to show where some of his nuttiness started). ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2025, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583/260 "2025-05-28T20:30:48Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > …after the 1,000th unicorn turns out to just be a horse juxtaposed with some coincidental pointy background/foreground object, would you agree that it’s reasonable to scale down the search a bit, and maybe accept the default assumption that there probably aren’t unicorns and that the phenomenon causing us to see them is that our perception is not perfect? Substitute “vaccines cause autism” for “unicorns” and you get current HHS-sponsored “research” efforts. There are people who comprehend reality _but just can’t stand it_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phenomenon-what-is-it/1018583.md?page=14)