The point is that a random data set will spontaneously produce clustered groups of apparent events that are not due to any underlying cause.

And a non-random data set will produce clusters of correlations which don’t have causal explanations. I’m well aware of this axiom which is why I found it important to address.

And if there were such clusters beyond pure random noise, they'd show up in studies. They don't, hence they're random noise.

How many heads in a row would you expect from an unbiased coin if you flip it long enough?

That is your "clusters of correlation."

Correlation most certainly does not imply an unknown relation between facts.

In fact, there are more completely unrelated correlations than there are correlations caused by related things. This is simple statistics.

Proof? Consider M things related that show a correlation. Suppose some other thing randomly by chance correlates, and that thing has N items correlated by some other set of related facts. Then all the not causally related cross correlations between the M and N items vastly outnumber the causally ones.

So no, correlation absolutely does not imply an unknown relation. It points to a place to look.