If ufology went to court
if I may, I would like to offer a comment about "observations/claims."
In science, one does not usually put the microscope onto uncontrolled observations. Observations can be misinterpretations, misunderstandings or even special circumstances that are of coincidental nature. The basic idea is that observations noted by sources considered credible sometimes inspire those of scientific bent to investigate for causal relationships. This is where the scientific method is applied, btw. Postulates and predictions are made and then tested. When all is said and done, uncontrolled (casual) observations have very little to do with science.
For example, does it really matter if sir Issac Newton actually observed an apple falling from a tree? NO! What matters are the postulates, predictions and classical dynamics theory he developed due to his observations in nature inspiring his curiosity. No one need investigate the story of the falling apple because nothing is gained either by believing or disbelieving it.
By the same token, does it really matter if what one witnesses moving in our skys in ways we do not understand via our knowledge of the laws of physics is an alien spacecraft or some yet to be discovered natural phenomena that exhibits intelligence? One need not prove anything about it. It is merely an observation which might have been properly or improperly perceived. What is important about such observations, should they occur more than once and be reported by seemingly credible sources, is the science which might follow via postulates, predictions and testing that the observations have inspired.
IMHO we tend to get all caught up in whether any particular observation by witnesses can be "PROVEN." What is far more important is if such reports from different credible peoples and places seem to indicate that indeed something is afoot that bears watching. Going on the assumption that everyone isn't crazy should lead us to increased vigilence by serious investigators. To do less is irresponsible.