This is a good hook, if I may, to hang a few points in relation to previous points raised.
1) Ron, you're absolutely right that people shouldn't denigrate those who say they have seen, come into contact with UFOs. I believe that the majority of people who do so have had a real experience. It's why when we look at this subject, let's call it ufology though that term may not be useful, the reported experience, and the reporting experiencer, should be the starting point. As an aside I would add that suggesting that UFO experiences might have a social or psychological aspect should not be seen as denigrating the underlying veracity of the report.
2) If someone describes an experience in which they say they've seen a ghost or a UFO we can accept that. But surely it is a non sequitur to suggest, as seems to have been in this thread, that "I have seen a UFO therefore alien craft exist" or, to use your other example "I have seen a ghost therefore the soul of the dead live on". The terms "UFO" and "ghosts" bring with them cultural baggage. Those who want to delve deeper should be prepared to ditch this baggage. The experience is real, the explanation the experiencer may offer, or have forced upon them, might not be.
3) It's a cliché but I like it so I'll repeat it. If you see a strange light in the night sky, it's a UFO. If you see a strange light in an old house or a graveyard, it's a ghost. To someone who is trying to understand the root cause of these events, what sense do these categories make? What value do they add? I don't believe it's a useful approach to file "ghost" reports in a separate box and say "that's not ufology, ignore it" but to look at similar reported experiences in toto, regardless of the cultural assumptions we or the witnesses may imbue them with.
4) Lastly, I'm not trying to convince or convert I just wanted to get these points off my chest..... :- )
