Are you consistent in your standards of evidence?

I’ve been following the topic of UAP fairly closely since the Grusch saga began to unfold. On this and other forums I’ve seen the claim made that skeptics are being stubborn and there’s enough evidence to substantiate the existence of NHI.

Inevitably someone points out that there really isn’t and asks for the “whammy.” Then, someone gives their whammy, and it’s not convincing, so they say something like, “it’s a preponderance of evidence… it’s all these things added together that make me sure.”

Ok, but that’s true for ghosts, too. Plenty of evidence for ghosts. That community is just like this one. They’ll talk about their personal experiences, the photo and video evidence, the fact that there have always been ghost stories, etc.

Or angels.

Or bigfoot(feet?)

Anyway, I’m curious about this. For those of you who believe in aliens, but not ghosts, why? For those of you who shun religions but then accept the testimonies of others, how do you reconcile that?

It seems like you’d have to really compartmentalize and that this would result in an inconsistent application of reason and logic to falsifiable claims in your life. Or, do you believe in all the above? Aliens, ghosts, angels, inorganic beings?

Many thanks for the thoughtful replies.