One of the key points of my writing on the subject of the paranormal is that what is anomalous may not be directly observable as a distinction that is also a verifiable discernment regarding the finite nature of our own powers of observation.
The field of the study of the anomalous that includes unidentified atmospheric phenomenon, ghost encounters, presentment as precognition, possessions etc which apparently have no pragmatic usefulness to be applied to the prosaic nature of everyday living.
One could reasonably observe that this separation is due to the nature of the questions posed from which are derived a confusing assortment of abstracted theories that operate at cross purposes that lack a nexus of focus.
The anomalous is familiar and yet exhibits behavior that is cannot be accounted for.
This accounting is as variegated as a hybridised stereotype meaning the individual (s) who exponentially inhabit the same space as these observations have a finite capability to steer the outcome of what is in essence an effect, which has no volition of it’s own.
However the study of the paranormal is not one that can be button holed as solipsism, meaning that the mind has a unique and isolated nature whereas the environment is discounted as imaginary.
This poses a conundrum of epistemology that while the mind and it's environment cannot be separated as a clear divide, the environment at times has a strange and unaccounted for malleability that seemingly originates between the two.
Yet perhaps the role of solipsism is reversed when the terms of the questions we ask become inadvertent key characteristics of what is incommensurable to any known relationship. What exactly is a Demon, a UFO, a Sasquatch other than incommensurable references?
As an example take the term, Unidentified Flying Object. The operand word of "object" that is utilised despite the fact that it's critically assumed physicality as an object as we define a solid object that is used as a metric has led nowhere for decades.
Whether it is Roswell, Socorro, or any other event you chose to use as an example
If we add the entire body of evidence such that it is, without picking and choosing examples, we have an inexplicable variegation of reported "craft types" that are are patently transient, depending on the differentiation found in individual observers and \ or the equally transient imagery borrowed from cultural consensus based on shared anticipation. Add to this the "averaged" stereotypical "craft" has historically changed from decade to decade, century to century which makes it reasonably probable that if all the witnesses were not lying, then we have observer variegation based upon the nature of unknown relationships between the observer and the observed.
Another way to say the same thing is to say our environment suggests to us that triggers the inferences stored as associative transients, that are self referential and self organizing without much interference from the possibility of divided attention.