An even handed discussion of the kind of evidence frequently offered by those who believe believe in anomalies and those who don't, and what sort of evidence and argument should be offered.

How I found it: long ago, I read a magazine called the Zetetic [something] in Robert Anton Wilson. Unlike believer publications and skeptic publications, it was an effort to really look at the details of arguments. Unlike believer publications (which are numerous) and skeptic publications (of which I know only one), it never found much of an audience, and didn't last.

However, googling turned up Mario Truzzi, who wanted there to be a zetetic influence at the Skeptical Inquirer, and that led me to the link I referenced.

A careful skeptical investigation of a UFO claim. I'm citing it because it's much better than just saying "hallucination".