What's interesting about this topic is that in some sense, it reflects the prior beliefs of the observer.
If someone thinks "I doubt this sort of thing is possible", then very improbable explanations begin to sound reasonable, even probable. If the explanation given is assumed to be impossible, then any other explanation will be given more credit, no matter how far-fetched.
On the other hand, take someone who has had their own crisis apparition experience (you probably know someone like this, I've found it is actually fairly common). They already accept that this phenomena is possible. To them, the other explanations (it was a different person, he misrembered, etc) seem unlikely. An experiencer may say 'Why bother proposing these low-probability explanations when his explanation seems to make the most sense?'
My attitude is more like - "I haven't experienced it, but I don't see why this phenomena shouldn't exist, and I'd like to learn more". So I lean toward the experiencer's story being correct unless someone provides a true high-probability reason to doubt it.
At some level, it really is a subjective matter of what each individual considers to be an "extraordinary claim". You can almost judge each poster's general reaction without even waiting for them to post it. That is one reason I am learning to just stay out of skeptic vs. proponent debates, and why people spend so much time arguing past each other.
