To begin with, let's throw maths out of the window. Maths and logic are tools elevated to sciences. Both are wholly artificial human constructs and as such useful when dealing with machines, buildings, money and other human constructs. However when we come to such things as statistics, as the saying goes, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Probability is similar -one can chant about the probabilty of x being y, but the fact is that x will happen any damn time it feels like it and y doesn't enter into it! So much so that people are constantly resorting to 'gremlins' or quoting Murphys' Law when all that's needed is 'Shit happens'.
As to UFOs, lots of people see them every day. Because anything seen flying by can be an Unidentified Flying Object if you can't see what it is. The toys that children throw at their parents and siblings are Unidentifed Flying Objects when they hit you, and are only identified ex post facto. In the same way, one can usually work out what the object one has seen must have been, even if said identification is bird, plane or Superman.
Unexplained Aerial Phenomena (UAP) are a different thing - I don't pretend to know what they are and will not waste my time speculating.
What I am prepared to argue is that Grahams' entire experience was a natural one, but one which physicalist science is unable to explain. However, to put it in the bucket marked 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' is to immediately contaminate it with the connotations of dozens of contradictory belief systems and the exposure of much charlatanry.
The rigid methodology of physicalist science is designed to explain the workings of the physical Universe in order that we can use them to advantage. The phenomena of what might be called the non-physical Universe, such as consciousness, canot be successfully studied by these methods as they follow different systems and laws. To study them properly requires the development of a new methodology. This would require, first of all, accurate documentation of all such phenomena, followed by an attempt to discover recognisable patterns in their nature and occurrence. But the patterns might not be discernible to the scientific mind, with its reliance on physical and/or mathematical patterning. It might require the eye of an artist, a child or an autistic.
Until then, a coincidence remains a coincidence - a natural phenomenon for which we have no explanation.
As to Jung, he, along with Freud, Nietzsche. Aleister Crowley and several others really need to be taken with a substantial quantity of salt. Nietzsche was a lunatic, Freud and Crowley were charlatans. Jung has elements of both. He'd have done better as a poet, like Blake!
