With so much of the academic infrastructure of our society turning their heads at neoscience, we cannot afford to embitter them any further by continually turning out biased, amateur, unscientific data. When conducting a scientific investigation, whether into the natural or paranormal, all possible alternatives to the problem should be exhausted before settling on an answer. If the result of the investigation, after thorough review and testing leaves no explainable option but the incredible, then you may have something unique. However, there are problems with offering such conclusions up as evidence. If the activity truly is an unknown, but is not demonstrably repeatable, then it is too erratic to build definitive evidence for.
Science fact is built on reproducible experiments.
Unfortunately, the field of paranormal research often deals in intangibles, and such data is rarely easy to document, let alone repeat. There is much gnashing of teeth over those who disagree in this area, but the cold hard truth is that photographic and audio data are not enough, and are not in and of themselves adequate to constitute empirical proof. Enigmatic photos and audio recordings can be the product of any number of natural phenomena, much of it quite well known. Common objects such as lens flares, dust particles, airborne moisture, stray broadcast audio, electrical disturbances in the ULF band are among the usual suspects. Most importantly, both mediums can be easily faked by an over-zealous believer, and often are hard to prove otherwise given the level of technology today.