I say that they all can be identified if they were available for proper observation … I'm invoking Occam's Razor and betting that none of those things is involved. I'm betting they're all mundane objects and or phenomena. … The phenomenon is simply explained - people see things in the air that they can't identify."
You've given us nothing but seemingly uniformed personal opinions. Why would we care what you're "betting" if you don't know what you're talking about? Do you have any experience, knowledge or expertise in this subject area?
It apparently doesn't trouble you that precisely no one today who is knowledgeable about the phenomenon agrees with you. We're talking about sane and credible experiencers by the millions, scientists and academics, law enforcement, military - no one (not to mention photographs that have withstood all scientific scrutiny, radar returns that defy known physics, and physical traces consistent with what multiple witnesses reported at the time). I don't think I've heard anyone express sentiments such as yours since Donald Menzel and Philip Klass, who are both long dead but were essentially paid professional debunkers.
"All mundane objects"? "Simply explained"? I don't think so. More significantly, those with the vast depth of knowledge of J. Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee and Jerome Clark don't think so.
The puzzle to me is why people say things such as this when they clearly aren't knowledgeable about what is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon and their uninformed opinions are completely at odds with the opinions of those who are far better informed and more qualified. What's the point? What you are doing is pretty much exactly what atheists do with believers: "I may not know anything about Christianity, but I do know it's all nonsense and only credulous dummies believe it."
BTW, I think you misunderstand Occam's Razor. The point of Occam's Razor is that explanations should not be made unnecessarily complicated. All things being equal, the least-complicated explanation is to be preferred - but isn't inevitably correct. When the best evidence demands a more complex explanation, that one must be preferred. Simply saying what you're saying here isn't "invoking Occam's Razor." You're not addressing the evidence at all - more like putting your head in the sand. There is nothing inherently simpler about your pseudo-explanation ("all mundane objects," which is clearly incorrect anyway) than demons, aliens or any of the other speculation that has been offered.
"Demons" would be quite a simple and straightforward explanation that actually fits much of the evidence quite nicely and is entirely consistent with Christian theology. But the UFO phenomenon really isn't a good candidate for Occam's Razor - it's too complex and multi-faceted for any explanation to be identified as the "simplest" or "least unnecessarily complicated" one.