Little Hawk is correct about the lack of eyewitnesses case.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

(this is the old "can't prove the negative")

I propose that a skeptic is generally a person who does not believe in un-eyewitnessed phenomena until evidence is offered.

Believers may be inclined to believe even without evidence.

Neither is "right" or "correct" while the jury is still out (i.e. when there is no evidence).

Hopefully, when evidence appears, both the skeptic and the believer will evaluate it critically and honestly and adapt their beliefs acdcordingly. One who does not do this is a bigot. One who does will occasionally eat crow, but emerge far wiser and with greater credibility.