No they aren't. Sagan is basically saying "the more outrageous your claim the more you'd need to back it up". It's a version of the "burden of proof" which is largely about sportsmanship in debates. Like you're not de facto wrong if you make hasty remarks with outrageous implications and let the other person proof or disproof them, it's just that time is a valuable resource and you want them to believe you so it's kinda wasting their time to your benefit, which is not necessarily a nice thing to do. So rather about sportsmanship than logic.

While Hume's statement sounds like a version of "Reductio ad absurdum" where you proof something by showing that it's negation is impossible. Though not sure where this is applicable outside of abstract logic because usually there is more than one option to reject the testimony. Like say even if you have no doubt in the witness telling what they whole-heartedly believe to be the truth, what they say might still be "wrong" in the sense of them having already drawing a false conclusions.

For example let's say they report of having seen a specter, a white creature approached them in unnatural motion. Might actually be a truthful observation but could also be explained by someone with a bedsheet dropped upon them who is trying to get it off.

So the falsehood of the testimony doesn't need to be more miraculous than the miracle itself.

No they aren't. Sagan is basically saying "the more outrageous your claim the more you'd need to back it up". It's a version of the "burden of proof" which is largely about sportsmanship in debates. Like you're not de facto wrong if you make hasty remarks with outrageous implications and let the other person proof or disproof them, it's just that time is a valuable resource and you want them to believe you so it's kinda wasting their time to your benefit, which is not necessarily a nice thing to do. So the unwritten rule is that it's your job to defend your conclusion and the other person's job to poke wholes in them.

While Hume's statement sounds like a version of "Reductio ad absurdum" where you proof something by showing that it's negation is impossible. Though not sure where this is applicable outside of abstract logic because usually there is more than one option to reject the testimony. Like say even if you have no doubt in the witness telling what they whole-heartedly believe to be the truth, what they say might still be "wrong" in the sense of them having already drawing a false conclusions.

For example let's say they report of having seen a specter, a white creature approached them in unnatural motion. Might actually be a truthful observation but could also be explained by someone with a bedsheet dropped upon them who is trying to get it off.

So the falsehood of the testimony doesn't need to be more miraculous than the miracle itself.