Not correct. A lot of thought has gone into this. You're concentrating on the unsolved cases. Have you considered what the solved cases mean?
After the Condon Report, the notion that all solved cases are simply noise that should be thrown out became a hardened position among UFOlogists. Hynek really pushed that. He expressed frustration that so much attention was being paid to the solved cases. Taking away, in his mind, time and energy from the "real" cases. Which assumes that the cases that remained unsolved required an extraordinary cause.
That is antithetical to the scientific method. If 95% of all cases are solved, that supports the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis being that no extraordinary explanation is needed to explain
all reports.
By about 1970 some Skeptic coined the term "postcard rack."
As old cases are solved and removed by Skeptics standing on one side of the rack, new cases are being put into the rack on the other side by UFO True Believers. The rack is always full. The Skeptics point to the pile of discarded postcards on the counter. The True Believers say, "So what? Why are you talking about that junk? Look at that full rack!"
The solved cases are "The UFO Message."
BTW, 1955 was early days. Decades of experience with solved cases have piled up. Many of the unsolved cases in that Blue Book Report can now be solved. By the time Allan Hendry was hired by Hynek to be the full time investigator for CUFOS, he had the accumulated knowledge, and resources, to solve ~95% of the cases that came his way over the CUFOS hotline.
Solved cases are not noise. They are evidence. If 95% of cases can be solved, that's evidence that humans are entirely capable of producing UFO sightings with nothing extraordinary behind them.
Unsolved cases have no unique qualities. Not
perceived motions, extraordinary appearance, or the emotional reaction of the witness. Or the conviction of the witness that something very extraordinary and life changing was involved. Solved cases can have all the qualities of unsolved cases. The reasonable conclusion is that unsolved cases remain unexplained due to lack of information. And this is the crucial bit. You have to expect that there will be unsolved cases due to the quirky method of collecting data. If you haven't studied experimental design and analytical statistics, this is hard to understand. Experiments are designed to prove that the scientist is wrong. It's called the Null Hypothesis. In a statistical test, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specified populations,
any observed difference being due to sampling or experimental error.
If the Null hypothesis is rejected, that is
support for the scientist's notions. The scientist's notion, (the thing he wants to be true) is called the
alternative hypothesis. Our Null Hypothesis could be:
No extraordinary causes are needed to generate UFO cases.
The alternative hypothesis seems to be:
An extraordinary cause is required to explain at least some UFO cases.
True Believers don't include known or unknown quirks in human perception, memory and psychology in the category of "extraordinary." They mean aliens or extra-dimensional beings... or whatnot.
There are also quirks in instruments, such as radar and cameras.
Accepting the Null Hypothesis only
supports the idea that it's not necessary to resort to extraordinary explanations to explain all UFO cases.
But accepting the null hypothesis should rule out the idea that an extraordinary cause is necessary to explain at least some UFO cases.
Basically...
In experimental psychology it's expected that 5 percent of the data you collect during an experiment is bogus, because of the quirky nature of human psychology and the difficulties in collecting data from humans. You reject or support the null hypothesis with that in mind.
We're not even doing a controlled experiment here, which makes it even more quirky. If 95% of UFO cases can be solved we should conclude that it's
not necessary that something extraordinary must be going on out there. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that there's any
hard core of cases.
This whole thing has been going on a long time and nothing definitive has ever happened. But we have learned something. We've learned something about human psychology. Which is what piques my interest.