It's time to retire the "trained observer" myth. Being a trained professional does not make one immune to the same perceptual limitations that every other human being shares. In fact, in many cases (especially within the military and other technical fields) being "trained" only exacerbates the potential for perceptual and cognitive error, as it tends to make one overestimate one's ability to interpret what you think you see.
Thanks for your response! I really enjoy looking at all angles.
So help me understand "exacerbates the potential for perceptual and cognitive error"... If military pilots are chasing exhausts in an age of IFF, doesn't that imply the opportunity for friendly fire losses if we are at war and wouldn't such a case be heavily investigated?
I don't know if you got a chance to look at the Minot AFB case, but for over 2 hours security personnel from multiple angles were chasing a red ball that moved around this extremely large base. As trained military security, what is the likelihood that the roughly 15 individuals (that we know about) or consistently mistaking something normal from multiple angles?
In the same case, air traffic control vectored the B-52 to investigate things that they are aware of in their airspace (it's not definite but it appears that they were tracking the object on ground radar)... Once again are these folks not the best prepared to recognize an unusual situation in their airspace?
Same thing with the B-52 crew. The bomber navigators were trained to use radar to track enemies as well as friendly aircraft for many reasons including refueling... So when they say they had return of an object that is bigger than our B-52 and they have experience seeing objects that are the size of b-52's, and they have the radar photos that have been analyzed recently, how can we dismiss their expertise?
And finally when the two pilots fly approximately 2,000 ft over the top of what they described as a big red Barn sized glowing object that appeared to be sitting on the ground, doesn't that bring up the question of why they think they see something on the ground at the base where they have been posted for many years?
If you haven't read it, Minot AFB is the case where I would most like to see skeptical input as I'm not aware of anyone making a case that in any way explains this well documented study.
Open to any and all ideas!