Anomalies "context"
It is well known that the meaning of words depend on "context", it is also very well known that human perception depends on the knowledge and worldviews of the given person, we can say that that particular person knowledge and worldviews gives a "context" for his/her perception of any given event.
If we show to a non-trained person pictures or videos of microorganisms asking for some kind of "identification" we will receive back things like: geometric figures, monsters, even balloons(microorganisms with cilia). But a trained microbiologist will be able to give correct answers most of the time. The "context" of the a trained professional is different from the untrained one.
Now for anomalous autonomous flying objects, anomalies for short, it is exactly the same. For experienced observers the "context" with what anomalies are seen is different from the one used by any other person with no direct experience observing anomalies.
But the big difference between these two cases of microorganisms and anomalies is that inexperienced people in microorganisms usually do not try to delve into any kind of "identification" of pictures or footage of microorganisms but almost anybody think that by watching just a couple of videos with supposedlyanomalous objects they can make identifications or correct analysis of the anomalous nature or not of these objects. Simply they do not have the proper "context".
To be considered a trained microbiologist you need experience using the instruments needed to study microorganisms and observing these microorganisms, that can not be avoided.
To be considered an experienced observer of anomalies you need experience using instruments needed to be able to observe these anomalies in detail and directly observing anomalies, that experience provides a level of knowledge that can not obtained in any other way.
There are multiple examples of anomalies where only the "context" was the criteria to know that the given object was anomalous. For people without that context that conclusion very likely will be wrong, but their opinion is really irrelevant as will be their opinion about microorganisms if they are not trained microbiologists.
So armchair "experts" and "analysts" without a working experience making direct atmospheric observations with high optical magnification equipment stop talking and start making these observations, without that "context" any "evaluation" that you may do or you had done of any sighting reports had been meaningless. Very likely you had been rejecting many valid anomalous objects and we had seen that plenty of times.
