With all due respect there is so much absurdity in the assumptions being made with your linked article that it is almost not worth engaging with. However, I will for educational purposes.
As someone who is trained in and comfortable reading radiographs but is not a radiologist, I can tell you that putting a gorilla on one of the views is a poor measure of how many things are missed by radiologists.
Effectively interpreting imaging studies requires expert knowledge of the anatomy being imaged and the variety of ways pathology is reflected in a visibly detectable manner. What they are doing is rapidly cycling through what is effectively a long checklist of areas to note: evaluate the appearance of hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes, note bronchiolar appearance, is there evidence of interstitial or alveolar patterns (considered within the context of what would be expected for a variety of etiologies such as bronchopneumonia, neoplasia, CHF,...), do you observe appropriate dimensions of the cardiac silhouette, do you see other evidence of consolidation within the lungs, within the visible vertebrae do you observe appropriate alignment, do the endplates appear abnormal, do you observe any vertebral lucencies, on and on and on.
Atypical changes are typically clustered in expected ways. Often deviations from what is expected will trigger a bit more consideration, but those expectations are subverted during the course of going through your "checklist". No radiologist has look for a gorilla in their evaluation.
It is pretty clear that the layperson's understanding of a radiologist being "look at the picture and say anything that is different" is a complete miss on what is actually happening during their evaluation.
It's like if I asked you to show me your skills driving a car around an obstacle course, and then afterwards I said you are a bad driver because you forgot to check that I swapped out one of the lug nuts on each wheel with a Vienna sausage.