Clarity surrounding whistleblower & DOPSR process

There seems to be two camps here and I am looking for some clarity from both sides.

1.) I've seen a lot of comments regarding the "whistleblowers" being spokesmen for MIC because they have been approved to say what they are saying. This make sense to me, why would the government allow people to speak openly on a secret they have been trying to keep for 80 years. We should be skeptical of psyop and the possibility we are being fed misinformation by spokesmen of the government.

2.) I have also seen it said that DOPSR doesn't have full knowledge on all SAPs so it needs to reach out to those with oversight on programs based on the government record of the individual sudmitting a claim. So in this instance those holding the keys to UAP programs would be admitting there is a there, there by redacting information. I believe it was David Grusch that said if anything is redacted it has to be explicitly stated why there is national security concerns around that omission. This would explain why the information regarding UAP isn't redacted, although why some info and not all?

I'm likely missing some logic on either side, can we get a conversation going around both arguments? I'm not seeking division just some clarification from both sides.