Yes, this is the tricky thing. The intersection of usual claims with actual covert programs means you can only judge the validity former using broad strokes / logical thinking, minus much in the way of concrete details.
One example: Mick West notes that Grusch got clearance from the pentagon to come forward and make the claims he did in the media and during the hearing. For West, this counts as evidence that there is no conspiracy, because if there was a conspiracy, the pentagon would not have given that clearance.
But for the UFO crowd, this same action by Grusch is viewed as a masterful play. The pentagon might not agree with what Grusch has to say, and might not want him to say it, but they only have grounds to reject his request if it poses a threat to national security. So, to tell him he cannot say it, would be tantamount to admitting that the contents was true. So, from this perspective, Grusch got the pentagon into a corner, where the best case was just to clear him say what he wanted, with the implicit meaning there being that none of it was true.
Depending on what set of presuppositions you bring with you, you can interpret the same situation in a way that corroborates the understanding that you already have. I do like West's more direct logical points with respects to the unlikelihood of so many crashed craft being collected though. This kind of more direct inference is more powerful.
