As regards the article I gave you the link to, I am just now plowing through it and it raises some very interesting points.
What I am getting from it so far is that the government has conspired to direct any and all attention away from the subject of UFO's for a very long time. And this action (and the putative reasons for it) is almost as interesting as UFO's themselves.
It's like the government has been saying "don't look at UFO's...whatever you do and wherever you might look, please DON'T LOOK AT UFO's."
It seems the government, in all its disorganization and confusion, deems UFO's to be a threat not against humans, but against government itself.
The government's reaction to the subject of UFO's has been extremely irrational.
On the article you linked—my issue with (almost all) academic types is that they refuse to deal with the role of corruption in human affairs.
In my view corruption is “normal” so that a large number of individuals will use their positions of authority to maximize their own personal gain—and that will over-ride patriotism or other ideological views.
Such individuals (let us call them “sociopaths”) are drawn to positions of authority in any large organization.
Low performing sociopaths become criminals and usually end up in prison.
However high performing sociopaths become corporate CEOs, leading politicians, heads of non-profits etc. They use deception both within and outside the organization to maximize their private gain.
That appears to be the case in all human cultures in all time periods—which of course is an argument for View #2.
Continuing my thought on “corruption” as central to the human experience:
I worked in both the private and public sector in my long working life (now retired).
What fascinated me was that both seemed equally corrupted.
In the private sector the senior executives were highly skilled at lying, back stabbing, blaming others, not taking responsibility. Folks who excelled in that area were usually the ones who were promoted—the “honest” types did important work but usually had little authority.
In the public sector the difference was even more obvious.
Political appointees were the titular heads of government agencies. They were blatantly corrupt—even bragged about it behind closed doors—their top priority was pleasing the large donors to their political party or potential future private sector or non-profit employers.
Meanwhile the career .gov employees were often very idealistic—and stunningly naive if they had not had access to higher level decision-making by the political types.