So only actively now with the government, not former government, have more legitimacy?
No. Legitimacy should be based on evidence. Lacatski has none. In addition to his new claims he's making, he set up and ran AAWSAP, what could be considered a kind of forerunner to AATIP, UAPTF, OSMIOG and now AARO.
Lacastki then wrote a book about his time at AASAP. He never mentioned crashed UFOs, alien bodies or reverse engineering programs. Ever. He did outline how he wrote a misleading Request for Proposal that asked for thoughts on speculative future technology and then admits in his book the program was really about UFOs. Now he's part of the disclosure team?
If we take Lacatski at his word about crashed UFOs, do we take him at his word with the rest of the claims in his book? He thinks UFOs and aliens are manifestations of the same interrelated "phenomenon" that includes ghosts, orbs, a mysterious cotangent from SWR and 7' bipedal wolf creatures among other things.
So, Lacatski is to be believed about crashed UFOs without presenting any evidence because of who he is or where worked. And to many in UFOlogy Kirkpatrick is not to be believed when he says "I've found no evidence for these things". In both cases, there is a lack of evidence.
As noted, if we just believe Lacatski because of his former position, do we now also believe malevolent spooks from SWR were running around suburban Virginia? He's made that claim too, in writing. If one rejects Lacatski's more esoteric claims, but believes his crashed UFO claims it's a bit of cherry-picking to reenforce and already held belief.
One side is making claims with no evidence. The other side is simply rejecting that claim, for now, based on that lack of evidence.