What does "historically unreliable" mean concerning facts that are less than two decades old? Do we have sufficient distance and clearance to properly assess the reliability of such recent facts? I don't know the specifics about THIS particular source, but surely, isn't it a government's job to make sure eye witnesses get dismissed as "unreliable"? I am as much cautious about would-be testimonies as I am about official denials.
Can't answer that directly without busting forum rules, but....
As I'm sure you know, during the 1990s Groom Lake had a lot of outside attention on it. This was started, arguably, but John Lear in the 1980s and later the Bob Lazar story helped make "Area 51" a household name. Throughout the 90s there were people attracted to the base and the mythos surrounding it who were opportunists looking to make a quick buck. Others were serious researchers interested in government secrecy and other things.
A handful of people were somewhere in between.
As the attention on Groom Lake was rising, people would go out to the black mailbox (Steve Medlin's mailbox) on Highway 375 at 4am. Almost every time they would see a UFO, so reliable it was nicknamed "old faithful". Brightly lit, 700 feet long by some accounts, it strangely never appeared on weekends. Some entrepreneurs even organized tours that would take people out to see the UFO (for a not small amount of money).
Of course, this was actually the first JANET 737 flight of the day bringing workers to the facility from Las Vegas. Not a 700 foot long spaceship.
People see what they want to see. Some of those people see dollar signs.
A very easy litmus test though, is this. If someone says "I saw something weird", they're probably telling you everything. If they say "I saw the AX-17N!", they may be embellishing.