Whistleblower, ,miss-used?

To me a whistleblower is someone known to be associated with or a member of an organization that cries fowl over conditions within or because of an organizations practices or policies. This person’s (whistleblower) credentials are known not speculated on and therefore their complaints or reports can be at least investigated - if not acted upon.
It is my opinion; the term whistleblower is wrongly used for folks who make conjecture for a myriad of purposes not in the least hoaxes. I will use Bob Lazar just for my purpose here. This guy made all these claims and could not back his claims even as far as his credentials. This makes him unqualified to be a whistleblower in my opinion. It just makes him a story teller for what ever his reasons. I would’ve surely took him very seriously had it not been pointed out he was a fraud – credential wise, at the very least.
Yes, I know of the ‘desperate believers’ battle cry that his past was wiped out but that won’t hold water for me.
For instance, one of our Countries most top secret programs of the entire Vietnam war, the Phoenix program - is no longer a secret. Not only is that a program of sanctioned assassination but every member who ever served the program is now known. I mean, if you where going to ‘wipe out’ a persons past, these soldiers would be the best candidates for such an action in my opinion.
So, let’s call these claimers something else. We could even just simply state “this guy claims…” I find that far more descriptive than whistleblower.
Thanks,
Vance

I'm with you on your whistleblower description. Right on. They need have been involved directly with what the "whistleblowing" is about. Not even here-say.

If you've just heard stories-Like those that worked at area 51 and never saw anything or even worked on 'secret" project but are labeled “Whistleblowers” B.S