Possibly true. But he was active on the issue in a low key way before that.
Agreed; but for me the question is not when he became interested in UFO and UFO reports, but when he started accusing NASA of covering them up. The first doesn't express hostility toward his employer; the latter does.
Where is the evidence his employer expressed any attention whatsoever to his pre-dismissal UFO reports? Or is that what he claims? Does NASA admit they warned him in some way about his UFO-related activities and implied his job was at stake? If so, I am not aware of it.
There are legal entanglements to publishing the reason why you fired someone, or even any information regarding the particulars of one's employment. An employer generally may not reveal those reasons, or any details of the employment. They may generally verify only simple facts such as job title and dates of employment, and perhaps salary. The employee doesn't have those restrictions. This gives the employee tremendous advantage in that he can make up whatever reason he wants for his dismissal and publish it. If it is false, the employer's only response is generally a defamation action; he may not generally publish his own version of the reasons.
If you've never made a mistake...
The question is not whether McLelland dismissal was justified. The question is whether his perception colored the decision to accuse his former employer. In fact, the sour-grapes hypothesis works better if McLelland was a good employee; it makes his dismissal less objectively justified, more emotionally injurious, and a more credible motive for retaliation.
Just seems to me that it would be easy to be dismissive of anyone by finding some rationality to descredit them.
Unfortunately McLelland's claims rely solely for their strength on the nature of his relationship with his employer, for which we really have only his word. This isn't a case of finding "some" rationality, i.e. of dubious applicability. If his employer gave him subjective cause to dislike them, even for unrelated reasons, then it casts doubt on his reasons for accusing them.
There is no rule that someone who feels he has been wronged has to lash out in a way congruent with the alleged wrong. For example, if a bitter custody battle erupts over a couple's children, the aggreived parent may, say, conceivably report the opponent to the IRS. That doesn't mean his beef with his former spouse derived from taxation, or even that there is a legitimate tax evasion issue. It is simply a convenient way to effect revenge.
It's prudent to look for bias when someone you don't know asks you to trust him. And that's essentially what McLelland does. Further, his claims are extraordinary, requiring more due diligence in assessing his trustworthiness. Getting back at an employer who fired you is generally an excellent reason to make a false accusation.
The evaluation of McLelland is not so binary. I simply find it more credible that he has an axe to grind than that his extraordinary cover-up accusations are fully true.
|