I won't pretend that I understand the situation and all the parties involved, but I think this has got too personal.
From my point of view Mr Stanford doesn't have to do anything, he could destroy all his evidence if he wants to. It is his work.
I can say with great confidence that important works have been deliberately or accidentally destroyed by their creators.
And sometimes fantastic theories or ideas are never published.
Only Mr Stanford can decide to publish or not, and I don't think he will be "forced" into it, especially by people "online" (myself included).
I hope that he does decide to make his work public.
Until he does I can't make any kind of judgement.
In other words I am not trying to denounce or promote his evidence, but I do understand his position, but I also understand the frustration of others.
It's a bit of a vicious circle: Mr Stanford not sharing his evidence has caused scepticism, and why would Mr Stanford show his evidence to people that have already made up their minds?
It could be argued that the evidence should stand up for itself, but without seeing it, no informed judgement can be made either way.
What I am trying to say is that it doesn't make any difference if I want him to publish, it is up to him.
There is no point in getting angry about it, in fact antagonism will probably make it less likely for him to ever publish.
Just to be crystal clear I am not defending Mr Stanford, just his position.
I don't think there is anyone on this forum who has not at some point be dismayed at how toxic "Ufology" can be, people get very angry and upset over the implications of UFOS (again myself included) but if any subject deserved to be explored with a calm and rational mind it is this one.
As an outsider looking in, maybe this situation is a microcosm of the field in general, and part of the reason it is difficult to get academia to engage and invest as much as it should.
We have a tendency to forget that we all have the same goal, and that is to see evidence of UFOS, isn't it?
I am a sceptic, but i believe it is impossible to prove that UFOS don't exist, therefore they must exist, unless they can exist and not exist at the same time?
We should all be as sceptical of something as possible, until we are convinced of it, but to expect everyone to have the same standards and interpretations is naive, especially when we are talking about a topic as loaded as UFOS, its too big and complicated for one person to comprehend so we need to work together rather than argue about evidence not everybody can see, regardless of the reasons or motives.