Great interview, thanks

I don't understand why this guy is given so much flack, and yes I've heard all the reasons why...the problem is that the UFO community can't have it's cake and eat it too. If you want people to be doing serious research, fact finding/checking, spreading the word etc...then they are going to have to be able to make money doing so, who wants two full time jobs when one doesn't pay?

I actually MET Stanton while walking to a BBQ. Back where I used to live in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Canada.Think he still resides there with his wife.

I recognized him from about 20 feet away, very distinct looking guy. We had a very quick, polite and informative chat about his recent presentation @ UMass. This was about 6 years ago, so I don't remember all the details but he mentioned he asked ALL students to close there eyes first and then if you believe in exterestial life out there raise your hand and every single student raised there hand and then opened there eyes.. and all laughed haha

I know someone who was in the early stages of UFO investigation.

She got out of it because it was so cutthroat. You'd think they would have been supportive of each other - - but according to her - - that was not the case.

Anyway - - she did know Stanton. She said one world for him is: Tenacious.

If he got word or heard through the grapevine that someone had information - - he was relentless in trying to get that information from them.

She did consider him credible. He wasn't after stories. He was after real evidence.

As far as him (or others) selling books/tapes/videos/movies - - - its a job. How many grants do you think are given out for UFO research? If you chose to be a researcher - - you also had/have to find a way to support yourself.

I'm a BUYER BEWARE - - person. I never lay blame on the author. No one forces anyone to buy anything.

Stanton is a cool guy,you can email him from his website,hell get back to you.

Thanks, excellent interview, glad to see he has expanded in recent years and not talking about the same old things.

I don't agree with everything Stan says, but believe he believes what he is saying. No one likes debunker's but I think he is wrong by saying there should be none, serious debunker's who have done the research have brought us good information, so there are two kinds..

I have also met Stan, but it was a long time ago, 1990 at Fort Mason in San Francisco at a Conference, because I was involved with putting on the conference I was able to chat with him a number of times throughout the weekend.

Stan is the man, he really is down to earth and realistic. You really dont see much of that any more. Last of a dying breed. I will miss him when he is gone, he has done a great service to ufology.

Well you have several kinds of debunkers, i am kind of going to have to disgree with his stance about debunkers harming the subject. Because people will believe UFO's are real even if you debunk so many cases still. Debunking is as important as skepticism, from my understanding Debunking is a process used to eliminate explanations in a scientific manner. Such as people who film planes and call them "UFO's" and "Morphing Orbs" and "Fake Planes" just nonsense. So you debunk, debunk by providing data such as vector routes, light configuration. So if said hoaxer keeps providing hoax footage and you debunk video after video who does it harm? Debunk what you can and whatever left standing we can go on. Debunking is just a method it depends on the intent and if you abuse it if you are on the side of truth or deception.

By exposing the hoaxers it does open a safe zone to authentic UFO footage. I just dont see many people throwing in the towel over a few debunking's? They just keep on searching, at least most people I know in pursuit of the truth. But clowns like Bill Nye "the lie guy" are out to mislead people he is no debunker. It's people like Nye & Phil "no" Klass that pose and call themself skeptics and debunkers that give skeptics and debunkers a bad name. Just like hoaxers pretending to be truth seekers. I find both to be the same kind of animal.

But yeah Stan makes several great points like usual. I think he tends to lean in to the side of belief at times and that puts him in a bad light. But over all he is damn serious and by the book.

The intentional act of creating a scapegoat "bad guy" in the term "debunker" just allows people to continue holding their eyes closed and believing whatever they want to believe, regardless of the reality.

Now, whenever someone presents an alternative theory to what a UFO could be that doesn't involve aliens or paranormal weirdness, they're simply labeled as a debunker and thereafter have no voice, because they're the bad guy and a troll. Think I'm wrong? It's already happening here.

"Skeptics are OK, but Debunkers are just jerks who push their theories onto everyone (forgetting as well that everyone does that when they give an opinion, even alien opinions)." So it's alright to be skeptical, just so long as you're silent about it and don't get involved in the big-boy discussions about what a particular piece of evidence might be, otherwise you run the risk of being re-labeled from Skeptic to the awful, awful debunker.

Does nobody else feel the least bit unsettled that everything scientific and realistic about the ETH community is being violently pushed out, to allow for free-roaming fantasy? They've created a scapegoat in debunking and made it a bad word to do just that. I know that most people here would likely say "No, it's not all debunkers, just the X, Y, or Z type." Problem is, it's very easy to get those X, Y, and Z types added to the evil list as well once you make debunking a four-letter word. Maybe you'll be added to that list as well one day, when your particular flavor of alien life isn't considered the mainstream within the ETH community.

This should be about science, not popularity and fame.

I always thought a debunker was someone who looks at the evidence and tries to prove it wrong, like how we debunk UFO video's on here, what the hell is this guy talking about? he's basically saying that debukers are nay sayers and never do any research and we deny everything, maybe he should do some research himself... and I don't care who he is before I start getting flamed for saying someone about a "brilliant" man.

He's says that we shouldn't have any debunkers... is this man crazy? if we didn't have debunker's the Jerusalem video would be prove of aliens visiting us? Am I right in thinking that? what complete nonsense.

Oh Stan...

Good interview. I really enjoy Bill's interview skills. He jumps in there and asks a lot of good questions.

As for Stan, well, I still remember him in old Vampire documentaries talking about Dracula and the possibility of vampires being real. I sorta hold that against him...also his early work within UFO documentaries of the late 80s where he was just "not believable".

But on the other hand, I like his personality as shown over the years. Dunno, Stan seems like a good guy to drink with and shoot the breeze. He obviously isn't dumb and shows a working sense of humor over the years.

So...good interview. I don't invest much in Stan's work or views, but I don't think he should be destroyed for what he does.

If he is making money (and he always is), god bless the guy...as long as he isn't making profit off Dracula documentaries anymore.

One thing I DO agree with Stan on is- Screw Bill Nye.


MM

"being a debunker can cost lives" I switched off after that...

---

---

What an excellent video! I like how he explains:

Debunkers are people who "KNOW IT CAN'T BE DONE"
Skeptics are people who "SAY MAYBE THIS CAN BE DONE. LET'S CHECK THE FACTS"

Understanding this, I see debunkers as people who are blocking people from innovating because they think if it is created by a higher authority or an official title, it's science fiction. Debunking, to me, can probably be treated as a social disorder where the person with this disorder simply denies any possibilty of anything...

Skeptics are people who believe that after checking the facts, it would be possible, but it would require more information or more experimentation. It's healthy to keep thinking and keep searching so that you might actually uncover something next-gen or INNOVATIVE.

Skepticism IS healthy
Debunking IS not.