Tuesday, February 17, 2026

Seriously? Trump Plans To Make "Major Speech" Revealing Alien Craft Are Real? Call Me A Skeptic

 

                      "And I hereby proclaim that UFOS and aliens are real!"

                            UFO captured by Navy pilots in 2004, released in 2017
              Discussion of recovered alien craft with Jerry in 1990

Rumors are afoot that Donald Trump once more wants to stoke his gigantic ego, this time by "a major speech about unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and recovery of alien craft."  This according to a piece yesterday in Newsweek citing  claims from a UK ufologist published in The Daily Mail in early February suggesting “a major revelation may be imminent.”

Mark Christopher Lee, a British writer, filmmaker and ufologist, told the Daily Mail that the speech could take place on July 8, which would roughly coincide with the anniversary of the Roswell UFO incident,


 Though he added that it could be delivered sooner. Trump allies, meanwhile, had suggested just over a year ago that his administration could declassify information on extraterrestrial life. Of course, if true (which I somehow doubt) it would be the biggest revelation in American history - especially given it's been concealed for nearly 80 years. (Making me suspect Trump may just want to 'one up' Obama again, who revealed in a weekend podcast he now believes aliens are real).

In a Monday email to Newsweek, Lee claimed:

 “A Washington insider I have known personally and conducted business with – has repeatedly affirmed that President Trump has prepared a historic speech acknowledging extraterrestrial visitation and the existence of recovered non-human materials and craft.”

Newsweek  quickly noted it had not verified Lee’s claims, and Lee himself did not reveal his source or provide evidence.  However, posting to social media platform X, Lee shared what he said was information from a “source inside the Trump administration.” According to Lee’s account, the unnamed Trump source said that Trump’s remarks would highlight multiple well-known incidents,  including the 2004 “Tic Tac encounter,” the 2015 USS Roosevelt “GoFast” and “Gimbal” incidents, and the 1947 Roswell event.  Adding:

“He will confirm that forensic analysis of recovered off-world vehicles and non-human biologics has established their extraterrestrial origin, marking the first official acknowledgment of this reality by any world leader.”

Per the unnamed source, Trump would also say that earlier administrations kept things secret because they were worried about national security, “technological uncertainty,” and feared how the public might react.  Lee's source again:

“President Trump will announce immediate steps toward declassification of related files, expanded scientific study through a new interagency task force, and international cooperation with allied nations. He will state, ‘This is not a threat—it is an opportunity to unite humanity in understanding our place in the universe."

 Discussion of a possible major speech from Trump has been swirling on social platforms like X, along with a marked rise in Google search interest on the subject. (Paralleling 26 m views of Obama's recent podcast in which he changed his mind on the reality of UFOs.)

However, up to now, there is no hard evidence of a planned Trump UFO-alien speech, and no White House announcement has been forthcoming. As I noted earlier, the only reason I can see Dotard suddenly giving such a speech is to one up Obama in his recent podcast. Also, perhaps to try to boost his historically low approval ratings.

 Let us also bear in mind, as previously reported by Newsweek, Trump himself has expressed skepticism about the existence of UFOs in the past, telling comedian and podcaster Joe Rogan in 2024 he "had never been a believer.”  So riddle me this?  Why suddenly become one now?

A 2021 survey by the Pew Research Center found that almost two-thirds (65 percent) of Americans believe that intelligent life could exist on other planets.  But the real question is how many also believe such advanced life has already made it to our own planet? I warrant not that many, though the alarming UAP hearings that featured Tim Gallaudet and earlier Ret. Cmdr. David Fravor are certainly alarming that 'they' are here and having their way in our air space.

Hell, the late astronomer Carl Sagan  - once a debunker of the idea -  did finally come around to accepting the validity in a one-on-one with Northwestern University astronomer J. Allen Hynek, e.g.

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76926

Since the blockbuster NY Times 2017 release of UAP accounts by military pilots (such as the Nimitz incidents), UFO-UAP related content has also seen a recent surge in popular culture, with extraterrestrial‑disclosure themes paralleling those featured in Steven Spielberg’s forthcoming movie Disclosure Day.

In a recent trailer for the movie, the director says in a voiceover, “People’s questions about what is not only going on in our skies, but is going on in our worlds and our realities has reached a critical mass of people’s complete fascination with ‘are we alone or are we not alone?’

“And if someone knows we’re not alone, why haven’t we been told?”

Well because it would upset the ‘applecart’ in terms of the dogmas- biblical teachings of many religions as well as strike at the fantasy of human sovereignty.  The latter reported in  a 2014 paper by Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall  in the Journal Political Theory.  E.g.

Sovereignty and the UFO - Alexander Wendt, Raymond Duvall, 2008

 Therein they note the phenomenon of the UFO tends to be rejected as real - by government sources, as well as the military and the media - because it comes up against the human concept of state sovereignty

In addition, the military powers that be don’t want pesky civilians knowing what they are doing with the recovered alien craft, devices.

As my late AF brother Jerry told me back in 1990 during an extended discussion: “It would be like the techniques of the Manhattan Project and A-bombs getting leaked back in the early 1940s.”

Meanwhile, Lee noted in a subsequent email to Newsweek:

“My source has now confirmed they will come forward publicly and hold a formal press conference on May 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C. This could generate substantial pressure and potentially bring full disclosure forward ahead of the original timeline.

“As a filmmaker and journalist with my own lifelong experiences in this field, I share this information responsibly and in good faith. The public deserves transparency on a topic that has been concealed for decades.”

The public does indeed deserve transparency on this issue, but call me a skeptic in terms of Dotard Trump delivering it without some grift or unknown advantage he wants to secure.  Like pumping up his current dismal approval rating. Stay tuned.

See Also: 


Even if You Think Discussing Aliens Is Ridiculous, Just Hear Me Out     

How would contact with U.F.O.s and other civilizations change ours?

And:

Transient Optical Phenomena of the Atmosphere - a Case Study    

And:


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, February 13, 2026

The Economic Roots Of Student Loan Debt Start With Student Evaluations And Grade Inflation

 

                         Loyola U. physics student, 1967 - all out study to get A's

The depressing 2010   study 'Grading in American Colleges and Universities', by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, and published in the prestigious Teachers College Record was enough to make any educator shake his or her head in despondent resignation. Their finding: About three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are “A”s or “B”s.


Of course, this makes those As and Bs next to useless precisely because of their very commonality. An 'A' used to stand for academic excellence, but it can't if so many are getting them! It also renders the achievements of truly exceptional students ho-hum. How in the world can they truly stand out if middling or loser students get the same grades they do? It's preposterous!

There is NO way in a real universe, there can be such a preponderance of high grades! Go back now to the 1960s, before the emergence of the surreptitious blackmail device known as "teacher evaluations". What did one find, say at Loyola University, or the University of South Florida?  Well, the As were at about 10 percent, with Bs at 20 percent, and 'gentleman's Cs' right at around 40 percent where they ought to be - if conforming to the standard Gaussian distribution or normal curve. Similarly, at the other end of the curve Ds would make up 20 percent and Fs 10 percent. But what do we find today? Nearly three-fourths A's the rest B's.

Essentially, college teachers today - tenured profs as well as adjuncts- have given away the grade store and sold out.  And it's irrespective of whether we're talking about State U. or Harvard. Intimidated by little wet behind -the -ears punks delivering solemn, negative judgments via student teacher evaluations.

The corrosive effects of college grade inflation were particularly highlighted in The Wall Street Journal's 2025 coverage, is driven by the transformation of students into "revenue-producing customers" and the adoption of student evaluations, which incentivize instructors to boost grades for better reviews. This trend reflects a market-driven approach to education, prioritizing student satisfaction and retention over rigorous academic standards.  But the mission can backfire badly with many questioning the worth of the 4-year degree in the end.  Bear with me.

Joseph Epstein (somewhat) humorously noted in a Dec. 18, WSJ piece (‘The Economic Roots of Grade Inflation’, p. A13) the extent to which student evaluations became economic judgments of professors and then gradually the “economic roots of grade inflation” itself.

 Epstein who noted how the initial incursion of student evaluation (the key element in the grade inflation disease) led to “many young professors ceasing to present themselves as authority figures but rather contemporaries of their students.”  Epstein observed it got so ludicrous that many began showing up in sneakers and jeans.  But the yucks ceased when it was realized that: “The real effect of student evaluations was to make many professors change how they issued grades.”  And “Soon A’s were flying about the place and became less a sign of intellectual superiority than a common grade.”

So, for the few curmudgeons who continued to demand standards as opposed to giving out A and B freebies, it was game over. For those profs who insisted that their students EARN their A’s instead of expecting them gratis - for just showing up -  well, it was 'hasta la vista'. The college administration had to inform the uncooperative fool that this was the end of the line. The student had now become a “customer” and y9ou had damned well treat him/her with absolute deference – meaning giving A’s when demanded. Or else get sent packing into the unemployment line.

The problem, as the President of Dartmouth College (Sian Leah Beilock) noted in a recent WSJ op-ed (‘Is a Four Year Degree Worth It?, Jan. 26, p. A7)  is that an end result of an A being the default is that equal outcomes get substituted for equal opportunity. Employers notice and savvy students do too. 

The tragic effect – when employers notice this misalignment – is that top jobs become difficult to come by. Then the 4-year college experience itself comes into question and whether it’s worth it. Minus quality, decent paying jobs the students who participated in the evaluations binge are now the ones to suffer.. With massive years of debt piling up and nothing but loan delinquencies in their sad futures.  

Student debt is now so bad that many could see their wages garnished in the coming months, i.e.

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

See Also:


And:
 
Posted by at No comments:

Trump's Power Expanded Under A Belief He Has "A Genius" IQ - Shooting That Trope Down Is No 'Biggie'

 

                                  "My IQ is at least 195 unlike the low IQ Dems!"

A recent Quora answer to a question caught my attention.  The question was:  'What is Donald Trump's actual IQ?'   with the person clearly skeptical of Dotard's 195 super genius claims.   The answer from the Quora expert was comprehensive and encompassed speech, vocabulary as well as assorted interview responses.  The expert's conclusion was 85, which is 'below average' but still functional in an 'explicit, hands on' way as the IQ and job potential distribution graph (from the same expert) shows;

Distribution of IQs and job potentials - Trump's (younger ) estimated IQ was not even Mensa level .

An earlier answer from a claimed Mensa member in Scotland was:

 My Mensa co-members and I estimate that it's likely in the 160-180 range.

Which elicited a rather different Quora response:

"If you believe that I rather doubt you’re in Mensa. At his peak he may have had an IQ in the 115–120 range. Today he’s deteriorated a lot so his effective IQ may be more like 90-100. He can’t even talk about the action of windmills with basic intelligence.

And I know he brags about attending Wharton (genius stuff you know) but what he fails to mention is that he attended the undergraduate program, not the prestigious graduate school. And in his day Wharton was not the selective school it is today. According to a former admissions officer they accepted some 40% of applicants as opposed to the 7% they accept today."

So which is it? The latter answer is especially important as Trump has constantly referenced his Wharton "achievements" as indicators of a "genius level" intellect. Which in turn has been used to spread the bunkum of a superlative public identity. Indeed, it has been used by his many MAGA cheerleaders to insist this proves he must be "error free" in whatever policies he advances. 

Then again, a Jimmy Kimmel revelation of his Wharton admission test scores tempers this severely, i.e.

Jimmy Kimmel Reveals Trump’s 1970 Wharton IQ Test — “Genius”? Think Again

The above Youtube video sheds further light, especially on how Trump has questioned others intelligence over decades, including that Obama's Harvard degree was "unearned", while simultaneously threatening legal action against anyone who'd dare to release Trump's own transcripts - whether earlier IQ scores or SATs - which can yield a comparison reference IQ.

The former are the IQ tests we all took in high school in the 1960s (mine in my sophomore year at Pace) and which Trump certainly took while at the New York Military Academy. Whether they admit it or not.

In the case of the Youtube video link above, Kimmel had claimed to have in his possession the results of Trump's Wharton admission exam results - that independent experts deemed genuine. (Which could be a proxy for IQ just as the SAT and GRE in earlier renditions served a proxies for IQ, and Mensa entrance, e.g.

Why So Many Past Aptitude Tests Are No Longer Accepted by Mensa

The results of the Wharton tests - which Kimmel read- were:

Verbal section: 92nd percentile (respectable)

Quantitative section: 87th percentile (respectable)

Composite score: 88th percentile.

Using the table of conversion of GRE scores to IQ at the time (from my Mensa Past Aptitude post), one finds:



Translated - the Wharton test results yield a comparative GRE (verbal + quantitative) score of 1090 (left column).  Which clocks in at just above the 88th percentile (right column).  The corresponding IQs to 15 and 16 standard deviations are 118.23 and 119.45, respectively. These results fall within the range of the 2nd Quora respondent's 115-120 range, and make the most sense.  

Is Trump then a "genius"? Nope, and he would not even make it into Mensa (98th percentile or at least 132 IQ).

For reference here, based on his extraordinary achievements in physics and posthumous brain analysis, Einstein's IQ is estimated to be around 160.  This is the dude who figured out relativity, and Trump- who can't even figure out how windmills work - is no Einstein.

Of course, if Trump wishes he can always just take the Mensa admissions test and prove he's at least a gifted intellect, if not an official genius (145 IQ). My bet is he will not go for it, especially given the level of his current cognitive decline.

See Also:

And:

And:

‘Drunk on Power’: Experts Say Trump’s Cult of Personality Rivals History’s Worst Dictators
by Sarah K. Burris | February 16, 2026 - 6:06am | permalink

— from Alternet

`

President Donald Trump’s cult of personality is reaching a whole new level in his second term.

New York Times reporter Peter Baker notes that Trump has always been obsessed with his own image and with slapping his name on buildings; now that impulse is escalating. It’s not just that Trump put his name above the sign for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. His supporters are also building a gold‑plated bronze statue version of him. The 15-foot-tall Trump will tower over his Miami golf course. It will be called “Don Colossus,” and while the name sounds like a “Saturday Night Live” sketch, the project is very real.

The branding push goes beyond his base. Baker reports that the administration is considering a new class of battleships that would also bear Trump’s name. Staff is already suggesting that Trump will name his ballroom, which will replace the East Wing, after himself. One conservative even joked that Trump should simply rename the moon after himself.

» article continues...

read more | Sarah K. Burris's blog | login or register to post comments | 180 reads

And:

Colbert Brings Up Trump’s 1970 IQ Test — The Genius Narrative Changes

And:

Free Mensa Practice Test | Instant Results | Test-Guide.com


Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 12, 2026

Solutions To Inertia of Energy (Relativity) Problems

 1)   A student proposes to compute the kinetic energy of a particle relativistically by using the expression  1/2  m v2  with the 'relativistic mass of the particle.   Would this be correct? Explain why or why not.


Solution:    The student's proposal  must be incorrect given the relativistic formulation for kinetic energy is:

E K  =    mo  c2/ [(1 - u2/c2)½ ] -   mo c2


I.e. bearing a rest energy (m o c2 ) which is non-zero.  On the other hand, for the non-relativistic case:

E ' K  =    1/2  ( m v2 )   -   1/2  ( m v o  2 )

The rest energy (2nd) term is zero because the velocity is 0.  This also means the total energy is greater for the relativistic case, i.e.

E K   +   mo c2    >    E ' K    =    1/2  m v2

2) Determine the energy required to accelerate a proton from 0.25c to 0.50c. 

Solution:  By the work -energy theorem:

W = K(f) - K(i)

K(i) = mo c2/ [(1 - v 2/c2)½ ]

v1 = 0.25 c

K(f) = mo c2/ [(1 - v 2/c2)½ ]

v 2 = 0.50c   (where: mo = 1.7  x 10 -27 kg )

Then:

K(f) - K(i) = mo c2/ [(1 - (0.50c)2/c2)½ ]    - mo c2/ [(1 - (0.25c)2/c2)½ ]

K(f) - K(i) = mo c2/[(1 - 0.25]½ - mo c2/[(1 - 0.0625]½

K(f) - K(i) =  1.15 mo c2 -    1. 03 mo c2     =  0.12 mo c2    


But the proton rest mass energy in MeV is:   mo  c2  =  938 MeV

So that:  0.12 mo c2      =  (0.12) 938 MeV  =   112 MeV

3) Protons emerge from a particle accelerator with a kinetic energy equal to 0.49 mc2.   What is the speed of these particles? Compare the result to that obtained from the non-relativistic relation between mass and energy.

Solution:  Because the kinetic energy is relativistic, the velocity must be as well, so we use the relativistic form for KE:

E K  =    m  c2/ [(1 - u2/c2)½ ] -   m  c2

Whence:   

 0.49 m  c2   =   m  c2    /  [(1 - v 2/c2)½ ] -   m  c2


And:  1 .49 m  c2  =   m  c2/ [(1 - v 2/c2)½ ]


(1 - v 2/c2)½ =    m  c2/ 1 .49 m  c2         or:


(1  - v2/c2)   =     (1 / 1 .49) 2  

 And finally:   v     =  c Ö {1   -  (1 / 1 .49) 2 }   

v = 2.2 x  10 8 m/s

For non-relativistic equation, we get an erroneous   v' =   Ö {2E K  /  m)  =   2.8 x  10 8 m/s

4)What is the speed of a particle whose kinetic energy is equal to its rest energy? What percentage error is made if the non-relativistic kinetic energy expression is used?

Solution:  Here we have in the KE equation:   E K  =    m  c2


So that:    m  c2   =    m  c2/ [(1 - u2/c2)½ ] -   m  c2


Hence:    2 m  c2   =    m  c2/ (1 - u2/c2)½  

(1 - u2/c2)½    =    m  c2 /  2 m  c 2      =  1/2


u2/c2     =    ( 1   -  1/2 ) 2      =  (0.5) 2   


     u =  c Ö {1   -  (0.5)2 }=  c Ö (0.75) =  2.6 x  10 8 m/s


For the non-relativistic case, we have, by the work-energy theorem:

  K(f) - K(i)  = Wnet   =  1/2  m u' 2   -  0 

Then:   u' =   Ö (2 Wnet  / m) =  Ö {2E K  /   m) 

u ' =   Ö {2 E K  /   m)  =  Ö {2  m  c2  /  m }     =  4.3 x  10 8 m/s

Percentage error =   [(u' -  u)/ u ]  x 100%  = 63%


5) Show that the relativistic  kinetic energy equation: 

Ek   =   mo c2 / [(1 - v 2/c2)½]    -    mo c2
reduces approximately to 1/2  m v2   when  v << c.

Solution:

Apply binomial theorem to the relativistic factor, e.g.

(1 - v 2/c2) -1/2    =    1  +    v 2/2 c2   +   (3 v 4/ 8c4  ) +    ....

Then, if we require v << c (non-relativistic case) all the terms containing v/c  or higher powers of this ratio can be neglected. Then we are left with (approximately) :

Ek   =  1/2  mo v 2 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)