Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

 Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) is the current term for what used to be called Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).  Luis Elizondo, the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification, believes that there is "technology" (i.e. flying objects) that is interested in nuclear technology, including nuclear power and nuclear weapons, that did not come from the United States and didn't come from Russia or China either.  There is no proof that these objects came from outer space, but there is no proof that they didn't.

Luis Elizondo said he believes the report will say there are around 100 UAP cases compelling enough to warrant further scrutiny, and that we don’t know what UAPs are or where they come from. “If this turns out to be some sort of adversarial technology that did happen to technologically leapfrog us, 180 days I don’t think is going to be sufficient. I think what we can expect the report to say is something like this: There are about a hundred some-odd cases out there that are compelling enough, that they are definitely displaying some sort of capability, technology that we don’t have. Secondly, we don’t know what these things are. We have no evidence to suggest that they are from outer space, but at the same time, we have no evidence to suggest that they’re not.”

Luis Elizondo says the new report on UAPs definitely states the observed technology is not of the U.S.’s creation, and says he doesn’t believe its from China or Russia either. “As of this week… discussions at senior level leadership that this report has definitively stated once and for all that it’s not our technology…. So that really only leaves two other options, and again it’s foreign adversarial or it’s something quite different. And I think as we’re now beginning to learn as we’ve heard from the director of national intelligence and I can certainly tell you from my experience, that we’re pretty confident that it’s not Russian or Chinese technology.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2021/06/08/ufos-national-security-with-luis-elizondo-former-director-advanced-aerospace-threat-identification-program-aatip/

He is talking about a report, but where is the report?

Maybe this is the report, but it is only 9 pages long.  

See also https://aftermath2022.blogspot.com/2022/07/new-project-bluebook.html

Update: UFO caught on camera hovering over Air Force 1 at LAX during Joe Biden's fundraising trip to Los Angeles

Airplane enthusiasts Joshua and Peter Solorzano were filming at LAX airport on Sunday December 10, hoping to catch Air Force 1. But at 10.18am while running their livestream for their popular YouTube channel LA Flights, they spotted a white sphere zooming across the screen. Three minutes later the object appeared again flitting across the top right of the camera view as it trained on the KC-10. The object appeared a third time at 11.08am directly over cameraman Joshua Solorzano. He can be heard on the livestream saying: ‘It’s directly above us. It is moving, it’s not a star. I’m telling you they’re flying in from the ocean. Very strange right now.’ Joshua said he thought it was a balloon, but Peter referred to it as a ‘UAP’ – the government’s preferred term for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.

Did Eisenhower sign a treaty with space aliens?

 This sounds crazy but here are some links.  It would be more believable if someone could give the exact date (either sometime in 1954 or 1955) and place (Edwards Air Force Base in California, or Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico).

1) Majestic 12 and the Secret Government  William Cooper says a treaty was signed sometime in 1954 at Edwards. 

Later in 1954 the race of large nosed gray aliens which had been orbiting the Earth landed at Holloman Air Force base. A basic agreement was reached. This race identified themselves as originating from a planet around a red star in the Constellation of Orion which we call Betelgeuse. They stated that their planet was dying and that at some unknown future time they would'nt be able to survive there. This led to a second landing at Edwards Air Force base. The historical event had been planned in advance and details of the treaty had been agreed upon. Eisenhower arranged to be in Palm Springs on vacation. On the appointed day the President was spirited away to the base and the excuse was given to the press that he was visiting a dentist.  President Eisenhower met with the aliens and a formal treaty between the Alien Nation and the United States of America was signed. We then received our first Alien Ambassador from outer space. 

2) Post on Reddit: Did President Eisenhower Meet With Aliens at Holloman Air Force Base?

The Redditor says that Ike signed a treaty with the grays at Holloman in February 1955, citing Timothy Good as a source. 

In February 1955, approximately 300 people saw Air Force One land at Holloman AFB and taxi back out to the end of the runway. The respected author and former pentagon consultant, Timothy Good, came forward in 2012 to talk about Ike’s meetings with ETs.  Ultimately, Eisenhower Signed A Treaty with an alien race called Alien Grays.

3) The Greada Treaty  This article uses William Moore as a source, and says that Ike met with both the Nordics and Greys on February 20-21, 1954 at Edwards and signed the Greada Treaty with the Greys.  

On the night and early hours of February 20 - 21, 1954, while on a 'vacation' to Palm Springs, California, President Dwight Eisenhower went missing and allegedly was taken to Edwards Air force base, previously Muroc Airfield, for a secret meeting and signed the Greada Treaty.

4)  Phil Schneider said that Eisenhower signed the Greada Treaty in 1954 at Holloman.  There isn't a wikipedia article about Phil Schneider.  I saw a Youtube video on him speaking in 1995 where he made this claim.

5) Gerald Light wrote a letter in April 1954 describing the meeting of Eisenhower with space aliens at Muroc (Edwards).  The letter doesn't mention the words "treaty" or "ufos" or "aliens", but it does mention "Etherians".  (Are these nordics or greys?).

Anyways, this is interesting enough to write a short blog post, but since nobody can agree on when and where this supposed treaty was signed, it seems more likely to be fiction.  Click the links if interested and see if you can figure it out.

========================

Update:  Here is yet another story of the supposed treaty.  The source is Timothy Good.  Again, there is no date, just sometime in 1954 in New Mexico.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100947/Eisenhower-secret-meetings-aliens-pentagon-consultant-claims.html

Former American President Dwight D. Eisenhower had three secret meetings with aliens, a former US government consultant has claimed. The 34th President of the United States met the extra terrestrials at a remote air base in New Mexico in 1954, according to lecturer and author Timothy Good.

============================

Update 2:  This just gets weirder and weirder. Laura Eisenhower, Ike's great granddaughter, claims that Ike did meet aliens at Edwards in 1954, but didn't sign a treaty.  MJ-12 signed the treaty behind his back.  See https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/89238545 (podcast date 10/20/23, so this is recent). Her source is a guy named Dan Cooper (unknown if he is related to William Cooper) who calls himself "Senior Advisor to the Earth Alliance".

 ===========================

Update 3: Even weirder.  See https://exopolitics.org/secret-space-programs-more-complex-than-previously-revealed/  and https://disclosure.fandom.com/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Special_Section . There was a secret space program supposedly authorized by Truman and Eisenhower.  "Eisenhower, having realized that he can't trust MJ-12, created a new military apparatus from scratch. USMC s.s. was to act as a counterbalance to MJ-12 long after Eisenhower left office."

If you google "Randy Cramer" and "space" a lot of bizarre stuff pops up.

This would make an interesting science fiction book.

2023 Social Security Report

 The 2023 Social Security Trustees Report was released about April 1, 2023 but I didn't comment on it.  Here are the key findings. 

Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost is projected to exceed total income in 2023, and the dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2034, one year earlier than projected in last year’s report.

The open-group unfunded obligation for OASDI is $22.4 trillion in present value over the 75-year projection period through 2097 and is $2.0 trillion more than the measured level of $20.4 trillion over the 75-year projection period through 2096 in last year’s report.

The OASI Trust Fund reserves are projected to become depleted in 2033, at which time OASI income would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of OASI scheduled benefits.

The Closure Rule

The Closure Rule is a modelling assumption that revenues (that is taxes) will dramatically increase at some point in the future.  It is basically the economic equivalent of magic fairy dust.  It assumes that something will happen in the future to magically make everything alright.  It is based on wishful thinking.  

It is generally not well understood outside tight academic and DC modeling circles that these models effectively crash when trying to project future macroeconomic variables under current fiscal policy. The reason is that current fiscal policy is not sustainable and forward-looking financial markets know it, leading to the economy “unraveling” through “backward induction”. Instead, in practice, the workhorse OLG model is generally “fixed” by augmenting it with an additional assumption---namely, a future fiscal policy action that is actually contained in current law. This modelling fix (also called “closure rule”) springs into action at a future date to stabilize the amount of debt held by the public relative to GDP. It often takes one of several alternative forms: a broad-based value-added tax (VAT); a proportional wage tax (not subject to any payroll tax ceiling); a proportional income tax; a broad-based reduction in spending; or, some combination of each. Both PWBM and CBO typically have this rule kick in the year 2050 or later, potentially with some gradual introduction. As it turns out, the exact form of the broad-based closure rule---for example, whether it is a VAT or some other tax---is not that important in terms of economic effects. What is important is that a large broad-based future corrective change in fiscal policy happens in any form to stabilize the debt-GDP ratio, and that such a correction action is anticipated by financial markets. Otherwise, forward-looking financial markets would unravel much sooner---a process known as “backward induction”---to cause a sovereign debt crisis. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2023/10/6/when-does-federal-debt-reach-unsustainable-levels

So, at some point, taxes will magically increase in the future to stabilize the model.  The modellers typically use a date of 2050 or 2060.  I think an earlier date will be required.  The Social Security Trust fund will be depleted in 2034.  Everyone just assumes that either A) benefits will be cut and no one will complain, or B) benefits will just be paid with no pain to anyone.  I don't think either of those assumptions are correct.  I think that the benefits MUST be paid and that taxes MUST increase drastically to pay for the fix.  So I would use 2034 as the date.  The system MUST be fixed by 2034 or "backward induction", which is an explosion in the time-space continuum traveling backwards in time, will occur, causing the system to blow up.  That's what I think - we have 11 more years to fix the system, or it will blow up. 

November 2023 deficit was $317 billion

 The federal government incurred a deficit of $317 billion in November 2023, CBO estimates— $68 billion more than the deficit recorded last November. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-12/59726-MBR.pdf  The [cumulative] federal budget deficit totaled $383 billion in October and November 2023, the first two months of fiscal year 2024.

YTD defense spending was $150 bn.  Since it was $87 bn in October, November was $63 bn.

YTD net interest was $153 bn, so November was $77 bn.

The debt to the public increased from $26.330 trillion on 9/30/23 to $26.844 trillion on 11/30/23,  and increase of $514 billion.  The Treasury General Account (TGA) increased from $679 bn on 9/30/23 to $754 bn on  11/29/23, an increase of $75 billion.  

So the actual spending YTD was $439 billion (The $514 bn increase less the $75 bn increase in TGA). I would say we are still on track to exceed a $2 trillion deficit in FY 2024, which would make it the 3rd highest ever, behind 2020 and 2021.

Also note that revenues were only $275 bn in November and net interest in November was $77 bn, so net interest was 28% of revenues.

============

On 11/30/22, the total national debt was $31.371 trillion, and on 11/30/23 it was $33.879 trillion, so it increased almost exactly 8.0% from the year previous.