News
US Department of Defense documents reveal wormholes and extra dimensions research
As part of a US Department of Defense (DoD) project named the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), the US government funded research involving wormholes and extra dimensions, according to documents released Wednesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filed in August 2018. A communication addressed to Senators John McCain and Jack Reed, then-chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, provided a list of 38 research papers produced under the program, the titles of which indicated several surprising topics. The research disclosed indicates that the government is just as interested in the application of fantastic sounding technologies as science fiction creators and aficionados.
UPDATE: The correspondence to Senators McCain and Reed was first released to former Deputy Director in the UK’s Directorate of Defense Security, Nick Pope, by the US Defense Intelligence Agency’s Office of Corporate Communications on January 16, 2018. An article published in The Guardian in October last year written by Mr. Pope described his interest in the paper’s release after noting a DIA briefing on AATIP given to a Congressional committee in April according to the Congressional Record. The FOIA request was sought and obtained separately from Mr. Pope’s efforts.
Some of the titles of the publications produced with AATIP funding included:
- Invisibility Cloaking, by Dr. Ulf Leonhardt of Univ. of St. Andrews
- Traversable Wormholes, Stargates, and Negative Energy, by Dr. Eric Davis of EarthTech International
- High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Communications, by Dr. Robert Baker, GravWave
- Antigravity for Aerospace Applications, Dr. Eric Davis, EarthTech International
- Concepts for Extracting Energy from the Quantum Vacuum, Dr. Eric Davis, EarthTech International
- An Introduction to the Statistical Drake Equation, Dr. Claudio Maccone, International Academy of Astronautics
- Space-Communication Implications of Quantum Entanglement and Nonlocality, Dr. J. Cramer, Univ. of Washington
The research indicated may seem unusual for a government program, but AATIP’s $22 million dollar purpose, the existence of which was first reported by the New York Times in 2017, was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapons threats. Thus, studies into technologies that have years of development to go before having direct applications would be within the scope of the investigation.
The invisibility cloaking, for example, is based on optical illusions achieved through light manipulation which a foreign entity could utilize in some fashion, and a quick Google search of the report’s author, Dr. Ulf Leonhardt, will lead you to his TED Talk explaining the technology. EarthTech International, the institute responsible for some of the more fictional-sounding technology research, is an organization dedicated to exploring theories and topics as they may apply to develop innovative propulsion and energy sources, most of the members of which have PhDs and backgrounds in theoretical and experimental physics. In other words, the topics are well known in the science community, and the DoD is interested in knowing if there are security threats involving their applicability.
- A summary of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book. | Credit: US Department of Defense/US Air Force
- A summary of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book. | Credit: US Department of Defense/US Air Force
- A summary of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book. | Credit: US Department of Defense/US Air Force
- A summary of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book. | Credit: US Department of Defense/US Air Force
- A summary of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book. | Credit: US Department of Defense/US Air Force
The background of AATIP is perhaps a bit more interesting to the conspiracy-minded than the research topics provided to Congress. The program began in 2007 and supposedly ended in 2012, although that claim is disputed by the program’s DoD participants. Its initiator was former Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, whose longtime interest in space phenomena is well known in the UFO community. Robert Bigelow – the same man whose Bigelow Aerospace company has successfully installed an expandable module on the International Space Station in 2016 – received a majority of AATIP’s funding to study UFO reports. Bigelow is also well-known in the UFO community for his belief in alien Earth visitation. AATIP isn’t the first known expenditure by the US government on unusual technology – the Air Force’s Project Blue Book (1952-1969) investigated similar phenomena and is currently the subject of a History Channel dramatization by the same name.
UPDATE: Mr. Pope, whose background includes a post at the UK Ministry of Defense’s Secretariat (Air Staff) division where he mirrored the type of work done by Project Blue Book, has provided Teslarati with further context for the revealed AATIP research:
“…I’ve been quoted in various media articles discussing the letter I obtained, but wanted to address the main question I’ve been asked, concerning what this new revelation tells us about the true nature of AATIP. The letter describes the AATIP program as being one looking at next-generation aerospace threats. That’s been the way the DOD and DIA have spun this story from day one. Skeptics of some of the more exotic claims made about AATIP say this isn’t spin at all, but an accurate description of the program. Fair enough, but people should also bear in mind that Harry Reid described the program in similar terms in his June 24, 2009 letter to William Lynn III, and Reid has been very clear that yes, AATIP looked at UAP [Unidentified Aerial Phenomena]…People won’t get a definitive answer…unless and until further AATIP paperwork is released.” – Nick Pope, January 2, 2019
The FOIA request revealing the AATIP research papers was filed by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, a group dedicated to promoting public access to national security information. It regularly makes FOIA requests for the public’s benefit within this realm and also publishes government documents otherwise undisclosed or hard-to-find related to public or intelligence policy. A visit to the group’s website will provide links to their work through multiple presidential administrations and resource links for anyone interested in delving further into government secrets.
News
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.


Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.





