Connect with us

News

US Department of Defense documents reveal wormholes and extra dimensions research

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla makes major rebound in European market with 4x in registrations

Tesla delivered a striking performance in Germany’s automotive market in March 2026, with new vehicle registrations more than quadrupling year-over-year, according to official data from the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA).

Published

on

Credit: Raffael/Twitter

Tesla headlines will have you believe the company is dead to rights in Germany, selling nearly no cars, and stating consumers are more interested in other brands not run by CEO Elon Musk.

However, the latest data from Germany proves this might be a dying narrative.

Tesla delivered a striking performance in Germany’s automotive market in March 2026, with new vehicle registrations more than quadrupling year-over-year, according to official data from the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA).

Newly registered Tesla vehicles jumped 315.1 percent to 9,252 units, marking the company’s strongest March on record in the country and signaling a sharp rebound after earlier challenges in the European market.

Advertisement

The March surge accounted for roughly 72 percent of Tesla’s first-quarter total in Germany. Q1 registrations reached 12,829 vehicles, a 160 percent increase from the same period a year earlier. For context, the implied March 2025 figure was approximately 2,229 units—one of the brand’s weaker months in recent years.

Advertisement

These numbers underscore Tesla’s ability to capitalize on renewed demand in Europe’s largest car market, where the company had faced softening sales throughout much of 2025 amid heightened competition and broader economic pressures.

Germany’s overall new passenger car market also expanded in March, with 294,161 registrations—a 16 percent rise from the prior year. Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) performed even more robustly, climbing 66.2 percent to 70,663 units and representing about 24 percent of all new car registrations.

Tesla FSD (Supervised) stuns Germany’s biggest car magazine

Tesla’s 9,252 deliveries captured approximately 13.1 percent of the BEV segment for the month and roughly 3.1 percent of the total new car market, highlighting its continued leadership among pure-play electric brands despite growing competition from both domestic German manufacturers and Chinese entrants like BYD, which saw its own registrations surge 327.1 percent to 3,438 units.

Advertisement

The strong showing comes as Germany’s EV incentives and infrastructure investments continue to support adoption. Tesla’s lineup, anchored by the Model Y and Model 3, appears to have resonated with buyers seeking premium electric options.

Industry observers note that the concentrated March registrations, accounting for the bulk of the quarter, may reflect strategic inventory management, competitive pricing adjustments, or pent-up demand following a slower start to 2026.

This performance provides a much-needed bright spot for Tesla in Europe, where the brand had seen market share erosion in prior periods.

Tesla Model Y outsells all EV rivals in Europe in 2025 despite headwinds

Advertisement

With Q1 2026 registrations up significantly, Tesla has demonstrated resilience in a market that registered 699,404 new passenger cars for the quarter, up 5.2 percent overall. As the year progresses, sustained momentum in Germany could bolster Tesla’s European outlook, particularly if broader BEV growth persists amid evolving policy support and technological advancements.

The March 2026 data from the KBA paints a picture of Tesla’s renewed strength in Germany: a fourfold monthly leap, record quarterly gains, and a solid foothold in an expanding EV segment.

Whether this marks the beginning of a sustained recovery or a seasonal peak remains to be seen, but the numbers affirm Tesla’s enduring appeal in one of the world’s most competitive automotive landscapes.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk reveals unfortunate truth of Tesla Full Self-Driving development

In a candid reply to a dramatic video of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system averting disaster, Elon Musk laid bare a harsh reality facing autonomous vehicle technology.

Published

on

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite is one of the most significant technological developments in terms of passenger travel in decades, but it is not all sunshine and rainbows, even with major strides in safety, CEO Elon Musk revealed.

In a candid reply to a dramatic video of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system averting disaster, Elon Musk laid bare a harsh reality facing autonomous vehicle technology.

The clip shows a Model 3 traveling at over 65 mph on a foggy, rain-soaked highway when a pedestrian suddenly steps into traffic.

Full Self-Driving instantly detects the threat and swerves safely, preventing what could have been a fatal collision for both the pedestrian and the driver’s cousin.

Advertisement

Musk’s response was unequivocal:

“Tesla self-driving saves a lot of lives – the statistics are unequivocal. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect, of course.” Even with a projected 10x safety improvement over human drivers, FSD would still prevent roughly 90% of the world’s approximately one million annual auto fatalities. The remaining 10%—roughly 100,000 deaths—would expose Tesla to relentless lawsuits. Meanwhile, the vast majority of lives saved would go unnoticed. “The 90% who are still alive mostly won’t even know that Tesla saved them. Nonetheless, it is the right thing to do.”

This “unfortunate truth,” as Musk implicitly framed it, highlights a fundamental asymmetry in how society perceives safety technology. Human drivers cause the overwhelming majority of crashes through distraction, fatigue, or error.

Yet when FSD errs, the incident becomes headline news and a courtroom target. Prevented tragedies, by contrast, leave no trace.

Advertisement

Survivors simply continue their journeys, unaware of the split-second intervention that kept them alive. The result is a distorted public narrative that amplifies failures while rendering successes invisible.

We have seen this through various headlines throughout the years, including the mainstream media’s obsession with only mentioning the manufacturer’s name in the instance of an accident when it is “Tesla.”

Opinion: Tesla Autopilot NHTSA investigation headlines are out of control

The video’s real-world example underscores FSD’s current capabilities. In near-zero visibility, the system’s cameras and neural network reacted faster than any human could, demonstrating the life-saving potential Musk cites.

Advertisement

Tesla’s latest safety data already shows FSD (Supervised) performing significantly better than the U.S. average, with crashes occurring far less frequently per mile driven.

Still, regulatory scrutiny, liability concerns, and media focus on edge-case failures continue to slow widespread adoption. Musk’s frank admission suggests Tesla is prepared to push forward despite the legal and perceptual headwinds.

As FSD edges closer to unsupervised autonomy, Musk’s post serves as both a progress report and a reality check. The technology is already saving lives today.

The unfortunate truth is that proving it and scaling it responsibly will require society to value statistical lives saved as much as dramatic stories of those lost. In the race toward safer roads, perception may prove as formidable an obstacle as the fog and rain in that viral video.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3: First Impressions

Published

on

Tesla started rolling out Full Self-Driving v14.3 to Early Access Program (EAP) members earlier today, and I had the opportunity to see some of the improvements that were made from v14.2.2.5.

While a lot of things got better, and I truly enjoyed using Full Self-Driving again after being stuck with the widely confusing and frustrating v14.2.2.5, Tesla still has one major problem on its hands, and it has to do with Navigation and Routing. I truly believe those issues will be the biggest challenges Tesla will face with autonomy: the car simply going the correct way, not conflicting with what the navigation says, and taking the simplest and most ideal route to a destination.

Here’s what I noticed as an improvement with my first hour with v14.3. This is not a full review, nor is it reflective of everything I will likely experience with this new version. This is simply what I saw as a noticeable improvement from the past version, v14.2.2.5.

There is also a more streamlined version on X, available at the thread below:

Advertisement

Yellow Light Behavior is Significantly Better

On v14.2.2.5, I had so many instances of the car slamming the brakes on to stop at a yellow light when it was clearly the safer option to proceed through. There were several times when the car would be about 20 feet from the line, traveling at 15-20 MPH, the light would turn yellow, and it would slam the brakes to stop. I would nudge it through yellow lights constantly because of this by putting my foot on the accelerator.

The instances I’m talking about here would not have been close calls — the car would have likely moved through the intersection completely before the light would turn red.

Advertisement

On multiple occasions this evening, FSD proceeded through yellow lights safely, without hesitation or any brake stabbing. It was refreshing:

This was a huge complaint with v14.2.2.5. Sometimes, it’s a safer option to go through a yellow light, especially when you have traffic behind you. It’s a great way to get rear-ended.

Parking Performance

I had four instances of parking, and FSD v14.3 really did a flawless job. I was very impressed with how solid it was, but also with how efficiently it moved into the spot. When there was traffic around with past versions, I usually chose to park manually just because FSD took its time getting into a spot. I don’t see that being an issue anymore.

I complained about parking a lot and shared several images on X and Facebook of those examples:

Advertisement

No issues with it this evening. 4/4. Here are two looks:

Highway Performance

FSD v14.3 passed the five cars shown in this image:

Advertisement

The sixth was 200-300 yards ahead of the fifth. In v14.2.2.5, FSD would usually stay in the left lane, especially on Hurry and Mad Max. It did not do that, as it instead chose to get back over in the right lane after passing the final car.

Speed was not much of a concern here, even though it was going 21 MPH over. Although it was fast, I did have a line of cars behind me traveling at the same speed, and FSD had just merged about a half mile prior, so I chose to let it continue.

There were no instances of camping in the left lane for extended periods of time. I do want to do more testing with the Speed Profiles because they were in need of some work with the previous version. I am starting to side with those who want a Max Speed setting, which was removed last year.

Navigation and Routing Still Need Work

I was heading back toward where I came from, so I turned “Avoid Highways” on to take a different way. This confused the Routing system, and instead of turning left, then right, as the Routing said, the car turned right, then indicated for another right, basically going in a big rectangle. The car ignored the second right-hand turn and continued straight. I ended up turning “Avoid Highways” off and letting the car pick the same routing option as what took me here.

Advertisement

I have truly complained so much about Navigation and Routing that I’m starting to feel sort of bad. It is obviously such a massive challenge for some reason, but I am confident it will improve. I recall seeing Tesla hiring someone for this role a few months back, so perhaps there is hope for it to get better.

Smarter Behavior When Approaching Exits/Routing

This probably should be grouped in with Highway Behavior, but I wanted to highlight it on its own.

The highway exit pictured was always frustrating for v14.2.2.5. In the Hurry speed profile, I have seen it try to execute passes on multiple cars with as little as 0.6 miles to spare before taking the exit.

With three cars ahead of it, it chose to reduce speed and just wait until the exit. It was refreshing to see an improvement here, so I hope this behavior persists. Sometimes there’s just no reason to pass when you’re less than a mile from getting off the highway anyway.

Advertisement

Larger Visibility Warnings

Tesla seems to have increased the size of these “Camera Visibility Limited” warnings. Previously, they were just small thumbnails:

Advertisement

Stop Sign Behavior

This is probably the biggest improvement of all, because how it behaved at Stop Signs in v14.2.2.5 was so incredibly terrible and disruptive to the flow of a busy intersection.

There are several four-way, all-stop intersections near me. In the past, FSD would stop well behind the Stop Sign or the white-painted line on the road. It would then inch forward, stopping again at this line, essentially making two stops at a single intersection.

If there is visibility, I don’t truly care where FSD stops, as long as it stops once. Stopping twice just isn’t ideal or logical. I can’t imagine many humans would do it, I know I wouldn’t.

I didn’t have that issue this evening:

Advertisement

This was pretty tight, too, in the sense that both my car and the other one got to the intersection at the same time. FSD may have stopped first, but the other vehicle was probably around the same point that I was when FSD decided to stop. I was happy to see the assertiveness to proceed; it felt like it was ideal to just go through. I was happy it didn’t stop a second time up at the line. I’d be fine if it stopped at the line, as long as that was the only stop it made.

Advertisement
Continue Reading