For most of modern history, oceans have acted as natural barriers—dividing nations, slowing trade, and shaping how cities grow. But beneath the waves, a quiet transportation revolution is underway. Infrastructure once limited by geography is now being reimagined through undersea railways.

Undersea rail tunnels—like the Channel Tunnel and Japan’s Seikan Tunnel—proved decades ago that trains could reliably travel beneath the ocean floor. Today, new projects are expanding that vision even further.

Around the world, engineers and governments are investing in undersea railways—tunnels that allow high-speed trains to travel beneath oceans and seas. Once considered science fiction, these projects are now operational, under construction, or actively being planned.

Undersea Rail Is Already a Reality

Japan’s Seikan Tunnel and the Channel Tunnel between the United Kingdom and France proved decades ago that undersea railways are not only possible, but reliable. These tunnels carry passengers and freight beneath the sea every day, reshaping regional connectivity.

Undersea railways are cleaner than short-haul flights, more resilient than bridges, and capable of lasting more than a century. As climate pressures and congestion increase, rail beneath the sea is emerging as a practical solution for future mobility.

What’s Being Built Right Now

China is currently constructing the Jintang Undersea Railway Tunnel as part of the Ningbo–Zhoushan high-speed rail line, while Europe’s Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link will soon connect Denmark and Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. These projects highlight how transportation and technology are converging to solve modern mobility challenges.

The Mega-Projects Still on the Drawing Board

Looking ahead, proposals such as the Helsinki–Tallinn Tunnel and the long-studied Strait of Gibraltar rail tunnel could reshape global affairs by linking regions—and even continents—once separated by water.

Why Undersea Rail Matters

The future of transportation may not rise above the ocean—but run quietly beneath it.

Please leave this field empty

Unlock fun facts & lost history—get The Knowledge in your inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Advertisement

Seth King, University of Iowa

In special education in the U.S., funding is scarce and personnel shortages are pervasive, leaving many school districts struggling to hire qualified and willing practitioners.

Amid these long-standing challenges, there is rising interest in using artificial intelligence tools to help close some of the gaps that districts currently face and lower labor costs.

Over 7 million children receive federally funded entitlements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees students access to instruction tailored to their unique physical and psychological needs, as well as legal processes that allow families to negotiate support. Special education involves a range of professionals, including rehabilitation specialists, speech-language pathologists and classroom teaching assistants. But these specialists are in short supply, despite the proven need for their services.

As an associate professor in special education who works with AI, I see its potential and its pitfalls. While AI systems may be able to reduce administrative burdens, deliver expert guidance and help overwhelmed professionals manage their caseloads, they can also present ethical challenges – ranging from machine bias to broader issues of trust in automated systems. They also risk amplifying existing problems with how special ed services are delivered.

Yet some in the field are opting to test out AI tools, rather than waiting for a perfect solution.

A faster IEP, but how individualized?

AI is already shaping special education planning, personnel preparation and assessment.

One example is the individualized education program, or IEP, the primary instrument for guiding which services a child receives. An IEP draws on a range of assessments and other data to describe a child’s strengths, determine their needs and set measurable goals. Every part of this process depends on trained professionals.

But persistent workforce shortages mean districts often struggle to complete assessments, update plans and integrate input from parents. Most districts develop IEPs using software that requires practitioners to choose from a generalized set of rote responses or options, leading to a level of standardization that can fail to meet a child’s true individual needs.

Preliminary research has shown that large language models such as ChatGPT can be adept at generating key special education documents such as IEPs by drawing on multiple data sources, including information from students and families. Chatbots that can quickly craft IEPs could potentially help special education practitioners better meet the needs of individual children and their families. Some professional organizations in special education have even encouraged educators to use AI for documents such as lesson plans.

Training and diagnosing disabilities

There is also potential for AI systems to help support professional training and development. My own work on personnel development combines several AI applications with virtual reality to enable practitioners to rehearse instructional routines before working directly with children. Here, AI can function as a practical extension of existing training models, offering repeated practice and structured support in ways that are difficult to sustain with limited personnel.

Advertisement

Some districts have begun using AI for assessments, which can involve a range of academic, cognitive and medical evaluations. AI applications that pair automatic speech recognition and language processing are now being employed in computer-mediated oral reading assessments to score tests of student reading ability.

Practitioners often struggle to make sense of the volume of data that schools collect. AI-driven machine learning tools also can help here, by identifying patterns that may not be immediately visible to educators for evaluation or instructional decision-making. Such support may be especially useful in diagnosing disabilities such as autism or learning disabilities, where masking, variable presentation and incomplete histories can make interpretation difficult. My ongoing research shows that current AI can make predictions based on data likely to be available in some districts.

Privacy and trust concerns

There are serious ethical – and practical – questions about these AI-supported interventions, ranging from risks to students’ privacy to machine bias and deeper issues tied to family trust. Some hinge on the question of whether or not AI systems can deliver services that truly comply with existing law.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires nondiscriminatory methods of evaluating disabilities to avoid inappropriately identifying students for services or neglecting to serve those who qualify. And the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act explicitly protects students’ data privacy and the rights of parents to access and hold their children’s data.

What happens if an AI system uses biased data or methods to generate a recommendation for a child? What if a child’s data is misused or leaked by an AI system? Using AI systems to perform some of the functions described above puts families in a position where they are expected to put their faith not only in their school district and its special education personnel, but also in commercial AI systems, the inner workings of which are largely inscrutable.

These ethical qualms are hardly unique to special ed; many have been raised in other fields and addressed by early-adopters. For example, while automatic speech recognition, or ASR, systems have struggled to accurately assess accented English, many vendors now train their systems to accommodate specific ethnic and regional accents.

But ongoing research work suggests that some ASR systems are limited in their capacity to accommodate speech differences associated with disabilities, account for classroom noise, and distinguish between different voices. While these issues may be addressed through technical improvement in the future, they are consequential at present.

Embedded bias

At first glance, machine learning models might appear to improve on traditional clinical decision-making. Yet AI models must be trained on existing data, meaning their decisions may continue to reflect long-standing biases in how disabilities have been identified.

Indeed, research has shown that AI systems are routinely hobbled by biases within both training data and system design. AI models can also introduce new biases, either by missing subtle information revealed during in-person evaluations or by overrepresenting characteristics of groups included in the training data.

Such concerns, defenders might argue, are addressed by safeguards already embedded in federal law. Families have considerable latitude in what they agree to, and can opt for alternatives, provided they are aware they can direct the IEP process.

Advertisement

By a similar token, using AI tools to build IEPs or lessons may seem like an obvious improvement over underdeveloped or perfunctory plans. Yet true individualization would require feeding protected data into large language models, which could violate privacy regulations. And while AI applications can readily produce better-looking IEPs and other paperwork, this does not necessarily result in improved services.

Filling the gap

Indeed, it is not yet clear whether AI provides a standard of care equivalent to the high-quality, conventional treatment to which children with disabilities are entitled under federal law.

The Supreme Court in 2017 rejected the notion that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act merely entitles students to trivial, “de minimis” progress, which weakens one of the primary rationales for pursuing AI – that it can meet a minimum standard of care and practice. And since AI really has not been empirically evaluated at scale, it has not been proved that it adequately meets the low bar of simply improving beyond the flawed status quo.

But this does not change the reality of limited resources. For better or worse, AI is already being used to fill the gap between what the law requires and what the system actually provides.

Seth King, Associate Profess of Special Education, University of Iowa

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Last Updated on February 6, 2026 by Daily News Staff

In recent years, viral YouTube videos and podcast commentary have revived claims that the 1975 Travis Walton UFO abduction case was an admitted hoax. One of the most widely repeated allegations asserts that Mike Rogers, the logging crew’s foreman, supposedly confessed that he and Walton staged the entire event using a spotlight from a ranger tower to fool their coworkers.

So, is there any truth to this claim?

After reviewing decades of interviews, skeptical investigations, and public records, the answer is clear:

There is no verified evidence that Mike Rogers ever admitted the Travis Walton incident was a hoax.

He Vanished for 5 Days After a UFO Encounter | Travis Walton Case

Where the Viral Claim Comes From

The “confession” story has circulated for years in online forums and was recently amplified by commentary-style YouTube and podcast content, including popular personality-driven shows. These versions often claim:

• Rogers and Walton planned the incident in advance

• A spotlight from a ranger or observation tower simulated the UFO

• The rest of the crew was unaware of the hoax

• Rogers later “admitted” this publicly

However, none of these claims are supported by primary documentation.

What the Documented Record Shows

No Recorded Confession Exists

• There is no audio, video, affidavit, court record, or signed statement in which Mike Rogers admits staging the incident.

• Rogers has repeatedly denied hoax allegations in interviews spanning decades.

• Even prominent skeptical organizations do not cite any confession by Rogers.

If such an admission existed, it would be widely referenced in skeptical literature and would have effectively closed the case. It has not.

The “Ranger Tower Spotlight” Theory Lacks Evidence

• No confirmed ranger tower or spotlight installation matching the claim has been documented at the location.

• No ranger, third party, or equipment operator has ever come forward.

• No physical evidence or corroborating testimony supports this explanation.

Even professional skeptics typically label this idea as speculative, not factual.

Why Skepticism Still Exists (Legitimately)

While the viral claim lacks evidence, skepticism about the Walton case is not unfounded. Common, well-documented critiques include:

Advertisement

• Financial pressure tied to a logging contract

• The limitations and inconsistency of polygraph testing

• Walton’s later use of hypnosis, which is controversial in memory recall

• Possible cultural influence from 1970s UFO media

Importantly, none of these critiques rely on a confession by Mike Rogers, because none exists.

Updates & Current Status of the Case

As of today:

• No new witnesses have come forward to confirm a hoax

• No participant has recanted their core testimony

• No physical evidence has conclusively proven or disproven the event

• Walton and Rogers have both continued to deny hoax allegations

The case remains unresolved, not debunked.

Why Viral Misinformation Persists

Online commentary formats often compress nuance into dramatic statements. Over time:

• Speculation becomes repeated as “fact”

• Hypothetical explanations are presented as admissions

• Entertainment content is mistaken for investigative reporting

This is especially common with long-standing mysteries like the Walton case, where ambiguity invites exaggeration.

Viral Claims vs. Verified Facts

Viral Claim:

Mike Rogers admitted he and Travis Walton staged the UFO incident.

Verified Fact:

No documented confession exists. Rogers has consistently denied hoax claims.

Viral Claim:

Advertisement

A ranger tower spotlight was used to fake the UFO.

Verified Fact:

No evidence confirms a tower, spotlight, or third-party involvement.

Viral Claim:

The case was “officially debunked.”

Verified Fact:

No authoritative body has conclusively debunked or confirmed the incident.

Viral Claim:

All skeptics agree it was a hoax.

Verified Fact:

Advertisement

Even skeptical researchers acknowledge the absence of definitive proof.

Viral Claim:

Hollywood exposed the truth in Fire in the Sky.

Verified Fact:

The film significantly fictionalized Walton’s testimony for dramatic effect.

Bottom Line

• ❌ There is no verified admission by Mike Rogers

• ❌ There is no evidence of a ranger tower spotlight hoax

• ✅ There are legitimate unanswered questions about the case

• ✅ The incident remains debated, not solved

The Travis Walton story persists not because it has been proven — but because it has never been conclusively explained.  

Related External Reading

• Travis Walton UFO Incident – Wikipedia
• Travis Walton Interviews – Coast to Coast AM
• Fire in the Sky (1993) – IMDb
• MUFON – Mutual UFO Network Case Files
• NICAP – National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena
• Skeptical Inquirer – Scientific Analysis of Paranormal Claims
• U.S. National Archives – UFO & Government Records

Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter.  https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/