Branchoria UFO Collection UFO Collection

Start with the overview, then follow the sections that match your goal

Within Green

Did Remote Viewing Help Or Hurt Green's Credibility?

Green's connection to remote-viewing circles shows official interest in unusual claims, but also raises questions about speculative research cultures.

On this page

  • Green's place in the remote viewing network
  • Official interest versus scientific validation
  • Why this history divides readers
Preview for Did Remote Viewing Help Or Hurt Green's Credibility?

Introduction

Remote viewing helps and hurts Kit Green’s credibility at the same time. It helps because his connection to the early CIA/SRI remote-viewing network is not just internet folklore: public records and later archival reviews place him near a real Cold War intelligence effort to test whether claimed psychic perception could have intelligence value. It hurts because remote viewing remains scientifically controversial, operationally unreliable, and easy to over-interpret in UFO/UAP circles. For readers assessing Green, the key point is not that remote viewing proves anything paranormal or extraterrestrial. It is that Green’s career put him inside a government culture willing to examine fringe claims under national-security pressure, while also exposing him to a network where weak evidence, classified ambiguity and extraordinary claims could reinforce each other. His remote-viewing links therefore show institutional access, but they also create a credibility risk when later UAP claims rest on similar patterns of hearsay, secrecy and speculative interpretation.

Overview image for Remote Viewing

Green’s Place In The Remote-Viewing Network

Christopher “Kit” Green’s conventional credentials are the strongest anchor in this subject. A National Academies biographical sketch describes him as a former CIA senior division analyst and assistant national intelligence officer for science and technology, with a CIA career from 1969 to 1985, followed by senior technology roles at General Motors and later medical and neuroimaging work linked to Wayne State School of Medicine and Detroit Medical Center. [NCBI]ncbi.nlm.nih.govNCBIBiographical Sketches of Committee MembersNCBIBiographical Sketches of Committee Members

That background matters because remote viewing was not a casual hobby on the edge of Green’s public story. It sat near the same intelligence-science boundary where his career operated: neuroscience, human performance, threat assessment, exotic foreign capabilities and unconventional collection methods. A recent review of The Star Gate Archives states that, in 1972, physicist Russell Targ met Green, then at the CIA, to discuss parapsychology; Harold Puthoff later wrote to Green about an informal test with Ingo Swann, and that interest helped lead to initial CIA funding for remote-viewing research at Stanford Research Institute. [Journal of Scientific Exploration]journalofscientificexploration.orgJournal of Scientific Exploration

The CIA’s own declassified Star Gate collection confirms that remote viewing became a real government-adjacent programme, not merely a rumour. CIA Reading Room material describes Star Gate as a programme involving alleged paranormal phenomena, primarily remote viewing, for intelligence purposes, and other CIA-hosted records describe CIA funding of SRI research after remote-viewing claims came to the agency’s attention. [CIA]cia.govOpen source on cia.gov.

For Green’s credibility, this cuts in two directions. On one hand, it supports the narrower claim that he moved in real intelligence circles that took anomalous human-performance claims seriously enough to study them. On the other hand, it places him in a research culture where official attention could easily be mistaken for official validation. The government’s willingness to fund a programme does not mean the programme’s claims were true.

Remote Viewing illustration 1

Official Interest Was Not Scientific Validation

Remote viewing is often misunderstood because the documented government involvement sounds more impressive than the evidential outcome. The central fact is simple: US intelligence agencies explored the possibility that some people could describe distant or hidden targets without ordinary sensory access. That is official interest. It is not, by itself, scientific proof.

The 1995 American Institutes for Research review was commissioned after the Star Gate programme was transferred to CIA oversight. The review examined both research claims and operational applications, and CIA records describe remote viewing as a controversial, high-risk subject that had been reviewed repeatedly. [CIA]cia.govOpen source on cia.gov. The public debate around that review was sharply split. Statistician Jessica Utts argued that the evidence for psychic functioning was strong by ordinary scientific standards, while psychologist Ray Hyman argued that statistical anomalies were not enough to establish anomalous cognition. UC Davis summarised the split at the time: both reviewers agreed the programme had produced statistically significant results, but they disagreed over what those results meant. [UC Davis]ucdavis.eduUC Davis'Psychic Spying' Research Produces Credible Evidence | UC DavisUC Davis'Psychic Spying' Research Produces Credible Evidence | UC Davis

This distinction is crucial for Green. A supporter may say his proximity to the early programme shows he was trusted to evaluate strange but potentially important phenomena. A sceptic may answer that Green was operating inside a Cold War environment where “what if the Soviets can do it?” could justify investigation before evidence was strong. Both readings can be true. Serious people can study an extraordinary claim without the claim becoming true.

The programme’s scientific problem was not only that the claim was strange. It was that the methods and replication record were contested. Critics of early SRI work pointed to sensory cueing, transcript handling and weaknesses in experimental controls. PubMed lists David Marks’s 1981 Nature paper “Sensory cues invalidate remote viewing experiments”, and other critical accounts argued that early positive results could be explained by cues available to judges rather than by psychic perception. [PubMed]pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govSource details in endnotes.

That does not erase every positive remote-viewing result claimed by proponents, but it does lower the evidential weight that should be given to the programme when assessing UAP credibility. If a person’s later UFO-related reputation leans on networks formed in remote-viewing circles, readers should separate “had access to unusual official research” from “possessed validated knowledge about non-human technology”.

UFO Crash Retrievals, Lockheed Alien Experiments & Remote Viewing | Luis Elizondo • 237

Channel: Julian Dorey · Views: 1.2M · Uploaded: September 2024 · Length: 3 hours 21 minutes

Open on YouTube

Why This History Divides Readers

The remote-viewing link divides readers because it offers two emotionally powerful but incomplete stories.

For sympathetic readers, Green’s involvement suggests open-minded intelligence work. The Cold War context helps that case. If US agencies believed Soviet research into parapsychology might have military implications, investigating the subject could be framed as prudent threat assessment rather than credulity. The Star Gate archive review notes that Cold War concern about Soviet activity helped keep such possibilities on the table, and that multiple agencies tasked remote viewers even though the results were often used as a last resort. [Journal of Scientific Exploration]journalofscientificexploration.orgJournal of Scientific Exploration

For sceptical readers, the same facts suggest a warning sign. Remote viewing is a classic example of a government-adjacent fringe topic where secrecy, selective anecdotes and institutional mystique can make weak evidence look stronger than it is. A declassified paper trail may prove that a programme existed, but it does not prove that remote viewing worked reliably. The later archival review itself notes uncertainty around operational success rates, missing evaluations, redactions and the difficulty of assessing the value of operational remote viewing from the available record. [Journal of Scientific Exploration]journalofscientificexploration.orgJournal of Scientific Exploration

This is why Green’s remote-viewing association is best treated as a credibility stress test rather than a simple plus or minus. It shows that he was not merely repeating popular UFO stories from outside government. He had real proximity to unusual classified or semi-classified research. But it also shows that proximity to intelligence work can coexist with claims that remain scientifically unresolved or weakly supported.

Remote Viewing illustration 2

The UAP Credibility Risk

The UAP credibility risk is not that Green once encountered remote viewing as a subject. Many intelligence and defence scientists have examined unconventional ideas without endorsing them. The risk is that some later UFO/UAP communities treat remote viewing, anomalous cognition, crash-retrieval stories, medical-effects claims and alleged insider briefings as if they all mutually reinforce one another.

That is a weak evidential move. Remote viewing cannot independently verify a UAP claim unless its output is specific, documented in advance, independently checked and separated from ordinary information leakage. In practice, remote-viewing material is often vague, symbolic, retrospective or interpreted after the fact. Even sympathetic reviewers have acknowledged problems of inconsistency and operational uncertainty. The Star Gate Archives review quotes Puthoff’s own summary that remote viewing results could be “impressive” but were also inconsistent and not ready as a dependable intelligence tool. [Journal of Scientific Exploration]journalofscientificexploration.orgJournal of Scientific Exploration

For Green, that matters because his public UAP significance often comes from being near networks that include Hal Puthoff, Jacques Vallée, Eric Davis, Bigelow-linked research circles and later anomalous-injury discussions. Those networks are important in modern UAP history, but they also blur categories: intelligence interest, paranormal research, medical anomalies, folklore, witness testimony and speculative physics can be discussed by the same people in the same rooms. A reader should not treat network overlap as corroboration.

The safer assessment is narrower. Green’s remote-viewing links support the view that he had genuine access to intelligence-adjacent anomalous research cultures. They do not establish that remote viewing is valid, that UAPs are non-human technology, or that claims emerging from those networks are true. They do, however, explain why Green became credible to some UAP insiders: he had the right combination of medical expertise, intelligence background and tolerance for unusual claims.

Army Remote Viewer Looks Inside of a UFO, Consciousness & Disclosure | Maj. Paul Smith PhD

Channel: THIRD EYE DROPS with Michael Phillip · Views: 138.9K · Uploaded: May 2026 · Length: 2 hours 17 minutes

Open on YouTube

What The Evidence Supports — And What It Does Not

A balanced assessment should separate four levels of confidence.

Well supported: Green had a real CIA science-and-technology career, and public biographical material supports his later medical and technical credentials. [NCBI]ncbi.nlm.nih.govNCBIBiographical Sketches of Committee MembersNCBIBiographical Sketches of Committee Members

Reasonably supported: Green was connected to the early CIA/SRI remote-viewing network. The strongest public support comes from later archival summaries and declassified programme context, including accounts of Targ, Puthoff and SRI approaching Green in the early 1970s. [Journal of Scientific Exploration]journalofscientificexploration.orgJournal of Scientific Exploration

Contested: Remote viewing produced results that some researchers regarded as statistically meaningful. The Utts-Hyman disagreement is the cleanest example: one side saw proof or near-proof of psychic functioning, while the other saw anomalies insufficient to establish a paranormal mechanism. [UC Davis]ucdavis.eduUC Davis'Psychic Spying' Research Produces Credible Evidence | UC DavisUC Davis'Psychic Spying' Research Produces Credible Evidence | UC Davis

Not established: Remote viewing does not verify UFO crash retrievals, alien bodies, hidden bases, non-human intelligences or any specific UAP claim linked to Green. The existence of Star Gate proves official investigation, not the truth of later UFO interpretations.

This is the core credibility lesson. Green’s remote-viewing history makes him more interesting and more institutionally significant than a normal UFO commentator. It also makes caution more necessary, because the same history shows how extraordinary claims can gain authority from classified settings even when the underlying evidence remains disputed.

Remote Viewing illustration 3

The Bottom Line For Green’s Credibility

Remote viewing neither destroys Green’s credibility nor strengthens his UAP claims as much as some supporters imply. It is evidence of access, not evidence of truth. It shows that Green operated near serious government efforts to examine unusual human-performance claims, but it also ties him to one of the most controversial research cultures in modern intelligence history.

For readers assessing Kit Green, the fairest conclusion is mixed. His connection to remote viewing helps explain why UAP researchers take him seriously: he was a real intelligence and medical professional who encountered anomalous claims before they became mainstream podcast material. But it also raises the standard of proof. Once a source has moved through remote-viewing circles, claims need especially clear separation between first-hand knowledge, documents, experimental data, classified hearsay, personal belief and later UFO-community amplification.

The strongest version of Green’s credibility is careful and limited: he was a qualified insider who investigated unusual claims. The weaker version turns that into an implied endorsement of remote viewing or UAP exoticism. The evidence supports the first statement far better than the second.

Joe Rogan Experience #2288 - Jacques Vallée

Channel: PowerfulJRE · Views: 1.8M · Uploaded: March 2025 · Length: 2 hours 47 minutes

Open on YouTube

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to Did Remote Viewing Help Or Hurt Green's Credibility?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

BookCover for Mind trek

Mind trek

By Joseph McMoneagle, Joe McMoneagle et al.

First published 1993. Subjects: Astral projection, Parapsychology, Remote viewing (Parapsychology), Research, Parapsychology, psychic pow...

See on Amazon
Browse more on Amazon: The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume Two A The Men Who Stare At Goats Mind trek

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Example marketplace items related to this page. Use the search link to explore similar finds on eBay.

Using USA
Browse more on eBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

  1. Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Title: NCBIBiographical Sketches of Committee Members
    Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207949/

  2. Source: journalofscientificexploration.org
    Title: Journal of Scientific Exploration
    Link: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/3865/2573

  3. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf

  4. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002800180001-2.pdf

  5. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00787r000500410001-3

  6. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002600250001-6.pdf

  7. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000500410001-3.pdf

  8. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180006-4.pdf

  9. Source: cia.gov
    Title: STARGAT E
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000100160003-8.pdf

  10. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9.pdf

  11. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00789r003100030001-4

  12. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00789r002700010001-1

  13. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate

  14. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?page=229

  15. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBEwUUJmSUJSU1JVb2xMNE12TgEeFXUggTtU1X2lBrp5ZsbpyJoSe-YWuFE21XJ4hVCCXiQsY7a6rQ0krvFKY_E_aem_gurAC5cQ13PXpL843feehA&page=156

  16. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?page=622

  17. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?page=128

  18. Source: cia.gov
    Title: STARGAT E | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)INSCOM GRILL FLAME PROGRAM SESSION REPORT
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBEwUUJmSUJSU1JVb2xMNE12TgEeFXUggTtU1X2lBrp5ZsbpyJoSe-YWuFE21XJ4hVCCXiQsY7a6rQ0krvFKY_E_aem_gurAC5cQ13PXpL843feehA&page=47

  19. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?page=623

  20. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?page=263&s=35

  21. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?page=335

  22. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002200070001-0.pdf

  23. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate?page=287&s=35

  24. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002200650001-6.pdf

  25. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00789r002200650001-6

  26. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5.pdf

  27. Source: cia.gov
    Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00791r000200180005-5

  28. Source: military.com
    Link: https://www.military.com/army-veteran-psychic-spy-veteran-behind-a-viral-cia-alien-dna-claim

  29. Source: archive.org
    Title: forbiddenscience00vall 0
    Link: https://archive.org/details/forbiddenscience00vall_0

  30. Source: archive.org
    Link: https://archive.org/stream/CIA-RDP96-00789R002600250001-6/CIA-RDP96-00789R002600250001-6_djvu.txt

  31. Source: ucdavis.edu
    Title: UC Davis’Psychic Spying’ Research Produces Credible Evidence | UC Davis
    Link: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/psychic-spying-research-produces-credible-evidence

  32. Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7242682/

  33. Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3360082/

  34. Source: facebook.com
    Title: Remote Viewing
    Link: https://www.facebook.com/tuckercarlsonTCN/posts/remote-viewing-the-cias-psychic-program-used-to-spy-and-win-wars-fully-explained/1454353446054061/

  35. Source: Wikipedia
    Title: Remote viewing
    Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

  36. Source: ics.uci.edu
    Link: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/may.pdf

Additional References

  1. Source: youtube.com
    Title: The UFO Lie: Shocking truth of Pentagon [AAWSAP]({{ ‘aawsap/’ | relative_url }}) program | The Basement Office
    Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XD4gQS_-qY
    Source snippet

    The interview with Luis Elizondo directly addresses the convergence of military intelligence, remote viewing tracks, and the institutiona...

  2. Source: youtube.com
    Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv8NVtNbZ5U
    Source snippet

    Researching the Paranormal with Colm Kelleher...

  3. Source: arxiv.org
    Link: https://arxiv.org/html/2502.06794v2

  4. Source: youtube.com
    Title: Secret government UFO program reveals paranormal events
    Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36_LRMHZouw
    Source snippet

    The UFO Lie: Shocking truth of Pentagon AAWSAP program | The Basement Office...

  5. Source: youtube.com
    Title: Skinwalkers At The Pentagon | Colm A. Kelleher
    Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsb0TnP1MrE
    Source snippet

    Secret government UFO program reveals paranormal events...

  6. Source: academia.edu
    Link: https://www.academia.edu/51621266/CIA_Initiated_Remote_Viewing_Program_at_Stanford_Research_Institute

  7. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381405238_The_cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis_A_case_for_scientific_openness_to_a_concealed_earthly_explanation_for_Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena

  8. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403178755_The_Star_Gate_Archives_Reports_of_the_United_States_Government_Sponsored_Psi_Program_1972-1995_Volume_4_Operational_Remote_Viewing_Memorandums_and_Reports

  9. Source: spymuseum.org
    Link: https://www.spymuseum.org/about/advisory-honorary-boards/

  10. Source: facebook.com
    Link: https://www.facebook.com/OMGTheWhyFiles/posts/full-video-americas-secret-space-program-and-the-alien-connection-/790037363131766/

Topic Tree

Follow this branch

Parent topic

Green

Related pages 7

More on this topic 3