Christopher C. "Kit" Green is a physician, neuroscientist, forensic-neuroimaging specialist, and former CIA science-and-technology intelligence analyst whose public UAP relevance comes from two separate records: early CIA-linked remote-viewing work at SRI and later medical injury analysis under the DIA's Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications program.123
Forensic Medicine And A 1969-1985 CIA Career
A 2008 National Academies biographical sketch identifies Green as a forensic medicine and neuroimaging specialist affiliated with Wayne State University School of Medicine and Detroit Medical Center, with an MD, a PhD in neurophysiology, fellowship status in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, a 1969-1985 CIA career as a senior division analyst and assistant national intelligence officer for science and technology, and later General Motors biomedical and Asia-Pacific technology-policy roles from 1985 through 2004.1
Green's later UAP-adjacent work entered public view through government and contractor settings, not a public abduction narrative like Whitley Strieber's. In those settings, medical interpretation, intelligence warning, and unconventional aerospace claims were mixed together.134
SRI Remote Viewing And The STAR GATE Record
Harold Puthoff's retrospective account of the CIA-initiated remote-viewing program at Stanford Research Institute places Green in the early SRI environment, including a published caption identifying Christopher Green with remote viewer Pat Price and Puthoff after a glider-ground remote-viewing experiment.2 That participant retrospective anchors Green's public association with the remote-viewing circle before the later UAP-injury work, but it is not an independent government finding.2
The broader official record is less flattering to remote viewing. The Federation of American Scientists summary of STAR GATE describes a program that moved through CIA, Army, INSCOM, DIA, and contractor phases under names including SCANATE, GRILL FLAME, CENTER LANE, SUN STREAK, and STAR GATE.5 The CIA-requested American Institutes for Research evaluation concluded in 1995 that remote-viewing reports were vague, inconsistent, and never used to guide intelligence operations, so continued intelligence-community use was not warranted.6
The 2009 AAWSAP Injury Paper
The DIA reading room lists an AAWSA document titled "Anomalous Acute and Subacute Field Effects on Human Biological Tissues" among its UFOs and Exotic Technology releases.7 The DIA cover sheet attributes the paper to a series of advanced-technology reports produced in fiscal year 2009 under the DIA Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications program.3 The DIA release redacts the author, but an unredacted copy of the same report identifies Christopher Green, MD, PhD, FAAFS as the author and uses the longer title "Clinical Medical Acute & Subacute Field Effects on Human Dermal & Neurological Tissues."8
Green's paper argued that human-injury cases might help infer characteristics of advanced aerospace systems of unknown provenance.38 It discussed historical cases, electromagnetic and microwave exposure mechanisms, burn and neurological effects, and a claimed pattern of acute or subacute injury in close proximity to anomalous vehicles, while excluding paranormal and chronic psychiatric explanations except in limited medical-coding contexts.3
Nolan's Case Claims And AARO's Counter-Frame
Stanford pathologist Garry Nolan told Vice in 2021 that people associated with the CIA and aerospace organizations brought him MRI and blood-analysis cases involving pilots, ground personnel, and intelligence agents who had reportedly been injured after proximity to alleged anomalous craft.9 Nolan said about 100 cases were reviewed, that the cases came to Green's attention, that a subset involved UAP claims, and that most of the larger bucket resembled what later became known as Havana syndrome.9
AARO's 2024 historical report found that the AAWSAP contractor produced exploratory papers that were not thoroughly peer reviewed, conducted UAP and paranormal work at a Utah property owned by the private organization's head, and explored remote viewing and consciousness anomalies even though DIA did not specifically authorize that work.4 AARO also reported that the program ended in 2012 after DIA and DoD concerns, found no empirical evidence that U.S. government or private entities had reverse-engineered extraterrestrial technology, and traced many later reverse-engineering allegations to a consistent group tied to AAWSAP/AATIP and the same private-sector paranormal-research environment.4
Overlap With Anomalous Health Incidents
Green's AAWSAP paper and Nolan's interview both emphasized directed-energy-style injury mechanisms.39 That overlap explains why UAP-injury discussions often drift toward anomalous health incidents, but official AHI assessments do not publicly identify Green as a program owner or establish a UAP cause.10 ODNI's January 2025 update assessed that most of the Intelligence Community continued to judge foreign-adversary responsibility for reported AHIs as very unlikely, while two components shifted to low-confidence judgments that a novel weapon or prototype might explain a small, undetermined subset.10
ODNI also assessed that published medical research did not show a consistent set of physical injuries among U.S. personnel and dependents reporting possible AHIs.10 That official record leaves Green's UAP injury model, Nolan's interview claims, and AHI assessments as overlapping but unresolved lines of evidence.910
Official Limits On Extraordinary Claims
AIR's 1995 evaluation concluded that remote viewing was not useful enough for continued intelligence-community use, and AARO's 2024 historical report found no empirical evidence that U.S. government or private entities had reverse-engineered extraterrestrial technology.64 Those official findings limit the claims attached to Green's network: SRI association is not proof that remote viewing worked, and the AAWSAP injury paper is not proof of off-world technology.2634
AARO's historical report also separates modern claims from older crash-retrieval traditions such as The Roswell Incident, while acknowledging that unresolved UAP cases often persist because of poor data rather than proof of extraordinary origin.4