Saturday, September 21, 2019

The genetics of psychic ability

Jacobsen's book

There have been a number of instances where researchers have pointed out that individuals who encounter UAP at close range, go on to suffer negative medical consequences. Indeed, Christopher 'Kit' Canfield Green in the US, has long been interested in examining such individuals. On some occasions he has involved Dr Garry Nolan in such work.

On page 399 of US journalist Annie Jacobsen's 2017 book "Phenomena" there is an interesting quote by Dr Garry Nolan, which I failed to fully appreciate when I first read the book.

Recently, upon re-reading it, I pondered the quote from Nolan which said he is:

 "...also mapping (DNA and immune systems) of people and their families who claim to be remote viewers or have anomalous perception."

So, I have now taken the time for a closer look at what is behind this statement.

The Institute of Noetic Sciences

I found that apart from Green and Nolan, there are others who are also interested in the genetics of psychic ability. One such entity is the Institute of Noetic Sciences. They have a research project in progress titled "Genetics of Psychic Ability." On their website they include some information about the project. The principal investigator is Dean Radin, PhD. The "Research focus" is shown as "Can we access information not limited by space and time?" The "Research question" is "Does biology (in this case genetics) play a role in psychic perceptions?" The "Project summary" is "DNA sampled from vetted psychics and age, gender and raced matched controls are being analyzed to evaluate any gene or gene network differences."


The project is being funded by a grant from the BIAL Foundation which was established in 1994 by Laboratory BIAL and the Council of Rectors of Portuguese Universities, whose mission is to "Foster the scientific study of the human being from both the physical and spiritual perspectives."

Grant number 257/14 investigators are Dean Radin, Garrett Yount and Garry Nolan. The estimated duration of the project was July 2015 to April 2018.

The grant notes read:

"Background. It is commonly believed that psychic abilities , like many mental and physical attributes, runs in families. This suggests the presence of a hereditary component. Using a genomic technique known as Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) which analyzes constellations of genetic networks to find correlations with human health, personality traits, talents etc, this project is exploring if psychic ability had a discernible genetic component.

Aims. The objective of this study is to see if psychic ability correlated with specific sets of genes or genetic networks.

Methods. We screened 3,152 psychic individuals using two online surveys to locate people who claimed psi ability in themselves and their family members, to rule out exclusions (eg psychotic or delusional tendencies), and to collect measures of relevance tom psychic ability (eg absorption,sensitivity, empathy). We then selected a sub sample of thee volunteers to be interviewed and to take additional online screening tests of psi ability. Then, using a case-control study design, 13 individuals were finally selected as "psychic cases" and 10 age and gender matched individuals with no claim of psychic ability were selected as controls.

DNA was collected from these 23 participants, and their DNA is being whole-genome sequenced and mapped using advanced BINA algorithms. Genetic network analyzes between these two groups will reveal if there are genes or networks of genes that can discriminate between the psychic and control cases.

Results. Genomic sequencing is presently underway. GWAS and possibly other forms of genetic analysis will be conducted after the sequence is complete.

Conclusions. The project is taking longer than we originally expected to complete, primarily due to the time it took us to sift through the psychic candidates and vet the final selections and matched controls, and also to the complexities involved in genomic sequencing and analysis. GWAS is a state-of-the-art technique that requires time and expertise to complete, so we are dependent on our geneticist collaborators to finish that portion of the study."

Online survey

I managed to locate one of the two online surveys, which seemed to be the first one mentioned in the grant notes. It asked individuals their demographics, then moved onto ask about specific abilities they might have. The list was:

Animal communication; aura reading; automatic writing; astral projection; channeling; psychophony; clairvoyance; clairaudience; clairsentience; clairscent; clairgustance; clairempathy; claircognizance; emotional hearing; geomancy; levitation; lucid dreaming; mediumship; nature empathy; physical healing; precognition; psychic surgery; psychokinesis; psychometry; pyrokinesis; remote viewing; retrocognition and telepathy.

Questions were then asked about the family; followed by questions about a variety of known psychic and delusional tendencies.

There were no questions, about UAP,  in the online survey I looked at.


As at 21 September 2019, the project is uncompleted. It will be interesting to see what conclusions are drawn from the project, when it is finally finished; and the possible relationship for individuals who have close encounters with UAP.

Saturday, September 14, 2019

More from the US Navy

John Greenewald

In blog posts dated 9 July 2019 and 27 August 2019 I have reported upon statements made about UAP by the US Navy. Recently, US researcher John Greenewald has reported upon further responses given to him by the US Navy, to questions he posed.

On 10 September 2019 Greenewald posted the first of the Naval responses.  US Navy spokesperson, Joseph Gradisher, who speaks on behalf of the Deputy Chief of Navy Operations for Information Warfare responded to the following list of questions from Greenewald.

(1) Why the Navy uses the term UAP not UFO?

"The 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges."

(2) On the question of whether or not the Navy had released the three videos?

"The Navy has not released the videos to the general public."

(3) Why the words UAP or UFO do not appear on the DD Form 10?

"The Navy has no comment on, nor control over, how civilian individuals or organizations may or may not describe the objects in the referenced videos. The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as 'unidentified aerial phenomenon.' Adding, "You'd have to contact Mr Elizondo on his description. I can't comment or speculate on how/why he referred to them in that way."

(4) Did the Navy sign off to full, unrestricted public release of the videos?

"Neither the cognizant Navy officers nor DOPSR have record of any correspondence responding to a request for unrestricted release of the subject videos in 2017."

On 11 September 2019, John Greenewald revealed further information about the three videos. In response to his queries spokesperson Joseph Gradisher stated:

(1) What do the three videos represent?

"The Navy has not publicly released characteristics or descriptions, nor released any hypothesis or conclusions, in regard to the objects contained in the referred videos." Then added, "The Navy considers the phenomena contained/depicted in those 3 videos as unidentified."

(2) How does the Navy refer to the videos?

"The Navy's official identifiers for the referenced videos do not match the names referenced (FLIR1, Gimbal and GoFast)...the Navy identifies these videos by the reported dates of the observations/sightings."

(3) What dates were the videos taken?

"[The] dates are 14 November 2004 for 'FLIR1' and 21 January 2015 for both 'Gimbal' and 'GoFast.''

(4) Any further details?

"We will not be providing any details on individual reports."

Douglas Dean Johnson

On 12 September 2019, on Twitter, Douglas Dean Johnson advised that Gradisher confirmed to him that "Mr Greenewald did indeed quote me accurately in his recent [Sept 10] article." Gradisher also provided Johnson with the following statement:

"The US Navy designates the objects contained in the 3 range-incursion videos that are currently being referred to in various media as unidentified aerial phenomena. The 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges - it's any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified. 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' (UAP) is a term we borrowed from the UK. The Navy has not released these videos to the general public; nor authorised public release. The three videos were/are designated as unidentified."

My comments

1. It has long been known that the FLIR1 video was taken on the 14 November 2004, the same day as the Fravor tic-tac encounter.

2. Researchers, including myself, utilised the wind speed and direction mentioned by the pilots in the Gimbal video [120 knots from the west] to determine a possible date for that video of 26 January 2015. Upper atmospheric sounding balloon records for the nearest station showed the wind speed as 112 knots from azimuth 245 degrees.

Now that we know that the date was in fact 21 January 2015 we can revisit the wind data.

At 0700hrs local time 21 January 2015 we have:

At the height of the aircraft, 7620 metres [25,000 feet] the wind was from azimuth 290 degrees, just north of west at 85 knots. It reached 122 knots at a height of 10,425 metres.

Given that the aircraft, at the time was at a location believed to be off the coast, the wind data are not inconsistent. 

3. Note that the US Navy statements says that "The three videos were/are designated as unidentified" and "The Navy considers the phenomena contained/depicted in those 3 videos as unidentified."

Many commentators are stressing the point that the Navy are unable to identify the objects in the videos, i.e. they are UFOs. However, it seems logical to me, that in fact none of the videos would have been release [by whomever] if the Navy had been able to identify them. The very fact that we now can see the videos seems, to me, to indicated the objects are unidentified. The latest Navy statements simply confirm the obvious.

Update 16 September 2019

Roger Glassel, in the 16 September 2019 issue of the Swedish magazine UFO -aktuelit  carried the following series of questions and answers 

1) Are the updated reporting procedures and congressional briefings being done in relations to the UFO phenomenon or the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) problem?

A1) The updated reporting procedures and congressional briefings are in response to reports of incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena in our military training ranges.

As I’ve stated previously in response to news media queries, “There have been a number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled training ranges and designated air space in recent years. The Navy and the USAF take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Any incursion into our training ranges by any aircraft, identified or not identified, is problematic from both a safety and security concern. Safety of our aircrews is paramount. Unauthorized and unidentified aircraft pose a risk to flight safety. Additionally, it is vital we maintain security on our operations. Our aviators train as they fight. Any intrusions that may compromise the security of our operations, tactics or procedures is of great concern. As part of this effort, the Navy has updated and is formalizing the process by which reports of any such suspected incursions can be made to the cognizant authorities. Initial revised reporting guidance has been provided to the fleet that details the steps for reporting each incident. More formal guidance is in staffing and will be promulgated fleet-wide when completed. In response to requests for information from Congressional members and staff, Navy officials have provided and will continue to provide briefings by senior Naval Intelligence officials as well as aviators who reported hazards to aviation safety."

2) Is the term Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (in relation to either unidentified aircrafts, or in relations to the UFO phenomenon) used by the Navy or any other component in the U.S. Defense Department?

A2) The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena. 

3) Are the Navy involved - or has been involved in the recent decades - in studying the UFO phenomenon?

A3) The Navy has been and is investigating any unauthorized incursions into our training ranges by unidentified aerial phenomena. I would note that the wide proliferation and availability of inexpensive unmanned aerial systems (UAS), such as commercially available quadcopters, has increasingly made airspace de-confliction an issue for our aviators. In this increasingly complex airspace, which includes both military and civilian aviation environments, the U.S. Navy is proactive in exercising due diligence in investigating any observation in training areas that could affect the safety of our aircrews and the security of our operations.

4) Do you think that the quotes by you was depicted in its right context, as presented in the articles?

A4) The quotes provided by you in your email, from the initial Politico story, are accurate.

5) Was the Navy involved in the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program to study Unidentified Aerial Phenomena reported by U.S. Navy pilots or other credible sources?

A5) The AATIP program involved offices from across the Department of Defense, including Navy. Details remain classified. For additional information, I would refer you to the Department of Defense.

6) Has any of the unidentified objects in the three videos released now been explained by the Navy or any other component in the U.S. Defense Department?

A6) Neither has the Navy nor any other DoD component has publicly released characterizations, descriptions, hypothesis, or conclusions in regards to the objects contained in the referenced videos. 

7) Was the new reporting guidelines updated due to pilots fear of ridicule for reporting sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and UFOs?

A7) We have updated guidelines and simplified the process to facilitate reporting of unidentified aerial phenomena in order to support an objective, data-driven analysis of the range incursions. By providing updated guidelines and conducting more open discussion of our efforts, we are working to remove any stigmas associated with reporting anything unknown in the airspace. Initial, informal, revised reporting guidance has been provided to the fleet, through message traffic and briefings, with detailed steps for reporting each incident. More formal guidance is in staffing and will be promulgated fleet-wide when completed.

8) Has the Navy, or any other component, come to the conclusion that some of the unidentified sightings reported is due to an aerial phenomena with technological features not currently known to mankind?

A8) The Navy has not publicly released characterizations or descriptions, nor released any hypothesis or conclusions in reference to any reported sightings/observations. As the investigation of UAP sightings is ongoing, we will not discuss individual sighting reports/observations. However, all possible sources of information pertaining to any individual sighting reports/observations are considered in the respective investigations. The information obtained from each individual report of any suspected training range incursion will continue to be investigated in its own right. The information obtained in these reports will be catalogued and analyzed for the purpose of identifying any hazard to our aviators. This process could involve multiple Department of Defense and Intelligence Community organizations. Any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity, include classified information on military operations. Therefore, no release of information to the general public is expected.

9) In the Navy’s effort to study reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, was former DOD/OUSDI employee Luis Elizondo involved in such effort?

A9) While he was a U.S. government employee, Mr. Elizondo occasionally provided coordination and professional connections/liaison within DoD and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

10) What is the definition of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena used by the Navy and the U.S. Defense Department?

A10) “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)” is a term we borrowed from the UK – it’s any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified. The wide proliferation and availability of inexpensive unmanned aerial systems (UAS) isn’t contradictory, it’s just when the UAS is *NOT* immediately identifiable we refer to it as UAP. A quadcopter is immediately identifiable. As we have previously acknowledged, the number of incursions into our ranges has increased with that wide proliferation and availability of inexpensive UAS. Additionally, we use the generic UAP term in communications so as not to pre-judge the results of any investigation. 

Any range incursion by unauthorized craft affects the safety of our aviators and/or the security of our operations. Our revised reporting guidance solicits reports of any unauthorized craft (UAP or UAS) observed within our ranges so that we may investigate that range incursion. Incursions/sightings since 2014 may be referred to as either UAS or UAP, depending on the circumstances surrounding the specific incident in question.

Sunday, September 1, 2019

Identified? Another individual from the Green/Dolan interview - the "advisor"


Recently, I discovered the identity of the "mentor" figure mentioned in a July 2019 interview, between Christopher (Kit) Canfield Green, and US researcher Richard Dolan. In that same interview, Green also spoke about a number of items which had been mysterious delivered to his doorstep, including:

KG: "As far as the tissue was concerned, there was one instance that to this day I have not been able to rationalize or reconcile. One of the packages of material that I had delivered to my doorstep purported to be tissues from an autopsy of an alien at Area 51. It appeared to be [with] documents that were legitimate. But remember, they appeared on my doorstep in Detroit.

RD: "No provenance."

KG: "Some of the documents [pause] some of the documents actually appeared to be highly technical genetic analysis of neural tissue taken from one of the alleged aliens. And it was apparent that it was probably a biopsy or necropsy sample of tissue. It was apparent because it was in the format which laboratories liked that kind of material. And it was replete with descriptions of reverse transcriptase analyses purporting to show that the genetic fingerprints were alien. I took that material and presented it to a subgroup that I was chairing at the National Academy of Sciences.

"One of the people who was on my committee was the chairman of the Department of Genetics and the chairman of the Department of Molecular Biology at arguably one of the top five medical schools on the East Coast.

" I gave the material to that chairperson. The chairperson took four or five hours in such attention and analysis that the chairman left the room of my committee hearings and came back four hours later and said ' I regret to tell you what I think, Kit." And did. And said the following:

'This is a clever hoax.The person that wrote this did it with an intention to convince but [the] language sounds many times, interspersed in the sentences as if somebody with a Master's degree in genetics pretending to be a geneticist at a post-doctoral level and is supplementing the phrases from Google. It is absolutely a hoax, but it is an intentional hoax, in which this material has been transposed to fifteen pages, but I assure you it is garbage.'

"...this individual was a physician MD who was board certified in internal medicine, and had a subspeciality in medical genetics, and a PhD in Molecular Biology. And was the chairman of, at that time the largest genetics and molecular biology medical school department and arguably one of the top medical schools on Earth."

Who was this individual?

I wondered who this individual might be, who I named the "advisor"? Could their identify be deduced, as I had for Flickinger, based on the clues provided by Green?

I first went to Green's published curriculum vitae and there I found that listed one and only one subgroup of the National Academy of Sciences, which Green had chaired. This was the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Physiological and Cognitive/Neuroscience in the Next Two Decades. Its report was published in 2008.

This committee was an ad hoc committee of the standing committee for Technology Insight - Gauge, Evaluate and Review (TIGER.) TIGER was established in May 2005, based on a request from Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Technology Warning Division's Defense Warning Office (DWO). Interestingly, the DWO was the area where the the 38 Defense Intelligence Reference Documents went to, that were prepared under the DIA's Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program, which spawned the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification program.

Besides Green there were fifteen other individuals on that committee, so I examined each individual's details to see if any of them matched Green's "advisor."


When Green spoke about his "mentor," he used the words "this man's" and "he," indicating the mentor was male. However, I noted that when he spoke of his "advisor" he used the terms "chairman" and "chairperson" but never "him" or "her." I suspected that this might be because his "advisor" was female.

Back to the fifteen individuals. There was only one, which matched almost all of Green's clues. This was  Professor Diane Edmund Griffin who was chair of the Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, during the period 1994-2015, at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Griffin received her MD and PhD in 1968 from Stanford University, where she completed her residency in internal medicine. her PhD was in microbiology. I could find no reference to a subspeciality in medical genetics.

However, in all other ways, Griffin fits the details which Green provides.

My comments

1. Material making incredible claims, eg tissue samples of aliens from Area 51, which lands up on your doorstep is never a good sign. As Dolan says, there is no provenance. Why not deliver it to Green at his CIA office (he left there in 1985 - but we don't have a date for this tissue sample delivery) - or at his medial center address (Green himself says he was getting autopsy related doorstep deliveries up to as recently as 2011)?

2. Fifteen pages of documents which were declared a hoax by the "advisor." Who was the hoaxer?

3. My identification of Professor Griffin as Green's "advisor" fairly fits the information Green provides, although I am not as certain of this identification, as I am of Flickinger as the "mentor."

4. It does show that Green was well connected and had a network of individuals which he could call upon for advice.

5. It is a pity that we are being spoon fed bits of historical information by Green. I'd like to see him write his biography. Now, that would be an interesting read. My own "dossier" on Green, extends to over 50 pages at the moment.

6. Are there any other individuals which are referenced, but not named, in Green's interview with Dolan?

In conclusion

I welcome hearing from blog readers if they have an alternate suggestion for the identity of Green's "advisor."

The genetics of psychic ability

Jacobsen's book There have been a number of instances where researchers have pointed out that individuals who encounter UAP at close ...