In 1975 (and gradually diminishing but into the 1980’s) there were many UFO sightings just south of Lima and I found that some relatives and their friends claimed to be telepathically and psycho graphically communicating with UFO entities.
Thus, in 1975, about 12 of us went to the beach around where a large amount of individuals had witnessed all kinds of strange fly-bys, landings and happenings. Late at night, we witnessed a very bright, lens-shaped object hovering (within 300-500 feet from us) above the Pacific Ocean in a beach of the town of Chilca. Some people became nervous; others quiet and some showed an emotional, welcoming (perhaps worshiping) attitude.
Nevertheless, my cousin Sandro and I tried to coordinate a coherent response by sending flashlight signals. There was no response from ‘them’. The object disappeared and reappeared a few minutes later in the same fashion. An alleged physical contactee leading the group approached with his hands open. My cousin and I also approached. We signaled with our flashlights again and asked the people to focus and to call ‘them’ closer but…again no response.
That thing seemed to be about 30 and 40 feet in diameter and hovered above the water, illuminating it and creating a reflection of itself on it. It made no noise. Nevertheless, it became clear to me that being able to communicate with an intelligence capable of creating classical physics-defying devices would be a unique opportunity for the human world to acquire scientific, historical, ethical information and other cultural references from a more advanced civilization.
The era seemed ripe for a world-shifting revelation since the Cold War and the possibility of universal oblivion raged, Man had reached the Moon and – in some intellectual circles – the arrival of esoteric publications and Gurus from India was news.
Thus, in preparation for what could happen, I began to pursue the possibility of extraterrestrial knowledge disseminated by contactees and, over decades, read many books, met many experiencers, participated in many groups and went to many conferences.
Over the years of being involved in UFO research, I discovered that one has to be able to integrate honesty, scientific methodology, physics, anthropology, psychology, spiritual approaches, social skills, sociology, spirituality, philosophy, openness, critical thinking and paranormal research, to say the least. It is a fascinating, frustrating, controversial and elusive field that – like religion and politics – elicits high degrees of passion and skewed views.
In fact, this research field has gradually accumulated interesting data and good degrees of evidence that there actually are non-earthly (and-or ‘other dimensional’) beings possessing a very advanced technology.
Some of it seems to be hyper physical at a macro scale. Nevertheless, UFO ‘visitors’ seem to be as elusive as the brief sightings perchance allowed or granted and – even after some curious people satisfy their need to know – the UFO field and its aggregate findings seem to be of no serious consequence in world politics or science. It still lingers as an undercurrent.
This may be because – in the long run – it still feels ‘visionary’ and not as permanently real enough to merit most people’s practical attention and concern.
Rationally speaking, some well educated people recognize the importance of UFOs but avoid the subject so as not to lose credibility. It doesn’t seem to coincide with what is expected of serious, respectable individuals in a modern culture. Some religious conservatives condemn all plausible non-human intelligence’s as ‘demonic’. Others (also with alternative religious tendencies) join charismatically-led ET contact groups to welcome the ‘space brothers’ as masters and teachers.
Apocalyptic and millenarian expectations are often associated with.
From the very beginning, I could see that an integral approach was lacking. Researching alleged contact experiences deserves a highly nuanced, analytical methodological study but most individuals personally ‘researching’ seem to be satisfied with the information given by one contactee-supporting group or another.
In 30 years of active research, I found that the parties involved tend not to speak with each other or not to take each other seriously. There are subgroups who’s emotionally satisfying worldviews do not exactly match and thus tend to avoid each other.
Contactees tend to be jealous of each other and not to trust abductees. Abductees tend not to trust contactees and to think of them as ‘delusional’.
Researchers tend to divide themselves between those inclined to a ‘nuts and bolts’ materialist approach and those inclined to a spiritual-philosophical one. Moreover, recurrent expectations of a world-wide UFO disclosure (either from governments or from the UFO intelligence’s themselves) have always been intense and in many instances have also been confounded with Christian, messianic expectations.
Close-minded skeptics have a strong say that sways a significant portion of undecided public opinion easily. The media has traditionally used the phenomenon for ratings or entertainment and people that depend upon upholding a sober public image (like politicians, law enforcement, airline pilots, military officers, priests and scientists) normally prefer to avoid openly talking or writing about it.
In ‘our Universe’, the UFO field begs for an integral approach.
Over the decades I read many of the contactee books that were written since the 1940’s until today. I also befriended some contactees and participated in some of their groups as well. The sense of mission was high in each group but people didn’t analyze or compared what they had already accepted with information from other contactees and groups.
In some sense they were more open-minded and ‘integral’ than those that rejected the phenomenon and considered it ludicrous, but in other ways they were disappointing.
As in the New Age Movement, all sorts of details didn’t seem to match except for a general series of expectations. Now (after interviewing dozens of witnesses, alleged contactees, alleged abductees; after analyzing photos and exchanging information with other researchers) I understand that there is a genuine aspect to this phenomenon, which sometimes can be interactive (and even life-changing) but which is typically interpreted with very strong biases and, emotional filters. I know that most sightings are not genuine signs of otherworldly ET intelligence, but misperceptions.
Nevertheless, I also know that a small and persistent percentage of the sightings cannot – in all honesty – be explained away with a prosaic explanation. This percentage of cases seems to indicate that the physics involved distorts some of the elements used to interpret reality as we know it. The human mind feels like confronting a semi-real, dream-like event that intrudes either producing spiritual inspiration or fear.
Nevertheless, serious research groups (like the ad hoc French ‘COMETA’ assigned to research an alleged anomalous landing) have found enough objective evidence to merit scientific and governmental interest. 
The UFO phenomenon is elusive but recurrent and worldwide. Like paranormal phenomena, it cannot be replicated at will.
Potential implications continue to be enormous and research (as with the ‘paranormal’) has been principally advanced by well-intended (and not institutionally bound) individuals. Nevertheless, we could say that their efforts are not complemented by highly inclusive Meta paradigms or an integral approach: They are inspired by their preferences and tend to study the phenomenon in a segmented way.
This phenomenon is so complex that it deserves a more integral approach. I think that the time is ripe for more integral thinkers to approach this multifaceted area of inquiry as they might be capable to appreciate all of its aspects more carefully while maintaining an objective, yet spiritually inspired, ethical attitude. For instance, even if preferring the scientific method, an ‘integral’ researcher might not simply toss out information given by alleged contactees, abductees or channelers.
The chance for experiential verification would be given to everyone.
Nonetheless, he or she may appreciate the working of group phenomena and use knowledge acquired from sociological studies like Leon Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails or like Diana G. Tumminia’s When Prophecy Never Fails.