Nigel Watson's Picture Perfect Portraits of Alien Encounters

Watson’s classic work on high-strangeness cases is back in print with a slew of updates. We snag a few moments of his time to reflect on what has and hasn't changed with UFOlogy in the last 50 years.

Aug 08, 2025

We love UK UFOlogist Nigel Watson—and not just because he has the best British-sounding name in the game. After cutting his teeth in the 1970s investigating cases for the Merseyside UFO Bulletin and Northern UFO News, Watson went on to bless readers with five decades of sober analysis and editorials. A mainstay in UFO circles, he gives no quarter to theorists who believe that ETs are visiting earth from outer space: “I don’t think there are such things as flying saucers but we have had to invent them.” Nigel’s honesty has sparked minor controversy and disagreements with the UFO crowd, but we wouldn’t have it any other way. His tenacity has resulted in some of the sharpest commentary on the topic in the past 50 years.

Take his appraisal of the scene in 1977: “A look at the total picture of British Ufology clearly shows that it is nothing more than a disorganised rabble.”
Or this assessment of UFO conferences: “I have yet to attend a conference which has achieved anything … silly men with charts and projectors get rapt attention and serious speakers are almost completely ignored.”
And most definitely this unfiltered book review hot take: “To summarise: A nice picture book for believers who pray on their knees to von Daniken and swallow his extraterrestrial ejaculations.”

Watson is a gem. Lucky for us, he’s back with an updated edition of his first, self-published effort, Portraits of Alien Encounters Revisited—a work that landed on Fortean Times’ list of 100 Essential Fortean Books.

Portraits closely documents cases of everyday people whose lives were altered by an apparent UFO encounter. Watson interviews most of the witnesses firsthand to understand their personal situations and identify elements that might have influenced their interpretation of the event. According to his findings, “many ‘classic’ close encounter experiences are nothing more than illusions caused by the percipients expectations.” Watson’s goal is to understand the psychological and sociological triggers that drive such a phenomenon.

The reissue of Portraits provides updates to many of the original cases. Additional context is given to the chapter about close encounters and children, emphasizing incidents of high strangeness from the mouths of babes. In Watson’s estimation, kids “supply valid material equal to reports by adults,” no matter how bizarre their tales may sound. As an added bonus, some of Watson’s classic Magonia material has also been included.

To celebrate the re-release of Portraits, we lobbed a few questions at Mr. Watson to see if he still relishes ruining everyone’s UFO fun (in the best way possible). Turns out, he hasn’t lost a step.

THE OBSERVER: Thank you for agreeing to answer our inane questions, Nigel! Let’s start with an easy one: Why do you hate UFOs?

NIGEL WATSON: I hate UFOs because most people assume they are spaceships—or to use the new terminology, non-human or non- terrestrial—when literally more down- to-earth explanations are available.

TO: Are there any close encounter cases you believe genuinely happened as witnesses claim?

NW: No.

TO: Well, we’re off to a roaring start! In Portraits Revisited, you suggest that UFO experiences are subjective and likely influenced by pop culture or psychological triggers. Is that an accurate summary?

NW: Every witness in the book believes that their experiences are real and need to be understood. Most percipients wrestle with how to deal with their experiences, and in some cases, it can shatter their day-to-day existence, or it can enhance their life.
The flying saucer mythology provides an umbrella term that embraces all manner of paranormal phenomena. This mythology is legitimised by pop culture, whereas in the past or in other cultures, witnesses would interpret their experiences in terms of their religion or as something supernatural.
Each witness is different and we have to understand the context of their experiences along with the causes.

TO: There certainly seems to be an interpretive layer shading aspects of the phenomenon. Has your view of UFOs evolved over the years?

NW: I originally believed UFOs were ET spacecraft consisting of huge motherships carrying smaller scout craft for exploring our planet. When I began interviewing witnesses, I saw that many sightings were explainable as aircraft, satellites, kites, balloons and the like. Going on to interview high- strangeness witnesses, I realised that their experiences were more complex than just seeing a spaceship or aliens.
There is a subjective dimension to any sighting, even a light in the sky can trigger some people to believe they are being watched by aliens or that their locality is being scanned. Even if you tell the person they saw a fireball, lantern, drone, or satellite, they’ll likely deny that it was something so mundane. They want to keep the “wonder” alive. They think that as a UFOlogist you should believe them and not cross into dreary scepticism.

TO: Some UFOlogists would hypnotically regress a chair if they thought it was involved in an alien abduction, so we can see why experiencers might not expect to be greeted skeptically. Portraits treats witnesses fairly and reports their version of events verbatim. Why is this approach so important?

NW: I felt that we needed to get a more rounded picture of witnesses and the full spectrum of their paranormal experiences, rather than just their UFO experience in isolation. When a witness was asked if they had any other experiences, they would often say ‘yes.’
I wanted to feature these events in the witnesses’ own words and try to remain neutral. I think they were happy to speak to someone who would not ridicule them and allowed them to tell their story.

TO: How would you characterize UFOlogy today vs. the 1970s?

NW: The internet has completely changed UFOlogy. Before the millennium, every country produced a wide variety of UFO magazines that were mainly amateur productions for a relatively small readership. In the UK, most UFO groups published their own magazine or newsletter.
It was a thrill to get the latest Merseyside UFO Bulletin, Jenny Randles’ Northern UFO News, or the glossy Flying Saucer Review every three months or so (their production schedules could often be off-kilter).
Now, with a few rare exceptions, these magazines and the UFO groups have either disappeared or have gone online. Discussions about the latest UFO cases or theories would rumble on for months or even years, whilst today reactions are virtually instant.
In the olden days, UFOlogists used to write long letters to each other in exchanges that were very slow. People could discuss the subject in a more immediate fashion by joining a local group, and many of these groups investigated UFO sightings.
Today, there is a constant stream of UFO news, podcasts, and reports, plus lots of the old magazines are available online. That’s all good, but much of social media repeats old cases, theories, and discussions. For a newcomer, the amount of information can be overwhelming and bewildering.
To use a film analogy, UFOlogy today is Fast and Furious—in the past, it was more like the Love Bug.

TO: We agree—too many of the same podcasts are saying the same things about the same cases. Then again, when someone offers a fresh perspective, they find themselves ridiculed by the UFO herd.

Portraits Revisited was published as part of the Paranormal Perspectives series—can you tell us more about the relationship with the publisher, 6th Books?

NW: My original Portraits of Alien Encounters was self-published, and although the print run of 500 copies sold, it was not a commercial success. I did consider self-publishing on Amazon and other options, but the publisher of the Paranormal Perspectives book series has the intention to “...explore, in-depth, the encounters, theories, and research into incomprehensible events and how these experiences motivated remarkable individuals to delve deeper and share their extraordinary relation- ships of the paranormal with the world.” Portraits feels like a perfect fit.
I can recommend their Phantoms In The Night Or ETs? by Lorraine McAdam, and the blood curdling Harvest: The True Story of Alien Abduction by G. L. Davies.

Our priceless copy of the original *Portraits*. What a cover!

TO: Many witnesses in your book describe encounters with “robotic” entities. One reported a creature that “walked stiffly and seemed to have no knees. He couldn’t turn like us but had to swivel.” Another claimed a run-in with a 12-foot tall being that seemed to be “made of metal.” Why were people seeing mechanical monsters?

NW: Robots are solid “nuts and bolts” objects that take them out of the realm of ghostly spirits and into the realm of physical flying saucers. Paul mentions the claw-like scooping arms of the robot that seem pretty useless for any other activities, but it reflects the behaviour of our own robot probes to the Moon and Mars. Equally, many alien humanoids of that time frame were reported as being dressed in spacesuits to underline the idea they were visitors from a planet with a different environment than ours.

TO: Perhaps the type of “craft” reported today (tic tacs/eggs) tells us something about where we stand as a society. Going backwards again, 25 years ago you wrote: “If anyone predicts anything about UFOs it is almost certain to be proven wrong.” With that in mind, what do you predict for UFOlogy in the coming years?

NW: I predict there will be no disclosure as there is nothing to disclose. I’d like to think there will be a better understanding of the subject, but the UAP fantasies will no doubt persist until new generations find new terminologies for what we used to call flying saucers and little green men.

TO: You’re really sticking your neck out there with that prediction, Nigel! But we agree about the likelihood of “disclosure.” Who do you follow in UFOlogy today? Who do you avoid?

NW: I’m sceptical of most of the people hustling the US Congress and virtually everyone on UFO TV series like Ancient Aliens (it sends me to sleep—could it be aliens doing that to stop me understanding the truth?). Most of these shows have little room for alternative explanations. I suppose if they did, they would shoot themselves in the foot, and they’d have to find different stories to entertain us with. Where would all those gobsmacked UFO experts end up?
Fortunately, there are quite a lot of UFO researchers I respect. Robert Sheaffer’s “Bad UFOs” and Jason Colavito’s blogs are good, on-going sceptical responses to the latest UFO news. Tim Printy’s “Sunlite” e-newsletter for several years kept an informed look at classic as well as the latest reports, and John Rimmer’s “Magonia” website kept a sceptical eye on the subject. Martin Kottmeyer has extensively studied the impact of pop culture on our subject and Clas Svahn has done remarkable work to build-up the AFU archives.

TO: That’s a solid list! Since we’re naming names, who is your favorite UFO researcher of all time?

NW: My favourite is John Keel. His writings in Flying Saucer Review and publication of Operation Trojan Horse (available for purchase from Anomalist Books) showed there was more to UFOs than spaceships preparing to invade our planet. In retrospect, his concept of the superspectrum and ultraterrestrials reframed our concept of UFOs, but they were no more valid or backed up by physical evidence as the ETH. Nonetheless, he was an entertaining writer who provided us with new food for thought.

TO: Keel is hard to beat in both style and substance—let’s hope the spirit of Fortean investigators like Keel and yourself continues until someone cracks the code. Thank you for sharing your time and insights with us, Nigel. We wish you success with your latest release!

We encourage our readers to pick up a copy of the updated Portraits of Alien Encounters Revisited. Watson’s book sheds light on how belief, media, and psychology contribute to the modern UFO mythos. If his ruminations are correct—if belief in flying saucers and ETs are only a “psychological placebo”—then the strangers in our skies might not be from another planet. They may be reflections of ourselves.