The Manhattan Alien Abduction

So I watched The Manhattan Alien Abduction doco yesterday and really enjoyed it, had great production value and they showed a lot of old case footage which probably hasn't been shown before. I think it's more important now more than ever for us to archive old footage like that to ensure it wont be lost to time, especially footage of regression sessions, because a lot of the good stuff I have seen can no longer be found on the internet. I bet there's so much already lost to time.

Ultimately, I think Linda was telling the truth about being abducted, because her case fits the known patterns, and because there were so many witnesses, and her son seems very sincere about having experienced something as a child. However, I think Linda also embellished the story and outright fabricated events that never occurred, like being kidnapped by government agents. She just realized that she could keep getting attention and keep the story going, and keep Budd happy.

It's pretty clear to me Linda had a thing for Budd, and Budd clearly liked her, and Carol didn't seem to like that very much. Apparently Linda is now trying to sue Netflix because she thinks the doco is defamatory. I didn't really see it that way, if anything Carol comes off as being more unstable, even though she's supposed to be the skeptic. More importantly, having them both in the doco with opposing points of view is what makes it so dramatic and entertaining, plus it adds balance.

I also find it pretty amazing I hadn't heard of this case before now, considering I've seen hundreds of cases. Then again, I never really looked into the research of Budd Hopkins. However, I am a big fan of John Mack, and I believe Budd had a very similar interpretation of the abduction phenomena. They both concluded there was some sort of genetic engineering program which seemed to have a goal of creating human-alien hybrids, as did many other ufo and abduction researchers.

Mack had a fairly positive and spiritual outlook towards the abductors, he believed they wanted to help enlighten us, but Budd probably had a more skeptical and negative outlook, because he was seeing how much pain and trauma these beings would inflict. Personally I think Budd probably had a much more realistic and appropriate attitude on the subject, which is why I disliked how Carol tried to dismiss the work of Budd as rantings of a crazy man about a doomsday alien invasion.

I can see why that would upset Linda, but the doco does point out that we may one day see Budd as a pioneer in his field, because we are seeing a lot of new revelations and whistleblowers coming forward in recent times. There was one point in the doco where I think Linda described the abduction phenomena similar to the way humans go around placing tracking devices on wild animals so we can observe their behavior and study them, and that description just felt so right to me.

It's only a small fraction of people who are tracked, and no one else will believe them. Imagine a tracked animal trying to explain what had happened to it. It also seems like abductions have dramatically reduced, maybe all our cameras make it hard, or maybe they've just gotten better at hiding. There is an old conspiracy theory about the US government making a deal with an alien race, allowing them to abduct a certain amount of people in return for technology, and you have to wonder if that deal expired or was voided.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'm familiar with that case of Hobkins' and suppose it is one of his books in my library. I was active in ufology at that time and never placed much credence in parts of the story. As I recall, Hobkins didn't pursue the police involvement enough. --My memory may be wrong on that aspect. I don't see the perceived personality conflict as important except as added, if not created, drama by the producers.

It is apparent that there is collusion between the US government and the ETs. --Not like they had a choice. And it makes perfect sense. (That's why I have a label on my monitor: "Pawn of the Universe.")

Also, no doubt that the ETs track families. I've put on ATS more than once over my years here that my father, born in 1901, and his mother had, at least, a close encounter incident as they were walking home from a county fair in about 1910. In about 1950 he and a buddy had, at least, a nighttime close encounter experience as they were fishing one night. It terrorized them. I had a proven abduction experience in 1964 which I have also written about here. In 1991, my son and his GF had a horrific bedside abduction.

Poor John Mack, truly a lesson to others that venture beyond what your peers will accept into their dogma.

posted earlier
www.abovetopsecret.com...


closed

Sorry, wires crossed. Reopened.

My bad.

a reply to: CosmicFocus

Also, no doubt that the ETs track families.

They certainly seem to target certain family lines, which comes back to the idea of them tracking certain subjects for a specific reason, and that reason is strongly related to genetics. In recent times I have started to believe these beings aren't really from distant star systems, there are countless reasons to believe all these different humanoid species are actually coming from alternate universes or alternate points in time.

If there was some sort of deal made which allowed abductions to occur, I have a feeling those beings portrayed themselves to us as aliens from far away, offering us alien technology to solve all our problems. But when we started to realize the beings were not who they claimed to be, the deal may have been voided and those beings are now treated as a hostile species by our governments. Some species may want to help us, but others certainly don't care for us.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Ultimately, I think Linda was telling the truth about being abducted, because her case fits the known patterns, and because there were so many witnesses,

So many witnesses?

I only remember one witness mentioned by identifiable name in the documentary you mention, UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. That so-called witness does not affirm the incident happened as inferred by the documentary, to the contrary, he denies being a witness!

His alleged security officers, Richard and Dan, are anonymous as no last names are given, and according to this article there is no evidence they actually existed:

The True Story Behind Netflix’s ‘The Manhattan Alien Abduction’—What Happened To Linda Napolitano?

However, none of the witnesses was publicly identified or interviewed in Netflix’s documentary. In his book Witnessed: True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge Abduction, Hopkins used pseudonyms for all the witnesses. There is also no evidence that security officers Richard and Dan, who were allegedly stationed in a nearby car to guard then-UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, actually existed. This claim is complicated by their communication with Hopkins, which was solely through letters.

Cuéllar later refuted the suspicion that he was affiliated with the abduction.

It's unclear to me if the other alleged witnesses who appeared in the documentary were actual witnesses, or actors portraying claims from Hopkins' book of eyewitness accounts, but I don't recall seeing names like I did for the alleged UN witness, who denies being a witness.

It's only a small fraction of people who are tracked, and no one else will believe them.

Why would anybody believe the tracking claims? None of the alleged tracking devices look like tracking devices when removed. At least the podiatrist Roger Leir had some actual objects he removed from some people, that looked a lot like some objects that came out of my body, with the typical characteristics of the body reacting to foreign objects.

This case is even worse, because unlike with Dr Leir who had some actual objects he removed from people, where is the object from Linda's nose?

However, the object had allegedly disappeared when a specialist tried to remove it.

Are you freaking kidding me? That excuse sounds like it has the credibility of the "a dog ate my homework" excuse.

So, Linda is suing netflix because she thinks the documentary was not flattering to her. In my opinion, the documentary made her story seem potentially far more credible than it actually is, like not mentioning the damning part that her alleged nose implant allegedly "disappeared" when a specialist tried to remove it.

So from my view, the documentary was far more generous to Linda's tale than is warranted, she should be thankful they left those facts out because if they had included them, it would have destroyed her story. But she's suing Netflix anyway:

Why Is Linda Napolitano Suing Netflix?

Ahead of the Oct. 30 premiere of The Manhattan Alien Abduction, Napolitano sued Netflix, claiming that the project “defames her, paints her in an unflattering light and steals the work of an author who first wrote about her story more than 20 years ago,” Forbes reported.

The complaint alleges Netflix allowed Rainey to play a prominent part in the docuseries as an expert “skeptic” in the field when she was instead allegedly an “embittered, alcoholic ex-wife hell bent on revenge against her husband” who negatively portrayed both Hopkins and Napolitano.

Napolitano also said she agreed to have her story told by Netflix after she was promised only one interview with Rainey would be used and that the “true story of her abduction would finally be presented.” Instead, she felt blindsided by a screening of the series in September.

I didn't see any evidence there was more than one interview with Rainey made for the documentary, though it was split up into short parts so maybe that's why Linda thought it was more than one interview?

Near the end, the documentary talks about how Rainey came to feel like she had left one religious cult with her family, only to end up in a different religion, Budd Hopkin's religion. They even repeat what Hopkins said about feeling like he was in a religion, the alien abduction religion I guess. The common thread between those two and perhaps most if not all religions, is they don't like to have their beliefs questioned.

Everything needs to be questioned, it's the only path to the real truth, and Rainey couldnt' help asking questions about what was really true and what wasn't. What made Rainey's case interesting in the documentary, was all the films and videos she had made with Hopkin's subjects. Rainey's view was that most of Hopkins' subjects were really struggling when under hypnosis, and her films showed that, but then they showed Rainey's film of Linda when she was supposed to be under hypnosis, and her behavior was completely different than everybody else who was under hypnosis, so Rainey didn't think Linda was really under hypnosis, she was just pretending to be. I did find those contrasting films they showed a lot more compelling, than if Rainey had just claimed that without any evidence. That was one of the most interesting parts of the documentary to me. Anyway, even when people are under hypnosis, that method is in the scientific toilet as far as extracting reliable information goes, and it's even worse if the hypnotist asks the subject "leading questions" which Rainey said Hopkins was doing.

If this is really the best abduction case as the documentary said was alleged, than the rest must really be in the toilet, since this was quite disappointing and not convincing at all. At least Betty Hill convinced me she really thought she was abducted (even if she wasn't), but Linda Napolitano didn't even convince me she really thought she was abducted, partly because of the films in the documentary which seemed to support Rainey's claim that Linda was only pretending to be under hypnosis, as her behavior was entirely different than other subjects who actually were under hypnosis.

Total hoax for me. Money/fame/noteriety grab in my opinion The fake signatures of the UN Sec Gen and the totally made up "agents" sold it for me.
This lady is a kook. Bud was a charletan. Plain and simple