Netflix has a new three-part documentary about the 1989 "Manhattan Alien Abduction" of Linda Napolitano. (Originally the incident was known as "The Brooklyn Bridge Abduction," but that brought up connotations of swindlers who reportedly would try to sell naive immigrants the Brooklyn Bridge.) "A woman claims to have been abducted from her bedroom in Manhattan. This docuseries explores whether it was an elaborate hoax — or proof of alien life."
I was going to write a review saying something like this:
Here is a UFO documentary that is more honest than most of them. It examines the UFO abduction claims of Manhattan resident Linda Napolitano (who sometimes used the pseudonym "Cortile"). Her story is preposterous for many reasons, but famed UFO abductionist Budd Hopkins (1931-2011) was absolutely convinced it was genuine. This documentary series is better than most UFO-themed ones because it considers the evidence both for and against Linda's claims, even if it does lean somewhat toward accepting the bizarre claims as authentic.
But I put that idea out of my head when I saw that the star, Linda, is suing Netflix! Holy Moley! 'UFO abductions' have been out of fashion for a number of years now; they peaked in the 1990s and are seldom discussed seriously today. If anything, Linda owes Netflix a debt of gratitude for breathing new life into her practically moribund case.
 | ||
| Netflix shows Linda being levitated out her apartment window and into the UFO. | |
Budd Hopkins was a recognized leader among UFO abductionists, In June, 1992, an invitation-only "abduction study conference" was held at MIT, under the faculty sponsorship of physicist David E. Pritchard. I attended, along with a number of major UFOlogists: John Mack, David M. Jacobs, Bruce Maccabee, etc. The justification of the conference was, apparently, that those who "discover" supposed alien abductions using hypnosis had built up sufficient confidence that their collection of alien abduction evidence was now strong enough to convince the world. Even MIT!
So it was at this conference that Budd Hopkins first presented to the world what he called "the most important UFO abduction case that I've ever worked on." What is unique about the supposed abduction of Linda "Cortile" is the claim that it was independently witnessed by at least four other persons, including two detectives watching from the ground below. Supposedly they gazed in astonishment as the UFO, with Linda now on board, soared up above the rooftops of Manhattan, then plunged into the East River near the Brooklyn Bridge, on which it allegedly caused several automobiles to stall. Linda subsequently reported nose bleeds, and an X-ray seems to show an implant in her nose.
Budd Hopkins married Carol Rainey (1949-2023) in 1996. Carol was a documentary film maker specializing in science-related documentaries. (With the benefit of hindsight, that marriage was doomed from the start, as science and Budd Hopkins didn't mix).
 |
| A woman claims to have been abducted from her bedroom in Manhattan. This docuseries explores whether it was an elaborate hoax — or proof of alien life. |
As
Initially, Carol Rainey believed Linda Napolitano’s story and observed her husband, Budd Hopkins, as he guided Linda through hypnosis sessions to retrieve memories of her alleged alien abduction. However, over time, Carol’s doubts began to grow, and she increasingly questioned the validity of Linda’s account. She felt Linda’s story might be exaggerated and began scrutinizing the evidence more closely. Carol investigated witness accounts related to Linda’s experience but found them inconsistent and lacking in credibility. She also suspected that some of the letters Linda had provided as evidence were fabricated. This skepticism eventually extended to Budd’s approach, and Carol openly critiqued his investigative methods. She expressed concerns that Budd may have overlooked inconsistencies in Linda’s story, leading her to question his objectivity in documenting and publicizing the case. Her stance, which became increasingly vocal, led to tensions in their professional and personal relationship.
But it gets worse. Carol assisted Budd in editing his book about the case, Witnessed: The True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge Abduction (1997). This book is not generally available today, apart from a few very expensive used copies, but it can be read in the Internet Archive Library. It is 400 pages of a preposterous, meandering tale that anyone with half a brain will immediately recognize as fiction. As Carol wrote later,
It was highly dramatic, paced like a thriller— full of otherworldly treachery, forbidden love, UFOs over Manhattan, twenty-two witnesses, a heroine whose red blood cells were immortal, lusty and dangerous Secret Service agents, a Prince from afar, gifts of many fur coats, chases on foot, more forbidden love, an X-rayed alien implant, Linda’s abduction into a spacecraft accompanied by an important world leader, her abduction into a spacecraft with other members of Budd’s abductee support group, and her abduction into a spacecraft accompanied by a famous Mafia don. Then, later, as the story continued to unfold (long after the book’s publication), Linda’s presence in the lobby of the World Trade Center when the planes hit and her bloody, barefoot escape over shards of glass. Although…not all of those events reported above by Linda Cortile had been selected by Budd for inclusion in the book. I knew about them, but they weren’t in the book.
Worse yet, Hopkins "continued to tout the major significance of the case long after he knew that Linda had lied to him on multiple occasions," according to Rainey. Here is a good summary of the controversies surrounding this case.
Carol also wrote in that same piece:
Leslie Kean had begun her exploration of UFO abduction by allegedly vetting the Linda Cortile case (from Hopkins’ book Witnessed). After doing her own review of source material and interviewing both Budd and Linda, she concluded that it was a sound, well-researched case.
Kean soon became a disciple at the feet of Budd Hopkins.
As
the Dean of UFO Skeptics, Philip J. Klass, said to me (I wrote this
down to share with with Carol Rainey), "Every time I saw Budd
Hopkins he was surrounded by a group of beautiful abductee women. And
the 'Queen Bee' of them all was Linda Napolitano. If I were to switch
over to the 'other side,' maybe I could be surrounded by women the way
that he is." Klass has a long discussion of Levitated Linda's case in
his Skeptics' UFO Newsletter #22, July 1993, as well as in several other issues. My own observation, based on everything I have seen about this case: the erotic attraction between Budd and Linda was too obvious to ignore.
 |
| Budd and Carol |
"On Oct. 28, 2024, two days before the Netflix documentary’s planned release, Napolitano filed a complaint in New York against Netflix, as well as various individuals and production companies involved in the documentary, plus the estate of Carol Rainey.
Napolitano filed the complaint along with two other plaintiffs: Peter Robbins, a former colleague and friend of Hopkins, and the estate of Budd Hopkins. Robbins is also included in the documentary."
Having seen the many, many absurdities being promoted in this case, and
given that the pro-Linda side is given at least as much promotion and
respect as Carol's skepticism, on what grounds could Linda possibly sue
Netflix over this?
"According to the complaint, Napolitano and Rainey are falsely pitted against each other.
“(Napolitano) was not remotely close to be like or appear as the person that is on screen, never had any bone to pick with Carol Rainey,” the complaint reads, “but was set up as such a villain for purposes of controversy and conflict, all of which was a patently and deliberately false portrayal to support the false narrative of the truth.”
Napolitano’s attorney, Robert Young, told TODAY.com in a phone call on Oct. 30 that she and Robbins feel they were “egregiously deceived” by the documentary’s producers.
“They would have never entered into any production or description of what happened to Linda that was going to be questioned and subject to such denigration and aspersions against their good names and character,” he said. “They’re not happy.” "
If you can sue to stop the release of a documentary on the grounds that the parties portrayed in it are "not happy," then no documentaries on any controversial subject could ever be made!
Peter didn't mention the lawsuit. When I asked about it, he replied that as a litigant, he is not supposed to discuss the details of the case, which is true. He noted only that the lawsuit alleged unfair business practices, and would be heard next month in the Manhattan courtroom of the New York Supreme Court.
Some of this material was taken from my book UFO Sightings. Also see my 2011 Blog posting, Abductology Implodes.
