New book contends that Catch Me If You Can is mostly made up(whyy.org)
whyy.org
New book contends that Catch Me If You Can is mostly made up
https://whyy.org/segments/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/
143 comments
Pretty close to the original:
--- from the book --- "--this guy," Luckman was saying, manicuring a box full of grass, hunched over it as Arctor sat across from him, more or less watching, "appeared on TV claiming to be a world-famous impostor. He had posed at one time or another, he told the interviewer, as a great surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medical College, a theoretical submolecular highvelocity particle-research physicist on a federal grant at Harvard, as a Finnish novelist who'd won the Nobel Prize in literature, as a deposed president of Argentina married to--"
"And he got away with all that?" Arctor asked. "He never got caught?"
"The guy never posed as any of those. He never posed as anything but a worldfamous impostor. That came out later in the L.A. _Times_--they checked up. The guy pushed a broom at Disneyland, or had until he read this autobiography about this worldfamous impostor--there really was one--and he said, 'Hell, I can pose as all those exotic dudes and get away with it like he did,' and then he decided, 'Hell, why do that; I'll just pose as another impostor.' He made a lot of bread that way, the _Times_ said. Almost as much as the real world-famous impostor. And he said it was a lot easier." ---
One of my favorites from PKD. The movie was actually a really good representation of the book.
--- from the book --- "--this guy," Luckman was saying, manicuring a box full of grass, hunched over it as Arctor sat across from him, more or less watching, "appeared on TV claiming to be a world-famous impostor. He had posed at one time or another, he told the interviewer, as a great surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medical College, a theoretical submolecular highvelocity particle-research physicist on a federal grant at Harvard, as a Finnish novelist who'd won the Nobel Prize in literature, as a deposed president of Argentina married to--"
"And he got away with all that?" Arctor asked. "He never got caught?"
"The guy never posed as any of those. He never posed as anything but a worldfamous impostor. That came out later in the L.A. _Times_--they checked up. The guy pushed a broom at Disneyland, or had until he read this autobiography about this worldfamous impostor--there really was one--and he said, 'Hell, I can pose as all those exotic dudes and get away with it like he did,' and then he decided, 'Hell, why do that; I'll just pose as another impostor.' He made a lot of bread that way, the _Times_ said. Almost as much as the real world-famous impostor. And he said it was a lot easier." ---
One of my favorites from PKD. The movie was actually a really good representation of the book.
I was hoping they would take advantage of animation to make it so you couldn't tell Bob Arctor is really Fred at first, and they gradually look more and more like each other, until they are the same. In the book, it's not clear to the reader they are the same person at first (unless you have a paperback edition that gives it away on the back of the book!).... just as Bob himself (the viewpoint character) literally doesn't realize he's watching himself on the surveillance cameras. Because he's kind of going crazy.
I was disapointed they didn't bother with that. Except for that, I agree, a good adaptation of one of my favorite PKD books. It is such a weird book.
The quote about the imposter is funny cause Bob Arctor is an imposter himself...
I was disapointed they didn't bother with that. Except for that, I agree, a good adaptation of one of my favorite PKD books. It is such a weird book.
The quote about the imposter is funny cause Bob Arctor is an imposter himself...
But the first time Fred is introduced in chapter 2 it is clear that Bob Arctor is Fred. He's in the scramble suit at the Lion's club and He's introduced as Fred to the audience, but the Narrator calls him Bob Arctor:
> In his scramble suit, Fred, who was also Robert Arctor, groaned and thought: This is terrible.
> In his scramble suit, Fred, who was also Robert Arctor, groaned and thought: This is terrible.
Wow, I must have just been a dense reader when i read it the first time!
I like it better the way I read it even though it apparently wasn't written that way, ha!
There still is something to say maybe about how the book still tells different parts by describing the person as "Fred" or "Bob" depending on what role he's playing, something you lose in a movie that doesn't have textual narration like that. Maybe it at least made it more clear that Bob doesn't realize he's both people, even if the reader does? I forget how/how early this was clear in the movie. I should both read and watch it again!
I like it better the way I read it even though it apparently wasn't written that way, ha!
There still is something to say maybe about how the book still tells different parts by describing the person as "Fred" or "Bob" depending on what role he's playing, something you lose in a movie that doesn't have textual narration like that. Maybe it at least made it more clear that Bob doesn't realize he's both people, even if the reader does? I forget how/how early this was clear in the movie. I should both read and watch it again!
Sounds like a plot from Stanisław Lem's fictitious criticism of nonexistent books!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Lem%27s_fictiti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Literature_in_the_America...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Lem%27s_fictiti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Literature_in_the_America...
I don't remember - but looks like something similar is in the book:
https://books.google.no/books?id=EBAcBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT125&dq=Sc...
https://books.google.no/books?id=EBAcBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT125&dq=Sc...
If Abagnale is lying about his past should I feel scammed? The question feels very meta - like some Zen paradox.
There's something hilarious about a guy getting rich and famous for lying and tricking people for profit, when it turns out he got rich and famous by... lying and tricking people for profit in a different way? I mean, complaining about being taken advantage of sounds pretty silly, it's not like he didn't tell you he was a liar who tricked people for profit!
I'm highly suspicious that most of wolf of wall street was complete bullshit, that was fed as a true story.
The guy made loads of money from lying. Why would we trust him about some sort of crazy rich man's lifestyle story that almost perfectly stereotypes what a crazy evil wall street boiler room guy would do.
The guy made loads of money from lying. Why would we trust him about some sort of crazy rich man's lifestyle story that almost perfectly stereotypes what a crazy evil wall street boiler room guy would do.
The story, in fact, was mostly bullshit. It was being "narrated" by Belfort (DiCaprio) all along, and the mere presence of some very obviously outlandish/fickle claims serve to establish the unreliability and narcissism of the narration.
For example, at the start of the movie, he talks of driving a red Ferrari, and immediately changes it to white [1].
Another example is the 400lb bench press [2].
I also saw an interpretation on how Scorsese sought to present money and opulence as the ultimate salvation. So it only made sense to write the gospel in a way that extended that narrative. [3]
Edit: Formatting
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxZ99H5_1Z8
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/bvt20s/in_the...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxZ99H5_1Z8
For example, at the start of the movie, he talks of driving a red Ferrari, and immediately changes it to white [1].
Another example is the 400lb bench press [2].
I also saw an interpretation on how Scorsese sought to present money and opulence as the ultimate salvation. So it only made sense to write the gospel in a way that extended that narrative. [3]
Edit: Formatting
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxZ99H5_1Z8
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/bvt20s/in_the...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxZ99H5_1Z8
The third link you posted seems to be the same as the first?
Some of the scenes in the story were based in truth but were pulled from other Wall Street scandals. For example, the little person tossing depicted in the opening scene[1] did indeed happen[2] - at Fidelity. And the SEC took action.[3][4] The scandal is more or less responsible for the heavy gift and entertainment regulation in the mutual fund industry.
[1]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OxZ99H5_1Z8
[2]https://money.cnn.com/2005/11/04/news/newsmakers/fidelity_pa...
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/business/06fidelity.html
[4]https://www.reuters.com/article/fidelity-trader-idUSN0818028...
[1]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OxZ99H5_1Z8
[2]https://money.cnn.com/2005/11/04/news/newsmakers/fidelity_pa...
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/business/06fidelity.html
[4]https://www.reuters.com/article/fidelity-trader-idUSN0818028...
The movie box-officed $400M which alone probably exceeds how much Stratton Oakmont earned, let alone streaming, etc. Scorsese's whole thing is to sell you on some despicable figure, but really the movie is portraying a very glamorized version of Belfort's already extremely inflated version of reality - the fact that this guy was played by DiCaprio is already a big departure into fantasy-land.
I knew is was BS because I used to trade penny stocks and the volume was too tiny and illiquid, especially in the 80s, to actually make as much money as these guys were claiming.
Similar to many famous "how to get rich" advisors.
Which is why cryptocurrency shills are so unpopular here.
If their get-rich-quick pump-and-dump schemes actually worked, they'd have a lot better things to do with their time than evangelize Bitcoin and Ethereum and ICOs and NFTs in online forums.
If their get-rich-quick pump-and-dump schemes actually worked, they'd have a lot better things to do with their time than evangelize Bitcoin and Ethereum and ICOs and NFTs in online forums.
I don't know. I wish I fell for their scam back in 2009/2010 when they were flooding HN with bitcoin posts. There were so many it seemed coordinated.
Sure. However if you were to fall for that. Who knows what else you’d fall for? What if you then staked all your immense profits on Nikola, with leverage. Lose most of it. 5x your initial amount with dogecoin only to lose 90% of it again with some other peddling stuff. All while spending your time believing all the BS every one is saying.
I guess this is for my self too. My thinking is I’d be a wildly different person if I not only fell for shills peddling stuff and “successful experts” selling courses. On top of that, keeping the money in risky investments is a whole other thing. Like staking a big stake of money in Bitcoin or Eth for the past 5+ years without cashing out. Or still having tons of money in dogecoin without cashing out.
Of course I too wish I made tons of easy money. The fact that a friend bought into dogecoin a month ago and I didn’t. Means I’m never going to do this sort of stuff. Same friend/acquaintance wants me to buy into dogecoin during the next dip. Which to him is dropping ~15%. He wants me to buy in at 45+ cents. It’s at 55 cents right now after rising like 40% or something in a couple of days. He’s probably going to max out his credit cards to buy more dogecoin before Elon Musk’s SNL appearance.
I am very tempted to buy in to dogecoin as well just for the hype of him. Sell before he actually presents. We’ll see.
I guess this is for my self too. My thinking is I’d be a wildly different person if I not only fell for shills peddling stuff and “successful experts” selling courses. On top of that, keeping the money in risky investments is a whole other thing. Like staking a big stake of money in Bitcoin or Eth for the past 5+ years without cashing out. Or still having tons of money in dogecoin without cashing out.
Of course I too wish I made tons of easy money. The fact that a friend bought into dogecoin a month ago and I didn’t. Means I’m never going to do this sort of stuff. Same friend/acquaintance wants me to buy into dogecoin during the next dip. Which to him is dropping ~15%. He wants me to buy in at 45+ cents. It’s at 55 cents right now after rising like 40% or something in a couple of days. He’s probably going to max out his credit cards to buy more dogecoin before Elon Musk’s SNL appearance.
I am very tempted to buy in to dogecoin as well just for the hype of him. Sell before he actually presents. We’ll see.
Get rich advisors, life style coaches, dating coaches.
I don't really have respect for people who haven't actually accomplished anything aside from a grift. I do read books like Principals by Ray Dalio or I Love Capitalism! by Ken Langone.
I don't really have respect for people who haven't actually accomplished anything aside from a grift. I do read books like Principals by Ray Dalio or I Love Capitalism! by Ken Langone.
>I Love Capitalism! by Ken Langone.
more like I love Survisorship Bias
more like I love Survisorship Bias
Getting rich quickly is clearly a fantasy, but what's odd about life or dating coaching? Seems unlikely that someone who does dating coaching would never have had successful dates and wouldn't know what they're talking about?
The most successful lifestyle/dating coach Mark Manson often glosses over him being born into wealth.
It's very easy to Not Give a F** when you've always had rich parents to support you. As if your known to come from money you'll have no shortage of people who want to get to know you.
It's all trash anyway. The only thing that fixed my dating life was dropping 70 pounds in my 20s. Also fixed my blood sugar! Without the chronic back pain I'm happier too.
This was very hard though and took 6 months or so. I doubt ' Fix your life in 6 to 12 months by making hard choices ' would sell all that well. These books offer quick fixes which aren't practical.
It's very easy to Not Give a F** when you've always had rich parents to support you. As if your known to come from money you'll have no shortage of people who want to get to know you.
It's all trash anyway. The only thing that fixed my dating life was dropping 70 pounds in my 20s. Also fixed my blood sugar! Without the chronic back pain I'm happier too.
This was very hard though and took 6 months or so. I doubt ' Fix your life in 6 to 12 months by making hard choices ' would sell all that well. These books offer quick fixes which aren't practical.
> The most successful lifestyle/dating coach Mark Manson often glosses over him being born into wealth.
The best trick he pulled with "Models" is selling it as a book about dating, when it's really just about developing self-respect.
I didn't know he was wealthy, but his stories aren't all that removed from your average white college guy in the 2000s. The advice he offers isn't dependent on your income. It's not like "4 hour work week" where the secret was just to pay people to take care of basic tasks and free up your time.
The best trick he pulled with "Models" is selling it as a book about dating, when it's really just about developing self-respect.
I didn't know he was wealthy, but his stories aren't all that removed from your average white college guy in the 2000s. The advice he offers isn't dependent on your income. It's not like "4 hour work week" where the secret was just to pay people to take care of basic tasks and free up your time.
In Art of Not giving a F** he quits the one real job he's ever had after 6 weeks.
That's only possible if you are born into money. Even then he avoids giving out concrete advice. If I'm going to spend 20$ on a book I might as well read one by a billionaire.
That's only possible if you are born into money. Even then he avoids giving out concrete advice. If I'm going to spend 20$ on a book I might as well read one by a billionaire.
The choice is of course up to you.
I haven't read "Art of not..." because it came off as one of those books cashing in on "stoicism for bros". As I understand it, that's the book that made him truly famous.
My original comment refers only to what he wrote in "Models", which was written several years earlier. I would much sooner read a book about dating from a relatively average looking, average seeming guy than somebody who never had problems dating to begin with.
I haven't read "Art of not..." because it came off as one of those books cashing in on "stoicism for bros". As I understand it, that's the book that made him truly famous.
My original comment refers only to what he wrote in "Models", which was written several years earlier. I would much sooner read a book about dating from a relatively average looking, average seeming guy than somebody who never had problems dating to begin with.
Well you can certainly call the 4 hour work week overhyped (it was also largely a marketing exercise by Tim Ferris), though I guess back in the 2000s when the book was first published, hiring helpers was something that many in developed countries hadn't considered but was perfectly viable (if you're willing to live such a lifestyle), so it's also not like the info was complete garbage/only applicable to rich people.
A lot of this type of advice boils down to taking something simple but hard and trying to make it easy but complicated.
Weight loss would be another example. Everybody knows that you should eat less and exercise more, but those things are hard to improve at, so instead many people gravitate to gimmicky fad diets that won't work but are much easier to try.
Weight loss would be another example. Everybody knows that you should eat less and exercise more, but those things are hard to improve at, so instead many people gravitate to gimmicky fad diets that won't work but are much easier to try.
> I doubt ' Fix your life in 6 to 12 months by making hard choices ' would sell all that well. These books offer quick fixes which aren't practical.
I'd question this. It's my impression that this is currently the last self help hype - at least it was two years or so ago.
The gospel is that you have punish and torture yourself to accomplish something. You have to "leave the comfort zone" but in a particularly strenuous, masochistic fashion. The pain is then a signal interpreted as being on the right path.
I'd question this. It's my impression that this is currently the last self help hype - at least it was two years or so ago.
The gospel is that you have punish and torture yourself to accomplish something. You have to "leave the comfort zone" but in a particularly strenuous, masochistic fashion. The pain is then a signal interpreted as being on the right path.
Maybe I'm just a bit narrow in my worldview, but something about that sounds very distinctly Christian to me.
What's odd about life and dating coaching is it usually ends up in an unqualified person practicing psychological counseling.
I think “dating coaching” is usually a term used akin to “pick-up artist” i.e. using manipulative tricks to convince people to have sex with you.
I don’t think having there’s anything wrong with having some sort of social interaction coach or the equivalent to help learn what the social norms around dating are. Although not usually for dating, that is a form of therapy that can be helpful for people on the autism spectrum who may have trouble understanding the social cues on their own.
I don’t think having there’s anything wrong with having some sort of social interaction coach or the equivalent to help learn what the social norms around dating are. Although not usually for dating, that is a form of therapy that can be helpful for people on the autism spectrum who may have trouble understanding the social cues on their own.
[deleted]
>> I don’t think having there’s anything wrong with having some sort of social interaction coach or the equivalent to help learn what the social norms around dating are.
If you're looking for something long term why seek advice from someone that's chronically single but an expert at "dating". And if someone has been married a long time, they probably don't know anything about the current "dating scene". But if you just want to learn to hook up with lots of people then maybe they have something to teach you.
If you're looking for something long term why seek advice from someone that's chronically single but an expert at "dating". And if someone has been married a long time, they probably don't know anything about the current "dating scene". But if you just want to learn to hook up with lots of people then maybe they have something to teach you.
They aren’t selling you dating tips, they are selling you a guide to have confidence. Part of making headway into a problem where someone has low confidence is building them up (in whatever way) to be less fearful.
If you are deathly afraid of rejection, we pretty much have to hide a pill inside a donut so to speak, where one must be convinced the girl/guy across the table is no big deal.
It’s a necessary evil sadly for people that suffer from chronic insecurity.
Many of the consumers in the "dating coach" industry begin from a situation where they are not meeting any women at all. Now, regardless if you are looking for short-term or long-term relationships, the first step is actually meeting new women. If a dating coach can help someone do that, great. If you don't meet any women, you won't magically stumble into a long-tetm relationship.
That sounds partial. What prevents somebody who is still relatively young and understands the current norms, and who might even have struggled through it themselves and learned their lessons, from giving out advice? AFAIK there was a book from an Asperger guy that got 1000+ upvotes here not long ago: https://www.danielwendler.com/
If your objection is that you are looking for a long-term relationship instead of pick-up skills, and you are not satisfied with the replies that state the supposed confidence boost from learning pick-up dynamics, there are also plenty of resources exclusively focusing on finding and maintaining long-term relationships, such as the one above.
If your objection is that you are looking for a long-term relationship instead of pick-up skills, and you are not satisfied with the replies that state the supposed confidence boost from learning pick-up dynamics, there are also plenty of resources exclusively focusing on finding and maintaining long-term relationships, such as the one above.
> why seek advice from someone that's chronically single but an expert at "dating". And if someone has been married a long time, they probably don't know anything about the current "dating scene"
Why seek advice on diabetes from a doctor who isn't diabetic?
Bizarre objection to make.
Why seek advice on diabetes from a doctor who isn't diabetic?
Bizarre objection to make.
Con man turns out to be con man.
Granted the con isn't as glamorous at it was made out to be, but still a pretty effective con.
Granted the con isn't as glamorous at it was made out to be, but still a pretty effective con.
Even better, the actual con may not be illegal in any way? Not sure. Depending on nature of any contracts he signed, perhaps a contract violation with civil liability? Big reward small risk, compared to what he had claimed to do!
I mean, he still probably forged checks, no?
Exactly my reaction, except I would have phrased it as, "Wow, that's awesome! So you just acted confident and people believed whatever you said? But ... this story is real, right?"
Reminds me a bit of Clifford Irving -- an author who wrote about art forgers -- and then later tried to pass a work of complete fiction as a genuine autobiography of Howard Hughes.
There was a movie about him too: The Hoax, with Richard Gere as Irving.
And the Orson Welles masterpiece F for Fake.
world famous imposter turns out to be world famous imposter
the next level is getting rich by selling books how to get rich.
actually, this niche is already quite full.
actually, this niche is already quite full.
Frank Abnagale's Comments on the movie and book (2002) [0]. I don't know if his story is true or not. But regardless of his story, his talk at Google is one of the best ones I've heard [1].
> I was interviewed by the co-writer only about four times. I believe he did a great job of telling the story, but he also over dramatized and exaggerated some of the story. That was his style and what the editor wanted. He always reminded me that he was just telling a story and not writing my biography. This is one of the reasons that from the very beginning, I insisted the publisher put a disclaimer in the book and tapes.
[0] https://www.abagnale.com/comments.htm
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsMydMDi3rI
> I was interviewed by the co-writer only about four times. I believe he did a great job of telling the story, but he also over dramatized and exaggerated some of the story. That was his style and what the editor wanted. He always reminded me that he was just telling a story and not writing my biography. This is one of the reasons that from the very beginning, I insisted the publisher put a disclaimer in the book and tapes.
[0] https://www.abagnale.com/comments.htm
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsMydMDi3rI
I read the book when I was younger and later watched the Google talk. I remember thinking as I watched the talk that things just didn't add up. A simple search online could not verify that he had ever worked with the FBI. His answers in the Q&A seemed shallow. He admitted elsewhere that his book is lacking verisimilitude. I was left with the strong feeling that, "He's probably still just pulling a con!"
They reference this talk in the article. I also used to think it was an amazing talk...too bad it's almost entirely fiction.
Catch Me if You Can is still a great movie, even if Abagnale lied about the whole thing. I mean, "inspired by a true story" or "based on a true story" movies already deviate pretty severely from history in many cases.
Here's a question though: did the writers feel they had to stick somewhat close to the "truth?" Did it cause them to make some choices they might not have if they were writing about a totally fictitious conman? And, if indeed those things happened, would the movie have been even better if they had total freedom? Or did the movie thrive in part due to its constraints? All unanswerables of course but an interesting train of thought. Reminds me of how the first three Star Wars films are the best despite their limited budget and Lucas' relatively constrained freedom of direction.
Here's a question though: did the writers feel they had to stick somewhat close to the "truth?" Did it cause them to make some choices they might not have if they were writing about a totally fictitious conman? And, if indeed those things happened, would the movie have been even better if they had total freedom? Or did the movie thrive in part due to its constraints? All unanswerables of course but an interesting train of thought. Reminds me of how the first three Star Wars films are the best despite their limited budget and Lucas' relatively constrained freedom of direction.
> Catch Me if You Can is still a great movie, even if Abagnale lied about the whole thing. I mean, "inspired by a true story" or "based on a true story" movies already deviate pretty severely from history in many cases.
I think this crosses a line. It's not a matter of reordering events or combining characters or even inventing small events to drive home a conceptual point. All of those are fairly accepted in the memoir and historical drama genres as changes which seek to clarify. Essentially, it's ok to misrepresent the facts of the truth if it's helping communicate the spirit of the truth.
If what this author is alleging is true, then whole aspects of Abengale's story and ethos are totally fabricated. For example, a big part of Abengale's story is how he used his abilities as an autodidact to outwit the heavy handed systems of professional credentialism (becoming a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer). Once having pulled the wool over the eyes of the elite, he fleaced these wealthy suckers for no more than they could afford.
In reality, he may have simply been a stalker, who leveraged people's kindness to steal considerable amounts of their small nest egg. That's a pretty different story. Because it fundamentally changes Abengale's relationship to his victims. What he is doing goes from being bold and clever and reckless to being predatory and petty and cruel.
I think this crosses a line. It's not a matter of reordering events or combining characters or even inventing small events to drive home a conceptual point. All of those are fairly accepted in the memoir and historical drama genres as changes which seek to clarify. Essentially, it's ok to misrepresent the facts of the truth if it's helping communicate the spirit of the truth.
If what this author is alleging is true, then whole aspects of Abengale's story and ethos are totally fabricated. For example, a big part of Abengale's story is how he used his abilities as an autodidact to outwit the heavy handed systems of professional credentialism (becoming a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer). Once having pulled the wool over the eyes of the elite, he fleaced these wealthy suckers for no more than they could afford.
In reality, he may have simply been a stalker, who leveraged people's kindness to steal considerable amounts of their small nest egg. That's a pretty different story. Because it fundamentally changes Abengale's relationship to his victims. What he is doing goes from being bold and clever and reckless to being predatory and petty and cruel.
I think this is a central problem with trying to tell a con man’s story. There’s nothing particularly bold left over when you consider they always leave victims behind. It seems predatory and cruel because it is!
IMHO "based on a true story" applies also if you're sticking to literally true facts but intentionally omitting other facts and misrepresenting in order to get an entirely opposite impression. I mean, you're twisting the story, but it's definitely still based on that story; and only facts can be true or false, but the interpretation, ethos and "spirit of the truth" is essentially arbitrary; you may consider that the facts drive home a particular conceptual point, but everyone is free to try and use them to drive home an entirely opposing conceptual point. It's a lie if the facts are not literally true, but representation and alternate interpretations of them is permissible even in nonfiction, and absolutely fair game in fiction.
>"inspired by a true story" or "based on a true story" movies already deviate pretty severely from history in many cases.
The only twist in this case may be that it's the conman making everything up rather than the movie producer / writer / director. "Based on a true story" almost always means, "totally made up, but doesn't contain any scifi or magic, unless it's about an exorcism."
The only twist in this case may be that it's the conman making everything up rather than the movie producer / writer / director. "Based on a true story" almost always means, "totally made up, but doesn't contain any scifi or magic, unless it's about an exorcism."
There’s an order to it:
“Based on a true story”: loosely based on a book
“Based on true events”: loosely based on some news articles
“Inspired by true events”: The writer heard your story and thought of a more interesting one
“Based on a true story”: loosely based on a book
“Based on true events”: loosely based on some news articles
“Inspired by true events”: The writer heard your story and thought of a more interesting one
Hidalgo was another “based on a true story” that wasn’t true
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/03/is-hidalgo-reall...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/03/is-hidalgo-reall...
Hidalgo was truly a story Hopkins told and the movie was based on that.
Seriously though, I think that movie was what really broke the "based on a true story" thing for me. There's no real criteria for claiming something is based on a true story, you only need a tenuous grasp to reality.
Basically, you can make the claim that Avengers Endgame is just as much based on a true story as Hidalgo if you wanted to.
Seriously though, I think that movie was what really broke the "based on a true story" thing for me. There's no real criteria for claiming something is based on a true story, you only need a tenuous grasp to reality.
Basically, you can make the claim that Avengers Endgame is just as much based on a true story as Hidalgo if you wanted to.
[deleted]
"Inspired by the real world": The writer has heard some stories and made up another interesting one. That is definitely the weakest one, and the default that doesn't need to be stated usually.
"truly based on a story": strictly based on a story somebody else made up
Fargo is accurate. They said so.
From the article it doesn’t really sound like the story had any basis in truth at all. The movie was simply “based on a story” or “inspired by a story”.
I didn't enjoy the movie because it was true, I enjoyed it because it was executed well and John Williams wrote the score. It could be entirely fictional and still be just as good a movie.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is in the same category. I don't really care if any of it was true, they're both phenomenal flicks.
Don't you believe that Chuck Barris, host of the Gong Show, secretly worked as an assassin for the CIA??!
Next you're going to tell me that The Unknown Comic wasn't really unknown, and his name was actually Murray Langston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unknown_Comic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BBZVQ4zBcU&ab_channel=RBArc...
Next you're going to tell me that The Unknown Comic wasn't really unknown, and his name was actually Murray Langston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unknown_Comic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BBZVQ4zBcU&ab_channel=RBArc...
The problem is the film is based on fictional events that never happened. So there no true part in it because the base was a lie.
"...despite their limited budget and Lucas' relatively constrained freedom of direction..."
Despite or because of?
Despite or because of?
Right. They were the people who investigated the story first. And they didn’t catch the lie? Maybe they were in on it too.
Where world is going? You can't even trust a conman anymore.
If a conman told me they were swindling me, I wouldn't believe them.
Abagnale says himself that "Catch Me If You Can" is mostly fiction:
> I was interviewed by the co-writer only about four times. I believe he did a great job of telling the story, but he also over dramatized and exaggerated some of the story. That was his style and what the editor wanted.
ETA: It's not like the version on his website is likely true either, just saying that questions about the veracity of the story have been around for a very long time and have been strong enough that he's backed away from a lot of the claims in the book.
https://www.abagnale.com/comments.htm
> I was interviewed by the co-writer only about four times. I believe he did a great job of telling the story, but he also over dramatized and exaggerated some of the story. That was his style and what the editor wanted.
ETA: It's not like the version on his website is likely true either, just saying that questions about the veracity of the story have been around for a very long time and have been strong enough that he's backed away from a lot of the claims in the book.
https://www.abagnale.com/comments.htm
I don't think those cases are very exhonerating. When asked to comment on what is or isn't true Abengale has cited mundane facts like the number of siblings he has. He has done much to imply the more fanciful stories are indeed based in some truth which this author does an excellent job of using documents to disprove.
In fact, most of the more extraordinary episodes in the film such as him passing bar or running a hospital come directly from his book which is supposedly an autobiography.
In fact, most of the more extraordinary episodes in the film such as him passing bar or running a hospital come directly from his book which is supposedly an autobiography.
[deleted]
Yes, the article states that as early as 1978 an article in the SF Chronicle debunked many of his claims.
That's OK because I assume that's the case for all movies "based on a true story". Take any biopic you want, it's mostly a bunch of mythology sprinkled with meme references about the person, if any.
Say this was especially egregious in the Steve Jobs biopic, which had almost nothing to do with reality, except being a "best hits" of various memes spread about the man throughout the years, combined with copious amount of Sorkinisms.
Say this was especially egregious in the Steve Jobs biopic, which had almost nothing to do with reality, except being a "best hits" of various memes spread about the man throughout the years, combined with copious amount of Sorkinisms.
Another great example is Bohemian Rhapsody, which seems to bearly have any true content. Pitch Meetings [1] (not exactly a serious review but very enjoyable) describes the film as recreations of some Queen performances with lies sprinkled in between.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RajlWbY7uQ
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RajlWbY7uQ
As a Queen fan myself I think the movie was just a way for Brian May and Roger Taylor to cash on Freddie's legacy.
It's full of wrong facts and misplaced events (most famous is the HIV positivity disclosed before Live Aid (1985), Freddie discovered his positivity in 1987) and John Deacon role was taken to the minimum level.
They won 5 oscars.
It's full of wrong facts and misplaced events (most famous is the HIV positivity disclosed before Live Aid (1985), Freddie discovered his positivity in 1987) and John Deacon role was taken to the minimum level.
They won 5 oscars.
The thing is I'm sure the story of Queen would've been interesting enough without slightly exaggerated things like dramatizing how they came up with We Will Rock You in the space of about 20 seconds. We came out of the cinema chuckling and were dumbfounded when it got awards.
Ford v Ferrari comes to mind too. Great movie, kinda sorta got the events right, but forgot lots of people, assigned credit to other people than those actually responsible, and added a ton of drama crap.
Examples:
the Holman-moody team came up with the “hot swap” suspension thing, not the Shelby team.
Leo Beebe didn’t try to fuck Ken miles.
Ken miles wasn’t killed by brake failure, he was killed with the Jcar test mule lost the rear body work at high speed.
Lots more, but I don’t want to type it all out.
Examples:
the Holman-moody team came up with the “hot swap” suspension thing, not the Shelby team.
Leo Beebe didn’t try to fuck Ken miles.
Ken miles wasn’t killed by brake failure, he was killed with the Jcar test mule lost the rear body work at high speed.
Lots more, but I don’t want to type it all out.
Ken was represented as being a lot more hot headed and irreverent than he was in reality as well.
i liked the movie, but i don't know anything about the actual history, and would like to learn about it. does the book 'go like hell' have the events right? or do you know of any other good books or articles that tell the story?
So I’ve learned all sorts of things, readings bits and pieces over the years. Mark donohue’s unfair advantage has a chapter on the Ford gt program and his involvement. Has some detail about Walt hansgen and some technical details.
Other stuff I’ve just accumulated over the years ,don’t think anyone has written a complete history of the program.
What PISSES me off, is that in HS I lived within bike distance of gurney’s AAR and had no idea. My dad should have known, but didn’t bother to tell me. Also, within driving distance of Carroll smith’s residence.
I wanted nothing more than to be a race car engineer at the time.
Other stuff I’ve just accumulated over the years ,don’t think anyone has written a complete history of the program.
What PISSES me off, is that in HS I lived within bike distance of gurney’s AAR and had no idea. My dad should have known, but didn’t bother to tell me. Also, within driving distance of Carroll smith’s residence.
I wanted nothing more than to be a race car engineer at the time.
It's not just mythology - sometimes it is used to defame and erase people.
Recently I watched the Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line (2005). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358273
It was entirely by chance that almost immediately after that I saw the story of his first wife, Vivian Dorraine Liberto, in My Darling Vivian (2020), https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7432980
Watching these two films back to back is informative. The end bits of the last film featuring the celebratory gathering of Hollywood personas was specially galling, in context of the counter-narrative.
There is this 'machine' that has perfected the art of deception and perception management and preys upon our inherent human psychological susceptibilities. Even cynics like me are susceptible. The only effective antidote seems to be to turn the tools and means of the machine against its products, or to avoid its products entirely.
Recently I watched the Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line (2005). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358273
It was entirely by chance that almost immediately after that I saw the story of his first wife, Vivian Dorraine Liberto, in My Darling Vivian (2020), https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7432980
Watching these two films back to back is informative. The end bits of the last film featuring the celebratory gathering of Hollywood personas was specially galling, in context of the counter-narrative.
There is this 'machine' that has perfected the art of deception and perception management and preys upon our inherent human psychological susceptibilities. Even cynics like me are susceptible. The only effective antidote seems to be to turn the tools and means of the machine against its products, or to avoid its products entirely.
The article is ambiguous, perhaps because the debunker didn't read the memoir(?!), but it's not clear where the original memoir survives the debunking. This is an important unsettled point.
Abnagale has stated (linked elsewhere in the thread) that this is all based on his story but not a biography. It's not a memoir.
I think the movie title is only mentioned so readers know what he is writing about. The article is about how Abagnale claims are bogus. He only conned his readers and listeners.
I would have thought that the claim that Frank Abagnale passed the bar exam would be easy to check -- there have to be records about those, right?
Yes. The author contacted the actual Louisiana attorney general with whom Abagnale claimed to have worked. The AG said Abagnale never worked there. The author also dug up the records of the bad checks Abagnale wrote against the airlines. He was a clever forger, and the airlines went after him, but the total bad checks came to only around $1200. And Abagnale was busted by a small town cop after passing one of those checks. The FBI didn't even have him on their radar.
All his exploits were small-time cons, and he often got caught. The author does a really good job of documenting all this with primary sources (arrest and prison records, etc.), secondary sources (news articles from the 1970s) and with interviews with people who were actually with Abagnale during some of the supposed exploits in the 60s and 70s.
Overall, it's good, thorough journalism. I wrote a brief review at https://adiamond.me/2021/03/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth-alan-..., but the WHYY review is more thorough.
And, BTW, I loved the movie. As author Logan points out, one reason con men can con is because people would much rather believe an exciting romantic story than a mundane and disappointing one.
All his exploits were small-time cons, and he often got caught. The author does a really good job of documenting all this with primary sources (arrest and prison records, etc.), secondary sources (news articles from the 1970s) and with interviews with people who were actually with Abagnale during some of the supposed exploits in the 60s and 70s.
Overall, it's good, thorough journalism. I wrote a brief review at https://adiamond.me/2021/03/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth-alan-..., but the WHYY review is more thorough.
And, BTW, I loved the movie. As author Logan points out, one reason con men can con is because people would much rather believe an exciting romantic story than a mundane and disappointing one.
>people would much rather believe an exciting romantic story than a mundane and disappointing one.
The central premise of The Life of Pi
The central premise of The Life of Pi
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but this is one of the few films that due to a few small cuts and tweaks, is so much better than the book it makes it not worth reading.
Which, by the way, has a plagiarized premise from an older book
If you are interested in a real imposter who succeeded multiple times in working as a physician without any training at all and who was nearly made a professor, look at Gert Postel [0]. If you understand German, there is also a great documentary about him on YouTube [1].
A former postal employee, he named himself "Dr. med. Dr. phil. Clemens Bartholdy" and first worked as a public health officer in Flensburg.
> When asked about his dissertation's subject, he reportedly replied "On pseudologia phantastica [with regard to] the example of the character Felix Krull from the homonymous novel by Thomas Mann and cognitively induced distortions in stereotypical judgment".
Later, he worked as a surgeon major in the German armed forced, and several years as a senior physician in a psychiatric hospital, also giving lectures.
> By chance, a co-worker recognised him on July 10, 1997, forcing him to go into hiding. At that time, an appointment was already set for an interview with Hans Geisler, then Saxony's Minister of State for social affairs, health and family, on the occasion of Postel's appointment to a professorship and to the position of chief of medicine at Saxony's hospital for psychiatry and neurology at Arnsdorf near Dresden.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gert_Postel
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2JqKLpEa4A
A former postal employee, he named himself "Dr. med. Dr. phil. Clemens Bartholdy" and first worked as a public health officer in Flensburg.
> When asked about his dissertation's subject, he reportedly replied "On pseudologia phantastica [with regard to] the example of the character Felix Krull from the homonymous novel by Thomas Mann and cognitively induced distortions in stereotypical judgment".
Later, he worked as a surgeon major in the German armed forced, and several years as a senior physician in a psychiatric hospital, also giving lectures.
> By chance, a co-worker recognised him on July 10, 1997, forcing him to go into hiding. At that time, an appointment was already set for an interview with Hans Geisler, then Saxony's Minister of State for social affairs, health and family, on the occasion of Postel's appointment to a professorship and to the position of chief of medicine at Saxony's hospital for psychiatry and neurology at Arnsdorf near Dresden.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gert_Postel
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2JqKLpEa4A
The article's tone is way stronger than "suggests". There are multiple quotes from people flat-out saying the whole mythology of Abagnale is fictitious.
Reminds me of that film, The Iceman about the self-proclaimed hitman Richard Kuklinski. Claims to have killed between 100 and 200 people. Been the subject of many documentaries and research into psychopathy. I heavily suspect he's just a small-time crook who had a fight/dispute with his partners in crime, went to jail for their murder, and then spun a yarn about being a big-time mafia contract killer. Why? Perhaps to boslter his reputation in prison, maybe to get money for his family, maybe just for kicks.
> “I remember just having this nagging feeling and that something just wasn’t quite right about [the movie ‘Catch Me If You Can’],” Logan said. “And that was that.”
A reasonable perspective to have about every dramatized based-on-a-true-story blockbuster, you'd think.
A reasonable perspective to have about every dramatized based-on-a-true-story blockbuster, you'd think.
Reminds me of Woody Harrelson's character from A Scanner Darkly (paraphrased): "He didn't actually impersonate anyone, he just posed as a world famous imposter." [0]
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIRiDuXTT6g
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIRiDuXTT6g
What would stop Frank W. Abagnale, a conman by profession, from telling another lie? Even though Frank in the book is sympathized by the reader, I'm still disgusted by these deceivers who most likely are lacking all empathy and possibly are also psychopathic or narcissistic
The real problem is there are people who will no doubt believe him anyway.
Why are you so upset with somebody lying? In your words, liers are monsters.
I lie occasionally. Sometimes enjoy it too.
I lie occasionally. Sometimes enjoy it too.
Civilization and society is based on a foundation of trust. Lies are a violation of that trust, and thus each is an attack, however small, on that foundation.
Did you not see the effect of lies on the pandemic or this most recent US election?
Did you not see the effect of lies on the pandemic or this most recent US election?
Was Biden's election based on lies? Do you have sources?
I think he was referring to Trump's re-election.
Edit: When somebody who proudly proclaims that "I lie occasionally. Sometimes enjoy it too." denies knowing about something so widely covered in the international news, believe them when they say they enjoy lying.
the-dude: You have google and wikipedia. Look it up. No more excuses for ignorance and whitewashes for liars and blame for believers.
Edit: When somebody who proudly proclaims that "I lie occasionally. Sometimes enjoy it too." denies knowing about something so widely covered in the international news, believe them when they say they enjoy lying.
the-dude: You have google and wikipedia. Look it up. No more excuses for ignorance and whitewashes for liars and blame for believers.
I think this is over my head ( EU citizen who avoids most mainstream news ).
@Don : first, editting your comment is in no way the proper etiquette to discuss. Second, I looked it up, and apparently you are referring to this re-election campaign. Seriously, I didn't know about it.
Ignorance is bliss.
@Don : first, editting your comment is in no way the proper etiquette to discuss. Second, I looked it up, and apparently you are referring to this re-election campaign. Seriously, I didn't know about it.
Ignorance is bliss.
I'm referring to his campaign of Big Lies that he was re-elected in 2020, but Biden stole the election from him.
If you missed noticing that, you didn't look it up very well, and you're not being sincere.
There's really no point in taking seriously or continuing a discussion with somebody who brags he enjoys lying, and cultivates blissful ignorance.
If your blissful ignorance is really sincere, then you don't have much to contribute to the conversation.
If you missed noticing that, you didn't look it up very well, and you're not being sincere.
There's really no point in taking seriously or continuing a discussion with somebody who brags he enjoys lying, and cultivates blissful ignorance.
If your blissful ignorance is really sincere, then you don't have much to contribute to the conversation.
I do know Trump contested the election results, but I couldn't parse that from your Trump's re-election. I guess it hasn't been magnified as much here in the EU as in the US, and I don't particular mind much of the mainstream media. For me, Biden won in November and Trump apparently had a hard time accepting it. Big deal.
Ignorance is bliss : practically, keeping up with the news doesn't really do much for anybody.
Ignorance is bliss : practically, keeping up with the news doesn't really do much for anybody.
Lying because you enjoy it doesn't really do much for anybody either.
Im talking about deceivers who do it to take advantage of other people’s goodwill and kindness. They are cheaters who abuse the system, why would I give them a green pass? And this type of people Im taking about would not stop short from absolutely anything at all from reaching their goals, including turning against their families and best friends. If you don’t think these people are monsters then I don’t know what to tell you..
Ah well. Still no monsters IMHO.
Maybe they serve a purpose, just like people who speed a bit on the highway are beneficial to the traffic flow.
Maybe they serve a purpose, just like people who speed a bit on the highway are beneficial to the traffic flow.
Ok, you don’t know what Im talking about then. Wait till you deal with one and you’re likely to change your opinion. They’re absolutely nothing like highway speeders or little lies tellers. They are monsters who instead of having scales, hooves and horns, have a very good image, which they care a lot about because that’s what enables them to find victims and enablers to prop them up
Where ever there is a liar, there is a believer. A believer is not blameless because he relies on trust.
I heard that story before and it’s nothing more than a self serving idea spread by cheaters to justify their acts. No, cheaters are not beneficial at all but to themselves. Kind people who are also a bit more trusty are holding the fabric of society together. Without trust we’d eat eachother alive (figuratively speaking).
And you know what? Im starting to suspect you may actually be a net negative to the society yourself and I’d be veeery wary dealing with someone like you
And you know what? Im starting to suspect you may actually be a net negative to the society yourself and I’d be veeery wary dealing with someone like you
Lots of people who appear kind and helpful are mostly helping themselves.
Am I anywhere denying that cheaters don’t appear kind and helpful? But it’s just surface level shine, they leave a trail of destruction behind that is inimaginable to normal empathetic people. Kind, enpathetic and helpful people that you’ve known for a long time are a different thing entirely, and they too are doing it out of self interest and that is to build a network of trust. The logic is simple. If you help someone today, that help comes back to you one day. If everybody helps eachother it becomes a net benefit for all. Cheaters exploit this system and if I catch them and if it’s in my powers I will punish them harshly.
That's a sociopathic trait. There are people who are sociopathic or psychopathic and frequently use their lies to help themselves to positions if advantage at the expense of others. They don't feel that there is anything wrong with doing that.
“One of the greatest hoaxes”? Because they turned his story into a film? Seems like a pretty insignificant hoax compared to the likes of Madoff, Adam Neumann or Theranos.
This seems like a pretty big hoax if you made an entire career out if appearing on national TV and giving talks at places like Google for life experiences you completely made up.
If the worst thing about your hoax is you end up entertaining people it's not too bad
Neumann, while being a slippery self-dealer, certainly doesn’t belong in the same sentence as Madoff and Theranos.
Building a real, albeit overvalued company isn’t the same as running a massive fraud from first principles.
WeWork’s model for scalable cloud office space is now basically the default, and post-pandemic they are already selling seats to corporates like gangbusters.
Building a real, albeit overvalued company isn’t the same as running a massive fraud from first principles.
WeWork’s model for scalable cloud office space is now basically the default, and post-pandemic they are already selling seats to corporates like gangbusters.
You’re right, WeWork is not a hoax. But it’s a coup!
This reminds me of the "Based on a true story" in the Coen brothers' Fargo. Looked at as an artistic effect, these (non-)facts elevate the Spielberg movie by adding a meta twist. Makes it even better in my opinion.
Recall there was a mentally ill woman from Japan (they made a movie about her as well ) who came to look for the buried suitcase.
The protagonist in "Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter" came to look for the buried suitcase; that was based on an urban legend about the real suicide of Takako Konishi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Takako_Konishi
It's lies all the way down!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Takako_Konishi
It's lies all the way down!
> Abagnale claimed that he never ripped off individuals, only hotels, airlines and banks.
I love how that somehow suddenly makes stealing money on.
I love how that somehow suddenly makes stealing money on.
In reality he seems more of a small-time crook and a big-time creep. Arrested mainly for steeling from families while dressed as a pilot and a kids camp.
From Wikipedia: "Abagnale was in fact in the United States Navy from December 1964 through February 1965. Following his release from Great Meadow Prison on Dec 24, 1968, Abagnale was re-arrested on Feb 14, 1969, in Baton Rouge after victimizing a local family and small business. He told the Parks family of Baton Rouge he was a TWA pilot on furlough while he stayed with them. While their backs were turned he rifled through their belongings and stole their personal checks. This is the first reference to Abagnale committing a crime dressed as a pilot. Abagnale was convicted and sentenced for theft and forgery from the Parks family and a local small business (Dolley and Son) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in June, 1969 (State of Louisiana vs. Frank W. Abagnale. Case #69.103 and Case #69.104). Abagnale fled his supervised probation and court-ordered psychiatric treatment and in August, 1969, he victimized two local families in Klippan, Sweden, while dressed as a TWA pilot (Swedish national Archives, Case #B -195/70). Within a month, Abagnale was arrested in Montpellier, France, and served 3 months in Perpigan prison. He was extradited to Sweden and was sentenced to two months in Malmo jail. After deportation to the United States, Abagnale secured a Pan American Airlines uniform. In the summer of 1970, at 22 years old, Abagnale began a three-month period where he wrote 10 personal checks with a Pan American Airlines logo attached. Targets included small businesses such as Hales Camera in Provo, Utah, and Pilgrim Dry Cleaner in Houston. On November 2, 1970, Abagnale was arrested in Cobb County, Georgia. This three-month period is the basis of his self-promotion as the world's greatest imposter. Federal court records show that Abagnale was convicted for the 10 Pan American Airlines checks in five States (Texas, Arizona, Utah, California and North Carolina), worth a grand total of less than US$1,500 (United States of America vs. Frank W. Abagnale. Southern District of Georgia. For the US, J. Owen Forrester, Docket #s 26829, 26814, 26797, 26793, 26734, 26733, 26706, 26689). Following parole, he claimed he went to work for the FBI. However, he was arrested in the summer of 1974 in Friendswood, Texas, for theft at a kids' camp, Camp Manison. This arrest was noted in the local paper (Houston man arrested for Camp Manison theft. The News (Friendswood, Texas). 1974;Thursday 5 Sep,Page 1). Combined, the NPR article, and the separate article in the Louisiana Voice, and the detailed, 350-reference book The Greatest Hoax on Earth, debunk Abagnale's many claims, and refute his long-standing claim that he "never, ever" ripped off an individual or small business.[33] There is no evidence that he was ever nicknamed The Skywayman, nor that he was ever on any wanted list of the FBI."
From Wikipedia: "Abagnale was in fact in the United States Navy from December 1964 through February 1965. Following his release from Great Meadow Prison on Dec 24, 1968, Abagnale was re-arrested on Feb 14, 1969, in Baton Rouge after victimizing a local family and small business. He told the Parks family of Baton Rouge he was a TWA pilot on furlough while he stayed with them. While their backs were turned he rifled through their belongings and stole their personal checks. This is the first reference to Abagnale committing a crime dressed as a pilot. Abagnale was convicted and sentenced for theft and forgery from the Parks family and a local small business (Dolley and Son) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in June, 1969 (State of Louisiana vs. Frank W. Abagnale. Case #69.103 and Case #69.104). Abagnale fled his supervised probation and court-ordered psychiatric treatment and in August, 1969, he victimized two local families in Klippan, Sweden, while dressed as a TWA pilot (Swedish national Archives, Case #B -195/70). Within a month, Abagnale was arrested in Montpellier, France, and served 3 months in Perpigan prison. He was extradited to Sweden and was sentenced to two months in Malmo jail. After deportation to the United States, Abagnale secured a Pan American Airlines uniform. In the summer of 1970, at 22 years old, Abagnale began a three-month period where he wrote 10 personal checks with a Pan American Airlines logo attached. Targets included small businesses such as Hales Camera in Provo, Utah, and Pilgrim Dry Cleaner in Houston. On November 2, 1970, Abagnale was arrested in Cobb County, Georgia. This three-month period is the basis of his self-promotion as the world's greatest imposter. Federal court records show that Abagnale was convicted for the 10 Pan American Airlines checks in five States (Texas, Arizona, Utah, California and North Carolina), worth a grand total of less than US$1,500 (United States of America vs. Frank W. Abagnale. Southern District of Georgia. For the US, J. Owen Forrester, Docket #s 26829, 26814, 26797, 26793, 26734, 26733, 26706, 26689). Following parole, he claimed he went to work for the FBI. However, he was arrested in the summer of 1974 in Friendswood, Texas, for theft at a kids' camp, Camp Manison. This arrest was noted in the local paper (Houston man arrested for Camp Manison theft. The News (Friendswood, Texas). 1974;Thursday 5 Sep,Page 1). Combined, the NPR article, and the separate article in the Louisiana Voice, and the detailed, 350-reference book The Greatest Hoax on Earth, debunk Abagnale's many claims, and refute his long-standing claim that he "never, ever" ripped off an individual or small business.[33] There is no evidence that he was ever nicknamed The Skywayman, nor that he was ever on any wanted list of the FBI."
I thought the most important thing about the movie was that he was very good at forging checks and later helped the financial industry make checks more secure. is that part true? didnt have time to read the whole article.
It appears to be a lie. Or, at least, it hasn't been confirmed by the FBI as per my reading:
> “No one from the FBI has ever made a public statement about what Abagnale has or hasn’t done for them,” Logan said. “He has given some guest lectures at the academy, but he makes these outlandish statements in the media. He’s claimed to teach ethics at the FBI.”
> Abagnale sticks by his stories, continuing to tell and retell them even today.
> “Go to YouTube, you will see the Talks at Google that Abagnale did not that long ago. That video has been viewed over 11 million times. And he makes the claim there, still, that he was an attorney general and passed the bar exam.”
> In the video, Abagnale claims that the FBI included in its 100th anniversary coffee table book a section that identifies him as the only person ever sprung out of the federal penitentiary to work for the agency.
> “And I just recently … picked up a copy. There is, indeed, a beautiful coffee table book printed and published by the FBI. And Mr. Abagnale’s name, as you might suspect, is nowhere to be found within it.”
> “No one from the FBI has ever made a public statement about what Abagnale has or hasn’t done for them,” Logan said. “He has given some guest lectures at the academy, but he makes these outlandish statements in the media. He’s claimed to teach ethics at the FBI.”
> Abagnale sticks by his stories, continuing to tell and retell them even today.
> “Go to YouTube, you will see the Talks at Google that Abagnale did not that long ago. That video has been viewed over 11 million times. And he makes the claim there, still, that he was an attorney general and passed the bar exam.”
> In the video, Abagnale claims that the FBI included in its 100th anniversary coffee table book a section that identifies him as the only person ever sprung out of the federal penitentiary to work for the agency.
> “And I just recently … picked up a copy. There is, indeed, a beautiful coffee table book printed and published by the FBI. And Mr. Abagnale’s name, as you might suspect, is nowhere to be found within it.”
It's a shame we are dwelling on a not particularly skilled conman when there are movies like Chameleon Street about a better skilled conman who if anything is more impressive in what he got away with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon_Street
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon_Street
Does this make him a better or worse con man?
I have really started to get into The Pulse. It is a great mix of (mostly health) science reporting and more narrative shows like This American Life. I find myself not wanting to listen to it because it is often about serious topics but every time I do I get sucked in and really enjoy it.
On the general theme of hoaxes: _The Yes Men Fix the World_ is hilarious https://archive.org/details/The.Yes.Men.Fix.The.World.P2P.Ed...
How do we know Abagnale and Logan aren't working together on a hoax hoax hoax? ;-)
Always reminded me of the series the pretender. And there it did seems far fetched. Not sure why I never connected the dots in the movie. I guess being told it’s a true story is powerful
[deleted]
I saw Frank Abigail speak at a tech conference and feel his talk was the best I’ve ever heard. He’s spent the majority of his career at the FBI working major fraud and counterfeit cases. As an autodidact troubled teen, he learned the criminal mindset, then used that to help beat several generations schemes. He was clear that the film was mostly fiction so I’m not sure this book is revealing much, other than that Hollywood ‘true stories’ are the real imposter.
He was clear that the film was mostly fiction but evidently wasn't clear the same was true about his book and his work for the FBI...
So? Then it fits the story well.
A nothingburger that proves the nothingburger?
ERNIE LUCKMAN ... this guy appeared on tv, claiming to be a world-famous imposter. He said he'd posed at one time or another as a great surgeon, a theoretical submolecular high-velocity particle research physicist, a Finnish novelist, a deposed president of Argentina...
BOB ARCTOR He got away with it? Never got caught?
ERNIE LUCKMAN See, the guy never really posed as any of it. He only posed as a worldfamous imposter. Turns out he just pushed a broom at Disneyland, until he read about this actual world-famous imposter, and he thought, I can pose as all those things, then he thought, hell, I'll just pose as an imposter. Save a lot of time, a lot easier. Made almost as much money as the real imposter with books and movie rights.