[HN Gopher] 'Catch Me If You Can' conman lied about his lifetime...
___________________________________________________________________
'Catch Me If You Can' conman lied about his lifetime of lies
Author : Teever
Score : 153 points
Date : 2023-03-19 17:44 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nypost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nypost.com)
| olivermarks wrote:
| Abagale would make a perfect US politician, major league
| bullshitter who sticks to his stories for gain.
|
| https://youtu.be/vsMydMDi3rI
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| This is the equivalent to that Simpsons joke in which they
| install a robotic radio DJ that says "looks like those clowns
| in congress did it again. What a-bunch of clowns" and the guy
| getting replaced asks "how does it keep up with the news like
| that?".
|
| It's a low-effort drive-by statement so generic as to be
| practically meaningless.
| olivermarks wrote:
| [flagged]
| yodon wrote:
| Frequently HN readers will downvote comments that don't
| bother to explain why the viewer should invest time in
| reading or watching an unexplained link.
| grogenaut wrote:
| Agreed... People also downvote people who just complain
| about the voting system without reading the basics on
| "don't talk about voting" in the guide
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please
| don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does
| any good, and it makes boring reading. "
| olivermarks wrote:
| That's fair - the link is Abigale speaking at Google in
| 2017. There's a disclaimer as the first frames of the video
| but it's still up.
| legerdemain wrote:
| The story of the janitor who invented Flamin' Hot Cheetos is also
| either an exaggeration so big as to be meaningless, or a
| straight-up lie.
| scheeseman486 wrote:
| Everyone here posting about how it sucks that it turns out he
| lied about all the cool stuff he did, when the significance and
| impact of those lies pale in comparison to the societal impact a
| Steven Spielberg directed film based on those lies had.
|
| It just makes it all the more impressive!
| wmf wrote:
| He wrote an apology of sorts in 2002 admitting that the book and
| movie are not accurate: https://www.abagnale.com/Frank-W-
| Abagnale-Jr-Film-And-Book-C... This hasn't stopped him from
| cashing in on his reputation, however.
| Lapsa wrote:
| so a man claiming that he lies all the time turns out to be
| lying. did I get that correct? :/
| jjeaff wrote:
| Perhaps disavowing all his previous lies is his last big con?
|
| Kidding aside, I think investigative journalists have been the
| ones to sound the alarm on the con.
| paxys wrote:
| If he lies about being a liar, does that mean he is telling the
| truth?
| agumonkey wrote:
| aptly metacircular
| silisili wrote:
| Good article, but this was pretty well known and documented for
| years if not decades. I remember briefly looking it up not too
| long after having seen the movie, and being disappointed that it
| was all a big lie.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Well whaddayaknow, the conman lied :O
| aleksandrm wrote:
| This has been known for years. Why are tabloid articles suddenly
| reposted here?
| notahacker wrote:
| It being "common knowledge" that 90% of his backstory is
| fictional and he was actually a pretty low end forger that was
| frequently caught until he figured lying about the lies he told
| was a better grift hasn't stopped the tech industry from
| continuing to fawn all over him as if he's a knowledgeable and
| inspirational person
|
| e.g
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22042279
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15793045
| jjulius wrote:
| >This has been known for years.
|
| I used to do this. Still have a strong tendency to, and have to
| resist it. Everyone's lived experience is different, and I'd
| wager there is a large percentage of people across the globe
| alive now who have never, and will never, have any clue about
| Frank Abagnale and his story.
|
| And that's okay.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| I'm just learning about it today from this post, which I found
| fascinating.
|
| https://xkcd.com/1053/
| Dig1t wrote:
| This reminds me of the story from A Scanner Darkly. One of the
| characters tells a story about a con artist who was pretending to
| be a famous con artist. His whole shtick was going around to talk
| shows recounting how he had played all these outlandish
| characters and conned people out of all kinds of money, in the
| end the only character he ever played was that of a con artist.
|
| Maybe that story was based on the Catch Me If you Can guy, but I
| think possibly not because A Scanner Darkly came out before that
| movie.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| sounds like a generic idea and also why would should dick or
| linklater have had knowledge about abagnale being a fake con
| man?
| allenu wrote:
| Apparently the autobiography the movie is based on came out in
| 1980, so it's totally possible they were referencing Abagnale.
| htag wrote:
| The novel A Scanner Darkly was published in 1977, so while it
| might have been referencing Abagnale it wasn't referencing
| the autobiography.
|
| Social identity being exaggeratedly fluid is a reoccurring
| theme in PKD's writing, so the topic fits.
| diego_moita wrote:
| Of course, what makes you famous is how good is your "reality
| distortion field". No one buys "facts", people buy "stories".
|
| Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to play
| the role.
|
| "The Wolf of Wall Street" also invented most of the stuff in the
| movie/book but he knew how to play the role.
|
| Buffalo Bill was just an exhibitionist showman that never did
| anything heroic but he knew how to pretend it.
|
| And Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, ...
|
| Well, you got the idea...
| foobarbecue wrote:
| And, of course, the movie The Wolf of Wall Street is another
| good example -- it managed to con everybody into treating it
| like a good movie when it was ridiculous ahistorical junk that
| taught nothing, glorified crime, denigrated victims, and then
| was found to have been funded by grift (money siphoned from the
| Malaysan development fund 1MDB).
|
| To this day, I use it as a litmus test -- if someone recommends
| a movie to me, I'll ask them what they thought of The Wolf of
| Wall Street. If they liked it, I will steer clear of any of
| their recommendations.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| [flagged]
| kruuuder wrote:
| I downvoted your comments because your comments trigger
| emotions, whereas good comments trigger curiosity. It
| sounds like you call everyone that liked that movie an
| idiot with no taste (I haven't seen the movie by the way).
| Now you even edited your second comment to say "Cowardly
| downvoters", which is a reason to flag it.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Thanks for the explanation; that's fair. I'm being
| polemic, probably too much so. My hatred for the movie is
| intense and it would be better communication if I could
| hide that.
| colineartheta wrote:
| I also downvoted, and it's honestly because your point
| comes across as not understanding any of Martin
| Scorsese's direction and body of work. Nearly all of his
| movies (primarily, mobster and crime related) are
| centered around characters and stories of wealth, excess,
| and the blatant flouting of rules and law in order to
| obtain power, followed by their near immediate downfall
| and loss of everything that truly matters. The Wolf of
| Wall Street, the movie, isn't about the glorification of
| wealth: it's about the vapidity and shallowness of that
| component of human nature and the ultimate self
| destruction and meaningless of life when it's pursued.
| Someone can recommend that movie because they appreciate
| that moral and sentiment, not because they want to be a
| conman investment banker (or a gangster for that matter).
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Maybe I should try some more Scorsese. Which movie do you
| recommend? I'll make an exception to my rule for the
| purpose of education :-)
|
| If he was attempting to do what you describe with TWWS, I
| think he missed the mark. It seemed to express a a
| general nihilism rather than some message about how
| criminals ruin their own lives.
|
| Things that would have made the movie better, in my eyes:
|
| - At least one female character who was more than an
| object (Bechdel test was failed by a mile)
|
| - Any scene with the perspective of any of the victims
| (the people whose lives Belfort destroyed are totally out
| of frame all movie)
|
| - If Belfort's supposedly convincing / charismatic
| speeches were even slightly persuasive or entertaining
| (he did not sell me that pen at all)
|
| - Less time wasted with blurry camera stumbling around on
| drugs
|
| The funny thing is that I loved Catch Me if You Can when
| I first saw it and went to see TWWS hoping for more of
| that. So... maybe TWWS was more real. Crime does pay, and
| financial criminals are not geniuses, just bog-standard
| douchebags, and they get a slap on the wrist when they're
| caught and the world keeps spinning. Perhaps THAT is the
| message.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| I'll also say that I didn't mean to imply they were
| idiots with no taste -- I meant that they are people
| whose cinema tastes are very different from mine. It's a
| shortcut for finding that out.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I enjoyed the movie but I also don't treat it like it's any
| kind of replication of reality. Like almost anything
| Hollywood puts out alongside the "based on actual events"
| clickbait.
|
| The funding of the movie is also incredibly interesting, I
| think there was an episode of Netflix's Dirty Money based
| on that. Worth a watch.
|
| (I upvoted original comment because it didn't deserve the
| very light grey text that it was)
| heywhatupboys wrote:
| > Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to
| play the role.
|
| this is an absurd suggestion. Steve Jobs has been a pioneer in
| making computing ubiquitous
| foobarbecue wrote:
| pioneer != inventor
| peyton wrote:
| He's listed as inventor on hundreds of patents. I think
| that qualifies.
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| Its not surprising that Jobs would be included on patents
| that were filed by people who worked for or with him. He
| was known to be mean and pushy and could easily force his
| name to be included.
|
| Do we know of one thing that Jobs actually invented or
| co-invented, or was he always the marketer?
| illiarian wrote:
| > He was known to be mean and pushy and could easily
| force his name to be included.
|
| He was also very closely involved with every aspect of
| the products Apple was developing. Just watch any of his
| interviews. He knew all the details: technical, design,
| marketing.
|
| So yeah, I'm not surprised he has his name on patents.
| zaroth wrote:
| Hundreds of things. Peyton just told you that. But you
| like the idea of Jobs being a "conman" better than the
| truth so why disabuse you of the notion?
|
| In case you're wondering, filing a patent with an
| improperly listed inventor is fraud and invalidates the
| patent. Every patent app includes a signed oath and
| declaration by the inventors that they did indeed invent
| it.
|
| The idea that Jobs didn't have direct input on the
| functionality of novel features of Apple products is
| beyond absurd.
|
| Aside from the fact that he was notoriously hands-on,
| Apple has been coasting on his achievements and direction
| for over a decade now.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Look at the post-Jobs Apple. It's just been step-wise
| refinement.
| pohl wrote:
| If you're going to make that distinction, shouldn't you
| also cite quotations where Jobs makes the claim to
| specifically be the inventor? It seems the charge in this
| thread depends on blurring that boundary such that
| marketing on behalf of the company on stage and in
| interviews is equated with claims of being an inventor.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Nobody said he claimed he was an inventor. I think we all
| agree that he was a pioneer, but not an inventor.
|
| Recap (paraphrased):
|
| "Jobs never invented anything"
|
| "He was a pioneer"
|
| "pioneer != inventor"
|
| "You have to show proof that he claimed he was an
| inventor!"
|
| "Nobody said he claimed he was an inventor."
| pohl wrote:
| It was said above that he was "playing the role" of being
| an inventor, and this observation was directly juxtaposed
| against a con man.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Ah, I see. Yeah, I wouldn't accuse him of that.
|
| I was taking the "reality distortion field" talk to refer
| to the cultlike status Job's fandom reached at its peak,
| where the "famous for being famous" effect came into
| play. I don't think he qualifies as a con man, and I
| don't think he claimed personal credit for the inventions
| of others (he never "took the initiative and invented the
| internet" like Al Gore).
| graeme wrote:
| >Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to
| play the role.
|
| You're of course getting engagement here. But the key
| difference is this: Abgnale outputted nothing.
|
| Steve Jobs outputted Apple, Pixar and Next (basis of Macos and
| iOS).
|
| You can quibble over what share of what credit for the specific
| products of each of those three companies. But there's no
| disputing Next wouldn't have existed without him, nor Apple,
| and Apple would have failed without him. Pixar had been
| declined by 45 other investors; only Jobs said yes. So it
| likely would not have got off the ground without him.
|
| Everyone involved in the output of those companies speaks
| highly of him and ascribe him a vital role. Key competitors do
| the same.
|
| Your argument amounts to say:
|
| 1. He had a well known reality distortion field
|
| 2. Therefore he accomplished nothing and everyone who was there
| on the ground is wrong, for they were subject to this field
|
| 3. All of the output of those companies happened, no thanks to
| Jobs.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Huh? What about his autobiography. Or the movie? I find the
| Argument that he never "outputted" anything extremely
| unconvincing.
| astrange wrote:
| He didn't write an autobiography. His biography had some
| glaring errors (people like Bill Gates are directly quoted
| as saying things with basic tech mistakes they couldn't
| have said) and of course he died before it was finished, so
| he couldn't have reviewed it.
| hillcrestenigma wrote:
| I agree. Abagnale never outputted anything for the public,
| but he has outputted tremendous good for himself at the
| expense of others. Him and Jobs both achieved feats that no
| average man could have achieved.
| MrsPeaches wrote:
| As easy as it is to crap on Paris Hilton, given trauma she
| survived, I'm actually kinda impressed how well she did in her
| life.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/mar/18/they-st...
| youngtaff wrote:
| Read that interview yesterday... makes you think about her
| slightly differently than before
| chasing wrote:
| > Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to
| play the role.
|
| As far as I'm aware, Steve Jobs was, in fact, both the founder
| and former CEO of Apple. Unless he was pulling one HELLUVA ruse
| that I was unaware of.
| [deleted]
| diego_moita wrote:
| My point is:
|
| * He didn't create the Apple II, Wozniak did.
|
| * He didn't create the mouse, GUI and Ethernet, the guys at
| Xerox's Palo Alto research centre did it.
|
| * He didn't really create Pixar, bought it from George Lucas.
| His idea and project was to have the company to make and sell
| hardware for CG, because that was the only thing he had ever
| done at Apple & Next. The movie production was an offshot
| from the demos and the business of creating intros for
| television shows.
|
| * He didn't create the iPhone. In fact Apple's engineers had
| to pressure him for years before he accepted. What got him
| accepting the idea was the fiasco on having iTunes into a
| Nokia phone.
|
| * He didn't invent the Appstore. In fact he only accepted the
| idea of people making apps to the iPhone because 6 months
| after release the sales were collapsing.
|
| Apple was and still is a very smart company. I concede that
| he was good at surrounding himself with smart people, and
| taking merit for what those people did.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Without Jobs,
|
| * Woz would have remained an obscure engineer working at HP
|
| * Apple would never have happened
|
| * The Mac would have never existed
|
| * Pixar would have vanished without a trace
|
| * Apple would have gone bankrupt in 1999
|
| * OSX would never have existed
| danaris wrote:
| There's a big difference between "this person was a con-
| man, never actually did any of the things they claimed, and
| was outright lying in order to present a marketable
| persona" and "this person is commonly given more credit in
| the creation of some things than they deserve, but they
| were closely involved with all those things, and were
| unquestionably a major figure in their field, regardless of
| the extra hype that has attached to them (even if they may
| have encouraged some of that extra hype)".
|
| Steve Jobs was not a con-man. In fact, to the best of my
| knowledge, he never claimed _personal_ credit for the
| things you 're saying he didn't do; those were things that
| were attributed to him by others.
| thecoppinger wrote:
| Well, I think Diego's point was that he knew how to
| create and utilise a powerful "reality distortion field"
| such that, without claiming direct creation over any of
| the vast classics that Apple created, he gained the
| status and fame of someone who seemed to have done so.
| Retric wrote:
| Trying to support someone's point that's literally
| unfounded seems odd in a discussion about "reality
| distortion fields."
|
| People also assumed Bill Gates created DOS because they
| are misinformed, no reality distortion field required.
| blowski wrote:
| Leaders lead talented people into a position where their
| talents have higher impact.
| TylerE wrote:
| People use products, not abstract technology.
| yucky wrote:
| You missed the biggest one though - Apple, the company.
| Which _was_ his creation.
| sosborn wrote:
| In everything I've seen, Jobs doesn't say things like "I
| created xxx," it always seems to be "We created xxx."
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I'm not a huge fan of Jobs, but recognizing a good idea
| _even belatedly_ and green lighting it, not to mention
| selling it, is worth a lot.
|
| And hiring people who can bring them to you is worth even
| more, especially if you're able to hear them when they keep
| insisting.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| How do we even know it was belatedly?
|
| Something a lot of engineers fail to realize is that a
| successful product is not just about technology, it is
| about timing, cost, ecosystem, market.
|
| Who's to say Jobs didn't think the iPhone was not a good
| idea, but shouldn't be done earlier? The iPhone 10-15
| years before the iPhone was the Newton.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I was thinking of the PARC demo, where he famously said,
| "my guys were bugging me to go see this."
| aeternum wrote:
| Create is a somewhat loaded term because no one person
| creates things of this scale. A better way of looking at it
| might be:
|
| The Apple II would likely not have been successful without
| both Wozniak and Jobs.
|
| Would the iPhone have come to fruition without Job's
| leadership, vision, and design + negotiation skills?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Not in the hands of Scully or Amelio.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| > Steve Jobs never really invented anything
|
| Would we have the iPhone if Steve Jobs were never born?
| reustle wrote:
| Definitely. Connected palm pilots / PDAs existed for years
| before.
| kec wrote:
| Apple invented the PDA (even the term) with the Newton in
| 1992. Steve wasn't with the company at the time, but given
| the company wouldn't have existed without him it isn't
| really that much of a stretch to say they wouldn't
| necessarily exist without his influence.
| estebank wrote:
| You seem to subscribe to the "great man" theory of
| history, while the people that disagree with you
| subscribe to a "human dynamics" theory of history (think
| Hari Sheldon's psychohistory in the Foundation books).
| You can point at some "great man" in history and say "if
| it wasn't for this person's actions history would have
| been different", but over long enough timelines I believe
| some things are inevitable, given the wider context in a
| point in time. If Columbus hadn't convinced the Spanish
| crown to seek new trade routes through the West, some
| other individual would have enticed another colonialist
| European power to so, with similar results for native
| Americans over the following century, for example.
|
| > You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends
| on the long series of complex influences which has
| produced the race in which he appears, and the social
| state into which that race has slowly grown. ... Before
| he can remake his society, his society must make him.
|
| -- Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology
| kyriakos wrote:
| Most likely yes, maybe even by a different company
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Maybe it would have been called the mePhone
| [deleted]
| dommer wrote:
| I believe Steve Jobs hate the idea of turning the iPod into a
| phone. Rejected the idea from his smartest people for a long
| time.
| Someone wrote:
| > Steve Jobs never really invented anything but he knew how to
| play the role.
|
| Do you think orchestra directors or managers of sports teams
| contribute nothing to their team's success?
| [deleted]
| zpeti wrote:
| You've clearly never listened to Steve Jobs speak, or you
| didn't understand what he was saying.
|
| And it's not just me. A lot of very respected smart people
| think he was way above them. That's not a conman.
|
| Also, conmen usually have an expiry date or they have to switch
| roles or disappear into new communities once they get found
| out. Same with psychopaths. They get found out and get rejected
| by society. That's not what Steve Jobs did. He was respected to
| the end and built products to the end.
|
| As a side note, I also think the obsession with UX and design
| in tech never would have occurred without jobs. The only reason
| we have fairly well designed apps and websites at this point is
| jobs' influence.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| Agree with you on conmen getting rooted out. I don't think
| that holds for psychopaths or not nearly as much. They can
| cement themselves in positions of power.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| You really should read The Greatest Hoax.
| rexreed wrote:
| The Valley of Genius is another great book and doesn't hide
| much about Steve Jobs and his opportunism. That said, he
| sure knew how to raise money, build a team, and get
| attention.
| lylejantzi3rd wrote:
| So a pathological liar lied about his pathological lies? I'm
| shocked!
| cleanchit wrote:
| What if he's lying when he said he lied about his pathological
| lies?
| ignoramous wrote:
| Clearly you're lying.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Well. If he just lied once, about being a pathological liar,
| then he's not a pathological liar.
|
| He just made one very big lie.
| mhoad wrote:
| That story was what first got me interested in the field of
| security. This is truly the perfect ending to that story for me.
| Genuine chefs kiss.
| throwanem wrote:
| A true con artist is good at what they do because they believe
| everything they tell you while they're saying it, which means all
| the usual signals that someone is lying to you don't fire.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| What are the unusual signs to look for in that case?
|
| (Other than the obvious, which is "this sounds unrealistic")
| throwanem wrote:
| See what he does when you tell him you're going to sleep on
| it. If that makes it look like a great deal is going to
| disappear, or if he doesn't want to get lost when you tell
| him you've had enough of him for now, you are being taken for
| a ride and it's time to get off - what he doesn't want is you
| getting a chance to compare notes, whether with someone else
| or yourself.
|
| That said, the hard part is realizing it's time to say you're
| going to sleep on it in the first place. They don't call it a
| _confidence_ trick for nothing, and faced with someone who 's
| very good at it, it's easy to want to buy what he's selling
| because the guy's just so dang likeable.
| itronitron wrote:
| I used to work with someone that I think qualifies as either
| a pathological liar, con man, or deeply flawed. The most
| distinctive sign is that they tell blatant lies which serve
| to distract from and cover up the longer running and more
| subtle lies.
|
| Point being, if someone has been telling you something and
| then tells you something unrelated that you can prove to be
| false, then you need to exert considerable mental effort to
| revisit the initial thing they were telling you in order to
| determine whether it is true.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| This is interesting. Can you remember any examples of this
| kind of misdirection?
| itronitron wrote:
| I can't recall any specific details, but the general gist
| would be akin to someone telling you that they are
| working on a deal with XYZ for a multi-year program and
| they would have told you on Thursday but their flight was
| delayed in Houston due to a freak snow storm.
|
| I think this tactic works because gullible people are
| distracted by the idea of a freak snow storm in Houston,
| and more critically minded people focus their bullshit
| detector on the 'snow storm in Houston' story instead of
| the 'multi-year program' story.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I don't know if there are specific signs to look for. I've
| spend a lot of time studying people, their inputs and
| outputs. There is a lot of data in body language and
| inflection.
|
| People lie, evade, omit, or exaggerate all the time. For
| example, talking about things that make them uncomfortable.
| It's one of those unconscious things that makes societies
| work.
|
| This isn't unconscious for me. I see everything and analyze
| it logically.
|
| Detecting misdirection is fairly easy for me. When someone is
| actively lying, they are generally trying present specific
| body language and inflection.
|
| What happens is they miss something and I see the mismatch
| between the fake and real signals. It's very similar to
| reading a polygraph.
|
| This isn't a unique ability, most people have it and it
| manifests as a gut feeling. I'm neurodivergent and I'm able
| to give more than a gut feeling. I can usually point to what
| I'm seeing and explain it.
|
| All that said, I haven't found any general "tells" for good
| lairs. It's an art, not a science. It's one reason polygraphs
| aren't allow in court and I don't use this ability to make
| snap judgements. :)
| [deleted]
| ozim wrote:
| Basically there are no unusual signs.
|
| There is no trick that gives you information if person is
| lying that gives out on the spot. As much as pop-culture
| would like some eye movement or what not.
|
| Only thing that gives away lies is cross examination and
| asking multiple times about the same thing in a slightly
| different way.
|
| After asking 10 or 20 times about the same thing you might
| see that things don't add up. It might be easier if you have
| 2 or more people making stuff up because if you separate them
| they will lie in a different way.
|
| Of course there are also people so bad at lying that will
| give out at first interrogation...
| throwanem wrote:
| Yes, I also enjoy police procedurals.
| [deleted]
| DonsDiscountGas wrote:
| There isn't one. Body language is maybe slightly better than
| chance but generally unreliable. Exact word choice can be a
| sign; if you ask them a question do they actually answer it
| or do they deflect? But fundamentally if you really care you
| need some independent confirmation.
|
| In Abagnales the bar exam results and prison time should be
| verifiable, but besides that who knows. I wonder why the FBI
| wouldn't comment, seems like they should know whether he ever
| worked there or not.
| zpeti wrote:
| I'm pretty sure 90% of the story of the wolf of wall street is
| complete bullshit, yet it's sold as an autobiography. I'm waiting
| for the big reveal.
| bigbacaloa wrote:
| In the words of the immortal wiseman Flava Flav "don't believe
| the hype"
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| So how did he cheat the Louisiana state Bar?
| solveit wrote:
| People have looked very hard, and there is not a shred of
| evidence that Abagnale passed the Louisiana bar exam other than
| his own claims.
| cal85 wrote:
| Wait, is there not evidence that he practised as a lawyer?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| He didn't, the lawyer stuff was a fabrication
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| Just to be sure everyone gets it I'll come out and say, I'm
| referencing a minor plot point towards the end of the movie
| based on him. There's a sequence where the main investigator
| keeps trying to get him to tell how he cheated the bar and he
| keeps refusing to say. Later on, as in years later, he
| finally reveals the trick. "I didn't cheat, I studied it."
|
| It seemed fitting given what we now know about how little he
| actually cheated.
| notmindthegap wrote:
| [flagged]
| bitwize wrote:
| Surprised_pikachu.jpg
| agumonkey wrote:
| a classic movie and many careers came out of his thin air :)
| foobarbecue wrote:
| I read The Greatest Hoax when it came out. Good book. What a
| creep Abagnale is. The book caught my eye becuase I remember
| seeing Abagnale give his lectures at Google, thinking, wow, this
| guy sure doesn't seem like a genius. We are all just gullible.
| cainxinth wrote:
| > _We are all just gullible._
|
| That's true generally, and especially true when a celebrity is
| involved. Humans are great liars and terrible lie detectors.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-19 23:01 UTC)