So I'm thinking about Goodfellas and some of the stuff that happened in that movie I'm thinking that it was all made up in Henry's head. I don't really think it happened and he basically made it all up for the book embellishing stories to portray his experience as something that actually never fucking happened.
Who here wants to disagree with me?

I think there’s some truth in it, maybe the outline and topics were accurate but the scene description details were made up.
2 examples that come to mind quickly-
1st- Mobsters and maybe Henry when he was with Jimmy or Paulie would go to the Copa, get premier seating, and even enter through the kitchen- but Henry never got this treatment on his own, or on a date with Karen, that is all false, but if he went with Jimmy and Paulie he might have benefited from their power.

2nd- Luftansa robbery, I doubt he knew as much and was involved as much as the movie showed, I bet he barely knew anything about it, I bet he didn’t even know it was going to happen.

The burden of proof is on you to disprove his story.

What I'm saying is that even though the things he described in the book did happen some of the stories were embellished for a Hollywood movie.

Of course there are a mix of truth and embellishments and especially when they make a big Hollywood movie about it.

Exactly what was the reason he wasn’t a part of Lufthansa when he was part of the first one?

He was a liar on most things, and a big time creep. The movie conveniently left out his and the prosecutors total abuse of the basketball players that Hill testified against. They were college kids who he had shaving points on games. when they wanted to stop he threatened them, and at least one went to prison. hill walked away scot-free for ratting on them, although it was his idea, his scam, and he ran it. That was the case he testified in that got him his deal.

I thought he got his deal first and then behind their back sold the story to sports illustrated which made the feds furious.

that is not what you said. You stated, "I don't really think it happened and he basically made it all up for the book embellishing stories to portray his experience as something that actually never fucking happened." This is a different claim than he made SOME things up.

Scrotum picking

All the dicksucking Henry Hill fanboys will come out of the woodwork for this one. You done stirred a hornet's nest Rush.

Do you have notifications on for my comments He made a claim, then backtracked and made a different claim.

Well let's just say I did a 3 part series on Desimone and uncovered numerous inaccuracies, embellishments or flat out lies from Henry Hill.

One of the more glaring lies was his claim that Tommy tried to rape his wife Karen while he was in prison...never happened.

Hill did have a long run from 1955 until 1980, when he was arrested on narcotics charges and became an FBI informant. If he was a nobody he would have been killed before he became a turncoat lol.

There is a misunderstanding about the phrase "burden of proof".
The burden is always (and only) on the person making the claim,and must be supported by evidence.
This is the basic foundation of logic.
There is no burden of disproof.

I seen one pic of Henry Hill where he was coming out of his house dressed in a regular old long-sleeved t-shirt and raggedy jeans, looking nothing like the suave, dapper guy Ray Liotta portrayed throughout the whole movie. If Martin Scorcese saw that pic, I could imagine him saying, "keep that shit as far away as you can and don't let nobody see it until I'm done with my movie!" No way would Goodfellas had been as successful as it was if the characters dressed the way most of those guys dressed most of the time.

good point.

We have Sherlock Holmes ova here...he always finds the nuts lol lol

Except in this case the person making the claim is the original poster, thus the burden of proof falls on him.

Henry Hill wasn’t here saying he did these things. Rush Street is the prosecutor here, not the defendant.

Excellent point, Ben54. I reread the post,and I agree that Rush is making a claim that needs evidence to back it up.
Good catch. I stand corrected.

It's funny when you realize that the only people throughout the whole movie that were actually in the mob were Paulie & his brothers, the guys who whacked Tommy, Billy Batts, & possibly some of the people with the funny nicknames introduced to us at the club by the narrator.

What led to you becoming positive the attempted rape didn't happen? Did Karen deny it?

Henry Hill said that after Tommy was released from jail and while he was still locked up that Tommy beat up and attempted to rape his wife Karen. In both Wiseguy and Gangsters and Goodfellas Hill said he was released from prison on July 12th 1978. While I was researching for my video I got my hands on Tommy's arrest sheet - and he wasn't released from a 10 year prison stint until October 18th 1978, more than 3 months AFTER Hill.

Therefore Tommy was never out on the streets while he was still locked up and that's enough to conclude that Henry Hill's story about Tommy attempting to rape his wife is a lie.

Nice job Iceveins. Have you run across anything that confirms or denies the claim that Paulie Vario was having an affair with Karen?

So, I don't believe that either. Because Hill says that Vario was supposedly furious about Tommy trying to rape his mistress Karen and therefore informed The Gambinos that Tommy was responsible for killing Billy Batts. Since Tommy never tried to rape Karen then Vario was never furious about it therefore the story of Vario and Karen is also a lie.

So whats the real reason they whacked Tommy? Was it because he fucked up during the time after the Heist? Or was it over Billy Batts?

All the theories are covered here:

Did I miss something? Any movie that shows a cop testing drugs by tasting them is obviously for entertainment, with liberties being taken with the facts. If the movie was only fact based it would’ve been a complete bore. Let’s not forget how much sitting around these guys did bullshitting. It wasn’t all excitement all the time. I think the movie was true enough to make it the best mob movie ever in my opinion, but all facts, alltge time? No movie is. Donnie Brasco full of bs. Godfather? Bs galore. French connection, more bs. It’s entertainment.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that any historical movie is 100% accurate.