|
Author
|
Topic: Artifacts, proof of ownership and NASA OIG
|
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:18 PM
   
I don't know about you or other cS members, but this slightly causes concern for me. There are some of us in this community that have flown apparel as well as flown hardware, with absolutely no paper trail to prove that we legally bought items which were not stolen from NASA. Who's to say?One call to NASA's Office of the Inspector General and some of us could be put through the wringer, legitimately or not. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
...absolutely no paper trail to prove that we legally bought items
You should at least have a receipt from where you made the purchase. And if you do not have the provenance to support your item, how can you assert that it is flown? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
And if you do not have the provenance to support your item, how can you assert that it is flown?
A great question/issue for the auction houses who liberally apply flown status to lots without offering supporting provenance and who, through implementation of standard industry practice preserve consignor anonymity and as a consequence break the chain of provenance. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
You should at least have a receipt from where you made the purchase.
And the rest of my quote said "which were not stolen from NASA".Sure, there are items out there that do have provenance to assert it was flown. But how are we to know that the item was acquired legally? A receipt from an auction house, eBay, etc does not indicate or track the rightful owner (the seller or NASA). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
A receipt from an auction house, eBay, etc does not indicate or track the rightful owner (the seller or NASA).
No, it does not, but it does establish that you purchased the item legally. If it is later determined that the auction house or consignor or dealer that sold you the item stole the item, then you do not legally own it. You are not legally at fault, but you surrender the item and then seek to recoup your money from the party that wronged you. (If you do not want to deal with such questions later, then you need to limit your purchases to items for which the chain of ownership is intact. And yes, that may mean having to pass on some desirable offers...) |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
You are not legally at fault, but you surrender the item and then seek to recoup your money from the party that wronged you.
And that is exactly my point. The red tape we would have to endure from one simple anonymous phone call would be crazy. Most of the items out there for sale via any of the auctions do not include a disposition or release from NASA. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:22 PM
A simple anonymous tip does not immediately result in a NASA OIG investigator knocking on your door. Among the research that the agents do is to check if the item(s) accused of being stolen are indeed missing from NASA's own inventory. Now, if NASA's records state that the item is still government property and you cannot produce paperwork to the contrary, then you should be ready to surrender the item. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:23 PM
And that is the grey area we enter. What if NASA's records were not updated to indicate a legal disposition? According to NASA's records, NASA would still "own" the item even though it was given/gifted to an individual. No disposition paperwork may exist in many cases.In regards to the flight apparel, official NASA documentation may not even exist by either NASA or the seller. Who claims ownership in that example? I'm not trying to cause negative discourse on this forum. I do think this is a worthy topic of discussion and welcome all opinions of the community. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
No disposition paperwork may exist in many cases.
If no disposition paperwork exists, what leads you to believe that you (or the person from who you purchased the item) legally owns the item? |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:38 PM
Their word? Look at the majority of the astronaut owned items. Flight plans, checklists, cue cards, lunar surface hardware, vehicle hardware, flight apparel, flashlights, pens, pencils, personal hygiene items... the list goes on and on. I would wager that 99% of these items do not have disposition paperwork which indicates that Astronaut X now legally owns the item(s).And if NASA's records indicate that the items should still be inventory... then what? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 08:57 PM
But there is NASA paperwork (in the form of memos) that establish what types of items (e.g. personal hygiene) that the astronauts were permitted to keep, so disposition paperwork (of a sort) does exist for your example (the NASA JSC History Archives at University of Houston-Clear Lake has copies of many of these memos). That said, it is just as much the astronauts' responsibility to make sure that they own the items before they offer them for sale. They cannot, for example, sell the Omega Speedmasters on loan to them from the Smithsonian. I'm not trying to belittle your concern. No one wants to be in the position of having to defend the purchases that they made in good faith, or worse, have to surrender items to the authorities because of no wrong actions on their own part. Rather I am suggesting that collectors do need to take at least some responsibility for the items they purchase. If an auction house, for example, cannot or will not offer chain of ownership records, then the collector needs to weigh purchasing from them versus protecting themselves from such inquiries. |
Go4Launch
Member Posts: 542
From: Seminole, Fla.
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 06-09-2010 09:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
I would wager that 99% of these items do not have disposition paperwork which indicates that Astronaut X now legally owns the item(s). And if NASA's records indicate that the items should still be inventory... then what?
Yeah, then what? NASA starts filing criminal charges against the astronauts? I don't think so. Unless you have something you feel guilty enough to keep in a suitcase, like Mr. Smith, I don't think you have anything to worry about. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-09-2010 09:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Go4Launch:
Unless you have something you feel guilty enough to keep in a suitcase, like Mr. Smith, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
I'm sure some of these people (PDF, 10mb) thought the same thing. I'd just rather see that NONE of us have to go through any type of questioning or inquisition related to our hobby/collecting. And heaven forbid, the forfeiture of a valuable item we purchased in good faith. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 09:27 PM
Another timely example in this ongoing eBay auction, which purports to have a component removed from the Apollo 6 CM (likely misidentified - Casper/Apollo 16 is located in Huntsville). The description implies someone removed the piece while on display. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 09:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
And heaven forbid, the forfeiture of a valuable item we purchased in good faith.
But regardless if we purchased the artifact in good faith, if it was stolen, then it belongs to the rightful owner. For example, while I wasn't happy to lose the A7L checklist pocket I purchased from the (pre-Regency) Superior Galleries, it rightfully belonged to the Kansas Cosmosphere and I can take some solace that it is back within their collection (even if I am still out the money I paid for it). There is a proper time and place for investigations. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 09:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
The description implies someone removed the piece while on display.
The wording is less than clear, which lends to my point: why would a responsible collector even consider bidding on this piece? If the ownership is in question, and even the identification is in question, shouldn't that be a sign to move on to the next lot for sale?(And what if the lot clearly said the item was removed from the spacecraft on display? Would you not report it? Suppose it said that the piece was removed from Columbia during a visit to the National Air and Space Museum last week. Would you not report that to the Smithsonian?) |
Fezman92
Member Posts: 1031
From: New Jersey, USA
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-09-2010 09:45 PM
That is why I stay away from places like eBay that claim that an item has been flown. If there is no documentation, I won't look at it. The only stuff I've been looking at is through GSA (Government Surplus Auctions) which comes with documentation to a degree. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-09-2010 09:50 PM
Robert, I was not aware that you had to surrender an item. Do you have a back story regarding it?Also, are you aware of any other collector that purchased an item in good faith and had to surrender the item? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-09-2010 09:57 PM
I really didn't mean to rehash old history, but an index to the back story can be found here.Beyond that case, which affected many more collectors than just me, there are a handful of examples that come to mind -- not all of which are public -- when good faith purchases were surrendered. I should add that collectSPACE has played at times a minor roll in recovering stolen space artifacts, cooperating with the NASA Office of the Inspector General. Through the relayed reports of cS members, Challenger and Columbia debris has been reclaimed, an astronaut's flight suit was recovered (not referring to Sally Ride's), and lunar material thefts have been investigated. I do not see any reason why these instances should not be a point of pride for every member of the collectSPACE community... |
Go4Launch
Member Posts: 542
From: Seminole, Fla.
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 06-10-2010 09:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
I'm sure some of these people (PDF, 10mb) thought the same thing. I'd just rather see that NONE of us have to go through any type of questioning or inquisition related to our hobby/collecting.
In every case in that report, the items came to NASA's attention -- the agency didn't go looking. I also find it illuminating that the OIG closed one case because "NASA did not have adequate property management control over items flown on space missions in the 1960s... Many items flown in space during the 1960's were given to Astronauts by unofficial means and NASA did nothing to recover these items at that time."So with provenance from an early-era crewman (at least), I'd say you have nothing to worry about. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-11-2010 12:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Go4Launch:
So with provenance from an early-era crewman (at least), I'd say you have nothing to worry about.
That would be nice however we have seen cases where astronauts have consigned M/G/A artifacts in auctions asserting flown status or association with a specific mission/application only to be contradicted by other evidence/documentation. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-11-2010 12:59 AM
Another cover with encapsulated material - this one explicitly states the artifact was removed from Casper while on display in Huntsville! |
albatron
Member Posts: 2732
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 06-11-2010 08:06 AM
Actually Greggy brings up a very valid point that should not be dismissed out of hand.A very well known dealer/collector who posts on these boards had to endure an investigation brought by another member of the community (and do not ask me to give further details I will not). It was not pretty. It eventually went away but not until a lot of stress, money and other issues were involved. There's an old saying in law enforcement: "You may beat the rap but you don't beat the ride". So we should not dismiss Greggy's point out of hand. If you own anything space related, you need to be very careful no laws are broken, simple good faith is not always enough. I cannot speak about Federal Laws, but every state has laws that make simple possession of stolen property an offense. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-11-2010 09:25 AM
Chris Rogine had to endure mental pain, public stigma and substantial financial loss fighting the N.Y. District Attorney before being cleared of possession stolen property in the case of the Apollo parachute. All of the resultant paperwork is now semi-permanently attached to the chute's deployment bag. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-11-2010 10:33 AM
Rogine was advised by collectSPACE (a.k.a. "me") four months before listing the parachute for sale on eBay that he should obtain proof of ownership from the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome before proceeding with its sale. His reply was that he did not think he could obtain such but he was ultimately cleared of the charges as a result of the testimony of Aerodrome volunteers along with an inventory list that proved he didn't steal the parachute.So while I feel for Rogine for the plight he went through, he was aware of and had the opportunity to establish proof of ownership before offering the parachute for sale, even though it may have taken a good deal of work on his part to gather/elicit the necessary material. But if I may ask, what is the alternative? Do you suggest that collectors who come forward with significant space artifacts for sale be taken at their word only as to legal ownership? What about the 2005 case of Sherrie Shaw who was ultimately convicted of stealing and selling a Mercury spacesuit boot and other artifacts from the National Museum of Naval Aviation? |
advertisement