Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites


Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Explorers & Workers
  Neil Armstrong wants hair back that he left on barbershop floor (Page 4)

Post New Topic  
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 4 pages long:   1  2  3  4 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Neil Armstrong wants hair back that he left on barbershop floor
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-06-2005 12:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Tahir, your characterization of my position is incorrect, and considering we communicated about this topic within days via e-mail, your motives for making such a post are curious.

I have spoken (written) about forgeries as a problem throughout the six years I have been running collectSPACE, so labeling me as neutral on the subject is inaccurate. That I haven't been vocal about specific examples that you are concerned with outing is not an indication of a lack of action. It simply means that I do not yet have enough information to feel comfortable voicing an opinion.

In the case of Armstrong's hair, there wasn't any further analysis or proof needed; I wouldn't want my own hair sold without my knowledge and having personally been in a situation where I had to choose putting the request of others ahead of my own collection, it was obvious what my opinion in this case would be.

Glint
Member

Posts: 747
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-06-2005 09:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glint   Click Here to Email Glint     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
I do not know where that particular speculation came from, but I would expect that the public in general is not as familiar with the personalities involved in the space program as are the members of this message board.
I am not as interested in random speculative perceptions of what in turn the public may or may not perceive as in ascertaining how the poster of the following quote determined that what he reported is indeed a "fact."
quote:
Originally posted by Wehaveliftoff:
It is a fact, more Americans think John Glenn walked on the moon then Neil Armstrong.

reznikoff
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-06-2005 05:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for reznikoff   Click Here to Email reznikoff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I have spoken (written) about forgeries as a problem throughout the six years I have been running collectSPACE, so labeling me as neutral on the subject is inaccurate.
Dear Robert, I only answer this because it is a subject near and dear to me. Tahir is soooo correct. I am answering the authenticity issue (should earlyduke think i am being evasive or misdirecting, I am not... I simply cannot stomach his verbose self-righteous diatribes). When the Armstrong study was published I suggested we include suspected forgeries ( a far more important issue than is being discussed here) I was overruled because of potential lawsuits. Since you offer "opinions" here why not opine more on this subject. If you guys arm me with the right facts I will out the forgers and take any heat. I have spent hundreds of hours as an expert witness, both state and federal. I have put 3 people in jail, one for 10 years. As you can see by my current stance I am not afraid of legal sabre rattling, by ANYONE, when I feel I am right.... are you?????

Thanks for listening
John

------------------
John Reznikoff
President University Archives, div. of USC, Inc.

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-06-2005 10:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That someone involved in a matter of such impropriety, and who has displayed no remorse (let alone any hint of intention of rectifying the wrong committed), can express no compunction whatsoever in asking for a trust and "authority" one would normally bestow only on an individual of uncompromised integrity, is stunning.

I submit there are any number of others here at cS better qualified (more skilled, and untainted) than you, to "out" the forgers.

If you care to be useful to the collecting community, Mr. Reznikoff, here's a suggestion. Return to Mr. Armstrong that which you underhandedly took from him.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-07-2005 12:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Afraid of legal action? No, I am not; but I would just the same not choose to disrespect others' rights simply because I am not fearful of the repercussions.

Yves, I would ask that you be careful to temper your comments to the issue, rather than the individual. There is no need for this discussion to degrade to demonstrations of disrespect (say that five times that fast), especially as it appears to be that very action that you are finding troublesome.

Wehaveliftoff
Member

Posts: 728
From:
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 06-07-2005 09:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Wehaveliftoff   Click Here to Email Wehaveliftoff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Now that this issue has been resolved by the principals, shouldn't the rest of us
put this to rest, as it seems to take on personal repercussions which is anything but mature. Your site Robert, but isn't it time to close this thread, just a suggestion.

Scott
Member

Posts: 3293
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-07-2005 09:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Scott   Click Here to Email Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Afraid of legal action? No, I am not; but I would just the same not choose to disrespect others' rights simply because I am not fearful of the repercussions.
Asking a seller or sellers privately where they have been obtaining a specific suspect style is disrespecting their rights?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-07-2005 10:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Scott:
Asking a seller or sellers privately where they have been obtaining a specific suspect style is disrespecting their rights?
No and I've done that when I have had questions about others' autographs. However, it would be a violation of their privacy were I to share that information with others (without permission) unless there was a clear and valid reason to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Wehaveliftoff:
Now that this issue has been resolved by the principals, shouldn't the rest of us
put this to rest...

Though I don't think the thread should be closed to further comments on the hair case, I do agree that we have gotten off-topic. I would ask those who want to discuss the subject of forgeries to do so under the Autographs forum.

RK
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-07-2005 10:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for RK   Click Here to Email RK     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Regarding any legal action and civil litigation: the only winners in this arena are the lawyers.

If somebody sues you you have to answer the suit or you lose by default. That means hiring an attorney. That usually means a large retainer upfront. And that is just the beginning of the costs.

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-07-2005 11:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Robert, I acknowledge my tone has harshened, but I contend that is due more to the subject matter I feel I must confront than as a function of any desire on my part to intentionally treat any individual disrespectfully. Nevertheless, your point is well taken and I will, as best I can, defer to your authority and better judgement and try to tone it down.

Tahir, with all due respect, I don't understand your comment above, where you write, "I think the forgeries offend me far worse than any of this hair business". Though it's encouraging you are unsure which is worse, the main problem with your statement, of course, is that this "hair business" is not in any meaningful way distinguishable from a case of forgery (a forgery being, if nothing else, a false representation meant to convey the impression that something of value was willingly transferred to the person making the representation, when in fact it was not). And in this instance, with the misrepresentation being committed by a collector and dealer of high repute, isn't the offense far worse [than if committed by someone of lesser standing]?

reznikoff
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-07-2005 02:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for reznikoff   Click Here to Email reznikoff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by earlyduke:
If you care to be useful to the collecting community, Mr. Reznikoff, here's a suggestion. Return to Mr. Armstrong that which you underhandedly took from him.
I never asked you, nor did I address the quote to you.

reznikoff
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-07-2005 02:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for reznikoff   Click Here to Email reznikoff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Yves, I would ask that you be careful to temper your comments to the issue, rather than the individual.
Wow! Thanks

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-07-2005 02:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Though the advice was addressed to Yves, its applicable to all. If you use your post to directly address an individual with anything but respect, then it will be edited or removed. Comments like "get a life" are neither helpful or merited.

Scott
Member

Posts: 3293
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-07-2005 04:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Scott   Click Here to Email Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by earlyduke:
this "hair business" is not in any meaningful way distinguishable from a case of forgery
You state this as if it were a fact, when it is your opinion - and an opinion I completely disagree with.
quote:
Originally posted by earlyduke:
(a forgery being, if nothing else, a false representation meant to convey the impression that something of value was willingly transferred to the person making the representation, when in fact it was not).
That's a real sanitary way of describing someone getting screwed out of thousands of dollars. Would you describe a murder as "someone being involuntarily liberated of physical life and its associated needs"?

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-07-2005 06:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Scott, you are of course free to disagree with what I wrote. But as I laid out my reasoning for stating the things I did, it would be nice if you did the same, rather than just serving me with the notice that you take exception to my thinking. Otherwise how is one able to discern whether your dissenting opinion has any merit?

As for your 2nd comment, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. As the definition of forgery I laid out is, I believe, an accurate description of what Mr. Reznikoff engaged in, are you saying that I have sanitized his deeds with my language, and that you find his actions and ongoing behavior, in actuality, far more reprehensible?

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-07-2005 06:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wehaveliftoff:
Now that this issue has been resolved by the principals, shouldn't the rest of us put this to rest, as it seems to take on personal repercussions which is anything but mature.
The topic discussed on this thread was national news this week in the world press and on TV because of the personality involved. One of the principals has chosen to defend his position by posting his opinion on this message board.

I do not agree that the thread should be cut at this point or at any point just because one individual thinks that the subject has been covered at length in his opinion and that it is resolved. This thread has led to a discussion of many related matters such as: the reasons why astronauts no longer sign, the reason for "celebrity" status of some astronauts, the value of hair as a collectible item, and many other matters.

Some may appear to be "off topic", a fatal error on this message board. But I see this and other threads as having many attached threads, such as the branches of a tree. If that is where the discussion leads, it is all right with me. This is not the same as "going off on a tangent", which may lead to unrelated topics.

I would never think of suggesting that one item is "more collectible" than another item. Some collect matchbooks or baseball cards or sand from many locations or "doggie bags" from restaurants, etc.

In the case of hair, how does the collector know that what he has is genuine? In this case in particular, how does the collector actually know that it is a lock of Neil Armstrong's hair? It there a COA attached or is it stamped with the seal of a notary public? For that matter, how are ANY of the locks in his collection authenticated?

The point of this is that the collector would have benefited enormously by asking Neil Armstrong for a "snip" of his hair attached to an autograph sealed in an acrylic Apollo XI capsule, in exchange for a very hefty donation (perhaps $5,000) to a charity chosen by Armstrong and the pledge of non-disclosure until after the death of the original owner or the passage of many years. There would have been no news to the press and no anxiety attacks by either of the participants. That would have been the proper procedure in a perfect world. But the discussion is interesting, so please continue.

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-07-2005 11:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
...the collector would have benefited enormously by asking Neil Armstrong for a "snip" of his hair attached to an autograph sealed in an acrylic Apollo XI capsule, in exchange for a very hefty donation (perhaps $5,000) to a charity chosen by Armstrong and the pledge of non-disclosure until after the death of the original owner or the passage of many years. There would have been no news to the press and no anxiety attacks by either of the participants. That would have been the proper procedure in a perfect world.
But not in this world, Astro Bill.

It's been suggested this "normal" procedure you described wouldv'e been followed by any ethical person truly considerate of Mr. Armstrong's feelings or concerns. The fact that it was bypassed completely, followed by feigned hand-wringing after different tactics were used to acquire Armstrong's hair... (Oh, had we only KNOWN he would've disapproved!!)... tells you a lot about the people still refusing to do the simple right thing.

...yet they have their sympathizers and apologists. Mind boggling.

Astro Bill
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-08-2005 12:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by earlyduke:
But not in this world, Astro Bill.
I suggested that this would have been a "proper" procedure not a "normal" procedure. Obviously, this situation developed because someone was unethical (sneaky, immoral, unfair). The fact that they are defending their unethical position is not surprising given the manner in which the hair was obtained.

Who are you suggesting is sympathizing with the person who caused this problem?

Scott
Member

Posts: 3293
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-08-2005 09:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Scott   Click Here to Email Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
No and I've done that when I have had questions about others' autographs. However, it would be a violation of their privacy were I to share that information with others (without permission) unless there was a clear and valid reason to do so.
You may have a valid reason not to share with others the info you've obtained, but if you have narrowed a particular unique style's provenance to a particular dealer or narrow origin, have you pursued it further?

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-08-2005 08:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In response to Astro Bill's question above, "Who are you suggesting is sympathizing with the person who caused this problem?", -- I'd say there's no need to name names; I think anyone paying attention to all the posts on this thread will be able to make that determination for themselves.

In reference to another comment above, by Scott, a little web-surfing turned up these various definitions of forgery:

1) Anything false in the semblance of that which is true.

2) Presentation of an article made to appear as though it came from a source other than the source of its actual origin. (In this instance, the actual source being an incensed Armstrong, as opposed to a willing and consenting Armstrong)

3) Act of falsification, with intent to deceive.

4) Knowing and willful misattribution.

Mr. Reznikoff regards his collection of celebrity hair, and presents it to the world, as an assemblage of great historical import, does he not? (I'd argue the folks at Guiness Book of World Records would say so). But anyone looking at the way Mr. Reznikoff was able to garner his latest prize would be hard pressed to make a case that it was gathered in any way one could consider noble or honorable, wouldn't you agree?

On that basis, Scott, and considering the definitions cited above, on what basis did you form your opinion that is so counter to the notion that "this "hair business" is not in any meaningful way distinguishable from a case of forgery"?

spaced out
Member

Posts: 2597
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 06-09-2005 06:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaced out   Click Here to Email spaced out     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I feel foolish at getting sucked into an argument over the semantics of the word "forgery" but here goes...

Taking two simple examples: Jim-Bob Slimeball produces a fake signed Armstrong photo and sells it on eBay as genuine. At the same time, Billy-Joe Nomorals, a dishonest collector, gets an in-person signature from Armstrong by making up a story about a school or a student that doesn't exist and then sells it on eBay.

The former is dishonest and indeed fraudulent and is surely what 99.9999% of people would describe as a case of forgery.

The latter would be a case of deception and dishonesty, but surely no-one would describe it as a case of forgery?

No matter how you far you stretch the semantics of the word, the hair in this whole sorry story cannot be described as a "forgery". It is authentic, as proved by the legal proceedings started to have it returned if possible. Whether Armstrong was a consenting donor or not also doesn't make the article a forgery. If the owner of the item claims it was given to them voluntarily (which I have not seen stated) then they would be misrepresenting its origin but it still doesn't make the article a forgery according to any regular use of the word.

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-09-2005 10:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thank you, spaced out, for your well thought out analysis, as I believe you are 100% right in what you wrote. However, the caveat lies with one specific word I used: MEANINGFUL. When I wrote this "hair business is not in any meaningful way distinguishable from a case of forgery," I deliberately chose my words very carefully, as it would be quite different to write "this hair business is not in any way distinguishable from a case of forgery."

So yes, this does boil down to semantics, but the semantic difference is an important one, as it highlights that in an ethical sense, there is no difference between what Reznikoff has done and what a common forger does, i.e., they both represent a falsity as the truth, for personal gain. That is why I am amazed there still appear to be some here who countenance Reznikoff's actions and ongoing behavior. I don't think it's done overtly, and I don't think it's done with bad intent, but a passive defense (by means of attempts to dilute Reznikoff's malfeasance, by talking about more egregious or more easily discernible offenses) is still a defense, and I don't know why there is any defense at all. A reticence to "tell it like it is," i.e., attempts at downplaying it are, in effect, a sidestepping of it, a form of excusing it, and I can't understand why.

Forgers are rightly denounced and scorned here by all at cS. There's no justification for double standards.

Scott
Member

Posts: 3293
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-09-2005 02:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Scott   Click Here to Email Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by earlyduke:
Return to Mr. Armstrong that which you underhandedly took from him.
Regardless of what you think about him adding the hair to his collection, Reznikoff didn't "take" anything from Armstrong. And your "cure-all" suggestion that he return it would do little good, as I have it from irreputable sources, but ones which must be kept in confidence, that at least two other people aside from him have some of the hair in their possession. And no I'm not one of them. I don't collect hair, only the scalps of annoyingly verbose and effusive people.

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-09-2005 02:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No, Scott, Reznikoff didn't take Armstrong's hair. Like a mafia boss who wants a dirty deed done by someone else so his own hands can stay clean, he arranged for someone else to do it. Since you are so obviously not fazed by the deed, perhaps you won't mind me asking - - would you have done it? Maybe you can't recognize that something shady happened here, but even Reznikoff sees that; why else do you think he volunteered a hefty donation to a children's cancer charity in Armstrong's name?

Also, your confidential sources seemingly aren't very confidential, as Todd Mueller readily and publicly admitted he kept some of Armstrong's hair. And anyway, what is your point? That if enough people have the ill-gotten strands it makes it more acceptable? Any one holding any of the hair is as ethically challenged as the next.

Your inability to understand or appreciate the implications here is quite astounding.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-09-2005 02:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by earlyduke:
Like a mafia boss who wants a dirty deed done by someone else so his own hands can stay clean, he arranged for someone else to do it.
Whoah! Slow down there, Yves. No such thing is known to have happened. I may not agree with John buying the hair from Todd - and I certainly don't agree with Todd's participation in this at all - but making the jump that John arranged this whole thing is far from obvious. Let's limit our condemnations to what is known, not what's supposed or assumed.

That said, I don't see the point of continuing this one-upsmanship between you and Scott or you and John. The damage has been done, no amount of debate is going to change that, and based on the feedback I have received, John may be seeing less business in the future from his past clients as a result. Until something else changes, perhaps it is time to give this topic a rest.

fabfivefreddy
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-09-2005 05:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for fabfivefreddy   Click Here to Email fabfivefreddy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am certainly not here to defend John's purchase of the hair.

But I can say that he has contributed more to the field of autograph collecting than almost any person since Charles Hamilton.

Just read his numerous publications on American historical autographs. The resume is outstanding.

I respect dealers that also collect themselves because they understand what collectors really want.

He loves to collect and is not just trying to make a quick buck on everything he sees.

John is an asset to the hobby and field of collecting and should be welcomed in any capacity that can further the hobby's interest and credibility.

If you have not read his articles or spoken to him directly or seen him teach something valuable, you are not getting the entire picture of the man.

I know some very successful collectors with estates of former U.S. Presidents that trust ONLY John for his opinion.

His work on the Armstrong signature study was wonderful and helpful to us.

He is not a forger or a dishonest business man.

Tahir

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-09-2005 06:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Having come across Neil Armstrong's commencement address he delivered on May 13 at the University of Southern California, I could not help but think that some of his closing words were very applicable to this discussion:
quote:
You can lose your health to illness or accident. You can lose your wealth to all manner of unpredictable sources. What are not easily stolen from you without your cooperation are your principles and your values. They are your most important possessions and, if carefully selected and nurtured, will well serve you and your fellow man. Society’s future will depend on a continuous improvement program for the human character.

dss65
Member

Posts: 821
From: Sandpoint, ID, USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 06-09-2005 08:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dss65   Click Here to Email dss65     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Amen to those words, Neil. Thanks for sharing them, Robert. It's not just how we deal with astronauts--it's how we deal with life in general. As a society, we'll reap what we sow.

------------------
Don

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-09-2005 08:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Robert, it is true that there are conflicting reports as to who actually made
the purchase, and it may very well be the case that Mueller acted on his own in
buying the hair from Sizemore. (Many accounts of the story have quoted Sizemore
as saying he was approached, repeatedly, by an agent for Reznikoff).

I don't think who actually made the purchase changes the story much; we still
have the same people saying how much they admire Armstrong on the one hand (if
indeed THOSE reports are true), while still refusing with the other to return to
him what he asked for. That IS a fact.

Anyway, thank you for correcting me; I'm sorry for getting overheated again, and
possibly getting certain facets of the story confused.

Tahir, I don't doubt that Messrs Reznikoff and Mueller (and anyone else holding
bits of Armstrong's hair) have admirable qualities and achievements to their
credit. Other people who've been excoriated here for forgeries I'm sure have
families, responsibilities, headaches and probably some admirable qualities of
their own too. But it's all quite beside the point. Mr. Reznikoff refuses to
return the hair. That makes his an ongoing offense, and in my mind pushes all
the other positive things about him aside. Were he to undue the injury he has
caused (as defined by Mr. Armstrong, not you, or Scott or Mr. Reznikoff) I
think he'd be doing himself a world of good.

What you wrote is true, Tahir. Mr. Reznikoff is not a forger, and as far as I
know not a dishonest business man, but can you say he is not unethical? (So
there's no confusion, or nitpicking, to be unethical is to have done something
unethical). I realize it may be painful to see someone you obviously admire
engaging in behavior like this, and I am NOT unsympathetic. But perhaps, as a
friend, you might try to convince him to undo the damage (to what extent that is
possible) and return the Armstrong hair in his possession. If you had a friend
who was an alcoholic, would you try to get him on the wagon, and hook him up
with AA, or would you just continue making excuses for his ongoing drinking?
I'd certainly like to see a happy ending to this story.

fabfivefreddy
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-09-2005 10:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for fabfivefreddy   Click Here to Email fabfivefreddy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Great quote, Robert. Will you please show it again when an unscrupulous forger tries to sell an item on ebay and collectors try to confront him?

You should not maintain neutrality in those situations and then try to take "the higher moral ground" when the Associated Press prints a "hot story" to make a cheap headline about a reputable dealer.

Sorry, but I have a problem with this inconsistent message that you bring as a moderator.

Tahir

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-09-2005 10:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Forgers are bad people. Forgeries are bad for the hobby." - Robert Pearlman

There, I have lost my neutrality.

Seriously, I have never been neutral when it has come to forgeries. There is a noted difference however, between having an opinion that something is fake and knowing that it is.

I have provided this community a forum for those who feel they are confident enough to offer an opinion. With very few exceptions, I do not share their confidence. I will and have countless times shared opinions via e-mail but my reluctance to post the same advice publicly is in no way a declaration of neutrality.

You may feel that this story was a "cheap shot" aimed at disrespecting John Reznikoff. That's where you and I disagree. I believe, if anyone, the victim here was Armstrong.

fabfivefreddy
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-09-2005 11:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for fabfivefreddy   Click Here to Email fabfivefreddy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Robert-

I do condemn it. Taking Armstrong's side is the "natural" reaction here, as we all love him as a hero.

However, when posting about forgers- just look at the threads on this site. You are "neutral" when obvious forgeries are presented as real.

Your silence speaks loudly in those cases.

I hope you take this as constructive criticism as moderator of this board.
I am not trying to undermine you.

In fact, I have read many of your articles and listened to your programs. You are an honorable person and gifted presenter. I just wanted to point out an area that I feel strongly about.

If you are going to publicly denounce this hair-brained issue, then please use the same language when a skilled forger refuses to give provenance for an item or when 5 experienced collectors believe something is fishy with their items.

I didn't want to get off topic as far as this has. You have the toughest job as moderator (glad I'm not it). Fielding complaints from people is not fun, I am sure. I just hope that you can try to be more balanced in the future against the real criminals in this field.

Tahir

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-09-2005 11:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Tahir, you are not a fair person. What does that mean... you condemn IT?

Condemn what? Do you even know? And just why should Robert kowtow to you, when YOU refuse to make an obvious call in this slam-dunk issue? IMO, Robert's been far more thoughtful in his well considered positions when it comes to forgeries than you have been in this glaring expose of perverse ethics, yet HE hasn't been hands-on-hips demanding that you do something to suit him. Who are you to make demands of him?

And, Tahir, if anything, the wire stories (IMO) all took cheap shots at Neil Armstrong, not John Reznikoff, and tried to make his attempts to stand up for himself look petty. One small SNIP for mankind, indeed. HA HA, very clever stuff. Meanwhile, Reznikoff was portrayed as some class act collector trying to pump up his Ripleyesque stockpile. Revolting.

And yet... he has his useful, er, persons. Tahir and Scott, do your thing, that's fine. You've chosen your dog in this fight and you can have him. Good call.

Scott
Member

Posts: 3293
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-10-2005 07:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Scott   Click Here to Email Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
"Forgers are bad people. Forgeries are bad for the hobby." - Robert Pearlman

There, I have lost my neutrality.


That's not what we're talking about with respect to neutrality. You seem to want forgers to come out from behind their piles of items and pens and say, "Hi there, I'm a forger." It doesn't work that way. There is something called circumstantial evidence, in some cases mountains of it.

fabfivefreddy
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-10-2005 08:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for fabfivefreddy   Click Here to Email fabfivefreddy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Robert edited his message after I already responded to it. I was condemning the sale of the hair. My reply makes no sense now. This was a coincidence, I answered and he edited at the same time.

Tahir

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-10-2005 09:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My apologies Tahir, I wasn't aware that you were replying at the same time I was editing. On review, I decided it was inappropriate to force your opinion.

Scott, if you have circumstantial evidence that you believe to be strong enough to support an investigation, contact the authorities (just as I have).

earlyduke
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 06-10-2005 10:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for earlyduke   Click Here to Email earlyduke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Robert is apparently far too much the gentlemen to respond to your offensive comments, Scott,... but I'm not.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You want Robert (who by virtue of his position as moderator of this site must maintain a certain neutrality unless there is IRREFUTABLE evidence that someone has done something that crosses a legal or ethical line) to issue public declarations in a case YOU deem to meet a standard of irrefutability, yet in a case where just such irrefutable evidence exists, YOU refuse to do any such thing. I don't know your religious or ethnic background, but I believe even you might know what the word "chutzpah" means.

You reprimand and bait Robert because he hasn't "followed up" in a matter you feel he should have. But as one who hasn't made EVEN ONE critical comment here about Mueller or Reznikoff (in fact, you appear to have gone out of your way to not do so) where is your standing to call Robert to task for anything? Case in point: have you, Scott, placed any calls to Mueller or Reznikoff asking them why they won't return Armstrong's hair, or demanding that they do so? If not, why not? And if not, again, where do you have the audacity to call Robert on the carpet here?

And BTW, Tahir, if all you can muster is a condemning of the sale of the hair, you're still either unwittingly or deliberately missing the point. Condemning the sale of the hair means you're basically criticizing only the barber, Sizemore. By far the more egregious offense here is the refusal of those with the hair to return it to Armstrong, and so far you, like Scott, refuse to say anything critical in that area. When you're busy protecting certain individuals, rather than standing up consistently for certain principles, you're exhibiting an agenda, and are yourselves compromised as arbiters of what is and is not ethical conduct.

As for the matter of defending or disrespecting Armstrong, maybe someone could take you more seriously as a critic in that area if YOU hadn't yourself engaged in, by virtue of your failure to take up for him in this case, basically just throwing him under the wheels of the bus. But I wouldn't expect you to understand or even care about that if you can't even see how boorish it is for you to berate someone who has been your congenial host and afforded you a unique platform to spout your views for over 4 years now. Classy is not a word that comes to mind.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-10-2005 11:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yves, while I appreciate your desire to defend me and salute your passion for respecting Mr. Armstrong's wishes, I don't believe that lashing out at Scott or Tahir is appropriate or productive. We - as in the members of this board - are not the problem and we should not be seeking to bait, criticize or even worse, degrade our fellow collectors.

I'll close this thread if necessary, but as an alternative, I would ask that Tahir, Scott and Yves stop responding to each other (or if you must, do so by e-mail). From your collective past posts, its evident that you do not hold the other "side" in high regard so its best to let each retreat into their corners. There isn't even a need to respond to this message (or again, do so by e-mail).

If further discussion of the hair deal is merited by news developments or other information becoming public, than posting here can resume.


This topic is 4 pages long:   1  2  3  4 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement