Slashdot Mirror
Court to Decide If Man Can Keep His Moon Rock
Joe Gutheinz, a former senior investigator for NASA's Office of Inspector General, has made it his goal to collect all 230 moon rocks presented by the US to governments around the world, and put them in a museum. Deadliest Catch Captain Coleman Anderson wants to keep his little piece of the moon. Anderson says he found the rock in the trash mixed with debris following a fire at an Anchorage museum in 1973. He's kept it as a good luck charm ever since. "Our astronauts and their descendants are not permitted to have an Apollo 11-era moon rock to sell for their own enrichment and neither should a private citizen who acquired one in a less-noble manner," Gutheinz said. An Alaskan judge will now decide who legally owns the rock.
This guy sounds like an Indiana-Jones type elitist.
So what if the guy found it in the trash; I'm sure Joe's mom came across his dad's sperm in a a less-noble manner.
Maybe he should have let the thing go on in the trash, then where would your precious little moon rock be? But that's what you get for trying, sued
There are other court cases where folks have claimed things that have been disposed of. All the cases I have read show that once a prperty owner has thrown something out that whoever physically claims it is the owner. Unless a good lawyer can showhow this case is different, I don't know that NASA has a valid case.
I would like to cite the case of 'Finders vs Keepers'
"Our astronauts and their descendants are not permitted to have an Apollo 11-era moon rock to sell for their own enrichment and neither should a private citizen who acquired one in a less-noble manner,"
The way I see it, the guy saved it from being buried in some landfill somewhere. I'm sure none of that matters to the courts, but I can't see trying to slander the guy for wanting to keep what he found. Also, it doesn't sound like he's trying to cash in on it (at least not yet), but is rather fond of his "good luck charm".
I don't like the gov't claiming any kind of eminent domain, or seazing any other property from individual owners. But in this case I dislike looters who go into a burned down structure and steal your property before you get a chance to return and get it. What he did was an act of looting and theft and should probably be fined for it. .
we should just go get a bunch more rocks so that they are not valuable. it's a damned rock. but since we're apparently stuck on this one forever, they are worth more than gold.
did you people know the top of the washington monument is made of aluminium? cause that used to be precious too.
let the dude keep his pebble. lets be noble and go back to the moon. we used to be good at it.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Let the guy keep his space-rock.
... the rest of them are found.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
Coleman -
Give it back - sure you saved it and restored the plaque, but its a moon rock it belongs to the public.
State of Alaska -
Thank him for safe keeping a state treasure,
Display the Rock in a museum, and include the message of thanks to Coleman for keeping what you thought was junk, but was also historically valuable.
make sure you never loose this thing again.
All sides drop all lawsuits.
Everyone move on.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
The best compromise is when both parties are not happy with the result.
Finders keepers.
"found the rock in debris following a fire at an Anchorage museum in 1973" = "stole"
If it was not his and he took it without permission, he stole it.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Why would someone go to a museum to see a little bit of the moon, when all you have to do is wait until it's dark and you can see the whole thing...? A rock is a rock, once you've seen one you've seen them all.
I believe there is precedent; I remind the court of the case of Finders VS Keepers.
Buzz Aldrin should fly to Alaska, punch this guy in the nose, and recover the moon rock for the benefit of Mankind. And let a camera crew from the History channel tag along for the lulz.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It's a chain-of-ownership issue here. If NASA loaned the rock to the museum for display, and they accidentally tossed it out, NASA still owns it, all the way to the dump and beyond. Just because you lose track of something doesn't mean you don't own it anymore. You have to give it away, sell it, transfer it, abandon it, or have it confiscated, to lose ownership over it. Valuable things are rarely donated to museums, they are more often put on exhibit on a temporary or permanent basis.
Right now that's looking like the case. But further details could emerge. Maybe NASA gave them 11 rocks along with other stuff, and asked for "all 10 rocks back and you can dispose of the rest of the exhibit", which would transfer ownership of rock #11 to the museum, which threw it out (abandoned it) and then in the trash pile it does become finders-keepers.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If you've ever watch the crab captains on Deadliest Catch, you would know that there never existed in the universe a more greedy, money-obsessed group of cold sonofabitches than those guys. They LOVE money. They don't hesitate to risk the lives of their own families for money. They think about money from the second they get up to the moment they go to bed.
If this guy was a crab captain, you can bet that he's holding out for more money. All that sentimental value crap is just his way of bargaining. I guarantee you that the only thing that has stopped him from selling it before was his questionable title to it. If he wins this case, he'll be auctioning it off the next day.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Do you think that had the Apollo astronauts brought back their shit from the moon to the earth that people would be arguing over ownership of it?
If they did, indeed, throw the baby out with the bathwater, then it's their own loss.
As far as I am aware, there are no laws preventing you from acquiring something from someone else's garbage.
Maybe next time they should double check their stuff before throwing it out?
While I'm sure you're using it to try and attract little boys, Joe Gutheinz would like to speak to you...
That rock rightfully belong to Lord British; the thieve should return it at once!
In what way is it relevant what NASA chose to give to the astronauts? If NASA didn't give a rock to astronauts, does that also mean that NASA shouldn't keep any of the rocks? Does NASA own the rocks which it gave away to governors and other countries? If it was NASA's rock, what did it do to recover it after the fire? Did NASA think that a rock can't survive a fire?
That's no moon....
Previewing comments are for sissies!
So let me get this straight, First a museum burns down (probably due to some form of negligence), they apparently don't properly sort through the debris for salvageable relics. This guy spends his own time, effort & money finding and restoring the plaque containing the moon rock pieces that they carelessly forgot about. Now they want it back and "restitution" for its loss??? This is like a guy throwing out an antique toy and then filing theft charges later when he finds out its worth some money and someone else picked it up and restored it.
...losers Litigators?
you knoe are courts have gone downhill when they are fighting over a rock and they acully took the case. nasa needs to chill the f out what abought all those little placks they sold with moon rocks on them.
Nice title.
You just kept your mouth shut about the fancy rock you found?
Hm, so a museum burns down. This guy start combing through the garbage to see if they missed anything after the tragedy. He finds what he *knows* is a valuable piece of property from the museum that they missed in the debris. He then decides to keep it instead of returning it to the rightful owners. He knows it is valuable, he knows who it belongs to and he decides to walk off with it instead.
When you know that someone has suffered a tragedy you should step up to help them recover rather then hunting around hoping that they've miss placed something that you can walk off with. That behavior is called 'looting'.
What a slime bucket this guy is.
... but unless the state (or private owner if the property was leased) gave permission for a salvage operation, then this isn't a salvage operation.
By way of comparison, say my house burns down. You come and search through the rubble that used to be my basement and find something I missed. If you take it home, that's not salvage but theft. That the state owned the museum (or leased it) shouldn't make this much different.
But that's the legal perspective. It doesn't necessarily dovetail with what the right thing to do is.
He's lucky all that is happening is a lawsuit, that's grand theft, the black market value(only tangible value at current) is 5 million.
break the rock in two and both parties will have what they want, a piece of history.
According to the TFA, the item was "presented to the state of Alaska in 1969 by President Nixon".
If the museum was run by the state, then they tossed it, and he owns it...
I do not believe any party to the suit is willing to admit that the moonrock was intentionally placed in a trash receptacle outside the building and curtilage of the museum and, thereby, abandoned.
And, even if that were the case, that does not mean that a finder has right to title if the object is found. If, as I believe the feds are claiming, the rocks don't actually belong to the museum but to the US government, then it doesn't matter if the museum did abandon the rocks.
That said, it's apparent that the government is being an asshat about the situation. What they should have done is graciously thanked Anderson for saving the rocks, offered to generously reimburse him for his time as steward of the rocks, and offered to put a commemorative plaque with his name on the new display. As it is, they're being petty bullies.
There are probably many moon rocks on earth other than the ones brought back by project Apollo. Just as meteor strikes on Mars sent rocks on a collision course with earth, so did meteor strikes on the moon. The hard part would be in proving that a particular rock came from the moon.
Seriously, what's the difference if the museum contains 229 or 230 moon rocks? It sounds like without this guy, the rock would have been lost forever. Really, who is going to be harmed by allowing him to keep the thing?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
they should pay the guy compensation - they fucked up, he found it and prevented it from being lost. But instead of owning up, they try to hide their messup by making him look bad
If someone tried this shit on me, i'd probably make a cheap lookalike, and toss the real thing somewhere, or just straight out lose it, just to spite them.
If the guy was as profit oriented as you lot claim he'd have sold it to some private collector long ago anyways.
On the matter of legality, the claim is that the museum staff "meticulously" searched through the debris, salvaging what they deemed valuable, before calling the trash removal company to haul the rest away. Anderson did not dumpster dive to get this, but he did pick it from among the remaining debris.
As far as the rock being a "loaner," I respectfully disagree... it was presented to the museum by President Nixon; many museums display loaned items, either from private collections or as part of an arrangement with other museums, but that doesn't mean they don't "own" any of the items on display, if something is "presented" to them, then one would think they own it. After the fire, they chose not to salvage it.
Let's let the courts decide the legality... it seems like there's a lot of gray area we may not be privy to right now.
On the matter of ethics, or should he return it, I say... no. Why should he? There's over 200 of them, many of them "recovered." So what are they going to do with them? Lock them away? Put them in more museums? They got 70 of them back... isn't that enough for whatever they want to do? It seems like sour grapes to say "well, X can't have one, so why should Y," when it makes little difference in the end to X or anyone else that Y has one.
It would be cool if Anderson would "lend" it to a museum, so other people can see it, too, but I don't see why legal or "moral" ownership requires a prerequisite that others should be able to own the same thing.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Unfortunately, the lesson is that he should have just kept quiet and kept his souvenir. Especially if his account of events is honest and the rock was a gift, not a loan.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
He didn't take it out of the trash. His dad was the curator for the museum. His dad likely stole the rocks after the fire.
So, NASA hands out all these presents, and later they change their mind and want them all back. I think people would be better off refusing it.
And maybe if they spent more time getting people up into space and less on chasing down moon rocks, we'd soon get fresh moon rocks from the source.
How NASA thinks moon rocks are that valuable. Frankly, their goal should have been to make them common. But that's the old NASA, the new NASA is a bloated bureaucracy that begs for rides on Russian rockets.
Why don't we just go and get another, oh yea it all got cancelled... ;)
-Xen
What happened in the past 40 years or so? I am just barely old enough to remember Challenger, but it seems like throughout my life space exploration has stagnated if not outright declined.
Now I understand that from a scientific point of view sending probes to Mars and beyond is cheap, safe (unless you mix up your feet with your hogsheads) and the amount of data gathered is enormous. But sending a human being to another planet is on a completely different level of excitement. Seeing the grainy footage of the astronauts walking on the Moon still sends shivers down my spine, while the highest resolution pictures taken by the Mars rovers leave me unimpressed.
I will venture a guess, but this is one of the reasons the general public does not care that NASA has its budget reduced every year. Recently /. ran a story about a new rover landing on Mars, and I just thought "meh." Now if these missions were part of a larger plan of manned space exploration, then I'd care. But I'm pretty sure it will not get us anywhere, at least not within the rest of my lifetime.
So I ask again, what happened? Where did we go wrong, and how can we, the human race, get back into space?
As of the present, the only government involved is the state of Alaska which filed a counter-suit to Anderson's pre-emptive lawsuit.
The timeline is basically:
1. Former investigator teaches college course encouraging students to track what happened to various moon rocks.
2. Student finds where the trail ends (at the museum fire) and encourages the state of Alaska to get involved in finding what happened.
3. Anderson sues for the right to keep the rock or have the state recompense him for keeping the rock safe.
4. The state of Alaska counter-sues.
At which of those four steps did the Obama administration, the present administrator of NASA, or anyone else in present federal government become involved?
This rock is at the same time worthless and priceless. But that is neither here nor there. I'm not arguing that the government should buy the rock. So far as I can tell, the government of Alaska has clear title.
What I'm suggesting is that the government recompense Anderson for the time he spent taking care of the rock just as it would paid to have it restored and paid people to curate the display if the state had found the rock in the museum debris.
But as for whether governments can be arbitrary in awarding such monies to people, it can and it does. In most states, the legislature is allowed to vote to spend money however it wants. And, there is a long track record of this starting with money given by the federal legislature to George Washington.
The last people to see the plaque, Henrikson said, were two museum employees who walked through the building after the fire. According to them, the moon rocks were intact, in a glass case. After that, museum staff discussed taking the plaque out of the burned-out area and putting it in a more secure part of the museum. A few days later, a museum employee noticed it wasn't in the case. Instead there was just a clean square in the ash and dust where it had been sitting. She assumed Phil Redden, a museum curator, took it home for safe-keeping. But later, when he was asked, Redden denied it.
a man named Coleman Anderson is listed in the obituary for the transportation museum's last curator, Phil Redden.
Coleman Anderson has the rock. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/157506
Generally, it's considered that once you throw something in the trash, it's now public property for anyone who wishes to claim it. The courts have ruled thusly for many years, and I doubt this will change things. If the court rules otherwise, it would give him a solid shot of winning on appeal, if he chose to pursue it.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you have garbage in a public place can't the cops search and confiscate without a warrant because its no longer your property? doesn't the same apply here? what about people that dumpster dive? are they stealing? Maybe they are if you are paying a trash company, and its their trash bin, maybe you are technically trespassing. I just don't know. Anyway, i feel that if a cop can take my garbage than a citizen can take my garbage.
"Joe Gutheinz... has made it his goal to collect all 230 moon rocks presented by the US to governments around the world"
A retired guy who now acts like he's on a mission for God re-assembling the old rock group. He does sound like a tool. First he goes on about the astronauts not given rocks to keep. (Me, I wouldn't bet more than $5 that there's an Apollo astronaut with a rock ). Then to make his quest sound even more noble invokes the memory of dead astronauts, the number of which he seems to have pulled out of the air.
My first thought was Bookman on Seinfeld with his dogged quest to find the missing copy of "Tropic of Cancer", though Inspector Javert chasing Jean Valvaljean sounds better than a pop culture reference.
Since when did NASA claim ownership of anything in a trash can?
How does anyone know that he didn't pilfer the museum debris before it was written off as a total loss? Not a lawyer, but I'd assume that the burden of proof is on him. On a personal note, if my house burned down and a guy shows up with grandpa's pocket watch and claims he found it in the dump where the burned remnants were disposed, I think he loses.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"Three state governors accidentally took their state's rocks home after leaving office."
Yeah, right.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
According to Alaska Daily News, the state's side of the story is significantly different. That they aren't alleging outright theft is only because the statute of limitations has run out.
I may need to revise my estimation of the state as acting like a petty bully. If their story holds water, this may be a cut and dried case of looting.
And these people agree to be on that show for one reason. Money. You actually managed to confirm elrous0's post.
What if the cause of the fire at the museum is determined to be arson?
The museum went right over all the debris, took what they wanted, declared the rest trash/unsalvageable, and rescinded ownership of it.
I'm not sure it was ever *owned* by the museum. The museum may have merely been in lawful possession of it for the purposes of public display. NASA may have been the rightful owner and they never rescinded ownership. **IF** so they may have every legal right to its return.
...Joe Gutheinz would like to speak to you...
Interesting that you bring that up. Of all the potentially credible sources whom the author could have picked, why did he select a "professor" from the University of Phoenix? How about Rutgers? Harvard? UC Berkeley? SURELY the author (writing for The Seattle Times: Winner of Eight Pulitzer Prizes as displayed prominently at the headline of the article) could have found a professor at a real, not-for-profit university who would put in his two or three cents. Or even someone from a reputable community college. But a bona fide diploma mill? And before anyone tries to nab me on the guy being an "agent for NASA," who went undercover, I want to see some facts because he more than likely was not employed by NASA. Something really doesn't add up here.
To put it more bluntly: would you rather it be in a private collection or lost completely? Those are your two options.
Well there is a third option: rescued from museum mishandling, returned to NASA, and put on public display.
I don't think this guy did anything wrong, rather he deserves to be thanked. However the museum probably did not have ownership nor did they have the right to throw it out. If you loan something to a museum and they mishandle it don't you still own it?
Uhhhhhmmmmm.... No such thing. Universities are very much for-profit, and are the weapon of choice to control populations.
So basically, anyone who doesn't agree with your point (which so far has been just "lol republicans are evil QED") is automatically a tea party zealot? Is that correct?
Here is a summary of this thread so far, starting from your post. Please speak up if any part of it is incorrect:
1. You said "Well that's what you get when you let Republicans take office" in response to someone saying "they are bullies."
2. One poster raised the point that the democrats don't seem to be working to change the tide here and points out that maybe you are just blaming Republicans for its own sake. No response from you.
3. Another poster demonstrates that the people who are in charge are, in fact, democrats. You don't bother to address that in any rational way but:
4. Someone responds to that post, highlighting how some democrats weren't involved,
5. You boldly proclaim that because some democrats weren't involved, republicans are at fault, and then proceed on a partisan rant that better belongs on your blog.
6. Rest of us think you need to better explain yourself, because one doesn't follow the other.
Judging by the wording of his statement, sounds like Gutheinz's contingent is going for an unjust enrichment argument: basically that the rock may have been abandoned, but that Capt. Anderson had a legal duty to attempt to return it when he recognized the value.
My guess is it'll come down to whether leaving a high-ticket item in the trash as an oversight is considered an affirmative statement of not wanting it anymore or equivalent to losing it on the street.
You steal my rocks and then you fight over them! You stupid Earthlings!
Signed,
The Moon.
You've obviously never seen College Inc.
Why all the hub-bub? Its just a rock. It has no scientific value, no monetary value, no personal value. Its just a rock from the moon, we have plenty of them.
Is this really how states and governments are spending their time and money? Settling cases over who owns a moon rock? Give me a break but this is just 100% pure unadulterated crap. This is a waste of time and money.
If the judge has any sense he will cut the rock in half, give each person half and tell them to get the hell out of the court room before he fines them both 10,000 dollars for wasting time.
It should read, "Someone responds to that post, highlighting how only Alaska state government and private individuals were involved."
At no point have I seen any news source that claims that any member of the Obama administration is involved in any way. Rather, the only government involvement to date is the state of Alaska's counter-suit against Anderson. NASA's alleged involvement consists of a /former/ investigator now working as a professor. So far as I can tell no active member of the federal government has been involved in any way.
If evidence arises to the contrary, I'm more than willing to change my mind on that. I've already changed my mind on whether the government is acting like a petty bully. If the report in Alaska News Daily is correct, this may be a simple case of looting/theft that had no leads until Anderson came forward by launching his suit to keep the rocks. If, as that report alleges, the rocks are presently in China, I find it likely that they have already been sold and the purpose of the suit is entirely to establish clear title to what may be stolen goods.
stating that dumpster diving is in any way less than completely enobleling of heart and soul? I challenge whoever posted that to a duel.
Imagine my house burns down. Imagine that I take everything I can find of value from the rubble and then call in garbage trucks. If you go rooting around through the rubble /before/ it is loaded on the trucks, it's theft of my property regardless of whether or not it looks like all the remaining rubble is going to get thrown away. If you want to lay claim to anything I missed from going through the rubble, you have to ask my permission.
I don't think things change just because the state of Alaska was the owner rather than a private citizen.
Moreover, Alaska Daily News gives the state's version of events alongside Anderson's narrative. It isn't clear that Anderson's story is the correct one.
I would argue that the state of Alaska has no standing. Since it was thrown out in the trash they lost ownership of it. Now if the federal government or NASA wants to say it was on loan to the museum then they would have standing to deal with the lawsuit.
Do we even know for a fact this is a moon rock other than this guy says it is?
Anything in the trash is considered Abandoned. Yes, that's right, the state legally abandoned it. Instead of being dicks about it, just offer him money and a chance to become a national hero. If you can't afford to buy back a rock a guy bought in the trash, then maybe our space / museum budgets are a wee bit thin, huh?
n/t
He'll be fine as long as he doesn't grind it up and mix it into a gel...
... right?
It's a Simpsons quote from Lionel Hutz:
Hutz: It's a a thorny legal issue alright, I'll need to refer to the case: "Finders vs. Keepers".
But hey, thanks for correcting the joke and all.
But I once had a court decide whether I could keep my pet rock, is this something similar?
It seems, if you don't treat them well, the rspca will come knocking...
Yep, there is some particular kind of silliness going around today.
And to will/trust it to others upon his death. Should it be sold, the first time or subsequent times the federal government/state of Alaska should have the option to pay fair market value which would be nothing compared to how much they spent getting it in the first place. If the rocks had any real Significant value Nasa would not have given them away.
It was discarded. He recovered and restored it. It's up to the state to prove how unique and necessary it is as a national treasure. And the truth is it isn't. By the very reasoning the remains of all the astronautics that have been to the moon would be national treasure. This isn't a case of looting or theft.
Unable to prove it is a Moon rock, because most of the surface of the Moon is from impacts of other rocks of unknown origin and this as well could be a rock that isn't native to the moon. Did NASA ever go to the Moon and actually mine into the core to collect any rocks?
You can't give anyone something they already own: in the Constitution, post-facto laws are not allowed.
>>I say, give the man custody over the rock for the duration of his life if it is his "lucky charm".
He can ask for just compensation, like how a tow-yard sells a controlling interest in property of which they've alienated the title of the prior posessor.
>>Make sure that all hell rains on him if he tries to profit.
FUCK YOU.
>>Include proper clause in his will.
NOT IF I COLLECT IT FIRST, AND NOBODY SAYS WHERE THAT ROCK GOES.
>>Collect after his death.
YOU ARE QUICK TO BLAME GOD, BUT NOT TEH SEAWATER? Again, FUCK YOU.
>>If he dies in a manner that makes the rock non-retrievable (say a boat sinks with him on board), write it off as an act of God and write an article in Nature that moon rocks are not so lucky after all...
I would make an argument of Adverse Possession
Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.
Moon Treaty
I distinctly remember Losers Weepers being one of those bat-winged Defendants that couldn't be killed but by separating it's head and heart, and even if you win then it will cocoon itself for 100 years hidden in a subterranean lair to later awake in a new era of human culture to feed off the fear of your peaceful non-experienced grandchildren as it eats them alive.
Jeepers Creepers moar liek.
If he had rescued a Kitten/Puppy from the trash, would that also be considered less-noble means of acquiring a cat/dog?
Dumpster diving, museum is likely on public property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving#Legal_status
And there's no law against owning moonrocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_meteorite#Private_ownership
Does anyone else thing the moonrock collector guy is whiney? "No fair! if can't keep moonrocks, then you can't either!"
Why is everyone hung up on this guy? He took something from the trash that WAS GOING TO BE DUMPED INTO A LANDFILL, not like he stole it.
The real question here is who the hell threw this out in the first place? Shouldn't people be suing whoever was going to take this amazingly precious rock and put it in the garbage instead of the guy who "rescued" it from the garbage? Or would that make too much sense?
Just like many people have lost property via imminent domain/condemnation "for the good of the many", it should be that way too, but also means, he should be paid fair value value for it..
Here, have a few $million, now go buy another lucky charm. That way the principle that no one can own objects from space exploration can remain intact, while he also wins
But it wasn't thrown out in the trash. /If/ one takes Anderson's suit at face value, the best one can argue is that it /may have been about/ to be thrown out into the trash. Going into a burnt-out structure to pick up artifacts that the previous crew may have missed is not the same thing as picking through the trash cans after the remaining debris has been tossed.
Moreover, if you look at the state's side of the story, the allegation is that the rocks were accounted for after the fire and went missing from a display case.
Another consideration is that the rocks are designated by federal law as "national treasures." Regardless of chain of custody, it may not be possible to claim private ownership. Depending on the interpretation of what that means, it could be that Anderson is the one who lacks standing to bring suit.
Lastly, and most importantly in my mind, all of the above points are from the legal point of view. They may or may not coincide with "the right thing to do." Before I feel comfortable making that sort of judgment, I would like more clarity on certain questions. For example, whether or not the rocks were really picked out of the rubble or whether they were taken out of a display case.
What's wrong with you buddy? I tried to make sense of your post since this is the first time someone at /. uses the F-word on me but i couldn't....