Court to Decide If Man Can Keep His Moon Rock 390
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.
Good call (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's what you get for trying, sued
So that's why after he rescued it he immediately returned it to the relevant interested parties rather than keeping it for himself? Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
and bragged about it to everyone he could find.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is completely legal for anyone to pick through trash placed on public(ly accessible) property.
you SHOULD be right, but it depends on the locale. some believe that once you put it on curbside, the collections company (who you do NOT want to run up against) owns it.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't take it out of the trash. (Score:2)
Re:He didn't take it out of the trash. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good call (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is such a selfless motivation necessary? No, he wasn't "saving it from being lost". He saw something cool and saved it FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT, but the reality is that that motivation is what saved this rock from being lost in the first place. In 200 years it will quite possibly still be known and cataloged - long after he's gone. If the government's response is to sue people for doing such things though, then why bother in the first place?
To put it more bluntly: would you rather it be in a private collection or lost completely? Those are your two options.
Re:Good call (Score:5, Insightful)
For gods sake dude, the guy found this in the debris from a fire at a museum. Don't you feel he had an obligation to return this to the museum? It's not like he was just strolling along the beach and found it washed up.
By your logic, anytime there is a fire or other disaster that damages a building, everyone is free to jump in dig for booty. I think the word for this is "looting".
Re:Good call (Score:5, Insightful)
The museum went right over all the debris, took what they wanted, declared the rest trash/unsalvageable, and rescinded ownership of it.
If anything they ought to have to pay this guy for doing what they were too fucking lazy to do: restore the piece to condition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not theft. The worst you can charge him with is tresspassing.
The Facts Not in the Summary. (Score:3)
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 [adn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If I place something belonging to my employer in the trash and my son takes it out that is THEFT.
Aren't you oversimplifying? Intent counts.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it was his FATHER who was the curator for the musuem. If I place something belonging to my employer in the trash and my son takes it out that is THEFT.
Sorry, RTFA: the curator was "like a father to him", not "his father". If some teenage misfit hangs out with you and takes something from the trash of your employer, is it theft? Besides, this all happened in the early 70's. Everyone then thought trips to the moon colony in atomic powered rockets was going to be a typical family vacation by 2000 so what value is a moon rock except for sentiment over those old Apollo missions that started it all?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely incorrect.
Anderson says he found the rock in the trash mixed with debris following a fire at an Anchorage museum in 1973
The museum, according to this, threw it away in the trash. I could quote The Burbs here, but I think the Supreme Court made it pretty clear AFAIK. Once you throw away something in the trash you have relinquished all claims of ownership.
IANAL, but comparing this to looting is just specious.
Should Anderson have been compelled to contact another Museum and tell them that he thought he had a piece of a Moon rock? Maybe. Is he morally wrong for not doing so? That's highly questionable.
T
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good call (Score:5, Insightful)
"Doing the honorable thing" and being a thief are two different things. Furthermore, the Supreme Court IIRC did not care if the trash was out on the street or not. It was in the trash.
Your opinion on what is honorable is different than what is legal.
How do you know where the trash was located? I read the article. Anderson only took it after the garbage men, instructed by the Museum to throw anything not salvageable, picked it up and restored it. It was coated with melted materials.
So in actuality, he did wait until the garbage men made it trash by throwing it away. You are acting upon a belief that he was rummaging through the remains in the middle of the night, when in fact, he was there in plain daylight by virtue of a close relationship with the curator.
If you read further, once he determined what it was, he kept it as a memento of the Museum and back in those days people expected space flights to be a commonplace event in 20 years. He did not think at the time (he was 17) that it was going to be one of a couple hundred Moon rocks in existence.
"Should of" and "legally bound to do so" are two different things. So you can freely express your belief that he should return the rock, but retract your statement of thievery because it is simply untrue. According to facts at hand.
Also, let's remember this. According to the facts... he started the lawsuit after being made aware of the search and intentions to collect all the rocks. So he did come forward after nearly 40 years, in an honorable fashion, to dispute ownership.
He could of have just quietly smiled and spent the twilight years of his life looking it at on the wall of his home and we might not have known the location for another 50-100 years.
Did he do that? No. He came forward and said he claimed it from the trash in full view of the authorities and museum, restored it, and has kept it from further harm for 40 years.
He did not steal it. He did not buy it from the black market. He has not attempted to quietly sell it on the black market for millions either.
So give the man the credit he deserves and stop denigrating him without cause. Let the court decide in this case if he can claim salvage rights, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
He clearly knew what it was and probably arranged for the rock to be in that trashcan to begin with, if that whole trashcan story is true anyway.
If am missing the point, you are clearly biased.
Not only are arguing about possession, whether it could even be owned by the Museum, you are creating fiction intended to show his intent as clearly dishonest, when there are no facts that support your allegations.
The scarcity of an object has nothing to do with the legal questions at hand and salvage rights. Did treasure hunters know that objects and gold from Spanish ships belonged to the Spanish? Of course they did. Does it make their legal claims any le
Re: (Score:2)
If it weren't legal to go onto your property and take things from your garbage can, the garbage man wouldn't be able to do it either.
That is a lot of crap. You have an agreement with the trash co. Once you put the trash in the can and put it on the curb it belongs to them, though, and anyone rifling through it might be stealing from THEM... but not you.
Re: (Score:2)
In 200 years it will quite possibly still be known and cataloged - long after he's gone.
Unless it gets "lost" in another fire or other misfortune.
To put it more bluntly: would you rather it be in a private collection or lost completely? Those are your two options.
No - there's a 3rd option. It is recovered and placed back in public stewardship where it belongs.
Re: (Score:2)
> Unless it gets "lost" in another fire or other misfortune.
It was already lost once from a museum. What makes this next museum so special that it won't get lost again?
> No - there's a 3rd option. It is recovered and placed back in public stewardship where it belongs.
It was already in "public stewardship" and it was lost. Heck, the last museum failed twice - once in making sure it didn't burn down, and once in not recovering it's artifacts. Ditto my last question.
And, yes, I think it should be in a mu
You missed an option, public display (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes your honor... (Score:3)
Re:Yes your honor... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean 'Finders Keepers v. Losers Weepers'
and all this time, I thought the loser had to sweep up. after, well, something.
now, suddenly, things are making sense to me!
Re: (Score:2)
careful, the other law taking guy might try to declare a bad court thingie.
Found it in the trash (Score:4, Insightful)
"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".
Re:Found it in the trash (Score:5, Informative)
You should read that link (Score:2)
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 g
Re: (Score:2)
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...
The government is not a typical business that can do the obvious thing of paying someone off to avoid the hassle of legal battles, particularly when the issue is something that is literally priceless.
First of all, who decides how much this is worth? In other words, how can the government ensure that it's taxpayers will be satisfied that is hasn't overpaid for this rock?
Re:You should read that link (Score:4, Insightful)
As it is, they're being petty bullies.
Well that's what you get when you let Republicans take office.
Yes, because the current Administration is Republican. Wait a second....
You do realize that it's the Executive branch who would be doing the suing, right? You are also informed that the current Chief Executive is not a Republican, nor is the current Administrator of NASA a Republican Appointee?
Re: (Score:2)
wow what a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Until half the moon is moon rocks on Earth, they'll be valuable.
And the principle is about not owning anything gained from space exploration. It's international in scope, and is a big deal, because if you can own a rock, you can claim the moon for your country, and that's going to cause space wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh jesus no...
If texas lays claim to the Moon none of us will ever hear the end of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever driven through Texas? They may have a claim on the basis that it came from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, Houston annexed the Moon back in the 80's. You can't have it.
Yeah, General Zod took it back from Planet Houston, though.
Re: (Score:2)
No, one goes from "I got to the moon now it's mine" to "you touched my moon now you die". That's how colonial power works on this planet, and the idea of extending that to space (or even to antarctica) was voted down by the world in the last century. At least, until someone tries it and has enough power to fend off challengers.
And the rules for what government can and can't do with property are different from the rules for what you can do with property, no matter who owns it.
Re:wow what a shame (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it had nothing to do with aluminum being precious, but rather that most metal manufacturing (until the advent of CNC milling in the 1950s) was done by casting, and pure aluminum doesn't cast well.
It was also a relatively expensive material because the technology to cheaply extract aluminum from aluminum oxide was still in its infancy (the modern Hall-Héroult process having not been invented until two years later, in 1886, with the previous technologies being either extremely expensive, difficult to use in large quantities, or both), but this was in large part due to lack of demand, which was in large part due to the fact that it was historically difficult to cast pure aluminum precisely and get yields comparable to that of other metals or aluminum alloys.
See The Point of a Monument: A History of the Aluminum Cap of the Washington Monument [tms.org] for details.
Still, the point remains that its cost was largely due to its novelty.
This is what should happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is what should happen... (Score:4, Insightful)
I say, give the man custody over the rock for the duration of his life if it is his "lucky charm". Make sure that all hell rains on him if he tries to profit. Include proper clause in his will. Collect after his death. 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...
Re: (Score:2)
I say, give the man custody over the rock for the duration of his life if it is his "lucky charm".
Legally safer to do the opposite, the state owns it and the state is legally forced to rent it to him until his death for $1.
Otherwise when he dies or goes bankrupt, the ownership gets kind of tricky. Also if he refuses to insure it, the state can take it back.
See, for example, how hackerspaces encourage people to maintain ownership while leasing machines to the hackerspace. That way if the hackerspace goes bankrupt, the equipment owners get their machines back (at least in theory)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's a pretty good compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the law, if morale, should prevail. Not a feel good situation.
If it states he should keep the rock, then so be it.
Break it in half (Score:3)
law rarely favors finders-keepers (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA didn't loan it. President Nixon gave it to the state governor who had it placed in a museum. Many other governors who received them just displayed it in their office. At that time no one thought these would be the last rocks to be brought back from the moon for generations to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the additional information. So ownership transferred from NASA to the governor. Now, did he donate it to the museum, or loan it? Given the context, it sounds like he gave it. Therefor the museum acquired ownership of the rock. Then if they threw it away, it is finders-keepers now.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
My understanding is stolen property is returned to the original owner where possible. It doesn't matter if it was sold 2 or 3 times down the line already, if that car was stolen from someone then those poor buyers are SOL and the owner gets the car back.
Here, it's murky. On one hand the guy saved a priceless artifact from winding up under a few metric tons of trash. NASA should be grateful for that fact alone.
AND typically trash is the wild west... if it was left on public property (the curb) and in regu
You can bet this is about money (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
You do know that its just a TV show don't you? That is edited by other people in order to create drama that is intended to get people to watch the adverts so that the advertisers can make money? You do know that don't you?
In general TV is not about truth, it is about being a vehicle that places Ads in front of eyeballs. You just have to follow the money and see who pays who.
I didn't give one to him, so you can't have one. (Score:2)
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
Holy, begging of the question Batman! (Score:2)
Nice title.
Offer him FMV... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Other moon rocks (Score:2)
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.
Why does it matter? (Score:2)
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?
People should withhold judgement (yeah, right). (Score:3)
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.
Re:People should withhold judgement (yeah, right). (Score:5, Informative)
The state's side of the story:
From Alaska News Daily [adn.com].
some kind of present that is... (Score:2)
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.
I find this quote particularly sad (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The museum wasn't the property owner, but merely a custodian of an item which is owned by NASA and was on loan to them. That they improperly disposed of it, does not terminate NASA's ownership.
William
Re: (Score:3)
It also depends on where the garbage was when it was rummaged through. And what sort of container it was in, since dumpsters are generally property of the hauling company, and putting something into one may be considered transferring ownership to them.
This case is all about ownership of trash, and not at all about what the item is. Since there's no law saying a private citizen can't own a moon rock, that makes it a moot rock.
Re: (Score:2)
And if it has black & white spots, it's a moo rock?
Re: (Score:2)
And if it's funky it's a moog rock.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's black, it's a Moor rock.
Re: (Score:2)
If it works for Apple, it's a moof rock.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All X owned by the Y is legally considered property of the Y.
Moon-rockiness and Government-controllicity are not a factor.
This is purely a case of pwnership of an item that was discarded that may not have belonged to the person discarding it and how it came to be undiscarded by the person who doubtlessly possesses it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but "finders keepers" is not actually a legal doctrine.
First, NASA could easily argue that the rock was not "disposed of", but "lost". Or even "taken without permission". Obviously, lost or stolen goods do not automatically become the property of the person who possesses them. Even the (legally inaccurate) expression that people like to quote only claims that "possession is 9/10 of the law".
Alternatively, if NASA could show that the rock was given with the understanding that it would be preserved
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but "finders keepers" is not actually a legal doctrine.
Not completely true. There's salvage rights [wikipedia.org], for one example.
Re: (Score:2)
The laws regarding marine salvage are a bit more complex than "finders keepers" (or even AC's slightly longer version).
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.bobsuniverse.com/bwah/02-adams/18000303a.pdf [bobsuniverse.com]
Salvage rights apply. Every state in the United States has laws regarding salvage rights. Our deep sea - errr - dumpster diver should read up on this pdf, as well as his own state laws. I think that MAYBE, NASA may retain some claim to that rock, but the museum forfeited all claim, and the greater claim probably belongs to the diver.
So, yeah, "finders keepers" is indeed a legal doctrine.
Re: (Score:2)
What he did was an act of salvage, and the Government should be thanking him for saving this artifact. I don't know whether eminent domain applies here, but he's definitely entitled to either keep the rock or be compensated with its fair market value.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no sympathy for this dude.
"He was a 17-year-old, and the curator of the museum was close, like a father to him," said Seattle attorney Daniel Harris, who is representing Anderson.
After the museum fire and cleanup, garbage trucks were sent in to haul off the remaining debris, and Anderson claims he was combing through it when he discovered the plaque, which was coated with a thick layer of melted materials.
The lawsuit said Anderson left with the plaque in full view of the garbage-removal workers.
Gutheinz also pointed out that the wooden plaque shows no sign of fire damage.
He knew exactly what he was looking at, but decided to be all coy, even if we are to believe his story. I am sure that curators would have taken the rocks if notified, but somehow this never occurred to him. <gollum, gollum> He decided that the state gave up on a moon rock because garbage removal workers missed it in a pile of rabble. He should consider himself lucky for keeping it for so long, but IMHO, he should have returned it to a museum back then, and it's defini
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how I read it. Per the article, "After the museum fire and cleanup, garbage trucks were sent in to haul off the remaining debris, and Anderson claims he was combing through it when he discovered the plaque, which was coated with a thick layer of melted materials."
It's not looting to go through trash.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not looting to go through trash.
ooohhhhh, I see how it is! When it's a white guy doing it, it's "finding".
Re: (Score:2)
No. Whoever is doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
He says he did it while garbage trucks were there collecting the debris.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, he should be forced to do the most deadly job in the world!
And what would that be? Windows 7 Phone project manager?
CRANKY OLD MAN ASTRONAUT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Discovery channel camera crew vs History channel camera crew: FIGHT!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
he found it in the trash. He didn't steal it. It was being thrown out and would have been put in a landfill. The museum was negligent; he didn't steal it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is the part that makes it simple. You give up your right to trash when you put it out to be hauled away. That is why the police can go through it without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Is it theft for me to take the newsprint from your recycle bin to use in my gardening,"
if my newsprint was in my kitchen waste bin and you broke in to take it? YES.
This is what he did. he Tresspassed to get to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you cant lick the moon. you CAN lick the rock though.
And no it does not taste like cheese...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine that depends on the state. Here you go to jail for removing something from a trash receptacle or a land fill if it belonged to the state. (Actually you go to jail either way, because it is the state's property as soon as it gets thrown in the trash.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but non-dickheads when they see something they know you didn't mean to trash would get it and give it to you.
Of course being a dickhead doesn't mean you are stealing, just that you're a dickhead. And back then moon rocks likely weren't seen to be so special (certainly not worth millions on the "black market", since nobody expected the US to just visit a few times and then forget all about it for decades).
This will be complicated by it not being trash put on the curb but the remains from a fire being c