Posted by Craig on October 31, 19103 at 11:25:26:
In Reply to: Re: That's not the point here... posted by Paul Ehorn on October 31, 19103 at 10:30:59:
It's a PORTHOLE. I really dont think many people would care if it goes back on the wreck, even if that does seem morally correct. The fact that it was removed (not stolen) in 66 DOES matter. I feel the use of the term "artifacts" here is incorrect. An "artifact" is an object which bears archeological value to learning about the history of man's long term history. An object from 1966 is NOT an artifact, it is a romantic object. If it were a hundred and fifty year old schooner, then its borderlnie artifact. I.M.H.O. This man in Texas probably did not retrieve the object himself, for 37 years it has been handled. Sold, given away, traveled... Matter of fact, it was only underwater for a year! This man in Texas probably paid something for it. How do you criticize him, expect him to take it up here and put it back? Not to mention, if it were back it would be of absolutely no value to anyone, except perhaps the family members. But would they really sleep easier knowing one busted up porthole out of hundreds has been placed back on a gigantic 600 foot freighter...
Recently there was a small chunk of wood with a few twisted nails for sale on ebay (crazy that anyone would want it, but maybe Im biased...) What's the concensus on that? should it be tossed back near the broken shattered remains of whatever vessel it came from. Or would it be a better conversation peice in a living room in, ohh, lets just say alabama. Letting one more person learn about our amazing heritage and spread a little knowledge. I think you are blowing it way out of proportion, even if you may have the "right" idea, or at least morals. We should all be so lucky to have.
Craig
PS "someone I know" dove her last year and took a peice of limestone as a souveneir. Should he be hanged?