Posted on 06/14/2006 5:58:12 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
Confederate flags flown aboard the international space station — and seemingly signed by a NASA astronaut — showed up last week on the online auction site eBay.
The original eBay listing indicated that the 4-by-6-inch flags were brought aboard the space station by Russian cosmonaut Salizhan Sharipov in 2004, and an accompanying photo showed a sample flag that seemed to bear Sharipov’s signature as well as that of Leroy Chiao, his NASA colleague on the station. Yet another photo showed several of the rebel flags floating in a space station module.
The item was pulled from the auction on Monday by the seller, Alex Panchenko of USSR-Russian Air-Space Collectibles Inc. in Los Angeles — and on Tuesday, Panchenko told MSNBC.com that he removed the items from sale because he had concluded the flag and the authentication documents were forgeries.
However, Robert Pearlman, editor and founder of CollectSpace, said he believes the flags are authentic.
“The picture taken of the flags aboard the station says a lot,” he said. “It would be difficult to fake, given the style and I couldn't see the motivation to do so.” The “onboard-the-ISS” stamp, added Pearlman, is not known to have been counterfeited anywhere."
The disappearance of the flags followed a round of criticism over the weekend from former space scientist Keith Cowing, publisher of NASA Watch, an independent Web log. He cited the Confederate flags as an example of “bad judgment on the ISS.”
“You'd think that someone on the U.S. side of the ISS program would have expressed some concern about flying a symbol on the ISS that many Americans associate with slavery,” Cowing wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Never be ashamed of your Southern heritage! And this is coming from the mouth of a Yankee girl! :)
A neo-confederate is a person who advocates for the Southern historical cause in the modern day.
Isn't that cute, he thinks he's caught us in some sort of contradiction.
> Isn't that cute
"Cute" in a sad, pathetic, rabid dancing desert kangaroo mouse sort of way.
The Union fought to preserve the Union. But it only did so *after* the south *started* the fight... to preserve slavery. So, the war was about slavery, in the end. Had that not been an issue, the South would not have launched an attack on the North, and there would have been no war.
Same deal with the Japanese: no Pearl Harbor, no Hiroshima.
Second, there is no contradiction. The South fought to secede, and did so over slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union, and did so without an ambition to end slavery. So when orion says that the war was fought for slavery and I say it was fought to preserve the Union, we are both correct and are not in conflict.
Oh...that's why the Declaration of Independence begins with "God Save The King."
Sorry, in that period state's rights was simply a code phrase for slaveowner's rights. There was no other state's rights issue that was worth a shooting war.
Slavery in the United States for 89 years.
Slavery in the CSA for 4 years.
Now I go to bed.
Actually you have that backwards. In April 1862 the Davis regime forced through legislation which extended all enlistments in the Southern army from a set period to the duration of the war. At the same time it enacted conscription. By the end of the war about a quarter of all confederate troops were draftees, and most of the rest were there long beyond their original enlistments.
Contrast that with the Union conscription which was a dismal failure. Less that 7% of all troops came into the ranks via the draft.
And if I remember correctly,no one was killed in the firing on the revenue fort.
It, through some miracle, there had been no deaths as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would that make such an action OK?
The confederates bombarded the fort for 36 hours. Had they killed every man there it would have been OK with them. The fact that nobody was injured is due more to the soundness of the fort and the miserable confederate marksmanship, and not any attempt to limit casualties.
Odd that the people had to be forced to stay in a union they no longer felt part of.And just which armies attacked and bombarded which cities ?
Which side started the war? You cannot begin a war and then pick and choose what happens next.
Soundness of the fort, yes. Poor Confederate marksmanship? Please. I'll bet you could take any contemporary artilleryman, give him the same guns those Confederate batteries were using in S.C., let him practice a little with them, and he would do little better, if any.
Nevertheless, since you're interested in poor gun handling and have left the impression to the casual lurker that no one was hurt at Ft. Sumter, there actually were two Union casualties from artillery at Ft. Sumter. They were self inflicted due to an accident caused by carelessness.
i once asked you to post ANY facts about the DAMNyankee invaders that made them "look less than saintly & perfect in every way".
you said that you couldn't think of any such facts. (i lol AT that SILLY post. one assumes from that post that you think lincoln & his merry band of crooks/filth/war criminals are equivalent to Jesus, the Eternal Christ.)
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Is STAND'S feelings hurt?
Complaining to the mods are we?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1649522/posts?page=800#800
Missed one.
in my case (over 25 years ago) my Great Aunt Millie remembered his birth date, place of birth & what unit he served with.
with that data, i was able to locate land records, his tax records, marriage certificate & his CSA service & pension records, etc.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
the following words are the ignorant, arrogant ranting of a SCALAWAG, FOOL & TURNCOAT to my native state & the southland. - "usmcobra".
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.