Hamish

Charles Bannerman - you are an utter disgrace. Using what should be your neutral position as a BBC journalist to further your immoral and selfish position regarding your ridiculous unionist position is beyond contempt. You have a position of influence as a journalist and duty to not abuse this. You have failed miserably at this most basic charge as a journalist. Expect some formal procedures to follow.

ICT

Morton (H) - 1-0 WIN

Ross County (A) - 0-0 DRAW

Airdrie (H) - 4-0 WIN

Partick Th (A) - 0-1 WIN

Ross County (H) - 3-0 WIN

Raith (H) - 4-3 WIN

Morton (A) - 0-2 WIN

QoS (A) 1-3 WIN

Dunfermline (H) 2-0 WIN

Ayr (A) 0-7 WIN

Dundee (H) 1-0 WIN

9 wins in a row is now our 2nd best ever run of wins (11 in 96/97 SFL3 is the best) and the current run of 21 undefeated is still only our 2nd best ever behind the 22 games in the 96/97 season also....

Here's to next season to keep this run going in the SPL.... :D

WELL DONE ICT.... :P

When you see it written down like that, what an amazing achievement by the team!! Especially as there are some good teams in the First Div. Has any team in the UK had as good a run this year? Congratulations to the whole team and all the fans!

FYI, ICT are evens favourites to win the league. County are 9-1!!!

One factor to take into account is the weather on Tues night - going to be nasty by the looks of it!!

Brewsrer was a hopelessly inadaquate manager but I for one don't blame him for our demise as he clearly did his best the problem being that his best was far from good enough. He was a poor coach, motivator and utterly clueless tactician.

None of that is his fault few of us would have done any better.

Blame lies squarely with those who sought fit to reappoint him ahead of much better candidates when his shortcomings were already exoposed by the fact that he was dragging a Dundee United team for which he had a life long affection headlong towards relegation despite having access to financial resourses ICT could only dream about.

hat initial error, recognised even at the time by a clear majority of fans, was compounded by the fact that they delayed taking action for weeks, if not months, after it was clear to all concerned that he was leading ICT to precisely the fate Dundee United saved themselves from by dispensing with his services just in time. Had they acted even in December it's highly unlikely we would be in the position we are today.

Good post. +1

Why does it always have to be the manager's fault? Can it not be the case that the players underperformed or the team we had this season were just not capable of the job, given resources?

Sorry, but Tokely's mistake wasn't down to being played in the wrong position...

Of course it was...

Mihadjuks or Granty should have been challenging Lovell.... He came straight through the middle.

So he had no option but to take Lovell down? Come on... Even if he'd let him through to score, it's better than 10 men for more than half the game.

We were the worst team in the league this year - that's the bottom line

Rangers 0-1 ICT

ICT 0-0 Celtic

Aberdeen 0-2 ICT

Cant be the worst team in the league (he though were we finished)

I would say Killie have being the worst team this season

But we finished last after 38 games. Things average out over that many games and there's little opportunity for the worst tean to sneak through on luck. We were worst over the season as a whole.

We were the worst team in the league this year - that's the bottom line. Afrer 38 games, the element of luck etc is factored out.

Brewster did the damage but ultimately the board have to take the responsibility for ******* up bt not getting him out sooner.

And, on the day, Tokely ****** up and cost us Premier League football next year.

Don't you think some blame should be apportioned to the management team for playing Tokely and Mihadjuks in positions they were not comfortable with?

Sorry, but Tokely's mistake wasn't down to being played in the wrong position...

We were the worst team in the league this year - that's the bottom line. Afrer 38 games, the element of luck etc is factored out.

Brewster did the damage but ultimately the board have to take the responsibility for fu**ing up by not getting him out sooner.

And, on the day, Tokely f***ed up and cost us Premier League football next year.

Next Saturday's sure going to be exciting!

According to BBC website, we've had 6 shots on target to Kili's 1. That sort of ratio should warrant a lead by now...

If we get Ossie, does that we mean we can get Chas 'n' Dave to write and sing a song for us?

Singers from

Tool/A Perfect Circle (that would be my number 1)

Maynard Keanan - yes, a fantastic voice!

  Dont eat at Jimmy Chungs , The place is minging  :029:

Seconded!

There are some really good places to eat in Inverness these days. Mustard Seed still good, RocPool, Cafe 1, Abstract.. all pretty excellent.

BBC not working in Northern California either.

Where are you in NorCal?

But we can disown Rangers fans anyway. They're not REALLY Scottish, implicitly supporting the Union with their flags and songs.

Oh come on Hamish...your an educated man, surely you know that not all the information provided to support the theory of a hoax comes from conspiracy theorists.

Personally I don't care whether or not they put a man on the moon 40 years ago and if I was pushed to give a decision as to whether I thought it happened or not then I would be very hard pushed to decide one way or the other.

However, whether they did or not, there's very little doubt in my mind that at least some of the footage being passed of as being shot on the moon is faked.....and this only serves to add weight to the hoax theory.

As with any two sided argument based around an alleged hoax it is always far easier to dismiss/discredit the hoax hypothesis over the apparent real hypothesis.  We see it happening just about every day on this forum where you have one group who are quick to dismiss every rumour through lack of evidence or credibility of source, and the same happens whenever you have more than one source for information as opposed to a single outlet.

In terms of the Moon Landing, we have NASA's Hypothesis which comes from a single source and never waivers which is pitched against an abundance of Hoax Hypothesis from many many different sources.  In order to discredit those claiming a Hoax and defend the alleged "real" scenario you will very often find that they totally ignore much of what an individual says and instead focus on how one may differ, even in the minutest fashion, to another.  In effect you end up pitching all the Hoax Hypothesis against each other and remove all focus from your own...thus removing the pressure of having to prove anything.

NASA have never done anything to prove their version of events other than churn out an endless stream of "experts" to say "It's real" and until such time as they invite some of the Hoax Theorists to look first hand at the evidence then the conspiracy claims will continue.  If I, and the many others who think the same, are right in saying that much of the footage/evidence produced is faked....then it matters not a jot if they put a man on the moon unless they admit to that fact and have other irrefutable evidence to support the claim.  However, we all know it would be cause major meltdown in the USA if NASA were to turn round and say...well we kinda lied to you all these years about the footage and stuff we showed you, but honestly we did put a man on the moon.

There's nothing to be gained from proving it one way or the other so why bother?  What's important is what we are capable of doing today and in the future and how that serves mankind, not what might or might not have happened 40 years ago when the Americans were having a **** measuring contest with the Russians.

I don't have the time to compose a 500 word reply but I do agree that there's very little point in the discussion. From my perspective on the issue, those that buy into the conspiracy theory will find an argument against any evidence to the contrary...

The thing I find amazing is the people who say "don't believe everything you read on the internet"....the phrase which has taken over from "don't believe everything you read in the press".

I have only one question for these people.....for your argument that it "did" happen....where did you get your information.  Unless you were there to witness the event then your sources are no more or less credible than the others in all honesty.

The 'it didn't happen' info comes from conspiracy theory websites. That's all I need to know...

Has anyone seen the film about a Mars landing?  I belive it was called Capricorn 1.  Great film with more than a hint of questioning the moon landing.  I cant understand why nobody has ever been back?  If we are so far advanced from the sixties then we should be visiting the moon regularly.

Going to Mars is a FAR more daunting prospect than the moon. A lot of the 'facts' above in Clachers post are actually more relevant to a Mars mission (e.g., the radiation issue). Regarding why there have been no missions back to the moon, there are some planned. But it's taken so long I think 'cos it's been done (bit like climbing Ben Nevis - very few do it twice!). It cost a hoor of a lot of money too!

Where's the 2 pound coin?

Clacher,

I just had a quick look through those 'facts'... You do realise that most of them are just NOT TRUE! Advice: don't accept as fact everything you read online! If you chosse to ignore this advice then, remember that 1000 pounds you owe me?  :001:

Considering the trouble the Chinese and US are having even landing a robot safely on the moon between 2007 and 2008 I think its ridiculous to suggest they actually did it back in the 60's.  NASA managed to land a 15kg transmitter on the moon and called it the greatest advancement in space exploration since 1969 last year.

Theres too much evidence against it IMO and I wont be listening to any crap from those who say it did happen purely because itd be too hard to cover up.  It's too easy for a chunt like me to say this but I honestly believe there will be a generational divide on this one, those of us who didnt live through an era where global meltdown was on the cards every other day or appreciate the importance of the times political posturing will always have a different view on the event.

From a physical point of view, the length of time it takes to fly the distance to the moon and to then orbit the thing till you can theoretically land the right way up on it is comp0letley out of synch with modern space flight, they wouldve had to orbit the moon for a week before landing ffs..

Could man goto the moon in my lifetime?  They probably could and if they do I belive theyll be the first ones to do so.

I think if you look into it in a bit more detail, the arguments for it having occurred are a bit stronger than it being too hard to cover up!  :rolleyes02: There are lots of scientific and technical reasons why it 99.9999% DID happen - it's not too hard to take the 'conspiracy' blinkers off and be objective by looking at some well researched and referenced information on the subject. Not just made up 'facts' that populate most of the conspiracy theory websites... It was an amazing achievement and done in such an incredibly 'low-tech' that it perhaps helped in achieving success.

...and I saw a documentary that interviewed some very important scientists/ engineers etc involved in the Apollo missions and subsequent space exploration and the evidence was fairly unequivocal that they DID land on the moon. Almost all conspiracy theories are rubbish and based on made up 'facts'! The 'Prince Phillip ordered the murder of Diana' one has just been pretty much proven to be nonsense too...