Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.

Syn wrote:

sallypelt wrote:question to Syn. I believe Martin Grime is now working for the FBI in America. Can you confirm if this is the case, please?

He was yes but he has now left and is now looking to help other cases pro bono

One of his & his dogs last cases for the FBI as Special Agent Martin Grime :) 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ty Syn.

sallypelt wrote:

Syn wrote:

sallypelt wrote:question to Syn. I believe Martin Grime is now working for the FBI in America. Can you confirm if this is the case, please?

He was yes but he has now left and is now looking to help other cases pro bono

One of his & his dogs last cases for the FBI as Special Agent Martin Grime :) 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ty Syn.

Very welcome :)

So based on Martin Roberts latest:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
can we disregard all the previous arguments and now just ask a simple question:
 
‘Why did archive.org index two ‘madeleine’ pictures on 30^th April?’
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 
I suppose this must be another ‘glitch’ that just happened coincidentally.
 
KM can you please help me here?


What do we need to know about coincidences?

Doug D wrote:So based on Martin Roberts latest:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
can we disregard all the previous arguments and now just ask a simple question:
 
‘Why did archive.org index two ‘madeleine’ pictures on 30^th April?’
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 
I suppose this must be another ‘glitch’ that just happened coincidentally.
 
KM can you please help me here?


What do we need to know about coincidences?

It is just a McCannical glitch

Thank you Doug D for putting this thread back on track.

Doug D wrote:So based on Martin Roberts latest:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
can we disregard all the previous arguments and now just ask a simple question:
 
‘Why did archive.org index two ‘madeleine’ pictures on 30^th April?’
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 
I suppose this must be another ‘glitch’ that just happened coincidentally.
 
KM can you please help me here?


What do we need to know about coincidences?

It didn't.  The correct date for the archived mccann.html is 31/07/2007 so the images were uploaded to the CEOP page between 09/05/07 and the archive date of 31/07/2007.

The second image IS there in the incorrectly archived 30/04/07, you can see the text for the alt tag second photo 'photograph of Madeleine Mccann' and for some reason the image simply just did not render correctly.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here is another example where wayback does not render the contents of a CEOP page correctly, 
whatever they may be . Note the content on the right hand side of both images.

From CEOP page 2008

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Talk about grasping at straws.....

Heading to my bed.  Sleep well all :)

Everything you just posted had nothing to do with answering the topic at hand. What you are doing basically is smearing WBM as utterly unreliable, useless to man or beast. Even an objective master index of all of the captures of a url must be wrong. Would ALL of the dates in that index be wrong or just April 30? Rhetorical btw, so please don't answer even IF you can manage to actually address the question

I refer you all, as Dr. Roberts has done, to Resistors image on page 56 of the thread at the other forun. It should put to bed all future attempts to use archive.is to debate WBM.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Also mentioned in 'North Yorks Enquirer'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Syn wrote:
Here is another example where wayback does not render the contents of a CEOP page correctly, 
whatever they may be . Note the content on the right hand side of both images.

From CEOP page 2008

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Talk about grasping at straws.....

Heading to my bed.  Sleep well all :)

1. The left hand image may have lost a jpg or two. Big deal, the text is still there.
2. The screen shots appear to be two views of the same page taken on different days: One on 6th Feb 2008 and the other on 8th Feb 2008. The text is still there.

whodunnit wrote:Everything you just posted had nothing to do with answering the topic at hand. What you are doing basically is smearing WBM as utterly unreliable, useless to man or beast. Even an objective master index of all of the captures of a url must be wrong. Would ALL of the dates in that index be wrong or just April 30? Rhetorical btw, so please don't answer even IF you can manage to actually address the question

I refer you all, as Dr. Roberts has done, to Resistors image on page 56 of the thread at the other forun. It should put to bed all future attempts to use archive.is to debate WBM.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Can't stop as going out for the day so will address your post and the screenshot you posted fully later :)

PS That screenshot IS NOT from archive.is :) I pointed you at screenshots.com regarding the 27 Nov 2007 archive. Read back through the thread.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

archive.is was useful in proving an issue WB had with an a non mccann related press release that was dated and posted on 18/06/2007 and archived on 20th June as shown below 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Have a a lovely day :)

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Syn wrote:
Here is another example where wayback does not render the contents of a CEOP page correctly, 
whatever they may be . Note the content on the right hand side of both images.

From CEOP page 2008

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Talk about grasping at straws.....

Heading to my bed.  Sleep well all :)

1. The left hand image may have lost a jpg or two. Big deal, the text is still there.
2. The screen shots appear to be two views of the same page taken on different days: One on 6th Feb 2008 and the other on 8th Feb 2008. The text is still there.

I am fully aware that the captures are two days apart but the point I was making was that sometimes content doesn't always render properly.  6/2/08 and 08/02/07 obviously rendered fine at some point as you can see in the right hand screenshot cos screenshots.com who use WB as it's data source was able to capture the content without issue but in the image on the left which is from wayback now after the issue that caused the 30/04 anomaly, content didn't render properly.  How you can claim no issue with WB is beyond me.

Anyway, must dash, have a goodun :)

Unless anyone can get these entries/information about the  CEOP/McCann pages verified by WBM staff i think its a waste of time to try and convince anyone of anything regarding the matter, IMO.
It definitely would be nice to get an explanation of it all from them, other than the conflicting ones we have already had, but unless subpoenaed or a signed affidavit from WBM as to the 'why' & 'how" of it all, and expedited shipping of the documents that will cost you money to do, it can take quite a while to get an explanation from them as it reads in their faq's, and everyone else batting back & forth about it is left to scrutiny in the interim. People that won't be convinced about it otherwise won't be that's for sure, so there are two schools of thought here that, 1) The WBM entries were correct or 2) The WBM entries were in error. Take your pick i suppose. I haven't been really convinced either way, but i tend to go with the WBM was not in error about its archives.

The 30april screenshots . com are not true. type any date in to the url and it will appear on the screen. see my previous post last night on these.

this is the link to which i refer, i see is being quoted upthread 

http   :    //   www   .   screenshots   .com/ceop.gov.uk/2007-04-30

Somebody posted way back in one of the threads that the info. had been passed to Rocky's legal team.

Does anyone know if they have sent it to SY so that they would be able to possibly take the matter up with CEOP?

What about McCann family MP, surely they would be prepared to put pressure on those in authority to try and get to the bottom of it all?

Going round in circles isn't getting any answers at all.

The thread has been disrupted - there's no longer proper debate and discussion with a view to finding the truth. It has deliberately been turned into
a battle of egos. Thats says something in itself. In fact a remarkably similar process for disruption as used on the 'Last photo' debate.

plebgate wrote:Somebody posted way back in one of the threads that the info. had been passed to Rocky's legal team.

Does anyone know if they have sent it to SY so that they would be able to possibly take the matter up with CEOP?

What about McCann family MP, surely they would be prepared to put pressure on those in authority to try and get to the bottom of it all?

Going round in circles isn't getting any answers at all.

I don't know about the info. being passed on to GA's team, but i remember IMcFadden forwarding the info. to the PJ. I think from what i can recall they weren't interested, but can't recall exactly why? Would have to go right back on the other thread to see where that was posted.
ITA, going around with this circular debate is reminiscent of a dog chasing its tail and not getting anywhere but the same rehash of what has already been posted for the umpteenth time, (sigh..)

HelenMeg wrote:The thread has been disrupted - there's no longer proper debate and discussion with a view to finding the truth. It has deliberately been turned into
a battle of egos. Thats says something in itself. In fact a remarkably similar process for disruption as used on the 'Last photo' debate.

Couldn't agree more.

@Helenmeg. Dr Roberts has put the cat amongst the pigeons and there's been little said to counter his argument.

Copied over from previous thread:

 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:59 pm
I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:47 pm
Yes I have followed his posts with great interest .. From Portugal the news is that the story is too vague and is a ''red herring so it is back to Square one. .


 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:46 pm

Ladyinred wrote:

cloak'ndagger wrote:I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..

Who are these Portuguese experts?

Isabelle Mc Fadden has spoken of how she passed the information she gleaned onto the PJ. ..I can only tell you that the PJ cannot use this as evidence.. Take it or leave it.


????????

HKP wrote:@Helenmeg. Dr Roberts has put the cat amongst the pigeons and there's been little said to counter his argument.

There has, you just choose not to agree with it.  The same way I choose to believe there's been enough research to suggest WBM has messed up. We're now on 120 pages and it's going around in circles and getting to a point of petty point scoring.

@Mr Noodles, there has not been much discussion on Dr Roberts search which produced the 9000 odd ceop references including the Madeleine photos which were captured 30/04 (allegedly). Nobody has answered any if the questions (overall) to the satisfaction of those with the counter argument. Going in circles yes, petty point scoring is just one of the traits of forums, not good but certainly not restricted to here.

I would like to thank Dr Roberts for posting a screenshot of the page where it shows how many URLs have been captured for the CEOP
website. It's very interesting. The first thing I noticed when I went there, and I'm surprised no-one else looking at that page noticed
as well, because it's so blatently obvious, is how many times an archive/crawl date of 30 April 2007 appears. Masses of times in fact.

Page 1 starts with some other dates then 30 April 2007 follows, and because I can't be bothered to count them I'll exclude them for the
moment. Note that I have 100 URLs showing per page.

Page 2 all 30 April 2007
Page 3 all 30 April 2007 except for a couple of other dates appearing in the middle
Page 4 all 30 April 2007
Page 5 all 30 April 2007
Page 6 all 30 April 2007
Page 7 all 30 April 2007
Page 8 all 30 April 2007 except for a couple of other dates appearing at the bottom
Page 9 all 30 April 2007
Page 10 all 30 April 2007
Page 11 about half 30 April 2007 then moves on to June 2007
Page 12 other dates from 2006/07
Page 13 30 April 2007 starts again about three quarters of the way down
Page 14 all 30 April 2007
Page 15 about a quarter 30 April 2007 then moves on to July 2007
Page 16 continues with July 2007 then moves back to 30 April near the bottom
Page 17 all 30 April 2007
Page 18 all 30 April 2007
Page 19 all 30 April 2007
Page 20 all 30 April 2007
Page 21 all 30 April 2007
Page 22 all 30 April 2007
Page 23 some 30 April 2007 but mostly other dates
Page 24 30 April 2007 starts again about quarter of the way down
Page 25 all 30 April 2007
Page 26 all 30 April 2007
Page 27 all 30 April 2007
Page 28 all 30 April 2007
Page 29 all 30 April 2007
Page 30 about half 30 April 2007 then moves back to Sep 2006
Page 31 starts with Sep 2006 then returns to 30 April 2007 about half way down
Page 32 all 30 April 2007
Page 33 about half 30 April 2007
Page 34 all 30 April 2007
Page 35 all 30 April 2007

Losing the will to live at this point so haven't gone on in any detail. Perhaps someone knows a way of sorting by date to make it
easier, but anyway there are 22 pages of the ones I looked at showing a list of 100 URLS with the 30 April 2007 date (ignoring half pages, etc). Quick look on it goes back to 30 April 2007 on pages 79/80 but mostly other dates until the end on page 88.

So 22 x 100 = 2,200 times archiving is dated 30 April 2007. Now maths isn't my strong point so I'm going to be approximate, Wayback
says it has 8,780 URLS captured for CEOP. Going on those figures, and there are more occurences of 30 April than I included in that
equation, but to give an aproximate figure, since Wayback started crawling the CEOP website, it has dated approx ONE THIRD for
ONE DAY ALONE - 30th April 2007.

The 30 April 2007 date can't be trusted at all. It repeats again and again the same URLs over and over. Note that none of the URLs
for that date are accessible either, they all come up with an error.

As confirmed in writing by Wayback the 30 April 2007 date for the mccann.html page is a mistake, and anyone looking at the URL list
can see there is a problem with 30 April 2007, many many times in fact. So obviously the dates of the two Madeleine JPGs isn't 30 April
2007 either.

@ Siobhan3443

Brilliant, thank you

I make that just over 30 pages then. So 30 x 100 = 3,000 entries dated 30 April 2007 out of 8,780.

Serious problem with that date.