Re: Claim by 'Stevo' - "CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007"

by Guest 18.06.15 12:32

Joss wrote:Wonder what the PJ will make of it all ?????

by Sceptic 18.06.15 12:53

jeanmonroe wrote:Photo from Steve Marsden's post in Madeleine McCann: Abduction or Scam?

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

Steve Marsden‎ Madeleine McCann: Abduction or Scam?

Madeleine McCann was reported missing on the CEOP website on April 30, 2007.

According to the Wayback Machine (archive.org), a capture was made on April 30, 2007.

Figure that one out!
3 hrs

Marian Greaves Steve Marsden which authorities are you going to report this to??

about an hour ago · Like · 1
..
Steve Marsden Links to external pages get dynamically altered or else they would all be dead links. That explains the May 13 date to an external link. Obviously the Wayback Machine tweaks the source of the grabbed page because it adds the comment data like the one I just posted above.

about an hour ago · Like · 2

Lorraine Birks So it was definitely a live link on the 30th April ?

about an hour ago · Like · 3
..
Steve Marsden Wendy just brought this article to my attention. Thank you very much smile emoticon This is important because it shows that the Wayback Machine has been used as evidence in court. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Weighing up the Wayback Machine: an analysis of the admissibility of archived websites." De...
saflii.org
..
59 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 6

Teena Robbins Please share x

56 minutes ago · Like
..Robert Santos Just got in.... Boy do I have a lot of catching up to do.
Anyway well done
who-ever and all

55 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 4
..Chris Martin I think we can say there was definitely a mccann.html page on Apr 30th.
---------------------------------------------------

'forgive me being fik' but what does the 'above' stuff .....'mean'?

When you click on the 30th April on the capture date calender now it shows a date of 13th May 2007 - either a glitch or something has been changed

by Joss 18.06.15 12:56

Portia wrote:
Joss wrote:Wonder what the PJ will make of it all ?????

by VeraWannabe 18.06.15 13:19

On [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if you hovver over the little blue arrow in the rh corner to take you to the previous website snapshot, then it displays the date 30/4/2007 11:58 on your cursor, and also displays the URL in the bottom bar...

So there was definitely another snapshot - which has been removed overnight...

Who archives the webpages of web.archive.org.......................?? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

by Guest 18.06.15 13:53

VeraWannabe wrote:On [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if you hovver over the little blue arrow in the rh corner to take you to the previous website snapshot, then it displays the date 30/4/2007 11:58 on your cursor, and also displays the URL in the bottom bar...

So there was definitely another snapshot - which has been removed overnight...

Who archives the webpages of web.archive.org.......................?? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

===========================

Who indeed!

Have you made a screenshot? I suppose you have. What fun, all of the above!

I'm reading up on Downton Abbey these days.
You could just imagine some old biddies like Duchess Violett sitting around a table trying to sort out the pieces of the Jigsaw

And their footmen bringing in all sorts of mint juleps, and the latest Express from the Post Office, on a silver tray: 'Perpetrators almost found out; End of 'Miracle' in sight now'

by Joss 18.06.15 13:59

VeraWannabe wrote:On [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if you hovver over the little blue arrow in the rh corner to take you to the previous website snapshot, then it displays the date 30/4/2007 11:58 on your cursor, and also displays the URL in the bottom bar...

So there was definitely another snapshot - which has been removed overnight...

Who archives the webpages of web.archive.org.......................?? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I bet it has if what we suspect might be true. It wouldn't be the first time something in the McCann charade has been "whooshed"".

by j.rob 18.06.15 14:08

Mark Willis wrote:When "coincidences" build up to the extent they have in the Mc case, then I think it is reasonable to deduce that, anything associated with those two, should be taken as deception, obfuscation and disinformation.
At this point I feel Richard has nailed it.

The McCanns and their friends have made many, many slips. This would be just one of a huge number.

The unjemmied shutters; the conflicting accounts of what they did that evening; the changing testimony. And so on.

Many of the photos are suspect.

Kate's book is a web of lies, imo.

So it's not surprising that another one has been uncovered as it appears to have been.

by j.rob 18.06.15 14:18

Joss wrote:So is the WBM data only incorrect on the McCScam entry for 30/4/07, or are there lots of other incorrect dates as well? And what happens with their stuff being used in legal cases then? Funny about that...... always exceptions and errors made in the McCScam case. Who would of thought!

Yes - a bit like the unreliable sniffer dogs. The Mcs managed to unearth one case in the States where the judge deemed that the dog evidence couldn't be used as it wasn't reliable enough but in the end the murderer admitted what he had done and the dogs had been correct.

by Joss 18.06.15 14:23

j.rob wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:When "coincidences" build up to the extent they have in the Mc case, then I think it is reasonable to deduce that, anything associated with those two, should be taken as deception, obfuscation and disinformation.
At this point I feel Richard has nailed it.

The McCanns and their friends have made many, many slips. This would be just one of a huge number.

The unjemmied shutters; the conflicting accounts of what they did that evening; the changing testimony. And so on.

Many of the photos are suspect.

Kate's book is a web of lies, imo.

So it's not surprising that another one has been uncovered as it appears to have been.

They probably know they will never be held accountable in any way for Madeleine's disappearance so probably don't care. They have never been held to account in 8 years so far through it all. For all the people that think they are complicit in what happened, there are also many who defend them, and then there are probably a lot that have long ago lost interest in the case and could care less about it. There are many other more newsworthy things going on in the world right now that are probably more concerning to the public IMO.

by Joss 18.06.15 14:25

j.rob wrote:
Joss wrote:So is the WBM data only incorrect on the McCScam entry for 30/4/07, or are there lots of other incorrect dates as well? And what happens with their stuff being used in legal cases then? Funny about that...... always exceptions and errors made in the McCScam case. Who would of thought!

Yes - a bit like the unreliable sniffer dogs. The Mcs managed to unearth one case in the States where the judge deemed that the dog evidence couldn't be used as it wasn't reliable enough but in the end the murderer admitted what he had done and the dogs had been correct.

Exactly.

by HelenMeg 18.06.15 14:34

I cant help but find this whole thing is a distraction designed to deflect from stuff like Amaral filing his appeal.

by Joss 18.06.15 14:39

HelenMeg wrote:I cant help but find this whole thing is a distraction designed to deflect from stuff like Amaral filing his appeal.

Not sure what it really is? It could be something or it could be nothing, but either way, i guess that most likely nothing much will come from it knowing this case.

by InspectorJacquesClouseau 18.06.15 14:43

Been scouring the web looking for any reports of this in the press and media. Can't find a single report about it except on Twitter. Maybe somebody will come along and prove me wrong. It's certainly a very strange thing to have been unearthed after all this time in this never ending mystery.

by Verdi 18.06.15 16:01

Doug D wrote:Verdi (@10.57),

The Telegraph report you link to has similarly been ‘got at’, although still showing the 12.01 time on the 4^th May 2007.

The original report that has been ‘whooshed’ was only a few lines and fitted with a breaking news story of which there was little detail as yet.

Normally an amended story has an update time and date next to the original, but not in this case.

See thread:

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

It wasn't my intention to kick off a discussion about the Telegraph report, I don't even know when that particular write-up was first published, apart from being 4th May 2007. I was using it as an example of what I think might be an archival default timing. If you look at the Telegraph reports published during the same period you will see that qute a number specify the same time i.e. 12:01 am.

The topic seems to have taken on a life of it's own but I still wonder that the CEOP would be so stupid as to make such a potentially explosive error and why has it taken eight years for someone to notice? Still as I say what do I know, I'll leave it to the experts.

Thanks however for providing the link to past discussion which I will read as a matter of interest.

by lj 18.06.15 16:25

PeterMac wrote:
Doug D wrote:
The Telegraph report you link to has similarly been ‘got at’, although still showing the 12.01 time on the 4^th May 2007.
The original report that has been ‘whooshed’ was only a few lines and fitted with a breaking news story of which there was little detail as yet.

The Telegraph have got form for doing this.

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

Remember how at that time also all articles who spoke of a "3 year old" had to be upgraded to a "4 year old".

If you believe in the neglect or not, the story was neglect and these idiots apparently think that it is OK to leave a 4 year old babysit her younge twin siblings.

by roy rovers 18.06.15 16:34

Doug D wrote:Roy Rovers,

I think you have missed the point.

As I understand it a McCann file called :

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

appears to have been created on, but would not have been published, to the www on that date.

However, the Wayback Machine scans the whole of the web and picked up the page on 30^th April and indexed it accordingly.

CEOP would not have known it had been scanned and indexed and just published the page to the general public at a later date.

However, since yesterday, some ‘whooshing’ and changes appear to have been carried out, to try and conceal this date.

As a non-techi, someone please correct me if I am wrong.

..................................................

Please can someone e-mail Exaro with a link to this thread and some basic details.

I have e-mailed them with stuff previously, but am sitting in McDonalds (sorry!) and can’t get into my e-mails for some reason.

They must be worth keeping in the picture, as the only media organization seemingly prepared to do any digging.

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

Thanks.

Hi Doug
Or you could have missed the point. Techie this techie that - leave it to the techies. I suggested one way it could have happened further up the thread and there are no doubt countless others. The main thing is from a sanity point of view do you seriously believe that CEOPs created this on 30 April 2007 and then hushed it up? Think how many people would need to be in on it and kept quiet since? Or maybe they got in the crew that filmed the faked moon landings in a hanger and kept quiet about that ever since as well.
Lol

by Guest 18.06.15 16:42

Dear roy of the rovers,

There is a definite anomaly here that may indicate something happened before May 3rd 2007.

And also there is evidence that someone is trying to disappear it since questions were asked.

It's interesting.

Don't you think?

BB.

by noddy100 18.06.15 17:05

It is very interesting that it appears to have been tampered with since yesterday
They have eyes and ears everywhere which if this were a run of the mill missing person just wouldn't be the case

by Guest 18.06.15 17:09

Probably reading our little musings

by j.rob 18.06.15 17:48

Joss wrote:TFWIW, Just read this:

Isabelle Maria McF ‏@QUEENdePORTUGAL 19m19 minutes ago
Interpret as U wish..I've spoken to Wayback Rep He stands by date apparently so do courts. I've sent to PJ #mccann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That email appears to be genuine.

In any event, there are many other pointers that the "abduction" of Madeleine McCann was a pre-arranged hoax.

by canada12 18.06.15 18:31

j.rob wrote:
Joss wrote:TFWIW, Just read this:

Isabelle Maria McF ‏@QUEENdePORTUGAL 19m19 minutes ago
Interpret as U wish..I've spoken to Wayback Rep He stands by date apparently so do courts. I've sent to PJ #mccann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That email appears to be genuine.

In any event, there are many other pointers that the "abduction" of Madeleine McCann was a pre-arranged hoax.

The screenshot above shows the page as it was "captured" on April 30.
We've now been told that this was an "error" and that it should have been a different date, after May 7.
The only trouble is, if you go to the link now, there are TWO photos of Madeleine on the page:

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

So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?
When was the second photo of Madeleine added?
Why doesn't only one photo of Madeleine appear in the new link?
Why don't two photos of Madeleine appear in the April 30 link above?
Hmmm.

by Guest 18.06.15 18:35

canada12 wrote:So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?

Good point.

Yes, I saw the one photo/two photo thing.

Goodness... this has suddenly got even more twisted in the last two days.

by Guest 18.06.15 18:43

The redirected page is not the same as the original page?

by happychick 18.06.15 18:43

BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?
Good point.

Yes, I saw the one photo/two photo thing.

Goodness... this has suddenly got even more twisted in the last two days.

So is it CEOP that's messing with things?

I agree with Richard D Hall that HiDeHo shouldn't have asked that question. It's like the media alerting the 'abductor's' that the net is closing in.

Doh.

No wonder things are being tampered with.

by Guest 18.06.15 18:44

Squeaky bum time for Jim.

Log in for more topics