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

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over on the 7th May and the PJfiles verifies this along with the rest of the CEOP webpage press release date 9th May, appeals 9th May and MSN timeline 10th May is consistent with this should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:
I saw your 100% BS.

But who are you to register as a new member and tell us  "move along"?

Pray tell when did I tell anyone to 'move along'?

You said you were a JAVA developer as may be others here so I simply posted a link to openwayback and suggested you might want to do some interrogation.

So why shouldn't  I register as a member? You once took saw something posted here that will have prompted you to join up and comment, so why should it be any different for me and others?

The openwayback software is NOT the wayback machine software.

So why would you try and make us think they are the same?

I did no such thing. I posted the timestamp.java  and a link from wayback itself and also a link to openwayback for you to run your own queries if you wished.

JAVA is not infallible you know, it's only a good as the programmer :)

Out of the millions of webpages trawled why has it taken this case to show that Wayback may not be infallible? Is there an error log for this issue and was it resolved? This is reminding me of the dogs aren't 100% reliable argument.

And just for the record the website was accessible from at least 10 May 2007.

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

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

No... I'm saying openwayback is different software to the wayback machine.

The wayback machine may or may not have a java foundation (not that it matters... it's all about packages.. and then how they are used... if ever...). 

As well you probably know.

So why would you sign up and try and fob us off?

In answer to Resistor:

Resistor Today at 8:36 pm
So a page CAN contain things from another date. That also ties in with what the developer said in the screen shot on p 22. Not much use as an accurate archive then, is it. I wonder if all these people involved in legal cases know about this.

~~

It is an accurate archive. The page is archived as it is on the date of archival, which is embedded in the date code. The page as saved is static, unchangeable. It is the LINKS, which is the exact source of the confusion here, that can update automatically.

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:
I saw your 100% BS.

But who are you to register as a new member and tell us  "move along"?

Pray tell when did I tell anyone to 'move along'?

You said you were a JAVA developer as may be others here so I simply posted a link to openwayback and suggested you might want to do some interrogation.

So why shouldn't  I register as a member? You once took saw something posted here that will have prompted you to join up and comment, so why should it be any different for me and others?

The openwayback software is NOT the wayback machine software.

So why would you try and make us think they are the same?

I did no such thing. I posted the timestamp.java  and a link from wayback itself and also a link to openwayback for you to run your own queries if you wished.

JAVA is not infallible you know, it's only a good as the programmer :)

Out of the millions of webpages trawled why has it taken this case to show that Wayback may not be infallible? Is there an error log for this issue and was it resolved? This is reminding me of the dogs aren't 100% reliable argument.

And just for the record the website was accessible from at least 10 May 2007.

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

There will be thousands of pages affected by siimilar issues but try finding them in the millions out there.  See my response to TB re same question please.  WB is working on this and has said that they have identified that the mccann.html page in question actually has an archive date of 31/7/2007 and the home page index.asp date 30/04 actually has an archive date of 07/2007.

The link you provided gives weight to what I posted above re the timeline from when GA asked for assistance from CEOP on 7th May

Syn wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:
I saw your 100% BS.

But who are you to register as a new member and tell us  "move along"?

Pray tell when did I tell anyone to 'move along'?

You said you were a JAVA developer as may be others here so I simply posted a link to openwayback and suggested you might want to do some interrogation.

So why shouldn't  I register as a member? You once took saw something posted here that will have prompted you to join up and comment, so why should it be any different for me and others?

The openwayback software is NOT the wayback machine software.

So why would you try and make us think they are the same?

I did no such thing. I posted the timestamp.java  and a link from wayback itself and also a link to openwayback for you to run your own queries if you wished.

JAVA is not infallible you know, it's only a good as the programmer :)

Out of the millions of webpages trawled why has it taken this case to show that Wayback may not be infallible? Is there an error log for this issue and was it resolved? This is reminding me of the dogs aren't 100% reliable argument.

And just for the record the website was accessible from at least 10 May 2007.

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

There will be thousands of pages affected by siimilar issues but try finding them in the millions out there.  See my response to TB re same question please.  WB is working on this and has said that they have identified that the mccann.html page in question actually has an archive date of 31/7/2007 and the home page index.asp date 30/04 actually has an archive date of 07/2007.

The link you provided gives weight to what I posted above re the timeline from when GA asked for assistance from CEOP on 7th May

Seriously... why is this so important to you? 

I already called your BS.

Why bother?

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over on the 7th May and the PJfiles verifies this along with the rest of the CEOP webpage press release date 9th May, appeals 9th May and MSN timeline 10th May is consistent with this should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

Why could it not be that CEOP's website page was saved on 30th April, and that it's nothing whatsoever to do with GA who would be completely unaware of this?

I'm just reading my old copy of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' to see if the answer's there 

Thanks for your work teccies, appreciate you trying to make the topic understandable as well as find answers.  I'm still struggling but enjoying the reading. 

BlueBag wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

No... I'm saying openwayback is different software to the wayback machine.

The wayback machine may or may not have a java foundation (not that it matters... it's all about packages.. and then how they are used... if ever...). 

As well you probably know.

So why would you sign up and try and fob us off?

I'm fobbing no-one off.  You clearly do not understand that WB appends JAVA  to the HTML whenever it archives a page

Example from 13/05/2007





//var __wm = (function(){
var wbPrefix = "/web/";
var wbCurrentUrl = "http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html";

var firstYear = 1996;
var imgWidth = 500,imgHeight = 27;
var yearImgWidth = 25,monthImgWidth = 2;
var displayDay = "13";
var displayMonth = "May";
var displayYear = "2007";
var prettyMonths = ["Jan","Feb","Mar","Apr","May","Jun","Jul","Aug","Sep","Oct","Nov","Dec"];
var $D=document,$=function(n){return document.getElementById(n)};
var trackerVal,curYear = -1,curMonth = -1;
var yearTracker,monthTracker;
function showTrackers(val) {
  if (val===trackerVal) return;
  var $ipp=$("wm-ipp");
  var $y=$("displayYearEl"),$m=$("displayMonthEl"),$d=$("displayDayEl");
  if (val) {
    $ipp.className="hi";
  } else {
    $ipp.className="";
    $y.innerHTML=displayYear;$m.innerHTML=displayMonth;$d.innerHTML=displayDay;
  }
  yearTracker.style.display=val?"inline":"none";
  monthTracker.style.display=val?"inline":"none";
  trackerVal = val;
}
function getElementX2(obj) {
  var $e=jQuery(obj);
  return (typeof $e=="undefined"||typeof $e.offset=="undefined")?
    getElementX(obj):Math.round($e.offset().left);
}
function trackMouseMove(event,element) {
  var eventX = getEventX(event);
  var elementX = getElementX2(element);
  var xOff = Math.min(Math.max(0, eventX - elementX),imgWidth);
  var monthOff = xOff % yearImgWidth;

  var year = Math.floor(xOff / yearImgWidth);
  var monthOfYear = Math.min(11,Math.floor(monthOff / monthImgWidth));
  // 1 extra border pixel at the left edge of the year:
  var month = (year * 12) + monthOfYear;
  var day = monthOff % 2==1?15:1;
  var dateString = zeroPad(year + firstYear) + zeroPad(monthOfYear+1,2) +
    zeroPad(day,2) + "000000";

  $("displayYearEl").innerHTML=year+firstYear;
  $("displayMonthEl").innerHTML=prettyMonths[monthOfYear];
  // looks too jarring when it changes..
  //$("displayDayEl").innerHTML=zeroPad(day,2);
  var url = wbPrefix + dateString + '/' +  wbCurrentUrl;
  $("wm-graph-anchor").href=url;

  if(curYear != year) {
    var yrOff = year * yearImgWidth;
    yearTracker.style.left = yrOff + "px";
    curYear = year;
  }
  if(curMonth != month) {
    var mtOff = year + (month * monthImgWidth) + 1;
    monthTracker.style.left = mtOff + "px";
    curMonth = month;
  }
}
function hideToolbar() {
  $("wm-ipp").style.display="none";
}
function bootstrap() {
  var $spk=$("wm-ipp-sparkline");
  yearTracker=$D.createElement('div');
  yearTracker.className='yt';
  with(yearTracker.style){
    display='none';width=yearImgWidth+"px";height=imgHeight+"px";
  }
  monthTracker=$D.createElement('div');
  monthTracker.className='mt';
  with(monthTracker.style){
    display='none';width=monthImgWidth+"px";height=imgHeight+"px";
  }
  $spk.appendChild(yearTracker);
  $spk.appendChild(monthTracker);

  var $ipp=$("wm-ipp");
  $ipp&&disclaimElement($ipp);
}
return{st:showTrackers,mv:trackMouseMove,h:hideToolbar,bt:bootstrap};
})();//]]>



__wm.bt();


And it is this method that can cause issues with links such as pdfs which can cause anomalies with dates

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

suzysu wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over on the 7th May and the PJfiles verifies this along with the rest of the CEOP webpage press release date 9th May, appeals 9th May and MSN timeline 10th May is consistent with this should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

Why could it not be that CEOP's website page was saved on 30th April, and that it's nothing whatsoever to do with GA who would be completely unaware of this?

Exactly .

BlueBag wrote:

Syn wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:
I saw your 100% BS.

But who are you to register as a new member and tell us  "move along"?

Pray tell when did I tell anyone to 'move along'?

You said you were a JAVA developer as may be others here so I simply posted a link to openwayback and suggested you might want to do some interrogation.

So why shouldn't  I register as a member? You once took saw something posted here that will have prompted you to join up and comment, so why should it be any different for me and others?

The openwayback software is NOT the wayback machine software.

So why would you try and make us think they are the same?

I did no such thing. I posted the timestamp.java  and a link from wayback itself and also a link to openwayback for you to run your own queries if you wished.

JAVA is not infallible you know, it's only a good as the programmer :)

Out of the millions of webpages trawled why has it taken this case to show that Wayback may not be infallible? Is there an error log for this issue and was it resolved? This is reminding me of the dogs aren't 100% reliable argument.

And just for the record the website was accessible from at least 10 May 2007.

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

There will be thousands of pages affected by siimilar issues but try finding them in the millions out there.  See my response to TB re same question please.  WB is working on this and has said that they have identified that the mccann.html page in question actually has an archive date of 31/7/2007 and the home page index.asp date 30/04 actually has an archive date of 07/2007.

The link you provided gives weight to what I posted above re the timeline from when GA asked for assistance from CEOP on 7th May

Seriously... why is this so important to you? 

I already called your BS.

Why bother?

Not BS :) Misinformation helps no-one, not GA and certainly not Madeleine.

whodunnit wrote:Put simply, at the very least WLBTS is flat wrong.

And he was 'flat wrong' about things when he was a member here as well.

For the benefit of guests and newer members here, here follow a few facts about WLBTS:

1. He is very knowledgeable about the case...

2. ...especially on matters relating to the statements of the McCanns and the Tapas 7 and about the actual events of 3 May

3. When the 'Smithman' discussions suddenly flared into life around the end of 2013, he spent ages on here, quoting this and that statement seemingly at will, in an attempt to support his theory that the Smiths really did see Gerry McCann - and that any suggestions that the Smiths might be fabricating their 'sighting' were outrageous

4. After weeks and weeks of this, one night he suddenly turned round and admitted he has been completely wrong about important matters such as the likely time the alarm was sounded on 3 May - and therefore retracted much of what he had said before

5. Other members noted this and some pointedly remarked that they could no longer rely on anything he said

6. Thereafter, he hardly ever bothered to post here

&. As we now know, following the forum-owner's investigations last summer, he began to exchange 'pm's with certain others on here, basically complaining about the way the forum was run, and discussing setting up another forum  

9. Soon afterwards he appeared as an early member of candyfloss's forum (along with a number of others from here with whom he had been secretly communicating by 'pm').

10. He began to posted very prolifically over there, rapidy becoming one of the top six posters there

11. As far as I could see, he mostly caused a lot of confusion over there, as he did here, entrancing the members with his silky rhetoric and long posts, but never really adding anything new

12. He left there abruptly several months ago, I have no idea why, I think he was upset about something

13. He is a resident in eastern England who confessed on the forum here to spending a lot of his time making violent video games

14. Further research on his background revealed that his video games were of extreme violence and on one occasion his producer had hd to order him to 'tone down' the violence as it had gone beyond the bounds of acceptability even for that tawdry industry 

14. A significant feature of his video games is extreme gratuitous violence to women

15. He rejoined the candyfloss forum 2-3 days ago because, being an expert on these things, it was blindingly obvious to him that the date referring to an event at 11.58am on 30 April was a simple and very explicable little 'glitch', and he wanted to kill, as soon as possible, any speculation that it might have been a genuine 'find'/capture of a Madeleine page on CEOP's website on 30 April 2007

Doubter wrote:

suzysu wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over on the 7th May and the PJfiles verifies this along with the rest of the CEOP webpage press release date 9th May, appeals 9th May and MSN timeline 10th May is consistent with this should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

Why could it not be that CEOP's website page was saved on 30th April, and that it's nothing whatsoever to do with GA who would be completely unaware of this?

Exactly .

Thank you. I'm a little dazzled by the mirrors and the swirling smoke, and the scent of sea bass, but I think I'm seeing through it....

Syn wrote:I'm fobbing no-one off.  You clearly do not understand that WB appends JAVA  to the HTML whenever it archives a page

Meaningless juju because nearly the whole internet uses java.

And now you're resorting to wall of text.

I understand java PERFECTLY.

I called your BS... you have shown us some java code from openwayback that has no relevance the actual wayback machine crawler software. But then you tried to pretend that the way back machine itself has reported problems with timestamp.

Sleight of hand.

Why would you sign up just to show us this?

Doubter wrote:

suzysu wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over on the 7th May and the PJfiles verifies this along with the rest of the CEOP webpage press release date 9th May, appeals 9th May and MSN timeline 10th May is consistent with this should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

Why could it not be that CEOP's website page was saved on 30th April, and that it's nothing whatsoever to do with GA who would be completely unaware of this?

Exactly .

I fear you both are missing the point.  For this to be some kind of preplanned action on behalf of CEOP, dummy page at 30/04 etc, then something goes wrong and plan is delayed to 03/05 as some are suggesting they are also suggesting GA is involved as he asked CEOP for assistance on the 7th May.  

Anyway, I am going to have dinner now, may be back later, if not have a good evening all :)

Syn wrote:

Doubter wrote:

suzysu wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over on the 7th May and the PJfiles verifies this along with the rest of the CEOP webpage press release date 9th May, appeals 9th May and MSN timeline 10th May is consistent with this should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

Why could it not be that CEOP's website page was saved on 30th April, and that it's nothing whatsoever to do with GA who would be completely unaware of this?

Exactly .

I fear you both are missing the point.  For this to be some kind of preplanned action on behalf of CEOP, dummy page at 30/04 etc, then something goes wrong and plan is delayed to 03/05 as some are suggesting they are also suggesting GA is involved as he asked CEOP for assistance on the 7th May.  

Anyway, I am going to have dinner now, may be back later, if not have a good evening all :)

Have a nice dinner.

Come back and we can discuss your juju further.

Earlier it was discussed whether or not a crawler would pick up a page which has no known link to it.  We do not know there was no link to mccann.html on 30 April.  It depends on how the CEOP site is ammended and managed.  For example, many websites are updated using a content management system.  This is an easy to use back end of the website that allows non technical people to add pages to the website.  Some content management systems when a new page is create will automatically create a hyperlink to that page somewhere in the menu system.  For example they might update the "site map" page with a link to the page and extract the page title to use as the text in the hyperlink.  All done automatically when a new page is created.

I emailed archive.org days ago asking a very simple question about the mccann.html file and when it was first archived by their server.  They still have not replied to my email.  I wonder why that could be?

What did that character assassination of WLBTS add to the debate Tony?

Syn wrote:

Doubter wrote:

suzysu wrote:

Syn wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... let's get this straight.

New member Syn.. posted some java code that actually has nothing to do with the actual wayback machine web crawler in an attempt to show us technical juju and persuade us we have nothing to worry about.

Same for new member Nuala who has a "trust me I'm a doctor" message for us all.

Now... I have no idea if the anomaly is innocent or not.. it may be... but this stuff raises my eyebrows.

A few of us here work in the IT industry.

Are you claiming that Wayback does not append java during archival then?

Regardless of anything else, the very fact that GA invited CEOP over on the 7th May and the PJfiles verifies this along with the rest of the CEOP webpage press release date 9th May, appeals 9th May and MSN timeline 10th May is consistent with this should tell you that the 30/04 date thing IS an anomaly.  If you still think there is something 'going on' re CEOP and premeditated webpages then you are saying GA is involved yes?

Why could it not be that CEOP's website page was saved on 30th April, and that it's nothing whatsoever to do with GA who would be completely unaware of this?

Exactly .

I fear you both are missing the point.  For this to be some kind of preplanned action on behalf of CEOP, dummy page at 30/04 etc, then something goes wrong and plan is delayed to 03/05 as some are suggesting they are also suggesting GA is involved as he asked CEOP for assistance on the 7th May.  

Anyway, I am going to have dinner now, may be back later, if not have a good evening all :)

I know it's been a long day, and this thread has been intriguing. However, I have to question why Dr Amaral is implicated in the CEOP capture, if, and it is IF, the capture was on the 30/4/2007, and Dr Amaral asked for CEOP's help on the 8th of May. I can't see the connection, but I am willing to listen to one.

Syn wrote:

There will be thousands of pages affected by siimilar issues but try finding them in the millions out there.  

@ Syn

Trying to follow your argument in detail, but does it really come down to this:

Wayback Machine/archive.org has system errors so serious that 'thousands' (your word) of pages will be affected by similar 'issues', i.e. errors. 

I guess that, if as you say there are thousands of such errors, it could easily be 'tens of thousands'.

Or even 'hundreds of thousands'. Am I right?

Then how, when one searches Wayback, how does anyone know whether they are reading correct data or false data?

If I find an apparent 'fact' on Wayback, how on earth do I know if it's a fact, or a bad mistake?

Thank you for responding, Tony Bennett.

I haven't much idea of the personalities involved in the internet 'sleuthing' of this case but I too doubt the Smith sighting for 2 very simple, utterly discrediting reasons: 1. They waited so long to officially report the sighting and 2. Appear to have backtracked on the identification of Gerry, seemingly after meeting with representatives of the McCanns.

As for the fact that the CEOP webpage capture of April 30, 2007 ties in with evidence of a prior event, such as Murat's sudden return to PDL [and the fact that the Smiths seemed to have reported a Gerry sighting on his behalf, first by claiming a suspect they couldn't see was definitely not Murat] and the subsequent dodgy creche records, I will posit that a lot of techies are coming out of the woodwork to debunk this discovery for the exact reason we all suspect: this is smoking gun confirmation of  a prior event and unless or until a credible explanation can be offered as to HOW this is a mistake or an anomaly on WBM's part it will remain concrete evidence of a prior event. In my opinion, of course.

HKP wrote:What did that character assassination of WLBTS add to the debate Tony?

Be very very careful of whatever he says

I've brought this over from the other forum, as it puts the whole affair of WBM into perspective. There will be winners or losers no matter what the truth is.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  Resistor Today at 8:59 pm


Then that is 100% at odds with the reply they allegedly sent to Isabel McFadden when the office manager claimed the date was wrong.  Both version s cannot be right so which one is it?

Wayback are screwed if that date turn s out to be wrong. Gamble and the McCanns are screwed if it is not. Be interesting to see who gets thrown the wolves.

whodunnit wrote:Thank you for responding, Tony Bennett.

I haven't much idea of the personalities involved in the internet 'sleuthing' of this case but I too doubt the Smith sighting for 2 very simple, utterly discrediting reasons: 1. They waited so long to officially report the sighting and 2. Appear to have backtracked on the identification of Gerry, seemingly after meeting with representatives of the McCanns.

As for the fact that the CEOP webpage capture of April 30, 2007 ties in with evidence of a prior event, such as Murat's sudden return to PDL [and the fact that the Smiths seemed to have reported a Gerry sighting on his behalf, first by claiming a suspect they couldn't see was definitely not Murat] and the subsequent dodgy creche records, I will posit that a lot of techies are coming out of the woodwork to debunk this discovery for the exact reason we all suspect: this is smoking gun confirmation of  a prior event and unless or until a credible explanation can be offered as to HOW this is a mistake or an anomaly on WBM's part it will remain concrete evidence of a prior event. In my opinion, of course.

I'm no techie, but I can see the smoke from that gun....

"I will posit that a lot of techies are coming out of the woodwork to debunk this discovery"

Yes.


They're not bothered about other Madeleine issues.


But they signed up to tell us all we're wrong on this issue.


What a game.

----

PS.... I think it might be an innocent mistake. However I would like an explanation... and people signing up to post BS gets my back up and makes me wonder.