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

With regards to PM

I'd love OG to 'take him in' to 'assist them' with their 'inquiries'!

They'd 'learn' MORE in just two hours, from him, about his 'research', of the Madeleine McCann 'case', than they have, seemingly, 'achieved' in over 4 years full time, erm, 'investigation'!

They might not 'like' what they 'hear', but WTH, couldn't do any 'harm' listening to what he has to 'say', could it?

Then, THEN, perhaps they could then ask GA to 'assist with their inquiries'.

or ME!

@PeterMac--"No matter how often you repeat this will not make it so. For that we need evidence and explanation. And demanding that we all agree or accept what you aver does not add to the enquiry"

Haha! It's kind of funny when you think about it.

'An error occurred but we don't have to prove it!'

--There is no evidence of an abductor but 'Madeleine was abducted!'

'I don't have to explain it but the glitch is self evident!'

---'If Madeleine wasn't abducted then explain why she's not here!'

There is such a thing as standards of proof. The debunkers haven't met it here any more than the McCann's have adequately explained why they no longer have their child.

Syn you keep saying staunch.isn't that one of Mitchell's fave words.just saying.

@whodunnit. There has been no evidence given that there was not a mccann. html page on 30/04, all supposed evidence (although none of it proven yet) has been around other pages (whether that be the ceops home page or some other that someone would like to highlight) but even they are debatable

just saying wrote:Syn you keep saying staunch.isn't that one of Mitchell's fave words.just saying.

Well, that's just 'LUDICROUS' to say THAT!

@HKP---they haven't answered, debunked, or even addressed the sequential codes which all pinpoint April 30 as the rightful place for both files. It is securely proven both 'fore and aft' to quote Dr. Roberts. They cannot offer a rational explanation for this so-called glitch, whereupon files that allegedly belonged to sequences of files that were captured months later managed to leap back in time, leaving no trace of fingerprints or other forensic evidence their former address, and acquired for themselves the address of their new home, complete with a pin on a map of the area and mail service, as if they had always lived on April 30 Blvd., all snug and cozy and secure. All quite by accident, I'm sure.

That's it! The abductor came and took the files.

Could it be that the employers at WBM aren't familiar with this case and, therefore, are scratching their heads and saying that it must be a "glitch" because Madeleine McCann didn't go missing until 3 May.

@sallypelt---"Could it be that the employers at WBM aren't familiar with this case and, therefore, are scratching their heads and saying that it must be a "glitch" because Madeleine McCann didn't go missing until 3 May"


They never should have been alerted to the controversial nature of the evidence BEFORE the answer was pinned down but good. I did a little thought experiment with my sister last night while discussing this case. Here is an imprecise dramatization of our experiment:.

Johnny Friendly strolls by a donut shop and out of the corner of his eye he sees a great fat pantsless man wearing a top hat and monocle fleeing the area, huffing and puffing in his haste.

Johnny Friendly looks down and sees a man on the ground bleeding profusely from many stab wounds. Greatly out of sorts, Mr. Friendly bends down to check on the poor unfortunate soul. With his dying breath, the poor fellow gasps out 'Montague...' and promptly expires.

Being a good citizen Johnny calls the bobby to the scene of this heinous murder. He's asked to describe the suspect numerous times, which he does, each time honestly and faithfully recreating for his audience the spectacle of the great fat pantsless man wearing a top hat and monocle, never neglecting to add that the victim had called the suspect 'Montague' with his dying breath...

So a line up at the station is arranged. A long line of great fat pantsless men wearing top hats and monocles are trotted out for the inspection of Mr. Friendly. "Number 5a!" Johnny exclaims with great certainty. 'No doubt about it, the man I saw fleeing the murder and Number 5a are the same!"

A globby pink man of indeterminate provenance steps forward and introduces himself as Noncy O'Leery: 'Harumph. Now son, you should know that you've just identified Sir Montague Illustrious Dingleberry as a murderer. You know the fellow, he's been in all the papers as a suspect in the brutal slayings of other witnesses to his, err, umm, Sir Dingleberry has been wrongfully accused in the killings of other, err..

"NEVERMIND I WAS WRONG GOODBYE" Mr. Friendly shouts as flees the station. [Meanwhile,  Chief Constable Mr. Donegal E. Fairy confers with Mr. O'Leery and they both decide that not only was Mr. Friendly thoroughly mistaken in his identification of the murderer but chances are the great fat man never existed at all because only a conspiracy theorist could believe in a man wearing no pants.]

sallypelt wrote:Could it be that the employers at WBM aren't familiar with this case and, therefore, are scratching their heads and saying that it must be a "glitch" because Madeleine McCann didn't go missing until 3 May.

Wouldn't they be more likely to broadcast their success in 'solving' the case? What publicity for them!

Elça Craig wrote:

You don't need to let the techies fight it out.

Use the WM yourself and from around mid October 2007, the ceop trail is corrupt.  It corrects itself when CEOP went from .gov.uk to .police.uk. (Sep 2010).

Use screenshots.com to check its screen captures for the same period.  They are all fine.

So once upon a time, WM had correct info for CEOP, now that data has been corrupted.

It is as simple as that.

My thanks to Bluebag and Syn for persevering.

Thank you Elca :)

just saying wrote:Syn you keep saying staunch.isn't that one of Mitchell's fave words.just saying.

lol that tickled me :)  Nope I am exactly who I say I am.  I am Denise Thomson and my twitter account is @Syn0nymph :)

roy rovers wrote:

sallypelt wrote:Could it be that the employers at WBM aren't familiar with this case and, therefore, are scratching their heads and saying that it must be a "glitch" because Madeleine McCann didn't go missing until 3 May.

Wouldn't they be more likely to broadcast their success in 'solving' the case? What publicity for them!

I think the point I was trying to make has been missed, so let me try again.  For those of us who have followed this case closely from day one, we know that nothing can be taken at face value. However, most people believe that Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of 3 May 2007, and this may be what the employers or WBM also believe. So, when their capture is showing 30 April 2007 WBM employers must be thinking THERE MUST BE A GLITCH, as there's no other explanation. But as I've already stated; those of us who have followed this case closely that everything isn't what it seems.

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

aquila wrote:
There are non-tecchies such as . . . PeterMac who have an opinion and others are clutching onto and supporting that.

I don't think I do.
I don't know enough about it, and haven't seen enough evidence to form even a tentative opinion.

What I do know is that this is not going to go away until it is solved,
but I also know that arguing without providing referenced evidence, and simply e-shouting or saying "FACT", or "Do you agree" doesn't take us any further.

PeterMac, there are people on MMM who clamp onto your opinions like limpets. Each time you give a tentative opinion on a forum that is so hellbent on denigrating CMoMM it wouldn't matter if you said the Pope wore stockings, suspenders and ate children for breakfast, lunch and dinner; they would possibly find a way to agree with you. You give that forum some form of credibility. That comes with responsibility. You did not stand up for Pat Brown when she was being castigated on that forum. You do not stand up for Tony Bennett either. You don't stand up for members of CMoMM who are ridiculed and maligned. I find that 'interesting'.

There is not enough proof of what you call 'e-shouting' to take anything further. I agree. I note you have not agreed with Pat Brown who you escorted through PDL. I note you often support Blacksmith. So what exactly is your opinion PeterMac?

Mine is...let the tecchies fight it out. It might come to something. It might come to nothing. I haven't changed my original opinion of it's a load of hogwash but that's my opinion based on nothing really than gut instinct. No-one will be swayed by my opinion.

No one gives a phuck for your opinion.It must be dificult for you to accept that Bennett is a liar and a fraud as you supported him finacially and emotionally.
You can give this forum a big lift if you would drink a bottle of bleach and give us all peace.
Just think of it as your little contibution to humanity.

whodunnit wrote:@HKP---they haven't answered, debunked, or even addressed the sequential codes which all pinpoint April 30 as the rightful place for both files. It is securely proven both 'fore and aft' to quote Dr. Roberts. They cannot offer a rational explanation for this so-called glitch, whereupon files that allegedly belonged to sequences of files that were captured months later managed to leap back in time, leaving no trace of fingerprints or other forensic evidence their former address, and acquired for themselves the address of their new home, complete with a pin on a map of the area and mail service, as if they had always lived on April 30 Blvd., all snug and cozy and secure. All quite by accident, I'm sure.

That's it! The abductor came and took the files.

It has been addressed and explained here.  The 30th April date never existed and when this is all resolved you won't see the blue bubbles again after re-indexing and you won't see an arrow fore or aft it as you put it.  The only reason you are seeing it now is because the reindexing has not taken place yet.

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

As to why a July, June and October archive ended up in an April archive that is for WB to figure out but it will be probably be due to corruption at some point in time as Elca said or with specific contents of the page/s. 

It looks as though if any issue is encountered WB modifies the archive timestamp. 

In simple terms Wayback crawls can be long or short crawls ie in the case of Amazon they will crawl and archive everyday as there is obviously a lot of traffic to that site but in the case of pages like CEOP, not so often, so they are picked up in long crawls looking back at what to archive.  So it could well have been that the crawl parameters for 31st October were to cover a six month crawl so the first crawl date would have been 30/04/07.  If WB encountered any corruption/issues with pages they were crawling, the code automatically sets the timestamp of the archive to the earliest crawl timestamp which in this case was 30/04/2007

sallypelt wrote:

roy rovers wrote:

sallypelt wrote:Could it be that the employers at WBM aren't familiar with this case and, therefore, are scratching their heads and saying that it must be a "glitch" because Madeleine McCann didn't go missing until 3 May.

Wouldn't they be more likely to broadcast their success in 'solving' the case? What publicity for them!

I think the point I was trying to make has been missed, so let me try again.  For those of us who have followed this case closely from day one, we know that nothing can be taken at face value. However, most people believe that Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of 3 May 2007, and this may be what the employers or WBM also believe. So, when their capture is showing 30 April 2007 WBM employers must be thinking THERE MUST BE A GLITCH, as there's no other explanation. But as I've already stated; those of us who have followed this case closely that everything isn't what it seems.

They have already looked into it and ascertained that the real timestamps for the mccann.html is 31 July 2007 and the index.asp homepage is 07 October 2007.  They are currently resolving the issues and identifying what has happened.

I posted last night after researching the WB machine and archiving process. I had little interest or knowledge of this case but was asked to give my opinion.
As an experienced lecturer in Comp Sci and data mining I can state that there is no error on the 30/04/2007 page. Discussion on the home page is another matter completely.
Sadly the questions asked by the 2nd enquiry triggered a panic reaction and it seems that WB is now desperately attempting to alter pointers to the later date.
I believe that this would stand as evidence of premeditation.


BB with respect your explanations are weak to say the very least. 



I have now become very interested in the case and I’m doing my best to read historical facts. I’m not sure that this is a positive result for me!

@Syn--"after re-indexing and you won't see an arrow fore or aft"

I'm not talking about an 'arrow' pointing 'fore and aft' I'm talking about embedded sequential code within the pages that exist now, directly before and directly after the now disappeared April 30 page. But then you know this.

Any 'modifications' made to timestamps and indexes which existed before is falsification unless it can be proven the timestamps and indexes were wrong in the first place. This has not been done, not by a long shot. Saying it has doesn't make it so. But then you know this.

"The 30th April date never existed"

Now you're just talking gibberish.

Thanks, Richard Henshaw!

Tell me, bearing in mind that there is no evidence that CEOP homepage was  captured after October 12 is it possible, likely, or unlikely that WBM accidentally inserted an October 23 or after homepage into the supposedly nonexistent April 30 file?

How likely is it that the October dates were dynamic content, ie links updated automatically? How likely is it that WBM caught CEOP in the process of sloppily editing the homepage on April 30? Unfortunately, nobody thought to capture the code for the homepage in question. For one thing, it was unclear when and how this page entered the discussion as most were focused on mccann.html.

@Richard Henshaw

Thank you for your interesting post. Could you, in simple language for simpletons like me, explain exactly why they can be no error in the 30 April grab?

whodunnit wrote:@Syn--"after re-indexing and you won't see an arrow fore or aft"

I'm not talking about an 'arrow' pointing 'fore and aft' I'm talking about embedded sequential code within the pages that exist now, directly before and directly after the now disappeared April 30 page. But then you know this.

Any 'modifications' made to timestamps and indexes which existed before is falsification unless it can be proven the timestamps and indexes were wrong in the first place. This has not been done, not by a long shot. Saying it has doesn't make it so. But then you know this.

"The 30th April date never existed"

Now you're just talking gibberish.

No it is not falsification, they will be rerunning the crawl and updating where they find and fix the errors.  
Please post  examples of this embedded sequential code that you are talking about.

So I ask again, can you explain how a non McCannn related press release dated and uploaded on 18 Jun 2007 and archived on 20th June 2007 as shown in the code on the screenshot below also ended up in the mysterious 30 April 07 archive if all this is some kind of CEOP preplanned event?

The source is from 30/04/07 archive but the link saved from 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which now points to 20/06/07 as expected.

This source code is from archive.is 

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

Note the 30 April and 20 June refs

First, you keep referring to code contained on archive.is. How did this capture end up on archive.is and why should we rely on it's validity?


Second, the capture says 'you are here' April 30 but gives no context as to which page it is referring to.

Third, which part of dynamic content don't you understand? Clearly one of the links on that page updated to the nearest available news update and of course this is reflected in the coding!!;

AGAIN, from the FAQ:

How did I end up on the live version of a site? or I clicked on X date, but now I am on Y date, how is that possible?
Not every date for every site archived is 100% complete. When you are surfing an incomplete archived site the Wayback Machine will grab the closest available date to the one you are in for the links that are missing. In the event that we do not have the link archived at all, the Wayback Machine will look for the link on the live web and grab it if available. Pay attention to the date code embedded in the archived url. This is the list of numbers in the middle; it translates as yyyymmddhhmmss. For example in this url http:[link removed] the date the site was crawled was Feb 29, 2000 at 12:33 and 40 second

@whodunnit

Can you also explain how WB does not have any captures of the home page after October 12th for 2007 but another company that uses the Wayback data source and python amongst other stuff to create it's captures managed to capture the below from November 21 2007?

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

It existed once upon a time, where is it now?  I'd lay odds on it will reappear when WB have fixed whatever the issues are and when everything is where it should have been to begin with

Seriously?

 Please link to this 'other company' so we can see this 'capture' and it's code for ourselves.

Syn - I've been creating these crawlers for far too many years. Please look at the simple and logical outcome - Fact - the page exsisted on the 30/04/2007. Stop this madness!