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

A web crawler does not lie. The images and page existed on the 30/4/2007. I don't understand what the debate is now about?

@Richard Henshaw--"A web crawler does not lie. The images and page existed on the 30/4/2007. I don't understand what the debate is now about?"

Haha, thank you, I see you've answered already and quite succinctly.

This claimed 'error' is either McCann page at CEOPS website specific, which is absurd on it's face, or it's a widespread malfunction for which no evidence has been offered, or >>>the April 30th capture is correct.<<

Can you explain why the April 30th dated url is repeated so many times in the index?

@ nuala although they all start at april 30, the crawl span is different number of months. the number does seem high but the range needs to be narrowed down to only april 30

@ Siobhan3443

Thanks for pointing that out.

It appears that those with a different crawl span are on the last two pages, pages 30 and 31. Leaving pages 1-29 with 30 Apr to 30 Apr.

Have I got that right?

@whodunnit - I really have no explanation for the loops.....it's a mystery!

@nuala, my eyes are gone wonky after looking through all that. first 4 addresses pg 1 approx 100ish captures and the last 2 pages. not as many as i first thought.The rest are for April 30 as you correctly said appears to be a very high percentage of captures for that date

My final analysis is that either this is genuine or WB has been hacked - which is highly unlikely.

Can't edit - Analysis ......

'Note that none of the URLs for that date are accessible either, they all come up with an error.' - nuala 6.31pm     

 this is also true for me. URLS show up errors when clicked.

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.

It's like a nasty rash!

BlueBag wrote:

I also alongside all this I don't believe CEOP would have had a Find Madeleine poster made before 11:58:03 on April 30th 2007.

Madeleine was photographed by the pool in the afternoon of the day before.

For something to happened involving blood and cadaverine and then CEOP having a poster ready for 11:58:03 next day beggars belief.

Also the phone records do not support anything for those hours either.

The bigger picture just does not support the idea.

aquila
[addressing PeterMac] wrote: "You do not stand up for Tony Bennett either".

Running some of the above points together, it was PeterMac who effectively led the brilliant 'Last Photo' threads on here a few months back and marshalled vast swathes of forensic evidence about the weather conditions.

I cannot, however, go quite as far as BlueBag in stating: "Madeleine was photographed by the pool in the afternoon of the day before [April 29]" - but I can agree that he, PeterMac and a handful of well-informed posters made a very good case on here for that. The claims that the Last Photo was photoshopped in all manner of unlikely ways (apart from the date and time stamp) were IMO effecftively debunked on those threads.  

If these posters were right, by the way, the evidence from the very short shadow lengths pointed to that photograph having been taken when the noonday sun was at its highest that time of year in Praia da Luz, which we esablished was 1.35pm (British and Portuguese time).    

I've always found it interesting that somebody was very keen on Monday 30 April to make sure that Robert Murat returned pronto to Praia da Luz, and as we know, he promptly did so, leaving his home at 5am the following morning to catch the 7am flight to Faro (and as we also know, lying about he did what he got there. So I do not see a problem about someone (maybe the same person?) having summoned CEOP into action straightaway either.

I have just read aquila's queries up the thread about PeterMac and I believe they were not only all uncalled for, but I have asked Admin to remove them.

So, just for the record

PeterMac supported me publlcly and by assisting me privately to a vast extent in preparing my defence in the contempt of court trial and my application to be freed from the undertakings (I had to withdraw that as part of my settlement wiht the McCanns).

He has supported me in other ways both before and since.

He has provided this forum with an unequalled amount of concise and penetrating analysis on the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

He has sent his analyses of aspects of the case to Operation Grange and to the mainstream media on many occasions, and what a fine record they wioll prove when the truth about Madeleine's disappearance finally emerges.     

He has publicly and deservedly criticised me for having made an unfortunate error in mistaking the company history of a Martin Smith in Dundalk with 'our' Martin Smith from Drogheda. I do not hold it against either 'tigger' for publishing my error, nor PeterMac for publicly criticising it.

He and I may differ on a few points. It is pretty clear though that we are in the same camp, if in different tents, so to speak.

And for the record I have no problem with PeterMac or anyone else for that matter joining another forum.

I think he knows that he is thoroughly appreciated here. I hope we maintain our high standards of research and debate here, so that other experts feel this is a good place to come to, to find out the facts - and the good and bad arguments about what really happened to Madeleine.

FINAL WORD: The debate here has got far too tetchy, with some people on all sides sounding off against each other and doubting their motives. It is bad enough for non-tecchies like myself to follow the ins and outs of the technical arguments about the capture vs. non-capture of a CEOP page, without having to sift through the personal comments. I hope Admin will in future cut out the personal comments and the doubting of people's agendas on this thread

Joss wrote:

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.

Interesting however to note that a few voices of the 'banned' brigade came rushing back as guests to get stuck in.  Also interesting to note that any questions raised by the non-tech fraternity (trying to make some sense of it all) are ignored - been this way before, you ask questions they can't answer so either ignore or try to blind you with science?  Could be wrong but I always thought if you are an expert in any particular field you should be able to put yourself across in lay terms - how else can a novice ever learn a new subject?

I now await the stock 'you ignoramous, even a ten year old knows that' type response   !

BTW:  Another superb signature!

@ TB, very gracious post.

@Verdi, agree.

Must admit, I've been surprised at the lack of intervention by mods over the past few days.

Ladyinred wrote:@ TB, verry gracious post.

@Verdi, agree.

Must admit, I've been surprised at the lack of intervention by mods over the past few days.

I apologise for working full time in a car.

Sorry, Jill, just an observation.  As Verdi alluded to, it's been hard-going as a reader recently.

Hope you're feeling better 

@ Siobhan3443

Yes is does make eyes go wonky looking at all those lists of 30 Apr 2007 !!

Thanks for your help

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:@ TB, verry gracious post.

@Verdi, agree.

Must admit, I've been surprised at the lack of intervention by mods over the past few days.

I apologise for working full time in a car.

Anythings better than public transport !

Nuala wrote: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.

Thanks for this.

I don't understand the underlying source i.e. what you are looking at to say so many hits occurred.  Is this CEOP for 30 April?

Anyhow - we have a gap on WM in captures between 12 Oct 2007 and early Feb 2008.  Whereas Syn has shown there is a capture reflected on Screenshots.com.  (There's 2, but I'm sure Syn knows that.)

Can you tell if this gap is site-wide across CEOP on WM?  Can the date of the error be narrowed down further than 23 Oct 2007 to early Feb 2008?

@ Elça Craig

If you go here, you can see the list of URLs:

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

I don't know if that helps with your questions, it's the list of URLs captured, but you can see for yourself

Note that when I try that link above in preview on this forum the asterisk isn't clickable, just saying because that has to be there so perhaps copy and paste the link in your browser.

Verdi wrote:

Joss wrote:

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.

Interesting however to note that a few voices of the 'banned' brigade came rushing back as guests to get stuck in.  Also interesting to note that any questions raised by the non-tech fraternity (trying to make some sense of it all) are ignored - been this way before, you ask questions they can't answer so either ignore or try to blind you with science?  Could be wrong but I always thought if you are an expert in any particular field you should be able to put yourself across in lay terms - how else can a novice ever learn a new subject?

I now await the stock 'you ignoramous, even a ten year old knows that' type response   !

BTW:  Another superb signature!

You have probably defined the recipe.  A mix of banned guests who appear to wish to stir things up, complete with a dose of techies who find it difficult to explain things in the sort of English that non-techies understand.

If you wish to visit ShiningInLuz, I have taken the technical information from here and elsewhere, extracted the technical terms, and put it in plain and simple English that you can test things out for yourself.  Not read for yourself but test for yourself.

And no, I am not telling people what the 'correct' view is.  I have simply explained how any non-techie can check for themselves (IT'S SO EASY) and then make up their own minds.

(PS.  It became clear that it was not a web crawler mistake days ago.  Syn did that.  Why o why we are still getting 'web crawlers don't lie' I can only put down to someone who claims expertise actually being behind the curve.)

@Elça Craig
the list displayed by nuala is the number of times the wbm indexed the ceop page. almost a third of the captures were filed under april 30. this is an extraordinary number




can you please link the screenshots pages
because there is a 'fake doing the rounds' - i hope it's not that one you are referring to


and yes i can prove to you it's fake