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

by Skyrocket1 26.06.15 16:36

BlueBag

We're all in the same boat - some paddling one way and some the other so we're going round in circles. Not very constructive but I'm sure we wont desist until archive.org publish a definitive explanation, which surely they should be able to. Facts is what we need.

Fyi - I'm on the fence and still think it is possible that there is significance to the 30 April date.

smilie

by canada12 26.06.15 16:41

It's really very simple as far as I can see.
WBM crawled an existing CEOP page for Madeleine on April 30, 2007.
Whatever links were on that page pointed to other pages on the CEOP server.
It doesn't matter when WBM next crawled those pages - the April 30 page would still point to whatever date WBM crawled those pages.
If, for instance, the April 30 Madeleine page had a link to a CEOP page that had next been crawled on June 25, 2015, then if you clicked on that link on the Madeleine page, you'd be taken to a CEOP page that showed the date as June 25, 2015.
If the April 30 Madeleine page had a link to a CEOP page that had next been crawled on October 1, 2007, then if you clicked on that link on the Madeleine page, you'd be taken to a CEOP page that showed the date as October 1, 2007.
I don't see why the CEOP pages and the Madeleine page keep being referenced as being one and the same thing. They aren't. The Madeleine page is its own page and was captured by WBM on April 30, 2007.
The CEOP server is where the Madeleine page was housed, however any CEOP pages that weren't Madeleine pages were independent of the Madeleine page and therefore we're talking apples and oranges. Again.

by Syn 26.06.15 16:54

BlueBag wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The wayback machine was screwed for this page.

This is a fact.

....... and this was screwed too - a press release dated and uploaded on 18th June 2007 and archived on 20th June but is in the 30th April 2007 archive (same 20070430115803 timestamp as mccann.html and index.asp)

From archive.is which curiously archives Wayback's archives (note the "saved from" in the screenshot below.)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (which now redirects on live wayback to 20/06/2007 as expected

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

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

by whodunnit 26.06.15 16:58

And archive.is is the same as the Wayback Machine? they are interchangeable?

by Guest 26.06.15 16:59

I've just tried to make sense of where the rogue ceop.gov.uk record might have come from.

WM seems to encounter difficulties in dealing with CEOP around early Oct 2007. Everything seems OK, then a news story appears, only to disappear on the 12 Oct capture. The 12 Oct page looks very much like the rogue page, except it does not have the 23 Oct news item.

After the 12 Oct capture there is nothing until early Feb 2008, despite the fact WM had been capturing CEOP every few days.

There is nothing whatsoever that I can find in WM on the 23 Oct podcast. Perhaps the rogue page originates from shortly thereafter.

The Feb 2008 pages look suspect, then shortly thereafter, every CEOP capture reverts to text. Nothing worked properly until the URL changed to ceop.police.uk.

There is something about the CEOP site (gov.uk) that gave the WM a tough time.

by HKP 26.06.15 17:01

@Canada12. I agree, it's on the main thread how Wayback replays the pages and seeks out the latest links.

by Syn 26.06.15 17:11

whodunnit wrote:And archive.is is the same as the Wayback Machine? they are interchangeable?

I'm not sure if it is directly associated with WB or just using a customised OpenWayback install.but you can use it to save/archive urls and query other saved archives which appear to, at some point in time have had the same data WB had for 30/04/07. It seems to archive WB's archives hence being able to find stuff for CEOP on there.

See the 'saved from' in the screenshot above - it is a link to the 300430115803 archive on WB

The 18/06/07 press release I was talking about above is 3/4 down the page under 30 April 2007

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

Here is the home page http://archive.is/ which explains a bit about it.

by HKP 26.06.15 17:21

@syn. When did you complete this screenshot, archive.org are probably all over the place since it was first pointed out over a week ago.

by Syn 26.06.15 17:32

HKP wrote:@syn. When did you complete this screenshot, archive.org are probably all over the place since it was first pointed out over a week ago.

It's not from live WB though, that's the point. It is from archive.is (the page below redirects to 20 June 07 now as expected in live WB) but the version of archive.is is their own archived copy of WBs archive and is not affected by them trying to sort it all out.

It shows beyond doubt that a press release dated and uploaded 18th June 2007 and archived by WB on 20th June 2007 for some unbeknown reason found it's way at some point into a 20070430115803 archive

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

by HKP 26.06.15 17:42

@syn. Its not their 'copy' its direct from archive.org

by Skyrocket1 26.06.15 17:49

@ Syn

I mentioned archive.is earlier.

There are other pages including a 9 May CEOP press release regarding MBM's disappearance which again contains reference to the 20070430115803 time stamp in its code BUT the question is why? How?

If the mccann.html was grabbed on the 30 April - how? The page can't have been intentionally uploaded with live links to the rest of the CEOP site - I'm sorry but that's twilight zone thinking. So how did the WBM access this page in the first place? I'm certainly not saying that this didn't happen by accident - there are too many wierd things going on here to dismiss that.

I am fairly convinced that the ceop.gov.uk 'October' home page was actually from a 23 October grab. A second page which originated on 23 october 2007 showed up with the 20070430115803 date stamp on it, linked to the 'October' home pages before the 18 June changes. So we have 2 October pages which were wrong and dated 30 April. This second page has only 2 calendar dates - 23 October and 30 April - and the 30 April date is wrong, no question.

I think CEOP were uploading on 23 October 2007. I know a grab was done on 23 October.

Also, I don't believe it's possible to have any pages with the same time stamp - check out others. Dates are the same but time stamps aren't. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another thing to note but probably of no relevance is that ceop.gov.uk and ceop.gov.uk/index.asp are both calendar records of the homepage but with independent grab dates.

Still I have a gut feeling there is something more here than a simple computer glitch.

By the way, orginally I thought the 23 October podcast referred to on the 'October' home page might have been BBC but I think it was a CEOP one produced for teachers to access by registering with the site.

One last thing, was the WBM actually trawling in 2007 - I read somewhere that up to a certain date after inception the archive was relying on voluntary uploads for its content. Does anyone know if I have misunderstood that or know the date aat which general widescale trawling started?

by Syn 26.06.15 17:53

HKP wrote:@syn. Its not their 'copy' its direct from archive.org

Yes in effect it is their archive of WB's archive of the press release. The source is from 30/04/07 but the link saved from
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] now points to 20/06/07 as expected.

This is source from archive.is's archive of the WBs archive

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

Note the 30 April and 20 June refs

by HKP 26.06.15 18:04

@syn. When was this captured (by you). Have a look at the history on the link you provided (can't do links or screenshot as guest)

by Syn 26.06.15 18:13

Skyrocket1 wrote:@ Syn

I mentioned archive.is earlier.

There are other pages including a 9 May CEOP press release regarding MBM's disappearance which again contains reference to the 20070430115803 time stamp in its code BUT the question is why? How?

If the mccann.html was grabbed on the 30 April - how? The page can't have been intentionally uploaded with live links to the rest of the CEOP site - I'm sorry but that's twilight zone thinking. So how did the WBM access this page in the first place? I'm certainly not saying that this didn't happen by accident - there are too many wierd things going on here to dismiss that.

I am fairly convinced that the ceop.gov.uk 'October' home page was actually from a 23 October grab. A second page which originated on 23 october 2007 showed up with the 20070430115803 date stamp on it, linked to the 'October' home pages before the 18 June changes. So we have 2 October pages which were wrong and dated 30 April. This second page has only 2 calendar dates - 23 October and 30 April - and the 30 April date is wrong, no question.

I think CEOP were uploading on 23 October 2007. I know a grab was done on 23 October.

Also, I don't believe it's possible to have any pages with the same time stamp - check out others. Dates are the same but time stamps aren't. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another thing to note but probably of no relevance is that ceop.gov.uk and ceop.gov.uk/index.asp are both calendar records of the homepage but with independent grab dates.

Still I have a gut feeling there is something more here than a simple computer glitch.

By the way, orginally I thought the 23 October podcast referred to on the 'October' home page might have been BBC but I think it was a CEOP one produced for teachers to access by registering with the site.

One last thing, was the WBM actually trawling in 2007 - I read somewhere that up to a certain date after inception the archive was relying on voluntary uploads for its content. Does anyone know if I have misunderstood that or know the date aat which general widescale trawling started?

Hi Skyrocket1 :)

I have to fly in a min so won't be able to respond to your post fully until later but will address just one point now if I may regarding it not being possible for pages to have the same timestamp.

It may be or may not be possible normally but somehow at least 4 CEOP pages claiming a 30042007 archive date have the same timestamp or at least they did before WB took the erroneous 30 April pages out of the WB archive whilst they try and figure out what went on.

They are/were

The 9th May press release you mentioned (I can't get into WB at the mo as my phone provider has suddenly decided it's for over 18's only for some reason >,<)

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

and non Mccann related

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

The two McCann related timestamps can be verified in Chris Butler's email to Lizzy

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

As you can see, all 3 had the exact same date and timestamp 20070430115803

In Edit, sorry I misread and misunderstood, you are agreeing with me re the timestamps so scratch the above lol

Will catch up later and will read properly next time :)

by whodunnit 26.06.15 18:24

@Skyrocket---"I think CEOP were uploading on 23 October 2007. I know a grab was done on 23 October."

There is no evidence a grab of the homepage was done on the 23rd of October. If you look at the calendar links for 2007---the 'blue bubbles'---not only are there are no links after the 12th of October but the sequential, 'prev/next' code embedded in the grab of the 12 makes it clear there are no more grabs of the homepage until Febuary 6, 2008.

This is why I am insisting this is NOT a mistake by WBM: A page that was never grabbed, a grab does not exist, cannot be misfiled especially not into a April 30 dated file that also never existed.

But we know the April 30 file existed because it is grabbed in the sequential codes both coming and going, as Dr. Martin Roberts put it so colorfully. The 27 April grab looks forward to April 30 and the May 14 grab looks backward to April 30. See links to screenshots in the comments of Dr. Martin's piece at Only In America blog.

The simpler, more logical explanation is that the April 30 grab of the homepage caught some editing shenanigans on the part of CEOP.

by Skyrocket1 26.06.15 18:31

@ Syn

Thanks for replying - I've misread several times myself so no worries! yes

by **sharonl** 26.06.15 18:55

Is it possible that either:

The URL existed on 30 April 2007 and that the contents of the HTML have changed or

The original HTML was in draft, ready for publication on 30 April 2007? Would the archive pick up created material that was published later?

HTML can be updated over time. Would this affect what is displayed when a URL is put through the Wayback Machine?

by whodunnit 26.06.15 19:17

@sharoni---"Is it possible that either:
The URL existed on 30 April 2007 and that the contents of the HTML have changed or

The original HTML was in draft, ready for publication on 30 April 2007? Would the archive pick up created material that was published later?"

The archive can only pick up published pages. Most pages have 'static' content--'dead' for lack of a better word, unchangeable like a printed photograph---and 'dynamic' content, content with javascript, like a script that converts text to clickable links. On WBM these links will update automatically, [the explanation for this is right in the FAQ] leading to the nearest available updated content. Basically this means WBM 'took a picture' of mccann.html just as it was on April 30, 2007, while the link to the uploadable poster led to the nearest update of the poster, I think a June date?

Anyway, there had to be a link TO mccann.html in order for it to be picked up by the archiving process.

This link was provided by the CEOP homepage captured by WBM at the same date and time as the April 30th mccann page. [this is proven by sequential coding as I explained above] The fact that there are October 23 links showing on the April 30 homepage capture [again, sequential coding going forward from April 27 and looking backward from May 14 prove this capture date ] cannot be explained by a misfiling of a capture that never occurred as there are no captures in 2007 past October 12. Again, this is proven by sequential coding. Therefore, I conclude the October link TO THE PRESS RELEASE is either 'dynamic' content---while there is no capture of the homepage on October 23, a CEOP press release for that date does exist.---or WBM caught CEOP in the act of editing the April 30th page.

My bet is on the latter.

by **sharonl** 26.06.15 20:24

whodunnit wrote:@sharoni---"Is it possible that either:
The URL existed on 30 April 2007 and that the contents of the HTML have changed or

The original HTML was in draft, ready for publication on 30 April 2007? Would the archive pick up created material that was published later?"

The archive can only pick up published pages. Most pages have 'static' content--'dead' for lack of a better word, unchangeable like a printed photograph---and 'dynamic' content, content with javascript, like a script that converts text to clickable links. On WBM these links will update automatically, [the explanation for this is right in the FAQ] leading to the nearest available updated content. Basically this means WBM 'took a picture' of mccann.html just as it was on April 30, 2007, while the link to the uploadable poster led to the nearest update of the poster, I think a June date?

Anyway, there had to be a link TO mccann.html in order for it to be picked up by the archiving process.

This link was provided by the CEOP homepage captured by WBM at the same date and time as the April 30th mccann page. [this is proven by sequential coding as I explained above] The fact that there are October 23 links showing on the April 30 homepage capture [again, sequential coding going forward from April 27 and looking backward from May 14 prove this capture date ] cannot be explained by a misfiling of a capture that never occurred as there are no captures in 2007 past October 12. Again, this is proven by sequential coding. Therefore, I conclude the October link TO THE PRESS RELEASE is either 'dynamic' content---while there is no capture of the homepage on October 23, a CEOP press release for that date does exist.---or WBM caught CEOP in the act of editing the April 30th page.

My bet is on the latter.

That makes sense.

Thanks for clearing that up.

by **Nina** 26.06.15 20:56

sharonl wrote:
whodunnit wrote:@sharoni---"Is it possible that either:
The URL existed on 30 April 2007 and that the contents of the HTML have changed or

The original HTML was in draft, ready for publication on 30 April 2007? Would the archive pick up created material that was published later?"

The archive can only pick up published pages. Most pages have 'static' content--'dead' for lack of a better word, unchangeable like a printed photograph---and 'dynamic' content, content with javascript, like a script that converts text to clickable links. On WBM these links will update automatically, [the explanation for this is right in the FAQ] leading to the nearest available updated content. Basically this means WBM 'took a picture' of mccann.html just as it was on April 30, 2007, while the link to the uploadable poster led to the nearest update of the poster, I think a June date?

Anyway, there had to be a link TO mccann.html in order for it to be picked up by the archiving process.

This link was provided by the CEOP homepage captured by WBM at the same date and time as the April 30th mccann page. [this is proven by sequential coding as I explained above] The fact that there are October 23 links showing on the April 30 homepage capture [again, sequential coding going forward from April 27 and looking backward from May 14 prove this capture date ] cannot be explained by a misfiling of a capture that never occurred as there are no captures in 2007 past October 12. Again, this is proven by sequential coding. Therefore, I conclude the October link TO THE PRESS RELEASE is either 'dynamic' content---while there is no capture of the homepage on October 23, a CEOP press release for that date does exist.---or WBM caught CEOP in the act of editing the April 30th page.

My bet is on the latter.

That makes sense.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I understood that, thank you.

by whodunnit 26.06.15 21:24

You're welcome, both of you.

So here's what we've got: a redirect of the April 30th, 2007 mccann.html calendar link leads to the May 13 capture. Embedded within this captured page is a 'previous/next' capture code with a 'previous capture' link and code of April 30, 2007.

A still existing calendar 'blue bubble' link to the April 30, 2007 capture of the homepage leads backward to the April 27 capture. Embedded within this captured page is a 'previous/next' capture code with a 'next capture' link and code of April 30, 2007.

The next calendar 'blue bubble' link to the homepage is May 14, 2007. Embedded within this captured page is a 'previous/next' capture code with a 'previous capture' link and code to April 30, 2007.

In other words the April 30 date is self-corroborating both coming and going. This is easily verifiable by looking at previous/next codes in any random capture. Unless there was a massive 'disaster' effecting all of the codes of Wayback Machine captures of CEOP pages specifically relating to Madeleine McCann on April 30, 2007 then this is prima facie evidence that mccann.html existed on April 30 and so did a link to it from the homepage.

by HKP 26.06.15 22:04

@whodunnit. Great work again, what seems to have been missed is that the way that Wayback works is answered in and around the FAQs, the indexing, filenames and timestamp, the not every page is captured 100%, the reconstruction of the page, the updating at retrieval etc. The verification by the previous and next captures and the fact of the one then two pictures are all pointing to mccann.html being there when the 30/04 crawl was completed.

by siobhan3443 26.06.15 22:42

wbm archive.org has an entry for 28 june 2007 in the calander but the link brings to 29th. Is there a record missing? for bringmadeleinehome dot com

i can't post a link

by Skyrocket1 26.06.15 22:46

@ Whoddunit

I completely agree with you - all the code seems to point to the existence of both the mccann.html 30 April page and the 30 April ceop.gov.uk page. The page content confusion is distracting though (perhaps by design). Anything seems possible in relation to this surreal case. It needs forensic investigation by a computer expert. I would have thought that the WBM would have been able to clarify this properly, fairly quickly. The fact that it's dragging out so long suggets that we may never be privy to the results.

by Guest 26.06.15 22:55

Has anyone taken the time to explain to poor mr Butler that the MBM case is on a par with the case of poor Jon Bennett Ramsey, only much wider tentacled, with at the very least two Governments involved: the British and the Portuguese?

It must really have blown their socks off at WBM, to find what poisoned chalice they had clasped to their little bosoms, or rather: which poisoned snake had surreptitiously crawled into their 30 April calendar

Afterthought: where oh where is the NSA when we need them most? Can't they shed some light on this, while they're at it?

by Syn 26.06.15 23:27

whodunnit wrote:You're welcome, both of you.

So here's what we've got: a redirect of the April 30th, 2007 mccann.html calendar link leads to the May 13 capture. Embedded within this captured page is a 'previous/next' capture code with a 'previous capture' link and code of April 30, 2007.

A still existing calendar 'blue bubble' link to the April 30, 2007 capture of the homepage leads backward to the April 27 capture. Embedded within this captured page is a 'previous/next' capture code with a 'next capture' link and code of April 30, 2007.

The next calendar 'blue bubble' link to the homepage is May 14, 2007. Embedded within this captured page is a 'previous/next' capture code with a 'previous capture' link and code to April 30, 2007.

In other words the April 30 date is self-corroborating both coming and going. This is easily verifiable by looking at previous/next codes in any random capture. Unless there was a massive 'disaster' effecting all of the codes of Wayback Machine captures of CEOP pages specifically relating to Madeleine McCann on April 30, 2007 then this is prima facie evidence that mccann.html existed on April 30 and so did a link to it from the homepage.

You have misunderstood, I'm afraid.

Have you seen this which explains what is currently happening?

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

WB have removed the 30/04/07 erroneous archives whilst they are fixing the issue, whatever that may turn out to be. In the meantime the pages will redirect to the next archive closest to 30/04/07. The 30/04/07 fwd/back arrows will disappear when archive/org/WB next re-indexes. Likewise with the blue circles on the main captures page.

So whilst they are fixing the issue anything you see means zilch to be frank until the issue is resolved as it keeps changing. For example in the case of the mccann.html WB is now redirecting to the 13/05/07.

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

In the case of the index.asp it was redirecting to 27/04/07 a few days ago and is now redirecting to 12/05/07.

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

The 'calendar' links that you refer to do now go past 12th October as they now show the 13th October and tomorrow or the next day they will change again and it is highly likely that once the issue is resolved that that will move on past there and settle at 23rd Oct as Skyrocket1 surmises.

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

The 30/04/2007 'captures' did not exist. Wayback screwed up. I have proved with the non McCann related Press Release loaded on 18/06/07 and archived on 20/06/07 but which resided in a 30/04/07 archive, that that is the case.

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

To perpetuate the myth that this was some kind of premeditated act with CEOP loading up pages 'ready to go' is ludicrous, it really is.

Take Martin Roberts confusion about 1 image loading on the erroneous 30/04 mccann.html which has the real archive date of 31/07/07.

The second image was there, just wasn't rendering after archival for some reason.
See the words 'photograph of Madeleine McCann?

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

That's the alt tag for the second image.

In later archives, there is slight delay on that image rendering, see how long it takes the second image to load http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20071003162416/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html
NB. If you have looked at it before it will be in your cache and will appear quicker so may be pointless. Note that this site is not Wayback but the govs own national archive.

He also says '13 May should have marked the file’s very first appearance among the WBM’s records, given that CEOP did not join the party until officially invited to do so on 7 May.'

If you look at the logged timeline of events using the PJ files and McCannfiles, 13th May as a first archival of mccann.html is plausible but I do think it will turn out to be 31/07/2007 for mccann.html eventually and an October date for the home page when WB have finished sorting this out.

The mccann.html page was not hidden/not published

'Orphan pages: If there are no links to your pages, the robot won't find it (the robots don't enter queries in search boxes.)'

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

The page will have been linked from the index.asp / home page. e.g. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Plus by the time it was archived by WB so many people had clicked on the link to mccann.html by October or whenever it was from pages like this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the crawler would have found it.

What people need to remember here is that Goncalo Amaral requested CEOP assistance on 7th May [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and they were in PDL the next day on the 8th post56896.html#p56896

Then CEOP released a Press Release on the 9th
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
You'll need to copy and paste this one into your browser

Then both CEOP and VirtualGlobalTaskforce uploaded the Appeal on the 9th
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (VGT link on right hand side)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and then MSM picked it up and ran with it on the 10th
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is how the page looked in the Government National Archive and how it will have looked when first uploaded on the 9th May - 13th May IMO based on the above timeline from request by G Amaral on the 7th onwards as acknowledged by Martin Roberts

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

Wayback had issues loading the flag gifs on all captures of the page including the erroneous 30/04/07 one. This is down to how WB stored them during archive. There is no full path to the image. WB stores relative image paths whereas the National Archive stores absolute image paths. The flag gifs are backgrounds to paragraphs not standard inline images. Unlike an image which will appear broken and not loadable if the paths are broken like the Arabic image, if a paragraph background image fails to load it will just display the default page back ground colour as can be seen on the WB archive but not on the National Archive version above.

He also does not understand why 30/04/07 is still showing in WB but I've already explained the reasons why.

People, please, I don't doubt for a second that something untoward happened in PDL that week and that Eddie and Keela were right, sadly but this conspiracy theory that some have re it all being pre-planned by CEOP is so way off the mark, it does an injustice to the justice that we seek for Madeleine. There is nothing to this WB conspiracy and it is distracting from getting the facts of the case out there.

I agree with Blacksmith.

'The fact is that the Wayback lunacy has done what neither abuse nor Carter-Ruck ever managed. Reading it made us lose the will to live, let alone to post. '

by Rabbitte 26.06.15 23:56

Just read the latest BS. What rot, he took those posts down cos he wanted to, not because of all the legal threats, backtracking much?? So excuse me ignoring his opinion of the wayback machine/ceop exposé too.

by Nuala 27.06.15 0:22

@ Syn

Take Martin Roberts confusion about 1 image loading on the erroneous 30/04 mccann.html which has the real archive date of
31/07/07.

The second image was there, just wasn't rendering after archival for some reason.

See the words 'photograph of Madeleine McCann?

That's the alt tag for the second image.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Dr Martin Roberts, who I hugely admire for his insight into this case BTW, made the mistake of a "non-techie" of describing that as
"a provisional link to a second picture".

It's not a provisional link to a second picture, it's the alt tag of an EXISTING picture that hasn't appeared, for whatever reason.

That's a fact, not an assumption made by a non-techie. No offence to Dr Roberts, but basing a theory on incorrect information isn't helpful, it doesn't get to the truth, which is what we all want.

by Syn 27.06.15 0:28

Rabbitte wrote:Just read the latest BS. What rot, he took those posts down cos he wanted to, not because of all the legal threats, backtracking much?? So excuse me ignoring his opinion of the wayback machine/ceop exposé too.

You think Blacksmith is scared of two pro McCann non entities who perform cyber sex on the #mccann hashtag? Think again. Ignore his opinion re the Wayback issue all you like, but he and a few others like me won't be taken in by conspiracy theories that have no weight and which make justice seekers for Madeleine look like fools.

by Syn 27.06.15 0:29

Nuala wrote:@ Syn

Take Martin Roberts confusion about 1 image loading on the erroneous 30/04 mccann.html which has the real archive date of
31/07/07.

The second image was there, just wasn't rendering after archival for some reason.

See the words 'photograph of Madeleine McCann?

That's the alt tag for the second image.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Dr Martin Roberts, who I hugely admire for his insight into this case BTW, made the mistake of a "non-techie" of describing that as
"a provisional link to a second picture".

It's not a provisional link to a second picture, it's the alt tag of an EXISTING picture that hasn't appeared, for whatever reason.

That's a fact, not an assumption made by a non-techie. No offence to Dr Roberts, but basing a theory on incorrect information isn't helpful, it doesn't get to the truth, which is what we all want.

Hear, hear nod

Latest topics