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

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.

@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.

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

@ 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.

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?

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 image.]

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 image.]

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 image.]

[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 image.]

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. '

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.

@ 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.

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.

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 

"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."

The only people who are looking like fools here are the ones who keep insisting WMB made several errors without offering any coherent explanations much less any relevant evidence to back up their claims.

I think ya'll need to re-read Dr. Robert's piece. He is far from a non-techie. BlueBag erroneously quoted 'Himself' in his introduction to the piece. Is he an IT specialist? No, but you don't need to be one in order to understand these issues. Anyone can educate themselves to understand the basic issues of coding--everyone knows for instance that digital cameras store date codes in their exif data.  This is no different. This insistence upon unspecified, rarefied qualifications before one is allowed to take part in a discussion is a classic gatekeepers tactic.

@siobhan3443---Indeed. The June 28 calendar link @ the archives for bring madeleine home . com redirects to June 29, but the 28th was captured because the date is embedded in the next/previous capture dates. Looks like the page captured on the 28th was removed for whatever reason. The FAQ does state a site owner can request removal of pages.

whodunnit wrote: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.

False logic.

The same process that archived with an erroneous date will have updated the index with the same erroneous date.

That's why you won't get a blue circle for 23rd of October (or whatever date after).

whodunnit wrote:The only people who are looking like fools here are the ones who keep insisting WMB made several errors without offering any coherent explanations much less any relevant evidence to back up their claims.

We don't have to explain the error (...there be dragons...).

We just need to point out the absolute 100% certainty that there was an error.

Do I need to refer you to the first post in this thread yet again?

BlueBag wrote:

whodunnit wrote:The only people who are looking like fools here are the ones who keep insisting WMB made several errors without offering any coherent explanations much less any relevant evidence to back up their claims.

We don't have to explain the error (...there be dragons...).
We just need to point out the absolute 100% certainty that there was an error.
Do I need to refer you to the first post in this thread yet again?

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

This is snipped from Ch 18 of The Truth of the Lie, taken from the link below.

The second piece of information comes to us from further afield: Beirut, capital of The Lebanon. Imagine this: an Arab shiekh possessed a video of an orgy by other shiekhs on which Madeleine was allegedly recognisable. He would be prepared to hand over this recording to the British Ambassador in exchange for a sum of money to be sent to his lawyer. Once again, we are stupified.

– Can you believe it? A sheikh ready to denounce his mates for a few sous…Arab royalty is so strapped for cash?

– I don’t understand: haven’t all of our English colleagues who have been working with us already concluded that Madeleine may have died in the apartment?

– What more does Stuart need?

– I don’t know what he needs. In any case, it was him who told us he had arrested people in England for a lot less.

After the interrogations, I had the opportunity to ask an English colleague about the outcome of the story. Did that video exist? What was on it? He responded that it had come to him in February or March 2007, well before Madeleine’s disappearance…It would be interesting to know who, deliberately and with the sole object of scuppering the investigation, went and unearthed a video from before Madeleine’s disappearance, to make people believe she was still alive…

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

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

Hi Salty
I wonder if Mr Stuart Prior was ever reported to the IPCC of his conduct that has become apparent from the release of the PJ files, other than this we would be in the dark so to speak of the Police protection used in this case?

PeterMac wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

whodunnit wrote:The only people who are looking like fools here are the ones who keep insisting WMB made several errors without offering any coherent explanations much less any relevant evidence to back up their claims.

We don't have to explain the error (...there be dragons...).
We just need to point out the absolute 100% certainty that there was an error.
Do I need to refer you to the first post in this thread yet again?

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

No Peter we don't - we already have the evidence.

The WBM was in demonstrably in error for what could be a whole variety of reasons (a debuggers nightmare).

That is the pertinent fact, it doesn't matter what caused it... wrong is wrong.

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.

I will repost this snippet.

Because it's all part of if.

BlueBag wrote:

whodunnit wrote:The only people who are looking like fools here are the ones who keep insisting WMB made several errors without offering any coherent explanations much less any relevant evidence to back up their claims.

We don't have to explain the error (...there be dragons...).

We just need to point out the absolute 100% certainty that there was an error.

Do I need to refer you to the first post in this thread yet again?

If it was my child missing and there may be evidence of a possible pre planned abduction no way would i accept an explaination of. "there was an error but we dont have to prove it". 
 Seriously if it was your child what would you be doing now?

Syn wrote:

 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. '

Yes.

Common sense appears to have gone out the window.

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Salty
I wonder if Mr Stuart Prior was ever reported to the IPCC of his conduct that has become apparent from the release of the PJ files, other than this we would be in the dark so to speak of the Police protection used in this case?

Willowthewisp, I am reading the CHRIS website for the first time. The information on there is incredible, and even though the information is in the public domain........if you look for it, it's till dynamite and I would think twice before copying and pasting some of the information to this forum, but here's the link for those who are interested. The Jimmy Savile information is worth a read.

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

Opps, wrong link

jack dexter wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

whodunnit wrote:The only people who are looking like fools here are the ones who keep insisting WMB made several errors without offering any coherent explanations much less any relevant evidence to back up their claims.

We don't have to explain the error (...there be dragons...).

We just need to point out the absolute 100% certainty that there was an error.

Do I need to refer you to the first post in this thread yet again?

If it was my child missing and there may be evidence of a possible pre planned abduction no way would i accept an explaination of. "there was an error but we dont have to prove it". 
 Seriously if it was your child what would you be doing now?

We don't have to prove there was an error because it's already proven.

Please refer to the first post in this thread.

BlueBag wrote:

jack dexter wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

whodunnit wrote:The only people who are looking like fools here are the ones who keep insisting WMB made several errors without offering any coherent explanations much less any relevant evidence to back up their claims.

We don't have to explain the error (...there be dragons...).

We just need to point out the absolute 100% certainty that there was an error.

Do I need to refer you to the first post in this thread yet again?

If it was my child missing and there may be evidence of a possible pre planned abduction no way would i accept an explaination of. "there was an error but we dont have to prove it". 
 Seriously if it was your child what would you be doing now?

We don't have to prove there was an error because it's already proven.

Please refer to the first post in this thread.

It's only your opinion looking at the data that is currently available to you. I can think of hundreds of things in the past that once were facts that  have since been proven wrong.

When we have the likes of PeterMac and BS querying this, then it's time to stop and think.